This post is for voting and discussion in the 121st round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This is the second of two rounds of balloting that will bring the Circle of Greats membership to a total of 121, matching the current members of the Hall of Fame elected by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) in regular (116) or run-off (3) elections, plus the two members (Lou Gehrig, Roberto Clemente) enshrined by special election. This will be the final round of COG balloting until the next Hall of Fame members are elected by the BBWAA. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The eligible holdovers from previous rounds of balloting 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, February 18th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Tuesday, February 16th.
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 Round 121 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.
Choose your three players from the list below of eligible players. The fourteen 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.
Holdovers:
Hoyt Wilhelm (eligibility guaranteed for 6 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Bill Dahlen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Andre Dawson (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Don Drysdale (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)
Bobby Wallace (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Well, we’ve arrived. Final round. Thanks for the memories, everyone. Here’s my ballot, surprising no one:
Kevin Brown
Wes Ferrell
Luis Tiant
and there’s 600 career votes for Brown
And, interestingly, that was MY 60th vote for Brown. So, for a little while there, I was responsible for exactly 10% of Brown’s votes. Yeesh.
Goslin, Brown, Drysdale
Hey, a lead for Brown! Sure, it’s about as likely to hold up as Kasich’s NH lead after Dixville Notch, but beggars can’t be choosers.
Dahlen, Wilhelm, Goslin
Hmmm. I voted for both Wilhelm and Waddell last round, wanting both of them to get in.
But I wanted Wilhelm for sure.
That run-off would have been fun.
Well, I guess that you can toss that whole “strategic voting” business out now 🙂 :
– Dave Winfield (the biggest oversight of the COG for players actually in the real HOF)
after Winfield there’s no one else as obvious, but I do need to list three names, so…
-Goose Goslin – one of the biggest oversights by the BBWAA of post-1920 players later elected by the Veteran’s Committee, along with Arky Vaughn and Johnny Mize.
-Hoyt Wilhelm – best reliever not named Mariano
As this round gets started, perhaps we could all join in:
— A toast to birtelcom, for conceiving and initiating what is clearly the most popular and enduring HHS project ever.
— A toast to Doug for ensuring, with persistent effort, that everyone could follow through with the project when birtelcom was sidelined.
— And one final toast, looking forward to birtelcom’s complete recovery, and his return as a regular contributor!
Here, here!
To birtelcom and Doug- well done the both of you.
I’ll drink to all of those, plus throw in a big thank you to everyone who participate in meaningful ways.
Doug, birtelcom: You both did a great job.
Excellent toasts to Doug and to birtelcom, EPM; I’ll join in with a second (or a fifth, technically).
Cheers indeed. A frivolity for so many of us was a Bondsian task for Birtelcom and Doug. Thank you both!
And I have it on good authority that they did it without the assistance of any PED’s- except for perhaps some caffeine & maybe a little alcohol.
Absolutely; thank you to birtelcom and Doug! This has been a remarkable project. In many ways, it’s the best “alternate Hall of Fame” project on the internet. I’m proud to have been a part of it, and we are SO LUCKY to have had birtelcom to invent and guide us through the process, and Doug to pick up the slack when birtelcom became unavailable. I share in your hope that birtelcom could return as a regular contributor. I miss his writing and insight greatly!
The only thing like strategic voting we might have now is
–Why, the best left fielder and the only one worthy of getting in among everybody left on the ballot
and two guys that really aren’t going to get any votes from anybody, so they won’t knock Why out of the Circle:
–Mañana, LHP that has just been squeaking by at 10% and has never been close to challenging for election
–I Don’t Know, because we’re not going to vote in another third baseman
Here are my usual WAR figures for CoG candidates.
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
61.2 (67.1)……29.8…32.1……0.160……4.4 (14)……121……1.31……Drysdale
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
50.1 (47.3)……16.1…21.6……0.184……2.6 (19)……147……N/A…….Wilhelm
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
70.2………28.6……31.3……0.029……4.2 (17)……105………1.3……Wallace
63.8………26.9……28.6……0.021……3.0 (21)……130………1.7……Winfield
As usual, two things to bear in mind are that Ferrell’s outside hitting role is represented only in the total WAR figure, and Wallace’s pitching adds 6.1, for a total of 76.3. WAR/Yr. includes only those seasons with 10 GS or 100 IP for starters, 20G for relievers, and 50G for position players.
Here are some comments on the candidates, Voomo style, but based solely on these stats.
Pitchers
Brown: With Waddell removed, Brown is now the overall leader in both peak WAR measures and, for pitchers, in total WAR and WAR per 9 innings pitched. His ERA+ leads all starting pitchers. The measures here would make him a clear favorite if PED issues did not undermine their reliability for some voters.
Drysdale: Drysdale’s strengths are his high ERA+ figure, second to Brown among starters, and his very strong WAR per season figure, which is second to Ferrell but over a substantially longer productive career.
Ferrell: No one on this list comes close to Ferrell’s WAR per season figure – and that’s without his batting factored in. If he’s given credit for 6.1 WAR/yr. over the ten seasons where he started ten or more games, he’s 40% beyond his nearest competitor. (On that score, he even outstripped Waddell’s 5.9.)
Reuschel & Tiant: Tops among pitchers in overall WAR, Reuschel’s profile is otherwise almost identical to Tiant’s, but slightly higher on these measures. Tiant is significantly behind when it comes to a 5-year peak, but his best years overall are about as far ahead. The difference between these two lies principally in the shapes of their statistically similar careers, Reuschel’s conforming more or less to a normal bell curve, while Tiant spread out his good seasons like a candidate trying to canvass every county in the state in half the time needed.
Wilhelm: As the sole relief ace among starters, Wilhelm’s numbers just aren’t comparable. He looks relatively anemic in compiled WAR, but very strong in the rate of compilation over innings pitched. Like all good top relievers, his ERA+ gets a boost from his role, but among inactive post-1900 players, only two starters and Rivera exceed his 147.
Position Players
Allen: Allen leads among position players in several categories. His best five seasons generated more WAR than any other player’s, and his WAR per game rate is about 10% higher than the runner up. With Ashburn and Wallace, he shares the best WAR per season rate, although over fewer seasons (with a lot fewer games). His OPS+ is far and away the best (and 15th overall among inactive position players post-1900). His short career has kept his total WAR low (along with weak dWAR) and he did not have a well-defined peak.
Ashburn: Middle of the pack on most of these measures, Ashburn nevertheless matches Allen and Wallace in WAR per season, and his low OPS+ makes him one of the candidates whose case rests substantially on outstanding fielding, which these stats don’t isolate. Although Ashburn’s WAR per season level is the same as Allen’s with only one additional 50+G season, calculated by games, his rate covers a career 30% longer – Ashburn was always in the lineup.
Dahlen: The top WAR compiler among position players and pitchers – but not among the combination, because of Wallace – Dahlen’s other strength is in WAR per game, which is a function of his fielding prowess. On these measures, his lack of outstanding peak stands out.
Dawson: Almost ties for best peak-5 year WAR and is behind only Allen in best 5 overall. Dawson doesn’t otherwise stand out on these numbers, apart from the length of his career, second only to Winfield among position players.
Goslin: The position player with the best peak WAR, Goslin is a close match for Ashburn in the rate of WAR compilation, both per game and per season, over careers of comparable length. But Goslin’s superior OPS+ signals that he and Ashburn are in some ways offense/defense alternatives.
Nettles: These measures don’t seem well suited to bringing out what was exceptional about Nettles, which come to mind for those who recall his acrobatics at third base. He is third in total WAR, along with fellow defensive standouts Dahlen and Wallace; his peaks are a little higher than Wallace’s and more so compared to Dahlen, but his WAR rates per game and season are low.
Wallace: Overall, Wallace’s WAR total is tops among everyone on this list, and close to it even without his pitching component. His peaks are solid in this group, although just below the median, and his WAR rates are strong, especially his per season rate, which ties for the best and over the most years. His low OPS+ indicates how much his case rests on his fielding excellence.
Winfield: These measures do not show Winfield at his best. His total WAR is low in this group, and his other WAR measures are all at the bottom. His per season WAR is above Wilhelm, but only as far above as he is below everyone else, and Wilhelm was an RP. But Winfield’s OPS+ is second only to Allen, and no one else on the list (again, except Wilhelm, after a fashion) has a longer career. For those who believe Winfield has been shortchanged on dWAR, these statistics misrepresent him.
Wow. Just wow. I was thinking about commenting on each of the players when I voted but I won’t even pretend I could have done anything even remotely this wonderful. Succinct and yet still thorough and evenhanded. You’ve hit the trifecta. Well done.
Round 121? Yikes. My daughter was still in high school when this started. Remarkable job by Birtelcom and Doug to keep us engaged. Also, very appreciative of really exceptional contributions of many posters who have far greater sophistication than I do, too numerous to name–all of whom demonstrated very high WAR totals, both aggregate and Peak Value.
Now, I have to torture myself a little to figure out where these last votes go.
Here we are at Round 121. For those who like quotas and to see where we’ve been:
COG electees by position: Top #’s by WAR are only among those we considered
(Considering Carew & Banks as 1B, Molitor/Thomas/E. Martinez as DH, and also adding batting WAR for pitchers)
C: 10 (Top 9 by WAR plus Campanella) On backlog: none
1B: 12 (Top 10 by WAR except Palmeiro, plus Killebrew/Greenberg/Sisler)
On backlog: D. Allen (big peak)
2B: 13 (Top 10 by WAR plus Biggio/J. Robinson/Gordon) On backlog: none
SS: 12 (Top 10 by WAR except Dahlen/Wallace, plus Larkin/Cronin/Reese/Boudreau)
On backlog: Dahlen/Wallace (played awhile ago – defensive stats suspect?)
3B: 7 (Top 9 by WAR except Nettles/B. Bell)
On backlog: Nettles (played in great 3B era – overshadowed)
DH: 3 (Top 3 by WAR) On backlog: None
LF: 9 (Top 10 by WAR except Clarke/Goslin, plus J. Jackson)
On backlog: Goslin (overrated from hitters era?)
CF: 8 (Top 8 by WAR) On backlog: Ashburn (next best)
RF: 12 (Top 12 by WAR) On backlog: Dawson/Winfield (both a bit lower)
LHP: 9 (Top 10 by WAR except T. John/Newhouser plus W. Ford) On backlog: none
RHP: 24 (Top 20 by WAR except Lyons/Reuschel,
plus Palmer/Feller/Walsh/Vance/Marichal/Koufax)
On backlog: Reuschel/K. Brown/Drysdale/Tiant/W. Ferrell
(overrated, roids taint, good hitter, odd peak, great hitter)
Relief: 1 (Top 3 by WAR except Eckersley/Wilhelm)
On backlog: Wilhelm (great pure reliever – not a closer)
Now COG electees by birth year:
1970’s: 3 (None on backlog, more to come later) Passed on: Edmonds
1960’s: 22 (K. Brown on backlog) Passed on: Palmeiro
1950’s: 12 (Dawson/Winfield on backlog) Passed on: B. Bell, Randolph, Eckersley
1940’s: 14 (D. Allen/Nettles/Reuschel/Tiant on backlog)
Passed on: Dw. Evans, T. John, J. Torre
1930’s: 17 (Drysdale on backlog) Passed on: K. Boyer
1920’s: 7 (Ashburn/Wilhelm on backlog) Passed on: Newhouser
1910’s: 10 (None on backlog)
1900’s: 13 (Goslin/W. Ferrell on backlog) Passed on: Lyons
1890’s: 6 (None on backlog)
1880’s: 10 (None on backlog)
1870’s: 5 (Dahlen/Wallace on backlog) Passed on: Clarke
1860’s: 1 (None on backlog)
Finally, COG electees by WAR/JAWS (JAWS is at position all-time, including old-timers):
70+: All but Wallace (76.3/14th), Dahlen (75.2/10th), Palmeiro (71.6/11th), Lyons (71.5/48th), Reuschel (70.1/45th) – 3 of 5 still on backlog
65+: All but K. Brown (68.3/46th), Nettles (68.0/12th), Clarke (67.8/12th), Sutton (67.4/68th), Drysdale (67.1/49th), Dw. Evans (66.9/15th), Tiant (66.7/51st), Goslin (66.1/9th), B. Bell (66.1/15th), Randolph (65.5/17th) – 5 of 10 still on backlog
60+: All but Faber (64.9/61st), Dawson (64.5/12th), R. Smith (64.5/16th), Winfield (63.8/19th), Ashburn (63.6/11th), B. Williams (63.5/11th), V. Willis (63.5/47th), Newhouser (63/41st), Eckersley (62.9/1st), K. Boyer (62.8/14th), Cone (62.5/60th), T. John (62.0/79th), McGwire (62.0/17th), W. Ferrell (61.5/39th), Bando (61.4/16th), W. Davis (60.5/15th), Edmonds (60.3/14th), Sheffield (60.3/23rd), Coveleski (60.2/54th), Wheat (60.2/17th), Burkett (60.0/13th), K. Hernandez (60.0/19th) – 4 of 22 still on backlog
Less than 60 (on backlog): D. Allen (58.7/17th), Wilhelm (47.3/3rd among relievers)
Summary:
Top players by WAR at their position still on backlog:
(Top 10-12 for positions, 20 for RHP, 3 for relievers) Dahlen/Wallace/Nettles/Goslin/Ashburn/Reuschel/Wilhelm
Players representing scarce birth decades: Ashburn/Wilhelm/Dahlen/Wallace
Top players by WAR, and JAWS at their position still on backlog:
(JAWS top 15 among position/top 45 among pitchers)
Wallace/Dahlen/Reuschel/Nettles/Goslin/Dawson/Ashburn/Ferrell/Wilhelm
Kevin Brown was 21st in WAR among RHP, was 46th in JAWS (all pitchers). Dick Allen was 17th in JAWS. Winfield, Tiant and Drysdale were a few spots behind. Despite not making those lists above, each has a narrative compelling enough to still be in contention. Of those we passed on, Clarke and Newhouser made all 3 lists (and Palmiero, B. Bell, Lyons and Eckersley made 2 but were born in popular decades).
Maybe these numbers can help differentiate your favorites somehow. Half of the backlog does well by WAR and JAWS, so separating anyone really depends on what aspects of their career you most value (it may be stats or unique traits/intangibles). Good luck.
Really helpful ways of thinking about this, Dave.
Some things to also keep in mind.
Most of the guys born in the 1870’s played at least part of their careers in the 1890’s in an 8 or 12 team league plus seasons when MLB expanded by one-third. At the same time they also played a lot of 140 game (or fewer) seasons.
The dip in the 1920’s could be explained by WW2 (and to a lesser extent, the Korean War) as might some of the 40’s & 50’s by Vietnam. Some could also just be normal variance- add the 90’s & the 00’s together & divide by 2 & you have basically the same # as the 80’s.
All that said this does give us some really good perspective on how the voting has gone over the course of this exercise and some idea of where we have drawn the cutoff line in the past
Joel Peralta just signed with Seattle.
His MLB career began at age 29.
He has appeared in 589 games.
Most Games Pitched, first 11 seasons of a career, age 29+ :
677 … Kent Tekulve
602 … Rafael Betancourt
596 … Matt Thornton
589 … Steve Reed
589 … Joel Peralta
576 … Hoyt Wilhelm
____________________
Peralta is also the only pitcher with eleven straight seasons of 20+ IP and no more than 3 wins. Tony Fossas, who is a few spots down on your list with 562 games, is the only other pitcher with 10 such seasons consecutively, starting in his second year.
Hoyt Wilhelm, Kevin Brown, Goose Goslin
Goslin, Wilhelm, Ferrell
Goslin, Ashburn, Wilhelm
Wilhelm
Goslin
Winfield
Goslin, Nettles, Winfield
A bit of strategic voting, here at the end: there are 4 or 5 players I’d rather see get the final slot ahead of Wilhelm, so I’ll give my votes to the more likely contenders among them. E.g. I’ve voted for Tiant many times (33, to be precise), but he appears to have no chance, so I’m voting for Goslin instead. Nettles probably has no chance, either, so that vote is available if, say, a Wes Ferrell bandwagon starts rolling.
Tiant was the early leader last round, named on the 5 of the first 6 ballots. Then, didn’t poll another vote the rest of the way.
So much for rolling bandwagons.
Goslin, Winfield, Brown
I stated my misgivings about Wilhelm in the last election- at length in 2 separate posts- so I see no need to repeat them here (that’s enough cheering, thank you). I would only add that for any who think of Wilhelm as somehow pioneering any new ground to check out Firpo Mayberry or Joe Heving or Johnny Murphy or any number of similar players.
epm has convinced me to yet again rethink how I have ranked some players and I’m pretty convinced this will be the final reshuffling. If Nettles or maybe a couple of others gain some real traction I might change just to try and put them over the top but as for my top 3 choices:
Ferrell, Ashburn, Dahlen
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
K. Brown 43.3
Dahlen 41.2
Reuschel 40.6
Ferrell 40.1
Wallace 38.6
Tiant 37.5
Allen 35.8
Nettles 35.7
Dawson 35.4
Ashburn 33.9
Goslin 31.7
Winfield 31.6
Drysdale 29.6
Wilhelm 28.7
By this method, seven of the eight most worthy players on this ballot are not in the Hall of Fame. I’ll limit my final ballot to that pool in hopes that one injustice is righted- or at least addressed.
I must be close to 100 votes for Kevin Brown and I’m not stopping now. Dick Allen has been the best hitter on the ballot since we elected Honus Wagner (and was in many rounds before that). I could go in many directions for the third spot and feel good about them, but after Dave Humbert’s illuminating post on quotas we haven’t filled, I think a vote for a third baseman is in order.
Brown, Allen, Nettles
Wow, I cannot believe this is over.
Never have voted strategically and won’t again. May the best man win.
Goslin, Brown, Wilhelm
I’ve done a lot of strategic voting over our recent rounds; this time I’m going to start out with a straight vote, which I may change.
I’m really struck by the way the early voting in Round 121 has been different from Round 120. With my vote, the 14th, Wallace, who had 8 votes last round, will have yet to pick up a single vote, while Goslin has shot out to a substantial lead over Wilhelm.
Here’s my vote:
1. My top choice is Wilhelm.
2. Ferrell stays on my list (6.1 WAR for every season as a regular!).
3. Goslin moves back on after several years off.
Here’s my count after 14 ballots (epm):
11 – Goose Goslin*
8 – Hoyt Wilhelm*
=======50% (7)
6 – Kevin Brown*
4 – Dave Winfield*, Wes Ferrell
=======25% (4)
2 – Richie Ashburn, Bill Dahlen, Graig Nettles*
1 – Dick Allen*, Luis Tiant, Don Drysdale
0 – Andre Dawson, Rick Reuschel, Bobby Wallace
That’s what I’ve got at this point, too. Fascinating race so far!
Allen, Tiant, Wallace.
Am I crazy or does Bobby Wallace look like the comedian Marty Feldman?
It may have been a labor of love but, thanks again to Doug and Birtlecom for all their hard work on this project. It is truly appreciated.
All I had to do was picture Wallace saying, “Walk THIS way,” and it hit me – you’re absolutely right.
“Am I crazy or does Bobby Wallace look like the comedian Marty Feldman?…”- I also see a resemblance to Jimmy Durante:
246 × 378 – radioarchives.com
I definitely see Durante, but not Feldman.
In the last round I made an extended statistical comparison between Drysdale and Whitey Ford, and as it turned out, Drysdale failed by a fair measure to match up. My theory was and is that it might be worthwhile to see how the remaining candidates do when pitted against someone already in the COG who is similar in some way or many ways, as were Drysdale and Ford.
I don’t have time to go into detail again, especially not for 13 additional players, but here are some observations using this approach. Feel free to disagree, but also feel free to go to B-Ref to see whether I’m making sense, preferably first.
PITCHERS
Wilhelm: The closest comparison is to Dazzy Vance, who also started late. Otherwise, I’m not sure there’s much to say.
Brown: Brown compares best with Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson, at least superficially. All three had their talents skyrocket after lesser work for some years.
Drysdale: Ford, as shown lengthily in my comments in the last round.
Ferrell: As a pitcher, his career progression falls somewhere between those of Feller and Waddell, although otherwise he isn’t similar. They all have double Ls in their names.
Reuschel and Tiant: I find no comparables in the COG, but they are definitely comparable to each other.
POSITION PLAYERS
Goslin: Goslin is very similar to Al Simmons. They played in the same era; they were power hitting outfielders; slightly after mid-career they were traded from the team we associate them with. On the surface, Goslin’s stats make him into about 95% Simmons, 128 OPS+ to 133, etc., almost down the line, since they played in about the same number of games. I would challenge that thinking myself, on the grounds that Simmons played in the friendly environs of Shibe Park for his great seasons, while Goslin was trapped at Griffith Stadium. Their HR totals are revealing: On the A’s Simmons hit vastly more dingers at home than on the road, but as soon as he was traded his totals not only declined but he did better on the road than at Comiskey, which was pretty deadly to HRs. Goslin, of course, is famous for having suffered the opposite conditions as a Senator, breaking out at last for 37 round trips—highest yearly total for either player—the year he escaped Griffith. Goslin was probably faster and a better baserunner. Simmons might have been a better fielder. Overall, I’d rate them even.
Allen: To me the obvious comparable player to Allen is Edgar Martinez, although someone recently suggested Mize. The latter’s three prime years lost to war do no favors to Allen’s side of the matchup, though, and I’m seeing Martinez as a much better fit, even though he started slow and matured late. JAWS has Martinez at 11th and Allen 17 in the 3rd Base sweeps.
Nettles: Nettles most closely parallels Brooks Robinson among COG members. Nettles had more power and was more consistent for longer. Robinson started slowly and declined sooner, but his peak was probably a little higher. Surprisingly, he drove in 80+ runs 8 times, Nettles only 6.
Winfield: To me the obvious match to Winfield is Yastrzemski, but it does no favors to Dave.
Ashburn: Here Lofton is the obvious choice. If anyone, looking at the defensive stats for both can explain why Lofton’s get so much more dWAR, he’s Gunga Din. Overall I’d take Ashburn, anyway.
Dawson: Al Simmons seems the match for Dawson, too. Long career, good power,
not many walks, but to me Dawson is definitely the lesser player overall.
Dahlen: George Davis and Ozzie Smith.
Wallace: George Davis and Ozzie Smith.
Great comparisons. I agree with basically all of them.
Reuschel/Tiant – their best comps being one another do NOT bode well for the COG. I’ve voted for Tiant many, many times, but I fully understand he’d be one of the worst pitchers in the COG.
The Allen/Martinez comp is a really interesting one. Their career arcs are really different though, due to Martinez’s late start.
The Brown comparison is kind of a good one… except that you took the two pitchers who somehow managed to have astonishingly long careers after age 30. I think Bob Gibson is actually the best comparison. He certainly started off a lot better than Brown, but they both had their best years at basically the same ages. Both had 20-win seasons for the first time at age 27. I think it fits.
As to your question re: Ashburn’s defensive WAR, I believe that those Phillies staffs were pretty extreme fly-ball staffs. I’m not positive about that, but that’s what I remember. It would account for the disparity between Ashburn’s remarkable putout totals and his (relatively modest) Rdef totals. Again, that’s just a guess and some vague memory, though. Robin Roberts, for example, gave up a LOT of home runs for a great pitcher in the 50s… a high-fly profile would make that make some sense.
I think Wilhelm could also be compared to Rivera, based solely on the position thing, but that’s obviously been beaten to death and the comparison fails on a number of levels. He’s probably the most incomparable player on the ballot.
I also think that no favors are done to Dahlen and Wallace that the best comp for both is ALSO a SS from a really long time ago, but who was clearly better than either. Smith is an interesting comparison, though the disparity in era makes that comparison feel odd to me.
Overall, really nice thoughts. Thanks for sharing them!
James talked about the Phillies staff giving up a lot of fly balls. Which is why he doesn’t match Willie Mays does in Rfield. Then again- at least until Andrew Jones came along- who does? Mays recorded a maximum of 468 put outs in a season. Ashburn was over 500 7 times with a high of 560. When you’re getting to 100 more balls in a season than Willie- whatever the fly ball tendencies of the pitching staff- that’s an accomplishment. What I question most is that he basically went from Willie Mays to Greg Luzinski in the span of 2 seasons. I know many players from that era didn’t last as long as they do now- especially when compared to the ‘roids era but Ashburn was the body type- smallish & slender- that tends to last.
And let me add to nsb- excellent work. When I have a few minutes again I’ll look over the 2 lists & see if I might have a suggestion or 2 for comparisons.
Actually, Rfield likes Ashburn thru his age 30 season just as much as it likes Mays.
Ashburn 1948-57: +108 Rfield in 1489 G, about +11 runs per 150 G
W Mays 1951-61: +105 Rfield in 1372 G, about +11.5 runs per 150 G
Mays was able to extend his defensive prime to his age-35 season while Ashburn hit a wall at age 32. Richie’s SABR bio provides some insight into his problems, both offensive and defensive, in 1959:
“Ashburn’s 1959 season was largely forgettable. All of his offensive stats fell: hits by 65, walks by 18, stolen bases by 21, and batting average by 84 points. Defensively, it was the same: putouts declined by 136, errors rose to 11, and outfield assists dropped to 4, while his fielding percentage fell 13 points. He suffered through the worst performance of his career.”
I really wish Ashburn could have hung on a little longer with the Mets. He had a really good shot at 3000 hits, and his final-season OPS+ of 121 suggests he still had a little gas left in the tank.
Ashburn’s -0.9 WAR in 1959 was the worst age-32 season by a Hall of Fame outfielder in history and the 2nd-worst amongst all HOF position players. Only Travis Jackson’s 1936 season (-1.2 WAR) was worth less.
To me it seems probable that Ashburn suffered some kind of off-season injury or ailment that affected his mobility or possibly his vision, one that he kept quiet about but that he never really recovered from. In those times, remember, 1) it was unwise to complain; 2) stoicism was the norm; 3) medical and training techniques hadn’t advanced much. The fact that the sharp decline wasn’t just in the field but at the plate as well suggests that something went haywire, anyway.
bstar, My recollection is that Ashburn could easily have continued with the Mets. They wanted him back – naturally: he was their BA and OBP leader by far and, had they known it, their OPS+ leader, at 121, a good year. He was only 35. There was absolutely no reason for him to retire; he wasn’t “hanging on” in any sense. (He even tied for team stolen base leader.)
Except the Mets. I saw more games that season than any other – I was constantly at the Polo Grounds (round-trip subway $0.30 and bleacher seats $1.25, generally right behind Ashburn – though at the Polo Grounds, that was about 200 feet away) – and I do not recall seeing the Mets win till 1963. It was no mystery why not. They played like a club team with Ashburn as the salaried pro. The entire team had 7.0 WAR apart from Ashburn’s 2.1. I was very proud to have Ashburn on “my team” (among real-world teams, I still rooted for the Dodgers), but as it turned out, he was embarrassed about it and didn’t sign his contract, deciding there were better things in his future. It appears that the CoG will not be one of them.
nsb- I don’t dispute your reasoning but I would think that in a 30+ year broadcasting career at some point Ashburn would have talked about it.
Hartvig:
Never complain, never explain.
Epm,
“….deciding there were better things in his future”
Ashburn, as a broadcaster, often boasted that, “I’ve never worked a day in my life….we’re stealing money up here.”
I believe, if this isn’t a HIPPA violation, Ashburn suffered from diabetes later in life. I believe both he and Harry Kalas both died on the road, in their hotel rooms, of heart attacks…..never having “worked a day in their lives”.
FWIW, Bill James’ Favorite Toy projected Ashburn to finish with 2967 hits, with a 42% chance to reach 3000 (apparently the projected total implies a 50% chance of attainment).
Ichiro needs 65 hits for 3000, with a 97% chance to reach that mark.
I thought Kalas died at the ballpark the afternoon of a night game (but Ashburn in the hotel after the game matches wikipedia). I do remember hearing Kalas call play-by-play on NFL broadcasts for Westwood One
WadioRadio.I was wondering about Wilhelm’s record as a starter, so I went through his game logs and did a back-of-the-envelope calculation (because it’s actually on the back on an envelope headed for recycling). Here’s what I get:
Years: 1958-61, 1963
G 52
W-L 19-19
IP 375.1
H 315
R 133
ER 111
BB 115
SO 244
CG 20
ShO 5
ERA 2.66
WHIP 1.146
Runs/9 3.19
All but four of those games were pitched from 1958 through 1960, a high scoring era (over 4.3 runs per game).
Hoyt had trouble starting out as a starter. After his first 9 starts in 1958 he was 0-5, despite a couple of complete games and an 11 inning one-run ND. So he got his final decision of the season and first win by pitching a no-hitter (93 game score).
In 1959, pitching as #1 in the Orioles’ rotation (his only year as a full-time starter), Wilhelm accumulated 7.6 WAR, well ahead of Early Wynn (2.8), Sam Jones (5.7 in NL), Bob Shaw (4.8) – the only three pitchers to garner Cy Young votes (Wilhelm was by far the MLB ERA champ). Wynn and Shaw got AL MVP votes (coming in 3rd and 20th); Wilhelm appeared on no MVP ballots. (The only AL player to have more WAR than Hoyt was Camilo Pascual, who had a terrific year and finished 19th for MVP, but tied with Wilhelm for non-appearance on Cy Young ballots.) Wilhelm’s problem (according to my memory) was that he was only 15-9 as a starter – who cared that his team was 74-80? – and that his no-hitter at the end of ’58 and 9-0 start in ’59 raised expectations unrealistically: by Fall, what people mostly thought about was that his fast start hadn’t continued, and that the White Sox of Wynn and Shaw had stopped the Yankee pennant streak (although Hoyt’s 2.99 ERA after his quick start was still better than Cy Young Award winning Wynn’s 3.17).
All of which is to say that Wilhelm was really kind of an anti-Smoltz: when his career as a reliever was interrupted, he proved he could be an elite starter, but ultimately he returned to his original role.
epm, Hoyt’s splits as a starter are available on his career Splits page, under “Pitching Role”. You nailed most of his stats.
That’s all very well, bstar, but what am I to do with all these envelopes?
Other side of the coin: data on where Wilhelm’s teams stood (ahead, tied, or behind) at the moment he entered the game as a reliever versus where they stood at the moment he exited the game.
• Relief appearances in which Wilhelm left the game with his team exactly one run worse off than when he entered, entering margin -2 to +4: 159 of 1,018 (15.6%)
• Relief appearances in which Wilhelm left the game with his team in exactly the same position as when he entered (tied or same number of runs ahead or behind): 498 of 1,018 (48.9%)
• Relief appearances in which Wilhelm left the game with his team one run or more better off than when he entered: 148 of 1,018 (14.5%)
• All other relief appearances in which Wilhelm left the game with his team one run or more worse off than when he entered: 213 of 1,018 (20.9%)
To quote Dave Humbert: “Great pure reliever—not a closer”
How do these numbers support your conclusion that Wilhelm wasn’t a good closer? I honestly don’t get it.
And if Wilhelm was a better “pure reliever” than a modern-day closer, in what way does that detract from his case? I can’t see how it does.
I quoted Dave Humbert not in order to criticize Wilhelm or argue against his being in the CoG, but to agree that Wilhelm was outstanding at all the various relief roles he was asked to fill. Wilhelm was a good closer—very good. It’s just that he was never only a closer. The knuckleball allowed him to pitch whenever he was needed, so to us, who expect reliever usage to be situationally restricted, his stats appear diluted. No one else, even in his day, could pitch so often in as wide a variety of game situations. There’s really no one else to compare him to.
Wilhelm’s career fascinates me. A few weeks back I checked the game logs to determine, in a manner of speaking, how many times Wilhelm’s knuckleball actually cost his teams wins. Short answer: very few, certainly no more than what the conventional stuff of an excellent relief pitcher would have been expected to cost. It took a few years (and a few managers) for his true value to become clear. The knuckleball is the critical fact about Wilhelm—it allowed him to pitch often, long, and forever. How you feel about the knuckleball probably determines what you think of the greatness (or not) of Wilhelm’s career.
Kahuna, I wonder whether you’ve labeled these categories correctly. You have 213 games where Wilhelm entered games with his team either down 3 runs or more or up 5 runs or more, which is already counter-intuitive, and this number excludes any such games where his team’s position improved or stayed the same. That’s an awful lot of games that Wilhelm entered that were not very close.
Your totals indicate that there were only 148 games where Wilhelm’s team improved its position while he was pitching, versus 372 where its position deteriorated – almost a 2:1 ratio of failure, which seems poor. But theoretically, a true closer will have an even worse record, because even though he does not have the liability of inherited runners (which count against relievers like Wilhelm when they score), a pure closer can only either leave his team in the same position it began or put his team in a worse position (though in cases where a blown save is in the top of the 9th, it will be possible for his team to alter that latter result in the bottom of the inning, while he’s still the pitcher of record).
For a non-theoretical example, in Mariano Rivera’s final season, it appears to me that in 64 games, the Yankees were ahead or behind by identical margins when he entered and left 51 times, gained runs 3 times, and lost ground 10 times. The times they gained ground were all when Rivera was called into a tie game in the top of the 9th and the Yankees rallied in the bottom of the 9th. So Rivera seems to be a “failure” by a 3:1 ratio, even with very few cases of inherited runners – but, of course, he had a fine year, with a 190 OPS+.
But it may be that your point was only that Wilhelm was not used as a closer, in the contemporary sense, and that’s certainly true.
Thanks, epm, for saving me some time because I was about to look at one of Goose Gossage’s seasons game-by-game.
I think this is similar to the dynamic that Wilhelm’s teams had a worse winning percentage in games he pitched than overall. It sounds meaningful until you realize that it is true for all relievers, even more so for modern-day closers.
epm: “You have 213 games where Wilhelm entered games with his team either down 3 runs or more or up 5 runs or more”. That’s not quite what the 213 figure means. It refers to all Wilhelm relief appearances in which his teams either were further behind when he left the game than when he entered or had a smaller lead when he left the game than when he entered, excluding only the 159 “extra-close” games in which his teams went from -2 to -3 (18 games), -1 to -2 (23), 0 to -1 (58), +1 to 0 (16), +2 to +1 (25), +3 to +2 (9), or +4 to +3 (10). The 213 figure includes games in which Wilhelm entered with, e.g., his team up 2 and left with the game tied (9 such games), or entered with the game tied and left with his team down 3 (11 such games).
The number of games that Wilhelm entered with his team down by 3 or more runs or up by 5 or more runs is actually a bit larger: 225 of 1,018 (22.1%). As you note, “That’s an awful lot of games that Wilhelm entered that were not very close.” True—by the standards of modern closer usage. But, as you also note, Wilhelm was never used like a modern closer. Even in his period of relief greatness, 1960-70, he entered the game with his team trailing more than one third of the time (212 of 595 relief appearances, 35.6%). He was a tireless reliever with a highly effective, low-strain pitch who could be (and was) used in a wide variety of game situations without discernibly reducing his value to his team. He could save a tight game and eat some innings if a starter left early. His arm strength didn’t need to be conserved for high-leverage situations.
It’s worth noting that Wilhelm began his major-league career as a pretty typical mop-up man for the era. From 1952 to 1959 he came into the game with his team down 3 or more runs 29.1% of the time (115 of 395 relief appearances). In his heyday, 1960 to 1970, he entered the game with his team down 3 or more in only 69 of 595 relief appearances (11.6%). (It was 13 of 28, 46.4%, in his last two seasons.)
I agree with you that even the very good contemporary closers can’t leave their teams “better off” when they exit as compared to when they enter the game. They nearly always enter at the beginning of a half-inning, with no runners on base, and rarely pitch beyond the end of that half-inning. Wilhelm didn’t operate under these tight constraints, which is why I’ve chosen to present the lead/tie/deficit enter/exit comparisons. Most of the time Wilhelm was in the game long enough for these things to matter. He pitched more than one inning in more than 60% of his relief appearances. He pitched more than two innings in 25% of his relief appearances. He entered the game with bases empty and no outs in the majority of his relief appearances (586 of 1,018, 58%); the next most common baserunner situation when he entered was first and second (117 of 1,018, 11.5%).
Wilhelm excelled at the role he helped develop for his era, and his special pitch ensured that he could pitch more often than anyone else if his team needed him to do it. Certainly unique, and (to this point) almost CoG-worthy.
This is a very satisfying reply, Kahuna. Like your earlier posts on Wilhelm, it really provides the sort of information that allows us to visualize this aspect of his career – how he was used – in summary fashion and in detail simultaneously.
By the way, I’d be interested to know how you compiled these figures.
From 8-31-58 to 6-7-59, Wilhelm recorded 14 straight starts of 7+ IP allowing 3 runs or less. There have been only 12 longer such streaks since 1914.
Those 14 starts included 11 complete games (four of them shutouts, one a no-hitter), a 9-inning one-run stint that went to extras, and one game where he was pulled in the 9th after a lead-off infield single.
121 IP / 10-2 / 1.12 ERA
Allen, Ashburn, Goslin
Wes Ferrell played in a high-offense era.
Here’s his stats, and his stats neutralized to 2014 AL, neutral park:
193 – 128 / 4.04 / 1.481
169 – 138 / 3.37 / 1.309
And, his batting stats:
.280 / .351 / .446 / .797
.252 / .319 / .401 / .720
_________________________
Since 1970, top OPS among Pitchers with at least 500 PA:
.650 … Mike Hampton
.636 … Carlos Zambrano
.582 … Don Robinson
.576 … Rick Rhoden
.574 … Bob Gibson
.557 … Bob Forsch
note: I went to the Yankees game where Billy Martin batted Rhoden as the DH. Rhoden had the GWRBI (official stat!) with a sac fly.
I have to find something else to do until the next vote. Thank you all for such an enjoyable experiment and the knowledge I’ve gained from reading your thoughts.
I’m a stubborn older guy and I’ve come this far with a few of my favorites getting in, and a few not getting in.
I believe I’ve voted for Rwuschel every time he’s been eligible except a few time when I didn’t vote at all due to life interfering. I now think it’s time to drop him off my ballot. Realistically he doesn’t measure up to other COG worthy players, though I’m glad to see I wasn’t the only one who thought he was far better than his legacy. Tangent – I believe I read somewhere that he married teammate Scot Thompson’s sister. His brother Paul also pitched for the Cubs, though not so well. As a big guy, when the Cubs had those “Cuban” Blue pinstriped uniforms he looked like someone’s dad pitching in his pajamas. Thanks for the memories Rick.
So who to vote for?
I’m sticking with Dick Allen. I do believe he belongs in the HOF but I don’t have a vote there. I do get one here.
Like Reuschel, I always liked the unique story and career of Hoyt Wilhelm. He too falls a tiny bit short of the ideal COG player when all is said and done. But, I can’t see myself giving his vote to another player on the list, especially when dropping Reuschel.
So my final vote is going to be: Dick Allen, Hoyt Wilhelm, Dave Winfield.
Thanks again for the great experience. Until we vote again…..
If my memory is correct, I think it was Reuschel that Bill James was writing about when he related a story in one of his HBA’s about his reporting for camp something like 5 pounds heavier than he had been the year before and a manager or coach dismissing it by saying: “That’s like putting another suitcase on the Titanic”.
After reading T-Bone’s lovely message, it occurs to me that I’ve also been worrying about what’s going to happen after this vote ends.
Apart from the CoG and Doug’s other efforts, HHS seems still to be in a problem phase. Doug needs more writing company, the format of the page has never quite recovered its former functionality, the enormous banks of research and valuable discussion stored on the site seem to me largely inaccessible, and we will be without a thematically uniting project to keep us together, or, at least, a regular feature, like John Autin’s former Game Notes, to maintain our company on the site.
I’d like to suggest that after the CoG voting is done and the inductees have made their speeches before the cheering crowds, Doug or Andy offer a simple “Where Next?” post that all of us can use as a forum for discussing these sorts of site issues.
Absolutely.
One of the ideas that was suggested earlier was to re-vote MVP or CYA in selected seasons when there were two or more deserving candidates. I though that could be worked into a “Look Back at XXXX Season” type of post where readers could contribute their recollections of that season or it’s most prominent players.
Also, instead of a nightly Game Notes, I thought about doing a weekly one focusing on a few selected series. A monthly recap of teams that have been hot or cold and/or have had the biggest movement in the standings is another idea that might have some attraction for the readers.
Incidentally, since Andy did something to change the website’s look and feel a couple of months back, there certainly seem to have been fewer technical glitches (actually, none that I’ve noticed in the last month or so). Have others had the same experience?
Absolutely, Doug. It became possible to post and stay on the site a few weeks ago, and there haven’t been glitches since. It’s good to know Andy’s still working on the site, and that you have plans for new projects and a season schedule.
I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of this string now, I just thought since it’s likely all HHS regulars will be tracking it, interest would be high if it were settled that a kind of general discussion will follow.
Love the ideas, Doug. I will be here for whatever you come up with next!
I like the idea of re-voting MVPs. Also, the years they didn’t name an MVP, we could vote on one. I know none of this matters, but it’s fun.
I like the idea of revoting MVP/CYA. I also think some sort of a COG recap- biggest oversights/worst picks, etc- might be interesting.
Love the weekly game notes idea as well. And speaking of another voice I miss hearing from I can’t believe that John managed to keep doing it as often as he did for a long as he did. Each of those posts must have taken hours of work.
And yes, the site does seem to be running a lot better than it was.
No more glitches here (Firefox).
My solitary suggestion for improvement is to bring back Numbered comments.
Odd thing: I’d given up looking for a way to locate old posts (apart from the recent ones listed at top right, and going back one by one by one by one . . .), but a mistaken URL led me today to the “Sorry, no such page” page, and voilà! – from that page you can access the archive, indexed by month.
If you’re looking for Circle of Greats posts and threads, just google it.
Doug and others:
The format of HHS currently requires a lead article of sorts to get a discussion started, and lead article writers other than Doug have all but disappeared, or their time to contribute and/or their inspiration have dwindled to the point that they seldom head a post.
What I suggest is that every couple of weeks there should be a new open forum posting with a brief heading (by Doug, no doubt) after which the rest of us duffers might raise topics from the floor (grandstand, bench, whatever). Sometimes, I’m sure, not much would be accomplished, but other times some interesting controversy might arise, as it has over the years in various threads only tangentially related to the topic supposedly at hand.
One thing I suggested several rounds back, to which Doug replied that he would welcome contributions and offered an email address, was to continue to tradition of CoG wrap-up posts for every electee. Doug continued this for some time after taking over, but I think somewhere after the 1887 vote or so (I seem to remember that being a combined post about Johnson, Alexander and Cobb or something like that) I think they just dropped off. This is completely understandable given Doug’s workload, so no complaints here, but if we have about 20 ‘CoG profile’ posts backlogged, that is certainly an easy way to continue this theme, possibly with guest writers. Perhaps without the simultaneous vote thread, it could lead to a bit more discussion about that player’s comparables in the CoG, or who might be a similar player outside of it, etc. Anyway, there’s definite content there, and I’m interested in it so I’d imagine that others might be too.
That said, obviously I haven’t even had time or commitment to come vote on time half the time, and that just involves writing three names down. So, I could understand if it didn’t happen for others either. In March I think I might have a bit more time in life so I could try to make myself get the ball rolling on putting my money where my typing fingers are. Doug, was it doughhs@gmail.com, if I remember correctly?
Also, looking through the 1972 and 73 birth years, they are definitely a bit thinner, so it’s conceivable we could be voting on these holdovers again in a year if the BBWAA does their job and puts 3-4 guys in. So strategic voting isn’t entirely out the window, yet. If I may make a suggestion about the eventual continuation of this project, maybe in December we can have a Redemption Round to elect 1 player back on the ballot (or 2, since we’ve had 2 elections with no new candidates since the final Redemption). Winfield has had some support despite being in redemption limbo for a long time, so I’m feeling we might think differently on some candidates 9-10 months down the road.
I’ve missed a few rounds, and only engage in the discussions once in a while, but I’ve loved lurking here and learning so much about the past greats in these threads.
Vote:
Kevin Brown (like the others who vote for him, I’ve done it a lot)
Dave Winfield (WAR must have someone wrong…)
Dick Allen (arguments I made for McGwire in the redemption thread apply to him too. Short career, awesome hitter, huge value per PA)
Ashburn – Drysdale – Goslin
I think the COG is at its most compelling when it deals in neglected greats that the HOF has missed versus reshuffling the best HOFers. I think everyone who is left is something like top 150 of all time, and the tiebreaker for me is “under-rated by the HOF”. I guess I prefer the Quantum Leap approach…
Allen, Tiant, and Wilhelm
That said, I’m sure Wilhelm deserves to win one of these finally, and his career value is nearly identical to Rivera’s (although I would say one is the “best closer ever” and the other is “best reliever ever”). I think I have Wilhelm as my 122nd best player of all time or something like that, my actual “121st greatest” would probably be Allen or Tiant, or maybe Will Ferrell.
Hub, I’m with you on Wilhelm.
But I hardly think that his appearances in Arizona spring training were scintillating enough for Will Ferrell to be named the 121st greatest player ever. Will Ferrell may disagree.
ha- wow… and that was before i had any beer. I can’t believe I haven’t made that mistake before. A million apologies to Wes Ferrell and baseball lovers everywhere. Perhaps we can thank our lucky stars that a certain comic actor has never made a baseball film (right?).
My actual vote this round:
HWilhelm
DWinfield
DDrysdale
Thanks to everybody, and especially to birtelcom and Doug, for seeing this amazing project through. Looking forward to whatever our next big project ends up being. For my last vote (until next year’s BBWAA election, of course), I’ll stick with two I’ve voted for a lot and one I haven’t voted for in a while:
Brown
Nettles
Ferrell
Totals through 22 ballots (CursedClevelander) –
13 – Goslin
11 – Wilhelm
==============50% (11)
8 – Brown
7 – Winfield
6 – Allen
==============25% (6)
5 – Ferrell
4 – Ashburn
3 – Drysdale, Nettles, Tiant
==============10% (3)
2 – Dahlen
1 – Wallace
0 – Dawson, Reuschel
That’s what I have, too.
I’ve got to say, two guys tracking at 50%+ seems pretty unusual lately, when we’ve either had a runaway winner or guys hanging around 30-40% for the win. Interesting. I guess a lot of the strategic voters may not care about strategy now that we’re in the final round, and it could just be that this is still relatively early in the round, and the real strategic voters don’t show up until late. Still, I hope we kind of have a footrace here at the end; it’s be a great way to cap off 3 awesome years!
Following on Kahuna Tuna’s excellent posts about Wilhelm, and particularly his observation “Wilhelm excelled at the role he helped develop for his era, and his special pitch ensured that he could pitch more often than anyone else if his team needed him to do it. Certainly unique, and (to this point) almost CoG-worthy.” I wanted to pose a question to the group. Usage is reflective of conventional wisdom–managerial strategy about how players are deployed, what talents are valued, and even, by extension, what talents individual players work at enhancing because that’s they are asked to do. At various times, conventional wisdom can significantly change the way the game was played. For example, in the post WWII period 1946-1958, there was exactly one season, Willie Mays in 1956, where any player reached 40 stolen bases. In 1950, Pee Wee Reese was second in the ML–with 17. It’s obvious that this cannot be simply because all but a few players were slow–yet league averages show roughly 1/2 an attempt per team per game–half the rate of the period between 1974-1999. The strikeout rate has more than doubled since the 50’s–again, pitchers are clearly stronger, and you have insane arms coming in for three outs, but not all of that can be related to talent–some must be trained approach at the plate. A few of us are old enough to remember where you always choked-up with two strikes, and, if there was a runner on second with one out or less, you deliberately gave up the out to get him to third. Even in roster utilization, managers did not always agree. Some didn’t like batters to take walks, and wanted them to put the ball in play, Other vastly preferred the steady glove with limited range to the flashy guy who might get to 50 more balls but make ten more errors.
My meandering point is that when you look at measures like WAR, or even advanced stats in general, you are seeing back-tested data which reflects how we think the game should have been played, but not necessarily how it was played. A guy like Wilhelm was used the way he was used because that’s how his manager thought he would get maximum value. And, when we make very fine gradations between players in choosing COG based on modest differences in advanced stats, we can underestimate the perceived value of the player in his own time. I find myself uncomfortable with that at times
I think this is a terrific point, Mike. It seems to me that your post combines two ideas: player performance is configured to the expectations of the era, and player performances are limited or enhanced by the strategies and demands of the manager. WAR and measures like ERA+ and OPS+ pick up the first to some degree, since many of its factors are normalized. But some counting stats, like stolen bases and walk rates, probably are not adequately weighted in this regard, and the way team cultures and managerial styles have differential impacts on players is something it’s up to baseball historians and people like us to consider and factor in.
Now that I think about it the stolen base issue you raise may have worked to some extent in Wilhelm’s favor. Stolen bases are almost always a problem for knuckleballers. When he was in the National League not only did teams not run as much as in other era but he also played on the same team as the one guy (OK, maybe you could count Richie Ashburn as another) who was a legitimate threat to steal. Then, a few years before the advent of Maury Wills, Lou Brock, et al he has the good fortune to get traded to the American League. The fly in my logical ointment is that his big year as a starter was also the year of the Go-Go White Sox and he was outstanding against them albeit in only a 3-start sample.
Hoyt’s been elected, so I’ll try to leave off microanalyzing his career. First, though, Hartvig, you’re right that stolen-base levels were historically low during (especially) the first five years of Wilhelm’s career. The 1952-56 NL SB rate per inning pitched doubled by 1970.
Other than 1971, when his one SB allowed in 20 innings was 98% of league average, Wilhelm allowed stolen bases at a rate higher than the league average every year of his career except 1954, when he allowed only one steal in 111.1 innings. (Opposing baserunners stole only 28 bases in 59 attempts against the Giants in 1954. Somebody named Al Corwin allowed 4 SBs in 31.1 IP, whereas Johnny Antonelli and Rubén Gómez each allowed two in way more than 200 innings.) For his career I calculate that Wilhelm allowed stolen bases at a rate 80% higher than league. His worst performance was in 1960, when he allowed 19 stolen bases in 147 IP, a rate of 1.16 SB/9 IP, versus an AL rate of 0.34 SB/9 IP: Wilhelm’s rate of SB allowed per IP was 3.4 times the league average! He allowed 12 stolen bases in his 11 starts, unremarkable today but very high for that era.
Oddly enough, I calculate that Wilhelm’s career caught-stealing rate (1952 to 1972) was also above the average of his leagues, by 36%.
From the Play Index I got a list of the 103 pitchers who pitched more than 1500 innings between 1952 and 1972. Wilhelm had the highest rate of stolen bases allowed per 9 IP (.699). Bobby Bolin was second at .668; fellow knuckleballer Phil Niekro was eleventh at .550; Whitey Ford was 103rd at .082. Wilhelm also allowed the most attempted steals per 9 IP, 1.02 (next most was Ray Culp at 0.91). Opposing baserunners’ success rate against Wilhelm—SB divided by sum of CS and PO—was 1.82, 23rd highest of the group of 103; highest was Dick Donovan, 3.79, and lowest was Whitey Ford, 0.27 (28 stolen bases allowed, 53 runners caught stealing, 51 runners picked off—woww).
All things considered, stolen bases cost Wilhelm relatively little in his relief appearances. There were only 27 individual games in which Wilhelm blew a save and/or took the loss and in which the opposition stole at least one base off him:
• Two games in which took the loss in relief and the opposition stole two bases off him. In one of these games (7/6/62) the stolen bases did not affect the scoring. In the other, the go-ahead run scored on a catcher’s throwing error to third base on the front end of a double steal. Additional runs then scored on a single and an Eddie Fisher wild pitch.
• Two games in which Wilhelm blew a save and took the loss with one opposition stolen base: 9/1/56 (1st game) and 6/14/64 (2d game). In neither game did the stolen base figure in the scoring.
• Five games in which Wilhelm blew a save but did not get a decision, one opposition stolen base: 9/4/1953, 5/6/1956 (2d game), 6/12/1961, 6/2/1968 (2d game), and 4/19/1969. The stolen base figured in the scoring in only the last of these five games, and boy, did it ever figure—the tying run came in when Rod Carew stole home.
• Eighteen games in which Wilhelm took the loss in relief and the opposition stole one base off him. In five of those games the stolen base played no role in the winning run scoring. In the following 13 games, the stolen base figured either directly or indirectly in the scoring of the winning run: 4/29/1953 (run scored on WP), 6/27/1960 (run scored on E4), 6/1/1962, 9/15/1962 (1st game), 4/28/1963 (1st game), 7/7/1965 (2d game), 8/23/1965 (run scored on triple), 9/25/1966 (2d game), 6/2/1967, 8/16/1968, 5/18/1969 (2d game), 6/4/1969, and 9/11/1970.
So, even counting the dubious cases under the fourth bullet point, I conclude that bases stolen off Wilhelm cost his teams at most 15 games over the 1018 relief appearances of his 21-year career. I’m sure the knuckleball could be specifically indicted in several of these games.
Kahuna, I’m impressed, as always, with the detail and analytic precision of your work.
Funny how strengths & weaknesses can vary by era.
Someone like Jim Thome or Harmon Killebrew likely wouldn’t have been near as valuable in the deadball era whereas someone like Ford would have probably benefited significantly from playing in the 70’s & 80 when his devastating pickoff move would have been a much larger factor.
Hard to say how much Wilhelm would have been affected by playing in the 70’s & 80’s- Phil Niekro & Charlie Hough seem to have managed OK- but it does seem that the 50’s were about as idea a time to be a knuckleballer as there has ever been, at least from the perspective of the running game.
And if I haven’t made it clear before, allow me to say what an amazing job of detailed and undoubtedly painstaking and time-consuming analysis you do. It’s simply incredible to think that 60 years after the fact such a detailed answer can be given to a seemingly simple little question as “I wonder how much impact passed balls had Wilhelm’s performance?”- provided of course, you have someone no only willing to put in all of the time & effort necessary but knowledgable enough to do so in such a functionally useful form and talented enough present it in a clearly understandable fashion.
Well done.
Ford holds the searchable era record for most IP in a season with no stolen bases against him. He pitched 283 innings in 1961 with 0 SB. A PI search shows Hal Newhouser with 313 IP in 1945 but that is not correct. His SB data is incomplete and a box score search shows some SB against him.
I appreciate your compliments, Hartvig. Thank you. Your posts always teach me something I didn’t know before, and I hope mine go some way toward returning the favor.
“I wonder how much impact passed balls had on Wilhelm’s performance?”—as soon as I asked myself the question I realized the resources existed on line for me to answer it with precision. Copy the B-Ref game logs into a spreadsheet, do some intermediate calculations, concoct some effective formulas, review a few box scores, and the answer emerges with beautiful clarity. It amazes me that today, from our computers, we can reconstruct 60-plus-year-old events and patterns from the little world of baseball. We can do more than sit together at the bar and speculate. (-;þ Reminds me all over again of the care and dedication with which B-Ref and Retrosheet were constructed.
Wow, good stuff.
His above average rate (36 percent) of CS is probably due to guys who wouldn’t ordinarily steal going for it because of the knuckler.
[*salutes*] Permission requested not to have to research which players’ only career stolen bases and/or stolen-base attempts were against Wilhelm, sir.
one blankspace:
You are correct, per wikipedia:
” “Kalas died of heart disease on Monday, April 13, 2009, in Washington, D.C.[17] He had collapsed in the Nationals Park press box at approximately 12:30 pm, several hours before the Washington Nationals’ home opener against the Phillies. Kalas was rushed to George Washington University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:20 pm ” ”
Tough to reply to replies to replies in the comments section…..
after so many levels, you can’t anymore. YOu just have to reply to the same one that is that deep.
I think mine might have been one of those.
A couple more points on the case of Hoyt Wilhelm that may be getting overlooked, not that’s it going to change any minds at this point.
1. The first half of Wilhelm’s career innings can be 100% directly compared to starter innings of the 1950s.
Throughout the decade of the ’50s, there’s no discernible difference between reliever and starter performance in terms of ERA. That difference doesn’t truly emerge until 1960 and beyond. Here’s the MLB difference in ERA for starters/relievers from 1952-on, when Wilhelm’s career started. A positive number indicates a lower ERA for relievers, a negative means a lower ERA for starters that year.
+0.10 lower for relievers in 1952
-0.17 lower for starters in 1953
-0.22 1954
+0.07 1955
+0.17 1956
+0.04 1957
+0.15 1958
-0.01 1959
——
+0.23 1960
+0.20 1961
+0.25 1962
+0.03 1963
+0.25 1964
+0.27 1965
+0.16 1966
And so on and so forth. The point is that Wilhelm’s excellent performance in the 1950s (a 140 ERA+ in over 1000 IP) can’t be qualified with a “but he was a reliever, not a starter.” The role adjustment for WAR (RA9role) is 0.0 for both starters and relievers in that decade. And almost 300 of those 1000 innings by Hoyt are starter innings anyway, which leads to the second point…
2. You can’t call Hoyt Wilhelm a “failed starter”.
I don’t really understand the whole “relievers are failed starters” argument anyways. We don’t call second and third basemen failed shortstops, even though at some point in their development almost all of them did in fact play short. We don’t call corner outfielders failed centerfielders. We don’t refer to Craig Biggio or Dale Murphy as failed catchers. So why do we have to pin a scarlet F on relievers as “failed” pitchers when we don’t do that for position players who don’t have the skill to handle a more premium, high-value defensive position?
That isn’t relevant for Wilhelm, though, because he was fantastic as a starter. He led the league in ERA and ERA+ his one year as mainly a full-time starter. Also, pitching in long relief at the start of his career, he led the league in ERA as a rookie and would have finished fourth in his second year had he pitched 10 more innings or so.
I have little doubt that Wilhelm would have been a starter in today’s game and the evidence is fairly strong here, in terms of his effectiveness and longevity, that he would have thrived in that role. Do I think Wilhelm could have had the career that Phil Niekro had (almost 100 WAR)? I really do. Look at the massive WAR totals and huge workloads for Knucksie and Wilbur Wood in the ’70s. What-if credit isn’t worth much but I do think Wilhelm could have put up similar high-WAR starter seasons in that decade had he been born a few years later.
3. Wilhelm’s leverage boost is virtually negligible.
It seems like a lot of people have a problem with relievers getting some credit for pitching in high leverage innings. But, because of Hoyt pitching in the ’50s where there was no difference in starter/reliever ERA and because he wasn’t exclusively limited to pitching in the last few innings of games until later in his career, his leverage boost is smaller than other top relievers. Here’s the percentage of career WAR that’s attributable to leverage for all the HOF relievers and for Mo Rivera, Lee Smith, Hoffman, and Billy Wagner.
Gossage: 18%
Fingers: 6%
Sutter: 16%
Eck: 8% (reliever WAR only)
Smoltz: 11% (reliever WAR only)
Smith: 11%
Hoffman: 17%
Rivera: 18%
Wagner: 12%
Wilhelm: 4%
Someone linked to a recent article by Bill James where he questions why we’re giving relievers a small leverage boost but then taking it away with the role adjustment (so they’re really not getting any leverage credit at all). In Hoyt’s case, that’s true. He only has 2.4 WAR from leverage in the ’60s and ’70s but he loses around 20 runs from the RA9role adjustment, so it’s all kind of a wash.
Here’s that article again: http://www.billjamesonline.com/on_valuing_closers_as_hall_of_fame_candidates/
Interesting post, bstar. I hadn’t thought about this statistical issue in Wilhelm’s case.
I’d never call Wilhelm a failed starter – he was an excellent starter – but I do see the idea as having general application. The disparity in requirements between a starter and reliever is, to my mind, far different from the disparity between a shortstop and second baseman. A good second baseman could almost always have done an acceptable job as a shortstop; those who are moved from SS to 2B generally just encountered someone better. But there are talented pitchers who simply don’t have the combination of skill and endurance to contribute an acceptable six or seven inning stint every five days.
I think there are few very good starters who could not, if called upon, produce one inning of work near their peak quality every other game or so – some would set new quality peaks when freed from considerations of endurance. I think there are many very good relievers who could not, if called upon, contribute six innings of work near their peak quality every five days or so.
Pure knuckleballers should be able to move back and forth in the two roles, because endurance issues are minimized. That’s why I think it’s a great bet that Wilhelm would have had a Niekro-like record as a starter, but the odds are uncertain that Rivera would have had, say, a Pettitte like record as a starter, and his small and inconclusive record as a young starter does nothing to improve them.
EPM, I agree with your general thrust–although I would say that size and athleticism matters a great deal for some positions, less so for others. But with regard to knuckleball pitchers, isn’t the “market” telling us something? If the pitch was so un-hittable and such a pathway to success either starting or relieving, why didn’t more players elect to learn it? RA Dickey will make close to $50M, Wakefield $56M
I suppose it’s because the knuckler is so hard to control, Mike, and the fact that there are few masters available to teach how to throw it effectively. You can’t make use of the endurance advantages of the knuckler unless you figure out how to master it, and that seems to be a lot harder than mastering mainstream pitches. I think most pitchers require some training from a good knuckler. Neither Wilbur Wood or Charlie Hough was successful with the knuckler on an MLB level until they were coached by Wilhelm, who seems to have been a great teacher. (The Niekros apparently learned it from their father and had practiced it for years. Don’t know about others; I haven’t read Dickey’s book.) Add to that the fact that the pitch’s unpredictability probably makes GMs hesitate to sign up knucklers and minor league managers hesitant to encourage them.
There was a film about knucklers a fews years back – I haven’t seen it: maybe someone else here has and can say whether it provides other insights.
I think your point about lack of infrastructure is a fair one, but I still find it odd. Most of these players have athletic gifts the rest of us can only dream of. Hard to believe so few could be taught. If I were a manager, and I had someone that could throw 140 IP out of the bullpen/occasional start, I would value that. I wonder if it doesn’t have more to do with the availability of catchers who can handle the pitch and the impact on rosters to have to carry one?
I think your point about catchers is very apt, and likely another contributing factor.
When you mention athletics gifts, I think you may be pointing to another issue. MLB players start out as stars in little league or high school, and as kids, top athletes generally aim to excel in athleticism. Fastballs and curves are high-prestige pitches; the knuckleball isn’t, so to speak, a manly pitch. Quite apart from the scarcity of coaches who can teach it, how many high school stars would want to be taught to learn it?
In general, the knuckler – as a regular pitch – is the sort of device you’d expect a young athlete to learn only if he falls short of being a star in the conventional way. And not many of those not-quite-outstanding athletes are going to get an SEC scholarship, or be drafted, or find a minor league coach who will help them to the next level as a knuckleballer.
All pure speculation.
I think there’s also a certain kind of sports-cultural prejudice against the knuckleball – it’s not nearly so macho as a big ol’ fastball. 100 MPH is fetishized, while a wicked dancing knuckler is a trick pitch. As I recall, Tom House had some interesting things to say about this in The Diamond Appraised.
It’s exceedingly rare for a finesse pitcher of any type to be considered a top prospect – I’ve been reading Baseball America for a long time, and the first thing mentioned about any pitching prospect is his fastball. Even the prospects who have a curve or slider as their #1 pitch still have at least an average fastball.
Trust me, as someone who deliberated on Wilhelm or Waddell last round as my third choice to the point where I didn’t vote for either of them, this kind of argument can still change minds. My third vote (which I’m determined to deliver this time) is between Wilhelm and Goslin, and I’m really just not sure. Oh well, got a couple of days still, I’ll tie a string around my finger.
Thanks, bstar—that’s good stuff. I’m especially interested in your point #3, which I’ll address in a minute.
It occurs to me that 1959 was an important year for relief pitching. Relievers on the whole didn’t rack up especially impressive ERAs, but ’59 was the year 23-year-old Lindy McDaniel emerged as an ace reliever for the Cards, the year Elroy Face went 18-1 for the Pirates, the year Ryne Duren struck out 96 batters in 76 2/3 innings with a 1.88 ERA for the Yankees, the year the White Sox’ tag team of Turk Lown and Gerry Staley each saved 15 games in 60+ appearances for the AL pennant winners, and of course the year Larry Sherry (and his three career regular-season saves) both saved and won two World Series games for the Dodgers. None of this much affected Mr. Wilhelm, who spent the ’59 season as the most effective starter in the Orioles’ rotation. Still, these relievers’ success gave a very public boost to the image of the relief pitcher as more than just a “failed starter”—everyone could see that an effective relief pitcher was now a necessary part of a winning team.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Wilhelm could have had a 500-start, 250-/300-win career if his managers had chosen to use him primarily as a starter. Wilhelm pitched for pretty good teams, though, and as Bill James points out, nearly always it’s only the bad teams that give lots of innings to knuckleball pitchers.
The only reliever-leverage numbers that surprise me are Gossage and Eckersley—I’d have thought those two would be reversed. Wilhelm’s low leverage number feels perfectly appropriate. I’m in vigorous agreement with your comment that Hoyt’s pitching during the ‘50s brought his overall leverage number down: From 1952 to 1959 he entered the game with his team trailing by 3 or more runs 29% of the time (29 of 59 appearances in 1955!), whereas from 1960 to 1970 the corresponding figure was 12%. In 1955 he appeared in 20 consecutive games that the Giants lost.
Relief pitchers’ stats have to receive a leverage adjustment, simply in order to make up for the small number of innings they pitch relative to starters. As part of that adjustment, we fans expect that a skilled reliever will “graduate” to closer at a certain point, rather than “settling in” as an eighth-inning guy or LOOGY. (No one’s starting a CoG bandwagon for Mike Timlin or Jesse Orosco, no matter how long their careers were.) Yet, as we see with Wilhelm, we also expect that a premier reliever’s stat record won’t be cluttered or diluted with too many low-leverage innings. We figure his arm strength should be husbanded for the critical game situations that only he can be trusted with. Wilhelm didn’t begin closing games (in the modern sense) consistently until 1960; even after that, because he threw the knuckler and starters frequently completed close games, he still pitched more low-leverage innings than fits with our notion of a modern closer. Because he was versatile and durable, his usage patterns were very closely tied to his manager’s decisions, whereas today’s relievers are used in patterns more closely dictated by the game situation. This distinction is not easy to capture statistically.
Kahuna, I never really thought about it before, but you’re right: 1959 was a pivotal year for relievers. At the time, though, the two who stood out were Face and Sherry. Lown and Staley were both converted starters (Lown a “failed starter”), and although their value was noted, it was starters Wynn and Shaw who dominated the White Sox story (and the Cy Young vote). And Duren’s break out year was actually ’58 (and check out Dick Hyde), though he was a bit better in ’59, with McDaniel really breaking out in ’60.
But Face was a headline item throughout the year: at one point he and Wilhelm were each 9-0, but Face kept on going, while Wilhelm “faded.” (The irony is that Wilhelm compiled a 2.99 ERA while going 6-9 the rest of the season as a starter; Face was celebrated for adding another 9-1 in relief, but his ERA over that stretch was 3.27.)
Sherry was a mid-season call-up, a rookie, and a starter/reliever, rather than a reliever. But at the very end of the season, Alston turned to him exclusively in relief, and in addition to his Series role for the Dodgers, he also pitched in the two-game playoff with the Braves – he came in with one out in the second inning of Game 1, and pitched shutout ball to the end of the game (he let in an inherited runner, but only on an infield error followed by a ground out). In the Series, he had saves of 3 IP and 2 IP, a win with 2 IP (no blown save), and in the last game, he entered in the 4th and let no runner score for the rest of the game. So of the Dodgers’ six “post-season” wins (he didn’t pitch in the two losses), Sherry won three in relief and saved two, for a total of 20.1 IP, 0.44 ERA, all in a period of 11 days. And, apart from 4 IP early in the ’58 season, his MLB career was at that point just three months old.
Sherry’s Series kind of sucked the air out of the other relievers’ accomplishments, though Face’s Pct. record still stands. But what was much noted was that the 1959 Series was the first without a complete game by any pitcher on either team, so important had relievers become. I remember feeling dismayed at that, but it confirms your notion that 1959 was a turning point for relief pitching.
Kahuna Tuna: regarding Eckersley’s low leverage boost
I just realized this the other day but WAAadj (the leverage boost) is tied to WAA, so if you are a below-average reliever and have negative WAA for that season, you will get a negative leverage adjustment.
So a lot of these relievers, even really good ones like Eck, have some decline years after their prime ends. What makes Eckersley different is, because of his long-time starter status, he actually only had 5 above-average years while his decline lasted 6 years. So he had fewer good seasons than others on the list and his decline cuts into the positive WAAadj a little more than others.
This is a similar dynamic to negative-WAA seasons taking away positive WAA from a great position-player or starter’s career. Also, in my opinion WAAadj can’t be read as a direct commentary on how well-leveraged a reliever was in his career. It’s probably better to use gmLI or aLI for that. (I’m not entirely sure what the difference is between those two.)
Gossage’s number is high because he had both an 8-WAR season and a 6-WAR one. Over half of his leverage adjustment comes from those two seasons.
Bill Dahlen, Bobby Wallace, Rick Reuschel
Brown, Ashburn, Nettles
Vote:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/valenvi01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lovesl01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/childcu01.shtml
As hard as it is not to vote for someone named Vito you’ve just got to give your Love to Cupid.
On top of which he’s about 100 times the player either of the other 2 are.
Wilhelmina, the second greatest reliever ever. Winfield, the best all-around position player among the eligible candidates. Darlene, better than half the shortstops in Cooperstown (edging out Goslin and Nettles).
Wilhelm, Winfield and Dahlen.
Were you a victim of some wicked autocorrect, Bruce? That’s what it looks like.
I’ll post a quick update, just to remind everyone that we’re still balloting! Through Bruce Gilbert, the 24th ballot cast:
13 – Goose Goslin*
12 – Hoyt Wilhelm*
=====50% (12)
9 – Kevin Brown*
8 – Dave Winfield*
6 – Dick Allen*
=====25% (6)
5 – Richie Ashburn, Wes Ferrell
4 – Graig Nettles*
3 – Bill Dahlen, Don Drysdale, Luis Tiant
=====10% (3)
1 – Bobby Wallace
0 – Andre Dawson, Rick Reuschel
Remember, vote changes close tomorrow, and COG balloting ends until next JANUARY on Thursday!
I think you missed MJ’s vote, Doom. There have been 25 ballots and Dahlen, Wallace, and Reuschel should all be up one.
Thanks! Don’t know how I missed that, but good catch.
Goslin, Nettles, Winfield. So long and good bye COG voting until next year.
I was the victim of a wacky auto correct. On a different subject, I’ ve only just discovered this site a couple of weeks ago. I viewed the list of the 120 players who are in the Circle of Greats–pretty darn solid list . . . But I’m curious how it is that Kid Nichols isn’t in the top 120. Arguably, he was better in the 1890’s than Cy Young, each pitcher having started his career in 1890. Nichols missed two seasons in the early 1900’s due to a contract dispute, but pitched well over 500 innings in the minors in those two seasons before returning to the Majors for his final seasons. Is there a mechanism in COG to go back and reconsider a player
Ilike Nichols?
Bruce,
Doug or one of the others will explain it but, basically, the plan was to go with guys who played the greater part of their careers in the 20th century and, if not, accumulated at least a certain amount of WAR in the 20th century.
But, yeah, Nichols was the bomb. And the superior of Young in the 1890’s. I think James has him as a Top 10 in the BJHBA
Yup – James has him at #9, though he’d surely be a bit lower now.
Bruce, the idea of the CoG is to “re-vote” that portion of the Hall that the Baseball Writers Association voted on, and, since various old-timers committees handled almost all pre-1900 players, only players who accumulated 20 WAR after 1900, or who played most of their careers in the 20th/21st centuries, are eligible.
The intention of the COG was to challenge the BBWAA selections, which are limited to players whose careers were primarily in the 20th and 21st centuries. 19th century players are selected by the Oldtimers committee.
For the purposes of our exercise, the cutoff line was players who played a majority of their career games since 1901, or who compiled 20 WAR since 1901, neither of which Nichols accomplished.
Thanks for the info. He was just so good for so long that I was surprised not to see him listed.
I’d like to suggest a “small” HOF, but with a hybrid COG process. Here’s my suggestion:
75 total players–all must be in the HOF.
First round of voting–everyone picks two rosters of 25 each–10 pitchers, 15 position players. Position players must include two full infields. As for pitchers, no requirement to pick relievers.
Highest 25 players selected–again, filling out at least one full roster.
25 rounds afterwards–two players selected per round, regardless of position. No drop-offs, no redemption rounds–we are really looking for the best next 50, and it’s not worth being distracted by strategic voting.
I realize the first 10-15 rounds are going to go quickly–you will get your Mantles, etc who couldn’t squeeze in the first round. The dog-fights will come with the last 25 players.
In the top 30 players by career WAR (Ruth to Joe Morgan) you have a spread of 83.3. Even if you take out the Babe & start with Cy Young you still have a 68.1 spread. The next 30 (Warren Spahn to Tom Glavine) the spread drops to less than 20 (18.6 to be precise). In the following 30 (Rod Carew to Ted Lyons) it’s down to 9.6. The next (Johnny Mize to a tie between Carl Hubbell & Ryne Sandberg) it’s down to 3.5. The following 4.3. The next it’s 3.
In essence once you’re much past the top 30 odd players the curve gets a lot less steep. The spread from #1 to #15 is basically the same as it is from #16 to #180.
I’m not sure I’d want to set a fixed number on something like this. Maybe there’s some way to structure the voting so that only players above a certain threshold of support get in.
Good point, but one problem is if you put WAR as your as your screen, then you bring back arguments about fielding adjustments, leverage index, etc. But, to your point, once you get past the 30-odd leaders, you have a scrum. It’s the scrum i’m interested in–picking Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, etc is easy. Sorting the next group is where the difficulties begin. Anyway, just an idea. If there’s interest, refinements are a good thing.
I hope this doesn’t turn out to be a duplicate post
I wasn’t trying to suggest that we use WAR as the threshold, just that it works well as a visual to identify what the drop off in talent looks like at the very top of the scale.
If we were to graph this the line at the top would be a very steep linear drop to a fairly brief curve to another very, very gradual linear drop- sort of a just slightly-greater-than 90 degree angle curved at the intersection and stretching off into virtual infinity at the bottom.
What I think we have done with COG voting is to go to just past where the curve ends and a little ways down the linear portion on the bottom. What you’re looking to do is move that cutoff to back somewhere along the curved portion of the line.
The Hall of Stats works as a good visual for this if you look at 2nd base or centerfield.
At second you’ve basically got 4 guys in another plane entirely- Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie & Morgan then maybe Gehringer, Robinson & Carew at the next level and then a much tighter grouping below that.
I assume what you’re looking to do is to figure out the cutoff point between the second group and every thing below that.
Same thing in center with Mays, Cobb, Speaker & Mantle at the top, then Griffey & DiMaggio and then everyone else.
Not trying to say we should use WAR or the Hall of Stats or JAWS to do this, just trying to give a visual representation of the talent levels & figure out where on the curve does that cutoff point lie and how best to determine that.
I wonder if there’s a way that we could vote to “rank” the members of the COG from 1 to 121 that would accomplish much the same goal? I can’t think of any way to do it without using a really complicated voting scheme.
Good post. There have been a few things that I would have changed in COG (in the reality of it, not in the planning) To use your tiers of 30, they flew in with no discussion. The next tier, also, 1st or second time up. But the tier below that–the next 30–often got less attention than the guys who hung around year after year. We’ve spent an enormous amount of time on roughly 15 players, with the debates recurring, but far less time on that third tier. Part of what I’m trying to do is to elicit the type of deep analysis on, say, a Gehringer as we’ve done on Kevin Brown. Where does he fit–just inside 75, or just out, and who does he push aside.
Of course, we can’t unring a bell–but it would be interesting to me to see how the votes would go if we did not have advanced stats like WAR, WAA, and the various advanced defensive stats.
Would we make very many better choices than the BBW did over the years?
Kevin Brown, Andre Dawson, and Wes Ferrell
Hoyt Wilhelm; Goose Goslin; Wes Ferrell
Hoyt Wilhelm, Rick Reuschel and Goose Goslin
Voting for three guys I frequently supported during this project:
Wilhelm, Allen, Tiant
Again, a huge thanks to birtelcom, Doug, and everyone else for making this such an enjoyable experience!
I hope thatGil Hodges made your list. Otherwise, whole list is a joke!
Gil Hodges was a terrific player! Saw him play for Brooklyn; saw him play for the Mets. Wonderful manager. I visited Princeton, Indiana, just to pay tribute (hard to get there).
We are electing the 121 greatest players. Hodges’s WAR total ranks him in a tie for 381st place. We will elect no more than 90 position players. For WAR, Hodges ranks 243rd among position players, for OPS+ 361st place, straight OPS 187th.
Goodness.
Here we are, over 3 years after starting this project (December 2012) and with scores of people having spent countless hours debating the relative merits of hundreds and hundreds of players spanning over a century of the games history, and it turns out that it was all for naught because we didn’t include a particular player.
I would invite you to consider writing an article not only extolling the merits of Mr. Hodges but also why he would be more worthy than Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, Bill Terry, Will Clark, John Olerud, Tony Perez, Frank Chance and many others we saw fit not to include as well as who we did vote in that he should replace.
I should warn you however that while I have found the people who comment on HHS to be an extremely civil and unfailingly polite bunch they are also exceedingly knowledgable and somewhat opinionated so you had best be prepared to defend any particular assertions you might make.
Wow, it must have been providence that brought me back to HHS for the very last round of voting for the COG. I confess I checked out a few months ago in the midst of all the technology snafus that made the site so unpleasant to read and leave comments on. Seems like things are, tech-wise, back in working order, which is great (though what’s the deal with the no numbered comments? That’s a little annoying isn’t it?)
Anyway, I’m glad that I can cast a final ballot:
Ashburn (manifestly the best player on the ballot, in my opinion)
Ferrell
Winfield
Welcome back, paget! Nice to have you here again. Keep checking back – the functionality really IS better!
Welcome back, paget! Nice to have you here again. Keep checking back – the functionality really IS better! And I (and just about everyone else) agree that the lack of numbered comments is extremely irritating.
Thanks, Doom! For many years this has been undoubtedly the best place to discuss baseball in the entire blogosphere — I hope that we can continue that tradition even in a post-COG world.
NEW WRITERS!! More content!! I’m all for a new voting project, but I’m hoping that we can get some new regular contributors to assist Doug. Hey, the new season’s right around the corner… a perfect time to revitalize…
With paget’s vote above, I have the following totals through 31 ballots:
16 – Goslin
==============50% (16)
15 – Wilhelm
10 – Brown, Winfield
8 – Ferrell
==============25% (8)
7 – Allen
6 – Ashburn
5 – Nettles
4 – Dahlen, Tiant
==============10% (4)
3 – Drysdale
2 – Reuschel, Wallace
1 – Dawson
The deadline for changing ballots is minutes away and I feel in an awkward position. Last round I voted very late: Wilhelm was ahead of my favorite, Waddell, and in order to try to rescue Dahlen from dropping off the list I chose to drop Wilhelm from what would otherwise have been a Waddell-Wilhelm-Ferrell ballot. Part of my rationale for choosing to drop Wilhelm rather than Ferrell was that if Waddell picked up another vote, or two, we might have a run-off – Wilhelm was otherwise my second choice, although Ferrell was close. To my surprise, the result was that Waddell picked up several late votes and edged Wilhelm by one. If I’d gone the other way, Wilhelm might have wound up winning a run-off. I hadn’t meant to cast that kind of a strategic vote.
I expected Wilhelm to have a pretty easy run this time, and I’m completely surprised by the surge for the Goose. I’ve always liked Goslin, but I’d prioritize Hoyt because while Goslin is a fine member of the large Inter-War Sluggers Club, he is one of many and not, to my mind, outstanding in that group. Wilhelm was a unique talent, and I think he should have the edge in this match-up.
So, since I fudged my vote last time at Hoyt’s expense, this time I’m going to fudge it to provide him a small boost in his race with Goslin for the final slot. Like last time, I’m going to drop one of my top three, Goslin, and try to help out a player from the turn of the last century whom I think absolutely worthy to stay on the ballot – in this case, Wallace – and hope that voters will add another vote or two to Wallace’s tally (and one for Dahlen, in case we go over 40 total votes again). If Wilhelm wins by one I’ll feel sorry towards Goose, but quits with Hoyt. At least this time I’m really dropping my #3 choice (Ferrell would be #2 for me).
Vote change:
From: Wilhelm, Ferrell, Goslin
To: Wilhelm, Ferrell, Wallace
Wilhelm, Winfield, Ferrell.
Vote:
Don Richard Ashburn
Wesley Cheek Ferrell
James Hoyt Wilhelm
Wallace, Dahlen, Goslin
Wilhelm (for the win), Winfield, Nettles.
Update, on the penultimate day of voting.
For the record, HHS still hasn’t adjusted to the time change (for whatever reason), so epm’s vote change DID get in under the wire, and is factored in my tally below (which I hope is correct). Through 35 ballots (dr-remulak):
18 – Hoyt Wilhelm*
=====50% (18)
16 – Goose Goslin*
12 – Dave Winfield*
10 – Kevin Brown*, Wes Ferrell
=====25% (9)
7 – Dick Allen*, Richie Ashburn
6 – Graig Nettles*
5 – Bill Dahlen
4 – Luis Tiant, Bobby Wallace
=====10% (4)
3 – Don Drysdale
2 – Rick Reuschel
1 – Andre Dawson
We have a new leader; but there are still plenty of votes out there, especially if we approach or even reach 40 voters again (we should be able to do so). Wes Ferrell is also awfully close to getting off the bubble – not that it’ll matter until almost a year from now, but it’s something interesting to watch besides just a tight race at the top and wondering if anyone will fall off the bottom. Lots to juggle in this final round!
I have the same tally.
Before I vote, I must thank all the fellow commenters for giving me the opportunity to learn a lot about the history of this great game of baseball. Thanks to Doug for keeping this site alive, to John wherever you are, I hope Baseball is still an important part of your life. Thanks to Andy for giving a new home for the old B-Ref blog. My thanks to Hartvig, Dr Doom, Cursed Clevelander, Mike L, e pluribus munu, Voomo, et al. By the way, I ran into RJ on twitter, he said he is been busy but he´s planning to make a comeback soon.
I know it sounds like a goodbye speech but it´s not. I really am thankful for all those lessons about math, history and baseball, blended on a respectful, knowledgeable forum. It´s not easy having a bunch of different points of view and opinions about a topic, while being polite and educated. Muchas Gracias.
A few months back, I e-mailed to Doug regarding a couple of stories that I was writing, and asked him if he could publish them as a guest writer. Well, life got in the way and almost made me quit baseball altogether. I will ask Doug (again) if I can send him a new story to share it with all of you, guys.
Without further words, here´s my vote:
Hoyt Wilhelm, Dave Winfield, Luis Tiant.
“Quit baseball altogether”? Never do that, Luis! I want to read your story!
Luis, thank YOU for the special insights you bring to this community. Seriously, this is just such a great place to love baseball!
Whew! It did seem like a farewell message, Luis, and I was relieved it wasn’t. Your perspective and good will are much valued here. I’ll be looking forward to your stories.
Wilhelm, Wallace, Drysdale
Thanks for letting me drop in from time to time. This was fun.
K. Brown
A. Dawson
L. Tiant
For the Round 121 election, I’m voting for:
-Dave Winfield
-Andre Dawson
-Rick Reuschel
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Tiant
-Brown
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Wallace
-Dahlen
-Drysdale
Thanks to everyone in charge who kept this process going! I indeed continued voting under the assumption that we will have future rounds and therefore need to keep folks on the ballot. So I look forward to returning for voting in future years!
I do hope some other activity requiring regular voting starts up to replace the regular “weekly” COG voting!
–I like the proposed ideas of re-voting for MVP, Cy Young, Manager of the Year, etc.
–I think it would be cool to hold voting for other “wings” of the COG (Manager’s Wing, Broadcaster’s Wing, Front Office Wing, Pre 1900’s Wing, Negro League Wing, Closers Wing, etc). Since this was essentially the “inner circle”, there could possibly be a “second circle”, although I don’t think that would be as fun.
Thanks again!
I think opal611’s idea for new wings to the CoG is excellent, especially for pre-1900 and Negro League wings (I hadn’t thought of a manager’s wing, but I like that idea too). The difference, I think, is that few of us now have the knowledge required to vote on those wings as responsibly as we have the CoG (at least for pre-1900 MLB and Negro Leagues), and if we wanted to undertake projects like that, we’d need a plan to learn more (something I’d personally be interested in doing) and perhaps to compose a series of interest-inducing factual posts first.
I’ll leave it at that here, and wait till after this election reaches its conclusion – a great finish for the initial class of the CoG.
I actually like the idea of a second circle- if that means we vote to expand in include the same number of players in the HOF. That could also include the Old Timers/Veterans/Pre1900 players which I’m guessing would comprise maybe a quarter to a third of the 96 spots.
I agree that it’s questionable that we would have the expertise to do justice to the Negro Leagues but I do think it reasonable for us to take on the Old Timers & even the managers. Maybe we could all get together at Arthur Bryant’s for dinner after spending a day at the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City to work out the details.
Great ideas!
A second circle or “Sphere of Memorable” could house the 96 players we feel Veteran’s/Old-Timers Committees should have picked. We would have to figure out a ballot mechanism that would give old-timers a reasonable chance for recognition – I count around 24 HOF guys that were pre-COG, and 10-12 other old-timers at least that could have made it in. Guys like Glasscock, Cross, McGraw (heck of a third baseman, lots of WAR in 1100 G!), Stovey, Hines, Jimmy Ryan, McCormick, Bobby Mathews, Bond, Buffinton, Mullane, and Griffith (made his name as a pitcher before being an exec) all have interesting stories.
Maybe to start, we “seed” a ballot with open voting only for pre-COG guys – the top 10 become the backlog, then we run yearly elections from 1870-1847. This would elect 24 Old-Timers, filling 1/4 of the slots. At this point, we could gradually open up later years (say 1870’s Rnd 25, 1880’s Rnd 26, 1890’s Rnd 27, etc.) to anyone that did not make the COG also. This would act to balance the ballot so older players get a fair shot before flooding the ballot with K. Browns/Winfields/Tiants, that have enjoyed tons of COG exposure already (and older players should get more VC exposure logically). Round 34 would be 1960’s, and Rounds 35-96 (62 total) would be open to all. The years could be jiggled around and redemptions permitted, but this would provide a path for those who we do not quite feel are COG level, while not interfering too much with later COG elections.
I think picking that 2nd circle of 96 will keep fun debates going, and maybe others can think of better formats. A separate Negro Leaguer vote would be cool but some website listings to research on would certainly help my awareness. Managers and other wings could be features for interested parties to host to diversify content a bit on the site.
One thing we could do as a “wrap up” to the COG is a final vote in which we list the bottom 3 position players that got in, the top 3 position players that did not, and the same for pitchers (maybe actually 2 votes). This would be a cool way to see if there is any consensus on the top & bottom 5% on each side of the line, and keep us busy until a plan is devised for our next project(s).
Before we end this round, HUGE thanks to birtelcom for this amazing project and to Doug for stepping in and carrying it forward. Had a great time debating a century of baseball greats with such a knowledgeable group of commenters and cannot wait for more. I have seen a few other net-based HOF votes and feel this is the best and most well-reasoned to date.
I’m not really sure about this round–we are picking among the pick-over.
that being said, there a re a lot of very fine players.
Wilhelm, Goslin, and Tiant
Tiant for fun–i know he’s not going to make it, but part of being a baseball fan is watching someone talented and interesting–even when he’s on other teams. I still remember reading a story about how El Tiante use to take his post-game shower with a lit cigar clenched in his teeth.
And I’ve enjoyed this tremendously–really liked the debates, the research, the the oddball math, the erudite references to the Charlton Chronology.
Mike L just posted the 40th vote, with one day to go:
21 – Hoyt Wilhelm*
====50% (20)
17 – Goose Goslin*
14 – Dave Winfield*
11 – Kevin Brown*
10 – Wes Ferrell
====25% (10)
7 – Dick Allen*, Richie Ashburn, Luis Tiant
6 – Graig Nettles*
5 – Bill Dahlen, Bobby Wallace
4 – Don Drysdale
====10% (4)
3 – Andre Dawson, Rick Reuschel
Winfield, Dawson, Wilhelm
Winfield is a better player than probably half of the players already in the COG and Dawson is better than a few as well. But Wilhelm deserves to be in.
Allen, Wilhelm, Dawson
It appears to me as though the CoG is rounded out with this final vote, reflecting 42 ballots:
23 – Hoyt Wilhelm*
====50% (21)
17 – Goose Goslin*
15 – Dave Winfield*
11 – Kevin Brown*
====25% (11)
10 – Wes Ferrell
8 – Dick Allen*
7 – Richie Ashburn, Luis Tiant
6 – Graig Nettles*
5 – Bill Dahlen, Bobby Wallace, Andre Dawson
====10% (5)
4 – Don Drysdale
3 – Rick Reuschel
I was not a supporter of Wilhelm’s but as any good citizen in a democratic election I accept the will of the majority- and in this case that applies in every sense of the word since he got over half of the vote, something which I believe at least a few of our winners failed to achieve.
I am disappointed that Ferrell failed to get off of the bubble after coming so close but happy that Dahlen & Wallace will remain on the ballot for future rounds.
Thanks to birtelcom for his wonderful idea and shepherding it for as long as he did and to Doug for picking up the mantle and seeing it thru to this point. I can only hope there is more to come. And thanks to everyone else for your knowledge, wisdom and good sportsmanship. I’ve learned a lot, had my mind changed more often than I can count by insightful, persuasive arguments and enjoyed every moment of it.
And best of all, while our current little project may be at it’s end, pitchers & catchers have just reported to spring training and I’m sure there will be plenty to talk about in the days to come.
Hartvig–as we have moved deeper into the 19th Century, and deeper into the holdover pool, I’ve grown less and less sure of my votes. Do I think Wilhelm was one of the best 121 qualified players ever? Nope. Could I put him the top three of this group–he’s different enough that I convinced myself to do it.
Mile L:
What I wonder about is this: How many of those people who complain about weak members in the COG supported Wilhelm in this round? If they get their wish to re-vote or plaster a scarlet A on the ones they don’t like, what will they do about him?
Personally, I’m not looking for a re-vote. There’s a certain integrity to this process, and we doubled back on redemption rounds over and over again. Many of these candidates got multiple looks. A small handful might ‘have been robbed” or, in the case of 19th Century players, mot be fully understood, but I’m really dubious that many of those guys would be considered top 100, maybe not even top 110.
I keep thinking about Ryne Sandberg, who, if I remember correctly, survived multiple holdover rounds by the skin of his teeth. Is he one of the top 121 players? Third ballot HOF, 9th among 2B according to JAWS. Probably yes. Robby Alomar, 2nd ballot, 13th JAWS.
We are making fine distinctions across eras and populations (including segregation) Net net, I think we did a creditable job, and wouldn’t want to toss anyone out (well, Curt Schilling, but for “esthetic” reasons….)
And here it is, your FINAL wrap-up post for the initial phase of the COG!
Craig Biggio – 763
Eddie Murray – 731
Roberto Alomar – 725
John Smoltz – 658
*Kevin Brown – 610
Kenny Lofton – 608
Ryne Sandberg – 607
Harmon Killebrew – 585
Edgar Martinez – 507
Lou Whitaker – 493
*Dave Winfield – 434
#Dennis Eckersley – 407
Roy Campanella – 396
*Luis Tiant – 391
Whitey Ford – 382
Bobby Grich – 376
Sandy Koufax – 375
Tony Gwynn – 346
#Rick Reuschel – 341
Willie McCovey – 336
#Minnie Minoso – 309
*Graig Nettles – 302
*Richie Ashburn – 276
Hoyt Wilhelm – 272
Juan Marichal – 268
Tom Glavine – 262
*Goose Goslin – 240
Alan Trammell – 239
Mike Mussina – 233
*Dick Allen – 227
Curt Schilling – 224
Nolan Ryan – 220
Ron Santo – 217
Lou Boudreau – 216
Tim Raines – 213
Larry Walker – 197
Barry Larkin – 188
*Wes Ferrell – 181
Frank Thomas – 181
Gabby Hartnett – 165
Paul Molitor – 152
Bob Gibson – 147
Gaylord Perry – 142
Paul Waner – 140
Jim Palmer – 133
Al Kaline – 132
Duke Snider – 130
Carl Hubbell – 126
Joe Gordon – 126
*Andre Dawson – 121
Ernie Banks – 119
Eddie Mathews – 115
Pete Alexander – 111
#Dwight Evans – 100
1. The other holdovers: Bobby Wallace (46), Don Drysdale (45), Bill Dahlen (33).
2. Falling off the ballot were Don Drysdale (45) and Rich Reuschel (341).
3. A big final round for Kevin Brown (10+ votes) will put him in the top 5 of all-time for votes received.
4. Congratulations to Hoyt Wilhelm! He FINALLY gets in. It wasn’t the longest wait for any player, but I would put it among the more contentious. “Contentious” meaning that it seemed like there were just as many people campaigning actively AGAINST the player in question as there were FOR the player. Wilhelm was tame compared to Whitey Ford and Larry Walker, but he was certainly up there.
5. HUGE milestones. First, congratulations to Graig Nettles, as he becomes the 22nd player to ever reach 300 COG votes.
6. And, of course, Kevin Brown had a big final round; a REALLY big one, actually. His final round netted him his 600th all-time vote. But not only that, he passed Edgar Martinez and Kenny Lofton to nab possession of the 5th all-time spot in COG votes. I don’t know how many more opportunities he’ll have to do any better than this, but it’s nice to see his name up there.
Here’s some more wrap-up data – the number of ballots it took each player to get elected (runoffs not included):
1 ballot (56 players): Aaron, Bench, Berra, Blyleven, Bonds, Brett, Carew, G Carter, Clemens, Cobb, E Collins, G Davis, DiMaggio, Foxx, Frisch, Gehrig, Greenberg, Griffey, Grove, Heilmann, Henderson, Hornsby, R Jackson, Jenkins, R Johnson, W Johnson, Maddux, Mantle, P Martinez, Mathewson, Mays, Mize, Morgan, Musial, Ott, Piazza, Plank, Ripken, Roberts, B Robinson, F Robinson, J Robinson, I Rodriguez, Ruth, Schmidt, Seaver, Spahn, Speaker, Thome, Vance, Vaughan, Wagner, T Williams, Yastrzemski, C Young, Yount
2 ballots (11 players): Bagwell, Boggs, Carlton, Clemente, Dickey, Feller, Fisk, Gehringer, Lajoie, Niekro, Rivera
3 ballots: (8 players): F Baker, Cochrane, Crawford, Cronin, Mathews, Rose, A Simmons, O Smith
4 ballots (7 players): Alexander, Appling, B Gibson, Kaline, Reese, Sisler, Thomas
5 ballots: Perry, Snider
6 ballots: Banks, Hubbell
7 ballots: J Jackson, Molitor, Palmer, Waner
8 ballots: Gordon, Mussina, Schilling
9 ballots: Ryan
10 ballots: Larkin, Waddell
11 ballots: L Walker
13 ballots: Boudreau, Glavine, Raines
14 ballots: Trammell
15 ballots: Gwynn
16 ballots: Santo
17 ballots: Marichal
18 ballots: Hartnett
19 ballots: Koufax
25 ballots: Ford
27 ballots: McCovey
31 ballots: Grich
33 ballots: Wilhelm
39 ballots: Campanella
40 ballots: Whitaker
46 ballots: E Martinez
50 ballots: Killebrew
56 ballots: Lofton
57 ballots: Smoltz
59 ballots: Sandberg
63 ballots: Alomar
66 ballots: Murray
69 ballots: Biggio
I missed one in the list above, my apologies: Walsh took 8 ballots to get elected.
Anyway, looking over the list, it seems to me that, with an exception or two, everyone elected within 5 ballots was a no-brainer, or very close to one. That adds up to 84 players (less the exceptions), so around 2/3 of the CoG sailed in easily; the remaining 1/3 generated most of the fruitful discussion and debate, I’d say.
I’d say that the fellas at 6 rounds were pretty non-controversial. Just victims of bad timing. The crowd at 7 ballots, though, generated a lot more discussion. At least, I can’t really remember any arguments one way or the other about Banks or Hubbell, though it is hard to remember back that far.
I think there was some skepticism about Banks, due to the pedestrian nature of the 2nd half of his career; I don’t recall much controversy about Hubbell.
There are some obvious ‘victims’ of bad timing; Sisler is the clearest beneficiary of good timing, I’d say.
Eddie Murray also was helped considerably (I think) by good timing, reappearing after a redemption round in a weak birth year (if I remember correctly).
Hubbell was purely a timing issue. Same birth year as Gehrig, Gehringer, Waner and Cochrane, and then Simmons was added the next year. He finally won after that backlog got cleared and during a weak year for new candidates, and IIRC he won relatively handily.
Some of the things that make me go hmmm about the list:
– Vance (who I supported) got in on the first ballot. Koufax (who I was more on the fence about but who I think is pretty clearly Vance’s closest comp on the list) to 19 fairly contentious ballots.
– Ron Santo (one of the poster boys for the inadequacies of the BBWAA) took 16 ballots (which would mean he would have fallen off that ballot had we been playing by BBWAA rules). Another third baseman- a position some feel to be underrepresented in the COG- Home Run Baker (who again I supported but think is inferior to Santo) took 3, the same number as it took Eddie Mathews.
– Jim Thome was a first ballot selection, less than Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas or Willie McCovey and 49 fewer than possibly his closest comp, Harmon Killebrew.
– Bert Blyleven was a first round choice, only 13 rounds earlier than the BBWAA took to make up their minds about him.
– We picked 35 pitchers of our 121 total or 28.9% (assuming my quick count is correct). Of the 252 major and negro league players in the HOF, 77 are pitchers, or 30.6%
It took Pete Alexander 4 rounds to get into the COG but only 3 for the HOF.
Lots of interesting stuff in looking back over our choices and how the voting went.
Hartvig, timing is everything–or in these cases, sequencing is everything. If they “came on the market” the right year, they had a better chance. Thome’s birth year, 1970, if I recall, was added when HOF added more players–a lot of the holdovers had been considered, and Edmonds (with lower WAR) was the only other 1970 baby. In Alexander’s case, (1887) he had the poor luck to have been born in Walter Johnson and Eddie Collins birth year. Cobb came in 1886.
Anyway, looking forward to the post-game analysis–we need things to keep us going until next year.
Grich, 31 ballots
Whitaker, 40
Sandberg 59
Alomar 63
Biggio 69
Looking for a trend?
A glut of second baseman developed early on – all 5 of those players debuted on the ballot within the first 20 rounds.
You have to wonder if the draft order had been reversed would Dahlen & Wallace be in the COG & Alomar & Biggio on the outside looking in?
And how would we have dealt with having 14 eventual COG inductees in the final 6 rounds (1966 thru 1971- I assume we would have simply tacked the additional seasons on to the end instead of voting on them as soon as they came up)?
I think the way we did it probably produced the fairest and best possible outcome
One more: number of players elected per birth year:
5: 1903, 1968
4: 1887, 1931, 1966
3: 1907, 1918, 1934, 1935, 1947, 1958
2: 1874, 1880, 1886, 1900, 1921, 1926, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1944, 1945, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1967, 1969, 1971
1: 1867, 1870, 1875, 1876, 1881, 1888, 1891, 1893-1897, 1902, 1906, 1909, 1911-1915, 1917, 1919, 1920, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1936, 1940-1943, 1946, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1957, 1962, 1965, 1970
0: 1868, 1869, 1871-1873, 1877-1879, 1882-1885, 1889, 1890, 1892, 1898, 1899, 1901, 1904, 1905, 1908, 1910, 1916, 1923, 1924, 1927, 1929, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1948, 1950, 1952, 1961
With only a few exceptions (catchers, mainly), the players elected in a given year are the top X in WAR for that year.
Here are the years with 3 or more players elected:
1907 – Appling, Dickey, Foxx
1918 – Feller, Reese, T Williams
1934 – Aaron, Clemente, Kaline
1935 – Gibson, Koufax, F Robinson
1947 – Bench, Fisk, Ryan
1958 – Boggs, Henderson, Trammell
1887 – Alexander, E Collins, J Jackson, W Johnson
1931 – Banks, Mantle, Mathews, Mays
1966 – Maddux, Glavine, Schilling, Walker
1903 – Cochrane, Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell, Waner
1968 – Alomar, Bagwell, Mussina, Piazza, Thomas
Somewhat remarkable that 2 of our first 3 elections were among the 5 most “productive” seasons that we voted on. The 60’s were a very fruitful decade for the COG.
Thanks everyone for your participation.
I’ll be publishing a wrap-up post, comparing our selections with those of the BBWAA, and also with Hall of Stats ranking.
The next round will, hopefully, be in January next year, assuming at least one player is elected then. We’ll be considering the 1972 birth year (Chipper, Manny, Delgado, Pettitte). Our holdover list then will be:
– Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
– Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
– Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
– Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
– Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
– Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
– Bill Dahlen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
– Andre Dawson (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
– Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
– Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
– Bobby Wallace (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Unfortunately for fans of the David Wells/Bartolo Colon body-type, Rick Reuschel should NOT actually appear on this list. He received only 3 votes this round, and with 42 ballots cast fell off.
Thanks.
I fixed it above.
Let’s not forget Mickey Lolich and Wilber Wood…
Yes, Wilbur Wood.
Let’s induct back-to-back knuckleballers.
11.7 WAR and he’s 3rd in the Cy Young voting? What’s a guy gotta do?
Wallace Wood, there’s the 122nd best player of all time in my list.
seriously, I am amazed that Wilbur didn’t get much traction for the COG, or in Redemption Rounds… I guess a 3 year peak of 29.9 bWAR 1971-73 isn’t quite enough, but practically 10 bWAR per year definitely makes me wonder…another interesting career arc with some serious greatness within.
I suppose the lack of support for Wood is because:
A. 52 WAR is easy to dismiss as not enough.
B. He succeeded as a reliever and a starter, so his numbers are funny-looking.
C. He didn’t do it for long enough.
Though, in his 8 year peak, he racked up 2082 innings.
Here’s a handful of WAR comps for other COGers in their best 2100ish inning stretches:
58.8 … Schilling (2008)
57.4 … Gibson (2191)
53.8 … Mussina (2172)
53.5 … Vance (2068)
52.8 … Feller (2129)
51.3 … Koufax (2120)
49.6 … WOOD (2082)
48.2 … Marichal (2020)
45.3 … Hubbell (2021)
42.0 … Palmer (2002)
35.9 … Ford (2026)
Most of those guys provided value outside those innings.
I know, right? His team finished under .500 . . . never mind that, thanks very largely to Wood’s efforts, the ’71 Sox improved by 23 games over the previous season and the team ERA+ went from 84 to 116.
(The 1970 White Sox scored 633 runs as against the AL team average of 676, while the 1971 Sox scored 617 against the AL team average of 623. So the offense helped a bit more but not much; mainly it was the better pitching that contributed to the 1971 team’s better record.)
Anyway, young Vida Blue’s dominating performance for a newly crowned division champion and the stellar efforts of Mickey Lolich, World Series hero of a few years before, seem to have made more of an impression on the Cy Young voters than Wood’s heroic exploits for a 79-83 team. Remember, too, that Lolich, using conventional pitches, pitched 376 innings, the most of any pitcher since 1917 and 42 innings more than Wood. (Wood proceeded to pitch 376.2 innings in 1972.)
“Remember, too, that Lolich, using conventional pitches, pitched 376 innings, the most of any pitcher since 1917 and 42 innings more than Wood. (Wood proceeded to pitch 376.2 innings in 1972.)”
Somewhat amazing that a couple of guys who look more like they play for Ralph’s Tavern in a slow-pitch softball beer league than MLB set the bar for a pitchers workload in the modern era.
Even though he is listed on b-r at 170 pounds…
Here’s a quote attributed to Lolich:
“All the fat guys watch me and say to their wives, ‘See, there’s a fat guy doing okay. Bring me another beer.'”
– Lolich, an overweight gent, describing how TV-watching fans may view him.
“During the ballgame last night [George] Brunet was watching carefully as Mickey Lolich warmed up. ‘Hey, you know something?’ Brunet announced. ‘Lolich is fatter than I am.’ He then proceeded to shout the things that have been used to put him down over the years: ‘Hey, fatso’ and ‘One man to a pair of pants out there.’ Fat man’s revenge.”
Ball Four, p. 315 (entry for 8/21/69)
Feels wrong not to have Reuschel on the ballot. He lasted for so long just to drop off at the very last round…
I’m pretty sure he fell off the ballot at least one other time and found his way back on via the redemption round(s).
Is there a direct link anywhere to a complete roster of who is in the COG? I know there used to be in some of the election summary articles (before Doug took over almost single handedly running the website by himself)- was that maintained?
This page has a link to the CoG roster at the bottom. The spreadsheet appears to be complete
http://www.highheatstats.com/circle-of-greats-2/
Small point, but I believe Winfield has four rounds of eligibility now (he achieved 25% two rounds in a row). Given how many times he’s fallen off the ballot and been “redeemed” he may well need the extra round!
Now that we’re a few days past the CoG elections and the dust has settled, I hope we can start an open discussion thread about the future of the site, including ideas for new projects and views on other ways to keep this community engaged.
A quick suggestion to the power-that-be. Maybe a quick email to a group list to let us know there’s new content?
On the subject of modern-day relief specialists:
I just saw an article suggesting that Houston might sign 40 year old LOOGY Randy Choate.
Last year he appeared in 71 games and tallied 27.1 innings.
!
That’s got to be some kind of a record, yes?
Yes.
Least IP, minimum 70 Games Pitched:
27 … Randy Choate (2015)
35 … Marc Rzepczynski (2015)
36 … Javier Lopez (2012)
38 … Tim Byrdak (2011)
38 … Clay Rapada (2012)
39 … Randy Choate (2012)
39 … Joe Thatcher (2013)
39 … Javier Lopez (2015)
__________________________
Before 1988 (the age of Eck):
68 … Ed Vande Berg
75 … Willie Hernandez
76 … Ed Vande Berg
82 … Randy Moffit
82 … Grant Jackson
__________________________
Before 1946
Only one player pitched in 70+ games:
140.1 … Ace Adams (70) (1943)
In 2015 Choate finished four of the 71 games he appeared in. It’s the second most games in a season he’s appeared in with four or fewer GF—in 2012 he was in 80 games with 4 GF (and zero decisions). Tony Watson in 2014 had 78 G with 3 GF, in 2015 77 G with 4 GF.
Choate’s 2015 1.65 BF per appearance is the lowest of all time for pitchers appearing in more than 10 games.
I can see some logic to having a true LOOGY on a well-stocked pitching staff, though not much. But given that a LOOGY like Choate almost always works with the triple advantage of pitching fresh, being a lefty, and having the platoon advantage, how can a reliever whose lifetime OPS+ is 108 be considered worth the money? It seems to me that if WAR factored in those advantages, his 4.3 lifetime WAR over 15 seasons would be whittled down to replacement value, not a per inning price tag that’s 80% of Kershaw’s.
There’s no way this is the best use of a teams roster space.
With every NL team playing 15 to 18 inter-league games each season you’ve got a guaranteed 70 to 90 PA’s plus the possibility of another 50 to 75 or even more pinch-hitting opportunities where even a below average ML bat would give you a larger platoon advantage more often even if the player was totally incapable of picking up a glove.
Hartvig,
I like your thoughts on this. Now, if we can only go back 30 years before all this platoon BS went haywire, kidnap Tony LaRussa, and lock him in a broom closet, we might have avoided the 4 hour, 9-inning, no rain delay MLB contest of the 1990’s