This post is for voting and discussion in the 124th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This is the last of three rounds adding to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes those players born in 1972. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group of 1972-born players, in order to join the eligible list, must, as usual, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers). This last group of 1972-born candidates, including those with N-Z surnames, joins the eligible holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to appear on your ballots. The 1972-born candidates, with A-M surnames, were eligible to receive your votes in the previous two rounds of balloting.
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 Friday, February 17th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Wednesday, February 15th.
If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: COG 1972 Part 3 Vote Tally. I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover candidates; additional player columns from the new born-in-1972 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.
Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The eleven current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The 1972 birth-year players are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.
Holdovers:
Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 6 rounds)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Bill Dahlen (eligibility guaranteed for this 2 rounds)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Bobby Wallace (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1972, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR, N-Z surname):
Manny Ramirez
Jason Varitek
Rondell White
Greg Norton
Jay Payton
Scott Spiezio
Dave Roberts
Pitchers (born in 1972, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR, N-Z surname):
Andy Pettitte
Brad Radke
Salomon Torres
John Wasdin
Jay Witasick
Jay Powell
Felix Rodriguez
Kevin Brown, Dick Allen, Goose Goslin
This round’s tidbits. Answers bolded.
1. Manny Ramirez recorded 9 consecutive seasons (1998-2006) with 30 home runs and 100 RBI. Which three players have the only longer streaks of such seasons? Jimmie Foxx, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols
2. Andy Pettitte posted a .500 or better record in every season of his 18-year career. Which pitcher has the only longer streak of such seasons? Pete Alexander
3. Jason Varitek recorded a hit in his major league debut game. Which other Red Sox catcher did the same, and didn’t play another game for Boston? Vic Correll
4. Rondell White played 500 games in both LF and CF, but none in RF. Which other player did the same? Juan Pierre
5. Greg Norton is the only player with 80 games at 3B for the Rockies and White Sox. Who is the other player, like Norton, with 100 RBI for the Rockies and White Sox? Juan Uribe
6. Jay Payton recorded a 117 OPS+ in 200+ games for the Rockies, but was below 93 OPS+ in the other 1000+ games of his career. Payton’s 1.001 OPS at Coors Field was .228 higher than his career OPS. Which retired player has the largest career OPS difference in 400+ PA at Coors Field? Terry Shumpert
7. Jay Witasick posted a 119 ERA+ in the NL, but only 87 in the AL. Which pitcher has the largest such difference in ERA+ in a career, like Witasick’s, of 300 to 500 IP in each league?
8. Scott Spiezio is one of four players with 250 games at 1B, 2B and 3B. Which one of those four also played shortstop? Billy Goodman
9. John Wasdin recorded five 60 IP seasons with ERA over 5. Which pitcher recorded more such seasons and, like Wasdin, was traded for Jose Canseco? Bobby Witt
10. Brad Radke’s three seasons of 4 WAR with a losing record are the most by a Senator/Twin pitcher. Who is the franchise’s only other pitcher with more than one such season? Camilo Pascual
11. Salomon Torres’s 94 games at age 34 in 2006 are the most by a pitcher with fewer IP than games. Among pitchers older than Torres, who had the most games in such a season? Rheal Cormier (2007)
12. Felix Rodriguez’s 1.68 ERA in 2001 is the best in any 80 IP season without a start or save. Which other Giant reliever, like Rodriguez, allowed two home runs in a single World Series?
13. Jay Powell was the winning pitcher for the Marlins in game 7 of the 1997 World Series. Who was the only younger pitcher to win a clinching World Series extra-inning game in relief? Smoky Joe Wood (1912)
14. Dave Roberts posted the only qualifying season of his career at age 34 in 2006. Which player was older than Roberts when recording a lone qualifying season in a 10+ season career? John Vander Wal (2001)
My guess for #1 was Pujols, Aaron, and Ruth. Looks like Pujols is correct but not the other two.
Gehrig
Looks like Gehrig fell one home run short in his 10th season. I’ve also thought of Frank Robinson, Griffey, Mays, Ott, and McCovey. No go on all of them.
A-Rod. 12!
Jimmie Foxx also had 12.
I think #2 is Pete Alexander
#3 is Vic Correll.
#5 is Juan Uribe.
#4 is Juan Pierre.
#9 was Bobby Witt and Good Lord, he had some bad ERAs.
#10 is Camilo Pascual who did it in 1958 (8-12 with 4.5 WAR) and 1961 (15-16 with 5.4 WAR). Walter Johnson (who was my first guess) just missed, He did have one such season, 1922, when he went 15-16 with 5.5 WAR, but just missed in 1909, when he was 13-25 and his WAR is under 4.0 (but rounds up to 4.0 in his baseballreference record, so if you search manually you would find that season, but not if you use the Play Index) Also he was close in 1908, when he was 14-14 with 5.1 WAR and 1926 when he was 15-16 but only 3.8 WAR.
11. Salomon Torres – Pretty sure it’s Mike (not Giancarlo) Stanton in 2004. Age-37 season, 77 IP in 83 G.
Good guess. But, that season is 5th on the list. Stanton’s age 35 season of 78 IP is the third highest IP total.
Think I found it now Rheal Cormier in 2007.
Question #14: John Vander Wal. He played for 13 years and his only qualifying was in 2001 at age 35.
Question #13: Smoky Joe Wood in the 1912 WS.
# 6 ? LARRY WALKER …. 1.172 vs .872 , no?
Reply to Paul E: Walker’s overall OPS is .965, making for a differential of 1.172 – .965 = .207. I believe the answer is Terry Shumpert with a differential of .982 – .727 = .258.
Richard,
Sorry. I guess I was just looking for any excuse to demonstrate the wide chasm between Coors PA’a and the rest of the baseball universe for Larry Walker. Yes, the 0.872 away-from-Coors is NOT his overall .965 OPS that was bolstered by 2,501 PA’s at Coors.
Based on “overall” OPS, the correct answer, I imagine, had to be someone with as close to 400 PA’s at Coors as possible so that it didn’t bolster the “overall” OPS too much.
That .982 for Shumpert is ridiculously impressive (w/o context) – we’re talking Musial, Mantle, DiMaggio territory. Coors was like steroids for hitters.
It is Shumpert, just ahead of Todd Hollandsworth and Payton.
If you look at OPS difference in only the seasons when the player played at Coors, Hollandsworth tops that list followed by Payton, with Shumpert ranking 8th, 83 points behind Hollandsworth, and Walker 16th, 115 points behind Hollandsworth.
590 517 125 177 34 10 22 88 19 8 55 78 .342 .408 .574 .982
…… Shumpert’s career at Coors!
For Kaufmann Stadium, Shumpert’s other principal home ballpark, he also has the highest career OPS difference, but a negative one at -0.154.
Shumpert’s Kauffman line: 410 367 38 77 15 6 3 32 23 6 23 70 .210 .262. .308 .570
So, if you combined the two divergent lines, you get a combined .287/.348/.453 – which, is very respectable and also indicative of just how much Coors holds sway over batting lines. Not exactly scientific since there’s an extra 43% more PA’s at Coors, but…
#12 is Hunter Strickland
#7 is Jay Howell
12 (FRodriguez): Kelly Downs, 1989 (both in the 5th inning of game 3)
Goslin Brown and Tiant
Jay Witasick got to pitch in the World Series in two consecutive years, for two different teams, and managed to record an ERA of 54.00 both times (1.1 IP / 8 ER … 0.1 IP / 2 ER)
Not ready for prime time.
Salmon Torres was done at age 25, gone for 4 years, then came back and was effective for 6 seasons, ending his career with a 28 Saves at age 36.
Most saves in the final season of a career. Who else – Mariano Rivera’s 44 in 2013. He’s the only pitcher to top 40 saves aged 40+, doing so twice (also 44 saves aged 41). For his career, his save total exceeded his age in 12 different seasons.
If Brad Radke and Andy Pettitte had been drafted by the opposite teams, what coulda been for Radke?
(cherry picking just a bit…)
1998 – 2000
Radke
36-44
18.0 WAR
.
Andy
49-31
8.4 WAR
_________
1998-2004
Radke
85-78
31.3 WAR
.
Andy
104-58
19.2 WAR
Dave Roberts had a season of 49 SB / 6 CS
That many/few of each, since CS were effectively recorded:
52/5 … Jerry Mumphrey
52/4 … Jacoby Ellsbury
51/5 … Barry Larkin
50/5 … Tim Raines
50/6 … Eric Davis
49/5 … Mike Trout
49/6 … Roberts
47/3 … Jimmy Rollins
47/4 … Davey Lopes
47/5 … Willie Wilson
Most seasons of 25+ steal attempts and 85% success rate, aged 34+.
2 – Ichiro, Kenny Lofton, Davey Lopes, Dave Roberts
1 – 12 players
Manny-B-Manny, Brown, Dahlen
This illustrates how Manny fits in with the continuing holdovers in a number of categories. (As usual, WAR/Yr eliminates fragmentary seasons.)
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……1.0………Brown
66.1 (66.7)……28.7…34.7……0.171……3.9 (17)……114……1.2………Tiant
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
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
69.2………28.7……29.9……0.030……4.1 (17)……154………1.3………Ramirez
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
*Wallace’s total WAR (incl. pitching) is 76.3.
I probably should have included Pettitte in my list of viable CoG candidates for this round. Here’s the way he stacks up against our two holdover pitchers, Brown and Tiant:
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……1.0………Brown
60.9 (60.8)……20.3…28.4……0.166……3.4 (18)…..117……1.0………Pettitte
66.1 (66.7)……28.7…34.7……0.171……3.9 (17)……114……1.2………Tiant
Doug, I think that according to the 1972/pt 2 results, Bill Dahlen has earned an additional round of eligibility.
I have him at 5 votes out of 23 ballots, so below the 25% threshold for an extra round of eligibility.
I respectfully submit 6/23 for Dahlen: Doug, e pluribus munu (as “Dahlin”), Birtelcom, Bruce Gilbert, Brendan Bingham, & Bells
Did I do “Dahlin?” It’s for some reason my default for him, but I usually get it corrected before I post.
Yeah, bells specifically voted for Dahlen in the last Round 123 vote in order to push him above the 25% mark.
Got it. Thanks.
I had mistakenly recorded Bells’ Dahlen vote for Allen (almost the same letters, I guess).
Manny and Pettitte are clearly the two best newcomers on the ballot. But I can’t see voting for either of them.
Manny has the stats (both regular and postseason) but his two failed drugs tests are a big black mark. And those are just the two times he was caught…probably means he was using PEDs a lot of other times in his career as well. Top it with his general lackadaisical attitude and I say no.
Pettitte also had some PEDs involvement. But more importantly, his peak is way too low. Only 3 seasons with 4+ WAR. Not nearly enough in my opinion.
So I’ll vote for the same three that I did last time: Nettles, Tiant, Winfield.
Pitchers most similar to Pettitte in IP (3000-3500) and ERA+ (115-119).
Carl Mays, Billy Pierce, Dutch Leonard, Dolf Luque, CC Sabathia, Mark Buehrle, Wilbur Cooper, Dennis Eckersley, Buck Walters, Chuck Finley
Don’t see any COGers in that group other than Eck who, of course, had a bit of a unique career.
If we look instead at the number of starts made, Pettitte is in a group of just 12 pitchers since 1901 with 500 to 550 starts. Of that group, the two closest to Pettitte in ERA+ (and in WAR) are Jim Bunning and Rick Reuschel, both I think it would be fair to categorize as almost-COGers. Above Pettitte in ERA+ in that group are all COGers (Palmer, Mussina, Plank). But, below him in ERA+, the only COGer is Red Ruffing whose career ERA+ is weighed down by his struggles early in his career.
Pettitte’s close, but probably not close enough, for COG consideration.
It’s amazing- or maybe not- that most of the pitchers you listed are ranked right around Pettitte (#88) by JAWS- Cooper (86), Buehrle (89), Walters (80), Pierce (100).
Pettitte does much better under FIP based WAR. Fangraphs has him with 68.9 career WAR vs only 60.9 for Baseball Reference.
Manny, on the other hand, does a little worse on Fangraphs (66.3) vs Baseball Reference (69.2).
FWIW the Hall of Stats gives Manny a score of 129 which is slightly over the top 119 (or however many it was) cutoff point of about 125 & very similar to Joe Jackson & Tim Raines. JAWS scores him at 54.6, which as I recall was right about at or maybe a little below the cutoff point for their top 119.
Pettitte comes in a 109, which is a little below Wes Ferrell (hitting not included), tied with Hoyt Wilhelm & a little above Whitey Ford & Sandy Koufax. His JAWS score is 47.4 which is almost identical to Koufax’s but also very similar to Mark Buehrle and a couple of Wilbur’s, Wood & Cooper.
If you just look at Ramirez’s numbers without any context they pretty much scream HOF. In context and with all the baggage that also comes along with I can’t see myself voting for him for the COG. And while Pettitte’s # don’t scream HOF he wouldn’t be an awful choice for them, altho if he were somehow to get in before Mussina or Schilling someone at the BBWAA would have some ‘splainin’ to do. For the COG and myself however, I’ll pass.
Manny was a lousy fielder and baserunner.
And clearly one of the greatest batters ever.
8th all-time in both SLG and OPS.
Played in some great hitters parks, in a super high offensive era, with some semi-legal chemical assistance.
To get a sense of context, I’ll list his career stats, followed by the fun game of projecting his numbers in other eras:
.312 / .411 / .585 / .996 / 154
1968 Dodgers
.260 / .350 / .487 / .837
2000 Rockies
.350 / .452 / .655 / 1.107
2016 AL Neutral Park
.304 / .402 / .569 / .971
________________________
The 7 guys ahead of him in OPS:
Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Bonds, Foxx, Greenberg, Hornsby
The 7 guys behind him:
McGwire, Mantle, DiMaggio, Musial, F Thomas, L Walker, Pujols (about to yield to Trout)
Pretty amazing how park and era can affect OPS by nearly 300 points!
I’m struck by the resemblances between Ramirez and Allen, both in terms of OPS+, where they are alike in being borderline CoG players despite being in the class of Mays, Aaron, and DiMaggio in that key stat, and also in being famous for poor fielding and problematic behavior in their days. Ramirez has a significant edge in total WAR, but Allen has a significant edge in peak WAR.
Both players seem to me to fall about equally short of the CoG threshold overall. But if I were tempted to vote for one it would certainly be Allen rather than Ramirez, for the same reason that I’d vote for Tiant rather than Brown: PEDs clearly played some role in the stats of Brown and Ramirez – maybe more, maybe less, we can’t know.
With an otherwise roughly comparable player vying for CoG entry just at the fringe of membership quality, there seems to me no argument for overlooking that player in favor of a Brown or Ramirez, whose stats should partially be credited to their suppliers. (As always, I acknowledge that others don’t see the PED issue that way.)
Ramirez, Brown, Allen
Comparing our 4 outfielders, by best WAR seasons.
Gos.. Ash… Win… Manny
7.5 … 7.1 … 8.3 … 7.3
6.8 … 7.0 … 5.4 … 6.0
6.5 … 6.6 … 5.3 … 6.0
6.4 … 6.3 … 5.3 … 5.4
5.6 … 6.1 … 5.1 … 5.2
5.3 … 5.7 … 4.3 … 5.2
5.3 … 5.5 … 4.1 … 4.8
3.7 … 4.6 … 3.9 … 4.6
3.3 … 4.4 … 3.5 … 4.5
3.2 … 3.8 … 3.4 … 4.4
2.9 … 3.4 … 3.1 … 4.2
2.7 … 2.2 … 2.8 … 4.1
2.7 … 2.1 … 2.5 … 2.9
2.5 … -0.4 .. 2.4 … 2.2
1.6 … -0.9 .. 2.1 … 1.6
0.3 …………. 1.8 … 1.1
0.2 …………. 0.7 … 0.8
-0.2 ………… 0.5 … -0.3
………………..0.2 … -0.8
………………..0.1
………………..0.0
……………….-1.0
Goslin, Brown, Ramirez
Winfield, Allen, Pettitte.
Allen, Tiant, Winfield
Allen, Ashburn, Winfield
I just can’t vote for Ramirez (despite an OPS+ almost as high as Allen’s) due to the multiple violations for steroid use. But in the eyes of his supporters (not necessarily on this blog), it’s kind of like: “I’m sorry, he didn’t use steroids, they were only in his bloodstream”. Or, “Everyone else took them”…..
I dunno
Question #8: 1950AL batting champion Billy Goodman.
Goodman and Rogers Hornsby (1921) are the only batting champions to play at least one game at each infield position (except catcher). Both also played in left field.
Goodman just qualified for that 1950 batting title by 8 PA and then sat for the last four games of the year. At least he won by a decent margin (14 points) as runner-up George Kell had almost 50% more PA.
In 1950 during an 11 game stretch of games in which he participated, 4-30 to 6-10, Goodman started at least one game at 1B, 2B, 3B and SS. He was not a full-time starter until after the All-Star game when Ted Williams was injured and missed 2 months of play. Filling in for Williams in LF for 57 games he slashed .372/.465/.481/.945. Without the Williams injury he most surely would not have qualified for the batting title.
Talk about filling in. Very Williams-esque type numbers, except, of course, for the slugging. But far better than the Red Sox could have dreamt of. Kept Boston in the race almost to the end – only a game out on Sep 18th, but fell back after that (mainly because they had just two games of their last twelve against the A’s, Browns and White Sox, who Boston roasted 53-13 for the season, compared to 41-47 for the rest of the league).
When Williams returned to the lineup in Sep, Goodman displaced Johnny Pesky in the lineup. But, only for a week until he passed the qualifying PA mark. Then, back to the bench.
Goslin, Winfield, Allen
Manny Ramirez bothers me a lot. To me he was, after Sammy Sosa, the worst manifestation of all that went wrong in baseball during that 12-year stretch (1996-2007) when 22 of the 38 50-HR seasons were generated and the fans couldn’t get enough of it. Ramirez’ s career as a full-time player begins in 1995 and ends in 2008, so it spans that period and not much more. Unlike Bobby Bonds and Roger Clemens, there’s no non-steroid period in this career to examine in order to form a judgment on as to what kind of player he actually was. The fact that, although a noted power hitter, he never topped 45 round trippers in a season does make me feel as if he would have been far less a long-ball threat at another time.
So how good a player was he actually?
Using WAR as a measure, he was the best position player on his team only once, 2001, and only then because Nomar Garciaparra missed most of the season. Otherwise he was second, third, or fourth, being out WARed by Belle, Thome, Lofton, and Roberto Alomar in Cleveland. In Boston it was Garciaparra, Bill Mueller, Johnny Damon, David Ortiz, and one year even Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, and Coco Crisp. The fact that Ortiz, designated hitter, finished ahead of Ramirez by this measure four years out of five in which they both played together makes me wonder more than a little.
Just for contrast: Both Goose Goslin and Richie Ashburn topped their respective teams’ position players in WAR 8 times and finished second twice. In a different era for the Red Sox Jim Rice led his team once amid the likes of Yaz, Fisk, Lynn, Evans, and Boggs. I don’t see anyone raving about Rice, even though he was a better fielder than Ramirez
and put up one Grade-A certifiable MVP season. He wasn’t notably easy to get along with, but reading his SABR bio alongside that of Ramirez gives you the feeling that he might be a person of substance and that Ramirez—be Manny.
I’m not fond of JAWS ratings for pitchers, but the position player rankings are more in line with reality. Where does Ramirez stand among left fielders—unadjusted, one might say, for his pharmaceutical adventures? Tenth. Right behind Goose Goslin.
“……he was, after Sammy Sosa, the worst manifestation of all that went wrong in baseball”. AGREED
Homers, age 29-33:
1 Sammy Sosa 292 1998 2002
2 Babe Ruth 232 1924 1928
3 Jim Thome 227 2000 2004
4 Jeff Bagwell 205 1997 2001
5 Willie Mays 203 1960 1964
6 Alex Rodriguez 202 2005 2009
7 Manny Ramirez 199 2001 2005
8 Mike Schmidt 199 1979 1983
9 Lou Gehrig 194 1932 1936
10 Edwin Encarnacion 193 2012 2016
11 Frank Howard 190 1966 1970
What’s really remarkable about Bagwell being on that list is that for the first 3 seasons he was still playing in the Astrodome.
Kind of spooky, though, how close these numbers are, especially for contemporaries.
Thomas wasn’t perfect, but he’s always been judged steroid free, and in fact was an early (1995) advocate of drug testing. Some coincidences are just that.
I don’t plan on voting for Manny but I’m also not sure what to make of this. Ramirez was hardly some unknown who burst onto the scene out of nowhere. He was drafted 13th overall, was rated as highly as the 7th best prospect in baseball, and absolutely raked in the minors. His 1993 season particularly stands out. As a 21 year old, splitting time between AA and AAA, he hit 44 doubles, 31 home runs, had 115 RBIs, and a triple slash line of .333/.417/.613.
And despite his poor reputation, Ramirez actually was well-known as a hard worker, dating back to his early years. From his SABR bio: “Manny’s lack of English-language skills left him unsure of himself in situations where conversation was called for, but his work ethic showed from an early age in punishing workouts, waking as early at 5 A.M. on a regular basis to get in his running — and quite often running up hills in the city, tugging a 20-pound tire behind him secured by a rope around his waist. Even years later, teammates on, say, the Boston Red Sox, mentioned that no one worked harder in the weight room and with training than Manny Ramirez. ”
And then of course, there was his swing, which is generally considered one of the best ever. Details here
:http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=4018367
And now we’re going to punish him for not hitting enough home runs? I thought the problem was that guys were hitting too many homeruns. Couldn’t the career high of 45 homeruns be seen as evidence that he wasn’t using PEDs at that point of his career???
As for leading your team’s position players in WAR, I think it’s fair to say that Ramirez generally played on better teams and had better overall teammates than Goslin.
David P:
My remarks weren’t to deny that Ramirez was a valuable player, even a great player at times. The problem with him specifically is that there’s no context in which to judge him but the one that raises doubts as to his absolute worth.
Re you’re final comment: it cuts both ways. How much easier or harder is it to perform well when you’ve got a lot of help? Or, contrariwise, when you’re pulling a larger percentage of the load? Depends on character, personality, group dynamics—all those things statistical analysis can’t measure.
Of course he was the hardest worker….while on steroids, Ramirez never tired. Maybe he should have worked harder on his fielding instead of his bench press and tire-dragging?
Goslin, Dahlen, Wallace
The vote for Wallace is strategic; I’m not really ready to argue that he’s more qualified than Tiant, Allen, or Ashburn, three others who I’d think about for my third vote, but I’d like to get him on the board. I’m hoping all those players will remain eligible.
After 11 votes (my vote the most recent), I have these results:
6 – Dick Allen
=================50% (6)
5 – Kevin Brown, Goose Goslin, Dave Winfield
3 – Manny Ramirez*, Luis Tiant
=================25% (3)
2 – Bill Dahlen,
=================10% (1)
1 –Richie Ashburn*, Graig Nettles, Andy Pettitte*, Bobby Wallace*
We still don’t have a consensus on how to orient to the ‘steroid era.’
I think what bothers our collective sensibilities is that that era noticeably skewed the numbers, and that the numbers are somehow sacred. Thus, we cannot ignore the impact. Whereas we were happy to ignore 50 years of amphetamine use. And perfectly fine with our athletes getting way too many cortisone (steroid) shots, so long as they were on the field to entertain us.
I can’t bring myself to vote for the “known” juicers. And yes, the numbers are sacred in baseball and that played a roll, but more to the point was the huge change in the players from one level of performance to another. Sosa’s went from 25-30 HR power to twice that. His 98-02 numbers were historically absurd. To put this is proper context, when I was growing up 50HR was the sacred circle. Ruth 4 times, Mantle 2, Foxx 2, Mays 2, Kiner 2, Greenberg, Wilson, Mize, Maris. Every kid knew them, including the years. Foster hit 52 in 1977. Cecil Fielder hit 50 in 1990. Then, suddenly, we are off to the races, From 1996 on, 25 seasons, including Brady Anderson (a total of 160HR for the rest of his career), and Luis Gonzales (who never hit more than 31 in any other season). And Sosa 66,63, 50, 64, and 49–which would have placed him as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and tied for 16th up until 1996. Just not credible. Others may look at greenies, or painkillers, or cortisone shots and find them comparable. That’s their choice. I can’t, and if I were voting for real HOF I wouldn’t.
So Brady Anderson only “juiced” for the one year?
I think you would have to ask Brady Anderson. One could make the argument that miracles occasionally happen. And the 1990’s were certainly a miraculous time.
That’s my argument. At least for Brady 1995, Luis 2001 and even Bonds 2001. Miracle seasons. Dawson 1987, too.
McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero… The roids were the miracle. Then again I don’t necessarily discount their stats though. They still hit.
Frank Thomas was way bigger than all of them anyway. By his own argument, he should have hit 80 a year.
ThickieDon:
As to Dawson, there was no miracle. There’s pretty clear reason to believed that the balls used in 1987 were what was juiced. HR production jumped from 3813 in 1986 to 4458 in ’87 and dropped to 3180 in ’89, as the manufacturers adjusted back a little too far.
Plus, in 1987 Dawson moved to a hitter’s park; he was a proud man who had something to prove; Wade Boggs, Keith Moreland, George Bell, and numerous other players blasted far past their previous HR highs.
An interesting question: Were the balls as well as the players juiced in the steroid era? Has anyone looked into it?
To me that whole season falls under the miracle umbrella.
There have been some contradictory findings about the balls in the late 90’s. Anecdotally, we (my friends and I, certain commentators) all thought it was the balls back then, at least in 1993, 1994, 1995. We assumed baseball conspired to “juice” offensive numbers by using “juiced” balls, to sort of counter the effects of the upcoming strike. Players still looked normal-sized.
There are those who say there is no real statistical or scientific correlation between hitting home runs and doing ‘roids. Especially in the case of, say, Brady Anderson, who obviously couldn’t have just juiced for a little bit, then when he hit too many, just say, “I’m not gonna be strong any more, oopsies”. Even in the early 90’s when offense was way down, Anderson was a great hitter, and known to be quite beefy and muscular compared to the average MLB player.
Steroids don’t only produce home runs. The year after Anderson had his miracle season at age 32, he had a slugging percentage that was higher than any previous season of his career (with the exception of said miracle season of course), a feat he replicated again 2 years later at age 35.
I would also consider the possibility that there were at least a few players who stopped juicing either out of concern about possible long term health consequences or simply because their conscience got the better of them.
Regarding Anderson’s slugging %, 1992, 1996, and 1999 he was 30% above league average.
So you’re saying he juiced a ton over the winter of 1994/1995, used his new power to hit 50 homers, then said, “Oops I’m gonna get caught” and then suddenly got skinny and weaker (not weak, he was always a powerful hitter) again?
There had been talk that the baseball was so tightly stitched that there was very little wind resistance – no kiddin’. Sounds a little bit like the Warren Commission….
Steroids work – plain and simple. That’s why athletes continue to take them. Without steroids, Barry Bonds was the greatest player of his generation. With steroids, he was, arguably, the greatest player of all time. He was peak-of-their careers Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Mantle as a hitter. And, he made that leap in the seasons of his career when there should have been a down-turn in performance.
He took HGH, not steroids,
This is a good article on the effects on steroids on weightlifters, that would likely apply to baseball players as well:
“The distinction between the groups’ histories with strength-enhancing drugs is important because these drugs don’t just “flush out” completely — they can leave a lasting impact. Consider this 2008 American Physiological Society study, which found that the benefits of steroids in powerlifters can last several years beyond when the drugs leave their body.
So, even if drugs aren’t in an athlete’s system, he might be lifting heavier because he used PEDs a few years ago. He’s laid down a base of muscle that doesn’t just dry up when the drugs do. It may linger and help him kick ass for years to come.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-powerlifting-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-peds/
and insulin, too, no?
Apologies for hijacking the thread with a steroid / HGH debate.
I didn’t mean to rub anyone the wrong way, especially as a newcomer, and huge lover of stats. Consider me a ‘roid apologist and don’t mind me.
For fluke seasons like Anderson and Gonzalez, my stance is that there is zero evidence to support that PED use caused the big HR or power surge. A fluke just like George Foster in 1977, or Maris.
For sustained power surges like McGwire, Palmiero, Sosa and Bonds, my stance is that despite the admitted use of PEDs, and their obvious weight and muscle gain, there is still little evidence that it contributed drastically to their home run or other stat totals.
Bonds’s 73 is more of a Foster / Maris fluke, to me. It’s the only season that’s not really in line with his others, at least as far as HR totals. Foster going from 25-ish to 52. Bonds going from 45-ish to 73.
Hank Aaron had his best ISO at age 39 in 1973, so the age thing doesn’t bother me. Bonds, besides working out and getting stronger (maybe due to HGH?), was clearly a devoted student of the game and spent countless years honing his batting eye and technique. By age 36, everything clicked and he hit 73 homers.
Voomo, I don’t really know about the relative use of cortisone shots in various eras, or how the medical community regarded levels of cortisone use during those eras. I do know that cortisone shots were never banned by MLB, and that there is little relationship between corticosteriods and anabolic steroids when it comes to the PE aspects of PEDs. I don’t think that discussions of cortisone shots for injuries has any relevance to PED issues.
I also don’t know about MLB’s attempts to regulate amphetamine use or about the relation of regular amphetamine use to overall performance on the field. I do feel there is a very broad spectrum of substances that affect performance, and that while the difference between caffeine and greenies is one of quantitative magnitude, the difference between amphetamines and anabolic steroids is qualitative and dramatic.
Dramatic improvements in nutrition, medicine, and training during the post-War era have resulted in dramatic changes to MLB numbers, particularly career length and lifetime leader standings. We don’t regard this as “skewed” because it is consistent with the integrity of the sport and of individual athletes, and is characteristic of the ordinary context of playing fields kept more or less level, within the norms of league sports. The problem with the PED era is not that the numbers were affected; it’s that they were affected unevenly – skewed – as a consequence of individual player decisions about accepting the limits of the level playing field and the ground rules governing them. You don’t have to regard baseball stats as sacred to recognize that they can be distorted and require adjustment in such cases.
When baseball stats reflect an uneven playing field effect that we can learn how to measure, we do, in fact, take that measure and we adjust the numbers to assess how players compare on a level playing field. We do this as a matter of course with park effects, league norms, and so forth. With PEDs, the data generally goes no further than knowledge of likely use, and the adjustments are seat-of-the-pants. Given how profound the effects could be in players like Sosa and McGwire, some have trouble with the argument that in cases of comparing known PED users with others, the best solution is to make no adjustment because precise data does not exist, or because players in the past used far less powerful, though perhaps legal, performance aids. Other posters feel that because information is very incomplete, precise adjustments are impossible, and there may be no absolute bright line along the spectrum from caffeine to HGH, seat-of-the-pants adjustments are no more reliable than no adjustment at all. I don’t think there are profound differences in knowledge of the facts; the differences lie in responses to the facts.
We’re not going to achieve a consensus on these issues, but we don’t have to. CoG voting rules allow differences of opinion about PEDs to be proportionately represented in the vote, just as differences of opinion about non-PED-related comparisons are.
EPM, you hit the ball out of the park with that one.
Yep, that was exactly the sort of brilliant summary I was hoping to prompt with my volley.
Thanks Mike and Voomo.
Voom,
Steroids enhance athletic performance; amphetamines and cocaine work well on the dance floor in after-hours night clubs.
In fairness, they can make it a lot easier to take the field on a hot late-August night after you woke up with the mother of all hangovers in the middle of the afternoon. And they do tend to sharpen your senses (the military still gives them to fighter pilots flying combat missions). But they can also cause tremors and make you anxious, neither of which I would think would be particularly beneficial to a hitter.
When Chuck Dobson was told that Bowie Kuhn might prohibit “greenies,” an arrogant but realistic Dobson reacted strongly:
“I’d like to see him put on a uniform for 162 games in 180 days, and then see what he says.”
“I’d like to see him put on a uniform for 162 games in 180 days, and then see what he says.”
Voom,
I believe, if given the choice, ML’ers would choose steroids with impunity (the Selig era) over amphetamines (the ’60’s – 70’s) with impunity. Getting “all amped up” beats you up, exhausts you physically, etc…. and is probably not the right prescription for the 162 game task at hand. Basically, from 1990 – 2005, we saw those major leaguers make the choice to take steroids in lieu of ‘greenies’
Nat Geo or one of those channels had abusers/addicts attempt a series of physical tasks while under the influence of numerous stimulants including speed and cocaine as well as alcohol. Basically, a doctor was present to monitor this fool’s errand as they attempted to lift and carry objects including furniture and construction materials up and down stairs. These people were dangerously ill at the completion of their tasks or just failed to complete the tasks due to exhaustion. Probably not a great test case for MLB but, I believe, indicative of the cumulative effects of stimulants.
Goslin, Ashburn, Dahlen
There’s one thing I want to say about Manny Ramirez and his PED use, he was caught twice and paid a penalty twice. That has to account for something. You can say he got off lightly and probably used more PEDS than that, fair enough, but he has faced some sort of justice and served his punishment; that is more than can be said for many of the players who are tarred with the PED brush.
He had hitting ability from the start and all through his career- surely that can’t all be from drugs. I’ve become more unsure about him now, however. I had thought Manny’s career statistics were higher up the rankings, but I had forgotten about just how bad the defense was… His dWar is about as bad as a career DH’s, even with a much lighter position penalty.
Unfortunately he is so close to the borderline (just over going by Hall of Stats, at no. 117 all-time), that even a modest penalty (or two) probably drops him right into perpetual COG borderline territory, or worse.
I agree with you that he’s on the borderline with or without being caught cheating. His fielding and baserunning take him down several pegs. Some great players – Jim Thome is the first that comes to mind – are 100% one-dimensional, but Manny was like offensively bad at non-hitting stuff.
To be fair, Manny did have some decent fielding seasons, and even greatly improved his Green Monster play over time.
I do plan to vote for him eventually, probably, but I couldn’t do it while Dick Allen (higher career OPS+ and wRC+) was on the ballot, too.
I’ve always been a big Manny fan (I tend to enjoy the coffee-colored players who have ‘too much’ personality. The modern take on racism is painfully obvious to me. Rickey, Pedro, Manny, I have no problem with them-being-them).
And when we started this round I came into it thinking he was an obvious pick.
But … I’d forgotten just how ridiculous of an offensive era he played in.
Cherry-picking Manny’s absolute peak (1997-2006), in which he was over 5 OWar every year, a full decade in which he slashed:
.319 / .418 / .614 / 1.031 / 162 … averaging 39 HR and 123 RBI
Looking at the leaders for that 10-year span, he is still great, but the context is more sobering…
WAR
76.1 … Alex
75.7 … Barry
57.8 … Andruw Jones
53.5 … Rolen
51.5 … Manny
51.1 … Chipper
50.9 … Jeter
50.0 … Helton
49.6 … Vlad
49.3 … Abreu
OWAR
74.5 … Alex
73.9 … Barry
64.0 … Jeter
57.9 … Manny
54.3 … Chipper
51.3 … Giambi
48.2 … Sheffield
47.5 … Vlad
47.2 … Thome
47.0 … Giles
HR
423 … Alex
417 … Sosa
400 … Barry
387 … Manny
379 … Thome
370 … Delgado
337 … Andruw
337 … Vlad
336 … Raffy
325 … Griffey
RBI
1232 … Manny
1160 … Delgado
1062 … Kent
1052 … Sosa
1051 … Vlad
1040 … Giambi
1018 … Thome
1010 … Andruw
1001 … Chipper
996 ….. Helton
BA (min 3000 PA):
.336 … Larry Walker
.333 … Helton
.332 … Pujols
.331 … Ichiro
.325 … Vlad
.319 … Manny
.319 … Nomar
.317 … Jeter
.314 … Ivan
.314 … Barry
OPS
1.184 … Barry
1.047 … Pujols
1.044 … Larry Walker
1.031 … Manny
1.023 … Helton
.987 ….. Thome
.983 ….. Berkman
.975 ….. Vlad
.973 ….. Giambi
.969 ….. Delgado
_________________
Note that 2006 was also the year that the amphetamine ban went into effect.
That year the number of players with a doctor’s note for “Attention Deficit Disorder” surged from 28 to 103.
I mostly agree with you about Manny’s place in history (including the racist element).
Maybe his big bat was not enough to overcome the other aspects of his game. Maybe it was. His sustained peak was great but there have been other one-dimensional hitters that hit well w/r/t to the league for 10 years and are not regarded as COG-worthy.
Goslin, Tiant, Wallace.
Not doing Manny, not doing Pettitte, not doing Brown. Rondell and Spiezio were tough, though.
Is Brown a PEDs guy? I didn’t know he was connected.
Named in the Mitchell Report.
I remember that now. I don’t necessarily think that proves anything. He was easily one of the top 5-10 pitchers of the era (Clemens, , Johnson, Maddux, Pedro, Schilling, Mussina).
There’s no way to quantify with precision the impact of PED usage on any given player. But for me, in this exercise, it’s a hard rule–I won’t vote for one. Others disagree and reach their conclusions rationally.
I’m not judging your stance, just justifying him as one of my picks. Sorry if I came across that way.
Didn’t take it that way. Brown is a special case for a lot of us literally going back a few years from the early days of the project. He’s always had a core of support, always been held over election after election, and, to date, not made it.
I’m wavering a bit on Nettles, in part because of Chipper and Rolen on the horizon but mostly because I still think Buddy Bell & Ken Boyer are more deserving. It’s close & maybe his getting in would open the door for them but that could be years from now.
And epm convinced me to reevaluate Dahlen yet again. I still feel that the era does distort the quality of play to a not insignificant extent. But it’s also true that he played much of his career with 140 game seasons and that he was a terrific player in 1891 and still a terrific player in 1908, when the game itself had made some progress. He doesn’t have much black ink in traditional offensive categories but he does in defensive categories both traditional & advanced. And he was frequently among the league leaders in offense playing a key defensive position exceptionally well.
I’m sold.
Ashburn, Tiant, Dahlen.
1. Wallace
2. Dahlen
and, oy, I’m tempted by Tiant and Brown and Allen and Nettles and Winfield and Manny.
3. Tiant
How did Manny drive in 165 in 1999?
Men On
351 PA
.377 / .470 / .743 / 1.213
RISP
241 PA
.383 / .481 / .755 / 1.237
Line Drives
93 PA
.900 / .871 / 1.244 / 2.115
The line drives are a bonus stat.
.867 BaBip on line drives!
Doug and all,
I was just thinking about how this lovely three-round island of CoG voting is coming to a close, and we won’t get to revisit it for another 11 months. And also, I was thinking about how the first vote in a year ended up giving somewhat different results than the previous voting patterns – Farrell won, Dawson fell off, etc. Naturally we lost some voters (and have a few new ones!) and I think also people changed their minds over the year off, perhaps.
On this last note of changing minds – should we have a redemption round before we wrap for the year? It would seem like a more natural thing to do just before we have a new chunk of votes, but we didn’t have one in December, so I’m wondering if we should have one to set the ballot for next year. Or, perhaps, we could have one just before the next HoF selections. Just thinking that someone like Farrell, who was on and off the ballot and always received solid-but-unspectacular support (from at least me, mosc, Voomo and Hartvig, from memory) could win the first vote back, maybe someone who isn’t currently on the ballot would have a different result with a new group of voters and some more time to think about it.
It could be that people think nobody should be back on the ballot – maybe we could introduce that as an option, like people could vote for ‘nobody’ and if it got more votes than the leading vote-getter, no one would get back on?
Just tossing out some ideas here.
If I’m not mistaken both Kenny Lofton & Edgar Martinez- and maybe some others as well- fell off of the holdover list at some point prior to being voted into the COG.
I think the most compelling reasons for a redemption round (or even 2… or 3) are 3-fold:
a) at most we are going to have 10 holdovers going into the next round and I would guess that 9 is more likely and 8 is not out of the question. In the past 12 or 13 holdovers were very common and as many as 15 or 16 were not unusual (if memory serves)
b) it looks like it might be another big year for the HOF. Hoffman and Guerrero were both over 70% this year plus the incoming class includes Chipper, Jim Thome & Scott Rolen PLUS Edgar only has a couple of years eligibility left and he was just shy of 60% this year.
Not out of the question we could have 4, or possibly even 5, spots to fill next year.
And since OUR incoming class has only Ichiro & Todd Helton at 60 WAR (actually 59.9 for Ichiro) and Derek Jeter the following year we have maybe 1 slam dunk & 1 or 2 maybe-better-than-a-coin-flip candidates on the near horizon I think we should strong consider restocking the ranks of holdovers.
I would think that we should be adding a minimum of 4 people to the holdover ranks via redemption rounds & wouldn’t be adverse to doing 5 or even 6.
I should also add that I agree with bells about voting patterns. Not only do new- or the absence of some old- voters have an impact but I think that other holdovers do as well. It’s not always the number 2 or 3 guy on the holdover list that picks up support following someone on the list getting in to the COG (or, occasionally, someone falling OFF the holdover list). We have had 3 redemption rounds since the 00’s which ended with a ridiculously strong ’03 & a deep ’00 which, as I recall, culled the ranks of holdovers considerably.
His last comment (about no one “winning” a redemption round) also made me think about something else.
A quick glance at up coming birth years shows that there are a few that I would consider to be sure things plus a few more that at a minimum deserve serious discussion but no years like ’03 (Gehrig, Gehringer, Cochrane, Carl Hubbell, Paul Waner + 3 more HOFer’s) or ’31 (Mays, Mantle, Mathews, Banks & Jim Bunning).
I think it’s reasonable to assume that multiple people will get in next year and maybe even the following but a) there’s really only 1 pretty sure thing each year and b) we are talking about the COG.
IF a number of people get in next year- say at least 3 or maybe 4- should we consider “holding” one of the positions open for an upcoming year in case the BBWAA reverts to form at some point & stops electing people?
With regard to the question of how changes in voters between Rounds 121 (2016) and 122 (2017) affected the outcome, I’ve looked at the posters who voted in those two elections and the interruption clearly hurt Brown, Goslin, and Winfield, and helped Tiant. Among Round 121 voters who did left, there were 8 Brown voters, 11 Winfield voters, and 11 Goslin voters. Among new voters (or, better, voters who did not vote in R 121), Brown and Goslin picked up 3, Winfield 2, Tiant 5, and Ferrell only 1.
Ferrell prevailed largely because for him alone among the leaders, a majority of his R 121 voters returned; all stuck with him, and 5 returning voters who had voted for Wilhelm and/or Drysdale (and who thus had an open slot from R 121) shifted to Ferrell — those 5 decided the outcome, since Ferrell had the least support among new voters among the leaders. (I guess this shows that it was the accumulated arguments for Ferrell on old strings that made the difference – the “new” voter whom Ferrell picked up wasn’t really new, just an established contributor who missed R 121.)
No one who voted for Brown or Winfield in R 121 abandoned them in R 122. Goslin and Tiant each lost a returning voter, but the effect was zero: Goslin picked up Tiant’s, and Tiant picked up Goslin’s.
I’ve always been ambivalent about Redemption Rounds — I worry that redeemed players will not last and will only spread out votes in a way that might skew results at the top. Of course, I’m aware that in the past, redemption has led players to the CoG (ones I’ve voted for, like Ferrell), and that balances my concerns.
But, frankly, it’s really clear that the CoG is not only the most popular feature of HHS, but also perhaps the one that generates the most detailed discussion. HHS needs a way to regain its old followers and gain new ones, and so anything that enriches the CoG process has my vote at this point.
With that thought in mind, let me repeat the suggestion that we think about processes to address the issue of 19th century players and Negro League stars. These are outside birtelcom’s original project, but now that we have built his CoG, I think we may do what the HoF did and address its exclusions. birtelcom wanted us to replicate the BBWAA process and, perhaps, do it better: I think we have. But the CoG now stands as an entity in itself, beyond the original process motive, and its membership represents a certain standard of player that we can use to guide an expansion into new areas with the goal of maintaining quality. Once we learn how to talk through the question, “Does this 19th century / Negro League player meet the standards of the CoG?” for one player in each category, we should be able to follow through with the same level of integrity as we’ve used in the current process.
Both a new qualification/voting process and a way to prepare ourselves to have clear presentations of more problematic data sets for 19th c. / Negro League routes into the CoG would need to be designed. For example, I think I could make semi-informed decisions about 19th century players, but not at the level of confidence I’d want, so I’d hope we could preface the voting process with discussions about how to apply our standards and look at data, while for Negro Leagues I have only spotty understanding and couldn’t vote without learning much more — I’d hope we had a few guides here who could really lead initial discussions.
We’d have to plan how to prepare, and then execute the plan. But given the interest that exists in the CoG, I think this too would enliven HHS. (I’d love to learn how to debate, for example, whether Old Hoss Radbourn belongs in the CoG before Luis Tiant.) It seems to me that keeping the CoG discussions threading at a moderate pace through to each January’s HoF vote in this way would only strengthen HHS.
I floated this idea a year ago and opal611 included these CoG additions in a list of possible projects he posted, too — one item of which has materialized with good success in Dr. Doom’s MVP re-votes. If it doesn’t seem to have appeal this time around, I’ll get off this particular soapbox and drop it off at the Salvation Army Store.
Yes. More voting rounds of all shapes and varieties, please.
I’ll float out an idea that was roundly shot down the one other time I suggested it…
… Hows about a round to vote somebody OUT of the COG?
It wouldn’t be death. Whoever is voted out would simply be put back on the holdover list.
It might be great fun to argue Larry Walker vs Sandy Koufax vs Harmon Killebrew vs Roy Campanella vs Craig Biggio vs Whitey Ford vs Enrico Pallazzo.
IF we’re going to consider voting someone out I would strongly suggest that we establish a fairly high threshold for doing so. Not only will some people object just on general principles but we do need to keep in mind that most of these guys were selected when we regularly had 60 or more people voting on a regular basis and currently we have considerably less than half that number.
One possible criterion for voting out someone might be their exclusion from Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats. The HoS attempts to do something very similar to the COG except that it’s all based on numbers, with therefore no need for voting. So, when considering whether a COG inductee might be voted out, a rule could be that if you’re also in the HoS, then you’re safe; but, if not, you might be in jeopardy.
Adam’s HoS has its own method for excluding those no longer deemed worthy. The HoS recalibrates itself with each new season, with the result that those who qualified at or near the cutoff line may find themselves below that line and out of the HoS at some future time.
A thought I had was a two-stage process to be removed from the ballot. Maybe something like:
– Poll 10% or Top 9 to get on the main ballot, then additional rounds of eligibility for polling above 25% and 50%, just as we’re doing now.
– But, if you exhaust your eligibility, you would drop into a secondary ballot where you could still collect votes, but not win COG election. If you poll 10% or Top 9 in a future election, then you return to the main ballot, where, once again, you are eligible for election in later rounds of balloting.
– Players would not drop off the secondary ballot until some maximum was reached (no more than 10), at which point the player who had been on the secondary ballot the longest would drop off to make room for the latest demotion from the main ballot.
To start it off, we might have an election to populate that secondary ballot.
Let me know what you think.
I’m not against expanding voting to include 19th Century players & the Negro Leagues but if and/or when we decide to do so I would suggest that we delay starting the process for a month or two so some of us can do some further reading on the subject. I’m familiar with most of the usual suspects but to really study up on the subject it would be nice to read as much as I can lay my hands on before we begin.
If anyone has any suggestions about good books to read (hopefully not too dry) I’d be happy to hear about them. I’ll start with a few from my own personal library:
The New Historical Baseball Abstract Bill James Good source on pre-1900 ball & both a good place to start on the Negro league PLUS it includes his rankings which might serve as a kick off point to get started. There’s a lot of overlap with version 1.0 of the book (published about 20 years prior) but there’s enough not duplicated in the pre-1900 chapters to make them worth reading.
Koppett’s Concise History of Major League Baseball Leonard Koppett Highly recommend
The Ultimate Baseball Book Okrent/Lewine Definitely worth reading
Baseball An Illustrated History Ward/Burns Good source on both pre-1900 ball & the Negro leagues
McGraw Chas. Alexander An excellent account of baseball in the 1890’s
Fifty-nine in ’84 Achorn Not exactly a page turner but filled with tons of information about baseball in the early to mid-1880’s
I Never Had It Made Jackie Robinson Great book but perhaps not a great source of information regarding other players in the Negro leagues with a few notable exceptions
Only The Ball Was White Buck O’Neill
Twenty Years Too Soon Quincey Troupe
Only The Ball Was White Robert Peterson The best book about the history of the Negro Leagues & the men that played that I’m aware of but I’d love to be challenged on this
I love to hear some recommendations from everyone else especially for sources on Negro league players prior to the 1930’s.
Meanwhile I’m going to start rereading a few of these.
This is just the sort of thing I’ve had in mind, Hartvig. I don’t think that too many HHS contributors will have the time to read a lot of these books in a short time, but if a few of us do, and figure out how to digest relevant information on historical framework and data availability in some kick-off posts, those can orient the rest of us as we start talking about initial choices and then actual votes. (Not to mention that for each of those two sets, we’d need to figure out good nomination/voting procedures; year of birth may not be the way to go – though it may be.) It’s heavier lifting than the regular CoG, and we may want to design a more gradual process.
No need to rush, if contributors decide they’d like to give it a try.
Of the two I would think that starting with the Old Timers would be the easier task for people to get up to speed on. That would give us more than 2 dozen rounds of voting to conduct during which time people could start to familiarize themselves with the Negro Leagues and even there my guess it that there will be a fair number of people familiar enough with the bigger names- Paige, Gibson, Charleston, Bell & so on- that another dozen or so rounds won’t require much heavy lifting unless for some reason we decide to make an issue out of order of induction.
I’m also thinking maybe there might be some way to expand voting back into the 20th Century players again to match the total # of HOFers selected by the various Veterans committees over the years (maybe call it the Circle Of Almost Greats, or something)
I agree that players from the 19th century would be easier for HHS readers to assess. I’m not sure, though, that there are two dozen 19th century players who belong in the CoG. In assessing whether 19th century Greats are true Circle-of Greats we face much more significant problems, such as small player pools (in some early seasons, fewer than 100 players were even on MLB rosters) and uncertain league talent levels (obviously the Union League, but also the AA in some years and the Players League – not to mention the three-league talent dilution of 1884 and 1890). I hope that we’d only choose players whom we feel confident meet current CoG standards, and avoid feeling we cannot stop a process that will elect someone that a consensus feels is not CoGworthy.
Recalling comments made about Dahlen and Wallace, it may be that there are HHS readers who, even if the issue of suitability for birtelcom’s specific project were set aside (e.g., the arguments that they were not meant for the BBWAA vote, or that birtelcom’s criteria were not meant to not permit pre-1901 records to count), still would not consider those two CoGworthy, based on the talent context (small-scale total rosters, segregation) or baseball context (not playing baseball comparable to the 20th century game). Are there any players they would consider CoGworthy, outside the original project (e.g., Ed Delahanty or Kid Nichols), or would those issues of talent context and norms of play under the rules rule out everyone, unless there were a separate 19th century wing? Obviously, I personally believe that there are a fair number of worthy players to consider, but if a consensus developed that 20th-c. CoGworthy quality had to look like Delahanty/Nichols in the 19th century, I’d be fine with a process that yielded just a few names. I think we need a process that we’d all feel comfortable with, since the ultimate goal is keeping HHS a lively forum with engaged posters. If people won’t participate because they feel the results won’t be legitimate, I think it would be better not to expand the CoG into the 19th century at all. (I suspect that the simpler alternative of a separate 19th-century CoG wing won’t engage enough posters to serve the larger purpose.)
So I think that before undertaking to consider 19th-century players as candidates for the CoG, we should consider whether alternatives to birtelcom’s selection process might better serve to keep the range of quality in the CoG more or less uniform in its range.
I just picked the 2 dozen figure from the # of players selected by the Old Timers Committee. The problem there however is that by the time they closed up shop a decade or so later is that not only had they expanded their reach to include some players who played most and in some cases all of their careers in the 20th Century. It didn’t help that they also decided that guys like Joe Tinker & Tommy McCarthy were Hall worthy but George Davis & Roger Connor were not.
So yes, 2 dozen is probably too big a number, especially if we don’t include people who were eligible for purposes of our discussion already for the COG.
And if we do include people that we have already considered for the COG are we being fair to the borderline cases who came along later?
Going to need someone with the wisdom of Solomon – or maybe Will Rogers- to figure this out.
Ah. I’d assumed the two-dozen figure was estimating the number of added birth years for players in the 1876-1899 era. Coincidence.
This round really has us confronting PEDS with a vengeance. Partly in answer to Voomo Zanzibar’s thread much earlier, I think the COG does have a consistent PED approach, as a body of voters: known PED users get hit with a penalty and they get fewer votes, and COG voters mostly ignore rumors and go with evidence. Kevin Brown is a good example for the PED penalty, if he wasn’t in the Mitchell Report, he probably would have had the extra 10% or so to win one of several COG rounds. Bonds and Clemens both got in, but with significantly lower vote totals than would be expected (I think they each got around 60% of the vote compared with say, Maddux, who got 90%+ in a similar early round). I didn’t vote for either Bonds or Clemens, but in this round I am leaning towards voting for Manny, even though he’s not quite the shoe-in I once thought he was (PEDs aside). I guess it goes back to the same thing, Bonds and Clemens never really had to face up to anything (or when they did, they got off), while Manny Ramirez did face punishment. And for that matter, Andy Pettitte came clean (after he was outed by the Mitchell Report), and he was probably too good to be one-and-done (which looks like the direction we’re heading).
I haven’t voted for Brown or any of the “known” PED users and I don’t plan to (of course, we aren’t getting another round for 11 months). Brown, I think occupies a particular space in the discussion. He’s not like Clemens and Bonds, who would be no-doubt on their stats first ballot types. He’s rather someone who would get enough votes, if clean, in a year where the competition is a little thin. His WAR would rank him in the bottom third of already-selected COG pitchers–and that’s juiced War, so it’s hard to know what his true talent level really was. It’s not unreasonable to think he was a B+/A- talent who became an A with the help of a syringe.
Mike L, I think you are right about Brown being something of a unique case (of drawbacks); I think there are enough weaknesses in his case that most voters agree with at least one (or more) of them. Having been something like the 6th or 7th best pitcher of his era can’t help much, either; although his core career value is still there. I voted for him once or twice many rounds ago, but once Tiant was on the ballot I realized he is by far my favorite among the borderline pitchers with similar career WAR.
Did Pettitte come clean? Personally, I highly doubt it and I was shocked at how easily journalists and the public fell for it. His story was completely self-serving. We don’t believe others when they come up with those sorts of stories, so why should we believe Pettitte?
I don’t remember it that well, but Pettitte’s response to being named in the Mitchell Report was more than we’ve gotten in most cases.
I guess the only full apology I can think of is Mark McGwire’s, and I know that many would say that he made the apology at least in part so that he could work for the Cardinals. I still think McGwire should get credit for it, though. If we want to put the “Steroids Era” behind us, players need to have an incentive to be honest with the public.
Here is the video of Pettitte apologizing for using HGH.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bcl_MdAYcM
__________________
Note that he used the stuff in 2002.
MLB banned it in 2005.
So what exactly are we talking about?
Dick Allen, Manny Ramirez, Andy Pettitte
Allen is probably my favorite player on our ballot, and like Manny Ramirez a hitting talent for the ages.
Manny’s hitting stats are still pretty amazing, even if not quite so spectacular in the context of the era (thanks, Voomo, and ThickieDon for a ton of great Ramirez stats and discussion above). Even though the hitting achievements can be mitigated somewhat by proven PED use, I don’t think his affinity for swinging a baseball bat came from drugs.
And I still think Pettitte is too close to be one-and-done. At least two great seasons and a whole lot of good ones might not be quite enough, but is too many for me for a player to fall right off the ballot.
Looking at these three, I am finding that I have a 30 WAA threshold for consideration, along with everything else.
I agree that Pettitte at least belongs in the discussion. If I had a vote for the HOF he would probably be on my ballot. As of now I think he falls a little short of the COG but remain open to being convinced otherwise. We are reaching the point on the talent curve where the differences among a fairly large pool of players- I guess about 3 dozen or maybe even more- are largely a matter of perspective and even a minor change to how things like WAR or Win Shares or how JAWS or Adam’s Hall of Stats does their rankings could have a big impact on how they rank some of these guys. Then add in stuff like how each individual voter views stuff like pitching vs. position players, offense vs defense, PED’s, time lost to segregation or military service, peak vs career, the era in which they played and countless other things and I would imagine that if we were to all vote on who we think our 10 biggest oversights are so far without any discussion to influence the outcome that there would be quite a bit of difference as far as who was on each list and even more disagreement in where players common to multiple lists would be ranked.
Goslin, Tiant, Winfield
My voting record shows that I’m a big Dick Allen fan. My following comments shouldn’t be a surprise based on that.
I really think a significant part of the “Troublemaker” status Allen got tagged with had to do with the Phillies organization. I’m not totally exonerating Allen, but I believe his upbringing, the time he played in, and the Phillies abysmal history on integration were the biggest factors in the reputation that followed him.
If you read the SABR BIO on Allen, you read 2 things early on that were significant, I believe, in creating the problems.
From the SABR BIO:
To say that the Phillies had a poor history with race relations would be an understatement. They were notorious for their disgraceful treatment of Jackie Robinson in 1947, and the 1950 Whiz Kids were the last National League champion without a player of color. The Phillies did not integrate until 1957, by which time every other team in the National League already had established black stars. Many of the early players of color on the Phillies were Cuban, Mexican, or Panamanian. Their first African-American player of significance was Wes Covington, acquired from the Kansas City Athletics in 1961.4
In 1963 the Phillies’ Triple-A farm club relocated from Buffalo to Little Rock, Arkansas. Without telling anyone, the Phillies decided to integrate the team. Little Rock had found itself in the middle of the civil-rights movement in 1957 after Governor Orval Faubus refused to integrate Central High School in Little Rock.
For Allen, who grew up in racially tolerant Wampum, Little Rock was a startling experience. As the first black to play there, he experienced racial segregation and pressure on a daily basis. “I didn’t know anything about the racial issue in Arkansas, and didn’t really care. Maybe if the Phillies had called me in, man to man, like the Dodgers had done with Jackie Robinson, at least I would have been prepared. Instead, I was on my own.”
Our identities are important to us, after all, it’s how we are known and very personal. This too became a career long issue. As a kid that started really liking and understanding Baseball in 1969, I wondered over the next few years why some of his Baseball cards said Richie, or Rich, or Dick. No one seemed to respect his wish to be called Dick.
Another longer excerpt from the SABR BIO:
In what would be the first of many controversies surrounding him, Allen complained about being called Richie, For whatever reason, the Phillies insisted on referring to him as Richie on all printed rosters, scorecards, and team correspondence. “To be truthful with you, I’d like to be called Dick. I don’t know how the Richie started. My name is Richard and they called me Dick in the minor leagues.”9 He added, “It makes me sound like I’m ten years old. I’m 22. … Anyone who knows me well calls me Dick. I don’t know why as soon as I put on a uniform it’s Richie.”10 The moniker stayed with him until 1966, when the Philadelphia sportswriters began referring to him as Rich Allen.
Why not call him by his real name, the one he asked to be called? Was it really that difficult?
Dick Allen became something of a Diva, at least as reported, when he was with the White Sox, and there didn’t seem to be any issues as there were with the Phillies, so maybe he got caught up in reading too many of the stories about how great a hitter he was, but I’ll keep voting for him as long as he’s eligible. I do think he belongs.
I highly this and many other bio’s at the SABR BIO site:
http://sabr.org/bioproject
Tons of great info on players well known and not so well known.
I’m not yet an Allen voter, but I began very much opposed to his candidacy and he’s now on the borderline for me. It was the SABR bio that started my change of attitude, and I agree with T-Bone that it’s valuable to read for this process.
T Bone,
Allen’s biggest problem, for the most part, was staying healthy:
1964 – 1965: misses one game playing in 162 and 161 games respectively
1966: Separates his shoulder and hits the DL. Misses approximately 20 games. Hits 317/.396/.632
1967: Plays in all 122 of the first 122 team games before he lacerates his hand tinkering with his car. 6.9 oWAR in 122 G
1968: Plays in 152 of 162. 2nd in NL OPS
1969: Plays in 53 of first 63; gets suspended and misses 31 games. Plays in all but 3 of remaining team games when Phillies’ owner Bob Carpenter promises to trade him at season’s conclusion
1970: Plays in 117 of team’s first 118 games; tears hamstring sliding into 2B. Attempts to comeback, pinch hitting, probably too soon. Plays at Connie Mack Stadium in team games 142 and 143; goes 3/5 with a HR. Gets a flight to hometown Pittsburgh, plays one game there. Calls it a season. 122 out of 162 played
1971: Played in 155 of 162 Dodger games. Starts slowly after running into a palm tree in spring training. Yeah, no kidding
1972: Played in 148 of White Sox’ first 148 games in strike-shortened season. Team is eliminated; misses final 7 games
1973: Plays in 69 of first 69 team games. Team is 1 GB in standings. Gets run over in baseline and breaks his leg.
1974: Plays in 113 of first 123 team games often sitting out 1 game of doubleheaders while batting .310/.379/.600 . Retires with ailing shoulder after playing in 15 of 20 and slashing .224/.345/.245
These were Allen’s prime years. He, basically, missed 240 games or a season and a half. He probably would have hit another 50 homers (bringing him over 400 for his career) and knocked in another 150 runs. He may have accumulated another 6-10 oWAR and another 5-8 WAR. Allen was a Hall of Fame talent and to quote James (Bill, not William or Henry), “He was probably the most talented player i have ever seen”.
Because this evening is the deadline for vote changes, I’m posting an update on the tally.
After 17 votes (David Horwich the most recent), I have these results:
=================50% (9)
8 – Goose Goslin
7 – Dick Allen, Luis Tiant
6 – Dave Winfield
5 – Kevin Brown, Bill Dahlen
=================25% (5)
4 – Manny Ramirez*
3 – Richie Ashburn*, Bobby Wallace*
2 – Andy Pettitte*
=================10% (2)
1 – Graig Nettles
As I see it, among vote-getters, only Pettitte appears in danger of dropping off, unless some votes move away from other players on the bubble.
As has been noted, it’s easier now for votes to hide from view; I’ve done my best to look for them. It would be helpful if new votes that are either cast in a response to an earlier comment or noted below the jump of a longer comment could be headlined: “VOTE.”
VOTE
Goslin, Kevin Brown, Manny Ramirez
Bill Dahlen, Graig Nettles and Kevin Brown
Goslin, Winfield, and because I don’t feel strongly about another candidate, I’m going to use my third vote as a tip of the hat to Brad Radke. He was a solid anchor of the Twins staff for years, but I didn’t realize how strong he was in terms of WAR. Voomo’s comment above about “what could have been” had Radke been in Pettitte’s situation is intriguing.
For the 1972 Part 3 election, I’m voting for:
-Manny Ramirez
-Dave Winfield
-Luis Tiant
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Pettitte
-Brown
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Wallace
-Dahlen
Thanks!
After 21 votes (opal611 the most recent), I have these results:
=================50% (11)
10 – Goose Goslin
8 – Luis Tiant, Dave Winfield
7 – Dick Allen, Kevin Brown
6 – Bill Dahlen, Manny Ramirez*
=================25% (6)
3 – Richie Ashburn*, Bobby Wallace*
=================10% (3)
2 – Graig Nettles, Andy Pettitte*
1 – Brad Radke*
Vote:
Luis Tiant, Dick Allen, Graig Nettles
And of course a huge “thank you” to Doug for fostering these recent three rounds of COG voting — much enjoyed! — and to birtlecom for having conceived this project and guiding us during its first couple years. Looking forward to next January and (I hope) another 3, or 4, or 5 rounds.
Well, better get my vote in!
Kevin Brown
Luis Tiant
Graig Nettles
I really, really don’t know how to separate these guys on the holdover list. I do think I can’t vote for Manny. Not for the steroids stuff, either. Regardless of how you feel about ‘roids, I don’t think Manny’s career backs it up. We’ve had a LOT of discussions over the years regarding Dave Winfield’s defense, and whether it could’ve possibly been bad enough to wipe out as much of his offense as WAR says. Well, Manny, I watched. I watched him in Cleveland (when my Brewers were in the AL Central and saw Cleveland a lot), and I watched him as an older player in Boston when the BoSox were on TV constantly. I don’t know what to think about Winfield’s defense, but I DO think that Manny’s was every bit as bad as WAR says. He was a clog on the bases and a huge liability on defense. The Green Monster, if anything, was very helpful to him, giving him only a tiny amount of real estate to have to cover. His hitting stats are inflated by park and era, his defense was awful and his baserunning was bad. Slam dunk Hall of Fame numbers (though the steroids thing will make his candidacy interesting). The higher standard of the COG, though? I don’t buy it. Not with the other players we’re comparing him against, anyway.
Also, shout-out to Brad Radke. There’ve been a lot of really nice things said about him on here. I want to echo those things. Brad Radke is the player who made me realize that W-L Record was not really a good way to judge pitchers. Some of those Twins teams he played on were DREADFUL. Against my Brewers, for example, Radke had a pretty great 3.01 ERA in 16 starts. Those are pretty neutral parks, so I’d guess that’s in the neighborhood of a 130-140 ERA+. Yet, he went 4-7 in those 16 starts. How do you pitch THAT well and only win a quarter of your starts? The season he won 20 games (1997 – one of the very first years I was into baseball – I was ten that whole season, and you all know how baseball is when you’re 10 years old), the Twins were really bad. I remember thinking that year that the ONLY way they were going to win was if Radke pitched. They went 23-12 in the 35 games Radke started, and 45-82 otherwise. They were so bad that if Radke had gone 35-0, they STILL would’ve had a losing record. Yet out he went, setting the tone for his career as a workhorse who ate up innings, but at a far-better-than-average effectiveness. By the time the team finally got good, Radke was worse in every way, but his W-L records got better, anyway. One of my faves from growing up, and a true pro. Sorry I can’t vote for him, but I’m glad to see his name on the ballot and to take a half-hour to look at his stats.
Goslin’s HR numbers were suppressed in the first half of his career by playing in Washington.
Here are his home and away HR numbers:
1923
1/8
1924
1/11
1925
6/12
1926
0/17 !
1927
7/6 ?
1928
4/13
1929
3/15
Interesting point, Voomo. Goslin’s other partial and full season HR splits while playing in Griffith Stadium (1921-22, 1931, 1938) were 6/10. Goslin reached mid-way during his age 29 season with a total of 27 home runs at home, with 85 away, or 24%. (Of course, he had a lot of triples – only 37% of his triples over that period were in away parks, though over his entire career, the proportion grew to 43%.)
Interestingly, Navin Field in Detroit seems to have bounced back and forth as a pitcher’s/hitter’s park during Goslin’s stay – mostly the former.
To get an idea of how profound this effect is in terms of our post-dead-ball CoG candidates, here are the percentages of lifetime HRs at home:
Allen ……… 52%
Goslin ……. 37%
Nettles ….. 55%
Ramirez …. 51%
Winfield …. 47%
(I’ve excluded Ashburn, who hit only 29 HRs in a fifteen year career, but, just for completeness, he’s Goose-like, at 41%.)
Vote:
Richie Ashburn
Kevin Brown
Goose Goslin
For offensive players I’m looking for guys who had no holes in their game.
The fellas that you’d love to clone and plug 8 of them in your lineup.
For pitchers I’m looking for dominance.
Maybe Brown had a PED boost, but we know the guys he was pitching to did as well.
Looking at his peak from 1996-2000, in that offensive era, I’ve got to give it to him.
The Brown stat I find most telling is that he is 2nd all-time in Putouts (far, far behind Maddux).
This suggests that he induced a lot of poor contact.
Voomo, don’t you find the sharp increase in Brown’s K/9 rate to be fascinating? He went from averaging about 4.5K per 9 in his first few years to almost doubling that as he aged. In 1998-2000, he finished second, second and third in Ks in the NL.
Since a lot of folks were interested in Negro League baseball (and other non-MLB baseball) there was this pretty good list on MSN the other day to serve as a primer. If it’s something you want to research on your own time, here is a cool list of guys to look up.
I’m guessing a lot of those names will be among the first we’ll be talking about but please let’s not expand this to Japanese baseball. I’m already feeling a little overwhelmed by the thought of trying to sound like I know what I’m talking about when it comes to the Negro Leagues.
I was in Kansas City for a wedding a few years back & my friends and I decided that we would go eat at Arthur Bryants & visit the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum on Sunday before we drove back to Iowa since our hotel wasn’t too far from there. Unfortunately when we got there it turned out that the national NAACP convention was also in KC that weekend and both places were packed to overflowing. I hope to get back someday.
Wallace, Tiant, Pettitte
I think Andy at least deserves to stick around for another ballot.
Doug’s early a.m. vote has made this final CoG round of the young year a horse race going into the final day. Those who saved their votes until today will determine the outcome.
After 25 votes, I have these results:
=================50% (12)
11 – Goose Goslin, Luis Tiant
9 – Kevin Brown
8 – Dick Allen, Dave Winfield
6 – Bill Dahlen, Manny Ramirez*
=================25% (6)
4 – Richie Ashburn*, Graig Nettles, Bobby Wallace*
3 – Andy Pettitte*
=================10% (3)
1 – Brad Radke*
If you look at JAWS Tiant (55.6) is right in the middle of a group of pitchers who have been the subject of many a discussion and debate on HHS. The highest scoring of those pitcher is Rick Reuschel (56.9) and between him & Louie are Kevin Brown, Don Drysdale, Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing & Vic Willis. Once you get past Reuschel pretty much everyone eligible is in the COG with the sole exception of Hal Newhouser. Just behind Tiant are Joe McGinnity, Stan Coveleski & Jim Bunning and a trio of COGer’s, Dazzy Vance, John Smoltz and Rube Waddell.
When you consider other factors I don’t see how a spread of about 5% (from less than 57 to more than 54) in the scoring can be considered in any way definitive.
The case for Tiant in the Hall of Stats is stronger. In Adam’s system Louie (130) scores lower than Reuschel & Brown (137 & 138 respectively) but ahead of everyone else I mentioned in the JAWS paragraph.
JAWS views Goslin as just behind COGer (and brand new HOFer) Tim Raines & just ahead of Manny Ramirez. His 54.7 score is just shy of the top 119 (or whatever it was) which was about midway between 55 & 56, as I recall.
The HOS has Manny about 10% ahead of the Goose (129 to 117) with Raines coming in at 128.
Basically I don’t see either ranking system as offering a definitive case either for or against either of them beyond the fact that they belong in the discussion. This is where things like post-season performance, how they were viewed at the time that they played, peak vs career, the eras in which they played, or even just what kind of a person they were and any of a million other different factors come in to play.
My 2 pesos are on El Tiante.
Where they ranked in WAR in their leagues in their best five years
(note that there were less players in Goslin’s time, but there are more position players than pitchers, so it evens out):
Goslin (WAR Position):
1928 … 3rd
1926 … 3rd
1925 … 3rd
1924 … 3rd
1927 … 7th
Tiant (WAR Pitchers)
1968 … 1st
1974 … 3rd
1972 … 4th
1976 … 6th
1978 … 7th
Goslin has a notable longevity accomplishment.
He had 125+ RBI seasons at ages 23 and 35.
I’ve looked at the top 50 RBI guys. Nobody else has done 125 at those two ages (or younger/older).
Just a handful of guys have even done 100.
Only fella to come close is Pujols, who got there with his 119 last year at age 36.
Also close was Aaron
(132 at 23, then 118 at 36 and 37)
And McGwire
(118 at 23, then 147 at 35)
I love Goslin, Voomo, and he has my vote here, but he did have the advantage of playing in an era where teams, including his, were scoring 6 runs per game, and someone had to knock them in. In ’36, with Greenberg sidelined, Goslin had a shot that Pujols, Aaron, and McGwire would not get.
Hank Greenberg had 139 RBI at age 23 and 127 RBI at age 35.
And 125th all-time in RBI.
Damn WWII
All in all Greenberg missed nearly five and a half seasons, if you include 1936 when he was injured. He spent more time in uniform than any other big-leaguer during WW II, and he and Bob Feller, who missed over three and a half seasons, are, to my mind, not nearly appreciated at the level they ought to be as a result, unlike DiMaggio and Williams.
David Ortiz’s last season at age 40 is easily the oldest with 125+ RBI, three years older than Babe Ruth and Edgar Martinez.
Ortiz is also the first player at any age with 125 RBI in his final season. The previous high RBI total in a final season (excl. Black Sox) was 99 by Kirby Puckett, at age 35, and the previous final season RBI high aged 40+ was 75 by George Brett (three more than Ted Williams).
Goslin
Ashburn
Allen
I’m submitting this vote at 11:58 EST Friday February 17th, only if there remains a tie between Goslin and Tiant.
I’ve always refrained from voting in the COG elections prior to this time, thinking the role of commentator and devil’s advocate more suited my outlook. But in this instance I feel strongly enough that Goslin is the best player on the ballot, as he was on the last ballot but one and a couple of others, that I’m departing from my usual practice, something I’m unlikely to do again, considering my overview that at least 25 or 30 candidates, either on the ballot now or at one time, all have about the same credentials, meaning that the selection process in the absence of a Chipper Jones-like player has become more of a turkey shoot than an elevation of the best player.
I have a further reasons for taking this action: 1) To avoid a run-off; past run-offs have elected the inferior player every time, according to my perspective. 2) To get Goslin out of the way for everyone else so that his perpetual high number of votes can be distributed in future elections to other candidates.
We are reaching the point on the curve where it becomes much more difficult to differentiate between who is worthy & who is not. It could easily be argued that the BBWAA’s instincts to be less inclusive was right all along. Unfortunately the various muddled voting processes that have been employed and not-nearly-infrequent-enough flights of dubious judgement (yes to Rabbit Maranville and Bruce Sutter but no to Arky Vaughan and Ron Santo) have pretty much ensured that things would get to where they have.
Good observation. Basically, except when we add a newbie like Chipper, we are down to people in the 60-69 WAR club. And some of those players have additional issues, like PEDS. I’m not necessarily a small-COG Hall type, but when someone gets in on his 34th time on the ballot….
I see it a little differently. I think we’ve reached the threshold of the CoG, and there are quite a few players crowded around the edge, some in, some out. These guys all define the hazy edge of the circle – you can’t expect that line to be bright. Tighten your criteria and you’ll still have a crowd at the edge, the edge will just be in a different spot and we’ll be having exactly the same argument.
I’m a small Hall guy, but the size of the CoG wasn’t our task: the idea was to end up with the most deserving 121 (now 124) players. I think the type of arguments we’ve been having are generally signs that we’ve done that task well. We’ve had very few “What a crazy pick!” type objections. The arguments have been complicated by different views of turn-of-the century ball, the exceptional case of Paige, and by PED issues, mostly around Brown, where, despite our civility, we’ve really disagreed strongly, but those cases are extraneous to the basic assessments we’re doing. We have some members in the CoG who are statistically out of line (e.g., Ford, Gordon, Koufax, Campanella), but they were were voted in on the basis of reasonable arguments that acknowledged the statistical issues – voters disagreed about how to weigh special factors, but everyone attended to the logic of the arguments, both pro and con. Unlike the BBWAA Hall, I think that we’ve excluded no player out of arbitrary thinking, and included only those solid enough to say that the Circle is, so to speak, free of ringers.
Definitely wasn’t suggesting anything was done in an arbitrary way. And very appreciative of the in-depth, well-presented advocacy done by a remarkably cohesive and civil group. My point was more along the lines that we have now moved into an area where everyone has been considered, and the new people we select are on that “hazy edge” you describe. We will obviously end up with a much smaller Hall than the real Hall, which, almost by definition, makes it more selective. Picking Goslin doesn’t bother me in the least. If I have only one regret (not as a function of either the group or methodology) it’s my inability to properly evaluate players from the early years of baseball.
On the plus side, we are now limited by the BBWAA vote and even if they eventually elect everyone who’s gotten over 45% on their holdover list (Hoffman, Guerrero, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Mussina & Schilling) plus everyone on upcoming ballots with over 65 WAR (Jones, Thome & Rolen in 2018; Halladay (rounding up) and Rivera (reliever exception) in 2019; Derek Jeter in 2020; no one (Tim Hudson?) in 2021) , all of which is probably a long shot, we’ll have an average of 3 spots a year to fill.
Meanwhile we’ll have Ichiro & Todd Helton born in 73, Jeter & Abreu in 74, ARod and Vald in 75 & nobody in 76 all coming on board.
My best guess is that in reality in the next 4 years is that the BBWAA actually select maybe 8 people & possibly fewer and that 2 (ARod & Jeter) & probably 3 (Ichiro) of the newcomers are sure things.
So we’ll have probably 4 or 5 guys off of the holdover & any possible redemption rounds to consider.
Yeah it’s getting tougher to differentiate between most of these guys and maybe we are getting into some real grey areas but in our defense I’d also have to say that a) we’ve also not chosen any really indefensible clinkers nor do we have any glaringly obvious oversights and b) this also kind of mimics part of the current role of the Veterans Committee and I’d say we’re doing at least as good a job as they plus c) it’s fun so why not keep doing it.
I’ve let a little extra time go by (I had a different final tabulation ready to paste a few seconds before 11:59, so I’ve let twenty-five more minutes elapse to be sure), and it appears nsb has made a splashy voter debut, finally encircling the Goose with the Greats.
After 26 votes, I have these results:
=================50% (13)
12 – Goose Goslin
11 – Luis Tiant
9 – Dick Allen, Kevin Brown
8 – Dave Winfield
=================25% (7)
6 – Bill Dahlen, Manny Ramirez*
5 – Richie Ashburn*
4 – Graig Nettles, Bobby Wallace*
3 – Andy Pettitte*
=================10% (3)
1 – Brad Radke*
Convinced that a run-off was in the works, I’d postponed a last argument for the Goose, a perfectly meaningless one that I thought might leaven a discussion where not much was left to be said: In electing Goslin, we have honored the only man who played every inning of every postseason game in the history of a 60 year-long franchise (or, if you prefer, of the 71 year-long team name). I’m sure there are some members of the 1944 Browns who would welcome some attention for their lesser feat, but I believe Goslin’s complete set of 180 Washington Senators World Series innings, stretched over ten seasons, is a peerless accomplishment.
Was trying to think of players with a longer span of years than the 8 by Goslin (and Ossie Bluege and Buddy Myer) between consecutive World Series appearances for the same franchise. These are the ones I found:
16 years – Babe Adams (1909 & 1925 Pirates)
14 years – Tony Gwynn (1984 & 1998 Padres)
11 years – Roberto Clemente, Bill Mazeroski (1960 & 1971 Pirates)
9 years – Warren Spahn (1948 & 1957 Braves), Travis Jackson, Bill Terry (1924 & 1933 Giants)
Any others?
11 … Dwight Evans (Boston)
Jim Rice missed the ’75 series with a broken hand.
Ken Griffey Sr might have had a 14 year gap, but he was released by the Reds in late August of 1990.
Jake Stahl deserves an honorable mention. Was a backup catcher on the 1903 Americans but did not appear in the series (his SABR bio notes his disappointment at being passed over as a pinch-hitter a couple of times, so he evidently was in uniform and could have played). He found his way back to Boston 9 years later as a first baseman, playing all but one-third of an inning for the victorious 1912 Red Sox.
Jim Maloney was on the 1961 and 1970 Reds but was injured most of the latter season, came back in September … and was dreadful. So, didn’t play in the post-season, and was dealt to the Angels during the winter.
And, if Stan Musial had played one more season, he could have made it 18 years for the Cards.
I was regretting the fact that Stahl didn’t qualify and I’m glad you mentioned him, Doug. His role as player-manager of a team with arguably the most dramatic WS win ever is generally overlooked because of his short tenure.
Just a final note — I hope that the high volume of activity on these CoG strings might be a good argument for moving on to a discussion on a dedicated string about how we could expand the CoG (19th century, Negro Leagues, and maybe etc.). The CoG has taken on a life of its own and to enlarge on birtelcom’s monument I think it would be important to discuss various ways in which that might happen and see whether there are formats and procedures that HHS regulars would feel comfortable with. While I believe expansion would be fun and very good for the site, it’s the sort of project that I think would require a certain level of advance buy-in.
Agree on all counts, epm.
As one of the more vocal anti-Old-Timers among the regulars, I’d like to clarify my position. I’m not against honoring some of those players, particularly if we had a special “committee” to do it. But if we do so, we have to be crystal-clear about who counts and who doesn’t. Additionally, I want to make sure we’re limiting the number of players we pick. The COG (as it stands) has a natural cap of players. I REALLY don’t think we need to elect 25 guys from the 19th century, though. Putting aside quality of play issue, considering the size of MLB in the 19th century, we’d be effectively letting in 4 times as many players per capita as we’ve been letting into the COG so far. I really think we’d need to pick a small number (I’m thinking 5-10, and I would personally rather err on the side of fewer), so that we honor the Kid-Nichols-types, but not every single pitcher who played in the 1880s. I also would want to know where players such as the ones on our current ballot “belong.” I don’t want to see a situation like Cy Young faced, wherein clearly half the BBWAA thought he belonged to the OTC, and the OTC thought he belonged to the BBWAA. I want the right folks in, and IF we’re going to find a way to honor players from the days of yore, I’d REALLY rather see Dahlen or Wallace in than an inferior player who happens to not be “trapped” between eras. This will mean a lot of discussion and possibly work.
As for Negro League players, I’m fine with the idea of using the HOF’s number of players. But I almost wonder if we shouldn’t engage certain regulars in forming some sort of Committee – just like the real Hall did. They could pick players, and just write up pieces on them. Frankly, I don’t feel the need to vote on players – I just like the content and discussion generated at this site. Voting for things is fun, but I’m really here for the baseball and discussion. If we can get that by someone penning an essay on Satchel Paige, I really don’t feel the need to have voted on him.
Finally, regarding Negro League baseball, I’m sure most of you are aware of this, but there IS a database out there of (very incomplete) statistical information. You certainly aren’t going to find EVERYTHING, because that doesn’t exist. But, to date and that I’m aware of, this is the most complete record of Negro League statistics out there. It’s a fun way to lose some hours if you desire a break from baseball-reference.
Doom, I don’t disagree with you on a single point. I also think that the idea of people writing up a few pieces on key issues in 19th century baseball would be appropriate too, focused on issues like what changes of rules, equipment, playing conditions, etc., do we need to bear in mind for each stretch of the pre-1901 era. There are really multiple periods in the fast-evolving game, running up to the big transition of 1893 and beyond, and I think it wouldn’t hurt to have some strings that prompt discussion about what we’re looking for, for example, in the true pioneer days (1871/76-1881, small, one-league, short-season era), the multiple-league era (1882-1891), and the era from the “modernization” of 1893 on. How should our procedures allow us to make the best of a basket of apples and oranges?
A while back I read quite a bit about early baseball, mostly in the ’70s and ’80s – and then later through Bill James’s discussions in the historical abstract – and I feel sort of informally oriented. But I’ve never organized my thinking about these issues with a notion of seriously appraising players, while I’ve been doing precisely that for post-1900 players on and off for sixty years. I expect we have a few contributors who are much more familiar with early base-ball than I, and perhaps a few who have never really taken an interest in pre-1901 ball.
That’s a great link for Negro League stats. For those leagues, I’d definitely want to do what Hartvig suggested and browse some books so I could get a feel for different eras and leagues.
That 1912 series was quite something. Boston won 4-3 with one tie game, winning their four games by a total of 5 runs, Twice they came back when behind in extra innings, in game 2 to force the eventual tie, and in the final game for the win.
That tied second game featured a 3-run 8th inning by the Giants to take a 5-4 lead. But Boston answered with a singleton in the bottom of the inning, scored on an error by Giant shortstop Art Fletcher. The Giants threaten in the 9th but leave the bases loaded, then take the lead in the 10th after McGraw pinch-hits for Fletcher with Moose McCormick, who delivers a sac fly. With one out in the bottom of the inning, Tris Speaker triples and then scores when the throw home gets away from catcher Art Wilson, just into the game as a result of McGraw’s pinch-hit move in the top of the frame. Wilson was tagged with an error and Speaker’s run was unearned despite the next batter hitting a double, which tells me that Speaker was foolishly trying to stretch his hit for a homer and would likely have been out had the catcher handled the throw. But, sometimes audacity overcomes folly. They played one more scoreless frame before darkness supervened (maybe rain also delayed proceedings, since the playing time of the game was only 2½ hours).
The game 8 (really game 7) comeback in the 10th inning started with a dropped flyball by centerfielder Fred Snodgrass (first Merkle, then Snodgrass – what is it about Freds and bad luck for the Giants?) that resulted in both Boston runs that inning being unearned (by Engle, because he reached on the muff, and by Yerkes after two were out in the inning). Interesting handling of the pitching staff by 33 year-old player-manager Stahl. Smoky Joe Wood was his horse, getting three starts, including the previous game to close out the series, But, after winning games 1 and 4 (really 3) Wood was lit up in game 7 (really 6), allowing 6 Giant runs in the first inning. Then, the next day, Stahl lifts starter Bedient in the 7th for a pinch-hitter who promptly drives in the tying run (scored by Stahl). So, Stahl goes back to Wood who gets through the 8th and 9th unscathed before giving up the go-ahead run in the 10th on an RBI single by … Fred Merkle.
Freddy Sanchez broke the curse in 2010.
Interestingly, there were no players on both the 1945 and 2016 Cubs.
But those teams are linked by Cub great Ferguson Jenkins who pitched to both Hank Aaron and Rickey Henderson.
Aaron was a teammate of ’45 Cub Andy Pafko on the 1950s Braves teams, and Henderson was a teammate of ’16 Cub David Ross on the 2003 Dodgers.
Larry Andersen for the 1983 and 1993 Phillies.
Good one. Never thought to check that combo.
Another asterisk would be Eddie Collins (1914 and 1929 A’s). Though he did not appear in the 1929 Series, given his usage as an occasional PH that season by the A’s, I would guess that he was a coach on that team and probably was available to PH if needed in the WS (he had no hits in 9 plate appearances that season, so he probably wasn’t at the top of Connie Mack’s list of pinch hitters)