This post is for voting and discussion in the 132nd round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This is the last of four rounds of balloting adding to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes those players born in 1974. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group of 1974-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 fourth group of 1974-born candidates, comprising those with P-Z surnames, joins the eligible holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to appear on your ballots.
In addition to voting for COG election among players on the main ballot, there will be also be voting for elevation to the main ballot among players on the secondary ballot. For the main ballot election, voters must select three and only three eligible players, with the one player appearing on the most ballots cast in the round inducted into the Circle of Greats. For the secondary ballot election, voters may select up to three eligible players, with the one player appearing on the most ballots cast elevated to the main ballot for the next COG election round. In the case of ties, a runoff election round will be held for COG election, while a tie-breaking process will be followed to determine the secondary ballot winner.
Players who fail to win either ballot 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. One additional round of eligibility is earned by any player who appears on at least 10% of the ballots cast or, for the main ballot only, any player finishing in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances. Holdover candidates on the main ballot who exhaust their eligibility will drop to the secondary ballot for the next COG election round, as will first time main ballot candidates who attract one or more votes but do not earn additional main ballot eligibility. Secondary ballot candidates who exhaust their eligibility will drop from that ballot, but will become eligible for possible reinstatement in a future Redemption round election.
All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, March 17th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Friday, March 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 1974 Part 4 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-1974 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 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 1974 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:
| MAIN BALLOT | ELIGIBILITY | SECONDARY BALLOT | ELIGIBILITY |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luis Tiant | 8 rounds | Willie Randolph | 10 rounds |
| Dick Allen | 7 rounds | Rick Reuschel | 9 rounds |
| Manny Ramirez | 7 rounds | Todd Helton | 8 rounds |
| Bill Dahlen | 5 rounds | Bobby Abreu | 2 rounds |
| Graig Nettles | 3 rounds | Stan Coveleski | 2 rounds |
| Bobby Wallace | 3 rounds | Monte Irvin | 2 rounds |
| Ted Lyons | 2 rounds | Minnie Minoso | 2 rounds |
| Don Sutton | 2 rounds | Andy Pettitte | 2 rounds |
| Richie Ashburn | this round ONLY | Ken Boyer | this round ONLY |
| Andre Dawson | this round ONLY | Hideki Matsui | this round ONLY |
| Dennis Eckersley | this round ONLY | Bengie Molina | this round ONLY |
| Ted Simmons | this round ONLY | Reggie Smith | this round ONLY |
Everyday Players (born in 1974, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR, P-Z surname):
Miguel Tejada
Shannon Stewart
Randy Winn
Richie Sexson
Jose Vidro
Preston Wilson
Pitchers (born in 1974, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR, P-Z surname):
Jamey Wright
Jarrod Washburn
Glendon Rusch
Ugueth Urbina
Luis Vizcaino
Mark Redman
As is our custom with first time candidates, here is a factoid and related quiz question on each of the new players on the ballot.
- Jamey Wright’s career spanned 19 years, but he played in the post-season in just one of those seasons. Which contemporary of Wright’s had a longer pitching career and never played in the post-season?
- Miguel Tejada played 1152 consecutive games from 2000 to 2007, a span that included six seasons of 30 doubles, 20 HR and 100 RBI, the most for any shortstop. Who was the first shortstop to record such a season? (Joe Cronin, 1940)
- Shannon Stewart is the only Blue Jay to record consecutive seasons (2000-01) batting .300 with 20 stolen bases and 60 extra-base hits. Who is the only player to match that feat for Toronto’s expansion cousins in Seattle? (Alex Rodriguez, 1997-98)
- Randy Winn played 400 games for the Rays, Mariners and Giants. Which other player played 400 games for two of those franchises? (Omar Vizquel)
- Jarrod Washburn posted a .568 W-L% thru age 30 but only .381 after, despite maintaining a respectable 100 ERA+ in the later period. Who is the only expansion era pitcher to experience a larger such W-L% drop among those, like Washburn, with 1000 IP thru age 30 and 600 IP after? (Roy Oswalt)
- Jose Vidro is the Expos/Nats franchise leader in games played at 2B. Which one-time Expos second baseman recorded the most 2B games for the expansion Senators franchise before it relocated to Texas? (Bernie Allen)
- Richie Sexson played 1B for every inning of every game for the 2003 Brewers. Before Sexson, which first baseman was the last to do this for his team? (Mickey Vernon, 1953)
- Glendon Rusch’s 5.04 ERA is the fourth highest career mark of any pitcher with 200 starts. Among such pitchers playing their entire careers in the 20th century, who had the highest career ERA? (Herm Wehmeier)
- Luis Vizcaino is one of 22 retired pitchers with fewer than 10 saves in a career including 500 relief appearances. Who is the only pitcher in that group to finish fewer than 100 games in his career? (Ray King)
- Ugueth Urbina is the only major leaguer whose first and last names both begin with the letter U. What is the only major league battery with both players having a U surname? (Cecil Upshaw/Bob Uecker, 1967 Braves)
- Mark Redman recorded at least 29 starts for five consecutive seasons (2002-06), each with a different team. For his career, Redman toiled for eight franchises, the most by a pitcher with 200 starts in a career of ten or fewer seasons. Which pitcher with 300 starts has played for the most franchises? (Edwin Jackson)
- Preston Wilson‘s 2000 season featured the rare trifecta of 30 doubles, 30 HR and 30 stolen bases. Which player did the same and, like Wilson, led his league in strikeouts? (Bobby Bonds, 1973)
I’ll take the easiest one off the board first:
3. Alex Rodriguez, 1997-98
Q 10, Cecil Upshaw and Bob Uecker?
That’s it, on the 1967 Braves.
For Question 4, Vizquel definitely played 400 for both the Mariners and Giants.
Vote:
Richie Ashburn
Dennis Eckersley
Ted Lyons
Bobby Abreu
Willie Randolph
Rick Reuschel
The obvious guess for Question 12 is Bobby Bonds, so why not. I’ll guess Bobby Bonds.
Bonds leads everyone with 9 seasons of 20 HR + 30 SB. His son is second with 7 seasons. Nobody else has more than 4.
Question #7: I’l try Mickey Vernon in 1953.
Correct. Vernon also did it in 1942 and 1947.
In all, there were 34 such pre-expansion seasons by first basemen, but Sexson is the only one to do it in the expansion era.
Here’s the entire list.
1902 ….. Americans ………… Candy LaChance
1903 ….. Americans ………… Candy LaChance
1904 ….. Americans ………… Candy LaChance
1906 ….. Pirates ………… Joe Nealon
1907 ….. White Sox ………… Jiggs Donahue
1907 ….. Browns ………… Tom Jones
1911 ….. Cardinals ………… Ed Konetchy
1912 ….. Athletics ………… Stuffy McInnis
1917 ….. Yankees ………… Wally Pipp
1919 ….. Reds ………… Jake Daubert
1920 ….. Giants ………… High Pockets Kelly
1921 ….. White Sox ………… Earl Sheely
1925 ….. Cardinals ………… Jim Bottomley
1926 ….. Red Sox ………… Phil Todt
1928 ….. Robins ………… Del Bissonette
1929 ….. Braves ………… George Sisler
1932 ….. Pirates ………… Gus Suhr
1933 ….. Pirates ………… Gus Suhr
1934 ….. Indians ………… Hal Trosky
1934 ….. Browns ………… Jack Burns
1934 ….. Cardinals ………… Ripper Collins
1935 ….. Tigers ………… Hank Greenberg
1935 ….. Phillies ………… Dolph Camilli
1936 ….. Dodgers ………… Buddy Hassett
1938 ….. Reds ………… Frank McCormick
1940 ….. White Sox ………… Joe Kuhel
1940 ….. Tigers ………… Rudy York
1941 ….. Tigers ………… Rudy York
1942 ….. Senators ………… Mickey Vernon
1944 ….. Yankees ………… Nick Etten
1947 ….. Senators ………… Mickey Vernon
1948 ….. White Sox ………… Tony Lupien
1951 ….. Dodgers ………… Gil Hodges
1953 ….. Senators ………… Mickey Vernon
2003 Brewers ………… Richie Sexson
Ironic that Wally Pipp did it, but not his ironman successor Lou Gehrig.
I was thinking that Prince Fielder had done this as well. In 2009, he played 1431 out of 1435 defensive innings at first. Close, but no cigar. Casey McGehee had the other 4 innings.
I should probably be jumping for joy or something… but my main problem right now is that, for the first time in like 130 rounds, my ballot doesn’t have one spot already filled. Don’t get me wrong – I’m pretty ecstatic about the election of Brown, and I hate to re-litigate… but I’m sincerely interested in people’s arguments. Who is the BEST candidate on the ballot right now? I promise to read, as non-prejudicially as possible, any replies below this post, because after, like FIVE years of advocacy, my guy got in, and my ballot is open. I have inklings, but I’d like to hear from the community. And yes, I know we’ve done this a thousand times, but what’s one more? I know that, over the years, I’ve been persuaded to become a “yes” on Graig Nettles, Wes Ferrell, Satchel Paige, and perhaps others, though it’s hard to remember at this point. I’d really appreciate the help and guidance. Thanks, everyone!
Congratulations on your fierce advocacy. My problem with this group is identical to my problem with the last group–a lack of excitement with the choices. No new blood.
2. Glenn Wright ?
Q. 2: It looks like it’s Joe Cronin in 1940. Glenn Wright came close in 1930 with 28 2B, 22 HR and 126 RBI. Also Arky Vaughan in 1935 with 34 2B, 19 HR and 99 RBI.
Thanks Richard…… top of my head guess. Going backward, I thought “Vern Stephens”, “nah” then Cronin, remembered Vaughn never hit 20 homers and guessed Wright since one of those years with the Pirates or Dodgers had to be it…..and that would be incorrect 🙁
Dawson
Nettles
Eckersley
If Simmons drops off I don’t think we’ll forget about him and I’m starting to want Munson more.
Irvin
Randolph
Pettitte
Just some thoughts on some of the newcomers:
Jamey Wright: an ever-present reminder of the teams I grew up rooting for that routinely lost 100 games. Ah, late-90s and early-aughts Brewers; I don’t miss you at all.
Miguel Tejada: Tejada averaged 158 games played from 1999-2010, and that’s in spite of missing 29 games in ONE season. He sure was good at staying in the lineup and hitting baseballs very hard. He was less good at walking, avoiding double plays, and playing shortstop. Back when Melvin Mora was batting .340 and winning a batting title, having those two as the left side of the infield was pretty darn good for the O’s. Brian Roberts and Rafael Palmeiro actually made for just a plain good infield. Of course, the rest of the team was terrible, so they never had a winning record in Tejada’s four years. His traditional and sabermetric stats are uniformly too low for the COG and even the HOF, but it was a great career (chemically-aided though it surely was).
Shannon Stewart: My wife is a huge Twins fan. Her most hardcore fandom was from 2002-2004. So in our house, Shannon Stewart was a Twin, not a Blue Jay. Anyway, there’s one plan to get the Twins over that Yankees hump that never quite panned out… much like literally every other such plan.
Ugueth Urbina – What a great name. He saved two and blew one for the ’03 Marlins in the Series.
Preston Wilson – Now here’s one of those guys with a lot of value in fantasy leagues, but less value for MLB teams. He’s very Joe Carter that way. 60+ XBH three times, 50+ a couple more (80 one year – of course, that was Colorado in 2003, but still). Overall, 40% of his hits went for extra bases. He won an RBI title. League-average or better batting averages (in his prime anyway; roughly 1999-2003). A guy you’d want in fantasy baseball, particularly with CF eligibility every year. Of course, he was an atrocious CF and was so bad at taking a walk that, even in Colorado, with a batting average +.020 better than the league, he managed a barely-league-average OBP. Thus: 6.4 WAR in over 1100 career games. Sure, there may be players with 1000+ games played, less career WAR, and/or more than his 189 career HR, but that 29.5:1 ratio of HR to WAR is bad (seriously, if anyone with a PI subscription wants to look it up, I’d love to know how many have actually done worse). For comparison’s sake, it’s 20.2:1 for Joe Carter, a similar player with a better career; 25.5:1 for Dave Kingman, 26.6:1 for Adam Dunn, 16.7:1 for Rob Deer. The only player worse I find was the still-active(!!!) Mark Reynolds, at 34.6:1.
Doom,
” “Back when Melvin Mora was batting .340 and winning a batting title, having those two as the left side of the infield was pretty darn good for the O’s. Brian Roberts and Rafael Palmeiro actually made for just a plain good infield. Of course, the rest of the team was terrible, so they never had a winning record in Tejada’s four years”
WOULD HAVE THAT ENTIRE INFIELD BENEFITED FROM THE ADVANCEMENT IN PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS?
To answer my own question, Roberts, Palmeiro tested positive, I believe Tejada dis as well….. and did not Mora have a “late peak” or “find himself” relatively late? Small sample size here but, I guess Canseco and Caminiti weren’t kidding with those estimates between “50%” and “80%”.
Too bad they weren’t sharing with the outfield, then, isn’t it?
My other snark-loaded option was this one: Hey, it’s almost as if it was a problem MLB-wide, and not just isolated to a few people, isn’t it?
“” it’s almost as if it was a problem MLB-wide, and not just isolated to a few people, isn’t it? “”
Yes, but here we only concern ourselves with the cheaters eligible for the CoG
As Chuck Knoblauch’s case proves, steroids did not benefit every user. Success depended on the drugs chosen, the talent of the trainer or other individual deciding dosage and frequency, and the particular body response of the player. Even if every player in the steroid era turns out to have been taking steroids, we can’t know the degree to which the on-field results were the product of each player’s talents and training or of their trainer’s pharmaceutical skills.
Knoblauch? Garlic? Who knew?
Doom,
I checked…….Jay Gibbons and David Segui both were users with middling results. Gibbons had one good year but I believe Segui had a low-testosterone note from his doctor
Bill Dahlen, Ted Lyons and Ted Simmons. Minnie Minoso, Andy Pettitte & Ken Boyer. I’m pressed for time right now, but Dahlen was a great player; I am very surprised he’s not already in. Lyons just missed getting in yesterday, and Simmons was the fifth or sixth best hitting catcher in the 20th century—quite overlooked by both HOF voters and, so far, COG voters. Lots of great points made in the Lyons/Kevin Brown debate.
There are 45 players with 3000+ PA and a higher HR/WAR ratio than Preston Wilson. Leader is Jim Presley with a ratio of 450. Of course players with negative WAR are factored out.
I may be the only one who doesn’t buy into Ted Simmons as COG material, but that won’t stop me from presenting my reasons:
Simmons: PA 9685 WAR 50.3 dWAR 5.2 OPS+ 118
Fisk: ——–PA 9853 WAR 68.5 dWAR 17.0 OPS+ 117
Munson: —PA 5905 WAR 46.1 dWAR 11.9 OPS+ 116
Schang: —-PA 6432 WAR 45.0 dWAR 3.5 OPS+ 117
Lombardi:–PA 6352 WAR 45.9 dWAR 2.9 OPS+ 126
In terms of career length, Simmons is most comparable to Carlton Fisk, the only player listed currently in the COG. Fisk’s career WAR is 18.2 higher than Simmons, and his dWAR is over three times higher.
The trio of Munson, Schang, and Lombardi, in 2/3 of Simmons’ appearances or fewer, all came within 4-5 WAR of his total.
WAR/PA:
COG members
Bench .0086
Carter .0078
Rodriguez: .0067
Fisk .0070
Piazza .0077
Berra .0071
Dickey .0079
Cochrane .0084
Hartnett .0073
Campanella .0071
—————–
Simmons .0052
—————–
Munson .0078
Schang .0070
Lombardi .0072
Freehan .0065
Tenace .0085
Posada .0060
Bresnahan .0076
Porter .0062
Burgess .0066
Sundberg .0059
I know that long careers are worth something, so here are the WARs for the four catchers with 9000+ PAs, three in the COG:
Carter 70.1
Rodriguez 68.7
Fisk 68.5
Simmons 50.1
If Simmons came even close to the other COG catchers, I wouldn’t be making this argument, but his stats are so vastly below what the others have put up—and in truth they’re not as good by quite a bit as a number of non-COG players with shorter careers—that I have to protest.
Long careers are worth a lot. Here are some actual numbers on Simmons: in the 10 seasons from 1971 thru 1980 his OPS+ ranged from 114 to 148. After a down year in 1981, he came back with two more big years in 1982-83, delivering OPS+es of 112 and 126. In 82 & 83 Simmons drove in a combined 205 runs!! Keep in mind we’re talking 1971 to 1983 here; not 1994 to 2018. For the entire 12 seasons mentioned above Simmons averaged 92.3 RBI’s per year, AS A CATCHER!! In the seasons from 71-80, plus 82, Simmons averaged 134 games a year behind the plate. He also averaged 11 games per season at other positions, mainly first base and outfield. Nearly all of the above seasons were in the NL. It wasn’t until 1983 with Milwaukee that he logged significant playing time as a DH. SIMMONS WAS A GREAT HITTING CATCHER, WHO DESERVES OUR SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. Thanks. Bruce G.
Long careers are worth a lot. Here are some actual numbers on Simmons: in the 10 seasons from 1971 thru 1980 his OPS+ ranged from 114 to 148. After a down year in 1981, he came back with two more big years in 1982-83, delivering OPS+es of 112 and 126. In 82 & 83 Simmons drove in a combined 205 runs!! Keep in mind we’re talking 1971 to 1983 here; not 1994 to 2018. For the entire 12 seasons mentioned above Simmons averaged 92.3 RBI’s per year, AS A CATCHER!! In the seasons from 71-80, plus 82, Simmons averaged 134 games a year behind the plate. He also averaged 11 games per season at other positions, mainly first base and outfield. Nearly all of the above seasons were in the NL. It wasn’t until 1983 with Milwaukee that he logged significant playing time as a DH. Thanks. Bruce G.
Sorry that second entry occurred. I’m writing from the middle of the Pacific Ocean and the internet service is spotty. Again, my apologies. Bruce
Bruce, I think RBIs are really tricky to work with. You are right to pick RBIs as a promising element for advocacy, But in his big RBI years with St. Louis and Milwaukee, Simmons generally batted clean-up, behind Lou Brock and Reggie Smith, or Robin Yount and Paul Molitor, and this explains much of his apparent productivity. He did fine as a clean-up hitter, but 100-110 RBI under those conditions is not really outstanding. It’s great to have a catcher able to do that, of course, since teams are willing to accept lower batting productivity to get a solid catcher, but Simmons was not a good defensive catcher (he has negative Rfield, but stays in positive territory because of positional credit as a catcher). His teams were essentially making a different trade-off, accepting modest defensive contributions behind the plate to get a clean-up hitter as catcher.
Munson played in the same period as Simmons. He was considerably better defensively, and when he was placed third or fourth in the batting order in 1975-77, he, like Simmons, produced his three career years of 100+ RBI. Among current CoG members, Gary Carter, another Simmons contemporary, had four 100+ RBI seasons with even better defense than Munson. (Not to mention another Simmons contemporary: Bench.)
Simmons’ career has a lot to recommend it in terms of the CoG, but it also has problems (e.g., a number of unproductive or even below-replacement seasons and a weak defensive profile at a key position). Munson’s career, by contrast, has only the problem of his sudden death: his profile is otherwise considerably stronger than Simmons’. Simmons was a high quality player and a catcher to boot, but I think he’s not clearly over the current CoG threshold and he may not actually merit being the next catcher in.
A few years ago, Richard Chester provided me with career %RDI number (% of baserunners driven in) for 297 players with 6200 PA since 1970. Simmons ranked 21st in number of baserunners in his PA and 28th in number of PA with runners on base, but only 106th in average number of baserunners in those PA. His efficiency in driving in those runners was 19.0%, ranking 45th of those 297. So, I would say, for Simmons, RBI are a useful measuring stick, because he had an unusually high number of opportunities and because he was unusually effective in those opportunities.
Doug, This is a good corrective to my post to Bruce. Richard’s methodology can indeed make RBI a stat that can yield useful information.
The copy of the list I have only provides %RDI, not the ROB (runners on base) counts, so I may not be working from the same information as you, but there are also 297 names with Simmons 45th, so I presume the %RDI info is the same. For reasons I don’t understand, some of the names on the list don’t seem to belong in the post-1970 discussion: Jim Gilliam, Gil Hodges, Luis Aparicio, Norm Cash, Duke Snider, Larry Doby, Tommy Davis, Johnny Callison . . . Some of those players were finished by ’70, others at the ends of their careers. But the list certainly isn’t generally inclusive of players before 1970 (e.g., no Aaron or Mays), and any that slipped in with career cores in the ’60s are disadvantaged by the very low batting stats of that mini-era. Richard might fill us in, but the point I’d make is that there should be fewer than 297 names on the list, and the names that don’t belong will all be below Simmons’, so his relative standing should probably be seen as somewhat lower. (On the other hand, some names are missing: Johnny Bench’s, for example, unless I’m the one who’s missing it as I look.)
But looking at the list as it is, the question becomes how to assess Simmons’ good %RDI rate in terms of the CoG. To start with a point not in Simmons’ favor, one dimension that doesn’t change is that Simmons’ good offense was a trade-off for below average defense. Given that, and mindful that Simmons’ success relied largely on his offense, how well does being in the top, say, 15% of long-term players since 1970 match our CoG expectations? Simmons ranks #45 on the list with his 19%, but there are actually 34 players on the list with a rate of 19% — Richard includes figures to the first decimal, but if we regard that level of distinction as insignificant for this sort of assessment, Simmons can be seen as tied within a group including ##35-68. If we think about position players whose careers began after 1965, we currently have a total of 38 in the Circle. How far does Simmons’ RBI work go in moving him into that list?
On the positive side for Simmons: Munson is not on Richard’s list because he falls short of the PA cutoff. If we use the proxy of WPA and Clutch to compare the two catchers on similar grounds, Simmons does have slightly better numbers (per PA) than Munson in both categories, which aligns with his solid %RDI number. Moreover, the basic “catcher bonus” still applies to Simmons, even if his primary value was on offense: he was playing a defensive role that required special and less common skills, and that took an uncredited toll on his body. I think we’ve probably been giving catchers an implicit bonus of up to 15% or so (looking at Cochrane and Hartnett), just judging by WAR. So when we discuss Simmons’ RBI work “as a catcher,” his %RDI does have more impact on whether he would fit as the next addition to the current 38 post-1970 position players in the Circle.
I created the spreadsheet for %RDI after the end of the 2014 season. I had to use the names that showed up on the PI Batting Split-Finder. When running the PI Split-Finder for careers one cannot select the range of years played. Most of the players on the list had complete careers after 1970 but there were exceptions as you noted above. There were players such as Bench who had missing data and did not show upon the list. I did not count those PA in which the batter received a walk with ROB except for the bases loaded situation.
Richard, I think %RDI is a great contribution and I have referred to your list(s) frequently over the past year and a half.
Bob Eno: Thanks for the kind words. And I am glad somebody sees fit to use that list.The spreadsheet that I created to calculate those stats was the most complex one that I ever worked on.
I’d happily consider Munson, Schang and Lombardi in our discussions and think they do merit further conversation (Joe Torre as well). I see the point you’re making, nsb, and I can’t completely discount it. No, Simmons doesn’t measure up to the likes of Johnny Bench. But neither does Barry Larkin measure up to the standard of Honus Wagner. I don’t think that makes him unworthy of the COG; we’ve got a circle that is big enough to include more than just the slam dunk 130 WAR players. Which makes for good conversation. 🙂
NSB’
FWIW,
oWAR, age 21-30; 66%+ games at catcher. Obviously, I’ve cherry-picked his prime….
1 Johnny Bench 50.1
2 Ted Simmons 45.3
3 Joe Mauer…… 44.8
4 Mike Piazza………..42.9
5 Gary Carter…. 41.6
6 Mickey Cochrane 40.9
7 Munson……… 38.1
8 Yogi Berra….. 36.2
9 Ivan Rodriguez 36.0
10 Bill Dickey…… 35.0
OPS+, ages 21-30, 3000+ PAs, 66%+ games at catcher (1893-2018 – I’ve eliminated Buck Ewing)
1 Mike Piazza 156
2 Buster Posey 135
3 Joe Mauer 135
4 Johnny Bench 132
5 Ted Simmons 131
6 Carlton Fisk 131
7 Yogi Berra 129
8 Ernie Lombardi 129
9 Bill Dickey 129
10 Mickey Cochrane 129
I would have sworn Bench placed higher on thisa list – just behind Piazza.
Ramirez, Simmons, Sutton
Abreu, Coveleski, Irvin
Vote:
Main: Dahlin, Tiant, Wallace
Secondary: Coveleski, Irvin, Smith
Someday I’ll get Dahlen’s name right; at least this time I nailed Coveleski.
Allen, Simmons, Sutton
Coveleski, Randolph, Reuschel
Still amazed by Reuschel’s WAR – I just didn’t see it while it was happening.
No vote from me yet – with a strong new class coming in next year, this might be the last tough vote in awhile so I want to sit with the candidates a bit. (also, I kept changing my mind in the runoff so much that I ended up deciding not to vote at all – I just couldn’t choose a single player, and didn’t want to commit a vote when I might disagree with myself an hour later).
But I’ve been reading this article series this week and thought some here might be interested so I wanted to post it. It’s a pretty interesting look into player forecasting and scouting:
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/3/8/18256355/what-we-learned-from-73000-never-before-seen-mlb-scouting-reports-cincinnati-reds
The scary thing about the class next year is that the BBWAA ain’t electing 4 guys next year. We might have to drag this very good class out for a few years. Could be very interesting.
I only see two fairly obvious COG members in the 75 class, and one or two borderliners that will probably stick on some ballot or in the group of candidates we talk about during the redemption rounds. There are other cool players on the ballot that will get some discussion in remembrance but aren’t really anywhere near COG level.
If the BBWAA is willing to elects 2 of the 4-6 blatantly obvious hall non-PED associated hall candidates, that will be enough to take care of 1975 and then 76 is a down year with only Berkman worthy of even cursory consideration.
Realistically, I think you’re right that 2 is iffy and 3 a very outside shot. Jeter is a shoo-in, and while Schilling, Walker, and Rolen at least should be (if not also Jones and Helton), with 4-5 others that deserve serious consideration for the big hall.
In reality I think Schilling is 50-50 at best and Walker is less than that, and all those other guys have zero chance next year and limited chances ever. I’ll put my expectation at around 1.75: 60% that they elect at least 2 and 15% that they elect 3.
Question #8: Herman Wehmeier, ERA= 4.84
Herm Wehmeier, a name out of the past. Journeyman fourth or fifth starter/swing man for the Reds, Phils, and Cards. We’re often disposed here to talk about ‘luck’ as a negative factor for pitchers with disappointing W-L records incommensurate with high WAR and ERA+. Herm seems just the opposite. In 1948, on a team that finished 64-89, his record was 11-8 despite having an ERA of 5.86, ERA+ of 67, and WAR of -1.1.
To me, poor, misguided non-statistician that I am, these figures make absolutely no sense. The guy is credited with 17% of the team’s wins, only 9% of the team’s losses, and his WAR is -1.1. Can’t see somehow that a replacement-level player could have done better, if as well.
The main potential issue with B-R pitching WAR (per the James/Tango discussions linked in the runoff thread) is that fielding is distributed evenly, even though realistically, what each pitcher experiences from fielders is as varied as the offensive perfomance they experience. That said, if fielders were overperforming in Whemeier’s starts that would mean his WAR was too *high* and should be even more negative. And if they were underperforming, they weren’t positively contributing to wins and that would show up as an even lower ERA+. His FIP was also in line with what you’d expect from a below replacement pitcher.
So the most likely thing is that Herm experienced massive amounts of run support that year, far more than most of his teammates. I would check for that. Ok, a bit of fooling around with the game index, gave me 23 games in which Wehmeier started in 1948 (including no decisions) with an average runs scored by the Reds of 5.13. OTOH, their scoring average for the entire season was only 3.84. That’s a pretty huge differential. All but 2 of Herm’s (or the team’s on his starts) wins come with 5+ runs scored by the Reds. Then there’s one with 4 and one with 3. So he managed only one win with below average run support.
Also, of his starts, only 5 had below average run support, the rest had above average (at least 4 runs).
Compare Johnny Vandermeer, the ace who had a 115 ERA+ that year, but a similar W-L% at 17-14.
OTOH, Vandermeer faced below average run support roughly half the time, in 16 of 33 starts. He was 7-6 in games where the team scored 3 runs or less, and there were 16 of them.
If you want to know how a pitcher can have a positive W-L on a mediocre team with poor general pitching, there’s your answer right there. For whatever reason, they had plenty of offense when he was on the mound but not for everybody.
A different kind of “sequencing” when everything just happen to fall in the right place. Reminds me in the reverse of Anthony Young’s epic losing streak.
I suspect Wehmeier hung around as long as he did because he was considered a “can’t miss” prospect coming up. And, he came up pretty early, partially because of the war but probably also because he was so highly regarded (the Dodgers offered $300,000 for Wehmeier in 1948). His 1945 debut at age 18, the Reds’ youngest player that year, was forgettable (5 ER on 6 hits in 1+ IP), but also notable because he was relieved by the league’s oldest player, 46 year-old Hod Lisenbee, making the final appearance of his career and the last for any player born in the 19th century (he fared no better than Wehmeier, allowing 3 runs on 3 hits and retiring just one batter).
Part of the gaudy record was Wehmeier’s runs support. The Reds scored 5 or more runs in 9 of his 11 wins, including 8 or more runs in 5 of those games. One win came in a rain-shortened 5 innings, and another on the strength of a 6th inning relief appearance in which he faced just one batter. He also was let off the hook several times, getting an ND on four occasions when he allowed 4 or more runs in fewer than 5 IP.
For the 1974 Part 4 election, I’m voting for:
-Manny Ramirez
-Dennis Eckersley
-Andre Dawson
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Sutton
-Tiant
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Wallace
-Dahlen
-Lyons
Thanks!
For the Secondary Ballot, I’m voting for:
-Todd Helton
-Willie Randolph
-Bobby Abreu
Thanks!
Has anyone tried to answer Dr. Doom’s question above, “Who is the BEST candidate on the ballot right now?”
I can’t really offer much of a statistical argument since this question is getting really difficult, with so many similar career values on the ballot. One way I look at this question is by keeping an eye on Hall of Stats’ rankings as a yardstick, and it is statistics-only (although catchers do get a bonus, and old-time pitchers get a penalty). It is mostly a mix of WAA and bWAR, so it doesn’t include comparative career value statistics at all, but here are the rankings for all players on the primary ballot if anyone is interested:
(this is Hall of Stats’ “among eligible players” ranking)
(note, there are 9 players in the top 132 of the Hall of Stats who are pre-1901 players, so the top 132 players eligible for the Cog go up to 141, and, incidentally, HoS no. 141 is Andre Dawson)
73: Bill Dahlen
74: Bobby Wallace
(91: Kevin Brown!)
93: Rick Reuschel (Secondary ballot)
108: Manny Ramirez
111: Luis Tiant
126: Graig Nettles
128: Ted Lyons
135: Willie Randolph (Secondary ballot)
139: Dennis Eckersely
141: Andre Dawson
151: Richie Ashburn
159: Dick Allen
170: Ted Simmons
175: Don Sutton
Kid, I haven’t responded because Doom, you, and everyone else here knows my answer and all my longwinded arguments. The Hall of Stats seems emphatically to agree.
Bob, due to your years of advocacy, I hereby exempt you from participation in my above question. 🙂
And Hub Kid, thank you for your fory at tackling the question.
Question 5: Roy Oswalt. .668 W-L% thru age 30, .472 W-L% from age 31 and on. Differential of .196 versus .187 for Washburn.
Main Ballot:
Ramirez
Eckersley
Simmons
Secondary Ballot:
Helton
Randolph
Minoso
Just a thought and a plea for Ken Boyer…..
Ramirez and Simmons are getting raked over the coals here for being subpar defenders. How come no love for Boyer? He won five gold gloves and has a total zone RAA of +70 at the hot corner (19th all time). He was athletic enough to have played over 100 games in center field! He won an MVP award and his hitting (while not historic) compares favorably to many others on the ballot.
OPS+
Allen 156
Ramirez 154
——————-
R.Smith 137
Helton 133
Minoso 130
Abreu 128
Irvin 125
———————-
Dawson 119
Simmons 118
H.Matsui 118
Boyer 116
———————–
Ashburn 111
Dahlen 110
Nettles 110
Wallace 105
Randolph 104
———————-
B. Molina 86
I’ve got him above Nettles, who remains on the main ballot. What gives?
Josh, Boyer is not currently getting my vote — though I’ll considering a vote change on the Secondary Ballot by Friday — but I agree with you that he is a highly viable CoG candidate. I wrote an advocacy comment for Boyer during Round 2 a few weeks ago, and I’ll stick by it.
Yes, I read it at the time and liked it. Thanks for reminding me about it. For those who may have missed it, it is well worth a read, but Bob’s main points in favor of Boyer (if I may be so bold as to summarize) were:
1) He has a higher 5 year WAR peak than any candidate on the main ballot.
2) His WAR per qualifying season trails only Dick Allen on the main ballot.
3) He played a transformative role in the way baseball was played at 3rd base, and may have been better remembered for his fielding exploits had his brother Clete and Brooks Robinson not immediately followed him onto the scene (two of the top 4 fielding 3rd basemen of all time).
4) He bests Ron Santo (a COG 3rd basemen) in WAR/PA*500 and is at his level in terms of sustained quality.
I agree he’s a viable candidate. And I think clearly, there’s a critical mass of others here that do as well, otherwise he wouldn’t have hung around on the ballot for so long.
After looking at the lifetime 3B WAR list, It seems to me that the question of whether he deserves enshrinement hinges on the comparison to two 3B ahead of him in the WAR list (nettles and Bell) and one right on his heels (Bando). One of these guys is on the ballot as an option to vote for, and the other two are in redemption discussion hell.
I think to advocate for Boyer, it’s important to say why you’d vote for him over those other three players.
Thanks for the thoughts, Michael. Bob Eno and I had a short conversation in the last voting thread about Boyer versus Nettles and I think we both had Boyer slightly ahead. It seems to me, if you’re willing to admit that Nettles (and Bell) was a better fielder than Boyer, but Boyer was the better hitter, than how much better was either player at their respective strength. For my part, I’ll take Boyer’s superior hitting and slightly worse (but still excellent) defense. But, that is a short, simplistic explanation. I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
As to Bando, I guess I’ve never had him ranked as highly as Boyer. I’d be interested to hear arguments in his favor.
Here are the stats I’d use to compare these guys:
WAR(fWAR)……….…Pk5….Top5….WAR/500PA….OPS+…Career length
61.5 (56.2)……………33.0….33.2……..3.7…………….119……….1.1………..Sal Bando
66.3 (61.7)……………30.0….31.4……..3.3…………….109……….1.4………..Buddy Bell
62.8 (54.7)..………….33.0….34.0……..3.8…….………116……….1.2………..Ken Boyer
68.0 (65.7)……………28.7.…32.2……..3.3…….………110……….1.4………..Graig Nettles
If bWAR is our guide, then Boyer prevails in peak and rate stats, exceeds his closest competition (Bando) in career length, and both Bell and Nettles in OPS+. But these four guys are very closely clustered; fWAR seems them very differently; and I think we’d need to do a much more thorough analysis to rank them with any responsibility. I did try pretty hard with Boyer and Nettles, but there was still not much to choose between them. Outside the stats, Boyer has an additional edge by being a trailblazer in the emergence of third base as a slick-fielding position, but he was so quickly eclipsed by his brother Clete and by Brooks Robinson that this is no longer a part of his reputation.
Concerning Boyer, part of the trouble is that, in his prime he was overshadowed first by Eddie Mathews, really overshadowed at the plate, and Mathews was a good glove, not spectacular. Then Santo came along, and for a couple of years during the overlap Boyer was third best at third base in the NL.
1956 and 1961, off-years for Eddie, Boyer did have a slightly higher WAR, but in his time he was never considered the equal of Mathews, not close. Was that fair? Well, Eddie had an Rbat of 506 and an Rfield of 33, Ken an Rbat of 185 and an Rfield of 73. I’d call it fair.
Somehow Mathews always seems to get left out of the third base discussion and the elite player discussion, even though only Schmidt among third basemen comes out higher on most scales and not by much. In a different era, say Schmidt’s, he might have been better appreciated. Vying against Williams and Musial from the older generation, contemporaries Mays and Mantle, and Aaron and Frank Robinson who appeared close on his heels, his bright light is outshone by too many. Playing up Boyer now without recognizing his greatly inferior overall stature compared to Eddie, though, falsifies the picture, I think.
Well, Boyer is getting played up, because he’s not getting compared to Mathews here. He’s getting compared to other borderline COG candidates. Mathews sailed into the COG and is really just a step below Schmidt, He’s got the second most WAR of anyone who played 3B for 50% of their games, and in fewer seasons and PAs than anybody that’s close. He’s probably the second best 3B of all time (even if you favor others for the #2 spot, you’d have to say it’s a close call), and I don’t think there’s any question he was better than Boyer. The question for Mathews is where he stacks up against the greats of the greats. He had to wait a couple years for COG election only because his birth year was so stacked, with Mays and Mantle ahead of him, but he went in easily ahead of Ernie Banks who was a fairly obvious COG selection, and Boyer who is still sitting on the ballot >50 elections later. Mathews is clearly not the equal of Mays. You could make an argument v. Mantle or Schmidt, but I think he comes out behind them.
But he’s clearly far and away ahead of everyone we’re debating now. And it’s not really relevant to the discussion now, since Eddie has long been enshrined, exactly where he belongs, in the Circle. We’re debating who gets in, and to do that, you just have to be about as good as the worst guy we’ve put in that wasn’t a mistake. You don’t have to be as good as the no-doubters. If you had to be as good as Eddie Mathews to make it, then the circle would have maybe 30-40 guys, and somebody like Mathews wouldn’t be a no-doubter anymore.
Michael,
here are Mathews and Boyer at or near retirement,
1893-1968, 50% of games @ 1B & 3B, WAR.
1 Lou Gehrig 112.4 1923 1939
2 Eddie Mathews 96.6 1952 1968
3 Jimmie Foxx 96.1 1925 1945
4 Johnny Mize 70.9 1936 1953
5 Ken Boyer 63.0 1955 1968
6 Home Run Baker 62.8 1908 1922
7 Hank Greenberg 57.6 1930 1947
8 Bill Terry 54.2 1923 1937
9 George Sisler 54.0 1915 1930
10 Jimmy Collins 53.3 1895 1908
11 Stan Hack 52.6 1932 1947
Quite surprised to see Boyer so high on this list; shocked to see Smiling Stan. Obviously there are a lot of guys in the middle infield as well as OF’ers who would displace this group but, I think we can see by this partial list why Mathews was regarded as an all-time great and why Boyer was so well regarded.
I dunno why Mathews wasn’t the third baseman (pie Traynor) on the all-time team in 1969
“I dunno why Mathews wasn’t the third baseman (pie Traynor) on the all-time team in 1969.” The old sportswriter crew (Lieb & Co.) was still shaping opinion — in those times, the story line that played best was that the postwar newcomers were not at all in the class of the old timers. (It’s how I was indoctrinated as a young fan.)
The reason Boyer stands out despite Mathews was that while Mathews established a new model for the third baseman as slugger (something unseen in the lively ball era) — and was much celebrated for it in his day — Boyer, who arrived only three years later brought both a bat and a very visible glove. Mathews was no slouch as a fielder, but I don’t recall it ever being seen as part of his profile; Boyer introduced the profile of the slick fielding third baseman. If brother Clete and Brooksie hadn’t come along, that reputation would have persisted.
Obviously, overall, no third baseman was in Mathews’ class till Schmidt came along. Unfortunately for Mathews, he lost his matinee idol status along with his hair, and then had to play in the shadow of his even more spectacular teammate, Mr. Aaron.
Two other well-known Eddie Mathews facts:
1. He was the only player to play for the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves.
2. He’ll always be the cover boy from the first-ever issue of Sports Illustrated. For my money, it’s still the best cover they’ve ever published (with an honorable mention to Vince Lombardi being carried off by Jerry Kramer).
Mathews should have been on the all time team — I wonder if it was not a function of BA still being held in high esteem. Traynor’s .320 looks pretty good next to Mathews .271. (And Traynor actually had more 100-RBI seasons too).
main:
Manny Ramirez
Dennis Eckersley
Ted Simmons
secondary;
Andy Pettitte
Minnie Minoso
Hideki Matsui
My vote is below, I promise. But I have to ramble for a bit.
Been wracking my brain on all these candidates. It seems to me that they all have such OBVIOUS weaknesses; again, this is not a surprise; we’re definitely picking guys who belong in the bottom-10 of the COG.
As I said in my earlier post, I’m really trying to start from scratch. I tried doing some of my own calculations. Whenever I do, I keep coming up with the same issue: the fact that, in my opinion, almost all of our pitchers are more qualified than almost all of our hitters. This is an almost inescapable conclusion for me. We have some fantastic hitters, but once you factor in defense, they drop like a rock; we have some defensive wizards, but their hitting isn’t up to snuff. We have one player who was HEAVILY impacted by segregation, but to what extent is unclear (and, it seems to me, becomes borderline at best even with best-case-scenario thinking). We have another who was impacted to a lesser extent by same. We have a catcher whose defensive reputation is all over the place, who becomes a lock if he’s as good as some think he was, but becomes impossible to induct if he’s as bad as his greatest detractors suggest. We have guys who straddle that 19th- and 20th-century border REALLY hard (I DO think I’ve gotten some clarity on which of the two I prefer, though, which is SOMETHING; if anyone’s interested, let me know and I’ll be happy to post about it later). I don’t really know where to go. But with the pitchers? Well, that’s easy: they were really, really good. As I showed in an earlier post, it’s not hard to calculate Don Sutton as being worth 80+ WAR, which makes him a lock. Likewise, the same back-of-the-envelope calculation for Ted Lyons makes him a 70+ WAR guy (I did not realize this until today, by the way). But then, both of them benefit from HUGE numbers of innings with performance coming mostly from above-replacement-but-below-average performance. I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that it’s entirely possible that Rick Reuschel is actually the best player on either ballot – and I was one of the primary driving forces in getting him dumped OFF the main ballot while Luis Tiant lingered on. It’s SO CONFUSING. So I’m going to do my best.
Main Ballot:
Don Sutton: I wound up an accidental advocate for him. Haven’t voted for him before, but it becomes increasingly difficult for me to avoid voting for him. My thought is this: the main thing holding him back is that baseball-reference does not believe that the teams he pitched against were expected to score very many runs. I’m not sure I can balance that against the fact that he posted excellent numbers, and that his ERA and FIP are basically spot-on, which leads me to believe he was just plain effective. He’s nobodies best starter; probably, he’d be the worst starting pitcher in the COG. But someone has to be, and it would seem somewhat fitting for Sutton to be an also-ran, even among greats.
Dick Allen: I’m very, very unsure about this pick. But I do think this: Allen had the best peak of anyone we currently have to choose among. At his best, he was the best. And for me, that’s good enough.
Andre Dawson: I’ve always wavered and waffled on Dawson, always coming to the conclusion that he’s right around the borderline. This vote, I’m choosing to push him over the line. And, frankly, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
I strongly considered one of the 19th-century-I’ll-never-vote-for-him guys – seriously. I almost gave him my last spot, but I’d rather see Dawson in, and I’m not sure he’s any stronger a candidate than the others I considered. Ted Lyons, Ted Simmons, Richie Ashburn, and Manny Ramirez were the others who could’ve gotten that last spot. They could all just as easily be on my ballot as off it. I may yet change this vote; it’s just too hard.
Secondary Ballot:
Rick Reuschel: As I said above, I’m coming to believe that Rick Reuschel may be the best player on either ballot – or, if not the best, he has the performance with the fewest caveats and the easiest case to understand.
Reggie Smith: Like Reuschel, after some weekend research, I actually think Smith might be the best position player on either ballot. That’s a little more difficult to argue than Reuschel, I think, but I’d really like to see Smith in, which I wouldn’t’ve said, even last week. I’m glad I looked into it more. I have him rated as the top offensive player on the secondary ballot, AND he’s the best defender. An easy “yes.”
Monte Irvin: I really don’t know about this one. As some of you may have seen last round, Bob, mosc, and I had a nice little discussion about Irvin and his relative value to the other candidates on the ballot. On the one hand, segregation was – obviously – a travesty. I would like to see it corrected-for as much as we can. Players were robbed of higher salaries and better competition; fans were robbed of seeing the best players in the world compete on the same field at the same time; historians are robbed of making accurate comparisons. To see Irvin get some “extra credit” a la Satchel Paige and get in? That would be fine with me. On the other hand, I have NO DOUBT that Satchel Paige belongs near the top of the COG, so his inclusion is EASY. The question with Irvin is, did segregation prevent him from being a ‘yes,’ or is he really just a borderline guy, even when you adjust for segregation? And worse yet: is he even SHORT of inclusion with an adjustment? I’m not sure, but I think most likely he’s just plain not as good as some of the other guys on the ballot. My inclination here is to say that I will not fight his induction, and may actually support it… but if the group decides he simply wasn’t good enough, that’s fine, too. But after studying the issue more thoroughly, I’m unconvinced by anyone else on the secondary ballot, so it’s just Reuschel and Smith for sure, with a hard maybe on Irvin.
Todd Helton is the only other player on the secondary ballot whom I really considered, on the strength of that peak, which was marvelous. I would have no problem with him getting in, either, but I’m not going to work for it.
I agree we’re really getting down to players with serious holes in their credentials. It’s inevitable as the actual HOF seems to be voting in more players per year than the birth-years we’re going through. I agree with the general gist of your analysis. There are a couple of factors I don’t think you’re fulling considering, but those are just my personal takes on importance:
***
Non-MLB stats: We do have some negro league stats on Irvin… and they are jaw dropping. His NLB slash line is .354/.393/.532/.924 (a lot of parks without outfield walls tended to reduce raw power numbers) and that covers mostly the ripe old age of 20-22. You can say that’s a minor league type level of competition and I wouldn’t completely negate your argument but his minor league line… .375/.509/.683/1.193 over a clearly unnecessarily large sample size of 663 PA is even more comical. The point is we have a couple seasons worth of numbers that weren’t from the major leagues to look at with Irvin and they blow away his competition. Has Jersey City AAA ever seen a slugger like Irvin in ’48? They got quite a look at him. I don’t know what other 36 year old has had to spend 75 games in AA like Irvin did in 1955 but I bet they didn’t OPS 1.069. Plus the stories from the first black players in the late 40s and early 50s MLB were so utterly scary. How these guys managed to play baseball at all was inspiring.
***
MLB inflated stats: Lyons pitched segregated baseball at the height of the negro leagues. He also lead the league in ERA when many of the league’s best were already off to war in 1942. As much as I want to give him the benefit of the doubt for ’43-’45, I feel like we’re missing taking something away for his earlier career, particularly ’41 and ’42. This is also a big knock for me against Dahlen and Wallace. Related, I also adjust downward for the steroid era which hits Reuschel and Ramirez (ha!) as well as Pettitte and Abreu. These cases are all borderline, it doesn’t take much to push somebody off. Pettitte I seem to believe because of his honesty on his actual use and his post season records may well stand forever so there’s some positive swing there to counteract the negative.
***
You’re getting away from peak. Lyons and Sutton are not guys who were ever among the league’s best. They didn’t fall from a peak, they simply stuck around longer than their peers, maintaining what they had for longer. Starting pitchers acrue more replacement level value than position players, not WAA. Eck has more WAA+ than Sutton and Lyons don’t forget. I think when you compare pitchers to hitters, you have to remove some of this replacement value. The hall of bullpen saving need not apply.
I took a comparative approach at some other MiLB slash lines for contestants on this ballot:
.293/.375/.452/.827: Abreu. Certainly not rushed along by his major league line, he seemed to show the normal progression you’d expect from somebody who was ready to star at age 24 but wasn’t ready nearly as early as Irvin
.285/.369/.464/.833: Smith. Roughly a year ahead of Abreu’s pace by age, we see much the same pattern.
.289/.401/.433/.834: Randolph. Arguably a little rushed, at least with the bat, Randolph was still ready to hit MLB pitching at age 22.
.330/.417/.492/.908: Helton. Keeping in mind half of this is in Colorado Springs, Helton was right on pace for productive swinging at age 23 and grew into even more. A true first base bat, but still not a great comp.
.298/.391/.546/.937: Ramirez. Top prospect Ramirez might well be the best comp for Irvin’s early years. Ramirez dominated rookie ball at age 19 with an eye-popping 1.105 OPS and by age 21 was complete with any minor league learn-able lessons. His age 22 line was mostly held back by the ’94 strike, not learning how to hit major league pitching.
.339/.396/.605/1.001: Dawson. Half of that is in Denver, but Dawson needed very little help in his minor league career. A rough cup of coffee at age 21 didn’t slow him down as a productive big leaguer by 22.
So what did this tell me? Unless you think the negro leagues were A-ball, Irvin hit at a younger age than all these guys and none of them put up numbers in AA/AAA at younger ages that were out of line with Irvin’s negro league stats, even at older ages. Aside from their first initial 100 games or so, all of these guys transitioned to the majors with only a small decline from their younger year minor league numbers. Irvin’s age 20-22 stats line up well with a guy who would get called up and hit very well in the majors.
Thanks for those thoughts. Again, I voted for Irvin… I’m just doing so with some, what I think is healthy, skepticism.
One thing: why would Reuschel get dinged for the steroid era? I mean, I understand that he had some very good years in his late 30s, but he had as many bad ones as good ones. I don’t think it’s really THAT unusual an aging pattern, particularly for the guys of that 300-win generation, which Reuschel was a part of – or darn close to – even if he didn’t actually get to 300 wins. It just surprises me that you’d take that stance on him. Out of curiosity, do you also take that stance in regard to Nolan Ryan? Personally, I think you see the effects of steroids most beginning in 1992, and Reuschel was out of the game after 1991. I’m not denying the possibility that he used steroids; it just surprises me to see him labeled as a contemporary of Ramirez and Pettitte and Abreu (with all of whom he overlapped for a combined zero seasons), whereas he overlapped with Reggie Smith and Luis Tiant for over half his career, with Don Sutton for about 80%. He and Simmons were only shifted from one another by 3-4 seasons. Heck, Andre Dawson played WAY more in the “steroid era” than Reuschel. It just strikes me as a surprising identification, so I’m curious why you think of Reuschel so clearly in reference to steroids.
Mosc,
“” I don’t know what other 36 year old has had to spend 75 games in AA like Irvin did in 1955 but I bet they didn’t OPS 1.069.”
Check out the career of Luke Easter….he was pounding the ball into his forties:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=easter001lus
mosc, I’m in full agreement with your case for Irvin and there’s no question that players before 1947 were not facing as robust a talent pool as were those after segregation’s effects were significantly attenuated, say, after the late ’50s. But I’m puzzled by the way you apply the latter criterion here. You note, correctly, that Lyons “pitched segregated baseball at the height of the negro leagues.” The reason this is a problem for Lyons is not because he was personally implicated in the policy of segregation, but because the excluded talent pool was so rich in his day. In Dahlen and Wallace’s time the policy was every bit as repugnant, but, again, they were not personally implicated, and the evidence I’m aware of is that although African-Americans had formed some barnstorming teams that had good records against local white amateur teams, participation levels were not high and the standard of play did not begin to resemble the level of professional white teams until the tail end of Dahlen and Wallace’s careers, and even then among only a few black teams whose stars may have been of MLB caliber. Of course, the apparent paucity of ready African-American talent was largely a product of the way post-Civil War society had closed baseball and many, many other paths of advancement, but unlike the 1940s, baseball’s segregationist policy seems unlikely to have excluded many active greats like Irvin and Paige.
If the penalty for those playing in the segregated era is based on morality, then it would apply to all players equally — the only way not to be complicit in the exclusion of blacks from MLB was not to play MLB. But if it is based on distortions related to the incompleteness of the talent pool, then the “knock” against Dahlen and Wallace would be much smaller than would be the case for players of the segregated 1940s. Of course, you can discount because of segregation any way you wish — you have been our most articulate voice on this issue — but your phrasing does seem to pinpoint one particular assessment rationale for Lyons and then to carry it over to the turn-of-the-century players where it does not fit well.
I also want to note that you seem to suggest that Lyons’ 1941 record was tainted by a depleted wartime talent pool. 1941 was not a war year. Moreover, the depletion of MLB ranks was modest in 1942; eight of the top ten 1941 AL ERA leaders played through 1942; those were among Lyons’ chief competition when he won the ’42 crown. And, in general, most of MLB’s stars played in ’42. Bob Feller and Hank Greenberg were probably the biggest name early enlistments, but even CoG AL stars like Ted Williams, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, and Joe Gordon played through 1942 (Johnny Mize and Stan Musial are CoG NL examples). In many respects, 1942 is the inverse of 1946, where there was some lingering impact of the War because of players who continued to be absent on active duty. It is the years 1943-45 that create the major problem in assessing MLB quality, and Lyons’ absence was one of those reasons.
Doom, you’re right. It looks like I have the years wrong on my mental image of Rick Reuschel by nearly a decade. The only real knock on him is his lack of a continuous peak, with stress on the continuous. He had a monster season in 1977 and I doubt his 85-87 success in Pittsburg was overlapped much with the roids era as I somehow remember. The ’85 pirates lost 100 games with a lack of power (ISO .100 flat) and pitching (other than Reuschel) so you’re right, we shouldn’t have any qualms attributing rebuilding his career to anything other than himself. Bonds and Bonilla didn’t show up until a little later (though they were all full-time players on the ’87 team). I guess I do like Reuschel better than the other starters on the list.
Luke Easter is a name I didn’t know. It’s a shame because it looks like another guy with loads of talent that never got to play but I guess his negro league career was just not long enough to garner the attention of the others. No pre-war baseball history seems to hurt his case as an all-time great but he certainly hit as well as most greats did at his age. Clearly not the fastest guy, I guess he’s hurt by the first base issue we’ve documented elsewhere. Irvin was certainly a more complete player. From an MLB perspective he’s somewhat similar to Irvin and does also make a nice yardstick for comparing AAA to MLB (which he shows as quite a chasm). His negro league stats line up pretty well with his MLB stats so perhaps that’s more evidence of the negro leagues being something more like quad-A in the 40s. That would also speak well for Irvin’s success there at a very young age.
Bob Eno (epm), I don’t know what to make of the worlds Lyons spans. I think of the peak of segregated baseball as like 1920-1942. Cool Pap Bell was 1922-1946, something like that. Lyons is nearly a perfect mirror 1923-1946. They could have been top rivals, instead they never faced each other at the major league level.
I voted for Lyons last round… mostly over Ramirez but that’s a different matter. I think his candidacy is tough because he has to deal with the segregation impact, the war impact (he pitched during the early war), and how to project his missed time due to service based on 42 innings in 1946 and some 1942 success against an already depleting league. I don’t know. Like everyone else we’re considering, flawed but still very good at baseball.
mosc, I was agreeing with you on the segregation issue as it applies to Lyons. My disagreement concerned Dahlen and Wallace. There are no Cool Papa Bells or Satchel Paiges that they did not face. I think Rube Foster is the peak of the competition they were spared, and we don’t have much of a basis to assess Foster as a pitcher; his fame is as an executive.
And, as I noted, the impact of the War on Lyons pitching in 1942 was minimal (in ’41 none at all); the league was not in any sense “depleted,” though if you want to call the absence of one high-profile fellow pitcher as “depleting,” then yes, Lyons won his ERA crown without Feller being present, and his ERA did not include the dangers posed by Hank Greenberg (or Cecil Travis, for that matter). These same factors “depleted” MLB for years afterwards as young players like Willie Mays served their two years and the AL’s foremost hitter volunteered to spend his seasons in Korea.I simply think it’s an error to place 1942 in a class with 1943-45.
By the way, I have not voted for Lyons this round, so far, at least. I see Lyons and Tiant as comparable in pitching and have gone back to Luis for this vote, though if Lyons seems to gain ground by Friday I may switch.
Bob, I can’t speak for mosc, but my skepticism about 19th century players has more to do with overall league quality than that they were not facing specific, known likely MLB star/HOF level performers like CPB/SP etc.
It’s just a lot easier to stand out from average or replacement level, when that level is lower because don’t have a fully professionalized league yet. By the 20s, things are starting to get much more professional, and the standard of an average and replacement player is getting better, but… That’s also exactly when the impact of segregation starts to become more apparent and obvious, as you have a ton of players in the Negro Leagues with known major league level skills that aren’t allowed to play.
There was a guy who did a study of standard deviation in results to determine overall league quality over the years, but I can only find references to it. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. The idea is that when a league is weaker, the difference between the best and weakest vs. the average is greater, which makes it easier (and less impressive) to rack up lots of WAA and WAR than in stronger leagues.
So WAA and WAR, as awesome as they are, clearly bias us toward standouts from times when leagues were weaker.
Consider the top players by hall rating, which is basically WAR/WAA based. I looked at all players with a 250+ Hall rating and marked what decades they played in. Then I looked at each decade (with all late 19th C as one), from 19th C through the 2000s to see how many such players were active in each decade.
And here’s the list.
1880-1899: 2
1900-1909: 6
1910-1919: 9
1920-1929: 7
1930-1939: 5
1940-1949: 2
1950-1959: 4
1960-1969: 4
1970-1979: 2
1980-1989: 2
1990-1999: 2
2000-2010: 2
There were a total of 15 players on this list — only 4 of whose careers began post integration.
Given how much professional baseball was being played in 1900-1930 vs. 1950-2010, does it really seem realistic that only *4* of the top 15 players started their careers after 1947?
Does it really seem realistic to you that there were 4 times as many of these super greats on the field in 1910-1919 as at any time since the early 1960s? 3 times as many in 1900-1909? And as many in the 19th century? Even though there were 50% more players in the 90s then in the 1910s who pitched 10 IP or had 20 PAs? And 60% more in the 2000s?
That doesn’t seem realistic to me at all. I look at this, and it seems pretty obvious to me that it was easier to stand out in pre-integration ball and that includes the deadball era and pre-deadball era, so we should probably not give those guys quite the same level of credit as we give newer players who accumulate similar WAR/WAA levels.
At the top that means I think blasphemous things like that Babe Ruth might not be the greatest player of all time. I think Cobb, Speaker, Wagner and Hornsby were probably not better than Schmidt, Morgan, Ripken and Henderson. Among pitchers, not just Roger Clemens, but plausibly Seaver, Maddux and Johnson are better than Cy Young and Walter Johnson. And I seriously mean that in terms of how they compared to their era, not absolute ability. I mean in terms of how many standard deviations they were above the average of their time.
And here’s the thing, this effect filters down to COG borderline level too. If it was easier to stand out in WAR/WAA, that means a higher percentage of guys in 1900-1930 accumulated in the 60-75 WAR range that puts you in our borderline sights. Personally, I think we should be pulling from roughly the same percentile of players in every era. This is why I’m skeptical of Dahlen and Wallace, and *also* Lyons, and why I think some of the golden era and deadball inductees are by *far* our weakest COG members. We’ve already inducted players from those eras out of proportion relative to newer ones, and I think the big reason is the WAR/WAA bias toward weaker leagues.
I’m this is clearer than my previous responses in this regard.
And this is not at all about integration, it’s about league strength — though segregation clearly was a contributed by making MLB much weaker than it could have been in the 20s-40s.
Michael, I think I understand your argument, and I recall your making it before in abbreviated form (when I used it to argue that standouts from the PED era would be similarly suspect because of the way ordinary non-PED users were operating at a comparatively non-competitive level).
When you write, “it was easier to stand out in pre-integration ball and that includes the deadball era and pre-deadball era,” I think it is not at all as clear as you intend. (I assume from the arc of your larger argument you mean more than simply that there was a growing pool of talent excluded by segregation.) I think what you’re saying is that the talents required to be outstanding were rarer in those eras than in later ones, and therefore the outstanding players stood out more easily — but the reason such talent was rarer was because it was harder to acquire. There was less opportunity to benefit from trainer-teachers; the path to the Majors was more hit and miss; the skills in question were ones that were in the process of discovery and exploitation by their initial exemplars. What you call “professionalism” of the leagues seems to me the dispersal of training opportunities, development of scouting/development paths for players, and opportunities to learn the skills that had become routine because of the performative discoveries of pioneering players. It is not “easier” to stand out in the earlier eras; the early stars were much more self-made players, and that’s hard. But, yes, the opportunities to discover routes to surpass the common player were more readily available in the earlier eras, and talent was therefore less balanced.
I don’t see this as in any way a matter of professionalism; I see it as a normal process in the development of any specialized endeavor over time. I’d guess there are many, many physicists with the genius of Einstein or Bohr today, but the opportunities for paradigm-busting breakthroughs in post-Newtonian physics are less readily available because the earlier guys exhausted some of them — the field is far more professionalized and it’s harder to stand out. I don’t think that takes anything away from Einstein and Bohr.
I’ll go back to the particularly illustrative example of Bobby Wallace and his innovation of the infielder’s throw. That can only be invented once and it was invented by Wallace — it’s at least as brilliant as, and far more fundamental than the choreography Brooks Robinson developed for third base play, on which his Hall and Circle cases rest. You could say that Wallace had it easy because he came early, before someone else patented that innovation, but coming up with the idea, putting it into practice, and performing outstanding fielding with a new and unfamiliar skill was not easy: it was very hard.
Professionalism in the sense of a commitment to perfecting skills in playing the game, on both personal and team levels, rather than simply exercising the skills you have, becomes a dominant mode only after 1890, with the conceptualization of so-called “scientific baseball,” and from that point on everything is a continuum. Of course the talent level rises, and as the game expands in popularity and its ambitions more players are attracted into or sought out in order to expand the pool. But each step is built on the improvements exemplified by the outstanding players of the step before. Apart from the period of initial integration, there is no line separating the eras, and to penalize the earlier players — whether Bill Dahlen or Babe Ruth — because their exceptional talents were expressed in an era less professionalized than the next is to exclude them from the only opportunities for greatness open to them.
And when it comes to uneven distribution over time, consider the era Lyons played in. When it comes to pitchers whose careers were anchored in the initial lively ball era (that is, 1920-1942), there are exactly four (Vance, Grove, Hubbell, and Ferrell), and one is in on a hybrid case. Compare that to pitchers spanning the “second dead-ball era” through the mid-1980s (with careers centered in 1963 to, say, 1985): we have twice as many: nine — and seven others (almost 20% of all CoG pitchers) beginning their careers within the five season span of 1984-88. Is it reasonable to believe that pitching talent just dried up with the initial home run era, or that pitchers with a normal talent distribution faced an unusually tough challenge in figuring out how to pitch in an entirely new game context, with minimal understanding of its physical toll, without wrecking their arms (as Ferrell did). If it’s the latter, then does it make sense only to penalize those pitchers for segregation during NLB’s heyday without considering whether they might not deserve a combat bonus on other grounds?
Only 17 CoG pitchers began their careers before segregation ended, from Cy Young in 1890 to Warren Spahn in 1942. We have 24 pitchers whose careers begin in the period 1948 (Roberts) to 1995 (Rivera). Even taking expansion into account, I don’t think we have failed to balance our selections more favorably than the Hall rating you have cited in your example.
Michael, reading your breakdown of league strength yesterday made me chew on a few things, both in terms of your premise and the specific applications of your analysis. I hope you’ll indulge me as I engage further with this.
First, it touches on a point that I’ve often wondered, whether WAR has the same ‘standard deviation’ effect as, say, batting average. I think I’ve mentioned before (well, maybe like a few years ago) that I use in the stats class I teach the example of batting average over time to teach standard deviation – basically the point is that the statistical reason no one hits .400 anymore is that the standard deviation of batting averages is smaller than it was in the early days, but the average is similar over time. And the likely underlying reason is that the overall player level is higher, both on the hitting and pitching side. So Altuve might be the same amount of standard deviations above average as someone like Wagner over 100 years ago, but it’s harder to get consistent hits if the overall pitcher level is great, and it’s harder to get a huge raw average advantage over other hitters if the level is so tight ie. standard deviation is smaller. That is basically what you’re saying about player WAR, yes? I have idly wondered if WAR had some kind of corrective effect that lessened this kind of distortion, but haven’t been fanatical enough to plunge through the ‘WAR explained’ pages and really dig in. If you do turn up a link to that standard deviation study, or if anyone else has better knowledge/info, spill it here! I’d be interested in learning more.
But I will say, your analysis of the top 15 players of all time according to hall rating seems to me to not be an effective way to make the point that we should discount the achievements of early players on the margins of the CoG. Firstly, why use hall rating – derivative of WAR as it is – instead of just straight up WAR? But secondly, although I agree that the top of the WAR list is heavily weighted towards early players relative to league size, I also think that is to be expected more than a skewing of marginal candidates. From a statistical standpoint, you have more to gain in raw numbers if you’re three standard deviations above the mean than two or one – so if indeed there was more spread in WAR in early days, it would make sense that it would accumulate more at the top. (eg if SD was 4 in 1900 and 3 in 2000 then a 3 SD-above replacement player would have 12 WAR vs 9 (gain of 3) vs a 1 SD-above player having 4 vs 3 (gain of 1). So that spread would benefit the most talented players more, and would be more diluted moving down the all time leaderboard. As well, I’d imagine those at the very top would be able to take advantage not only by having monster years, but by having more chances to tack on WAR at the end of a career, due to being a proven brand and therefore being a safer choice even at diminished capacity than an unproven replacement. This would allow the all time greats to compile at the end of a career. I feel like both of these things would benefit the top end more than the still-very-good-but-marginal CoG candidate.
To your central point:
“And here’s the thing, this effect filters down to COG borderline level too. If it was easier to stand out in WAR/WAA, that means a higher percentage of guys in 1900-1930 accumulated in the 60-75 WAR range that puts you in our borderline sights. Personally, I think we should be pulling from roughly the same percentile of players in every era. This is why I’m skeptical of Dahlen and Wallace, and *also* Lyons, and why I think some of the golden era and deadball inductees are by *far* our weakest COG members. We’ve already inducted players from those eras out of proportion relative to newer ones, and I think the big reason is the WAR/WAA bias toward weaker leagues.”
My comments above suggest that I have some skepticism that it filters down to quite the same degree to the CoG borderline level. And of course as that is the level at which we are debating, I figured it would be useful to do an analysis similar to yours for the people we are talking about, those with 60-75 WAR rather than the greatest 15 players of all time. So I looked at all the players who had between 60-75 WAR on bref (101 in total) and marked when they started their playing careers (I know that you did all the decades active for your players, but I just didn’t have a ton of time and figured this would do for an analysis). Here’s what I found:
1870s – 5
1880s – 6
1890s – 3
1900s – 4
1910s – 5
1920s – 8
1930s – 7
1940s – 3
1950s – 5
1960s – 11
1970s – 12
1980s – 12
1990s – 13
2000s – 6 so far
2010s – 1 (guess who)
To me, that looks a lot different from your list, and about in line with what I’d expect. Maybe a bit of overrepresentation from the very early years and a bit of a low mark in the 1940s, but generally the number of players in this zone follows expansion in the 60s. So I’m not convinced that I have to adjust the numbers down that much for borderline CoG players.
I’m curious what you (and others) think about this, genuinely interested in exploring this further and applying it to my CoG player analysis.
Read Doom’s comment (and Mosc’s) below, and, while I know I’m repeating myself, but I’m just not enthused by this group. I’m going to read everyone’s analysis (and advocacy) carefully, but if I’m not fully persuaded, I’m going to pass this round. Doom’s point about Reuschel is a good one, but I see Reuschel sort of a pitching Willie Randolph–another player who virtually any Manager would be thrilled to have on his team, but…
Primary:
Manny Ramirez
Andre Dawson
Dennis Eckersley
Secondary:
Todd Helton
Stan Coveleski
Ken Boyer
Vote update!
With 11 votes in (* means on the bubble):
Primary Ballot
6 – Dennis Eckersley*
====50%
5 – Manny Ramirez, Ted Simmons*
4 – Andre Dawson*
3 – Don Sutton
====25%
2 – Dick Allen, Bill Dahlen, Ted Lyons
====10%
1 – Richie Ashburn*, Graig Nettles, Luis Tiant, Bobby Wallace
Ashburn is in the most trouble; on the one hand, a single vote would likely save him; on the other hand, failing to get one likely demotes him to the Secondary Ballot. Once again, it’s a tight one at the top. And, strangely, Dick Allen moved from a run-off for the victory last time to four votes off the pace. Without checking, I’m not sure if it’s later voters who put him in, or if he’s really lost that much support.
Secondary Ballot
====50%
5 – Willie Randolph
4 – Stan Coveleski, Monte Irvin
3 – Bobby Abreu, Todd Helton, Minnie Minoso, Andy Pettitte, Rick Reuschel
====25%
2 – Ken Boyer*, Reggie Smith*
====10%
1 – Hideki Matsui*
0 – Bengie Molina*
Unsurprisingly, the four bubble guys on the secondary ballot are struggling most to build up support. You have truly moved to life support status when you’re on the bubble on the Secondary Ballot, and those four guys certainly match that description. Otherwise, the secondary ballot is even tighter than the primary, with eight guys within two votes of the top spot.
Happy voting, everyone!
Voters: Voomo Zanzibar, mosc, Bruce Gilbert, JEV, Bob Eno, Paul E, opal611, Chris C, koma, Dr. Doom, Andy
It’s a small sample size, but what I see on the primary ballot so far is a division between more recent and more distant playing careers. The top five vote getters—plus Nettles, the outlier—versus players from earlier times, Tiant being the most recent, and his career was effectively over in 1980. Preferring the most recent candidates has always been an option here—the bigger, faster, stronger modern players with better training, better equipment, better everything but sense.
Dahlen and Wallace to me are still demonstrably the best on the ballot, but they played in the ancient past, their stats result from a far different approach to the game, and, too, neither of them has a compelling legend that has kept his memory alive. It’s also much easier to advocate for, say, Kenny Lofton as an overlooked great amongst people who recognize his name and probably saw him play than for a head and shoulders grainy photograph known only via inadequate mention in baseball histories that spend too little time on the importance of fielding in the game of that era.
I love the narrative, I really do, but I have trouble thinking of this white-only league with less stress on athleticism as a fielding dominated era. Certainly fielding contributed more to wins and losses back then than it does today. I agree with that analysis but I don’t think these guys were good fielders by modern standards either. I also am reminded how in modern times it’s been a hard transition to remove a player’s offense from the public’s perception of their defense. The gold glove winners have some alarming correlation with offensive production at a position. We as analysts are still too close to giving a Jeter-type player too much credit and a Simmons-type player too little. I think things are where they should be (though the context of defensive metrics needing considerably more than a season’s worth of data to be meaningful is still tough for people) but that means uncovering layer after layer of defensive bias going back that far.
Maybe these guys just had managers that let them shift a little more than their competition. That alone would play havoc on defensive metrics.
Any stat-line before 1948 I reduce mentally when comparing to modern players.
mosc, When you say, “less stress on athleticism,” what are you thinking of? I really don’t understand it. Do you mean lower standards of athleticism? I wonder whether you think Jeter playing with the baseball equipment of 1900 could survive as a shortstop, or even Nettles as a third baseman. We sometimes say the earlier players were poorer fielders, but to me that means two things: tiny gloves and a future history of position play innovation that had not yet occurred. Wallace is the fielder who first invented the modern infielder style of eliminating the set position when moving from fielding to throwing the ball. Outside of moving basemen off the bag in a much earlier era, is there any innovation more fundamental than Wallace’s?
“Maybe these guys just had managers that let them shift a little more than their competition.” There’s no evidence whatever that it was managerial decisions that affected Dahlen and Wallace’s fielding, and they played for a variety of managers. There are many ways to think about how to assess stats, but I think imagined scenarios that have no basis in what we know of the facts should remain outside the lines.
I’m not sure why you refer to Gold Gloves at all, since they didn’t exist until 1957.
A touch personal there, I didn’t meat to strike a nerve. My apologies respected colleague.
I think of athleticism as less valued in the older game. You could argue by comparison that it was more valuable and I’d generally agree with you but I think the reputation of players is most of what we have to go on and that’s pretty flawed (hence my comments about gold gloves in later years).
It’s hard to suss out what was really good or bad so long in the past through the lens of the statistics that survive. The context is different, the game is different, the relative importance teams placed on things is most certainly different, and our modern analytics defy turn of the last century wisdom on numerous fronts.
I don’t disagree with you about the Negro leagues not being particularly relevant in the 1900-1920 timeframe but that too highlights the difference between what we consider a professional sport then and now. MLB didn’t mean then what it means now. Players weren’t compensated enough to attract the nation’s best talent let alone have it dedicated year-round and traveling across the continent constantly. Is that Wallace’s fault? No, but it is the context through which I will look at his numbers.
Actually, baseball players in the era 1890-1920 were paid much more than the average worker — there are countless narratives of players who gave up their jobs for a baseball salary, although today we consider it a pittance. I know of no study that examines whether the attraction of a baseball salary in that era was lower than other times during the pre-free-agent period, which is most of baseball history. So when you say, “Players weren’t compensated enough to attract the nation’s best talent,” I don’t know why we should assume that to be true.
Of course, players did work in the off-season — they were doing that when I was young too, and I’m not that old. If the issue is which era has the best-trained athletes, then there probably is no reason to have any pre-War players in the Circle.
I didn’t mean to be ad hominem, if you read my comment that way, and if you meant it in the other direction, although you definitely struck a nerve, it was an argument-nerve not a personal one, and I like good argument (I bet you never guessed), so there’s absolutely no need to apologize for anything. I think you know I very much respect the position you’ve taken on segregation, and although I handle it somewhat differently, your arguments have changed my thinking.
I want to add a little specificity to my comment about early baseball salaries. B-R has only scattered salary figures for earlier periods, but we do have a few and we can make use of inflation calculators to get a general idea of the scale of money then and now.
For example, in 1901, Bill Dahlen received a salary of $3000. He was then 31 years-old, and that may sound like peanuts, but for the same buying power in 2018 you’d need to pay Dahlen $91,369. That may not compare with minimum salaries in the free-agent era, but the median income in the US last year was under $63,000 for people of all ages, and anyone not in hedge funds who is earning $90K at age 31 is doing ok.
Bobby Wallace made use of the league wars to get a salary boost to $6500 in 1902, the equivalent of $190,353 in 2018. Wallace was 28 years-old. What percentage of the population makes more at that age now? (Not to mention John McGraw in 1900, earning the equivalent of over $289K at age 27 . . . well, now I’ve mentioned him.)
Dahlen and Wallace were well paid players and we’re talking about the upper brackets of the salary scale here, but even in 1889, a rookie, Jimmy McAleer, had a salary of $1800 at age 24, the equivalent of over $50K today.
Fringe players surely earned much less without records that B-R can report, but in terms of the drawing power of professional baseball for young working men, a profession where the top salaries could approach the equivalent of $200K for a man in his twenties would have presented a strong attraction.
Bob eno,
Agreed. They couldn’t play pro football or basketball. If young men imagined themselves athletes 120 years ago, their only other choice was the prize ring
nsb, I think that when our CoG debates were proceeding through early birthdates, it helped everyone focus on the context of the earlier game and see the earlier players in terms of baseball history and the universe of players who formed their competition. Now that we’re far from that context with each new group, encountering players much more familiar in terms of both their identities and the game as they play it, there’s simply less inclination to revive that former interest in the earlier players, which at a certain point could lead to George Davis’s election, but that ran out of steam before the CoG threshold reached the level of Dahlen and Wallace. Just as you write, there is a tendency to see “greatness” in terms that are familiar and that assess the scrappy earlier game against the high-tech contemporary game.
We did better than the BBWAA on this up to a point, but I think the point was precisely when we lost the context of the earlier game. I can’t otherwise explain how, for example, Simmons could be garnering twice the support of Dahlen:
WAR…Pk5……Top5….WAR/500PA….OPS+…Career length
75.2.…22.6……29.8……….3.6…………..110………1.4………….…Bill Dahlen
50.1.…23.3……26.4….……2.6……….….118………1.4…………….Ted Simmons
That’s one heck of a catcher bonus!
You’re also right that good hitting seems always to capture more attention than fielding skill and innovation:
WAR…Pk5……Top5….WAR/500PA….OPS+…dWAR….Career length
75.2.…22.6……29.8……….3.6…….…….110………28.5………..1.4………….…Bill Dahlen
69.2.…28.7……29.9……….3.6……..……154……. -21.7………..1.3…………….Manny Ramirez
70.2.…28.6……31.3……….3.7……..……105………28.7………..1.3…………….Bobby Wallace (76.3 WAR, pitching incl.)
Dahlen, Ramirez, and Wallace all generated WAR at the same rate, had comparable non-consecutive peaks (though only Ramirez and Wallace are on a par with consecutive peaks), nearly identical career lengths, and sort of comparable WAR totals (though Ramirez is actually about 10% lower overall) — but Manny’s gaudy slugging attracts the eye far more than the fact that this is a competition between one-dimensional and all-round players of roughly equal value. (I may have left something out . . .)
It’s hard to compare hitter and pitcher WAR straight up, and especially when relief pitching is involved, but the others getting more votes than Dahlen and Wallace — Eckersley, Dawson, Sutton — are all far behind them when it comes to both total WAR and WAR rates. (In Sutton’s case, the two earlier players generate about 75% more bWAR per season.)
I think you’re also right to talk about “compelling legends.” Early players like Cap Anson, Ol’ Hoss Radbourne, Pete Browning, King Kelley, Wee Willie Keeler, and Ed Delahanty became heroes in various “Chapter One” accounts of baseball history written by members of the Damon Runyon school of sportswriters: people like Fred Lieb and Robert Smith. These guys had little use for stats and focused the history of the earlier game on tabloid features of those players, rather than on measurable baseball skill. Players like George Davis, Dahlen, and Wallace were never mentioned. Wallace hung around baseball in various roles long enough, and was a popular enough person, that the Veterans Committee admitted him to the Hall as early as 1953, while he was still alive. But for the more qualified Davis, with 84 WAR, it took a major campaign by statheads like Bill James to get him elected in 1998 — 90 years after his career ended — and despite James’s subsequent campaign for Dahlen, he’s still outside. King “Slide, Kelly, slide!” Kelly was admitted in 1945 on the strength of a 44-WAR career and an alcohol-saturated “compelling legend,” mostly legend.
For all you enthusiastic Eck voters out there, I just don’t get it. I mean, I kind of think he’s getting bonus, “pioneer” credit. Which is fine, I guess, if a little against the spirit of the COG, which is about electing the best PLAYERS. I just kind of think that, had Frank Tanana been made a reliever in the early ’80s, we’d be looking at him in this spot. I don’t know… maybe I just don’t “get” Eckersley. He is, for me, one of the lowest ranking players on the ballot right now. I kind of think he’s going to waltz to election, but I’d love to hear from someone who really thinks he’s the best player on this ballot. Thanks.
WAA+ with a relief pitching adjustment (which to me basically means using a reliever’s WAR vs a starter’s WAA). With no adjustment he still has more WAA+ than Sutton, Lyons, or Tiant.
I’m pretty neutral on Eckersley — I’m unexcited by his case, but I would not be upset if he were elected (he will be eventually) — but I think WAA+ is not a very appropriate measure for a pitcher who spent a quarter of his seasons below average. WAA- is a major element in his profile. (I commented in more detail in Round 3.) Moreover, I don’t see where he actually does have more WAA+ than Tiant. (I understand WAA+ as equivalent to WAA with negative seasons eliminated — perhaps that’s not right, but if it is, Tiant prevails 37.5 to 34.3.)
Below, Josh Davis argues that Lyons’ unusual usage reduces his value (in his post, relative to Tiant): “It’s great for him that he could be more effective only pitching once a week, but that is also easier than doing what Tiant did, which was make 10-14 starts more a year than Lyons for most of his career. Those extra starts are valuable to his team, even if he’s slightly less effective. If Tiant had only pitched once a week, I’m guessing his (and anyone’s) ERA+ goes up.”
I think Josh’s argument has some validity; it’s in line with the recent grumpiness many of us have expressed about Blake Snell and his six-inning starts. Eck is an extreme example of this phenomenon: his pioneer role as a closer was a product of his burnt out arm. He made a great virtue out of necessity for six seasons (followed by six unnecessary seasons without much pitching virtue), but the fact is that Eck could perform no role other than a very short reliever, and, as Josh points out, your ERA+ (as well as WAR rate stats) go up when you never have to ask your arm for endurance.
I guess I fundamentally disagree that a pitcher’s ERA+ would go up as a reliever compared to mediocre or worse starting. Similarly I think some guys wouldn’t get any better if they got however many days rest. It’s just not that deterministic. I think someday we’ll land in a world when pitchers are more varied in their pitches per outing and their rest. The good part to me is it should reduce the 1-inning pitcher. We’ve already virtually eliminated the 1-hitter pitcher and I think that trend is going to continue. Reliever’s average outing is going to go back up as starters innings continue to decrease.
mosc, I ran a Play Index search for the top season ERA+ marks among pitchers with 50+ IP over the postwar period (1946-2018). Of the top 100, ninety-six were by pitchers with zero starts, one by a pitcher with 7 starts in 34 games (Bob Veale, 1963, #38), one by a pitcher with one start in 39 games (Gene Thompson, 1946, #89).
That leaves two true starting pitchers among the 100 best: Pedro Martinez 2000 (#62) and Greg Maddux 1994 (#86).
As for #101-200, eighty-six had zero starts; #201-400, one hundred and sixty-one and (the majority with starts had fewer than ten of them).
Eckersley’s six-year ERA+ as a starter, 1981-86, was 100. His ERA+ as a reliever over the following six years, 1987-92, was 178.
I think the evidence is clear that the relief pitcher role generally boosts ERA+ and that Eckersley is a dramatic example of that. Of course there may be cases of failing starters who failed in relief roles as well, just as there are cases where a successful reliever became a successful starter (e.g., Wilhelm and Smoltz, though each had higher ERA+ figures as relievers). But the general correlation between lowering the volume of regular arm use and increased ERA+ seems extremely strong.
Bob:
Thanks for substantiating something I have also observed. I’m sure that there have been many seasons when middle relievers or closers haven’t been all that great, but those guys were either having an off year or they weren’t around long.
MLB ERA by year broken down
2013: Innings 1-3 3.94; 4-6 4.11; 7-9 3.53
2014: Innings 1-3 3.67; 4-6 3.99; 7-9 3.59
2015: Innings 1-3 4.06; 4-6 4.39; 7-9 3.64
2016: Innings 1-3 4.22; 4-6 4.39; 7-9 3.97
2017: Innings 1-3 4.43; 4-6 4.54; 7-9 4.07
2018: Innings 1-3 4.08; 4-6 4.30; 7-9 4.06
Only in 2018 of the last six years has the ERA for innings 7-9 even come close to one of the earlier three inning stretches. In 2013, 2015, and 2017, the ERA difference between innings 1-6 and 7-9 has hovered at close to half a run. And strangely enough, we are now firmly intrenched in the era of the six-inning starter.
I would love to see some thoughts on comparing these guys:
Drysdale
Cone
Tiant
Reuschel
Sutton
That’s listed in my rough order which seems to be the complete opposite of the folks on here.
Not quite opposite — I’d say Cone, Reuschel, Drysdale, Tiant, Sutton.
One of the things I’d say about this list, is that I’d be happy putting any of them in the COG. I was down on Sutton, but Doom has convinced me that if you give any significant weight to FIP vs. B-R WAR, Sutton belongs, despite his lack of a great peak.
In fact, I’d put every single one of these guys in ahead of at least 5-6 (a dozen or more in some cases) of our existing selections. I think we’re offense heavy and pitcher short, and these could conceivably be the top 5 pitchers not in the COG (though there’s another 10 guys that you could also say that about, these are for sure 5 of my personal top 7 pitchers not in)
It’s an interesting take. I think though that we have to keep in mind we’re all going to have probably 10 guys we want out of the COG with 10 ready replacements. It’s a consensus effort by nature. I don’t like Larry Walker, Kevin Brown, Lou Whitaker, Harmon Killebrew, and a couple others. I see these 5 pitchers I mentioned and guys like Palmer and Mussina all as fairly tight. There are definitely some tough calls.
I’m sure there are those that are grumpy about Satchel Paige, Wes Ferrell, and others I have championed. At least we can all agree we did a better job than the actual writers did (to be fair to them, we have better tools including awesome hindsight!).
I think Mussina outclasses these guys pretty clearly.
Palmer not so much after adjusting for park and the historically excellent defense behind him. I think he probably belongs, but IMO he’s one of the weaker pitchers we’ve selected but not really better than any of these guys we’re debating. FIP is also not kind to him suggesting that B-R is not only not overcorrecting for fielding but may even be *under-correcting*. If you believe FIP, he’s not a COG pitcher at all, but borderline big hall.
Mussina OTOH, gets rated quite highly by both measures, has significantly more WAR and WAA, and a better peak than any of these 5. I don’t understand why anyone would question him being absolutely automatic for here.
And you’re absolutely right, that of course we’re all likely to have 5-10 guys we’d prefer to replace. I’m just noting that by my standards, it seems that we’re omitting most of the pitchers in the 115-130 HR range while putting in a lot of the offense heavy position players in that range unless they have PED associations. Pitching and defense appear to be underrated by us, just nowhere near as much as they are by the BBWAA, but still.
Main Ballot–Dahlen, Ashburn, Eckersley
Secondary Ballot–Minoso, Boyer, Abreu
Vote change. Give me Reuschel over Pettitte on the secondary and Simmons over Nettles on the primary.
Reuschel should get more of a chance, I agree and Pettitte is a fill-in vote, not somebody I think actually should get in. Simmons has a chance, and I have some residual Manny Ramirez fear so I’ll give him a go. Nettles has rounds to spare and I’m still rather puzzled he doesn’t get more support but meh, that’s a fight for future rounds.
Dawson, Simmons, Eckersley
Randolph, Reuschel, Irvin
I’m a little surprised that Luis Tiant isn’t even getting the level of support that Sutton and Lyons are. I’ve got Tiant tops out of the starters on the main ballot (Eckersley is different story and hard to compare because of his unique career arc). Others have written more eloquently on Sutton and Lyons, but here’s my two cents on why I think Tiant is better. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
1. Tiant scores better in some basic rankings, like WAA and the Hall of Stats:
WAA
Tiant 34.5
Lyons 28.1
Sutton 23.3
HOS
Tiant 130
Lyons 126
Sutton 113
2. While Tiant has a slightly lower career WAR (66.7, to 67.4 for Sutton and 71.5 for Lyons), I find the difference minimal, and in fact Tiant has higher peak WAR for the vast majority of their careers. No, he didn’t hang on as long, but he was a better pitcher for longer.
Total of 5 best WAR seasons:
Tiant 34.4
Lyons 29.5
Sutton 27.4
Total of 10 best WAR seasons:
Tiant 55.6
Lyons 51.9
Sutton 43.5
Total of 15 best WAR seasons:
Tiant 66.2
Lyons 63.5
Sutton 56.4
I was actually surprised that Tiant was still in the lead after 15 years – he wasn’t just a flash in the pan.
3. ERA+ gives a slight edge to Lyons (Lyons 118, Tiant 114, Sutton 108) but that lead evaporates to nothing if you eliminate Tiant’s final three seasons (which were not good). Again, Lyons was more effective for a little longer, but Tiant’s still better over 15 year period. I also dock Lyons a little bit for his unusual usage. It’s great for him that he could be more effective only pitching once a week, but that is also easier than doing what Tiant did, which was make 10-14 starts more a year than Lyons for most of his career. Those extra starts are valuable to his team, even if he’s slightly less effective. If Tiant had only pitched once a week, I’m guessing his (and anyone’s) ERA+ goes up.
4. Tiant is the best strikeout pitcher of the three with 6.2 K/9 (Sutton 6.1, Lyons 2.3).
5. Tiant’s postseason heroics in 1975 don’t hurt his case with me. It’s a small sample size, but it looms large in memories.
I buy it, but I don’t want to vote for Sutton or Lyons either. I totally agree with you though. More interesting to me is Tiant vs Reuschel.
Here is a comparison of Tiant and Reuschel. Tough to chose one over the other.
Both had success playing in good hitters’ parks (Fenway/Wrigley) and good pitchers’ parks (Cleveland/Candlestick). Tiant’s totals are hurt by three sub-par seasons in his prime (age 28-30), the first struggling with the new mound and strike zone, and the next two struggling with injury. Reuschel was also out for a full season, but at age 33.
It seems to me I was initially surprised to see Reuschel rated so high in pWAR — I hadn’t remembered him as quite in that class. Reuschel’s WAR benefits strongly from compensation for weak Cub defense over the first half of his career, and his ERA+ is adjusted because he has 11 seasons in hitter-friendly Wrigley Field. So Reuschel seems very much a pitcher whom advanced stats elevated beyond his contemporary reputation.
I believe it was Doom who posted a comment that first drew my attention to a particular instance of this: Reuschel’s 1977 season, in which he earned 9.4 WAR for a solid but unremarkable looking year (20-10, 252 IP, 158 ERA+) . The scale of the WAR figure seems hard to explain. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out where it comes from, apart from the poor defense and park advantage that pertained to every Reuschel year. In ’77, Reuschel’s exceptional year was not recognized — he tied for third in the CYA award balloting, capturing only one first-place vote — and I felt Doom’s point was a good one to work through. I wound up deciding that Reuschel’s WAR record was not as solid as it should be. I’ve just gone through the exercise again to remind myself of my thinking then. So innocent am I of statistical theory that I really have no idea whether my thinking is valid or not.
It appears to me that Reuschel’s WAR in 1977 must principally be explained by his low Runs Allowed rate. Overall, Reuschel allowed exactly 3.00 runs per 9 IP, while his opponents’ season average of runs scored was 4.39 — compare CYA winner Stave Carlton, at 3.15 and 4.34 — 153 OPS+, 5.9 WAR. When defense and park are factored in, Reuschel’s 3.00 contrasts to a predicted average of 5.27 vs. Carlton’s 4.24. Hence Reuschel was saving 2.27 runs per 9 IP to Carlton’s 1.09. I think that’s where the high WAR figure comes from.
I explored Reuschel’s game logs for his performance against the league’s power teams in ’77: the Phillies, Pirates, Dodgers, and Reds. Those teams averaged 4.86 runs per game, but Reuschel held them to 3.86 over the course of 81.1 IP, of which 39 IP were in Wrigley Field, where those teams scored 3.69 R/9 against Reuschel. Wrigley had an index of 113 in ’77, so that is indeed impressive. To contrast with the CYA winner again, Carlton was pitching in Veterans Stadium, which had an index of 101, and didn’t have to pitch against his own team, the leading run producing team in the NL. But the largest differential between Carlton and Reuschel in ’77 was defense: the Phillies’ RA9def was +0.35, compared to -0.27 for the Cubs, a huge difference. These are all reasons why Reuschel was calculated to be saving runs at twice Carlton’s rate, despite having Runs Allowed figures that were quite close.
When I first worked through all this a few years ago, I felt I understood Reuschel’s very high WAR figure, but I wasn’t sure I trusted it. The reason fundamentally was — and is — that Reuschel was operating at the outer fringe of both park factor and defensive quality, and the tolerances built into the bWAR system were being tested to the extreme. While both those calculations seem to me generally trustworthy, both also seem to me to have significant margins of error (particularly defense), such that when one of the figures is most distant from the norm the chance of distortion is significant, and when they are both at the fringe, that chance of distortion is increased geometrically. I don’t mean to say that Reuschel’s 9.4 WAR in ’77 is significantly distorted upward, but that it seems to me that the chances that it is significantly distorted upward are higher than normal. And this applies in varying degrees to all seasons of Reuschel’s Cubs career (about 65% of his total IP and over 70% of his total WAR).
I’ve voted for Reuschel on the Secondary Ballot in the past (I think) because I still believe pWAR is the best one-stop tool we have for evaluating pitchers. Earlier, I was surprised when he dropped off the main ballot (Doom’s authority, perhaps — and that will likely bring him back), but I originally felt that in comparing him with Tiant (since I never credited Brown, those two were always direct competitors), Tiant’s quirky career was actually on more solid ground that Reuschel’s. Tiant also pitched in a hitter’s park for one of his peak periods, but his park factors and defensive quality measures are not generally reinforcing, like Reuschel’s, and so there’s less chance of distortion (I think). Perhaps this helps explain why I recall Tiant as being very much recognized as great in his time (the CYA voting system in his early career understated that recognition), while I don’t recall that of Reuschel. (Though, to be fair, I missed more of Reuschel’s career for being out of the country.)
You know both guys had somewhat unusal careers with peaks and valleys. Few hit the 8.5 single season WAR threshold but of those two do, these guys are spectacularly weird. Their strange similarity defies that strange weirdness too. Did they face each other in 1981 pirates v cubs before Reuschel got traded to the Yankees? Maybe my vote would come down to the winner of that game.
In 1981 Reuschel faced the Pirates once and pitched a CG, but Tiant was not his opponent (he lost 3-2). Tiant faced the Cubs once and pitched a CG, but Reuschel was not his opponent (he won 8-2; his last career CG).
On #6, is the answer Bernie Allen?
Indeed it is. Truly, a forgotten player.
Since we have Matsui, Lyons and Monte Irvin on the ballot, I wanted to pull out the discussion on “how much credit should they be given…” My problem with the concept is that, by imputing a level of performance to them for time lost which they did not actually achieve, we are assuming two things that are not certainties: A) that they would have performed at the COG level for the “phantom” years, and B) as it relates to Matsui and Irvin, that the quality of the baseball in the Japanese or Negro leagues, respectively, was, if not equivalent, at least a significant fraction of MLB. Aren’t we making too much of an assumption on both based, perhaps, on our evaluation of the top talents we do and did see who migrated to the MLB?
Mike, I think your question is well asked, but that the optimal method for answering it may be different from the tack you take.
First, I’d rule out Matsui from the question altogether. Nothing impeded his MLB career; he chose to continue playing in Japan. There seems to me no reason to give him compensatory consideration for a choice he made to spend his chronological peak living the life of a sports star in his native country — a perfectly reasonable decision for which he was rewarded appropriately. He’s not comparable to those who lost significant MLB time or playing quality to: 1) forces beyond their control, such as the military draft, illness, obligatory baseball contracts that kept them in the Minors or sidelined during league wars, etc.; 2) voluntary war service; 3) the physical stress of playing catcher. It’s fine to speculate on what might have been for Matsui, but not, I think, to link that to a CoG decision.
As for Irvin, the test would not relate to Negro League quality, but to how he played when given his MLB opportunity. Do his MLB stats at ages 30/31 to 37 bear out what we’d expect from a player who would have been superior in his prime, in accord with his Negro League stature? In Irvin’s case, this involves a type of symmetrical “proof of concept”: his MLB stats seem to confirm the promise of his NLB stats, and his NLB stats confirm that he did hit a normal peak during his chronological prime (though the War clouds the question of how high that peak rose). Doom developed a reasonable method for projecting Irvin’s late-age stats back into his prime years, and while we can’t know whether he’d have actually performed at that level or better, it seems an optimal hypothetical to adopt to assess his case. We don’t need to further analyze the Negro Leagues or Irvin’s specific numbers in them.
In Lyons’ case it’s easier. We look at performance before and after and infer the trajectory of his lost years. His brief return in ’46 has to be examined closely because the data set is very small and the War years for him were at ages where most players lose their MLB skills. No one has suggested that we consider the quality of MLB play during the years of his absence, even though its sharp drop in 1943-45 would very likely have inflated Lyons’ success had he played. The projection is all based on what Lyons actually did.
I think that no one is assuming that the players would have performed as projected; the projections are used as a consideration rather than as a calculation of “corrected” stats. For white players, they typically involve no more than three or four War seasons or a couple of seasons for other reasons. (In a case like George Sisler’s, what they really involve is less a projection than a decision to define him more definitively by his peak than we normally do simply because he was prematurely knocked off it by illness.) But segregation involves the issues of both extended absence and institutionalized injustice, so the specific projections may carry more weight. In Satch’s case, his MLB career and NLB reputation were both so close to unique that the projections were only qualitative, but they were nevertheless quite convincing because they were extreme in both aspects. For Irvin, his MLB career was extensive enough that the projections are more concrete, although still hypothetical, and we have a tougher call because he looks more like a typical CoG candidate than the geriatric pheenom Paige was. But in neither case does the quality of the Negro Leagues figure in detail because the basis of the projection is MLB stats.
Tangentially, it may be worth noting that if we did project Matsui’s record in this way, this is how the projection basis would compar to Irvin’s:
…PA……WAR…..WAR/500PA……ages
2893…..21.3……….3.7……………..30-37……..Monte Irvin
5066…..21.2……….2.1……………..29-38……..Hideki Matsui
A.) Why would we assume the Negro Leagues in which Irvin played weren’t very good? Bill James has a wonderful quote in the NBJHBA that was something along the lines of, “If the Negro Leagues produced Ernie Banks, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Don Newcombe, and others in its dying breath, can’t we assume they were the equals or betters of MLB?” That’s a big misquote; it was in the top 100 players essay, I believe, in which Bill worries that having only 4 or 5 Negro League players in his all-time top-100 was not enough.
B.) Why do we have a huge problem with a non-integrated league made up of Black players, but we just readily accept the quality of a non-integrated league full of White players? Let’s be real: Ted Lyons – fine, we’ll consider him, even though he was never one of the best pitchers around. Bullet Joe Rogan? Oh sure, he was the best; but then, he was Black, so let’s not consider him, on the basis that his league was inferior. That’s craziness. It truly is the doubling-down on the discrimination of an earlier era.
C.) As for player credit, you have two choices: you can pretend those guys weren’t baseball players at all in those years, and just not care if you’re electing the best players, or you can try to adjust for what you think they might’ve been. Lefty Grove was, whether you like it or not, one of the best pitchers in the world from 1920-1924. You don’t have to give him credit for those years, if you don’t want to; but it’s undeniably true. The minors of the 1920s were NOT like the minors of today; he was own by Baltimore, and they liked their star pitcher, so they didn’t want him to go to the majors. So you give him credit. Had Matsui been born in America, he would’ve never gone to Japan. So in spite of Bob’s tidy “he chose to continue playing in Japan” argument, Mike Trout didn’t “choose” to play in America; he was born here. Had Matsui been born here, don’t you think he likely plays in MLB before age 25? I think so. Of course, I don’t think his career is near good enough to merit COG consideration, anyway, so I’m not worried about him.
D.) We can’t possibly reach the conclusion that Joe DiMaggio’s career wasn’t as good as Charlie Gehringer’s, can we? Yet, Gehringer put up more WAR because of… well, THE War. DiMaggio WAS a great baseball player, he just wasn’t playing in MLB. I don’t, personally, have any problem attempting to give credit to players for being great players and just not being in MLB. We want to simplify things, but literally everything we do in baseball is speculative. How do we know Dave Kingman was a powerful hitter? Well, he hit a lot of home runs. And yes, those home runs were counted and recorded… but they were contingent upon the pitchers he faced, the weather, the stadium, etc. They are a proxy for his skill. Even the statistical record itself is just telling us information that we have to use our brains to filter into conclusions. Those conclusions are what we base the COG on. So we’re doing it for everyone, even those guys who played all their seasons in an integrated MLB and had no external forces keeping them from performing in the best league available. With some players, you have to do more speculating than others, but there’s ALWAYS speculation. So for me, the attempt to figure out SOME kind of value for these players is not a fact we can totally know, but it’s ALSO silly to assume that like 40-50% of the best 100 players in history were white guys from 70-100 years ago who played in a segregated league… yet no one ever really seems to care when that’s the conclusion people draw, yet I think anyone with half a brain would tell you that it’s OBVIOUSLY not true. So we’re stuck trying to figure out who the best players were, so we speculate. Inevitably, we’ll get some wrong, of course. But to me, trying to figure out the right answer and maybe getting it wrong is better than conveniently using conclusions you KNOW to be wrong or incomplete, just because intentionally choosing what you know are wrong conclusions. Me? I’d rather speculate away and hope for the best.
Great post Doom…
Though I’m still upset with you for making me vote for Brown.
I wasn’t looking for a confrontation, just a discussion, but I’m going to take one thing head on. I didn’t say the quality of Negro League “wasn’t very good.” What I don’t think anyone is in a position to say is whether it was as good in the aggregate as MLB. That does not diminish the incredible talents of Mays, Banks, etc, any more than Mike Trout’s are playing on a team that hasn’t broken .500 in the last few years. The greatness of some does not define the level of them all. No where did I say don’t consider them, I merely raised the possibility that the average level of play might not be as good. The percentage of African-Americans in population in the 1950 census was 10%, non-Hispanic whites are about 86%. Isn’t it possible, given that variance, that MLB play might be at a higher level? Certainly integration made MLB much better. I was comparing two different leagues as they existed at the time. As for 50% of the best players of all time being old white guys who played well before any of us where born. of course that’s inaccurate–but for a group that measures things through the lens of WAR–
And, with that, gentleman, I’m done. I need the “half a brain” I have left.
Doom, I think there are a few of problems in your response to Mike.
B) . . . ” . . . he was Black, so let’s not consider him, on the basis that his league was inferior.” That’s not the basis we don’t consider Rogan; it’s because he doesn’t meet the criteria for the CoG and no one has argued, after Paige, that we should further bend or alter those criteria. If you think we’re doing an injustice, why not just make that argument: I’m sure you’d find support. (I’d support it, but only if we agreed on some way to provide all of us with a basic education on NLB.) But to say we’re doubling down on discrimination seems a little . . .
Some other arguments seem to me problematic because they sanction speculation floating free of data.
C) You seem to be hoping to take down the guard rails that limit the cases we typically consider eligible for the type of compensatory thinking that has guided things like Wartime and catcher bonus. I can’t recall the discussion of Grove, who was going into the Circle anyway, but if no one brought up the effect of Jack Dunn on his late MLB start I’d be surprised. We have a parallel argument for Coveleski right now, though it is not a headline part of his case. But to consider all Asian and perhaps Latino players in terms of how they would have performed if born in America seems . . . well, craziness to me. If Matsui had been born in the US his entire history would have been radically different, including the absence of those elements of Japanese culture and baseball training that worked well for him. He would not have been the same person in most respects. You can speculate on it all you like, but the data is so radically lacking to validate speculation that I don’t see how there could be an impact on CoG argumentation. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference in the lack of choice in birthplace and in opportunity to practice your trade at the highest level, and the first is not a reasonable basis for CoG considertion. It’s true that none of us chooses his or her birthplace, but none of us at that point prefers any other denied alternative either. It’s not a matter affecting agency — Matsui didn’t choose to be born in Japan, but he would not have chosen to be born anywhere, or even to be born, because newborns have no choice-making mechanism; they are many neuronal steps away from conscious agency, and there is zilch in common between that sort of “denial of choice” and the conditions that apply to CoG considerations.
D) I have a hard time following the target of some of your arguments, but I think the bottom line is that the quality of NLB is demonstrated by the probabilities of baseball talent being entirely to white people before 1947. I don’t think that’s a valid argument. It would hold even if the Negro Leagues were, in fact, far inferior because of issues other than talent, such as training, nutrition, culture, and so forth, and therefore would give a false positive. The best argument for de-valuing NLB, it seems to me, is a variant of Michael Sullivan’s argument about 1900 baseball: exceptional performance was a product of a generally low-skill environment. I don’t believe that argument is true, and the reason is precisely the Bill James argument that you cited in A), which is based on evidence of measurable quality.
mosc, I regret nothing! It took me five years (I think) and a SUPER-weird runoff to get you to vote for Kevin Brown. I take nothing back. But… well, a sincere “thank you” from a person who advocated very hard for a player who I think belongs. That said, I don’t really LIKE Kevin Brown, so I understand your disgust.
Mike L, wasn’t trying to be confrontational, just trying to continue the discussion from a different viewpoint. I suppose that’s the definition of confrontation; what I mean to say is, I think the topics were spot-on and worth discussing, and I just wanted to get another perspective out there. Apologies for an uncouth tone.
Bob, I must not be explaining myself well. Or perhaps we’re just on such different wavelengths regarding this issue that we’ll never see eye-to-eye on it. Let me start with Bullet Joe again. We don’t consider Rogan because we don’t have the statistics to measure him (at least, not enough of them). I mean, that’s the main reason behind not including the Negro Leagues, right? We don’t really have statistical records for them, so we’re mostly going on hearsay. Therefore, the rules of the COG are, in some way, based in the historical fact that MLB is the only league we consider. Fun fact: MLB was racist. To say, “But he doesn’t meet the rules!” is like the old “But he never won an MVP” argument for the Hall of Fame. Just because people made a mistake once doesn’t mean we should continue making the same mistake in judging those players.
Honestly, this whole mess is the reason I voted and advocated against Paige’s induction for a long time; my feeling was, if we bend the rules that far, we might as well break ’em. I would, personally, much rather see Oscar Charleston, Bullet Joe Rogan, and Josh Gibson in the COG than some of our lesser lights. I will continue with that perspective, but you’ll note that I have made no protest votes, nor tried to “redeem” them. I’m willing to live by the rules we have; I just think it’s worth pointing out that even our process does, by the nature of its rules, double-down on segregation. That’s not a judgment on anyone here as a human being; it is a factual statement about how much MLB screwed us all out of an authentic statistical record, as well as seeing the greatest players of all-time take one another on.
In regard to Matsui, I think your argument was made in bad faith. OBVIOUSLY no one chooses where they are born; obviously changing one of those factors would change everything. Still, Matsui was not scouted, nor seriously considered, for MLB service until the Yankees actually signed him. It’s not like he was turning teams down for years. He wasn’t choosing to remain in Japan; MLB was choosing not to bring him to the US. After all, the Ichiro* experiment only really happened because the Mariners believed it would be… let’s say “demographically advisable,” given the demographics of Seattle as a city, and they figured it couldn’t hurt to sell t-shirts and hats in Japan. It was only after the success of that experiment that Matsui, a giant (and a Giant!) in Japanese baseball, got a chance (Ichiro was the first Japanese position player to ever really get a shot at MLB). That’s not a “choice” to remain in Japan. Japanese players are, essentially, OWNED by their teams, in a way much more reminiscent of reserve-clause era baseball. They don’t really have the “choice” to come to MLB unless their teams are willing to let them. To put that on Matsui seems to me remarkably unfair. I also don’t think he would’ve been a 40-HR guy in MLB over those years had he played here. But I think it’s fair to consider his complete record as a professional baseball player.
To me, the question is, “How good a baseball player was he?” not “How good an MLB player was he?” It’s fine with me if we make “played in MLB” a qualifier, but I think it’s acceptable to think about how a player performed OUTSIDE the Majors, as well. I think you actually agree with me on this, because you want Irvin in (or at least you think Irvin’s as good as anyone on the secondary ballot). Our “disagreement” is apparently over Japanese baseball, which I think has such a different culture that it’s not really fair to think of their players as “free agents” that can just move on, anymore than it would be fair to think “Well, if Satchel Paige were really so good, someone would’ve tried to take him on ten years earlier.” Remember how the Red Sox had to pay $51.2 million just to TALK to Daisuke Matzusaka? That’s MUCH more like the Lefty Grove example I gave than it is like free-moving players. For that reason, I think you have to think about where the player was born, and project AS IF those restrictions weren’t in place. If you prefer not to think of that as “Had he been born in America,” fine. I was just saying that NONE of us get to choose where we are born, and yet it has a TREMENDOUS impact on how MLB treats people. Matsui was not evaluated by MLB as a player with a similar minor league record and physical qualities would’ve been looked at. That’s not Matsui’s fault. I don’t think we should make the same mistake MLB scouts made, and I don’t think we should be restricted by their decisions.
Again, this is NOT an endorsement for Matsui for COG; I believe he’s only received two votes in two rounds, so it’s not exactly like he’s building support here. I just don’t have any problem with looking at non-MLB contributions, particularly if the player otherwise meets our criteria, as players like Lefty Grove, Monte Irvin, Ichiro Suzuki, and Hideki Matsui clearly do.
*Fun fact: Ichiro is actually nine months OLDER than Hideki Matsui. Matsui retired in 2012; Ichiro will play THIS YEAR, in the opening series, if not more. What a boss.
Doom, You explanation of your initial post is much more measured than the initial post was and much more interesting. I’ll try to respond to your various points.
“We don’t consider Rogan because we don’t have the statistics to measure him (at least, not enough of them).” I think that’s not accurate, but it’s a lot closer than the pair of reasons you initially linked: because he was black and [we think] his league was inferior. The reason we don’t consider Rogan is because birtelcom’s project was based on the BBWAA context and we all agreed to that framework at the outset. It is, however, true that once we came to Paige we had a change: we did have stats whose value we could assess with confidence to measure Paige by — his problem was the 20 WAR minimum, which we wound up waiving, thus breaking our rules. If your feeling was that we should go further and break them more radically I don’t really understand why you didn’t say so and aren’t saying so now. As I said, you’ll find support (and always would have), though I can’t say how much until we try.
If all you want to do is express anger at the racism of baseball prior to 1947, well, that’s fine too. I doubt you’ll find dissenters here. But I do think that baseball’s role in moving American society towards desegregation is worth noting — our history is saturated in the worst kind of racism, and baseball’s exceptionalism in this regard is not that it was segregated but that played a leading role in rejecting segregation. If post-War society hadn’t been ready for it, baseball would not have been able to follow through, but at the time it was perceived as a risk. So I’d amend your “fun fact” of baseball’s racism to say that America was racist (I won’t get into the present tense because I don’t was politics on this site) and, sad but, I think, true, had MLB not been, it would not have become MLB. MLB didn’t create the Negro Leagues: America did. (This does not alter the validity of the statistical argument that the significance of MLB stats should be understood in light of the force of artificial restrictions on the talent pool.)
On Matsui, my understanding of Japanese baseball is that players do not become free agents for ten years, rather than the seven in MLB, but that the teams have no legal hold over players beyond the contracts they sign. That is, a player not contracted for, say, his tenth season with the team that initially signed him cannot play with another Japanese team, but is under no contractual obligation to his initial team and is thus free to seek an MLB contract. Once Matsui became a star, as early as 1997 (prior to the development of the “posting” system that requires team permission and compensation be paid by MLB for players signed), he was offered a long-term contract in Japan but requested and received a one-year contract instead, and that situation of declined multi-year contract offers continued annually for several years (thus Matsui would not have been subject to the “posting system” rules that led to the high price the Red Sox paid to talk to Matsuzaka — the price, of course, was the product of the auction format of the system). Over that period, Matsui was considering courting a US offer but declined to do so each year because of goals he had in Japan. He had plenty of American teammates and coaches interested in his career and could easily have secured a US or Japanese agent skilled in advocating for him in the US, given his contacts and wealth. Instead, he treated the ten-year free-agency period as a contract equivalent, and announced he would leave only when he had completed it. There is certainly a type of nobility in that attitude, but it is a choice, and he was richly rewarded in Japan for making it, both in Yen and in honors. Looking the the other side of the coin, you say that no MLB team even scouted Matsui until 2002 and that this was a kind of involuntary restriction on him. I have not heard that. Perhaps that’s true, though it seems astonishing to me, given his prominence as a home run champ and star of the famous Yomiuri Giants for years. But if Matsui had wanted to be scouted, he surely could have been; Japanese agents accomplished as much with others before him. Note: All that is according to my understanding of Japanese ball and Matsui’s story, but I’m no expert and perhaps you are (that’s not snark, it’s a disclaimer; I see you as expert in many aspects of baseball).
As for considering how a player performed outside the MLB, our common view of Irvin seems to obscure a difference in our reasoning. I do not want to assess in any detail how Irvin performed in the Negro Leagues. All his Negro League record signifies for me is that he was not a late bloomer, and that it’s valid to project his talents in the thirties back to his early twenties. Irvin, in his three full seasons in the Negro Leagues, at ages 21, 22, and 27, had a recorded BA of about .375. I’m completely uninterested in assessing how that might convert to an MLB BA; I’m only interested in the fact that his BA and power numbers established him as a leading NLB player. The test then becomes not how to convert his age 21-27 seasons (what there was of them), but how to project his MLB age 30-37 seasons — those figures we understand. I’m actually quite sympathetic to the argument that the Negro Leagues, considered as a whole, had a very different and perhaps lower minimal standard than MLB, and that this might inflate the absolute numbers of its leading players in a way not characteristic of MLB figures. But, as you pointed out, we can be absolutely sure that the leading talents of the Negro Leagues were at the same level as leading talents in MLB or higher because players like Mays, Aaron, etc. prove that to be true. In cases like Paige and Irvin, we use their MLB numbers as “proof of concept” in that respect — it is their MLB performances at various later-career ages that allows us to feel confident (to a high degree) that they were, when younger, playing at or above the CoG threshold.
Now, as I said, I’m perfectly open to changing that model with respect to Negro League ball and opening up its entire history to the CoG, including to players who never played MLB. But I would not support that if HHS voters are, like me, fundamentally uninformed about the Negro Leagues and their statistical parameters. The idea of the CoG entails doing the job well, and to extend that to the Negro Leagues we’d need to educate one another through well researched posts about the different conditions that prevailed over the history of those leagues and of their statistical records. As you know, that’s the approach I’ve also suggested for considering 19th century baseball — even for the period I regard as modern, 1893-1900, I don’t want to throw the doors open without equipping ourselves with the tools needed to vote responsibly. (I’d be less willing to do this for Japanese baseball because there are, in fact, many leagues outside the US that have produced MLB-quality players, not only in Asian countries like South Korea and Taiwan, but for many decades in Latin America, and a survey of their roles begins to blur the lines between foreign leagues and minor leagues. I don’t think we could do that job responsibly.)
I want to add one more comment and I hope you’ll take it as constructive — it applies to all of us sometimes. When you write, “OBVIOUSLY no one chooses where they are born; obviously changing one of those factors would change everything,” I think you’re essentially saying that your earlier message was using parodic rhetoric — snark — to challenge a serious argument. I think that’s a strategy we’d all do best not to use here, since the civility of HHS is something I think we all value, and snark directed at a poster’s arguments is often a pretty uncivil way to frame a comment. In this case, I misread your tone, thought you were making an atypically weak argument, and wasted time rebutting it. (The analogy of Matsui to Grove was potentially much stronger and to the point, and I’ll grant it to some degree, with Matsui’s cultural commitments serving the role of Jack Dunn as much as the Giants ownership.) And, to add to that, I hope that I don’t make arguments in bad faith. Sometimes when I see what seem to me extremely weak arguments made here I do wonder whether the poster really believes them or is trying to prevail by devious means, but my rule is always to assume haste rather than dishonesty. It has proved a valuable approach on occasions when it turned out that the hasty argument was actually valid and I was the one who was dense. Better to have one egg on my face than two.
I think you do consider Matsui’s Japanese career. You just then rule him out because it wasn’t good enough. Also, I think if you compare the relative strength of the negro leagues in the 20s-40s to japanese baseball in the 90s and 00s, the negro leagues were like quad-A roughly and the japanese league was like half way between double and triple-A. Matsui himself helps define that by never remotely hitting like he did in Japan once he came over.If he at a 1.100 OPS for a couple seasons stateside like he did in japan, it would elevate his previous stats by reflecting better on the other league. We got a good look at Irvin and Matsui in the MLB even if it wasn’t their absolute peaks. Matsui clearly doesn’t make the cut, Irvin is pretty close to the line one way or the other. I don’t think the process is any different or anybody is suggesting doing one without the other (or at least I’m not).
Bob made a good observation in comparing Irvin’s WAR/500 PA to Matsui’s (both having come to MLB at roughly the same age). Matsui’s was 2.1, Irvin 3.7, and I agree that Matsui clearly doesn’t make the cut. If you extrapolate out and assume Matsui started in the AL, maybe he would have had career WAR of 45-ish, which feels about right for a player we all saw. Very solid player, not a transcendent star. Irvin was clearly better, but maybe he makes it to the 60’s–discussable for COG, electable in a weak year, not a clear must have.
Mike, If you project Irvin’s 21.3 WAR against a career length midway between the extremes among the current main ballot candidates (that is, Allen and Dawson), you get 66.6 WAR. That is projected from Irvin’s WAR rate at ages 30-37 (and 30 was a cup of coffee as a “rookie”). If you make the normal assumption that his peak would have occurred earlier, that WAR number would rise by quite a lot (though some of that rise in volume would need to remain in the later age bracket at his actual rate). I think there’s no question that a statistical projection over a normal career for Irvin can’t yield less than WAR in the 70s; it could easily be in the 80s. Since Irvin’s Negro League peak appears to begin in his very early 20s, it could be higher still (and there we hit War years, further complicating matters). But placing it in the 60s doesn’t seem realistic to me.
Bob, no question you could be right. One of the things I noticed about Irvin’s Negro League stats was that he didn’t play a lot in either 1947 or 1948 (mirroring his experience in MLB, in which he missed significant parts of seasons with injury). So, I did a back of the envelope extrapolation based on Plate Appearances.
Mike, What you’re seeing in ’47-’48 is the lack of team stats, not Irvin’s absence. If you look at Newark’s line-up record those years you’ll see that Irvin’s PAs are second in ’47 and seventh in ’48 (but just 12 PA behind the leaders). NLB baseball’s issues include large amounts of missing records.
So for Irvin, the 1947-48 seasons don’t have anything in common with 1952 and ’55.
Thanks, I obviously missed that
11. Mike Morgan? He started in 411 games amazingly. Played at 18 and 42 and for 12 different teams.
His ’78 debut is also weird. It includes a complete game and just 12.1 total innings. I bet there is somebody else who threw fewer total innings in a season with a complete game but I couldn’t name him. Maybe even some like 6 inning rain shortened cameo? Also has a CG in a season with no strikeouts, not sure how many have pulled that feat either.
Since 1871 there have been 156 occasions of a pitcher with one 9 inning CG and no other IP in that season, most recently by Steve Barr in 1974. In 26 of those games there were 0 strike outs, most recently by Babe Ruth in 1933.
There have been 34 debut seasons like Morgan’s, with two or more starts, a CG, and 12.1 or fewer IP. Most recent was by Devern Hansack of the Red Sox in 2006, with two 5 IP starts, the second a no-hit shutout. Most recent including a 9 inning CG is Morgan, followed by Jim Hughes of the Twins in 1974, whose other start was only 1.1 IP. Morgan and Johnnie Williams in 1914 are the only two on that list to have three starts, with Williams also posting a relief appearance, but totaling only 11.1 IP.
It’s not Morgan. Someone else has played for more teams.
11. Bobo Newsom ?
A hint is the player is still active.
It’s Edwin Jackson! I can’t believe I didn’t think of this earlier! I even thought about him when I was writing a comment on here about bad no-hitters. I mentioned Francisco Liriano’s no-no instead, because I actually watched that one on TV (in a hotel room; it’s a very distinct memory for me). But I thought about Jackson’s famous (infamous?) 8 walk no-hitter when I wrote that comment. In that no-hitter, a 1-0 shutout, Jackson threw 149 pitches. I’m quite sure no one’s thrown more since; I don’t think anyone else has topped 140, and I’m not even sure there’ve been that many 130-pitch outings. (Johan Santana’s fabled “career-ending” no-hitter in 2012 was 134 pitches; that’s the one that springs immediately to mind.)
Jackson has played for 13 teams, only one of which has given him a return engagement (a marked contrast to Newsom, for example).
Jackson’s 149 pitches in 2010 are one more than Tim Lincecum in his 2013 no-hitter. Livan Hernandez (2005) is the last to throw 150 pitches (exactly). Tim Wakefield has the two highest pitch counts since 1988 with 172 (1992) and 169 (1997). The most pitches between Wakefield and Hernandez are 155 by Randy Johnson, a month after Wakefield threw 169. In all, there are 79 games of 150+ pitches from 1988 to 2005, including 12 by Rogers Clemens and 9 by Randy Johnson; nobody else has more than three.
Unofficial pitch counts before 1988 (all of them Dodger games, but for both teams) top out at 211 pitches for Joe Hatten in 1948. Stan Williams and Sandy Koufax (both in 1961) and Herm Wehmeier (1957) are the only others to top 200 pitches. Most 150+ pitch games are 16 for Sandy Koufax (9-5 record), 9 for Don Drysdale (6-1) and 7 for Ralph Branca (7-0). Warren Spahn (1-2), Curt Simmons (1-2) and Robin Roberts (1-3) all topped 150 in four games against the Dodgers.
My vote:
Main: Allen, Lyons, Dawson
Secondary: Abreu, Helton, Minoso
I’d like to take the opportunity to provide an off-topic factoid that some of you might be interested in. A few years ago I did a search to find players who had a .300 BA after each and every AB during their careers (3000 PA min.). I was able to confirm Jimmie Foxx and Earle Combs, with Joe DiMaggio and Riggs Stephenson as possibilities that I could not confirm due to missing data. The missing data for Stephenson is now available and he joins Foxx and Combs on the list.
It’s odd they have the play-by-play for DiMaggio’s second game, but not his first, given that both were in the same series.
Richard,
DiMaggio went 3 for 6 in his debut on May 3,1936. Unfortunately, there is no PBP to indicate whether those hits were garnered early or late in the game through Retrosheet……perhaps local archived newspapers? I have a DiMaggio box set of books on his entire professional career , including the PCL days. Its loaded with photos and comments from the national press along the order of, “he’s a dago but doesn’t like too much garlic in his food”. Pretty strange….but, I’ll check there.
FWIW, his low point in batting average post-game appears to be .314 shortly after his debut in early May. But, obviously, no way of knowing on a PA by PA basis through Retrosheet
i wonder if you have what I have, a 2-volume set of books entitled “The DiMaggio Albums” which is a compilation of newspaper articles about him. There is an article about his debut game in which his 3 hits in 6 at bats are mentioned. His 3rd hit came in his last AB, his 2nd hit in his 4th or fifth AB and his 1st hit in one of his 1st 3 AB. Also he needed a hit in 1 of his 1st 2 AB in the game following the one with the .314 BA. And he was occasionally referred as the Wallopin’ Wop early in his career.
Probably, beautiful navy blue binding, IIRC?
Joe picked a great time to debut – The average score of an AL game in 1936 was 6.17 to 5.17. His somewhat astronomical .928 OPS was only good for a 123 OPS+ . How about 24 BB and 88 XBH ?
I found an account of Joe’s debut. His 6 PAs went FC, single, K, triple, flyout, single. So, he was a .300 hitter after every AB of his career, except his first.
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/joe-dimaggio-major-league-yankee-debut-1936-article-1.2618953
Thanks, Doug. I guess that puts that baby to rest
Stellar research, Doug! Thank you for finding that out; I was wondering if Joe D was in that exclusive club of guys who were never less than .300 hitters; apparently, he missed it by one… but even that one, he was on base.
Stan Musial and Barney McCosky also missed by one AB.
funny thing about Musial-if he doesn;t pitch in the minors and goes straight to the Cards’ minor league outfield from high school, they probably call him up a wee bit sooner in 1941 and, at age 20, he possibly helps them edge out Brooklyn for the pennant. But, then again, I don’t know if he breaks into that OF with Slaughter, Moore, and Johnny Hopp.
Maybe the Cards were manipulating his service time? The organization has always been considered ahead of its time.
He also needed a hit in one of his first 2 AB in his 9th game on 5/13/1936.
Richard, thank you for mentioning this – truth be told, your offhanded mention of that search on a thread awhile ago has stuck in my mind. One of my own slow-going processes is to read through the stats and sabr bios of the top 1000 WAR career list, just to learn a little more depth about baseball history. I’ve been quite heavily going through the list in the last few months, and with every player I take note of whether they might have had a .300 career, although I hadn’t done follow up to see for sure. I was just thinking this week of asking you what the results of that project were, so this is a timely post!
You are welcome.
VOTE:
Primary: Simmons, Ramirez and Tiant
Secondary: Boyer, Helton and Abreu
Q9: Ray King had 593 games with 2 saves and 97 GF.
Vote Change
By my count, Eckersley is now tied with Ted Simmons for the lead in the CoG vote. This doesn’t seem like a good direction to me (though I do see it as better than the next choice, Ramirez, one vote behind). Obviously I’m in the minority.
I’ve written several comments on both Eck and Simmons. In Eck’s case, I feel he’s short of the borderline, but he has some unique qualities, chiefly his five outstanding years as a reliever. His first five seasons as a starter were good too, and he might have headed for the CoG that way, but he blew his arm out and mediocrity followed. He would become, I think, the first CoG member to have 7 seasons as a below-average player, and he also has another four that were average or just barely above. For a Great, that’s a lot of time spent as an ordinary player. On the other hand, his chief virtue — those five terrific seasons as a closer — does not comprise a lot of time on the field: just under 360 IP, or two qualifying seasons.
But Eck’s case seems to me far stronger than Simmons’. We are not really short of catchers in the CoG — 10 of 92 position players is close to the predicted 11.5. We’ve accomplished this by lowering our expectations for catcher WAR, among other stats, and, indeed, six of the ten lowest WAR totals among CoG position players are catchers’. The lowest, apart from Roy Campanella’s 34.2, which involved other considerations, is currently Mickey Cochrane’s 52.1. Simmons would set a new low, but not far below Cochrane, at 50.1. However, Simmons’ career was far longer than any of the lower-WAR CoG catchers, and his 50.1 WAR was largely the product of longevity, rather than quality. Other catchers currently not in the CoG have slightly lower WAR totals, but far more productive WAR rates.
Here is a list of all the CoG catchers plus Simmons and two other potential candidates: Thurman Munson and Ernie Lombardi, ranked according to WAR. I’ve included the percentage of games played at the catcher position (Simmons is actually tied with Berra at the bottom on that stat). The non-CoG catchers are in italics:
bWAR…WAR/500PA
75.1………..4.3………….Johnny Bench (79%)
69.7………..3.9………….Gary Carter (90%)
68.4………..3.5………….Carlton Fisk (97%)
68.4………..3.3………….Ivan Rodriguez (100%)
59.6………..3.8………….Mike Piazza (96%)
59.4………..3.6………….Yogi Berra (87%)
55.8………..3.9………….Bill Dickey (100%)
53.4………..3.7…………Gabby Hartnett (98%)
52.1………..4.2…………Mickey Cochrane (100%)
50.1………..2.6……..…Ted Simmons (87%)
46.1………..3.9………..Thurman Munson (97%)
45.9………..3.6………..Ernie Lombardi (100%)
34.2………..3.6………..Roy Campanella (100%)
Apart from Campy’s low WAR, one figure sticks out as different from the others, and not just because I’ve bolded and underlined it. Simmons’ WAR rate is completely out of line with all other candidates.
WAR is an imperfect measure, but the difference here is so stark that cannot be the cause. WAR is basically a quantity measure; WAR/500PA is, by comparison, a quality measure. Bench and Cochrane are positive outliers on the quality scale; all others except Simmons — including Munson and Lombardi — share a general quality range. Simmons simply falls far short of that range. He was not a catcher of CoG quality; Munson and Lombardi seem to have been. If there is a sense among CoG voters that we need to maintain proportionality in catchers, I think that the stats indicate pretty clearly that Munson or Lombardi are the better candidates, not Simmons.
There are good things to say about Simmons because he was a good player (and a refreshing presence in baseball). But I think he’s not close to rising to the current CoG threshold while Eck’s oddball career is. So I’m changing my vote for Wallace to Eckersley (thus lowering the player with more total bWAR than any other candidate and a seminal role in baseball history to zero current votes — I like the irony).
Main Ballot: Dahlen, Eckersley, Tiant
I’m tempted to change my Secondary Ballot vote too. Abreu is currently leading with Helton, Minoso, and Randolph in pursuit. I’m not going to make that change, however, If Abreu returns to the main ballot (where before he received only one apologetic vote) I’m hoping someone will make a case for voting for him. I don’t believe anyone has done so yet, and I can’t see it. Last round he had practically no support.
Bob: First, according to your percentage of games at catcher stats, Simmons and Yogi aren’t tied at the bottom with 87%. On the bottom is Johnny Bench with 79%. Second, That is NOT a negative, it’s a positive! It means that their offensive production was so valuable to their team that they were included in the lineup at their second best defensive position; and that they were athletic enough to play a second position is a positive. Bruce
You’re right, Bruce, I somehow overlooked Bench’s number — my error. But the argument about percentage doesn’t have to do with the issue you raise. It has to do with the “catcher bonus,” which we implicitly give because of the physical toll of playing the position, day after day. It’s because of this issue that I did not include Gene Tenace on the list. Tenace has 46.8 WAR, more than Munson and Lombardi, and a far higher rate stat of 4.2, but he caught in only 58% of his the games he played, and I think that calls into question whether the bonus is appropriate in his case.
By the way, Simmons most common “second position” was DH. It does signify his hitting strength — that is his major positive — but suggests he was not really skilled at any second position. Indeed, he was in negative Rtot territory at 1B and the outfield, as well as at catcher. Bench was at least neutral at 1B, his “third position.” He was in negative territory at his most common second position; however, it was the more challenging 3B role.
PaWaa
185.7 … Bench
509.7 … Simmons … They were within 6 PA of one another.
___________________
185.7 … Bench
210.4 … Cochrane
223.6 … Dickey
231.6 … Munson
260.3 … Lombardi
509.7 … Simmons
___________________
PaWaa obviously dings guys who hang around.
Simmons had a monstrously awful age 34 season (-2.6 WAR / -4.3 WAA).
Here are the same guys through the age 32 season (a reasonable decline year, and when Munson passed):
161.2 … Bench
209.5 … Dickey
210.2 … Cochrane
231.6 … Munson
238.2 … Lombardi
302.6 … Simmons
And compared to other long-playing catchers:
(and by the way, Simmons is “only” 16th all time in games played at Catcher. Bench is 17th.)
224.9 … Carter
245.7 … Hartnett
245.9 … Yogi
279.1 … Fisk
307.5 … Ivan
433.9 … Yadi*
509.7 … Simmons
596.0 … Kendall
6790.0 .. Bob Boone (yes, thousands)
23576.7 . Pena
Through age 32:
160.1 … Carter
177.5 … Fisk (less than half his career)
209.1 … Ivan
215.1 … Yogi
288.8 … Hartnett (he got better with age)
302.6 … Simmons
371.7 … Yadi
396.7 … Kendall
502.9 … Pena
2293.6 .. Boone
Vote time:
Primary – Eckersley, Ramirez, Wallace
Secondary – Randolph, Coveleski, Reuschel
I think the dropoff in productivity per PA for Simmons vs COG catchers is a telling separator, and that Munson (among others) fits better. Once again sad that Dahlen and Wallace are penalized for excelling in their era, through no fault of their own. The secondary ballot is very tough to pick out any gems at this point, and I can’t see Abreu’s case…
So, Ive never played Fantasy baseball.
Last week a friend hired me as a consultant.
Gave me a piece of his action, and I worked with him through the auction.
And now he’s off making dopey moves and I have no control.
And I’ve got the itch.
And what am I gonna do, go join a random league? That’s lame.
So I ask this with a quiver of trepidation… because I know that I am in a room full of addicts……..
Y’all want to play?
Voomo, Although I’m always glad when my efforts as an addict receive recognition, I have to confess that I’ve already taken on more addictions than I can responsibly fulfill.
I’d play for fun…..though not interested in a league that requires real money to play.
Primary: Ted Lyons, Manny Ramirez, Dick Allen
Secondary: Reggie Smith, Minnie Minoso, Rick Reuschel
Main: Eckersley, Wallace, Ashburn
Secondary: Randolph, Reuschel, Boyer
Hmmm. According to my count you’ve created a potential headache for yourself, Doug. Randolph and Reuschel are now tied for the Secondary Ballot lead with your vote. How are you going to break the tie? (You listed Randolph first . . . ?) Well, let’s hope there are more votes to come.
I just looked at your vote spreadsheet, Doug, and I see figures different from mine, including on Reuschel, where it may make a difference. It looks as though mosc’s vote change (Simmons over Nettles; Reuschel over Pettitte) may have been missed.
Also, Gary Bateman’s vote seems to be missing (Dahlen, Ashburn, Eckersley / Minoso, Boyer, Abreu).
Well, it’s been a slice to see these discussions reinvigorated over the past couple of months, will be happy when we get another (couple of?) round(s) next January. Can’t say that I’m personally much of the sentiment that Eck should be in, but I certainly respect the process and the intelligence of the posters at this site.
Main ballot: Bobby Wallace, Luis Tiant, Graig Nettles
Secondary ballot: Rick Reuschel, Reggie Smith, Monte Irvin
A quiet end to this year’s Circle vote. My figures differ a bit from Doug’s, and the difference actually affects the outcome on the Secondary Ballot. The reason for the discrepancies are noted just above bells’ closing vote. Subject to correction, this is what I have for the final results.
With a total of 18 votes cast:
Primary Ballot
10 – Dennis Eckersley*
===============50% (9)
8 – Manny Ramirez
7 – Ted Simmons*
5 – Andre Dawson*
===============25% (5)
4 – Dick Allen, Ted Lyons
3 – Richie Ashburn*, Bill Dahlen, Don Sutton, Luis Tiant, Bobby Wallace
==============10% (2)
1 – Graig Nettles
Secondary Ballot
==============50% (9)
8 – Rick Reuschel
7 – Willie Randolph,
6 – Bobby Abreu, Minnie Minoso,
5 – Ken Boyer*, Stan Coveleski, Todd Helton, Monte Irvin
==============25% (5)
4 – Reggie Smith*
2 – Andy Pettitte
==============10% (2)
1 – Hideki Matsui*
0 – Bengie Molina*
Voters: Voomo, mosc, JEV, epm, Paul E, opal611, Chris C, koma, Doom, Andy, Gary B, Richard C, Josh D, Dave H, Hub Kid, Doug, bells
Bob, I voted in both primary and secondary.
Apologies, Bruce. I omitted your name (which should have been after mosc’s), but not your vote. Seventeen names but 18 votes — your missing name is the difference. You’re really there.
That’s two errors you caught me on this round!
I still see a slight discrepancy between Doug’s total and what I posted, but it’s not significant. (For the record, Doug, I have mosc voting for Dawson rather than Dahlen.)
Woops, was going to swoop in and vote at the last minute and then got embroiled in a family discussion before bed. Turns out, it wouldn’t have made any difference if this tally is accurate.
I’m not really a fan of Eck going in after the discussion this round. One thing that I don’t much like about this vote is that there were a lot of good points made against him with basically no response, and yet he wins. I’m not saying he’s the worst selection ever or anything, but it does bother me that people are either not reading the posts about him, or unconvinced by not willing to say why. Usually you get some firm and interesting argument on both sides, even if I clearly agree with one side or the other.
Anyway, unfortunately none of the people close to him to do I like much better, so nothing I did was going to make any difference.
For the record, if I’d voted it would have been Tiant, Sutton, Nettles. I would have voted for Dawson, Allen, Lyons, Dahlen or Wallace if they’d had a shot to beat Eck.
Secondary, I’m pretty happy my #1 of everybody on either ballot: Reuschel is finally going back on the main ballot — he would have gotten my vote as well as Randolph and Irvin.
Right now, I think our secondary ballot is stronger than the primary.
I also don’t think Eck belongs, in either the HOF or the COG, and I was a huge fan of the A’s back then, and still like them. But he got the most votes. Question for Doug and/or Bob: will this string stay open for further discussion? If so, perhaps it would be fruitful to discuss ideas to strengthen COG membership. Just wondering. Thanks, Bruce
Actually, I am skiing this week, so won’t have a new post up for a few days. So, yes, the post will remain open.
As to Eck, he is hard to evaluate because of his unique career, so nobody really to compare him to (Tom Goodwin might be the closest).
You’ve got the dominant closer of his time for half his career and an okay starter for the other half. The total WAR fits for the CoG even though his career trajectory as a starter wouldn’t have done it.
If he is a closer his entire career, he’s probably a Rivera or Hoffman. I know you want to avoid ifs when evaluating careers, but he was still providing value when he wasn’t being used optimally, enough to give him a decent WAR total. So I think he fits as a borderline candidate with some benefit of the doubt that, for me, is warranted.
Doug,
Tom Gordon? As opposed to the skinny flychaser, Tom Goodwin? But, yeah, there arent’t too many. Smoltz maybe – but not a closer as long as Eck.
“Eck” ? Baseball has some piss-poor nicknames
Thanks Paul,
Tom G. at any rate. Coming up with names off the top of my head has never been a strong suit for me (at least not since I’ve turned sixty).
Yes, welcome to the club. I can recall the ’67 Astros lineup but can’t remember what I had for lunch yesterday. THAT is not a good sign.
I agree that Eck’s not a disaster (after all, I wound up voting for him, after a fashion), but for some of us he was just the least problematic among poor options, and Bruce’s unease fits with Michael Sullivan’s points.
I think the most promising way to improve this process is to attract our lost participants to rejoin it for future rounds. Here’s one suggestion for how we might do that (I don’t have confidence that this is the best approach, but something along these lines, anyway). Assuming that it’s possible to make one-time email contact with former participants, perhaps we could devote a post to some meta-question like, “How Should HHS Change?” and alert all who have been regulars — say everyone who joined the initial few rounds of the CoG — that their input would be welcome.
I believe that the greater portion of our lost base gave up during periods when the site was down — it was once down so long that I gave up (though I checked back after a gap and promptly resumed my addiction), and it was obvious then how many we’d lost. (Of course, that wouldn’t account for the disappointing loss of several long-time stalwarts this year). I know there may be a problem with imposing an email message when email addresses have been provided for a different purpose, but I do think the future of the site may depend on learning why so many have left and attracting them back.
I think all HHS strings are eternally open, Bruce, at least until the day the Great Internet in the Sky decides she’s had enough of the likes of us.
I think the main issues with the CoG are low total participation rates (down from the 60-70 votes common in the early rounds), and relatively high rate of voters who don’t really engage with the discussion, as Michael Sullivan noted. Because I usually tabulate votes, I’ve become aware that among those who join the argument during voting, there’s a balanced diversity of views, while those whom we usually hear from just at the voting point tend to share an orientation strongly enough that it determines an outsize share of the outcome. For example, I think Eck would have, by the smallest of margins, scratched out a victory here among those who contributed to debate, but the runners-up in hot pursuit would have been Allen and Lyons, who showed poorly in the total vote.
This does sometimes make me feel as if there’s not a lot of traction to be had by making arguments (not that this has shortened any of mine). But I don’t think there’s anything to do about it, given how small the voting pool and HHS site participation has become — and, after all, strong silent voters may complete their ballots with as much care as the chatty ones. I’ve come to look at the CoG discussions and outcomes as two very different things, and to pay most attention to the discussion, which is, after all, where the high heat’s at.
I didn’t vote in this round–I just didn’t feel strongly enough about anyone on the primary ballot, much less three of them. I haven’t voted in the secondary round in the past, although I would agree with Michael Sullivan that there are names there that are stronger than some of those on the primary one. I think this is just a lull in the process accentuated by the quirk of there being 4 spots opened up with a comparatively mediocre pool to vote from.
Mike, I understand your feeling, though it’s easier for me because I do have guys I feel really belong. But the nature of the CoG project makes this problem almost inevitable. We each have a vision of what a reformed Hall of Fame should look like, and for many of us it involves contracting below the number the BBWAA have admitted. For people like us, “Greats” should be those who set standards, not those who meet a continually sinking threshold. For “small Circle” posters, with the exception of rounds that happen to rope in an occasional true “Great” from their current birth year, the threshold of the Circle is simply going to be below the level of player we envision as a Great. (And new true Greats who do become eligible will, for a period, be problematic for a group of us because their Greatness came largely through a hypodermic needle.)
I think the best way to approach this, given the interest of birtelcom’s project, is to see our task not as ensuring that only Greats are in the Circle, but to trying to make the Circle as great as it can be under the rules. Even if there are no “Greats” on the ballot, there have to be three players who are the greatest available, and at least twice as many who are not. Figuring out who those three are is a much less emotionally rewarding task than celebrating players we truly admire as representing greatness, but the intellectual challenge has the same integrity — more, in some ways, since our analytic questions aren’t powered by the prospects of emotional reward. There can be satisfaction in that.
Doom’s a good model. Obviously, it’s very disappointing to me to see a player in the CoG whose qualifications rest critically on PEDs, but looking at Doom’s advocacy what I see is his years-long insistence that our best analytic tools tell us Brown belongs in the Circle, despite the fact that Doom himself has apparently felt no liking for Brown. His attachment was to optimally upholding the project, as he saw it, even if he felt no enthusiasm for the player he felt he had to support, and, obviously, the emotional nature of that attachment itself became quite strong.
Bob, a very eloquent (and elegant) response. I agree with the thrust of it. I had voted in the previous three elections, but this time couldn’t settle on people I felt comfortable with, so I took a pass with the idea of letting other people, who had stronger feelings, possibly giving their preferences a slightly stronger chance. My position on PEDS has never changed, so I don’t regret that. I do regret Brown in more than, say, Bonds and Clemens because I think his cheating was integral to what may have differentiated him from the rest of the pack. But, if you don’t want to take that into account, I do think Doom’s rigor with the numbers was appropriate and persuasive,
Don’t know if I missed it in the comments, but the answer to the Jamey Wright question is Danny Darwin. Darwin also beat Wright in their head-to-head matchup.
Eckersley is just the second CoG pitcher born in the 1950s (Bert Blyleven is the other). That compares to four from the 1920s, five from both the 1930s and 1940s, and nine (!) from the 1960s.
If i ran the PI on baseball reference correctly, there are only seven Hall of Fame pitchers born in the 1960’s? Maybe someone with a subscription can verify but I imagine Cooperstown is missing kevin Brown and Clemens from our group?
7 is correct, Rivera, Mussina, Hoffman, Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux and Johnson.
Thank you
Mariners draw first blood in the new season. Ichiro becomes oldest opening day starter for an AL team.
I think he’s after that 4,256 career hits record. I imagine he would still be productive in Japan along the order of .290/.335/.400
He already has 4367.
But if you include Rose’s minors’ stats, Pete’ s at 4683.
Ichiro did recently break Cobb’s all-hits number of 4362.
Well shoot, Im here and procrastinating, might as well do a proper list.
Taking the Top 20 career hits leaders:
4683 … Rose
4367 … Ichiro
4362 … Cobb
4095 … Aaron
4019 … Jeter
4001 … Musial
3965 … Speaker
3787 … Waner
3782 … Yaz
3709 … Lajoie
3706 … Murray
3682 … Honus (missing 1895 stats)
3647 … Ripken
3529 … Beltre
3479 … Brett
3478 … Mays (negro league stats probably incomplete)
3435 … Anson (no minors stats)
3405 … Molitor
3387 … Gwynn
3342 … Alex Rod
3337 … Collins (missing 1906)
3236 … Pujols*
3211 … Yount
3110 … Winfield (never played in minors)
Or, I could have just posted this link from b/r:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Most_Career_Hits
Voom,
I was going to reprimand you for missing the Jigger but you posted the link…it mus thave been nice playing in the PCL back then – you know, as opposed to working for a iving
I thought sure I had a missed player for the list—kind of— but I was wrong.
The player I had in mind was Ray Perry—Raymond Lawrence Perry, to be more specific—who plied the trade of baseball mostly in the low minors for around 20 years, sort of. Bill James devotes a two-page spread to Perry in his NBJHBA (p. 243-5 in my copy) that is one of the best things he ever wrote. I recommend it to anyone who loves baseball more than stats.
Perry, unfortunately, did not reach the high hit production I assumed, mainly because of three things: 1) He missed four years out of five in his mid-20s due to war service and injury; 2) He usually played in leagues with shorter seasons than the majors and upper minors; 3) He took a huge number of walks.
For reasons unknown, his stats page at B-R is not nearly so comprehensive as in the James article.
Why bother with this subject? Either all those player seasons nobody cares about that were put up by the forgotten Ray Perrys either have meaning or they don’t. I think they do, and it’s good to think about them from time to time, all the effort and striving of young men with talent and ambition, at least on the baseball field, who failed to make it. In his small way Ray Perry did make it, like Jigger Statz.
nsb, Statz, at least, has a certain fame as one of those guys who couldn’t quite stick in MLB despite his dynamite record in the Minors, like, say, Lou Novikoff. Perry is so obscure that B-R doesn’t even know his death date, maybe because he never had a cup of coffee.
I’d forgotten the James essay, and only when rereading it, prompted by your comment, did it come back to me. The fact that James has stats for Perry that B-R doesn’t have tells me that B-R really doesn’t see the Minors as worth a full investment of time and effort. I can see where filling out the stats for hundreds of thousands of players whose careers were fleeting footnotes may be too much to ask. But collecting the stories of long-time or unusual minor leaguers, like Statz, Novikoff, Joe Baumann, and many others seems as though it would much enrich our understanding of the narrative of the game. (Perhaps this has, in fact, been done.) Perry doesn’t even have a SABR bio, and were it not for James, I expect we’d never have heard of him.
hey,
let’s not forget Morrie Arnovich 🙁
Mike Hessman broke Buzz Arlett’s career minor leagur HR record. In 1984, the Society for American Baseball Research voted Arlett the most outstanding player in the history of minor-league baseball. Hey, who knew, right?
So, Ichiro has now retired.
Haven’t checked, but I suspect there’s a good chance that he is the first player to play his last game outside of the US or Canada.
Maybe he’ll pick up those 317 hits down in Mexico and break Rose’s record
Josh Tomlin was released by the Brewers today.
I see that he gave up 25 HR in 70 IP last year.
And that is a record.
An ugly record.
Highest HR/9.
Minimum 60 IP:
3.20 … Tomlin
2.93 … Amir Garrett
2.92 … Bronson Arroyo
2.85 … Glendon Rusch
2.84 … Chris Young
2.66 … Ken Dixon (1987)
2.62 … Miguel Batista
2.57 … Russ Ortiz
2.57 … Dylan Covey
__________________________
Dixon stands out as the only pitcher from last century, and the only one with 100+ IP.
The “leaders” for 100+ IP:
2.66 … Dixon
2.52 … Andy Benes
2.41 … Greg Gohr
2.40 … David Hernandez
2.37 … Josh Geer
2.31 … Scott Elarton
2.29 … Jorge Sosa
2.22 … Gil Heredia
2.20 … Jose Lima
Lima is the IP outlier here with 196.
Led the league in ER and HR allowed (48).
That stinker followed a 4.5 WAR season.
___________________________
175+ IP:
2.20 … Lima
2.08 … Bronson Arroyo
1.98 … James Shields
1.97 … Ervin Santana
1.96 … Jamie Moyer
1.93 … Eric Milton
1.93 … Eric Milton … (Not a typo. Back-to-back years, in fact.)
1.90 … Shawn Boskie
1.90 … Carlos Silva
___________________________
And going back to the first record, here are the leaders for 60+ IP, up to 1986:
2.20 … Herm Wehmeier
2.15 … Oscar Zamora
2.09 … Jim Waugh
2.05 … George Lauzerique
2.04 … John Pacella
2.02 … Ernie Broglio
2.01 … Jay Hook
2.01 … Camilo Pascual
2.00 … Sal Maglie
Amazing to think that, if his team had played errorless ball, and every single one of his HR’s were a solo shot, and he struck out the side each and every time otherwise, his ERA would still have been 3:20
I have a soft spot for the Lil Cowboy, though I won’t miss watching the classic “Tomlin games” (among my friends, any start with 0 BB and all runs allowed coming off of HR’s is a Tomlin, much like CG’s with under 100 pitches are a Maddux). Tomlin has, by far, the biggest positive disparity between HR allowed and BB allowed as a pitcher. In fact, he’s the only pitcher with any real career length to satisfy the condition HR allowed > BB issued. Others who qualify and their net disparity and career IP.
Tomlin – +34 – 898.2 IP
Zach Stewart – +3 – 103 IP
Yimi Garcia – +1 – 97.1 IP
Matt Maloney – +2 – 91 IP
Zach Neal – +8 – 85.2 IP
Andrew Moore – +6 – 59 IP
Dillon Overton – +7 – 47.1 IP
Brooks Pounders – +3 – 38.1 IP
Michael Nakamura – +2 – 38.1 IP
Darrin Winston – +2 – 37 IP
Anthony Vasquez – +3 – 29.1 IP
Tim Peterson – +3 – 27.2 IP
Adrian Sampson – +3 – 27.2 IP
Dave Schuler – +3 – 25 IP
Ryan Carpenter – +4 – 22.1 IP
Dick Scott – +4 – 16.1 IP
Many of these guys are active or young enough that they could be active again, and just one high walk appearance would take them off the list. I feel safe saying that Tomlim will retire with this record, because if he ever starts walking a lot of people, he’s out of a job. He may be out of one anyway, because he’s currently so homer prone that he’s too risky to put out there even with his amazing control.
CC
“……. he’s out of a job. He may be out of one anyway,…”
No, he can always continue pitching batting practice. After all, he’s got a distinguished resume of 898+ innings of major league level experience pitching batting practice already
Brooks Pounders is not a good name for a pitcher. Dude is 6 foot 5 265. Too bad he didn’t learn first base and how to swing a bat
I have a couple of proposals for Doug and the other long-time HHS devotees to consider for next year’s vote. I believe they would increase interest and participation, and make the COG better and more complete, consistent with the long history of MLB. First, change the 1901 dividing line to 1893. Second, determine how many new slots in COG there should be based on the new larger pool of players that would then be eligible. As for the importance of 1893, as most of the voters probably know, that is when MLB went from pitchers being just 50 feet from the batters to being 60 feet & 6 inches away. And there it has stayed for 126 years. From 1871 thru 1880 it was 45 feet; from 1881 thru 1892 it was 50 feet. The other important thing about 1893 is that it was just one year after 1892. That is important because the Players League went out of business after 1890, and the “other” major league, the American Association, went under after 1891. From 1890, when there were 25 major league teams, by 1892/1893 there were only 12 teams! Clearly, the quality and depth of the players was hugely improved over the immediately preceding years. The second point is related to 1936–the year that the HOF held its first Hall vote. 1936 was 65 years after the first year of the National Association (1871), and 60 years after the first year of the National League (1876). So, it took them 60+ years to come up with the idea of an HOF. If they had started the Hall in, say, 1911, there would be 25 more years of players having been voted in close in time to when they played. Thus, the COG voters would have more candidates to consider. How many more is, of course, unknown. But we can estimate. Many of the players who would have been elected from 1912 thru 1935 were elected in 1936 and beyond; but clearly some of them were not elected from 1936 on. Please give serious consideration to my proposal. Kid Nichols not being in The COG is, I’m sorry, indefensible. Other pitchers who would be eligible for the COG if we go to the 1893 date are Amos Rusie and Clark Griffith. Position players who would be eligible include Ed Delahanty, Jessie Burkett, Sliding Billy Hamilton, Jake Beckley, and Dummy Hoy (deprived by organized baseball from playing for four years due his speech and hearing issues). Thanks for your consideration. Bruce
In re-reading my post I see that, towards the end, I failed to catch, and correct, a couple of omitted words and commas. It doesn’t read as smoothly as it should. My apologies. Hopefully everyone can see the point of my ideas, and the reasoning in support thereof, and can ponder what improvements can be made to Strengthen both the COG membership and the process. Bruce
Many of the players who would meet qualifying standard for 1893 onwards also met qualifying standards for careers straddling 1901, and thus appeared on the ballot during the election rounds for those straddlers.
But, I’ll rerun the numbers and see who might have slipped through the cracks and could deserve another look.
As long as some of us are just hanging around here, waiting for a new post from Doug or just reluctant to go home for dinner, I’d like to put in a sort of place mark for next year’s discussion of Rick Reuschel. It’s prompted by something said by Bill James in the series that Doom referred us to last string.
In the course of his analysis of bWAR, James points to a particular example of a pitcher’s-park team with outstanding defense (Oakland 1980). B-R seems to undervalue the pitching staff, and James comments: “What I THINK has happened here is that the park’s run-suppressing characteristics are being double-counted as if they were also evidence of superior defense, thus adjusting twice for the park.” James leaves this as an open possibility in the instance he discusses, but one of the people commenting on his post, @dackle, generalizes from it and does some interesting calculations.
dackle finds that if you break down park factors by quintile (that is the 20% of parks that rate highest over 100 through the 20% that rate lowest under), you find a clear trend that defensive quality tracks park factor. He concludes as follows:
So, based on BBRef’s calculations, it does appear there is double counting of the park effects and fielding runs. Pitchers in hitters park played in front of defenses assessed at -7.3 runs overall, while the defenses in pitchers parks were worth +6.8 runs on the season. Also it appears that WAR is artificially boosted by this adjustment. Pitchers in hitters parks averaged 2.4 WAR, while those in pitchers parks averaged 2.0. Not a huge difference, but it does appear there is an effect.
All of this relates to the reservations I expressed about Reuschel earlier: “Reuschel was operating at the outer fringe of both park factor and defensive quality, and the tolerances built into the bWAR system were being tested to the extreme.” My thinking had to do with distortions that may occur in extreme cases, and the extra problems when there are two extremes reinforcing one another. But the point James and @dackle seem to be making is that the reinforcement may itself be a distortion: that when defense and park factors are aligned, the defense may be a component of the park factor, rather than solely the park (actually, the implication is broader: that the defense is always a double-counted factor when calculating pitcher value).
So far as I know, Park Factors do not include allowances for home team RA9def (perhaps they do, but no description I’ve found mentions it). If that’s the case, I wonder whether it isn’t true that defense is always built into the Park Factor in addition to being an independent component of pitcher WAR. (If it is true, I wonder whether this isn’t something embarrassingly well known to everyone but me.) It seems to me that this could be reasonably addressed — and maybe it already is — by basing Park Factors solely on visiting team performances, plus a fractional component for the home team; in an era of unbalanced schedules, this might require some extra complexity. (It also suffers from a problem similar to RA9def’s positing uniform defensive performance for all team pitchers: it assumes uniform visiting team personnel mixes at every stadium.)
Bottom line: These points directly affect a pitcher like Reuschel most profoundly, since Reuschel’s success is not really visible in his traditional numbers, and he is an extreme case on these issues, and very much the beneficiary of the calculations made for both RA9def and PF. This may be why Paul E wrote, “Still amazed by Reuschel’s WAR – I just didn’t see it while it was happening.” I didn’t either, and maybe it wasn’t.
As long as some of us are just hanging around here, waiting for a new post from Doug or just reluctant to go home for dinner, I’d like to put in a sort of place mark for next year’s discussion of Rick Reuschel. It’s prompted by something said by Bill James in the series that Doom referred us to last string.
In the course of his analysis of bWAR, James points to a particular example of a pitcher’s-park team with outstanding defense (Oakland 1980). B-R seems to undervalue the pitching staff, and James comments: “What I THINK has happened here is that the park’s run-suppressing characteristics are being double-counted as if they were also evidence of superior defense, thus adjusting twice for the park.” James leaves this as an open possibility in the instance he discusses, but one of the people commenting on his post, @dackle, generalizes from it and does some interesting calculations.
dackle finds that if you break down park factors by quintile (that is the 20% of parks that rate highest over 100 through the 20% that rate lowest under), you find a clear trend that defensive quality tracks park factor. He concludes as follows:
So, based on BBRef’s calculations, it does appear there is double counting of the park effects and fielding runs. Pitchers in hitters park played in front of defenses assessed at -7.3 runs overall, while the defenses in pitchers parks were worth +6.8 runs on the season. Also it appears that WAR is artificially boosted by this adjustment. Pitchers in hitters parks averaged 2.4 WAR, while those in pitchers parks averaged 2.0. Not a huge difference, but it does appear there is an effect.
All of this relates to the reservations I expressed about Reuschel earlier: “Reuschel was operating at the outer fringe of both park factor and defensive quality, and the tolerances built into the bWAR system were being tested to the extreme.” My thinking had to do with distortions that may occur in extreme cases, and the extra problems when there are two extremes reinforcing one another. But the point James and @dackle seem to be making is that the reinforcement may itself be a distortion: that when defense and park factors are aligned, the defense may be a component of the park factor, rather than solely the park (actually, the implication is broader: that the defense is always a double-counted factor when calculating pitcher value).
So far as I know, Park Factors do not include allowances for home team RA9def (perhaps they do, but no description I’ve found mentions it). If that’s the case, I wonder whether it isn’t true that defense is always built into the Park Factor in addition to being an independent component of pitcher WAR. (If it is true, I wonder whether this isn’t something embarrassingly well known to everyone but me.) It seems to me that this could be reasonably addressed — and maybe it already is — by basing Park Factors solely on visiting team performances, plus a fractional component for the home team; in an era of unbalanced schedules, this might require some extra complexity. (It also suffers from a problem similar to RA9def’s positing uniform defensive performance for all team pitchers: it assumes uniform visiting team personnel mixes at every stadium.)
Bottom line: These points directly affect a pitcher like Reuschel most profoundly, since Reuschel’s success is not really visible in his traditional numbers, and he is an extreme case on these issues, and very much the beneficiary of the calculations made for both RA9def and PF. This may be why Paul E wrote, “Still amazed by Reuschel’s WAR – I just didn’t see it while it was happening.” I didn’t either, and maybe it wasn’t.
Pingback: Circle of Greats 2020 Redemption Round |