Not only did Roger Clemens gain induction into the Circle of Greats this round by a wide margin (appearing on 43 of 71 ballots), his manner on the mound is memorialized in song before every major league game. More on Roger and the voting after you click on the “Read the Rest” gizmo. Continue reading
Soon after I posted my piece about the Hall of Could’ve Been, commenters started naming players who fit the title of the Hall better than most of the players I included. Herb Score, Tony Conigliaro, Dickie Thon, J.R. Richard, Pete Reiser, and many other players had practically unlimited potential, only to see their careers derailed, usually by injury. The two sets of criteria I established put the spotlight on a few players who could have been much more than they were and a few who actually did achieve greatness, but who just happened to have the right mix of single-season and career WAR to make the cut.
The players I listed may fit better in the Hall of Peak Value than in the Hall of Could’ve Been.
“Who?”, you say. If somehow you have never heard of Jeremy Sowers (or don’t remember him), he was a bottom-of-the-rotation guy for the Indians in the last decade. Got off to a real nice start in a half-year rookie campaign in 2006. In 14 starts, Sowers went 7-4 with 126 ERA+ and a couple of shutouts. He wasn’t striking out many (3.6 SO/9) but made up for it with unusually good control for a young pitcher (2.0 BB/9).
Unfortunately, the promise of that first season was not fulfilled, as Sowers’ control started to fail him. Not horrendously, but it’s a fine line between success and failure when you’re not striking out many. The result was ERA+ scores for his next three seasons all on the wrong side of the century mark (actually, not even close to that mark). Sowers hasn’t pitched in the majors since losing to Dice-K and the Red Sox in the season-ending series of the 2009 season.
No doubt, there will always be pitchers who start impressively and then fizzle. So, what breed might Sowers be the last of? I’ll tell you more after the jump.
The newest toy (or tool, depending on seriously you take these things) at the baseball-reference .com Play Index is a Rookie button that allows one to search for rookie seasons only. The tool will not line up perfectly with players who have been considered “rookies” historically because (1) b-ref uses the current MLB rookie definition and applies that uniformly to all seasons going back in time, and (2) b-ref is fudging a bit on the service time part of the rookie definition, so it can be applied within the scope of the data b-ref has. But the results are still very useful and interesting, and with b-ref’s prominent position in the world of historical baseball data these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if b-ref’s approach to defining a “rookie” becomes the standard definition for historical purposes.
Using b-ref’s new Play Index tool, here are (after the jump) the top rookie seasons by non-pitchers (1901-2012) for each current franchise, by season Wins Above Replacement (using the b-ref version of WAR of course): Continue reading
Recognize the player below? He is the subject of today’s quiz.
Your job is to identify him and explain why he belongs in the same group of live-ball era players listed below.
www.baseball-reference.com
Hint: this group is defined by a season accomplishment involving statistics displayed on B-R main player pages.
Congratulations to Richard Chester and Josh, who solved this two part quiz (with some help from their friends, including Hartvig who identified an alternative solution). The pictured player is Len Koenecke. He and the others in the list are the only players since 1920 with a first qualifying season (among their first two seasons) with a .300/.400/.500 slash, a 145 OPS+ or better (or 4 WAR or more) and 25 or fewer home runs.
Joey Votto and Ryan Braun were born two months apart and both started their careers in 2007. Since then they’ve been nothing short of spectacular, so much so that both are now in the top 30 since 1901 in career efficiency (min. 3000 PA) producing WAR batting runs.
Thought they were good, but maybe not that good? You’re probably not alone. After the jump, I’ll look at bit closer at this pair and their lock-step career journeys.
On June 7, 1942, after sitting out his team’s first two encounters with Carl Hubbell, Stan Musial finally took his cuts against King Carl — and took the collar, fanning twice in a game for the first time. The Cards still won (and the fading Hubbell fell to 1-5, 5.75). But manager Billy Southworth sat Musial for Hubbell’s four remaining starts against the Cards that year.
This post is for voting and discussion of the seventh round of voting for the Circle of Greats, which adds players born in 1962. Rules and lists are after the jump. Continue reading
Randy Johnson, all six feet, ten inches of him (that’s taller than Bill Russell, hoops fans), towered over the 1963 round of Circle of Greats balloting. More on Randy and the voting after the jump. Continue reading
Everyone with an opinion about the Hall of Fame falls somewhere on the continuum of peak value vs. longevity. A player can’t be a Hall of Famer if he was never among the best players in the game, or at least those at his position. Similarly, a player who dominates for a year or two and then fades into obscurity isn’t likely to garner much support from Hall voters or fans (though past Veterans Committees have felt differently). But we all put different emphases on peak vs. longevity.
To me, some of the most interesting baseball careers are those of players who do achieve true greatness for a short time, only to burn out or fade away. Following are two possible rosters of the Hall of Could’ve Been- lists of players who had multiple MVP-type seasons, but didn’t sustain their peaks long enough to be obvious Hall of Famers.
First, all retired players with at least three seasons since 1901 with 7 or more WAR (per fangraphs), but fewer than 60 career WAR. A 7-WAR season generally puts a player in the MVP conversation, while 60 career Wins are typically enough to put a player in the Hall of Fame. Continue reading