Mark Belanger
Walker Cooper
Bill Mazeroski
Willie Stargell
Luis Tiant

I've been incredibly busy, but I'll try to at least find the time to read the arguments and vote. And yeah, I do value defense...

Welcome back, C-Stein! We were about ready to place your likeness on the back of milk cartons.

You and Mabrowndog are right about Belanger: man, that guy could pick it. Second only to Ozzie among those I've seen myself, although Burleson was almost at their level. Terrible hitter, though. Career OPS+ of 68, and so bad that he lost significant playing time to Kiko Garcia.

I keep going back and forth with both Hunter and the value of ERA+ in pitchers' career evaluations. I find both wonderful, and lacking. I was looking at this year's pitching rates in another thread, and I found that Clemens' ERA dominance may have been somewhat of an illusion this season, since his raw run rate (R/BF) was actually pretty close to the rest of the pack. I associated this with generally inferior defensive support in the middle infield leading to a higher UER rate. The concept of "Earned Runs" assumes that "Unearned Runs" are not the fault of the pitcher. I think this is an erroneous assumption, since there is definitely a high correlation between infield errors (and resulting unearned runs) with some extreme groundball pitchers who put more pressure on the defense through their pitching.

None of that pertains to Catfish Hunter, however. He was an extreme fly ball pitcher who was extremely good at containment by challenging the hitters. What really hurt Catfish in the ERA+ department, however, was the fact that he was still a raw kid learning to pitch in the majors during the years 1965-1970. Those years were the zenith of league pitching performances, so in contrast he probably got penalized for pitching against Denny McLain and Bob Gibson and the rest during those years. In 1968 he went 13-13 with a 3.35 ERA, but that 3.35 equated to an ERA+ of only 85. He got good in 1971, when pitching dominance began to wane, but the pack tightened, so I think he lost some points there. The same could probably be said for Luis Tiant and Steve Carlton, who had their best years after 1970 and were probably pulled down in ERA+ by having their formative years in the mid and late 1970's.

I also think that Park Factors, as currently calculated (risking the wrath of Lahoud, here) treat all pitchers as if the park environment were equal. Catfish pitched his first three seasons in Municipal Stadium in Kansas City. It was an assymetrical park, with an expansive left field, and a very short porch in right (360' to right center, 325' to the foul pole). During his first season, the fence in right was 4.5' high. His HR rate that season was .037). In 1966, his second season, they raised the right field wall to 40' with a screen on top. His HR rates in 1966 and 1967 were in the mid teens. In the symmetrical Oakland Colliseum from 1968-1974, his HR rate was .024. In the assymetrical Yankee Stadium during his last five years, his HR rate was .032. On the road, his worst parks were Tiger Stadium (short right field porch) and Metropolitan Stadium in Minneapolis (extreme hitter's park), both with HR rates of .048 for him. Catfish was, like all fly ball pitchers, more affected by park dimensions than the average pitcher. ERA+ does not adequately compensate for this.

Catfish was killed by HR's over his career, but he was extremely good at eliciting poor contact. His .267 contact hitting average (H/CE) was only bettered by two pitchers in his era, Jim Palmer and Andy Messersmith. He was a consistent containment pitcher who challenged hitters his whole career and it worked for him. He never considered himself a dominant pitcher, but he was extremely successful nonetheless.

He's still a borderline selection, of course, but I think we may be putting too much emphasis on his ERA numbers.

Here's the blurb I did on Catfish earlier for those who may not have seen it:



Catfish Hunter never pitched a game in the minor leagues. He was signed out of high school, and reported to the A’s spring training after recovering from a serious hunting accident where he was shot in the foot with a shotgun. He had been a high school legend in the coastal region of North Carolina, throwing 5 no-hitters in his high school career. He was phased into the rotation during his rookie season and performed pretty well, going 8-8. He showed an above average fastball with good lateral movement, and a good curve which reportedly broke twice, tailing off with slider movement at the very end. He also had a pretty good changeup. From the start, he was a fearless pitcher, and constantly challenged hitters throughout his career.

He learned to pitch in the major leagues, and it shows. In high school he had been a sidearm pitcher, and although he learned to pitch overhand during his senior year, he still threw sidearm some of the time until 1967, when he switched to overhand only. The result of that conversion showed a marked increase in his strikeout rate, and he had a moderately successful season in 1967 with an ERA+ of 114, but for most of his first six seasons with the A’s, he was fairly mediocre.

Catfish was always an extreme fly ball pitcher, and his success in earned runs was always linked to his HR rate. In the four seasons in which he gave up HRs at a rate of .020 or less, his ERA+ was 132. In his eight other full seasons, his ERA+ was 95.

In 1971, he made some further adjustments to his delivery, primarily with his arm/hand location during his windup. I’m not sure if this was the only reason, but for the next five years he was an excellent pitcher, winning 20 games each season. He wasn’t as dominant as the great pitchers of his era, but he lowered his walk rates, contact hitting rates, and (except for 1973) his HR rates by about 10 percent.

Of the seasons in which Catfish won 20 games, three could be considered dominant seasons: 1972, 1974 and 1975, in which he was as good as any pitcher in the game. His 1971 season was excellent, but a notch below the other three with slightly worse walk, HR and contact rates. His 1973 season was marred by a reversion to his earlier HR rates (.038), but he still won 21 games. During those five seasons, his rates were as follows:


Catfish Hunter’s career can be divided into three clear phases. During his first six years, he was still learning to pitch, and didn’t do it tremendously well. He showed flashes of brilliance, including his perfect game in 1968 and three somewhat dubious all-star selections. His peak phase lasted five and a half years, in which he won 128 games, a Cy Young Award, and five trips to the post-season, going 8-3. Afterwards, he went into rapid decline with arm problems and diabetes.

In 1976, his second year with the Yankees, he developed recurrent arm troubles. He had three more subpar seasons and retired after the 1979 season, at age 33.

If you guys will take me back:

Bobby Bonds
Roger Maris
Tony Oliva
Willie Stargell
Luis Tiant

I let you back. Now don't let it happen again.

12 voters this time, which is a record since we got back into it.

1988 is done, 1989 is up in a few

Catfish
Jenkins
Perry
Bench
Yaz

- jmcc5400

I am very late to this thread but did the concept ever involve "Levels of HoF worthiness?"

I dont pretend to know more about these players then many of you but I do have a question:

"If a guy is a HoFer isnt he ALWAYS a HoFer? Why is he a HoFer 7 years after retirement but not 6? Or 12 years but not 11?"

I guess the thinking is "We have to include SOMEBODY this year so despite the fact that last year he didnt make it...this year he does. Even if he was only good or verygood but not HoF great."

I thought this was why we could include 10 people on a ballot? If Bonds (Bobby Type) deserves to be in the Hall then he should be on your Ballot the first year he is eligible. The only reason for him not to be would be if 10 other players better then him where on the ballot as first year eligibles. Then and only then could I see a guy getting in on the second ballot.

I myself have voted (Granted only once....although if my computer hadnt died in the middle of my post the 87 vote would have been blank as well) for no one.

I also dont agree with the "Sympathy ballot".
"well Hell Carney Lansford isnt a HoFer but he had that great season for the sox and I still remember XYZ game.....I am gonna throw him a vote." Meanwhile 8-10 other Soshers all feel the same way. Suddenly Our Hall includes Carney Lansford.

I also find it curious that as we have reached our collective "sweet spot", or period of time where a majority of us have first hand knowledge of (or rather have actually seen), we are starting to include some very "mediocre" superstars...let alone HoFers.

Maybe just my prejudice or perhaps I am not as 'knowledgeable" but some of these players are not HoFers and do not deserve HoF inclusion.

If nothing else this helps us to all understand how the vetrens committee could do such travestys as include Scooter Rizzuto in the real hall.

We are the Vetrans Committee in the sense that Rice will make it, Dewey will make it and Remy will get votes. None deserve enshrinement but hey we did see them play! They where on OUR Team!

I originally thought the concept was to have a "more honest" Sosh HoF then the real "dilluted" HoF.


Anyway I am not trying to start a pissing match but I certainly dont agree with some of the voting lately. I will just vote my concience.

Baka, you should vote for whoever meets your personal definition of Hall of Famer. If you think that only the top 50 or so in baseball history deserve it, that's fine IMO. As long as you're objective. I personally do not plan to ever vote for Rice, so he'll have to get his 75% elsewhere. Evans is unlikely for me, but I'll give him a good look. But your comment here seems unfounded. Name one former Sox player who got in to our HoF who is worse than others who didn't get in.

Out of curiousity, who did you have in mind here?

Bonds? Tiant? Who specifically?

I also doubt that Remy gets votes, and I doubt that Rice and Evans walk into the Hall either. I don't plan on voting for either one of them, unless someone can convince me.

Definately vote your conscience...just be prepared to answer if someone asks about it.

And I agree with you about the first ballot vs. second ballot problem. I don't see there being a real honor, other than enshirenment wheter its ballot one or ballot 15.

True I cannot point to a former Sox getting the preferential treatment of unwarrented inclusion yet.

However, I do think that the Bonds selection will be used as leverage by some (and no I dont know who they are of even if they really truly exist but I suspect so) to include Rice and Evans (the 2 lightning rods of Boston Baseball HoF voting; Rice moreso).

I do think Tiant got some "Redsox Bias Bump" as personally I do not feel he warrants inclusion. Reggie Smith although talented and Very good also does not warrant inclusion and is the recipient of "Red Sox Bias Bump".

Worst of all is the comparisons that can be created between more and more marginal players and HoF inductees.

For Instance Bonds and Smith. Given the talented writes and knowledgeable fans here, many could create a plausable and favorable comparison between these 2 players and then argue If Bonds why not Reggie? Reggie was a fine player (granted I only remember the tail end of his career) but is he really a HoFer?

Obviously this is a problem with more then just us, more then this HoF. Its rampant in the real hall and the focus of much of our criticism.


Finally I think that Momentum has alot to do with this voting. Maybe an obvious point but one I have been keying in on more and more. I think the next few years (The Dewey Rice years) will begin to gather steam and we will see more and more "what the hell" votes.

Please keep in mind...I LOVED Dewey as a kid. I always though Rice was overrated but the guy put up very good numbers......just no HoF numbers imho.

Again these are not nitpicks on us as individuals or as a group....its more about the system of inclusion.

Would a truer HoF be decided by 1 year of eligibility and fewer votes (2?)? I dont know. But it would certainly let the creme rise to the top.

I guess it could also exclude alot of great players.

Regardless the history that I have followed and too rarely participated in, which is contained in this thread outwieghs any other benefits. Perhaps the HoF (Both Real and Here) pays for that service by being a little over inclusive.

Baka -

I'm also skeptical of the argument "Player X was inducted, hence Players Y & Z should be, too" or "If we let PLayer A in, we have to let Players B & C in, too." Strictly speaking, every player has to stand on his own.

Of course, comparisons are vitally important in looking at players. After all, player performances are all relative to each other and to their contexts. But these sorts of things are always double-edged. For exmaple, Bobby Bonds played his whole career being compared to Mays, and in that light, I think the majority of us have historically under-valued his performance. But going back and trying to see where Bonds ranked among his peers and his context, I became convinced. Actually, VAL's work-up on Bonds helped me see the player outside of Mays' very large shadow. On the second ballot, I was convinced.

The other edge is represented by Tiant and Hunter. Their statistical similarities are well noted, and it's a "gimme" argument to say "Tiant's in, Catfish has to be let in." But, of course, they were very distinct players. Very different career paths. Very different personalities on and off the mound. They pitched in front of very different teams. At the moment, I feel that Hunter was very lucky to pitch in front of great teams during his prime, greater teams than Tiant. And Luis did more to help his team win every inning as shown by Win Shares per IP measures. Both near the borderline: Tiant just above and Hunter just below.

I'd be interested in hearing other's approaches especially in comparing players.

1989 BALLOT

Johnny Bench
Norm Cash
Walker Cooper
Ferguson Jenkins
Jim "Catfish" Hunter
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Reggie Smith
Carl Yastrzemski

* Hey URI, by any chance have you got a baseball card of this guy on the ballot named "Ferguson Jennings"??

* At the hot corner, the late Aurelio Rodriguez had an absolute cannon for an arm with the Tigers. On one NBC game of the week, he threw out Mickey Rivers (when "The Quick" was with the Angels) by 2 steps on a slow roller. Garagiola was incredulous, exclaiming in that Castiglione-like high-pitched squeal. Nobody could believe he'd thrown him out, let alone making it no contest...

* I wasn't even a year old when Campy played all 9 positions in a game. Cripes, I feel so geriatric...

* I'm holding off on Kaat and Gaylord -- they seem more like accumulators. Hopefully VAL and others can help me see the light...

* When he was with the Brewers, Don Money always seemed to get a ton of clutch hits against the Sox.

* So... Who else had a "Johnny Bench's Batter-Up"?



I got mine for Christmas in '75. It had the pole that my Dad set in that cylinder of cement. Then this epoxy wand that had a molded "baseball" on the end was attached to the pole with these huge rubber bands. You'd whack it and just like a tetherball it would wrap around and around the pole, but when it unwound the rubber bands would whip it back at you.

All winter long I hit that thing, often hard enough that the inertia caused the cement base to keep rattling around on the garage floor. Little deposits of concrete powder were all over the place. Sadly my Batter-Up didn't even make it until Spring, and eventually it crumbled like the ruins at Pompei.

So the old man set the pole in the ground, and a week later the rubber bands finally snapped. So much for quality American craftsmanship...

I've certainly been guilty of wavering on players, both adding and subtracting even though my ballot has not been a full ten since very early in the process. I think that mainly it's because arguments have convinced me I was initially wrong in my evaluation of the player, and that's a lot of the fun of this process.

In fact, two debates I'd be interested in this time around:

1) Walker Cooper. This is his last ballot, and I think he deserves one more debate. I think the problem I have here is that we admitted people like Stan Hack quite quickly because they played a difficult defensive position, and yet we're reluctant to recognize Cooper's 116 OPS+ as a catcher. For comparison, Javy Lopez has a 115 OPS+ to this point in his career. Miguel Tejada has a 112 OPS+. And neither of those players, Tejada in particular, has had their end-of-career decline. Was Cooper a good defensive catcher? I honestly don't know. His range factor is good, but that's obviously a bad comparison for catchers. He has a decent number of assists, but in an era in which baserunner was more prevalent, and I can't seem to find his percentage of runners thrown out anyplace. If somebody's got these numbers, I'd really appreciate it. I think the conclusion I've reached is that as even an average defensive catcher, he's worthy of induction, and the numbers I've found don't suggest anything considerably worse. But for that matter, is Javy Lopez a hall of famer? Anyway, I think it's at least worth a debate in the last year of his being on the ballot.

2) Gaylord Perry. Just because we're going to have to have these cheating-type debates, and eventually steroid-type debates, so I'll be interested to see what people do with somebody who otherwise would seem to easily pass muster.

Regarding the voting process, I think we are getting into an area where we're starting to vote for guys we've seen in our lifetimes, or at least know about pretty well second-hand. There is a danger in that, because we lose our objectivity to some extent, rather like the VC, probably. It was much easier in some respects to vote on guys we'd not seen, because people were taking time to do the research, and reading up on the guys, and vote logically.

Now emotions come into play. In my opinion, we made two mistakes electing guys without much thought recently - Jimmy Wynn and Lou Brock. I voted for Wynn (not for Brock), but kick myself because I didn't do the research first. I'm not sure why we elected Wynn, really, but I jumped right on that bandwagon.

We voted for Brock because of his 3000 hits and SB totals, and because he was already in the HOF. If 3000 hits are a gold standard, then so be it, but in my view Brock was the definition of an accumulator.

I agree that we shouldn't use the, "Well so-and-so is in and his numbers are worse than this guy" argument. Its necessary to use comparisons to some extent, but each player in history has his own characteristics. I try to isolate a player's uniqueness, look at his numbers, find out if there are any mitigating circumstances that might explain or skew the numbers, and look at him in the context of his time. I try to explain what was great about a player, and what wasn't, and try to balance it.

I am guilty of token votes, such as Andy Messersmith, because I have a special place in my heart for guys who never lived up to their potential. Messersmith was a great pitcher, just not for long enough to be elected. It pisses me off that 80% of any bio you find on Messersmith is relating to the historical significance of his being the first (or second, depending on how you look at it) free agent. So sometimes, we make a statement.

I agree we need to be objective, and you might be right about Brock. However, we did not blow it in any way,shape, manner, fashion, or form by electing Wynn. VAL, IMO you are severely underaccounting for the degree to which he played his entire career in brutally run-scarce home parks, thus making the runs he created much more valuable than they otherwise would have been. His career OPS+ was 128, and if anything this underrates him because his OBP was better relative to his peers than his SLP was. (I think that the most valid knock against OPS+ as a measure of offensive value is that it counts OBP and SLP equally, instead of muliplying the OBP by 120% and then adding SLP). Plus, he was a good centerfielder, not a lumbering corner outfielder.

One of the guys I do think we may have let in by mistake is Goose Goslin. Oh, and George Sisler, but I was in a minority of one here in thinking that he was vastly overrated.

If I am biased, it's probably in favor of players like Santo, Hack, Tiant, and, yes, Wynn who got screwed by the real Hall of Fame. However, I think we made the right move in electing all 4 of those guys.

Here's the original blurb I did on Post-War Catchers. Para 3 talks about Cooper and his numbers are there to compare him with his peers. From an offensive perspective, he was nearly as good a hitter as Campanella and Berra, really, but unlike them, he only caught more than 125 games in a season once. I personally don't see this as a problem, because that's how most catchers throughout history have been used. He played for 18 seasons. I don't have access to the kind of numbers I used to evaluate Expansion Era catchers defensive skills. He wasn't considered a catcher in the Al Lopez oe Jim Hegan mold, but he probably was comparable to the mid-stream catchers of his day. If I have time this week, I will try to evaluate him in a more detailed fashion.

We're getting into a zone where we are electing players who some of us old guys knew as kids. This is a lot of fun, but we're also in danger of losing our objectivity, I think, by not perhaps doing proper research. Case in point: Ellie Howard. Howard was certainly familiar to many of us, playing so many years for the Yankees, especially during the 1967 season, first breaking up Billy Rohr's no-hit bid, then actually playing for the Sox down the stretch. He was indeed a fine player,
but looking at the numbers, they just don't add up.

Looking at the post-war catchers, I was surprised how many very good catchers there were. I had always thought it was Yogi, Campanella and a cast of Sammy White-types. In fact, Howard falls into a fairly large group of very good catchers including Smoky Burgess, Ed Bailey, Sherm Lollar, Andy Seminick and Gus Triandos, all of whom produced above league averages for all players, and all were excellent hitters for catchers. From a power perspective, this group was nearly identical, except for Lollar, who was more of an on-base guy. Howard hit for a higher average than this group, but he walked very infrequently and struck out more often than this bunch, which hurt him from an OPS perspective.

If there is another player from this group who deserves HOF selection, it would be Walker Cooper. Looking at his numbers, it appears that he was every bit as good a hitter as Campanella, and he played in some parks with lower park factors than Campy. I think he wasn't selected primarily because he put together some good numbers from 1942-1944. He did miss over a year to military service in the Navy in 1945 and 1946, and had his best season in 1947. Like most catchers, he missed chunks of time while banged up, and like Howard, he didn't make the bigs until his mid-20's. He was very productive through his 30's, though, and he put up two 100+ OPS+ seasons after age 40, albeit in a reserve role.

Berra, Campanella and Walker are pretty clearly a cut above the rest offensively. Here are the raw numbers for catchers who played primarily between 1942-1960:

Sorry Tudor, I didn't mean to hijack this discussion into a "mistake" discussion. We make our arguments and counterarguments, vote, and that should be it. No sense going back and second-guessing ourselves. I worded it badly.

When I did the OF blurb, I found a couple of things that I think detract from Wynn, and I could have made a counter-argument, if I'd done it before voting The point I meant to make was that I voted for him without having done the research. Same with Brock - all I had for him was a really muted, "not quite ready to vote for him because I think he may have been an accumulater." Neither strongly or timely enough.

I think that if we have doubts or questions, even against guys who seem like locks, we owe it to ourselves and the rest of us to hold off voting until we do the research or have discussions.

My bad.

Here's a blurb on Walker Cooper, one final push for the big man:

Walker Cooper is one of the most forgotten star players in baseball history. He was called "Old Walk" because frankly he was old for most of his 18 years as a major league catcher, but he may have been the most feared hitter as a catcher that ever was.

He was signed into the great Branch Rickey Cardinals organization in 1935, two years after his brother Mort had been signed, and mainly on his recommendation. He spent most of six full seasons in the minors, beginning in the Class C Arkansas State League in 1935. He got lost in the vast Cardinals organization so full of talent, finally making the big club in late 1940 while hitting .338 at Columbus in the American Association.

His rookie season of 1941 was curtailed in a home plate collision that fractured his shoulder and dislocated his collarbone. He was the main (but not full-time) catcher for the Cardinals from 1942-1944 batting over .300 twice and averaging 73 RBIs over that time. He was a big man, 6-3, 190 lbs as a rookie, and began to show real power in 1944 hitting 13 HRs (.031 HR/PA).

He served in the Navy from April of 1945 until June of 1946. While in the Navy, the Cardinals sold Cooper to the Giants for $175,000, the biggest cash deal in baseball history up to that point. The official Cardinal rationale was that they had a surplus of players returning from the war, but in reality Cardinals President Sam Breadon unloaded both of the Cooper brothers because they had briefly held out for more money at the beginning of the 1945 season.

Cooper had his biggest year for the Giants in 1947 at age 32, batting .305, with 35 HRs and 122 RBIs. His power was both enormous and legendary. Here's what Stan Baumgartner wrote about him in SN: "Twenty-five years ago, fans used to go to the ball park early, fully an hour before game time, to watch Babe Ruth belt the ball over the fences in practice. Today, they go out to see another slugger take his warm up swings - and the current hero of the lovers of the long swat is Walker Cooper of the Giants. And they are pointing to the spots where Cooper hits 'em in the game. In Boston, the area is 100 feet high on the brand new electric scoreboard, where the Cincinnati team sign hung. And Coop dotted the I with a grand-slam homer, one player said. In the Polo Grounds, its over the top of the left field roof, half way down to the bullpen."

He continued to hit like that in 1948, but was sidelined off and on with a bad knee and he found his way into new manager Leo Durocher's dog house, so he was traded to the Reds in June of 1949. His huge power lasted for three more years, until age 38, hitting HR's at an average rate of .041 HR/PA. His playing time suffered, however, due to age and the general maladies of a catcher - fractures and sprains. He played five more seasons as a part-time catcher and pinch hitter, retiring in 1957 at age 42. Even in that limited role, he hit 22 more HRs for a HR rate of .049.

He was a notorious guess hitter who had HR in mind with every pitch he guessed right on. He used a 39-oz bat in the shorter parks, and a 35-oz bat for the shorter ones. He was a very good ball-handler and pitch caller with a good, if not always accurate, throwing arm. He wasn't quick behind the plate, but was very solid. He walked pretty infrequently (.061 BB/PA), but rarely struck out either (.070 K/PA). He didn't just swing for the plate, either, batting .285 for his career (eight seasons over .300) and busted a lot of line drives (.055 2B/3B per PA). He was selected to eight straight all-star teams from 1942-1950 (no game in 1945 when he was in the Navy) and was second in MVP balloting in 1942. Bill James lists him as the best catcher of the 1940's, and he was probably one of the 15 best hitters in baseball over that same decade. Oddly, James only ranks him 33rd in his most recent Abstract, which of course is weighted largely by Win Shares.

Cooper was, of course, robbed of much of his youth by his extensive tenure in the minor leagues, by injuries, and by the War, but he was considered to be the best catcher in baseball for the better part of a decade. His numbers are diluted through this - only 5078 plate appearances in 18 years, but he made the absolute most of his time in baseball. He played in 1473 games and caught 1223 of them. The other 250 games, most at the end of his career, were as a pinch hitter. He never played 1B or of course DH which would have allowed him to accumulate more.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a biography of Gaylord Perry. Against the Red Sox, he was 22-5 with a 2.59 ERA.

That's a very nice piece of work, Lahoud.

Your observation about his domination of the Red Sox inspired me to check out a few of his individual matchup records on Retrosheet. Here are the career hitting stats against him of selected hitters who spent substantial time with the Sox while Perry was in the AL (BA/OBP/SLP):
* Yaz: 161/247/218 in 87 ABs
* Scott: 043/118/043 in 47 ABs
* Rice: 280/315/540 in 50 ABs
* Lynn: 333/372/590 in 39 ABs
* Burleson: 261/300/413 in 46 ABs
* Petrocelli: 158/256/237 in 38 ABs
* Fisk: 194/244/403 in 72 ABs
So of these 7, 2 did well, 2 were mediocre, and 3 were terrible against Gaylord.

Bill James correctly points out in the Historical Abstract that Gaylord's brother Jim Perry was also an excellent pitcher, and that Jim may have lost a shot at the Hall of Fame by his managers' inexplicable decision to keep him out of the regular starting rotation and to use him just as a spot starter from 1963 through 1968, which would have been the prime of Jim's career.

VAL you have done outstanding work that has opened my eyes to a whole list of players that I always assumed "wherent very good".

One point I would like to ask you and everyone for that matter is about the comment you made about "Finding the Uniqeness of each player".

My question and concern is that if we do that...isnt it possible that we start to place these players higher then they really should be? XYZ was unique because of 123!

For instance If "John Smith" played during Korea and hit 250 HR but also lead the league in OBP because of BBs and he also played catcher and 3b and won one gold glove does that mean he deserves enshrinment?

Obviously thats a "strawman question" but the point is if we key in on the 3-4 good things about a player a case could be made for almost anyone. And IMHO a case should not be able to be made for just anyone. You need to be SPECIAL to be in the Hall (romantic I know and obviously not how the real HoF works but you see my point)

Do most of those players deserve to be honored? Can they really be considered as HoFers?

Additionally I dont believe in the huge bump that Catchers,SS,2b,3b and CF get base on Generation. If they where an all time great player then they should get in if they DHed or if they Pitched 1 day a week and played SS the other 6. Do we really need "balance" across all positions? We are not coming up with an All time great Team.....(which would of course need all positions accounted for). We are compiling a list of the alltime great players (Imho DESPITE where they played so for instance relivers and DHs should be considered).

So if a catcher never makes it, they never make it. If a SS doesnt have good enough numbers they dont have good enough numbers.

Now I could see alot of disagreement to my argument if in fact we where never able to enshrine a C or SS or 2b based on performance. BUT WE ARE. And WE Have. AND we Can again.

But doing so by saying that Jose Manzanillo was the best 2nd baseman based on his Power to speed ratio and defense in the years between Korea and Vietnam so he needs to be enshrined does not compute for me.

Again my posts are not to belittle anyone here or there voting. If anything its perhaps the OpEd to the "Vote for this Guy because of this!" posts that we all have used.

If none of my points make sense to you thats fine. If after reading them you say "Good Point but I am still electing So and So" even better. If You read something I have written and said "Gee Ya know what this guys isnt a HoFer he may have been the best of a bad lot(or even the best of a good lot) but he just isnt a HoFer." Then I have accomplished my goal.

Baka, two points:
1. Speaking for myself and I think for a bunch of the other voters here, the test for Hall-worthiness is how much did a player help his team win, not how unique he was. If whatever made the player unique did not do a lot to help him team win, then I don't vote for him. Bobby Bonds had a unique skillset, but he was a very valuable player, especially 1969-75, and that's why I voted for him, not because of his stolen bases.
2. I'm not sure you would disagree with this, but the more demanding a defensive position someone plays, the less they need to contribute on offense to help a team win. Therefore, someone who played C, SS, 2B, or CF needs less offense to get my vote than someone who plays one of the other positions, especially if they played the position well (like Munson).

1989 Ballot

Bench
Jenkins
Perry
Yaz

I haven't voted since SOSH 1, but thought I'd get back into it. Coming up on some interesting years, and a good opportunity to correct some of Cooperstown's recent mistakes.

Here's my ballot:
Bench
Campaneris
Cash
Hunter
Jenkins
Mazeroski
McDowell
Perry
Yastrzemski

Wide variety of skills here - all the way from some no doubt 1st timers, to some marginal ones who I had to debate long and hard for. And other marginal ones that I left out, that good arguments could be made for. But in the end, I tried to not get swayed by the superstars who are eligible this year, and look at each player without comparison to the rest of the list, if that makes sense. i.e. I looked at each candidate and said, "if nobody else was on the list, would he get my vote?" Since at the end of that I was under 10, didn't have to make any tough decisions on who to chop off.

I suspect when all the votes are tallied, the 4 bakahump voted for will be the ones inducted. All the rest were much more marginal (but still deserving).

Point 1.

Seems incredible subjective to me. Having personal experience to call upon may give you that insight. However I couldnt honestly decide whether Bobby Bonds was a huge diffrence maker over a player like Richie Zisk Gary Matthews or Amos Otis. Perhaps all 3 of them will be added as well. But if not then BB doesnt belong.


Point 2.

Totally agree that certain Positions are more demanding. However more then getting hung up on prophasizing what Nomar would have done as a right fielder or how much more or less Jimmy Foxx would have done if he had stayed a catcher or never caught at all. I tend to look at it as "Was X one of the Best PLAYERS of his generation as opposed to "We have to add Frank Frisch! He was the one of the Best second baseman of his era!"

Bench for example is not only one of, if not the best catcher of this era but also one of the Best PLAYERS. I think both criteria need to be meet. He would have made it if he DH'd or played right his whole career.

Is it appropriate to give a "bonus" if you will for C or SS or CF or 2b? Sure but it shouldnt be a decider even for a borderline palyer.

I guess thats because i do not feel a borderline player should get in.....even if he played all 9 in the same game at the same time! LOL

What, no love for Cesar Tovar?

Re Point 1, I think that objective ways to evaluate how much a player contributes to winning do exist. None of them are perfect, but some pretty good ones IMO are:
* Bill James win shares
* Baseball Prospectus runs above replacement and WARP
* ERA+ and, if interpreted correctly (by givng more weight to OBP than to SLP), OPS+

And of the three players that you list, I think I could make a pretty good objective case that Otis was the best, but not as good as Bonds. But what's fun about this thread is debating junk like this.

I dont know if this makes sense mathmatically.( Maybe EV or VAN have the time to see if it does)

But I did find it interesting in our discussion about "Player x on Team Y being more valuable IE helping his team win".

This is my rational:
I took 4 players
Bonds
Zisk
Amos Otis
Gary Matthews


I took 6 consecutive years (Keep in mind I did not cherry pick although some of these players best seasons fall within the 6 year window Some have significant season after or before)

Bonds 69-74
Zisk 74-79
Otis 70-75
Matthews 74-79


I added thier teamates OPS+ for each of the seasons listed. I did not include the players in question in the Total OPS+. I used BBref.com and thier "lineups" as source for each team for each year. I then divided the total by 7 (I did not include the pitcher or the Player in question. For amrican league I used whatever player had better stats the DH or 3rd OF where appropriate) I then had an "Avg" OPS+ for each team for each year. I then Added up the avg OPS+ for all 6 years for the 7 Teamates. This gave me a total avg OPS+ for the 6 seasons.

I then Added back in the 4 players in question OPS+ for each season and then added all 6 season and divided by 6 to get an Avg OPS+ with the players in question.

Long story short I tried to have a OPS+ avg for each season with and without the four players above. I also wanted the OPS+ avg for all 6 seasons (sum total) with and without the players above.

For instance. I added the OPS+ for the
2007 Yankees C+1b+2b+ss+3b+OF+DH(as he had the better offensive numbers)=

lets say the above equaled 700 I then divided by 7 which gave me league average of 100OPS+ for the team.

I then took the Player in question. For our example we will use Johnny Damon who for illustration purposes lets say had a 250 OPS+

I added that to the total for the team without Johnny ( 700+250=950) I then divided that by 8 (950/8=118 PS I dropped all decimals)

So Johnny Damon would be VERY important to the NY Offense for that year. Bascially +18OPS points.

I then did that for each of the 6 years in questions and did a sum total for the 6 years. In our example lets say JD and the yankees performed exactly the same for all 6 years. That would mean over 6 years JD would be responsible fo 18 OPS+ points on AVG. THATS A Shit load.

Obviously my examples are extremes to illisutrate how one player can make a diffrence and more importantly how TEAMATES around a player can make him seem better.
Better because more players on before you mean more RBI ops. Better players behind you mean more Runs scored and of course the mythical "Lineup Protection theory". IE Deep Lineups take more out of a pitcher and make the players in them look better (See 2003 Redsox like B Mueller and Kmillar).

I have to go for now and finish the number hopefully for tomorrow.

Baka.

Tony Oliva
Johnny "Baseball Bunch" Bench
Gaylord Perry
Fergie Jenkins
YAZ


EDIT: Removing Maris. I wrote done my votes earlier and crossed him off. Then couldn't remember why I did that when I came to post.

Just a note DJ...Maris' eligibility ran out the last ballot.

1988 Ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Johnny Bench
Fergeson Jenkins
Thurman Munson
Gaylord Perry
Carl Yastrzemski

I was looking into Campy, and I had forgotten: 1. what a long, up-and-down baseball history Kansas City has, and 2. that Campy was a helluva baseball player beyond the 9-position gimmick

Fullname: Dagoberto Campaneris Blanco

Top most similar to Campy (Baseball Almanac): Omar Vizquel, Larry Bowa, Tony Taylor, Davey Concepcion, Luis Apiricio

Career Rate2: 105, Career RAR2: 503, RAA2: 96 all at SS (all from Baseball Prospectus). Always a good fielder, Campy had outstanding defensive years from 1970-1974. Gold Gloves those years: Belanger, Apiricio, Brinkman, Belanger, Belanger.

6-time all star. 10th in MVP voting 1966. 14th all-time in SB.

Hit from an exaggerated crouch. Put down 199 career sacrifices. Lead the league in sacs 3 times, top-10 4 other times.

A skinny guy, 5'10" and 160lbs when he broke in. Story has it that the day he was called up, the A's equipment manager didn't believe Campy was player. The equipment manager had to be convinced by the coaching staff that Campy was, indeed, on the team. And the kid walked out and proved himself on the field by hitting 2HRs that day, 2 oof his career 79 HR.

6 seasons of WARP3 over 7.0: 1968 - 9.2, 1970 - 9.0, 1972 - 8.2, 1973- 8.3, 1974 - 7.8, 1976 - 7.2

In 1989 Campy tore up the Senior Pro Baseball Association with the Gold Cost Suns: .291 BA and 16 SB...at age 47.

1972 ALCS: In Game Two, he already had three hits, two steals and two runs scored as he faced Detroit hurler Lerrin LaGrow. When LaGrow's pitch hit Campaneris in the ankle, Bert flung his bat at the hurler. A near-riot ensued as Detroit manager Billy Martin charged Campaneris. The batter and pitcher were both ejected. Bert was suspended for the remainder of the playoffs, reinstated for the World Series (in which he was hit by pitches three times), and suspended for the first seven games of 1973. (Baseball Library)

One of those players is Bert "Campy" Campaneris, who's best remembered for an ugly bat-throwing incident that marred the 1972 playoffs.

Yet, that incident was out of character for Campaneris, a quiet, shy man who usually played the game like a true professional. A native of Cuba, Campaneris had arrived in the major leagues in 1964 with the Kansas City A's, as a replacement for injured shortstop Wayne Causey. After an all-night, sleep-depriving plane ride, Campaneris arrived at the ballpark. The A's' equipment manager, regarding the 155-pound Campaneris as too frail to be a ballplayer, initially refused to give him a uniform. Campaneris surprised the doubting equipment manager by homering in his first major league at-bat on the very first pitch against Minnesota's Jim Kaat. Campaneris matched his inaugural at-bat by hitting a second home run against Kaat in the seventh inning. The dual home runs tied a modern day record for most home runs in a major league debut. The 22-year-old speedster also contributed a single, a stolen base, and an impressive running catch on a short pop-up into left field.

Separated from his mother, father, and seven brothers and sisters, who still lived in Cuba, the shy Campaneris had few American friends, no girlfriend or wife, and lived by himself in a small apartment near Kansas City's Municipal Stadium. Described as a loner by former teammate Jack Aker, Campaneris' plight garnered the attention of the several of the A's' veterans. Sensing his reserved nature, some of the A's attempted to incorporate Campaneris into the social atmosphere of the clubhouse. Campaneris remained reluctant, preferring to isolate himself from the team's social functions. Campaneris' tendency to stay to himself may have been caused by his problems with a new language. At first, Campaneris spoke such little English that teammate Diego Segui, a fellow Cuban who eventually became his best friend on the team, served as his interpreter for interviews with the media.

Although A's coaches had difficulty communicating with him, they quickly came away impressed with his speed and daring base-running style. "He's got guts," said Kansas City A's coach Gabby Hartnett during the 1964 season. "He's got the best pair of wheels I've ever seen. I saw a lot of great base stealers, including Max Carey, but I wouldn't rate any of them ahead of this kid." A's third-base coach Luke Appling, also a Hall of Famer, raved about Campy's baseball instincts, calling them "exceptional."

The language barrier forced a determined Campaneris to study pitchers on his own and develop base-stealing techniques by himself. In 1965, Campaneris led all American League base stealers with 51 thefts. Campy topped the 50-stolen base mark three straight seasons, before swiping 62 bases in 1968. At the plate, Campaneris hit consistently in the .260 to .270 range.

One element of his defensive play remained a particular concern, countering his ability to cover lots of ground on the left side of the infield. Although Campaneris' quick, scampering feet allowed him to make spectacular plays, often reaching grounders that other shortstops couldn't touch, he tended to bobble routine grounders because of his unsure hands. Campy made over 30 errors in three of his first four full seasons before settling down defensively in 1969. As with his base stealing, Campy improved his fieldwork through his self-imposed work ethic.

Campaneris wasn't satisfied with improvements on the field. He hoped to learn English to the point where he no longer would need bilingual teammates like Orlando Pena and Diego Segui to help him conduct interviews. He spent one winter with his second cousin, Angels outfielder Jose Cardenal, whose wife gave him lessons in the new language. Thanks in part to his improved skills in speaking English, Campaneris eventually met and married an American woman.

Any admiration for the self-made Campaneris seemed to become lost in the fall of 1972, during the American League Championship Series. Campaneris fired his bat at Detroit Tigers pitcher Lerrin LaGrow, who had hit Campy in the ankle with a fastball. Although every player on the A's believed LaGrow's pitch was intentional, having come at the orders of Tigers manager Billy Martin, who wanted to slow down the red-hot Campy, the A's' shortstop badly overreacted by hurling his bat at LaGrow. Luckily, LaGrow jumped out of the way of the bat, but the act of violence prompted a bench-clearing brawl and a much-deserved suspension for Campaneris. No member of the Tigers was more upset with Campy than Billy Martin, who proceeded to call the A's' shortstop "gutless."

Still, it was hard for anyone to stay mad at the usually mild-mannered Campaneris for long. As much as Martin despised Campaneris at the moment he hurled his bat toward LaGrow, the Tiger skipper respected the veteran infielder as a fiery, combative sparkplug who always hustled. Evidence of Martin's regard for Campaneris could be found in 1983, when Campy concluded his major league career with the Yankees. After a one-year layoff from major league baseball, Campy arrived at the Yankees' spring camp in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, completely uninvited. Knowing that the Yankees needed a middle infielder, Campaneris asked New York's manager for a playing job. The manager responded by challenging him to make the team. Campaneris proceeded to earn the final spot on the 25-man roster, and hit .322 as a backup second baseman and third baseman to Willie Randolph and Graig Nettles, respectively.

Who was the Yankee's manager at the time? It was a forgiving Billy Martin. And perhaps that's the part of the story that should be best remembered about Campy Campaneris. (from Bruce Markusen)

Wow. This thread is really getting good with the return of some of the old stand-byes and the addition of new folks too. Its a pleasure to read and contribute to. Something to make November pass happily for us S.A.D.-affected New Englanders Too bad BrownDog is busy reading the pulse of the Cape, and Lahoud busy getting paid for his baseball analysis but hopefully they will come back into the fold when they can.

Regarding the concept of uniqueness, I am talking about trying to find out what a player was like, what was said about him, what his individual characteristics were in the field, at bat, on the basepaths and in the clubhouse. Players are always remembered by their numbers - its the signature of all their epitaths. Modern historical analysis of ballplayers goes beyond RBI's and wins, and reduces traditional numbers even further to abstractions like OPS+, Win Shares, ERA+, WARP, etc. While probably more accurate than traditional cumulative numbers, in a sense they tell us even less about the player himself. So what I try to do in analysis is to marry up the individual numbers with his characteristics and see what it tells us about the player.

I doubt many of us would consider Walker Cooper to be a true HOFer in the sense we are used to. His numbers over time don't add up. He only had one great season by any standards. But the image of kids lining up to go to the Polo Grounds to see a catcher hit long balls in batting practice is certainly memorable, as is the image of him "dotting the i" 100 feet up on the scoreboard at old Braves Field. Looking at his HR and line drive rates, we see that he truly was a player of immense power. We can't prove him HOF worthy through his numbers, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone from that era who wouldn't agree that he was the best catcher in baseball for a decade. That must count for something.

There were some arguments against selecting players like Addie Joss, George Sisler, Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean based on longevity, both in here and in the real HOF. I guess the HOF is like life, in a strange way, and longevity is everything. Greatness, however, isn't measured in years. I want to remember Bob Gibson, and Barry Bonds, and Willie Mays and all those HOFers I never got to see play. But I also want to remember that, in their days, Johnny VanderMeer, Sam McDowell and Andy Messersmith were just as dominating as Bob Feller, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver.

I admit that when I pulled the OF numbers for the Expansion Era, I was curious to see how my childhood idol, Tony C, would have stood up against the great ones had his career been longer. I won't say that Tony C. is HOF-worthy, any more than I would really say that about Old Walk Cooper or Harry the Cat Brecheen. But Tony C's HR rate was right up there with the 500-HR crowd, just a couple of points behind F.Robby and Reggie. For the record, he would have needed 10,638 PA's to have hit 500 HRs at his career HR rate. Of course, Tony C's star burned a little too brightly, but in my mind he will always be great.

Regarding positional bias, I agree that players shouldn't be given extra points for the position they played in, but in some cases, players should be measured within their positions in certain eras. Until Mickey Cochrane came along, no catcher played full seasons. The position was do difficult to play that catchers were platooned, which is still modus operandi today. When I pointed out that Walker Cooper played all of his games at catcher I should have made that point more significant. Here are the percentages games caught vs total games played in the field (including DH) of some HOF catchers:



So catchers need to be compared against themselves, and short career numbers for catchers must be tolerated, along with injuries and the general wear-and-tear. If you just looked at their total numbers and didn't care about what position they played, perhaps only two or three catchers in history would be in the HOF. Its the same thing for shortstops in all eras, as well as for center fielders second baseman and third baseman from certain eras. So I guess I would say that although players shouldn't be given extra points for position difficulty, they shouldn't lose them either. They need to be considered against each other, and in the context of their time.

YAZ67's excellent piece on Campenaris was a case in point. Campy doesn't compare well to modern SS's, but he was damned good in an era when speed and defense was given prime consideration, and in that role he was excellent - perhaps as good as Aparicio who was a near contemporary.

So how about a little more love for Dave Bancroft and Bill Mazeroski

Baka, I like what you are doing with the team OPS thing. I'm assuming that James does something like that when he is computing Win Share totals, but I don't know what his formula is exactly (although I own the new Abstract, I don't own his Win Shares book). Perhaps Tudor can explain. I worked on something similar, using my Total Hitting (ToH) numbers and computing percentage of run production contributions from players on the 2004 Sox team. Unfortunately I can't find the formula I used (I'm sure its here somewhere, printed on an empty cigarette pack or something), but here were the numbers I came up with:



I think I probably divided individual virtual runs (VR) by team VR to generate the percentage of run production (%off). It was a spinoff from a piece I did on the main board generating expected team runs from Team ToH numbers where I was trying to see if individual ToH numbers could be equated to Team Expected Runs, or something of the sort. I never finished it, but could dust it off and learn to use Excel to generate the numbers. Anyway, I think its something like what you're working on. One of the cool things in that study, btw, was calcuating VR/G and seeing that Tek (who naturally only played in 119.9 games because of the platoon) was third on the team in VR/G. But I digress ...

I used the ToH numbers because they have a direct linear relation to runs scored, but since they also have an indirect linear relation OPS (the value of each component, walks, singles, HRs etc is weighted slightly differently) then you should be able to do the same thing with OPS. If you want to adjust for park and league averages before the fact, then OPS+ should work also.

OK probably silly to "still be arguing against" Bonds but I suppose this can be a some good information on Zisk, Amos Otis and Gary Matthews who are coming up.

Bonds
Team Total Team Total
Yr { W/O Player X { AVG { Player X OPS+ { w Player X { Diff
74 673 96 119 99 3
73 772 110 143 114 4
72 679 97 117 99 2
71 842 120 146 123 3
70 854 122 135 123 1
69 755 107 132 110 3
Totals 762 108 132 111 avg 3

Zisk
79 680 97 103 97 0
78 723 103 116 104 1
77 825 117 134 119 2
76 742 106 128 108 2
75 789 112 136 115 3
74 818 116 145 120 4
Tot 762 108 127 110 avg 2

A Otis
75 741 105 103 105 0
74 702 100 120 102 2
73 711 101 131 105 4
72 823 117 128 118 1
71 736 105 124 107 2
70 623 89 114 92 3
Tot 722 102 120 104 avg 2

G Matthews
79 610 87 128 92 4
78 650 92 121 96 4
77 596 85 104 87 2
76 633 90 125 94 4
75 782 111 121 112 1
74 670 95 122 99 4
Tot 656 93 120 96 Avg 3



Thats all I got for now.

If anyone has some examples of "one man wrecking crew Offenses" for a 6 year period let me know and I can run the numbers. I probably need another example of a weak hitter on a good hitting team as the other extreme.

1989 Ballot

Johnny Bench
Fergie Jenkins
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Carl Yaz

Bench
Hunter
Jenkins
Yaz

Try Frank Howard, the Capital Punisher. Perhaps the ultimate one-man offense on a weak team.

I think what you're doing measures the extent to which a guy stands out on his own team, which is interesting. The major issue I have with it as a measure of value, though, is that a player on a team of other high-OPS+ players is penalized. If a guy has an OPS+ of 120, why is he any more or less valuable on a team where everyone else has an OPS+ of 130 as opposed to 80?

Jeff and Lose, I'm curious as to why you voted for Jenkins and not Perry. Perry had a better ERA+ (117 to 115) in almost 20% more career innings (5350 to 4501). How does Jenkins overcome this discrepancy?

I'm not saying Jenkins is unworthy, they'll both probably get my vote.

Tudor: For me it's the spitter thing (which means cheating, in my book, as opposed to recreational drugs). I might vote for him on a later ballot, gotta work through that, but for now I'm passing on him. Hopefully we'll know more about steroids when those votes come up!

What I am attempting is to define how valuable a player is to his team. For instance Gary Matthews in my example played on some Terrible offensive teams. Despite this he performed very well and was arguably the Most imporant offensive player on those teams.

A team with multiple 130OPS+ players could mean a couple things.

1. That the mythical lineup protection theory does exist to some extent. IE a 130 OPS+ players makes it more likely to have another which makes it more likely to have another which makes it more likely to have another..... So I questions did a late career Mays a Very Good Mccovey a good Ken Henderson and a under rated Dietz make it easier for Bonds to be the player he was.
2. That Teams with weak offenses can have one very good hitter pitched around. Was this the case with Matthews? If so then the guy was really really good. Possible better then Bonds.
3. Perhaps its a more refined "park Adjustment" or rather a "Team Adjustment". In theory any park or league adjustment should be taken into account in OPS+. BUT what if we find that players continually are excellent in good Lineup"A" but regress in bad Lineup "B". In theory I suppose we could right those off as age/decline/injury. But If we see this constantly player after player......
This could be handy in arguing......"If Gary Matthews had been on the Giants of the early 70s would he have been "as good" as Bobby Bonds. Long short.....If mediocre players are on good teams does that improve his HoF creds. What about good players on bad teams? Does that impact thier HoF Chances. IE is Bill Muellar more valuable in the Sox Lineup then he is in the Cubs or Giants. And Does a career of that inflate or deflate a players career numbers enough to impact HOF Consideration.

You mentioned that what you try to do in part to determine HoF worthiness is determine how important a player was and how much he helped his particular team.

What if Matthews or zisk had been on the giants instead of Bonds.....would they have gotten your vote?

I guess thats what I am trying to determine.

And Thanks I will Check F Howard and See how important he was to his team using my Bass ackward method.

I dont know if it works Yet I am still working on players but we can see.

Tudor, ditto for me. Dumb as it sounds, I actually consider the 1st ballot thing when voting. I will vote for Perry, just didnt want to vote for him for 1st ballot because of the spitter.

The concept of "cheating" is going to come up later on in voting, and there is a precedent to think of. There are some slam dunkers that will NEVER get my vote, albeit for offenses more grave, imo, than saliva.

1989 Ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Johnny Bench
Norm Cash
Ferguson Jenkins
Gaylord Perry
Carl Yastrzemski

1989 ballot:
Sal Bando
Johnny Bench
Walker Cooper
Fergie Jenkins
Jim Kaat
Thurman Munson
Tony Oliva
Gaylord Perry
Vada Pinson
Carl Yastrezemski

Bench, Perry, Jenkins, and Yaz are slam-dunk HoFers in my opinion, and I'm putting Kaat on the ballot because he's a very valid marginal candidate and deserves our future consideration, which might not happen if he gets shut out. That means I need to temporarily remove two of the folowing: Bando, Cooper, Cash, Munson, Oliva, Pinson, Smith. Tough call but I decided on Cash and Smith.

Lose and Jeff: Perry didn't throw a spitter, he threw a hard slider. In any event, he was clearly a master at messing with peoples' minds.

Baka: it seems to me that you are essentially looking at the phenomenon of "protection." Will a given player perform better if surrounded by good players than if surrounded by bad players? Intuitively, I don't think I buy it, but I'd be very interested in your or anyone else's thoughts on this.

And I ain't voting for Bob Stanley and his "super sinker" neither!

Sal Bando
Johnny Bench
Jim Hunter
Ferguson Jenkins
Tony Oliva
Gaylord Perry
Reggie Smith
Carl Yastrzemski

* In the actual 1989 balloting, Yaz and Bench went in alone. Perry was delayed because of the spitter, Jenkins because of the marijuana. Both are offenses I actually admire, so I am not going to delay either of them.

* The Red Sox were constantly rumored to be acquiring Perry. In December 1973, they consumated and announced a deal that would have sent Mike Garman, Craig Skok and John Curtis (IIRC) for Perry. Unfortunately, Indians GM Phil Seghi told owner Ted Bonda, who nixed the deal. The Red Sox got pissed and made a deal with the Cardinals instead, for Reggie Cleveland. Phil Seghi got pissed because he said, and Bonda later confirmed, that he could have made the Red Sox deal work.

Perry was a tremendous pitcher at this point, perhaps the best pitcher in the game, and would have made the Red Sox the best team in the league. Plus, they could not beat Perry themselves at all, so it would have had a double benefit. They were 0-10 against Perry in 1973 and 1974. I watched or listenened to many of these games, and it was pretty amazing domination.

The next off-season season they tried to acquire Perry again, and almost did, again. They were negotiating with the Indians right through to June 1975, when he was finally dealt to the Rangers.

* After the 1975 season, newly minted as AL champs, they nonetheless went out and acquired Ferguson Jenkins. The Red Sox in this era tended to underrate the pitchers they already had (and overrate the hitters), which led them to look to acquire great pitchers like this, and then not realize that they are still pitching well. Don Zimmer was so unimpressed that he eventually took Jenkins out of the rotation, and let him sit out the 1977 pennant race. When the Red Sox let him go for 10 cents on the dollar at the end of the season, he still had several more productive years ahead (surprise, surprise). Jenkins would have been awfully helpful in 1978. Aww, crap.

So after much deliberation...

Dave Bancroft
Mark Belanger
Walker Cooper
Bill Mazeroski
Johnny Bench
Carl Yastremski


I'm kinda torn on Norm Cash and Tony Oliva, but as is this is the most people I've put on a ballot since around 1950.

By the way, Bench fails both the Black Ink and Gray Ink tests. I still thought he was a no-brainer though.

Sal Bando
Johnny Bench
Jim Hunter
Ferguson Jenkins
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Gaylord Perry
Reggie Smith
Carl Yastrzemski

Baka had trouble posting this chart, so he sent it to me for some posting.

Thanks URI.

Couple of points.


Team OPS W/O player should read;

Team OPS+ W/O player

This is basically the OPS+ for the top 7 players minus Frank Howard or Mark Belanger added together
I used the top 7 to keep it "league nuetral" Top 7 avoided pitchers whos OPS+ would be abysmal and drag down the numbers. I also used the top 7 in this way regarding players listed as "DH"

I substituted the DH for the lowest of the OFer's. Although this may not be historically accurate (Could you see Big Papi trying to play the OF) I wanted to insure that the numbers would have provided a best case Offensive picture. I figure that in the past a manager would have found a place for a player with better offense if the DH hadnt existed.

so for instance if the three OFs had OPS+ of 100/110/120 and the DH had a 107 I used the 107/110/120 numbers.

The second column "Team OPS+w/o player" (could have been named better I guess) is the Team avg using the 7 offensive players (and subbing the DH for an OF where nessicery).

Basically taking column 1 and dividing it by 7

Column 3 is Frank Howards or Mark Belangers OPS+
Column 4 is the Teams OPS+ using the top7 players with the above DH/OF rule added with Frank Howard or Mark Belanger.

Column5 "Diffrence" is the diffrence between colum 4 and column 2.

I am open to suggestions to try to make this more informative or accurate.

One thing I thought about was in column 2 using a league avg 100OPS+ player as a Place holder for the Player in question.
This may add value by showing how important he was over a league avg player.

Let me know what you guys think.

Mark Belanger must have been a Hell of a short stop. He better have gotten to balls on the right side of second and down the 3rd base line

Baka, Here's a little feedback for you:



I'm not sure how accurate you are trying to get. If you want to get really accurate, use raw OPS instead of OPS+ for your calculations. That way you can use the entire team. You can change this back to OPS by dividing the OPS by the league OPS, then divide that by the decimalized park factor (ex: 98 = .98).

For the "without player" numbers, you would have to compute the team OPS minus the player's numbers.

If that's too complicated, I would just use the top seven guys in plate appearances, without worrying about position.



Yes, but Belanger's teams' OPS were still better with him in the lineup than Howard's teams were, so the Orioles could afford to "hide" him.

This is interesting, but I'm not sure what these numbers are telling us yet. Since there is an indirect linear relationship between OPS+ and run production, I suppose you could use OPS numbers to express a player's percent of run contribution to his particular team. You could use raw OPS (since all players on a team in a particular season have the same PF and League OPS as multipliers), somehow expressed as a multiplier against plate appearances. From my own research, I suspect any player with more than 10% of his team's run production had a very good year. I am not sure if any player would approach 20%.

Again, I think that James uses something like this to determine how many offensive Win Shares a player earns. Perhaps the percentages would be more useful in analysis than the Win Shares themselves.

1989 Ballot:

Dave Bancroft
Johnny Bench
Walker Cooper
Catfish Hunter
Fergie Jenkins
Tony Oliva
Gaylord Perry
Vada Pinson
Reggie Smith
Carl Yastrzemski

Had to drop McDowell, Messersmith, Mazeroski and Munson to make way for the big guns. I have no problem with Perry or Jenkins, both seemed to fair well in rate analysis as well as cumulative numbers. I still believe Gaylord's money pitch was a forkball.

I am also amenable to giving Kaat strong consideration, although comparing him to McDowell makes it difficult. I just can't find room on this ballot for him.

I'm going to get around to detailing Oliva, Pinson and Smith as soon as I can. I've done all I could for Old Walk and Hunter. I also need to revisit Bancroft in detail, since we're running out of time on him unless someone else wants to do it.