(I'm not Lahoud, but....)
Tiant made our little Hall on his first ballot, with nearly unanimous support. In fact, the only person to not vote for him was some clown named DeltaForce.*


*I haven't voted for Catfish either. I see them as roughly equivalent, with Tiant a shade ahead of Hunter. I didn't vote for Tiant on the first ballot because I was hoping he and Hunter would be discussed and debated.

Note to Lahoud: I haven't yet had a chance to read what you've written on Oliva, so I still haven't made up my mind on him....

Delta, it seemd to me that Tiant was quite a bit better than Hunter. They threw roughly the same # of innings (Hunter 3449, Tiant 3486) and Tiant bested Hunter in the following career categories:
ERA+: 114 to 104
Ks: 2416 to 2012
HRs allowed: 346 to 374 (even though Tiant pitched in much more homer-friendly parks)

Hunter did allow fewer walks, 954 to 1104.

In postseason play, Hunter went 9-6 with a 3.26 ERA, and Tiant was 5-4 with a 2.86 ERA. Tiant also had one of the most amazing pitching performances in post-season history when he threw that 163-pitch complete game in Game 4 of the 1975 WS.

.

Lonnie's one hitter in the Series

Roger's 20K performances

Pedro's 17 K game against the MFY's in the Stadium.

All were great. Great.

After El Tiante's Game 5 performance, my father burst into tears. I will never ever forget that - or Luis's courage that night. It remains my personal favorite.

1995
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Catfish Hunter
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

I wish I had one more spot for Don Sutton

1995 Ballot

Sal Bando
Jim Hunter
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons

Nice to see Grich get in. Now for Oliva...

I'm adding Niekro. The sheer weight of his innings and production outweigh his defensive stress "points" to me, the more I considered it. I'm removing Amos Otis from my ballot as well, having given him three votes. I'm just moving on on that front.

Regarding Darrell Evans- there's a lot there to like, including his BB rates, his hitting in pitcher's parks for a lot of his career, the 414 HR. I'm not 100% on him, so I'm holding a vote on him off until I feel completely convinced. Not yet.

Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Thurman Munson
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Reggie Smith
Don Sutton

I don’t think that Darrell Evans is a slam dunk. However, in the second edition of the HA, Bill James opines that Evans is the most underrated player in major league history, because he possessed all the following traits that tend to make a player underrated:
1. Not a specialist; did a lot of things well.
2. Much higher secondary average (.373) than batting average (.248).
3. Generally played for mediocre teams.
4. Never played in NY or LA. (I would add Boston to this list.)
5. Quiet personality.
6. Played in conditions that did not favor him, in that he spent the prime of his career as a hitter in Candlestick when it was a terrible hitter’s park.
7. His career was divided almost equally between 3 cities and 2 positions (3B and 1B), as opposed to being spent entirely in one position for one team.

(Edited to replace Norm Cash, who is no longer eligible, with Reggie Smith.)

1995 Ballot

Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Sam McDowell
Phil Niekro
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Bruce Sutter
Don Sutton

In think Evans was a great player- but though he has an impressive record of logevity of above league average production- I don't see his OPS+ ever getting so far above league average consistently that it would merit Hall inclusion.

He does seem to be a well-overlooked player, and I have definitely read that James article on why he was overlooked. I think his low BAs are the most likely reason, personally. Again, I'm squarely on the fence, so the chances of someone pushing me in one direction or the other are good. I'm leaning towards "yes," but I didn't want to vote until sure.

What was Evans' defensive reputation?

Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Jim Hunter
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Tony Perez
Pete Rose
Ted Simmons
Reggie Smith
Don Sutton

Two more ballots left for Oliva, one of the best all-around players in the league for eight years.

I am a little surprised at the lack of support for Perez. He was over-rated over the last half of his career, including the two Series teams, but from 1967-74 he was a heck of a player. Don't forget--he was a third baseman for most of his peak, making him a great player.

We have reached the point where there are too many good players on the ballot. I think there are a lot more great players in the past forty years than there were before--the game is just better. In the mean time, our standards have gotten much higher so we have a situation like the real Hall of Fame, where a modern player has to be better than half the Hall of Fame to have a shot.

There ought to be a real Jim Rice argument going on now, but I am having a hard time putting him ahead of the guys on my ballot. There is a logjam.

Elect Oliva, then we'll talk.

I recall that he was considered a pretty good defensive 3B in the 1970s, although he did not with any GG.

BP has him at 363 FRAR and 101 FRAA for his career.

Based on WS/defensive inning, Bill James rates Evans as an A- third baseman and a B- first baseman. (He made the transition from 3B to 1B during the 1981-83 time frame, when he was 34 to 36 years old.)
I agree, and I would be fine with reducing the percentage of votes needed to get in from 75% to 66 2/3%. Is anyone else in favor of this?

I'm not in favor of it. We're trying to stay true to form right? I dont think its fair to anyone who may have just missed in the past. I think that instead we should all just make a real attempt to carefully consider voting for someone who we may not have voted for who has gotten 50-74% of the vote multiple years.

I will say...we have to get Oliva one more vote...

I will be voting for Jim Rice...not first ballot though.

I suspect Rose will get between 40 and 50% of the vote every time...i think everyone who is voting for him will vote every time, and those who have not will as well.

1995

R. Fingers
C. Hunter
S. McDowell
P. Niekro
T. Oliva
V. Pinson
P. Rose
M. Schmidt

1995 Ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Thurman Munson
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Jim Rice
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Don Sutton

Edit: Forgot Jim Rice. Anway, I was poking around right after this year's HoF elections, and peeked at GiDPs. Rice did hit into a lot, but so did the best hitters of his era.

Career DPs/Seasons Played
Cal Ripken - 350/21
Hank Aaron - 328/23
Yaz - 323/23
Dave Winfield - 319/22
Eddie Murray - 316/21
Jim Rice - 315/16
Julio Franco - 299/21
Harold Baines - 298/22
Brooks Robinson - 297/23
Rusty Staub - 297/23

Same list by DPs/700PA
Rice - 24.34
Franco - 22.16
Ripken - 19.01
Baines - 18.81
Staub - 18.51
Winfield - 18.07
Robinson - 17.65
Murray - 17.26
Aaron - 16.47
Yaz - 16.16

Robinson and Aaron represent a mid-50s through mid-70s era. Yaz and Staub an early 60s through early 80s era. Then there's the Murray/Winfield/Rice/Ripken/Baines group. Franco started in 1982 and overlapped quite a bit with this group; he's put up 44 DPs since his return with Atlanta in 2001. So Rice hit into an inordinate number of DPs but at a time when the other great hitters of his era also did. What to make of that?

1995:

Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Tony Oliva
Jim Rice
Mike Schmidt
Bruce Sutter

Waiting for 2nd ballots: Darrell Evans and Ted Simmons
Wondering if: There will be love for Tony Armas


Edit: Add Oliva.

Read and reread the arguments, I ain't removing Rice, but I'm convinced about Tony. That Gehrig comment was a low blow, I must say though!

Tudor - Cash had his 15 years...he's no longer on the ballot

Lose - This is Ted Simmons' 2nd ballot. I'm also curious as to why Jim Rice in his first ballot is better than Tony Oliva on his 14th.

1995 Ballot:

Dave Bancroft
Darrell Evans
Catfish Hunter
Sam McDowell
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Reggie Smith

Simmon's second ballot, eh? Let me think about that, then.

Rice vs. Oliva, I feel Rice was the dominant hitter in his league for a much longer period of time than Oliva was. I was always more afraid of Killebrew than I was of Oliva.

When I was researching the blurb on Niekro I posted a couple of "years" ago, I pulled together the Braves infields for Niekro and I did notice that Evans was at or near the top of the league in RF for several years running. RF itself doesn't tell us too much, but the Braves generated an awful lot of ground balls back in those days and Evans seemed to have been a better 3B than I believed him to be back in the day.

1. That's why I didn't vote for Lou Gehrig--he didn't scare me as much as Ruth did.

2. Oliva was a better hitter than Rice. Better EQA (.295 to .287), better OPS+ (131 to 128).

3. Oliva had more big years. Oliva's top EQAs: .320, .313, .310, .307, .301; Rice: .313, .312, .306, .299, .299.

4. Oliva played a more important position (RF vs. LF), and he played it better, winning a Gold Glove and having a fine reputation for most of his career.

I am not sure how Rice was more "dominant", but he was a worse hitter, worse fielder, and worse base-runner.

Can I get in on this? I haven't been following for too long, so I don't know the full list of eligibles. I'll play a safe hand for my first election.

1995 ballot:

Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons

edit- alphabetized.

Absolutely, the more the merrier, especially since you voted for Oliva, Hunter and Simmons

Seriously, the full set of eligibles, and their voting history is on Page One, and essentially any one not previously elected is fair game, provided their eligibility hasn't expired (URI might have the list of expired ones). If you have any questions, let us know.

I'd have to dig up the list of inelegibles since 1972...

Also, I ask that you alpha the list when you post it...it makes sure that I don't miss anyone in your votes.

1995 BALLOT
Darrell Evans
Rollie Fingers
Jim "Catfish" Hunter
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Reggie Smith
Bruce Sutter

* My vote for Darrell Evans is one of courtesy and respect. The man garnered just 8 votes in 1995 and fell off the ballot like an anvil. He deserved better.

* I've gone 'round and around on Rose. He's a liar who bet on baseball, and he seems to be a despicable human being.

But Ty Cobb was an a-hole who sharpened his spikes and once went into the stands to beat the crap out of an elderly handicapped guy who heckled him. Tris Speaker was a member of the KKK. There are plenty of skeletons in baseball's closet.

At the SoSH HOF inductions, there are no acceptance speeches to endure. Which is a good thing, since we really don't need to listen to Rose -- his accomplishments on the field speak for themselves.

* EDIT - Damn, forgot to include Schmidt. (Adios, Phil Niekro...)

You know I just looked up, you didn't vote for Hunter this time around. Big silly.

Ack ... how did i skip him? lol. Edited to fix. Thanks for the catch.

jesus christ look at this line.,..

HR: 36
RBI: 107
BA: .218
OBP: .254
BB: 29
SO: 131
GIDP: 31

Tony Harmless, 1983. Who knew it was possible to hit 36 homers and rack up an OPS+ of 85?

I was actually considering giving the former Sox a pity vote to keep him on the ballot, so gave a quick once over of his stats to see if there was any way to justify.

Oh mi gosh no.

Welcome to the forum, JGray38

And thanks for the vote for Fingers. I've been trying to make a case, but haven't been able to amass the votes needed for enshrinement.

Fingers supporters, a little help here?

1995 ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Ken Singleton

Another strong crop of newbies. One inner-circle lock, and two of the more interesting HoF case studies, Darrell Evans and Jim Rice. Right now, I see Evans clearly on the "HoF" side of the line and Rice on the "HoVG" side of the line, although my (and I think most people's) perception of both was reversed back when they were playing. (For all the talk about how much Rice is getting screwed by the HoF voters, it's arguably more controversial that he continues to enjoy majority support among writers while people like Bobby Grich, Ted Simmons, and Darrell Evans were essentially ignored).

Oliva remains off my ballot . . . for now. It looks like he may make it without my vote anyway. But if he doesn't, I am very, very hesitant to be the guy who keeps him out of our little Hall. So, I remain open to voting for him (I still haven't looked at Lahoud's writings, but I will.).

Here's what continues to bother me. Bill James has Oliva as the #21 RF; he had more than 30 win shares in a season once; he had one season with a WARP1 above 9 or a WARP3 above 8; his best three WARP3 seasons average out to a less-than-awesome 7.9. Now, none of this is dispositive, but there must be something that these metrics aren't capturing. What is it? (I've read what you've all posted, and I see how high his EqA was; what's the reason for the discrepancy?)

edit: Never mind; I'm voting for him. In pencil.

I suspect he won't make it. Every no vote requires three yes votes to balance it. We were about even until your vote, now we need three more yes's. This is his second-to-last battle, so I'd say he needs a miracle at this point.

He didn't have a lot of high PA seasons, which hurt his WARP numbers (but not his EQA or OPS+ numbers). James's rating (and Win Shares itself) places a high weight on showing up, since its baseline is so low.

I also think many of these metrics mess up the 1960s, the modern "deadball" era. All the offensive players have low scores, even after adjustment.

I consider Oliva to be a Top 15 RF. He is not a lock, and I have not pretended that he is. He is, however, as good as many of the players we have inducted, and he was one of the AL's best players for eight years. He was as good a hitter as Kaline or Clemente, and, while not in their class on defense, he did win a Gold Glove and had a fine defensive rep.

No MLB HOF candidate has ever received 2/3 of the votes and not eventually made it in...


Just a thought

I was referring mainly to the fact that Lose Remerswaal already switched from 'no' to 'yes.' So, unless someone else switches from 'yes' to 'no,' he'll likely get in.

edit: In fact, as of right now he's 10-for-12. So not only would he be in, he can still get another "no" vote and get in. And there's only one person who voted against him in "1994" that has yet to vote in "1995."

edit#2: Now he's 11-for-12. Do you believe in miracles?

It's true that his yearly OPS+ numbers aren't eye-popping (although he had as many seasons with a 150 OPS+ as Oliva and Rice did). Other metrics have his best seasons as very, very good, however. Consider that his best three WARP3 seasons average 10.3. Al Rosen is the only 3B that had a higher 3-season average without getting into our Hall. Now, I assume a lot of that was due to his defense....


He never won a gold glove -- Doug Rader and Mike Schmidt owned that franchise during Evans's good years -- but both Bill James's system (rating him as A- with three "win shares gold gloves") and the Palmer/Gillette system (giving him a career 207 fielding runs above average) place him as one of the better defensive third basemen of his era.

I agree with Tudor; Evans is no lock, but he seems to fit comfortably within the Hall that we've built.

Oh, and looking up Evans's numbers has indirectly pushed me off the fence on Oliva. I'm voting for him. I'd apologize for the holdup, but I came by it honestly -- and I think correctly; I still have my doubts. But, particularly considering how much I've learned through this HoF process, and considering that the people from whom I've learned are virtually unanimous on Oliva, he'll get the benefit of the doubt from me.

But don't make me vote for Pinson.

Good man. Look, Delta, at no time did I ever think your views on Oliva were idiotic or anything. He's clearly on the edge, and you have to ignore the short career to push him in. Most of the debate here, the guys I have been involved with (Stephens, Wynn, Oliva, Rizzuto), are on the fence, and good arguments can be made either way. I didn't get Rizzuto, but that's OK.

Its not like Walter Johnson or Bobby Grich-- the absolute no-brainers.

Here's a good example of where Win Shares can be misleading. Look at Oliva's monster rookie season in 1964 (32 HRs, 94 RBIs, league-leading .323 Avg, 150 OPS+), in which his 27.2 WS lead his team. But because his team significantly underperformed (-8 wins vs. Pythagorean), Oliva probably didn't get proper credit for his contributions. I also suspect that Oliva lost out on some WS due to the big years by the Killer (49 HRs, 153 OPS+, 23.9 WS) and Bob Allison (163 OPS+, 24.5 WS).

One more point - James' version of Win Shares does not allow for negative Win Shares, which many (Tangotiger, folks at The Hardball Times) have pointed out as a failing. Take a look at some of their pitchers. You've got Dick Stigman, who pitched 190 innings of 89 ERA+ ball. And yet he got credit for 5.3 WS. And then there's Lee Stange, who pitched a horrendous 79.2 innings (4.74 ERA, 76 ERA+), but who merely shows up as a zero on Win Shares. Of course, their bench (beyond Don Mincher) sucked as well. Witness Jerry Kindall, who somehow got 128 AB, despite having an OPS+ of 8(!). Jerry Zimmerman, 120 ABs, 42 OPS+. Johnny Goryl, 114 ABs, 10 OPS+. But did any of these guys (rightfully) get negative WS? NO!

Great stuff on Evans, Delta. I'm leaning strong in favor of voting for him.

I wonder if, at the bottom of the first post in the thread, if we could cull some valuable reference links for quick checking- stuff not found on B-R, like WARPs, Win Shares and VORPs for retired players. Just a thought.

Yes, they have different baselines, and just as the Palmer/Gillette crew has taken James to task by measuring performance against a replacement player, James has criticized in equal measure that crew for measuring performance against an average player. I've read stuff from both "camps" (yeah, I know they're not really camps and that there are more than two of 'em), and I can't really decide who's right, so I tend to look at several different metrics and see if they're in agreement. And in Oliva's case, he tends to fare better in metrics relating to "average" players rather than "replacement" players. But the bigger difference, as Lahoud noted, is between his year-by-year rates and any metrics that require him to show up (i.e., he was great when he was healthy, but arguably wasn't healthy often enough).

I do share some of your problems with win shares, particularly for teams that significantly over-perform or under-perform pythag. But I don't think the concept -- measuring players primarily against replacement players -- is necessarily wrong (i.e., his lack of "negative" win shares is by design, and I don't think the design is necessarily flawed).

The WARP/EqA stuff is available on Baseball Prospectus (use the "find player" function).

A lot of splits can be found at retrosheet.org.

And there's a lot of good stuff at Cyril Morong's site.

1995 Ballot
Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Mike Schmidt
Ted Simmons
Kent Tekulve

One note regarding the inclusion of Kent Tekulve. I had mentioned earlier that I am researching stats on closers. Anyway, in looking at Adjusted Runs Prevented, Tekulve's name jumped out as being much better than I had expected. In fact, he compares pretty favorably with Bruce Sutter. So I'm voting for Tekulve to make sure he stays on the ballot for now. FYI - my analysis has been taking longer than expected, but I hope to be finished and ready to present the results in a few days.

The problem with Win Shares is that its "replacement" baseline is too low. Bill James invented the notion of "replacement", and although it is difficult to define, most analysts agree what it means--what James said it meant 25 years ago. A team of replacement players would win about a third of their games. With Win Shares, James uses a baseline of basically zero, since a team made up of people like me would get zero Win Shares, but also win zero games. In practice, people have discovered the Win Shares baseline to be a winning percentage of .200 or so. Very low.

James argument is that the point of WS is to compare seasons, not to compare careers. If you compare seasons, and playing time is roughly the same, the baseline doesn't matter.

Hi folks, Bonger checking in.

1995 Ballot:

Bando - top 10, top 12 3rd baseman. We've established that our Hall of Fame is a bit more permissive than the real HOF, and 3rd basemen are criminally underrepresented anyway. We have a lot more than 12 left fielders. Now, the 12th best left fielder probably has more career value than the 12 best third baseman, since it's sort of a transition position (really good 3Bs sometimes play SS, really bad 3Bs will just become 1Bs - bad LFs..are bad LFs), so Bando is my minimum for 3Bs in the Hall. Also won a lot.

Cey - as good as Bando.

Catfish

Phil Niekro - how is this guy not a Hall of Famer? Seriously. Someone tell me how this guy is not a Hall of Famer. Tons of good seasons, very few (if any) bad seasons. I honestly think if you changed around his win totals from year to year, but kept the same amount of wins - for example, making a 12 win season into an 8 win season, but making two 18 win seasons into 2 20-win seasons - he'd be in our Hall.

Ted Simmons - a great hitter. There is good evidence his defensive reputation is better than what people think. For a guy people were told was a bad catcher, they let him catch over 70% of his games behind the plate, even though he was of more than enough value as a hitter to be a good outfielder, 3rd baseman, 1st baseman, DH, whatever.

Darrell Evans - an incredible player masked by park effects. In his Historical Abstract , Bill James called Evans absolutely the most underrated player ever, and it's easy to see why. Firstly, he had a completely bizarre career - his best seasons bookended his careers. His best years were in his early 20s and in his late 30s. His period with the Giants was sort of a lost period - he was mostly putting up numbers in the range of a 115-120 OPS+ - but hey, from a good defensive third baseman, that's pretty valuable. He deserved way more than 2 All-Star appearances, but was hurt by some miserable luck and bad timing. There's not much seperating this guy from Eric Chavez (although Chavez hasn't put up Evans' best numbers in full seasons), but man, talk about a backlog. Why Evans got jobbed out of appearances:

1) The greatest third baseman of all time, Mike Schmidt, was in the prime of his career at the exact same time.

2) At the start of Evans' drought, Pete Rose was a third baseman, and there was no way he wasn't getting picked. Ron Cey was around too, and besides being a very good player, played on a famous infield for a very high-profile, big-market team.

3) The managers and coaches made some terrible picks. Ray Knight got picked in 1980 and 1982 for years that were not better than Evans.

4) The early 1980s National League keystone was loaded with a lot of guys who had really good seasons in not nearly as good careers. Bill Madlock, Bob Horner, Pedro Guerrero, heck even Knight had a pretty good career. You're talking about a lot of guys who are better than the best third basemen today (besides A-Rod, and even then). But Evans was a lot more durable than all of these guys, and some of them dropped some stinker seasons into their careers. Evans really only had one stinker season.

5) Evans played for the Giants during the number one worst time ever to be a Giant. The team sucked, the franchise was in disarray, and they played in a woefully ugly, miserable stadium that was death on hitters. So he just wasn't getting the attention. Hell, he really only played for one good team (the 82 Giants). You put him on the Tigers, in a better hitters park and a market where baseball wasn't on page six, and his 115 OPS+ seasons mean a BA higher by ten points, 25-30 HRs, and 90-100 RBIs. They aren't great years, but they have the big counting numbers writers love. He probably gets more attention.

Mike Krukow - he's not a Hall of Famer, but he deserves some love for being the funniest broadcaster (without resorting to being a gimmick) in MLB today. He's also one of the very best analysts in baseball, so even if he wasn't funny, he'd still be a pleasure to listen to. He made the 2005 Giants watchable. Also had a really good 1986 that turned around the Giants in a major way - they improved from 62-100 to 83-79, and actually underperformed their Pythag by several games (90-72). It set in place the team that would win the division in 87 and a good bit of the core that would win the pennant in 89. He is part of the reason why baseball came back from the dead in SF - the reality is the Giants have had a pretty good team the last 20 years, and the success between 86-89 set in place the public groundswell that eventually kept the team in San Francisco.

Jim Rice - oh, what the hell.

Mike Schmidt - the best third baseman of all time. A tremendous, tremendous player. If he hit .320, he would be one of the top three players ever. Really could have been a major league shortstop, he was so good at 3B.

Kent Tekulve - really, an underrated reliever. Didn't get into the majors until he was 27 due to being a big funny looking guy who was thin as a twig and didn't throw hard with that slingshot motion, but had some tremendous years as a reliever. It almost underlines the idiocy of the Sutter election that he has virtually the same career numbers and didn't get any consideration.

Steamer - a lot of what applies to Tekulve applies to Steamer. 1982 is one of the best years a reliever has ever had, IMHO. Absolutely no question. Steamer led the league in ERA+ without starting a game - 168.3 innings in relief. He was a better pitcher than Pete Vuckovich (who won the Cy) by a factor of three, and was better than all of the six people above him on the Cy Young voting list with the exception of Dave Stieb. Steamer didn't get much love either - a lot of people in Boston didn't even like him, I think because they felt he was a choker. His best years were when the Red Sox were a sort of running joke in Boston, what with the cheapness and the ownership squabbles. When the Sox became good was when he got really out of shape and his sinker, really his only good pitch, became erratic. He was a big guy, someone who became visibly hefty in his later years, who didn't throw hard and strike guys out, but instead got little dinky groundballs to 2nd or short. These guys tend to be underrated I think, because you look at them and are surprised, almost contemptuous of the fact they don't throw hard. But they get results. Steamer was a pretty good pitcher as a starter (even his 4-15 year wasn't truly terrible - he deserved better, and his 1979 was just flatout a good year), and a very good to great reliever. 1978 is a great reliever year. 1980 is a very good year as a reliever and as a starter. 1982-1983 are two of the best back-to-back seasons in relief pitcher history - 310 innings of tremendous pitching under difficult circumstances. Again, in 1983 he was a better pitcher than the Cy winner (LaMarr Hoyt). 1984, another pretty strong year.

Completely underrated.

Bonger, I am a big fan of Stanley's and even worked him into my small contribution to the Win it For effort. In his prime, he was nasty. One time in 1981 (you probably recall this game ), I snuck down to the front row by the 3B dugout to watch the 8th and 9th innings of a game he was closing. He threw the heaviest sinker I've ever seen; picture trying to hit an 8 pound shot. The hitters were helpless.

However, I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. You are right about him being the best pitcher in the AL in 1982, but that was a weird year in that there just wasn't much pitching in the league. While he had the best ERA+ in the AL at 140, every single ERA+ league champion since then, in both leagues, has had a higher ERA+ than this. Career-wise, his ERA+ of 118 in 1707 innings puts him squarely in Rollie Fingers territory: good, but not great, with a high innings total being his greatest strength.

I voted for him not really because he's a Hall of Famer, but because he's a lot closer to a Hall of Famer than people expect. There's not a whole lot seperating the Steamer from Bruce Sutter. If anything, I think the Steamer's ahead.

Bonger, you have 11 guys. You have to cut one.

1996
Sal Bando
Ron Cey
Darrell Evans
Craig Nettles
Tony Perez
Vada Pinson
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith
Don Sutton

1996 BALLOT
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Rollie Fingers
Keith Hernandez
Graig Nettles
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith
Bruce Sutter
Frank White

* I still can't believe Sam McDowell fell off the ballot with nary a whimper. Looks like Pinson's heading for the same fate, but his omission will be nowhere near as egregious an oversight.

* I've jumped on the Bando bandwagon, but just barely.

* I hated Graig Nettles with the intensity of 1,000 white-hot suns growing up, but the only better fielders I saw at 3B in the 70s and 80s were Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt. Buddy Bell won more Gold Gloves, but Nettles was by far the better glove and arm. He had to play 2nd fiddle to Brooks during some of his better years in the early 70's. Had he been neck-and-neck age-wise with Buddy, Nettles would've had a lot more boullion in his display case.

* Frank White's on my ballot for the same reason. He was a friggin' magician -- just as good at 2B as Ozzie Smith was at SS. And those two were pretty much equivalent in career offensive production. So if Frank gets blown off, and we end up inducting Ozzie, I'm declaring "shenanigans"...

* Mike Norris got hosed in the 1980 Cy Young balloting. He outpitched Steve Stone in every conceivable manner that year -- with the exception of W-L record, which is about all the voters ever consider. Just goes to show how many morons have the privelege of submitting ballots for these awards. This was the equivalent of one of those teary-eyed "Lifetime Achievement" Oscars -- except Stone really didn't acheieve much over his lifetime to merit it.

Dog, I didn't vote for McD because he was spectacular but not particularly effective at helping his team win games. Too many walks and not enough in the way of ERA. Basically, he was Nolan Ryan Lite, and Nolan Ryan Heavy ain't a Hall of Famer IMHO either. Their stats are in some was uncannilly similar:

Ryan: ERA+ 112, K/9 IP 9.95, BB/9 IP 4.67
McDowell: ERA+ 112, K/9 IP 8.86, BB/9 IP 4.74

The big difference, of course is IP: Ryan had 5386 to Sudden Sam's 2492.

I always thought that Mike Norris would have been one of the all-time greats had Billy Martin not abused his arm so ridiculously and had he not discovered the white powder. Norris's tale is pretty sad. He made a comeback from his drug problems and returned to the show in 1990, at age 35, but later had to undergo major spinal cord surgery in 2000. According to this article from about 2 years ago, he is struggling to get around; I hope he's better off today. He is still pretty young (turns 51 on March 19).

Doing some research on Bancroft, I fed some new metrics into the spreadsheet and actually isolated the Deadball Shortstops to the Deadball Period, 1901-1919.
Lots of guys who had HOF attention, both real and on here actually had careers that spanned either the 1890's or the Interwar period, so their numbers look better in those more offensive periods. Bancroft is actually an Interwar shortstop, so I'll get to him later, but here is how those 1901-1919 SS numbers looked:



I put BA and OPS into the rates stuff, along with the offensive rates, ToH, which is the linear weighted (and more accurate ) version of OPS, Batting Runs Created (the run equivalent of ToH), and BRC/PA, which is the magic little tool that allows such things as projections.

A couple of things stand out:

1. Honus Wagner was on a completely different planet. I think already knew that, but my god, he was so much better than everyone else.

2. A few guys who got into one or both HOFs fairly easily don't do so well when isolated like this, for instance Dahlen, but also Wallace and George Davis kind of come down into the pack.

3. Damn, Ray Chapman was good. Old Carl Mays killed a certifiable HOFer.

4. We tended to discount Joe Tinker fairly summarily back when we were voting for him, but he's right there (along with Kid Elberfield!) behind Wallace and Davis in ToH, BRS/PA and OPS.

5. Given the closeness of the guys below Wagner and Chapman, I think defense probably counted a helluva lot more back in this period than we are used to. Again, I think the notion that Tinker was a "mistake" was probably a bit narrow on our part.

When I get around to it, I'll apply the same metric across some of the other positions if there is any interest in it. I'm definitely doing an isolation on the InterWar period to try to support Bancroft one last time.