Did you count my votes last time? It doesn't look like it would have affected anybody's induction, but I figure you'd know that Krukow was the droppable pick.

Due to my inability to read your mind, and the fact that I gave you 3 days to amend your ballot, yes your 11-vote ballot was thrown out so we could get 1996 up.

Well alright then, Mr. Crankypants.

Had Bong's votes counted, I believe that Catfish Hunter would not have made the Hall.

By the way, the recent election certainly took care of the backlog that I had mentioned. With no surefire newbies, it will give people a chance to pimp their special candidate.

Like, Freddie Lynn.

Further to the discussion on Bancroft, I did the same isolation for the InterWar period (1920-1945) on the shortstops and these are the numbers:



The only shortstops on this list for whom I included splits into this period were Bancroft, Peckingpaugh and Maranville. There were a few other Deadball SSs who had a couple years in this period (Bush, Fletcher and Scott, but those were limited at-bats. It was the same thing on the other end, as a few players leaked into the Post WW2 era, but of those, only Appling had significant PAs and there wasn't much discernable difference, so I didn't bother. Appling was a certifiable HOFer with or without those four extra years.

What I had hoped to find here was that the split in Bancroft's career between the Deadball Era and Interwar Era warped his overall numbers somewhat and clouded his HOF potential. Unfortunately, I didn't find it. In fact, Bancroft was virtually indistinguishable in this period from Lyn Lary and Woody English offensively, as he was from Art Fletcher and Donie Bush in his Deadball PAs.

So from an offensive perspective, I really have to say that Bancroft probably belongs in the HOVG.

But what about defense? I'll just post bits from my earlier blurbs on defense here, to reprise that.



I think Bancroft was clearly a couple of notches above most of the shortstops in this period defensively, and it could pull him even with the lesser defenders above him - Sewell and Travis Jackson. Its a pretty marginal thing, really, and I wish I had defensive numbers that would say that his defense maybe added .035 runs per game, which would have put him over those other guys, but I don't (yet).

Some other quick observations from this study:

1. I mentioned Buckshot Wright in the earlier blurb and since his short-career offensive rate numbers show him to have been a peer of the HOF guys, I'll repost it here:



He belongs, along with Ray Chapman, in the Hall of Might-Have-Beens.

2. Has anybody heard of Red Kress before? He was a fairly obscure character who had a roller-coaster career both defensively and offensively, mainly with the Browns and White Sox. He would lead the league in fielding one season, in errors the next, and was sort of a hard luck character. He batted over .300 three straight seasons for the Browns in the early 1930's, but lost his job to an up and comer named Jim Levey and was traded to the White Sox. In his first season with the White Sox he batted .285 with 11 HRs and 42 doubles, but lost his job to another up-and-comer named Appling, and spent the next five seasons as a utility man on the White Sox behind Appling and with the Senators behind Cronin. He still hit well - in the .280s with good line drive power, and when he was traded back to the Browns in 1938 he responded with another .300 season at SS and led the league in fielding. He was traded to the Tigers the next season, but he broke his leg and that pretty much ended his playing career, although he coached in the major leagues until 1962. Just an interesting aside ...

Anyway, I wish I could put together a stunning argument for Bancroft in his final season, but I really can't. I'll still vote for him, but sadly I think he's another body for the HOVG.

I think I might add Joe Tinker back to my list though, if URI says I can do that.

1996 Ballot

Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Fred Lynn
Dan Quisenberry
Pete Rose
Don Sutton

Wow, we really cleared a lot of guys out on that last ballot.

Fred Lynn- five best WARP3 seasons:

1975- 9.1
1976- 6.9
1978- 6.7
1979- 11.1
1982- 8.0

Career EqA: .297
MVP- 1975 (should have won in 1979- lead AL in BA, OBP, SLG, RC, 2nd in HR, 3rd in TB, 4th in RBI- in the top ten of virtually every imaginable offensive category and played a +5 FRAA CF. Got beat out by DH Don Baylor).

Earl Averill- five best WARP3 seasons:

1929- 8.2
1931- 9.5
1934- 11.1
1936- 9.0
1938- 8.2

Career EqA: .297

Averill was certainly better- higher career OPS, slight advantage in career OPS+ (133 EA, 130 FL). Lynn does have better counting stats, however, and did play four more seasons- Lynn with a career WARP3 of 89.4, Averill with 81.9. Averill has more career RC than Lynn, and did it at a much higher rate.

Averill, according to BP at least, appears to have played slightly better defense.

I went back and forth on Lynn. I decided to vote for him, but since I noticed Averill required 11 ballots to get in here, I figured I'd use him as a comp right off the bat to get the discussion on him rolling. Lynn is really, really borderline.

Some other career WARP3 totals for CF:

Bernie Williams 103.9
Richie Ashburn 100.2
Larry Doby 75.6
Kirby Puckett 91.9
Billy Hamilton 87.9
Ed Roush 78.2
Fred Lynn 89.4

Just a couple data points to start the discussion.

He should be a pretty interesting debate. I wonder if, at the end of the day, considering defense, maybe Jim Rice would be third in line for career value behind Lynn and Evans.

***

Quiz had five of the greatest relief seasons of anyone in baseball history- 1980, 1982-85. His 1983 is arguably the greatest- 139 IP, 1.94 ERA, 210 ERA+, 0.93 WHIP, 11 BB, 48 Ks. He didn't hit a single batter or throw a single wild pitch the entire season. In fact, in 1043.1 IP, he had 7 HBP, and 4 WP. FOUR.

During his nine year peak- 79-87, the majority of his career- he never had an ERA over 3.15, and that was his 40+ IP rookie season.

Career ERA+ of 146. As a relief pitcher, though he didn't strike many hitters out (3.29 K/9 over his career), but he was one of the great control pitchers of his era, walking only 162 batters in 12 seasons.

I'm a bit of a Quiz fanboy, but I really think he gets in.

EDIT: added Sut and Evans.

1996

B. Buckner
R. Fingers
V. Pinson
J. Rice
P. Rose
D. Sutton

Buckner won't make it, and I admit he's barely borderline, but at 2700+ hits and a career .289 BA, he deserves better than a one and done.

Time to get on board with Sutton.

Just as an interesting side note, 1996 resulted in NO ELECTEES in the 'other" Hall of Fame. I could see that happening here too.

I respectfully disagree. While Buckner was unfairly vilified for his error in Game 6, he just wasn't a particularly good player. He had mediocre power for a first baseman, he rarely walked, and his career BA was inflated by having played in extreme hitters parks (Wrigley and Fenway) for most of his career. His career OPS+ was 99, which is somewhere between mediocre and poor for a first baseman. In fact, it's below the 100 that Millar put up last year.

1996:

Darrell Evans
Rollie Fingers
Dan Quisenberry
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter

Thanks to bsj I don't have to vote for Buckner.

I want to vote for Fred Lynn, but I know better
I don't want to vote for Don Sutton, but I can be convinced.

1996 Ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Keith Hernandez
Thurman Munson
Jim Rice
Don Sutton

I can't make any definitive argument for Don Sutton. His closest comps are Perry, Niekro, and Fergie, but an ERA+ about 8-9 points lower than theirs. Still, a 108 ERA+ over 5283.2IP is something...

There's still plenty of space on the Thurman Munson flight to the HoF.

Edit: Baseball Library has the excerpt from James' Whatever Happened to the Hall where he creates a simulation to find who helps win more pennants, the Sutton/Pappas longevity types or the Drysdale/Carlton high peakers. Spoiler: It's the high peakers.

1995 Ballot

Rollie Fingers
Pete Rose
Bruce Sutter
Don Sutton

Quisenberry got my attention for the relative strength of some of his seasons, but in my opinion the lack of endurance over time really hurts his overall chances for election.

Majordad, Quisenberry had one more career inning than Sutter did (1043 1/3 to 1042 1/3). He also had a better ERA+ (146 to 136).

You voted for Sutter- Quisenberry pitched one more inning in his career than Sutter, the exact same number of years, a lower career ERA, higher career ERA+, walked fewer batters.

If you vote for Sutter, I don't understand how you can eliminate Quiz on durability.

edit- Tudor's got a hair trigger

Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Tony Perez
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith
Don Sutton


I wonder if its possible to have a little Rose discussion without it turning into a screaming match? Assuming we can all agree that he is an easy selection without the gambling, I have a problem excluding him. It then comes down to argument of evaluating various levels of onerousness between Rose and Cobb and Mark McGwire, and where does it all end. I have never been good at playing God.

I fear walking through the Hall some day with my kids, and saying "these are some of the greatest players who ever played". What do you mean "some", Dad? Well, there is a bunch of guys that aren't here because some old white guys decided they didn't want them to be. "Oh".

Lahoud already knows my stance on this, but I'll restate it for the benefit of the new guys (no I'm not shouting). The only condition upon which I will vote for Rose will be,

1. We reopen the voting for Joe Jackson.
2. A vote for Rose is a vote for Jackson.

So if everyone who is voting for Rose adds Jackson to their ballot, I'll add them too.

I wasn't here for the Jackson voting era, but I would agree wholeheartedly on this. I understand there is some effort to put what Rose and Jackson did on different footing, and to create a "scale" of "damage" vis a vis gambling and baseball. I don't buy it, and it's simply because if you're setting what Rose did aside in order to make the Hall simply a representation of achievments on the field, you have to do it in Jackson's case as well.

I'm fine with both, personally. Their banishment from further involvement in baseball is an apt punishment- I think Hall banishment punishes fans as well, which seems somewhat contradictory to it's purpose.

This comparison really isn't fair though.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not voting for Pete Rose because he gambled on baseball while he was the manager of the Reds, and then accepted a spot on the permanently ineligible list (I know, with the option to be re-instated). Because of the way I perceived the ban (including the de facto ban from the Hall of Fame), I won’t vote for someone that is ineligible to be elected into the real Hall of Fame. Another example of this was that I didn’t vote for Minnie Minoso when he was elected because he wasn’t eligible until 1986. This is my choice to make as a fake voter.

Anyway, on to your premises…

Jackson had his 15 years, and he wasn’t elected. He was never off the ballot for our Hall until the 15 ballots were up. I’m loath to reopen someone like Jackson without having that open the floodgates. An example of this was someone I voted for a bit who also failed on 15 ballots…Don Newcombe.

I don’t know how you think about the circumstances that have led to Rose’s removal to the game vs. Jackson’s, but the debate seems to lineup like this…

Jackson might have been a tool of men smarter than he. No one really knows the intricacies of what happened back then…only what people like Jackson and Ciccotte admitted too. Even with the most liberal of interpitations of the evidence, Jackson received money (he said he did) and at least had a basic understanding of what was going on. Say he did return it, or that it was just coinsidence that Jackson played much worse in the losses than the wins, or whatever…he was a party to throwing the World Series.

As an aside, James makes mention of the fact that Buck Weaver might not have been as innocent as the history now states. It’s under Weaver’s comment in the New Abstracts, and it’s filtered through Eddie Collins, who didn’t like Weaver. I digress.

Rose was a gambler of a much lessor stature in terms of game dystruction. He bet on his games. Both are bad enough to be (rightfully in my opinion) banned from baseball. I just think Jackson’s complience was worse than Rose’s gambling.

Take this all with the grain of salt reserved for people who are 3 years removed from thinking much about this issue.

Okay, no problem. We voted on Jackson and we made the collective statement that his violation of the rules was the reason we didn't elect him. Whatever shades of grey you want to paint, they violated the same rules. Pete Rose can rot in the same purgatory here that he's rotting in in Cooperstown.

I don't want to hear any sanctimonious bullshit, however, on Rose's "crime" being less heinous than Jackson's. Charlie Comiskey and the other owners were paying these guys peanuts and most of the effect of gamblers on players was due to that fact. Rose knew he was violating the rules and he was making millions playing the game (pissing it all away). So I don't want to hear that. Either we vote on players based on their baseball merit, or we don't.

No further discussion required.

P.S. Sorry Lahoud, I think I shouted.

P.P.S. I'm not shouting at you, URI - I know you're only the messenger here.

I wasnt here but I would have voted for Jackson had I been. I've never been convinced as to just how involved he was.

URI- Just a thought here, and I understand if you arent in favor, butsince we are starting to close in on years, any thought to introducing a "veterans committee" type scenario, where we would go back, perhaps 5 year period by 5 year period, and reconsider a very select group of contenders (again, perhaps 5 per 5 year period) (with a VERY high threshold for addmission, perhaps 80%).

Just a thought to possibly consider addressing players who may come under different light with a clearly different group of voters here, and also allow for this to stretch our after we get to present day in a couple months.

Again, I know your arguments against, but just a thought.

Its not really a shade of gray, and it is beyond ignorant to argue that it is. Did you accept money for the purposes of throwing a baseball game? Yes or no?

I knew this would happen. I believe 90% of the people who want Rose out, including VAL I expect, do so because Rose is a dick. Rose is a dick, I can't make Rose not a dick, and this is what the argument and the shouting are all about at bottom. If Rose had played his cards better post-banishment, he would be in the Hall now, of this I am absolutely certain. He should have hired me to run his life in September 1989--I would have had him the Hall by 2000.

Rose will not make the real Hall because MLB sees a value in hollow sanctimony. Its part of their game, and I was hoping we were above such nonsense.

FWIW, Comiskey's White Sox were almost undoubtedly the highest paid team in baseball at the time of the Series, and virtually of their players were among the highest paid at their respective positions. Dan Levitt researched this quite a bit for our book (most of the salary data was available in either the annual Reach Guides or Harry Grabiner's diary that Bill Veeck uncovered in the 1960s). The only guy who was really underpaid was Jackson, who just signed a bad contract. Of course, the Indians got rid of him, and Comiskey was trying to get rid of him most of his time in Chicago, so its hard to judge at this date how underpaid he really was.


Unfortunately, most of the published material on the Black Sox is wrong.

Hey, it's people posting their opinion/thought processes. I didn't think you were shouting, I was just showing you how I voted.



There was talk of this in the first two incarnations of the thread. We decided to hold off until our Hall caught up to present day. I think most of the latest discussion centered on Johnny Sain who made it in by vurtue of his awesome coaching.



I don't want Rose out, but I won't vote for him because of the reasons that I posted above. That's the beauty of this exercize is that individual thought is really paramount over the notions other people might have for it.

I suspect that's why BoSoxJeff is still around after not voting for Grich, asshole that he is.

I happy voted for Dick Allen and he was much more of a dick than Rose. I think your characterization of the people who don't want Rose in is mostly off base.

Maybe, but part of my point is that if Rose were not a dick, he would have been reinstated by now (because he would have gotten treatment and sympathy, and apologized profusely), and you would now (if I am reading your reasoning correctly) be voting for him.

That's half of the argument, that his dick-ness is keeping him ineligible.

The other half is that his personality and attitude have bizarrely clouded the extent of his crime, much as Jackson's apparent decency has clouded his. People are so mad at Rose personally, that reason flies out the window.

Hence my opinion that we put away the God hats and talk about the player.


Rose is one of the more uniquely fascinating players of the past 50 years, and it would be a shame to erase those memories away. Well, you can't erase those memories for me--I refuse to allow it.

Aside: I just got an absolutely pristine DVD of Game 5 of the 1970 World Series, the best video I have seen of a pre-1980 game. Just watched it last weekend.

The question is, "Are we voting for players on their baseball merit alone?" If that is the case, then Jackson should be in, because no one can legitimately argue that he wasn't an HOF worthy player. Since we didn't elect him here, then your argument is invalid. We're being just as sanctimonious as the real HOF. If there are other considerations besides baseball merit, then the lifetime ban is a valid reason not to vote for Rose, or for Jackson, or Eddie Cicotte or Hal Chase or Heinie Zimmerman.

Gambling was an ill in the 1920's and its root causes were money. Its no different than the steroid controversy in the 1990's. If we're going to be sanctimonious, then Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and a few other HOF-caliber players of the recent past are also going to come under scrutiny. There were a helluva lot more players throwing games in the 1910's than the ones that got caught, just as there were a helluva lot more guys using steroids in the last 15 years than Manny Alexander and Rafael Palmeiro.

We were able to get beyond Dick Allen's problems and easily elect him here, based on his his baseball merit. And I think that was a good thing. I'm all for voting for Rose, and McGwire, and Bonds when they come up - if we're all going to agree that we're voting on baseball merit grounds. If we're going to do that, then first we have to right the wrong of Jackson.

So if you're going to drop the sanctimony and vote on baseball merit, change your vote on Rose to read "Rose/Jackson" and then we're in business.

I am against Rose because he's never come clean on the whole gambling thing. The Dowd Report provides pretty damning evidence, and yet for years, Rose denied any wrongdoing. Only when his HOF eligibility started slipping away did he back off at all from that position. Rose willingly signed his name agreeing to his punishment, and did so mainly to put the matter behind him and avoid further embarassment. If Rose truly wanted to get into the Hall, he should have swallowed his pride, stowed his ego, and made a full disclosure. Since he chose not to, then, in my book, he doesn't get in.

Hey now...!

White flag already! You got your guy in!

Regarding the Rose issue, people can weigh character in whatever way they choose to. That is the beauty of this exercise. There are those who are firmly in one camp or the other, and they try to sway those in the middle and, occassionally, bring someone over from the other side.

I've seen that happen here quite a few times (stovey, oliva, grich). Wish the real HoF voters were that willing to listen.

I am voting for Rose because I happen to believe that what he did when he managed should result in the permanent banning from any active baseball role, but should in no way reflect upon what he did on the field. Thats why I will continue to vote for him. There are many, however, who feel differently and thats ok. The somewhat abrasive nature of his personality makes it that much easier.

Fact is, I think the reason the Rose discussion had been tabled until recently is just that, there has been so much publicity about Rose, everyone here is pretty firmly in one camp or another. As a Rose voter, I think that MAYBE one of the nays could flip, but doubtful many more than that.

We went through this all about 10 months ago, guys.

My $.02: you can be the world's biggest dick and get into the HoF, but if you take part in the fixing of a meaningful game, you could be the second coming of Christ and you would still not get my vote. Rose, unlike Jackson, never to anyone's knowledge took part in or condoned the deliberate loss of a game. Baseball is ultimately a pretty arbitrary construct of rules but it is only meaningful and worthwhile if everybody's goal is to win games and championships. Jackson was either a paid accomplice or an active participant in the deliberate loss of a championship series, and this is so destructive to the essence of the game that it forever precludes him from being honored as one of the game's great players.

1996 Ballott:

Dave Bancroft
Darrell Evans
Firpo Marberry
Johnny "Fireman" Murphy
Reggie Smith

I'm still thinking about Tommy John ... the fact that he passed his first year of eligibility without a single vote is a little bit distressing.

I can't bring myself to vote for Frank White yet, in part because Mazeroski was given such short shrift here. Just because we saw Frank White play, but not Maz, doesn't make him better.

I put Joe Tinker on here, for reasons I stated in the Bancroft blurbs I did on the last page. Taking away the offensive advantage that pre and post deadball SSs had from playing in different eras, Tinker was a relatively good offensive player in that era, and one of the dominant defensive players. So, unless we get a ruling from URI that he isn't eligible, I have him here.

Still thinking about Lynn and Rice. I loved them both, but I want to make sure I'm not being biased on them. Lynn actually outperformed Rice in my ToH metrics, but his effective career was relatively short. Had he been Ty Cobb good, then that wouldn't matter, but if he is Earl Averill good, then it does.

I'm still not buying on relief pitchers at this point. I think that if we're going to do relief pitchers, I want a definitive set of criteria to look at, and I want to start with Firpo Marberry, not Fingers, Sutter and Quisenberry. Its frankly going to be the same with DH's for me - I want consistency over a century of baseball. We all have a tendency to be centric to the area we are most familiar with. I have noticed that its a lot harder to sell certain players in the modern era, because we have inherent biases to players we've seen play, and that some players are getting in easily that I had thought might get closer scrutiny.

I will vote for Rose under two conditions: 1. His lifetime ban is removed, or 2. we agree that we are judging players on their baseball merit, and applying that to all players throughout history.

Edit: Deleted Tinker. Added Marberry and Murphy.

I'm gonna say no on Tinker just because:
1. It's been long past his 15 years (though we have Bancroft, and elected Lombardi)
2. I don't want it to open the "I think this guy was slighted" can of worms and we have every close player from 1850-today to reconsider.

1996 ballot
Sal Bando
Ron Cey
Darrell Evans
Fred Lynn
Thurman Munson
Graig Nettles
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith
Don Sutton

While we enjoy the Great Pete Rose Debate, here's your five-year update:

HALL OF FAMERS BY POSITION (through 1995)
181 players total:

P [53] : Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Pete "Grover Cleveland" Alexander, Mordecai "Kevin" Brown, Kid Nichols, Ed Walsh, Charley (Old Hoss) Radbourn, Dazzy Vance, Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Joe McGinnity, Addie Joss, Rube Waddell, Carl Hubbell, Al Spalding, Dizzy Dean, Tim Keefe, Amos Rusie, John Clarkson, Stan Coveleski, Carl Mays, Lefty Gomez, Bob Feller, Hal Newhouser, Pud Galvin, Johnny Sain*, Ted Lyons, Bob Lemon, Wes Ferrell, Red Ruffing, Urban Shocker, Tommy Bridges, Warren Spahn, Satchel Paige*, Sandy Koufax, Robin Roberts, Whitey Ford, Early Wynn, Don Drysdale, Hoyt Wilhelm, Jim Bunning, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Billy Pierce, Luis Tiant, Ferguson Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro, Catfish Hunter

C [13]: Mickey Cochrane, Roger Bresnahan, Gabby Hartnett, Buck Ewing, Bill Dickey, Roy Campanella, Yogi Berra, Bill Freehan, Joe Torre*, Ernie Lombardi, Elston Howard, Johnny Bench, Ted Simmons

1B [14]: George Sisler, Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor, Jimmie Foxx, Bill Terry, Hank Greenberg, Frank Chance*, Johnny Mize, Orlando Cepeda, Harmon Killebrew*, Dick Allen, Willie McCovey

2B [16]: Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Frankie Frisch, Tony Lazzeri, Charlie Gehringer, Joe Gordon, Bobby Doerr, Bid McPhee, Jackie Robinson, Larry Doyle, Billy Herman, Nellie Fox, Joe Morgan, Rod Carew*, Bobby Grich

3B [13]: John McGraw*, Pie Traynor, Frank "Home Run" Baker, Jimmy Collins, Stan Hack, Heinie Groh, Deacon White*, Bob Elliott, Eddie Mathews, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt

SS [17]: Honus Wagner, George Davis, Joe Cronin, Bill Dahlen, Arky Vaughan, John (Monte) Ward*, Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Vern Stephens, Jack Glasscock, George Wright, Pee Wee Reese, Bobby Wallace, Ernie Banks*, Hughie Jennings, Joe Sewell*, Luis Aparicio

LF [20]: Ed Delahanty, Goose Goslin, Jesse Burkett, Al Simmons, Joe Medwick, Fred "Cap" Clarke*, Zach Wheat, Sherry Magee, Ralph Kiner, Bob Johnson, Jim O'Rourke, Ted Williams, Stan Musial*, Minnie Minoso, Billy Williams, Harry Stovey*, Frank Howard, Lou Brock, Willie Stargell, Carl Yastrzemski

CF [16]: Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Billy Hamilton, Hack Wilson, Hugh Duffy*, Earl Averill, Joe DiMaggio, Wally Berger, Larry Doby, Paul Hines, Duke Snider, Richie Ashburn, Pete Browning*, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Jimmy Wynn

RF [18]: Babe Ruth, Willie Keeler, Sam Crawford, Harry Heilmann, Michael (King) Kelly*, Paul Waner, Mel Ott, Kiki Cuyler, Elmer Flick, Enos Slaughter, Sam Thompson, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Henry Aaron, Frank Robinson, Bobby Bonds, Reggie Jackson, Tony Oliva

other [1]: Connie Mack

*Denotes significant time at other positions or non-MLB player status, which probably contributed to induction. (McGraw = mgr; Kelly = C; Duffy = LF/RF; Ward = P/2B; Chance = mgr; Sain = coach; White = C; Musial = 1B/RF/CF; Paige = Negro Leagues; Browning = LF; Banks = 1B, Sewell = 3B, Torre = 1B/3B, Killebrew = 3B, Stovey = 1B/RF, Carew = 1B)


Players in our Hall that aren't in the real Hall (35):
Bill Dahlen [SS], Stan Hack [3B], Joe Gordon [2B], Sherry Magee [LF], Carl Mays [P], Wally Berger [CF], Bob Johnson [LF], Vern Stephens [SS], Heinie Groh [3B], Johnny Sain [P], Larry Doyle [2B], Deacon White [3B], Jack Glasscock [SS], Paul Hines [CF], Wes Ferrell [P], Bob Elliott [3B], Urban Shocker [P], Tommy Bridges [P], Minnie Minoso [LF], Pete Browning [CF], Ken Boyer [3B], RON SANTO [3B], Billy Pierce [P], Dick Allen [1B], Bill Freehan [C], Harry Stovey [LF/1B], Frank Howard [LF], Joe Torre [C/1B/3B], Jimmy Wynn [CF], Elston Howard [C], Luis Tiant [P], Bobby Bonds [RF], Bobby Grich [2B], Tony Oliva [RF], Ted Simmons [C]

Eligible Players in the real Hall that aren’t in our Hall (retired by 1989) (43):
Dave Bancroft, Jake Beckley, Chief Bender, Jim Bottomley, Max Carey, Jack Chesbro, Earle Combs, Johnny Evers, Red Faber, Rick Ferrell, Rollie Fingers*, Burleigh Grimes, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Harry Hooper, Waite Hoyt, Monte Irvin, Travis Jackson, George Kell, Joe Kelley, George Kelly, Chuck Klein, Freddie Lindstrom, Heinie Manush, Rabbit Maranville*, Rube Marquard, Bill Mazeroski, Tommy McCarthy, Herb Pennock*, Tony Perez*, Sam Rice, Eppa Rixey, Phil Rizzuto, Edd Roush, Ray Schalk, Red Schoendienst, Bruce Sutter*, Don Sutton*, Joe Tinker, Lloyd Waner, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis, Ross Youngs
(* = voted in by Baseball writers)


HALL OF FAMERS BY ERA (through 1995)

19th Century - 30 players
P: 8 - Young*, Nichols, Radbourn, Spalding, Keefe, Rusie, Clarkson, Galvin
C: 1 - Ewing
1B: 3 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
2B: 1 - McPhee
3B: 2 - McGraw, D.White
SS: 5 - Davis*, Ward, Wright, Glasscock, Jennings
LF: 4 - Delahanty, Burkett, O’Rourke, Stovey
CF: 4 - Hamilton, Duffy, Hines, Browning
RF: 2 - Kelly, Thompson
[*= Young and Davis could be considered deadball era players.]

Deadball era (1901-19) - 28 players
P: 9 - Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander*, Brown, Walsh, Plank, McGinnity, Joss, Waddell
C: 1 - Breshanan
1B: 1 - Chance
2B: 3 - E.Collins, Lajoie, Doyle
3B: 3 - Baker, J.Collins, Groh
SS: 3 - Dahlen*, Wagner, Wallace
LF: 3 - Clarke, Wheat, Magee
CF: 2 - Cobb, Speaker*
RF: 3 - Keeler*, Crawford, Flick
[*=Dahlen and Keeler could be considered 19th Cent. players]
[*=Alexander and Speaker could be considered inter-war players.]

Inter-war era (1920-43) - 46 players
P: 12 - Vance, Grove, Hubbell, Dean, Coveleski, Mays, Gomez, Lyons, Ferrell, Ruffing, Shocker, Bridges
C: 4 - Cochrane, Hartnett, Dickey, Lombardi
1B: 5 - Sisler, Gehrig, Foxx, Terry, Greenberg
2B: 6 - Hornsby, Frisch, Lazzeri, Gehringer, Gordon*, Herman
3B: 2 - Traynor, Hack
SS: 4 - Cronin, Appling, Vaughan, Sewell
LF: 4 - Goslin, Simmons, Medwick, B.Johnson
CF: 4 - Wilson, Averill, DiMaggio*, Berger
RF: 5 - Ruth, Heilmann, Ott, Waner, Cuyler
[*=Gordon and DiMaggio could be considered post-war players]

Post-war/Integration era (1944-60) - 31 players
P: 10 - Feller, Newhouser, Sain, Lemon, Spahn, Paige*, Roberts, Ford*, Wynn, Pierce
C: 2 - Campanella, Berra
1B: 1 - Mize*
2B: 3 - Doerr*, J.Robinson, N.Fox
3B: 2 - Elliott, Mathews*
SS: 4 - Boudreau, Stephens, Reese, Banks
LF: 4 - Kiner, T.Williams, Musial, Minoso
CF: 4 - Doby, Snider, Ashburn, Mantle
RF: 1 - Slaughter
[*=Mize and Doerr could be considered inter-war players.]
[*=Paige probably should be considered an inter-war player.]
[*=Ford, Mathews and Banks could be considered expansion era players.]

Expansion era (1961-72) - 33 players
P: 10 - Koufax, Drysdale, Wilhelm*, Bunning, Gibson, Marichal, Tiant*, Jenkins*, Perry*, Hunter*
C: 3 - Freehan, Torre, E.Howard
1B: 4 - Cepeda, Killebrew, Allen, McCovey
2B:
3B: 3 - Boyer*, Santo, B. Robinson
SS: 1 - Aparicio
LF: 5 - B. Williams, F.Howard, Brock, Stargell*, Yastrzemski*
CF: 2 - Mays*, Wynn
RF: 5 - Clemente, Kaline, Aaron, F. Robinson, Oliva
[*=Boyer, Wilhelm & Mays could be considered post-war players]
[*=Tiant, Jenkins, Perry, Hunter, Stagell & Yaz could be considered free-agent players]

Free agency era (1973-87) – 12 players
P: 4 - Palmer, Seaver, Carlton*, Niekro*,
C: 2 – Bench, Simmons
1B:
2B: 3 - Morgan, Carew, Grich
3B: 1 - Schmidt
SS:
LF:
CF:
RF: 2 - Bonds*, R.Jackson
[*=Bonds, Morgan, Carlton & Niekro could be considered expansion players]

1996 ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Ron Cey
Darrell Evans
Thurman Munson
Tony Perez
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Don Sutton

While they both had 12 year careers, and pitched practically the same number of innings, there's a lot more variance with Quisenberry. He only had 6 seasons where he pitched 80 or more innings, while Sutter had 10. Sutter had 300 saves to Q's 244. After 1987 Q isn't in the closer role. I look at his ERA, and it increases dramatically. Even his ERA+ fluctuates. Sutter's ERA increases, but he's chalking up significant numbers of saves through his tenth season.

Quisenberry's biggest contributions were between 1980 and 1986. Sutter's biggest contributions were from 1976-1985. Compare that to Rollie Fingers, who was contributing from 1969 through 1982. You have to consider the quality of each season, not just the number of seasons.

I might be convinced to vote for Quisenberry if a convincing enough argument were made.

What really perplexes me is how someone could vote for Sutter or Quisenberry but not vote for Fingers.

Forgive me if it's been covered, as I'm relatively new- but what was the decision made on Negro Leaguers? Is there going to be a seperate voting process for them? Have they been covered? I hadn't noticed any having been voted on in Delta's rundown, so I asked out of curiosity.

Also- in the event I hadn't made it completely clear in my ballot post- my vote for Quiz was a one-and-only type thing based purely on my serious love for him as a ballplayer. I don't mean to make any sort of habit of that sort of thing, and it's the only time I've done it, but I felt like doing it, especially on what was, for me, a really small ballot. Majordad is right that it's hard to justify voting for him and not Fingers and Sutter- in reality, I'd likely vote for none of them for the Hall, although I'm still open to convincing on Fingers.

I'm having the same difficulty with relievers, I believe, as VAL. I'm not sure how I intend to seperate the great from the very good, especially with the variances in usage.

edit- sp

IIRC, I think there was a general consensus that we really couldn't add much here regarding the Negro Leaguers, that we were generally ill-equipped to integrate them in with the other players, and that we would pretty much leave them out of the discussion. We did give credit to Negro Leaguers such as Paige, Irvin and Minoso who played in the big leagues, however.

Pretty much, we decided to table everything (Negro leaguers, managers, umpires, contributers, Vet's committee, everything) until after we used the players.

As far as my recolection goes, we've elected:
Frank Chance
Monte Irvin
Connie Mack
John McGraw
Satchel Paige
Johnny Sain
Monte Ward


Generally based on their contributions to baseball beyond what they did while playing the Majors.

I suppose now would be a good time to start thinking about ways to include these gentlemen.

I'd really like to table discussion of relief pitching too, if that's not too much to ask. I just don't feel that there is a basis for arguing for any relief pitcher at this point until we have defined some criteria for their selection.

That's a much different issue than something like the Negro leagues.

People will vote how they want on relievers. Discussing a role on a team is much different than determining a place in history.

Okay ... well then lets try to establish some criteria for relief pitchers.

1. Define a relief season. Percentage of appearances vs starts. Is 90% of games in relief a good benchmark for a relef season? How many appearances? 50 at a minimum?

2. How many relief seasons should a pitcher have made to be considered?
10 relief seasons?

3. What metrics are available? ERA, ERA+, BRA, WARP, VORP, Saves, Holds, Wins (Rolaids style formula?), IR, GF, etc. Which are available back into the past? Can we calculate some metrics of our own?

4. Of the available metrics, what are the best for measuring a relief pitcher's effectiveness? Is there a formula we should use?

5. What non-statistical information is available? Bios, All-Star appearances, Rolaids voting, MVP voting.

Discuss please.

I mentioned this a while back, but I've been compiling a bunch of data from various sources (Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Reference, ...) on relievers/closers in an attempt not only to rank them, but to compare them against HOF starters. Lack of time has kept me from making as much headway as I wanted, but I'm very nearly done now. I'll be writing up my findings in an article which will be posted elsewhere, but I'll link to it here in this thread.

Ok, I have some time...



I don't think we need to do this. Guys like Lefty Grove relieved 10 games a year. I don't think there is much benefit in segregating starters from relievers by setting limits. Stewart test...you know one when you see one.



Ten seasons is the benchmark I've been using. Since we're in 1996, we can't really change the rules because Herman Franks wanted to save Sutter's arm.



We can easily use some of the same ones that we use for starters, and put them in the context of relievers of the time. This I think is your most important question.

Say a voter wants to recognize long-term quality relievers (like Majordad is doing), I think he's going about it the right way. He's putting Fingers in "competition" with Rollie's contemporaries. I don't agree with his methodology, but I think his course is correct.

I know there are some guys like Lahoud that directly compare a reliever to a starter (I think he said Wilhelm is probably the only Hall-worthy reliever).

The only real problem I see it is comparing a guy like Joe Page in absolute terms to Mariano Rivera. That's not fair to either man.



I would say the same as starters, used in context of contemporary relievers.



This would be the same as any player, reliever or not.

I think you are sweating the reliever question too much. We're all basically intelligent people that can make decisions about the status as relievers without setting up any artificial parameters, or having a codified system for voting. We can do the same for relievers that we do anyone else...if you think one belongs in, make a tight, consise, and powerful argument that they belong in.

Not exactly. I am convinced that most high quality relief pitchers pitch more important innings, on average, than a starter. I don't think there is any doubt that this is true.

The problem is how much more important are they? I have spent quite a bit of time on this subject, and I personally am pretty comfortable saying that a great reliever can have similar impact to a starter pitching HALF as many innings. A great 140 inning Wilhelm season, or a great Quisenberry season, can deserve an occasional Cy Young Award in a year where there isn't a stud starter.

Unfortunately, there is no way, absolutely no way in my opinion, to get from 60 innings to 220. Sorry, it can't be done. You can't pick your spots enough to be in the same neighborhood in terms of value. In a short series, or in a few games, a reliever can be the most important person on your team. If Mariano Rivera pitched in the regular season at the same rate (innings pitched per team game) as he does in the playoffs, he would pitch over 100 games and 130 innings a season, of near perfect stuff. That guy is an MVP.

There was a period of about 20 years when good relievers were pitching a lot of innings, and doing so in crucial situations, tie games in the 7th inning or whatever. This generation of reliever were valuable.

Wilhelm did it for ever. Gossage was not as good as Wilhlem and didn't pitch as long, but his quantity and quality are pretty close. I think he makes it. All the other guys either didn't pitch long enough, or weren't quite good enough.

I would think 1500 innings would be a good benchmark for a reliever. I might make an exception for Rivera, because of the post-season.

Sorry for the mischaracterization Lahoud...I couldn't find what you said immediately, so I went from memmory.

Aww, there is no need to apologize. I have a hard time keeping my own thoughts straight, let alone trying to remember others. Your recollection wasn't far off actually.

Here is a blurb on Early Relief Pitching in the InterWar Era (1919-1945). I think there are one or two relievers from this era who we need to look closely at, and I would like to scrutinize them as a prelude to getting into the modern guys. I'll have a second blurb on the Post War Era in a few days, then hopefully we'll have some grounds to compare the likes of Fingers, Lyle, Sutter, etc. Sorry if I seem anal-retentive on this, but I didn't want to overlook some of the key relievers from earlier eras.

There is a tendency to believe that relief pitching during the Inter-War period was a relatively inconsequential activity. This is true to some degree - it was still an era of complete games, but pitching staffs were larger than during the deadball era and relief pitching was valuable as starters tired. It was an offensive era, and the average pitcher got hit pretty hard. Most teams used their best pitchers in critical situations, which often meant that pitchers like Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell would often make 20 relief appearances during a season, in addition to their 30+ starts. Many pitchers who got a lot of relief innings got those innings in mop-up situations.

There were, however, a handful of pitchers who carved out niches as primary relief pitchers. In general, it was a scurvy lot, but there were two pitchers who stand out from the rest of the pack as excellent relief specialists - Firpo Marberry and Fireman Johnny Murphy. In addition, there were a couple of others who were excellent relievers, but had relatively short careers, including Wilcy Moore, Jughammer Johnny Morrison, and Hugh Casey.

Here is a look at the numbers for some relief specialists from this period:




For comparision purposes, here are the rates of three HOF and a couple of mediocre pitchers from the same era:


A couple of notes about the era are apparent here. First, power pitchers in the modern sense didn't exist. A dominant strikeout pitcher in the modern era puts up K-rates of over .200 K/BF. Vance was probably as close to a dominator as there was in this period, and his K-rate was only .124, so in general, a K-rate in this period of over .100 is good. Successful pitchers in this era were, therefore, mainly junkballers of one sort or another - screwballers like Hubbell, knuckleballers like Eddie Rommell and Dutch Leonard, and lots of smart pitchers with good curves and changes, like Tommy Bridges, Lefty Gomez, and Ted Lyons.

A lot of the dedicated relievers also had gimmick pitches that suited relief roles more than starting roles. Allen Russell threw a grandfathered spitball in the early 1920's. Clint Brown threw from three different arm angles, including submarine and sidearm. These were signs in this era of teams recognizing that certain pitchers were better suited to relief roles than starting roles - it wasn't just a matter of "the best pitchers start, and the rest relieve." Stamina was also a factor, and some guys became relievers with age, after serious injuries or just a lack of stamina to begin with. Jumbo Brown was a 295-lb fastballer who ran out of gas after four innings. Wilcy Moore developed a sidearm sinkerball after a history of serious injuries. Jughandle Johnny Morrison was a talented curveballer whose stamina was affected by his affection for the bottle.

So there were signs of relief pitching becoming an art unto itself between the wars, but the development was inconsistent at best. Many of the relievers on the list still were used in spot starts, and they weren't always considered the best option out of the bullpen, since teams still often used their star pitchers as relievers in important games. There were two exceptions: Firpo Marberry and Johnny Murphy.

Marberry began his career with the Senators almost exclusively in relief, including 1925 when he made 55 relief appearances without a start. Between 1924-1926, he saved 15, 15 and 22 games. He continued to be used almost exclusively in relief until 1929 when, at age 31, he became part of the regular rotation. He still made almost as many relief appearances as starts throughout the rest of his career, and in the end he totalled five seasons with 10 or more saves. His 101 saves were second among pitchers in the Interwar period. He won 148 games in the major leagues, and won 10 or more games in nine seasons. His pitching rates were in line with the best pitchers of the era.

Fireman Murphy pitched nearly his entire career with the Yankees. He made 20 starts in his rookie year of 1934, but only 20 more for the last 11 years of his career. He had a wicked curveball and was used almost like a modern closer, finishing 293 of his 375 relief appearances. Unlike most relievers of this era, he was seldom used more than an inning at a time. He had 107 career saves, 73 career relief wins - both of which remained records until the 1960's. His hit rates were better than the greatest pitchers of the era. He was selected to three all-star teams as a reliever. He was the prototype for modern relievers, and perhaps the only star relief pitcher of the first 85 years of professional baseball. He belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I will not be joining the Murphy bandwagon.

Firpo Marberry was better than Murphy, and pitched twice as many innings.

Murphy usually pitched 2 innings an appearance, but only 35 times a year, an unbelievably paltry total. Murphy was not as good a pitcher as Mike Timlin, and he pitched fewer innings, and less important innings. Murphy was just as likely come in when the Yankees were losing and just mop up.

Murphy was selected (by his manager) to three All-Star teams, but more as a novelty than anything else. He was not used.

1000 innings?

Being a pioneer is not enough, especially since he was not really a pioneer at all--there were always guys doing what he was doing as well or better than he was. He was on the Yankees, that's why we remember him. If you remove the "pioneer" label, he isn't in the Top 50 relievers.

Let's elect Manny Mota, the best pinch-hitter of all-time. I am sure he had more impact on his team winning games than Murphy.

It's true that he had limited appearances and innings with the Yankees, but the rest is just wrong.

Murphy was used almost exclusively in high-leverage situations and he either won or saved 61.4% of the games he finished. Fingers' won or saved 63.6% of his games finished.

He pitched 1045 innings in his career, 207 in his first year as a starter. His career was truncated by two years of service in WW2. Also, the Yankees averaged about 90 complete games in a 154-game schedule, while the A's averaged about 35 in a 162-game schedule. I suspect that Murphy pitched a higher percentage of the Yankees total relief innings than any modern reliever.

I don't have access to game logs from the 1930's, but I'll bet he was brought in in crucial situations all of the time.

This is quite the limb you have climbed out on. Who cares what percentage of the job he did? Its the size of the job that matters. The fact that Joe McCarthy chose *not* to use Murphy, and to stick with his starters, is not something that helps Murphy's case. Murphy was used the way he was used because he had shown himself incapable of being used the way the real pitchers were used. McCarthy did not believe he could pitch very much, or very often, so he used him this way.

Since you mentioned saves ...

There was no such thing as a save when John Murphy was pitching. His save totals were retroactively calculated by the compilers of the first McMillan Encyclopedia (1969). You know how they figured it out? If a pitcher finishes a game that his team wins, and doesn't get the "win", he gets a save. (That is the rule used for all pre-1969 saves, by the way). Since Murphy was playing on the greatest baseball team of all time, with the largest run differentials ever, the fact that he was only getting 11 saves a year is pretty weird, don't you think?

When Fingers got 18 saves in 1974, do you know what the rule was? You had to face the tying or lead run, or pitch three effective innings. Read that again. Fingers did this 18 times. Murphy once in his career had 18 saves (actually, 19), and all he had to do was finish the game. 10-0, 17-4, whatever. His team was winning more blowouts than any team in history, so I suspect he might have picked a few easy ones, probably the majority of them.

Who you gonna take?

Cey
Bando
Evans
Rice
Sutton
Lynn
Hernandez (Keith)
Quiz

I have a book I'll write about the newbies, but I ain't done yet.

Okay fine. I will re-phrase what I wrote to read, "The Yankees won 61.4 percent of the games that Murphy finished, while the A's won 63.4 percent of the games Fingers finished." We'll just drop the arbitrary term save and never mention it in this thread again.

Its fairly clear Lahoud that you have a very narrow idea of what a relief pitcher was, that extends I guess from Hoyt Wilhelm to Goose Gossage, and not beyond. That's fine, that's your opinion. I'm sorry that Murphy doesn't fit your paradigm of the iron-man relief specialist.

I didn't try to compare him with Fingers, or Rivera, or Wilhelm, you took us there. I am on record as saying that I think its folly to try to compare players from different eras, and its truly so with relief pitchers.

I did an mini-analysis of relief pitching in the Inter-War period and found that two pitchers really stood out - Marberry and Murphy. In the context of their times, they were the best around. Whatever you say, Murphy was well-respected in his day, by his peers and by the baseball world in general. I challenge you to produce a source that backs up your contention that, "McCarthy did not believe he could pitch very much, or very often, so he used him this way. " Fingers started 37 games himself, so the same thing could be said about him. All relievers are failed starters, but that doesn't disqualify them from having been good - adapting to the situation and becoming the best they can be.

Murphy was an excellent pitcher, and excelled in his role as relief specialist for the great Yankee teams of the 30's and 40's. He and Marberry were the best two relief pitchers of their era.