BBF Progressive HoF Election: 2008

[Paul Wendt]

People who rely heavily on career pitching WAR for ranking, even as a first approximation, should be familiar with some time distribution for that rating. Here the first chart features players with at least 50 pWAR, a threshold which is sometimes used elsewhere in this forum. Numbers are counts of major league debuts every ten seasons.

50 pitching WAR, number of debuts by decade
1870/79 to 1990/99, row one
_2 _9 _5 _5 _5; _4 _4 _3 _6; 12 5# 13 _5
. _9 _4 _7 _5 ; _3 _3 _4 _3 ;10 10 5* 12 _3
1875/84 to 1995/2004, row two

The first row counts by decades defined by dates that end in 0 and 9; the second counts by decades defined by dates that end in 5 and 4. For instance,
Blue highlights four decades, or forty years,
- 1920s to 1950s in row one; and
- 1915/24 to 1949/54 in row two.
Grey also highlights four decades, or forty years,
- 1960s to 1990s in row one; and
- 1955/64 to 1985/94 in row two.

Roughly, the blue careers lie between the 19th century and deadball era on the left hand and the expansion era on the right hand. Taking row two for example, there were 13 debuts by 50-pWAR pitchers during 1915-1954 and there were 37 during 1955-1994.
(That is, 13=3+3+4+3 and 37=10+10+5+12. The final '3' in row two counts active pitchers Pettitte, Rivera, and Halladay, who debuted in the late 1990s.)

Roughly the grey careers lie in the first forty years of the expansion era. Many players who debuted in the late 1990s are still in their primes, so the data are quite incomplete for that era as represented in row one. As represented by row two, on the other hand, we have forty years of the expansion era nearly complete. That final '3', outside the grey, counts Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, and Roy Halladay who debuted 1995 to 1998.

The second chart gives the numbers of players with at least 3000 career innings pitched who debuted in the major leagues every ten seasons.

3000 innings pitched, number of debuts by decade
1870/79 to 1990/99
_5 12 11 11 17; 10 _6 _4 11; 19 10 12 _3
2 12 _8 13 14 ;11 _9 _4 _6 ;12 20 _7 12 _1
<1875 to 1995+

Same as above ...
Blue highlights the
-1920s to 1950s in row one; and
-1915/24 to 1949/54 in row two.
Grey also highlights four decades, or forty years,
- 1960s to 1990s in row one; and
- 1955/64 to 1985/94 in row two.

[Ace Venom]

That's not really the point I was trying to get across. What I meant is that those pitchers careers were largely all peak but without much filler and were relatively short (for whatever reason). Urban Shocker, Tommy Bridges, and Lefty Gomez are probably the best examples of this. Shocker's 124 ERA+ in 2700 IP, Bridges 126 ERA+ in 2800 IP, and Gomez's 126 ERA+ in 2500 IP, really aren't too different than David Cone (121 ERA+, 2900 IP), Dave Stieb (123 ERA+, 2900 IP), Ron Guidry (119 ERA+, 2400 IP), Jimmy Key (122 ERA+, 2600 IP), and Bret Saberhagen (2600 IP, 126 ERA+).

Basically, my point was that the 80s, for whatever reason, seem to have a lot of pitchers in the Shocker/Bridges/Gomez mold of good peak, but little else. My further point was that if our standards include Shocker/Bridges/Gomez types, perhaps we need to take a closer look at Cone/Stieb/Guidy/Key/Saberhagen (of course, individual circumstances will vary).

As for the other pitchers I mentioned, Mays, Cooper, Walters, I think they are generally of the same breed, though with more filler and perhaps less impressive peaks than some of the aforementioned shorter career players. A guy like Orel Hershiser probably would be in this vein. In retrospect though, if I were to go back and make a list of our more questionable selections, I would probably include several of these pitchers, at least partly because they set a standard which could open a door for a number of these more recent players.

Mays needed five VC ballot appearances before he was finally elected. Cooper, Walters and Bridges went in after one appearance on a VC ballot. Lefty Gomez spent fifteen years on the regular ballot before he was elected on his final ballot appearance. Urban Shocker didn't crack the 75% mark until he appeared on a VC ballot for the ninth time. These weren't easy paths to election by all means, most of all for Shocker who averaged about 30% support during his 15-year run on the regular ballot. That's not in the least bit encouraging.

[Paul Wendt]

... Numbers are counts of major league debuts every ten seasons.

50 pitching WAR, number of debuts by decade
1870/79 to 1990/99
_2 _9 _5 _5 _5; _4 _4 _3 _6; 12 5# 13 _5
. _9 _4 _7 _5 ; _3 _3 _4 _3 ;10 10 5* 12 _3
1875/84 to 1995+

The first row counts by decades defined by dates that end in 0 and 9; the second counts by decades defined by dates that end in 5 and 4. ...

* 1975 to 1984 (5): Only? five players with 50 career pitching WAR debuted during these ten seasons. Hershiser, Saberhagen, and Clemens debuted during the last two seasons 1983 and 1984; only Eckersley 1975 and Stieb 1979 during the first eight.

# 1970 to 1979 (5): Only? five 50-pWAR pitchers debuted during the 1970s, too. In fact, no 50-pWAR pitcher debuted during the preceding two or the following three seasons. Thus there were only five 50-pWAR debuts in fifteen seasons 1968-1982, between Seaver 1967 and Hershiser 1983.
(Blyleven, Reuschel, Tanana, Eckersley, and Stieb)


Here is a problem with advocating for Hershiser, Saberhagen, or Cone on grounds that he fills a chronological gap. The same goes for Dwight Gooden (whom no one here advocates strongly). The problem is, they don't fill a gap but barely hit it. Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, and Chuck Finley debuted in 1986 along with Cone; Roger Clemens debuted in 1984 along with Saberhagen and Gooden; Hershiser only in 1983.


An important point about that gap is that until the early 1980s there were numerous 3000-inning pitchers who debuted, but few of them achieved 50 pitching WAR. Here is a list covering 1967 to 1983, Tom Seaver to Orel Hershiser inclusive.

3000 innings pitched, debut seasons
1967 Tom Seaver
1967 Joe Niekro
1967 Mike Torrez
1967 Jerry Koosman

1969 Jerry Reuss
1969 Vida Blue
1970 Charlie Hough
1970 Bert Blyleven
1971 Doyle Alexander
1972 Rick Reuschel
1973 Frank Tanana
1975 Dennis Eckersley
1976 Dennis Martinez
1977 Jack Morris
1978 Bob Welch
1978 Danny Darwin

1983 Orel Hershiser

Bold highlights those who rate 50 or more career pitching WAR. Dave Stieb, debut 1979, also rates that high (total five) with fewer than 3000 innings pitched.

[DoubleX]

Giving a bump with a day left.

[Ace Venom]

We elected two players this cycle: Will Clark and Rickey Henderson. Buddy Bell, Darrell Evans, Tommy John, and Jim Rice failed to earn the 75% required for election on their final ballot appearances.

[DoubleX]

We elected two players this cycle: Will Clark and Rickey Henderson. Buddy Bell, Darrell Evans, Tommy John, and Jim Rice failed to earn the 75% required for election on their final ballot appearances.

Wow, Clark made a late surge there.

I regret that I came around to Tommy John so late, because I am certain now, per my post above, that he fits pretty nicely with our standards and will tout his case at the next VC election. His 17 season stretch from 1965 to 1982 is much better than the careers of several pitchers we have selected, so I don't think it's fair to punish John for hanging on for so more years while lesser pitchers we've elected walked away.

I also think that Bell and Evans (and Nettles) are worthy of closer examination in light of Sal Bando's VC election. Player comparisons at 3B can get really bunched together after the first 8 or so players, and I can't really see how Bando can really be differentiated from Bell, Evans, and Nettles, and perhaps even Ron Cey.

[BigRon]

Wow, Clark made a late surge there.

I regret that I came around to Tommy John so late, because I am certain now, per my post above, that he fits pretty nicely with our standards and will tout his case at the next VC election. His 17 season stretch from 1965 to 1982 is much better than the careers of several pitchers we have selected, so I don't think it's fair to punish John for hanging on for so more years while lesser pitchers we've elected walked away.

I also think that Bell and Evans (and Nettles) are worthy of closer examination in light of Sal Bando's VC election. Player comparisons at 3B can get really bunched together after the first 8 or so players, and I can't really see how Bando can really be differentiated from Bell, Evans, and Nettles, and perhaps even Ron Cey.

I'd been voting for John for the last 7 or 8 cycles. I was surprised that he got so little support. In retrospect I wish I'd taken the time to articulate why I thought he was a worthy candidate. Basically, you've hit it. He had a long stretch of very good quality pitching- better than quite a few HOFers- and his late career stretch diminished his rate stats to the point where many dismissed him. Too bad.

I guess I'm a little surprised- not too much, though- that Clark got in pretty quickly. He was a very good player, but there have been a lot of very good players at first. I have no problem with him being in this HOF, but he's definitely a lower tier guy, in my opinion.

[jjpm74]

I have no intention of voting for any new pitchers that I did not support in the regular elections. We have way too many marginal pitchers in already and have been too generous with certain eras. I don't think the solution is to compound the mistake be electing more marginal pitchers in.

[DoubleX]

I have no intention of voting for any new pitchers that I did not support in the regular elections. We have way too many marginal pitchers in already and have been too generous with certain eras. I don't think the solution is to compound the mistake be electing more marginal pitchers in.

The thing about that is that once we've done it enough times, it's no longer a mistake but a standard. I've never been happy with the elections of certain pitchers, but it's been done, and there's enough of them now where they create a clear standard. So when we have someone who is clearly above that standard, as I now believe Tommy John is, I think it's only fair to elect him. As I posted above, I think a case could be made for John being better qualified than perhaps 10-15 pitchers we've elected. That's a sizeable number, and proof that he wouldn't be compounding a mistake, IMO, but fitting within our established standards. Now if it was hard to make a case for a pitcher being as good or better than a small handful, say maybe the bottom 3-5, then I'd be more reluctant, but I think John is a notch or two above that.

[jjpm74]

The thing about that is that once we've done it enough times, it's no longer a mistake but a standard. I've never been happy with the elections of certain pitchers, but it's been done, and there's enough of them now where they create a clear standard. So when we have someone who is clearly above that standard, as I now believe Tommy John is, I think it's only fair to elect him. As I posted above, I think a case could be made for John being better qualified than perhaps 10-15 pitchers we've elected. That's a sizeable number, and proof that he wouldn't be compounding a mistake, IMO, but fitting within our established standards. Now if it was hard to make a case for a pitcher being as good or better than a small handful, say maybe the bottom 3-5, then I'd be more reluctant, but I think John is a notch or two above that.

30 cycles ago I would have agreed with you. Given how most of the more recent pitchers who are similar to the bottom 40 pitchers in our hall have fared in recent elections, I'm convinced that we either were too generous early on, or have been too stingy with current pitchers. Either way, I'm not going to compound the issue by voting for a mediocre compiler with tons of replacement level padding. Not when pitchers like Gooden and Viola who were one and done had similar peaks to him. Give the guy a golden watch for his longevity. Not a nod to our hall.

[DoubleX]

30 cycles ago I would have agreed with you. Given how most of the more recent pitchers who are similar to the bottom 40 pitchers in our hall have fared in recent elections, I'm convinced that we either were too generous early on, or have been too stingy with current pitchers. Either way, I'm not going to compound the issue by voting for a mediocre compiler with tons of replacement level padding. Not when pitchers like Gooden and Viola who were one and done had similar peaks to him. Give the guy a golden watch for his longevity. Not a nod to our hall.

Eh, I'm not sure about Gooden and Viola. They had those three or four great years but not much else. A guy like Tommy John, as I posted above, had a 119 ERA+ over 17 seasons and 3600 IP. That's a sample that's bigger and better than the entire careers of several pitchers we have elected, including John's contemporary Luis Tiant. We've clearly established that 3500 innings and a 115 ERA+ is the right combination for longevity and productivity to make it here. Well John did that, his mistake, unlike lesser pitchers we've elected, was that he continued to pitch, and that's where I don't think he should be punished.

Anyway, John is really a different creature than the pitchers you seem to be rallying for. The group you seem to be behind includes David Cone, Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen, Jimmy Key, and Ron Guidry. I'd put Gooden and Viola as being similar creatures, but without as much substance, so I'll leave them to side. As I mentioned in another post above, the Cone/Stieb/Saberhagen/Key/Guidry group really isn't all that different than Gomez/Bridges/Shocker. If you were to make a detailed comparison between these groups, you might sway a few voters. Similar career lengths, similar peaks, similar ERA+. So I do think you make a good point, in that why did we have so much sympathy for that kind of pitcher back in the 1920s/1930s, but are quick to overlook that kind of pitcher in the 1980s?

Part of the explanation for the shortcomings of these players, however, is that we have so many clearly worthy pitchers from the immediately prior and subsequent generations. So one has to do some extra thought and wonder why the 1980s didn't have these clear standouts. Was there a reason (maybe transition in pitcher usage), or was it just a coincidence?

[jjpm74]

Tommy John had no peak to speak of. Here's his peak in pitching WAR:

4.8-5.2-5.7-1.9-2.7

Here are those same years in ERA+:

161-119-116-100-116

What about that screams HOFer?

The only reason John hit those career milestones was thanks to an 11 year stretch of mediocrity, the last 3 of which he was outright terrible.

[DoubleX]

Tommy John had no peak to speak of. Here's his peak in pitching WAR:

4.8-5.2-5.7-1.9-2.7

Here are those same years in ERA+:

161-119-116-100-116

What about that screams HOFer?

The only reason John hit those career milestones was thanks to an 11 year stretch of mediocrity, the last 3 of which he was outright terrible.

It seems you've ignored everything I've pointed out about John. Please see post 15, where I think I've laid out the case for John being in this Hall as best I can.

[jjpm74]

It seems you've ignored everything I've pointed out about John. Please see post 15, where I think I've laid out the case for John being in this Hall as best I can.

I haven't ignored anything. I'm trying to illustrate the fact that John was never a dominant pitcher and outline the reason to not vote for him. To clarify my previous post, during that 17 year stretch, John had 2 isolated very good years to go with the consecutive 3, 11 years that were average and a pair that were below average. If he had a couple of great seasons, I could see a case for him. As it stands, he's comparable to Jack Quinn who is not in our hall.

[DoubleX]

I haven't ignored anything. I'm trying to illustrate the fact that John was never a dominant pitcher and outline the reason to not vote for him. To clarify my previous post, during that 17 year stretch, John had 2 isolated very good years to go with the consecutive 3, 11 years that were average and a pair that were below average. If he had a couple of great seasons, I could see a case for him. As it stands, he's comparable to Jack Quinn who is not in our hall.

What you did was cherry pick 5 random seasons from those 17. Based on this post, I have to believe you bypassed everything I posted in post number 15 because it's all factual information that flies directly contrary to your assertions. To say that he had 11 average years during that stretch and compare him to Jack Quinn just completely misses the boat and cannot be supported. I'll repeat:

- 119 ERA+ in 3600 IP;
- No below average ERA+ seasons (contrary to what you said);
- 5 seasons with an ERA+ over 130;
- 5 best ERA+ average of 141;
- 10 best ERA+ average of 130 (how can he have 11 average seasons when his 10 best average is 130?)
- 2 Cy Young runner-ups and another 4th place finish;
- 53.9 pitching WAR
- 5 best WAR of 25.7 (for an average over 5);
- 10 best WAR of 41. 3 (for an average over 4).

This should all go to show that John was a MUCH better pitcher during those 17 years that you're giving him credit for. I then go on in post 15 to show that what John did for those 17 years, which is a long time, was better than what several players we have elected did over their entire careers:

Wes Ferrell: 2600 IP, 117 ERA+ (does not include hitting, of course)
Urban Shocker: 2700 IP, 124 ERA+
Bob Lemon: 2900 IP, 119 ERA+
Carl Mays: 3000 IP, 120 ERA+
Bucky Walters: 3100 IP, 116 ERA+
Billy Pierce: 3300 IP, 119 ERA+
Luis Tiant: 3500 IP, 115 ERA+
Wilbur Cooper: 3500 IP, 116 ERA+
Jim Bunning: 3800 IP, 114 ERA+
Burleigh Grimes: 4200 IP, 109 ERA+

I also pointed out that John's 53.9 pitching WAR from that 17 year stretch, puts him ahead of the entire careers of the following inductees (of course, individual circumstances will vary, but the group is large enough to suggest that John fits in somewhere):

Joe McGinnity: 53.7
Red Ruffing: 53.6
Billy Pierce: 53.5
Bob Caruthers: 52.6
Early Wynn: 52
Eppa Rixey: 52
Tommy Bridges: 50.7
Rube Waddell: 50.2
Clark Griffith: 49
Urban Shocker: 47
Wilbur Cooper: 43.7
Lefty Gomez: 43
Bob Lemon: 42.4
Hoyt Wilhelm: 41.3
Wes Ferrell: 41.3
Addie Joss: 40.9
Goose Gossage: 40.0
Dizzy Dean: 39.6
Carl Mays: 39.6
Bucky Walters: 38.2
Burleigh Grimes: 37.2

This 17 season stretch of John's career, which in itself is longer than most careers, by itself should easily qualify for induction to this Hall of Fame. John had a career very similar, if not better than many pitchers we've elected. However, John's essentially being punished for hanging on as a mediocre pitchers for 7 more years, while perhaps a dozen or more lesser pitchers who retired earlier, get in.

[BigRon]

I'm a guy who may have voted as much/more for John than anybody. I agree with DoubleX that he fits the parameters of this Hall. That said, it is fair to say that John was a bit of a compiler- but that's not all bad. My biggest concern with John's candidacy is the reality that he wasn't a real strong innings guy, which I place a good deal of weight on. He only topped 240 IP 3 times in his career, even though he pitched about half his career in the 4 man rotation era. He was in his league's top 5 in IP only 2 times, in the top 10 4 times. Jim Bunning- a good representative of a mid/lower-mid level pitcher in our HOF- was in the top 5 in IP 8 times, albeit in a smaller league.

Nonetheless, I think John qualifies. I think there definitely are more than 5 "poorer" pitchers in our HOF. I wish this dialogue had come up sooner.

[DoubleX]

I'm a guy who may have voted as much/more for John than anybody. I agree with DoubleX that he fits the parameters of this Hall. That said, it is fair to say that John was a bit of a compiler- but that's not all bad. My biggest concern with John's candidacy is the reality that he wasn't a real strong innings guy, which I place a good deal of weight on. He only topped 240 IP 3 times in his career, even though he pitched about half his career in the 4 man rotation era. He was in his league's top 5 in IP only 2 times, in the top 10 4 times. Jim Bunning- a good representative of a mid/lower-mid level pitcher in our HOF- was in the top 5 in IP 8 times, albeit in a smaller league.

Nonetheless, I think John qualifies. I think there definitely are more than 5 "poorer" pitchers in our HOF. I wish this dialogue had come up sooner.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The stereotype for John is that he was a compiler, and as you said, to some extent it's true as he pitched for a long time. This was the view I had of him just a couple of weeks ago. But after looking more closely at him, I noticed that for the bulk of his career, a period of 17 years, which is by no means short, John had a very representative career by the standards of this Hall, and that his hanging on years until age 47 really obscure his career. Basically, John's worthiness here would probably have been easier to grasp had he retired by age 40 as most players do. If he retired after his age 40 season, which was the first of his older, superfluous, and mediocre seasons, his career numbers would have been:

248 Wins
3.12 ERA
116 ERA+
3,944 IP
55.8 pitching WAR
2 Cy Young runner-up finishes (and a 4th place)

There should be little doubt that those numbers, both in quality and longevity, would fit squarely within our standards. How are these numbers that different than Tiant, Walters, Cooper, Mays, Pierce, Bunning, and Grimes? Again, John's biggest mistake was not retiring earlier like many lesser pitchers we have elected did.

[jjpm74]

What do you consider below average for a season in ERA+?

Here's his 1965-1982 that you are referring to in ERA+:

103-121-122-161-119-116-100-116-113-132-110-138-107-137-115-136-108

I count 10 years at under 120 ERA+. That's not exactly impressive. There's also 3 below 110 and 1 at 110.
-5 Seasons over 130 ERA+

Here's how it stacks up against Jack Quinn's 1914-1930:

130-92-120-123-120-111-117-106-134-111-104-123-129-138-107-107-145

That's 8 years under 120 ERA+ and 5 under 110.
-4 seasons over 130+ ERA+

I stand by my remark that John is in the company of Quinn and not deserving of the HOF in this project.

[jjpm74]

What you did was cherry pick 5 random seasons from those 17.

Um, what are you doing with your WAR postings? I just took one of those and broke it down by season. It's comparable to a lot of the guys who you posted, but it's also comparable to plenty of guys, like Harry Brecheen who are not in this HOF. None of those qualifications scream HOF oversight to me.

[BigRon]

I know (I think) that we all understand that ERA+, while a good stat, is not a perfect proxy for performance. However, since it's being thrown around, what do you think of this line?
123-106-133-127-141-153-136-121-84-93-122-96-97-70. Fourteen seasons, 4 times over 130, 8 seasons over 120, 6 seasons under 110 including 5 under 100. Cumulative ERA+ 114.

THat's the entire ERA+ line for the first 14 seasons of a guy who's usually considered one of the top 20 pitchers of all time, universally in the top 25- Robin Roberts. THose 14 seasons are the Philadelphia Phillies portion of his 19 year career, the portion which totally created his HOF bona fides.

Let's be clear- I'm not proposing that John was as good as Roberts- he was not. My point is that there are quite a few outstanding pitchers with multiple seasons that don't stand up all that well to some of the newer measurements.

[DoubleX]

Um, what are you doing with your WAR postings? I just took one of those and broke it down by season. It's comparable to a lot of the guys who you posted, but it's also comparable to plenty of guys, like Harry Brecheen who are not in this HOF. None of those qualifications scream HOF oversight to me.

So it doesn't matter that it's comparable to a lot of guys I posted, who by the way, have all been elected to this HoF? You say it's also compare to "plenty of guys," well how about showing us? I've put forth my argument, backed up by plenty of statistics and very favorable comparisons to Hall of Famers, now why don't you do the same to back up your comments instead of making unsupported statements?

As for the one player you did mention, Harry Brecheen, he had one really great season which boosts his WAR, but not much after that. I don't see how he could really be compared to John in a HoF discussion:

Career WAR
John: 53.9
Brecheen: 38.8

Top 5 WAR
John: 25.7
Brecheen: 24.7

Top 10 WAR
John: 41.3
Brecheen: 37.1

This doesn't even consider that fact that Brecheen pitched during WWII, had poor durability (a high IP of just 233, topping 200 just four times), and that John pitched in a far more talented league overall.

Look, you've made several postings stating that you'd like to see people put forth a detailed statistical case for a player. I've done exactly that with Tommy John, and every time you come back with comments that just don't jive at all with the actual numbers, which I then post and you seem to completely ignore. It's like you have some kind of blinded vendetta against John and refuse to see any detailed logical arguments in his favor. The odd thing is that I didn't pay John much attention until you made a good comment an election or two again that led me to take a closer look.

[DoubleX]

What do you consider below average for a season in ERA+?

Here's his 1965-1982 that you are referring to in ERA+:

103-121-122-161-119-116-100-116-113-132-110-138-107-137-115-136-108

I count 10 years at under 120 ERA+. That's not exactly impressive. There's also 3 below 110 and 1 at 110.
-5 Seasons over 130 ERA+

By definition, 100 is an AVERAGE ERA+. Do you not know that? So in answer to your question, I would consider an ERA+ below 100 as below average. 120 is a good season, 130 is very good and a level John attained 5 times with a high of 161.

Here's how it stacks up against Jack Quinn's 1914-1930:

130-92-120-123-120-111-117-106-134-111-104-123-129-138-107-107-145

Did you notice that two of Quinn's years were in the Federal League, including his second best season of 130? And did you take a look at Quinn's IP totals. First, Quinn pitched 600 less innings during those 17 years than John did during his peak 17 years, and yet John is still ahead in ERA+ 119 to 116. Second four of those ERA+ seasons for Quinn were in less than 170 IP and two were in less than 100. John in comparison had 2 under 170 and none below 140 (though he did miss one to the surgery).

I stand by my remark that John is in the company of Quinn and not deserving of the HOF in this project.

I'll give you that Quinn was underrated, but he's still not in John's class, and I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find ways to compare Quinn as favorably to so many players we've elected as I have with John. Here's a novel idea though, why don't you actually try to do the work for Quinn and see if you can make as good a case for him compared to elected players as I've done with John.

I don't like to be combative here, but at this point, it's abundantly clear I can't have a serious conversation with you about John, as it seems you've formed some impenetrable bias (and I'm particularly puzzled that you've taken this position as you're usually very open minded and thoughtful with information presented). That's your prerogative, but I'm going to cease trying to go up against the brick wall. Let me know when you want to take a real and fair look at the actual statistics.

EDIT: I edited this post to tone down my language, as again I don't like to be combative and I apologize to the extent I come across that way (I'm just really befuddled by the resistance here).

[SavoyBG]

What do you consider below average for a season in ERA+?

Apparently you don;t understand what the stat is.

BY DEFINITION, below average is 99 or less. In ERA+, the league average is 100. Anything above that is above average, anything below that is below average.

An ERA+ of 120 means that the picher was 20% better than the league average for that season, adjusted for his home park.

[DoubleX]

Apparently you don;t understand what the stat is.

BY DEFINITION, below average is 99 or less. In ERA+, the league average is 100. Anything above that is above average, anything below that is below average.

An ERA+ of 120 means that the picher was 20% better than the league average for that season, adjusted for his home park.

Thank you, I was hoping someone else would chime in. For a second I thought I was going crazy.

[jjpm74]

I don't like to be combative here, but at this point, it's abundantly clear I can't have a serious conversation with you about John, as it seems you've formed some impenetrable bias (and I'm particularly puzzled that you've taken this position as you're usually very open minded and thoughtful with information presented). That's your prerogative, but I'm going to cease trying to go up against the brick wall. Let me know when you want to take a real and fair look at the actual statistics.

EDIT: I edited this post to tone down my language, as again I don't like to be combative and I apologize to the extent I come across that way (I'm just really befuddled by the resistance here).

Huh? I don't plan on stumping for anyone at this point as the project is winding down. Especially a borderline case like Jack Quinn. I posted the reason why I don't support John and backed it up with statistical information. I'm not sure why that is offending you. I like to see some kind of peak in a pitcher like Tommy John and all I see are some good scattered years surrounded by mediocre years and a career WAR that would have probably been about 3.0 lower had he not pitched in the DH era AL for the last 11 years of his career.

As far as oversights in this project, I honestly don't see any to this point. I think we've elected everyone with a reasonable HOF case. I'd like to see the pitching scaled back. Not a floodgate to be opened letting every pitcher from the 80s with a superficial comparable WAR to Tommy Bridges in (referring to ALL pitchers from that era we haven't elected). It'd be nice to see a few relievers in as well as maybe Nettles and Bell at 3rd and a few of the better outfielders that are comparable to Reggie Smith and Jimmy Wynn, but if they don't get in, it's not like we're leaving a definite HOFer out.