Albright's musings

[jalbright]

I'll now break the players out by position

The first group will be first basemen:

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
175.7	Gehrig	91.1	10	8.7	8.1	39.3
139.3	Foxx	69.3	8.7	7.1	6.9	32.3
130.0	Oh	0				
129.1	Connor	64.4	8.1	6.3	6.2	30.5
128.6	Brouthers	66	8.7	7.7	5.7	27.9
127.3	Anson	69.5	6.4	5.7	5.3	24.7
116.4	Bagwell	54.8	7.6	6.4	6.2	29.2
113.2	Mize	46.3	5.4	5	5	22.9
113.2	Greenberg	39.5	6.4	5.8	5.1	22.4
108.3	Carew	47.5	8.7	6.2	4.9	28.9
95.3	Thomas, F	45.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	23
86.8	McCovey	39.7	6.6	4.6	4.5	22.7
85.9	Allen	38	6.9	6.6	5.6	21.3
81.4	Terry	36.1	6.2	5.7	4.8	23.4
80.4	Sisler	33.3	7.2	6.9	3.9	25.6
80.2	McGwire	40.2	5.3	4.8	4.7	17.1
78.0	Leonard, B	0				
76.5	Murray	34.6	4.8	4.6	4	19.4
74.4	Hernandez	36.5	5.1	4.6	4.3	16.5
73.8	Killebrew	36.2	4.9	4	3.9	17.4
72.4	Chance	33.4	6.4	4.9	4.5	23.2
72.0	Ochiai	0				
71.3	Clark, W.	31.5	7.2	4.7	3	18.7
68.9	Olerud	29.9	6.3	6	3.4	17.5
68.5	Palmeiro	31.4	5.1	3.9	3.7	15.5
68.4	Beckley	36.1	3.9	3.6	3.1	14.3
64.0	Cash	28.5	8.1	3.6	2.6	17.4
61.0	Taylor, B	0				
56.6	Perez	25.5	4.7	3.9	3.4	17.5
53.1	Start	19.5	3.4	2.6	2.4	10.3
43.0	Cepeda O	20.4	4.7	3.9	2.8	11.2
38.1	Bottomley	16.9	3.7	3.1	2.5	11.9
27.3	Kelly, G	10.9	3.1	2	1.8	9.5

[jalbright]

Second base:

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
195.8	Hornsby	101.9	11.2	9.8	9.7	43.5
168.3	Collins, E	87	8.9	8.1	7.7	37
152.1	Morgan	68.2	10.1	8.1	8	41.3
140.9	LaJoie	74.8	7.7	7.5	7.4	27
135.6	Robinson, J	43.4	8	7.6	6.5	32.9
117.2	Gehringer	54.6	7.5	6.4	6	30.3
104.2	Frisch	48.9	7.2	6.2	6	24.8
92.8	Gordon	37.8	7	5.1	4.8	23.3
91.1	Biggio	38.9	7.7	5	4.7	24.1
86.3	Grich	41.2	5.1	4.6	4.5	21.5
86.0	Dihigo	0				
81.1	Sandberg	36.1	6.4	5.1	5.1	20.7
77.1	Alomar	35.9	5.8	5.6	4.2	17.4
76.3	Whitaker	39	4.9	4.4	3.2	14.9
75.3	Kent	34.4	6.1	4.8	3.4	19.7
72.9	Herman, Billy	31.2	5.3	4.5	3.8	17.4
72.2	Childs	32.8	6.4	5.8	5.1	22.1
71.0	Grant, F	0				
70.0	McPhee	36.6	4.1	3.9	3.8	15.3
68.2	Randolph	32.9	4.6	3.9	3.4	16.2
67.9	Doerr	29.3	5.2	4	3.7	18.4
67.5	Barnes	27.1	6.1	5.8	4.7	23.8
65.0	Clarkson, Bus	0				
56.0	Evers	28	4.7	4.5	3.4	15.4
53.8	Lazzeri	25.4	5.9	3.7	3.5	15.3
52.7	Fox	25	5.4	4.4	3.4	14.5
38.4	Schoendienst	16.5	4.4	3	2.5	12
15.5	Mazeroski	7.8	2.4	1.6	0.9	2.8
0.0	Monroe	0				
0.0	White, Sol	0

[jalbright]

Third base

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
150.0	Schmidt	78.1	8.4	7.6	7	31.8
126.3	Mathews, E	64.3	6.7	6.3	5.9	27.6
126.0	Boggs	58.5	7.2	6.7	6.6	33
118.8	Brett	55.6	8.1	6.6	5.9	29.4
100.0	Wilson, Jud	0				
97.6	Baker	40.5	7.8	7.1	5.9	28
97.0	Santo	41.3	7.7	6	5.4	27.5
89.5	Robinson, B	41.1	6.1	5.2	5.2	22.1
85.0	Nagashima	0				
84.1	Molitor	42.3	4.9	4.7	3.8	17.3
83.0	Bando	37	6.9	5	4.1	22.7
80.5	McGraw	37.5	7.2	6.7	5	24.1
74.0	Bell, Buddy	33.3	4.9	4.7	4.4	19.4
72.6	Collins, J	33.1	5.5	5.3	4.9	19.9
72.4	Beckwith	0				
71.9	Boyer, K	32.4	5.6	4	4	19.4
69.1	Nettles	32.1	5.2	4.3	3.7	16.2
64.8	Evans, Dar	29.1	6.9	4.8	3	15
61.5	Hack	29.7	4.6	4.1	3.8	14.4
57.2	Groh	27.2	4.9	4.6	3	17.5
40.2	Lindstrom	15.5	5.1	4.3	1.9	13.4
36.8	Kell 	17.6	3.5	2.6	2.5	10.6
36.6	Traynor	18.4	2.7	2.6	2.4	10.5
36.0	Dandridge	0				
31.0	Johnson, J	0				
0.0	Linares	0

[jalbright]

Catchers

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
184.2	Gibson, J	0				
108.8	Bench	47	7.2	5.6	4.7	22.8
101.4	Piazza	41.3	7.5	5.3	5	24.9
99.0	Carter, G	42.2	5.7	4.7	4.7	22.1
90.0	Berra	39.2	5.7	4.4	4.2	19.2
89.3	Fisk	39.9	5.2	4.8	3.9	14.9
88.7	Nomura	0				
82.4	Campanellla	21.8	5.2	4.9	3.8	17.5
80.8	Dickey	33.8	4.5	4.2	3.7	17
80.0	Santop	0				
79.6	Ewing	37.1	4.3	3.6	3.6	16.1
78.0	Mackey	0				
76.9	Cochrane	32.4	4.6	4.1	3.9	18.8
70.3	Simmons, T	30.3	4.4	4.1	3.5	15.2
69.0	Trouppe	0				
66.8	Tenace	31.1	4.5	3.7	3.3	17.6
64.2	Torre	27.3	4.5	4.2	3.6	13.9
63.4	Hartnett	28.8	3.8	3.5	3.2	11.6
61.7	Bresnahan	27	4.2	4	3.3	15.1
60.2	White, Deacon	30.3	4.4	4.1	3.5	15.2
57.5	Bennett	25	3.5	3.1	3	14.2
54.4	Freehan	22.5	5	4.3	3.7	13.4
42.1	Lombardi	18.8	3.7	2.4	2.1	10.4
19.8	Schalk	7.6	1.7	1.3	1.2	4.6
17.2	Ferrell, R	7	1.3	1.1	1	3.9

[jalbright]

Center Fielders

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
209.7	Mays, W	112.4	8.6	8.3	8.2	39.6
205.3	Cobb	115.2	9.5	9.3	8.7	39.2
185.0	Mantle	90.8	11.2	10.7	10.1	43.5
171.5	Speaker	93.7	8.7	7.4	7.4	33.9
169.8	Charleston	0				
148.1	DiMaggio, J	63.6	7.9	7.4	7.1	32.3
142.2	Stearnes	0				
115.4	Griffey, K Jr	53.3	7.8	7.2	6.3	28.9
108.4	Hamilton	52.4	7.4	5.7	5.3	27.7
98.8	Snider	42.1	7.3	6.8	5.5	27.7
98.4	Oms	0				
93.0	Torriente	0				
84.2	Lofton	39.4	6.2	5.3	4.3	20.3
82.5	Wynn, J.	38.5	6.7	5.8	5.2	19.3
81.2	Brown, W	0				
76.0	Doby	31.9	5.6	4.7	4.4	21.3
76.0	Bell, CP	0				
74.4	Cedeno	31.9	6.3	5.8	4	23.1
72.6	Dawson	30.3	5.9	4.8	4.6	21.1
70.3	Ashburn	32.6	4.4	4	4	19
64.5	Gore	32	5	4.3	4.2	19
61.4	Wilson, H	24.8	5.7	5	4.5	21.4
57.8	Roush	28.6	4.6	4.2	3.4	17
57.0	Hill	0				
56.9	Combs	26.3	5	4	3.6	18
54.3	Averill	26.2	4.7	4.2	4	15.2
48.3	Puckett	22.6	5.1	4.3	2.9	13.4
22.1	Waner, L	9.8	2.5	1.9	1.4	6.5

[jalbright]

Left Fielders

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
240.4	Bonds, Bar	136	10.7	10.7	10.5	47.8
235.5	Williams, T	100.3	10	9.7	9.6	45.2
169.9	Musial	86.7	9.1	7.2	7.1	32.7
147.8	Henderson, R	78.2	8.2	8	6.6	29
120.1	Yaz	51.3	10.1	8	6.7	30.1
119.6	Delahanty	57.4	7.5	7.3	6.3	30
100.0	Irvin	0				
100.0	Suttles	0				
90.6	Minoso	35.1	6.4	4.8	4.4	20.1
89.8	Simmons, A	39.5	6.3	5.7	5.7	24.4
89.3	Clarke	46.8	5.2	4.7	4.5	17.3
86.5	Burkett	40.9	7.5	5	4.6	20.1
84.5	Kelley, J	37.3	6.5	5.8	5.4	24.3
83.6	Harimoto	0				
80.5	Goslin	35.3	5.2	5.1	4.7	22.1
78.5	Raines	35.4	5.4	4.9	3.9	20.4
77.6	Medwick	33.4	6.9	5.3	5	21.6
73.0	Stargell	30.2	6.2	6.2	4.1	20.2
71.2	Magee, S	33	5.6	5.1	4	16.8
70.9	Keller	31.7	5.7	5.1	5	23.4
66.2	Kiner	26.3	5.8	5.6	5.4	23.1
66.1	Stovey	34.9	5.4	4.1	4.1	17.6
62.0	Wheat	29.9	5	4.1	3.5	13.3
59.6	O'Rourke	32.9	3.7	3.6	2.8	12.1
56.0	Williams, Billy	24.7	4.9	4.4	3.9	12.1
44.9	Manush	22.5	5.4	3.3	3.3	10.4
43.2	Rice, Jim	20	4.7	3.9	3.6	11
42.1	Hafey	17.4	3.6	3.3	2.8	15
33.9	Brock	14.1	3.8	2.7	2.6	10.7

[jalbright]

Starting pitchers

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
184.4	Johnson, W	92.3	10.9	10.1	7.9	42
167.9	Young	89	8.6	7.9	7.4	33.4
166.3	Clemens	94.4	8.7	7.9	6.5	29
154.3	Williams, J	0				
141.2	Gibson, B	64.4	9.9	9.2	7.7	35.5
138.0	Seaver	71.9	7.5	7.4	5.8	28.7
137.5	Grove	65.4	6.9	6.9	6.8	29.1
137.2	Nichols	66.7	8.3	8.2	7.3	30.4
134.4	Alexander	66.8	7.8	7.6	7	28.3
126.4	Maddux	63.1	7.1	6.6	6.4	27.9
121.8	Johnson, R	62.5	6.3	6.3	6.2	26.4
121.0	Mathewson	59	7.1	6.9	6.2	27.5
120.4	Caruthers	47.6	9.3	8.8	7.8	36.6
118.2	Martinez, P	55.9	8.6	6.8	6	30.1
115.0	Paige	0				
113.6	Niekro	55.3	6.8	5.4	5.3	26.1
112.0	Rogan	0				
111.3	Carlton	54.2	9.8	6.5	5.6	21.6
111.0	Perry, G	54.5	8.2	6	5	23.1
109.8	Blyleven	57.5	7	5.3	4.5	21.8
109.0	Kaneda	0				
108.1	Clarkson J	47	9	7	6.8	25.8
105.7	Roberts	48.6	6.8	5.6	5.4	26.5
105.0	Jenkins	50.5	6.8	5.8	5.3	24.1
104.6	Spahn	52.3	6.6	5.5	4.8	21.3
101.0	Bessho	0				
97.8	Keefe	43	9.6	5.4	3.9	23.9
96.1	Koyama	0				
95.7	Radbourn	38.4	11.2	7.1	5.1	23
95.6	Mussina	50.7	5.7	4.9	4.6	18.6
94.3	Starffin	0				
93.5	Feller	39.1	7.2	6.7	6.3	26
92.1	Ryan, N	44.7	6.2	5.7	4.5	18.7
92.0	Walsh	36.8	7.5	6.3	6.2	29.4
91.9	Brown, K	42.7	6.7	5.5	4.5	24.1
90.9	Marichal	37.1	7.1	7.1	5.8	25.8
90.5	Drysdale	43.9	5.9	5.1	4.8	20.9
88.9	Hubbell	37.1	6.8	6.1	5	25.7
88.3	Schilling	45.2	5	4.9	4.8	19
87.9	Inao	0				
87.0	Newhouser	36.3	7.1	6	5	26.5
86.0	Buffinton, C	34	12.2	6.6	6.6	20.5
85.7	Bunning	39.2	6.8	6.6	6.3	20.8
85.4	Reuschel, R	40.8	6.9	4.6	3.6	20.8
85.0	Plank	43.1	4.9	4.3	3.9	17.2
83.5	Rusie	31.4	7.2	6.3	5	25.8
82.9	Palmer	39.4	5.7	5.4	4.2	20.1
82.6	Glavine	39.6	6.1	4.7	4.2	17.6
80.9	Brown, R	0				
79.9	King, Silver	32.3	10.4	7.3	5	21
79.3	Ruffing	36	5.1	4.5	4.4	20
78.8	Stieb	36.7	5.9	4.8	4.7	22.8
78.4	Smoltz	42	4.4	3.8	3.2	16.3
77.9	Koufax	30.8	7.2	6.9	5.9	27.1
77.1	Ferrell, W	35.5	6.3	5.7	5.2	20.3
77.0	Vance	33.9	6.9	6.1	4.6	21.1
76.9	Cone	39.1	5.3	4.9	4.8	16.9
75.5	Saberhagen	37	6.8	5.2	2.1	19.7
74.6	Tanana	30.9	6	6	5.2	21.5
73.4	Tiant	36.2	5.4	4	4	16.9
73.2	Mullane	35.5	5.7	4.2	3	14.9
73.0	Foster, W	0				
72.4	Hershiser	33	5.4	5.4	4.5	19.9
72.3	Finley, C	34.9	5.9	5	4.6	17.3
72.0	Foster, R	0				
71.5	Mendez	0				
71.3	Brown, 3	31	6.1	5.3	3.6	20
70.8	Wynn, E	34.2	6.3	4.3	3.5	16.1
66.8	Spalding	27.4	7.5	6.2	3.5	22.2
66.4	Griffith	30.2	6.5	4.5	4.3	17.2
66.2	Lyons	34.4	4.2	3.5	3.4	12.7
64.9	Lemon	30.2	5.1	5.1	4.1	18.2
64.9	Enatsu	0				
64.1	Dean	27.7	6.1	5	4.1	21.2
63.3	Ford	32.4	4.5	4.3	2.8	13.5
62.0	Smith, H	0				
61.0	Welch, M.	25.1	6.1	5.7	4	14.9
60.7	McGinnity	25.1	6.5	6.4	3.8	18.9
60.5	Waddell	24.2	6.8	4.3	3.9	21.3
56.8	Day	0				
56.6	Faber	24	7	5.3	1.9	15.9
56.4	Sutton, D	27.7	3.5	3.4	3.2	9.8
55.4	Galvin	23.5	8.9	3.1	2.1	11
54.3	Willis	24.6	5.8	4.5	3.8	14.2
53.9	Coveleski	26.5	5	4.2	3.9	14.3
53.9	Gomez	22.2	7	5.3	3.6	15.8
49.1	Hoyt	26.9	4.3	3.8	3	11.1
48.4	Hunter	18.9	5.3	4.3	4.2	15.7
48.2	Bender	23.4	3.9	3.7	2.7	14.5
46.8	Pennock	21.8	4.5	3.5	3.4	13.6
45.9	Chesbro	18.3	5.7	3.4	3	15.5
44.8	Grimes	23.4	4.3	3.9	3.8	9.4
44.6	Joss	19.1	5.3	3	2.7	14.5
43.3	Cooper, A.	0				
40.0	Rixey	19.7	3.7	2.7	2.7	11.2
24.9	Haines	13.4	2.4	2.2	1.4	5.5
19.4	Cummings	8	2.2	1.7	1.1	6.4
0.0	Jackman, W	0

[jalbright]

Right fielders

Please note that "right field" is my default outfield position.

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
261.1	Ruth	149.8	12.7	11.6	10.8	49.7
171.9	Aaron	96.2	7.4	7	6.5	33.4
141.9	Ott	77.2	6.5	6.5	6.3	28.2
125.0	Robinson, F	67.1	6.2	6.1	5.6	23.1
116.3	Kaline	59.8	7.1	6.5	5.6	23
106.5	Clemente	51.6	5.8	5.4	5.3	25.4
98.0	Jackson, R	46.2	7.7	6	4.5	22.5
96.0	Heilmann	42.7	7.9	5.4	4.8	25.4
94.8	Jackson, J	43.1	7.2	6.9	6	23.6
94.6	Waner, P	45.4	6.1	5.3	5.2	21.7
91.2	Walker, L	44.6	7.2	5.8	4.2	20.1
90.1	Sosa	39.4	9.6	4.6	4.5	25
85.5	Keeler	38	6.4	4.9	4.7	24.2
84.0	Smith, C	0				
82.7	Sheffield	40.7	5.8	5.1	4.2	18.7
82.4	Crawford	40.7	5.3	4	3.7	17.2
81.3	Gwynn	38.4	6	4.6	4.1	18.6
76.1	Flick	36.8	5.4	5	4.9	18.2
75.1	Smith, R.	38.6	4.4	3.9	3.8	16.2
71.7	Bonds, Bob	33.6	4.7	4.2	4.1	19.2
69.2	Kelly, K	33.2	7.3	3.6	3.5	19.2
68.5	Slaughter	26.2	5	3.2	2.8	11.9
66.1	Duffy	31.1	6.4	4.4	3.7	20.5
65.6	Winfield	29.1	6.4	3.8	3.3	16
63.1	Thompson	31.1	5.3	4.8	4.1	17.8
59.2	Cuyler	30.7	5.1	4.9	4.1	14.4
57.7	Klein	24.5	4.9	4.7	4.6	19
51.1	Youngs	21	5	4.9	3	17.2
48.1	Hooper	22.3	4.2	3.3	3.1	11.6
41.8	Rice, S	21.8	2.9	2.9	2.5	9.3
34.4	McCarthy, T	14	3.8	3	2.4	11.2

[jalbright]

Relief pitcher, DH, Utility

Edgar Martinez really belongs as a career DH (others at least arguably fit into a defensive positon), and Rose was all over the place in a way which placing him anywhere but "utility" had problems.

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
80.6	Eckersley	43.3	5.1	4.5	3.5	17.8
77.5	Gossage	41	7	5.8	4.5	19.2
61.4	Hiller	26	6.9	4.2	4.2	20.1
58.6	Sutter	25.6	6.3	4.7	4.5	17.5
56.9	Quisenberry	26	5.3	4.1	3.4	18.1
56.6	Wilhelm	35.9	4.7	2.9	2.5	10.6
55.2	Smith, L	30.3	4.5	3	3	14.4
48.9	Fingers	26.3	4.1	3.7	2.7	12.1
		0		.
DH		
86.1	Martinez, E	42.7	5.8	4.4	4.1	19.8
		0	.
UT			
89.2	Rose	41.5	6.5	4.5	4.5	21

[jalbright]

Shortstop

ttl2	Name…………	career	top1 	top2	top3	5 consec
189.1	Wagner	100.7	9.4	8.7	8.1	41.6
133.2	Lloyd	0				
115.7	Davis, G	61.7	6.4	5.3	4.9	23.2
113.8	Ripken	53.6	8.7	7.1	6.2	24.1
112.2	Vaughan	52.5	7.4	6.5	6	28.5
101.6	Yount	42.4	9.4	5.5	4.8	27.9
97.0	Banks	38.3	7.8	7.4	5.9	29.1
96.0	Appling	43.8	5.9	5	4.5	17.5
95.8	Dahlen	49.7	6.6	4.6	4.2	19.3
92.6	Reese	37.1	5	4.2	3.9	19.2
92.6	Jennings	36.6	7.7	7.6	7	33.7
89.4	Larkin, B	45.6	5.6	4.4	4.3	19.8
88.9	Trammell	42.7	6.5	4.8	4.6	21.1
87.4	Boudreau	38.8	8.8	5.6	5.4	23.3
85.7	Cronin	38.8	6.6	5.2	4.8	22.4
85.0	Cepeda, P	0				
84.0	Glasscock	39.7	5.8	5.5	5.3	21.3
80.0	Johnson, HR	0				
79.0	Smith, O	37.3	5.1	4.3	3.8	20
76.1	Wallace	37.2	6.5	3.7	3.6	16.2
75.0	Moore, D.	0				
73.5	Wells, W	0				
67.4	Rizzuto	25.9	5.3	4.1	3.1	15.9
66.9	Wright, G	23.1	4.5	4	3.5	17.3
62.2	Ward	30.5	5.8	3.4	2.6	11.3
61.0	Bancroft	28.7	6.2	4.4	4	17.7
58.3	Jackson, T	27.8	4.7	3.8	3.5	18.5
55.9	Tinker	29.9	5.5	2.9	2.6	15
47.8	Sewell	23.1	5.3	3.4	2.6	13.4
42.3	Aparicio	23.7	3.6	3.2	3.1	8.7
34.3	Maranville	16.4	3	2.7	2.5	9.7
0.0	Pearce	0

[jalbright]

General comments

I don't agree with every answer the system came up with, but I think it's reasonable. It's certainly better than my previous efforts. However, I think the decisions on in/out look reasonable even before we start looking at it closer, and the rankings overall and within positions are reasonable.

I still think the peaks of pre 60' 6" pitchers are a tad too high, and I'm sympathetic to pre 1890's hitters due to the shorter seasons, if they're close. Catchers might be a bit low, too. Relief pitchers aren't one of the system's great moments in terms of putting them with everyone else, but within the position, it does well, and it's not as far off as my prior efforts.

A couple of things I really like are the ability to evaluate pitchers and hitters together on the same scale, and the fact it does rather well in putting the 19th century guys into the mix without extra adjustments. I also think it does a nice job of putting all pitchers into the mix. My previous effort had a real problem with dealing with pitchers from different eras.

I'll comment more on specific cases later in this thread.

[jalbright]

Gooden and Kauff

There are at least two cases I'd like to highlight to discuss some other issues I've noticed with the system: Dwight Gooden and Benny Kauff.

First, Gooden. He looks fine on the surface, with only a failure to make 50 WAR as a demerit (70 total rating, 33 career, 16.7 top 3, and 20 best 5 consecutive). The problem is, his best year is 10 WAA, followed by 3.9 and 2.8. Neither of those latter two marks are what I want to see. Usually, a guy with that kind of 2nd and 3rd best has a WAA a bit below 5. If we gave him a 5 for that one year instead, the total rating becomes right on the borderline, and the rest below it. He deserves credit for that stellar season, no doubt, but I think in an unusual case like his, it gets too much credit.

Now, Kauff. Kauff looks a bit below the line with a sub 60 rating, hurt by a 22.2 career mark and failing to hit 50 WAR. The problem is his peaks are fueled by his two seasons in the weaker Federal League. Those two seasons are 6.9 and 6.5, and his best in the NL was 3.5. If we take just one and a half WAA away from each of those FL seasons, he's dead in the water across the board.

[jalbright]

I listed a rating for Joe Start, but perhaps I shouldn't have. He has too many years before 1871, which makes calculating his value a real crapshoot.

There are five guys I have no ratings for. Dickey Pearce is even tougher than Start because all but the very tail end of his career falls before 1871. Omar Linares is emblematic of the Castro-era Cubans. He was the best of them, but translating his accomplishments to the majors is something I have no confidence in right now. Will Jackman was one heck of a pitcher--people went just to see him pitch. I suspect he may well have been HOF-caliber, but even by Negro League standards, there's very little to go on. The other two are Sol White and Bill Monroe, deadball era (or before) Negro Leaguers who provide just a bit more data than Jackman, but present the same basic issue.

[jalbright]

Comments on the first basemen:

Keith Hernandez--The only real blemish is being one shy of the ideal mark on his best 5 consecutive seasons. That's not enough to disqualify him.

Frank Chance--Often ridiculed, but the only blemish by this method of studying him is a failure to exceed 50 WAR. He was also the player-manager of one of the most successful teams of its time. He belongs.

Will Clark--a close call, but I'd say he's in. He beats all the benchmarks, though not often by much. He's also the 23rd best 1B by this reckoning (though to get to 23 we've got Carew, Oh and Ochiai in the mix). It's enough.

John Olerud--The real question for me is do I draw the line between Clark and Olerud, or just below Olerud? Olerud's only blemish is having 29.9 career WAA by this method, and 30 is the benchmark. He makes all the other standards, though usually by close margins. He's the 24th 1B on the list, which is quite a few for one spot. He's a guy I'll treat as being right on the fence.

Rafael Palmeiro--Probably his biggest demerit doesn't show in this evaluation--it's the juicing plus the sanctimonious lying in front of Congress about it. Add to that the fact his peaks aren't what you want, what aid he got from the juicing to help him with the career marks and that even with all that he's only the 25th 1B, well, I don't find it too hard to say no to him.

Jake Beckley--Poor peaks and the 26th best 1B. Close but no cigar from me.

Norm Cash--His score and career mark are less than you'd like. He's the 27th 1B, and his 1961 season is 8.1 WAA, while his next best is 3.6. Without that flukish season, his case is pretty much in the toilet. I can't go for him.

Tony Perez--Tony can only beat the standards of WAR and best 5 consecutive, and just barely in both cases. When you're shy elsewhere and the 29th best 1B, that's not enough.

Orlando Cepeda--None of the five measures I use in this system work for him, and he's ranked below Perez. Pass.

[jalbright]

Second base

Dihigo—probably underrated a fair amount here. I had some work on his hitting, but none on his pitching. I am giving him a break by making him a 2B, but only a little one. His defensive rep is that he could play well defensively almost anywhere but possibly short. It’s hard to put a guy like that with speed at catcher, and the next most demanding defensive spot is second. I think that’s where he would have wound up in the majors. So it isn’t like rating him at second is a gift.

Childs—The only standard he didn’t hit is 50 WAR. That’s no reason to keep him out.

Randolph—His peak measures are subpar, but he’s good the rest of the way. He is the 20th 2B. Overall, he’s pretty much on the borderline.

Doerr—Subjectively, I’d put him ahead of Randolph. His WAR and career WAA are a bit short, but his wartime service is the main reason he didn’t make those marks IMHO. He’s 21st by this rating system, but the wartime service credit is intentionally conservative. His top three is below what you’d want by 1.1 WAA. That’s not enough to disqualify him.

Barnes—His peaks are excellent, and despite the short seasons, his career WAA is within 2.9 wins. Time and again, the weaker competition and the shorter seasons of the 19th century are very close to balancing out. If it was shown he exploited the fair/foul rule for a lot of his extra base hits before the rule changed, then I still might well change my tune on him. Without that evidence, though, I’ll cast my votes for his election, though not advocate it beyond that.

Fox—He just doesn’t make any of the standards of this system. It’s hard to support a guy under those circumstances.

[jalbright]

Third Base

Bando—He passes every standard and his total places him 11th among 3B. What’s not to like about that?

Buddy Bell—He also meets every standard, though just barely with his total of top 3 in WAA. His total places him 13th among 3B. Again, there’s lots of reasons to support him.

K. Boyer—He’s 0.4 wins short of the standard on his total WAA in his top 3 seasons, but otherwise he makes all the standards. His total places him 16th among 3B. He makes a strong case.

Nettles—He’s 0.8 wins short on his total WAA for his top 3 and 1.3 shy on his top five consecutive seasons in that measure. It’s still good enough for the 17th best total at 3B. The problem is that there are four other fairly contemporary 3B outside the Hall who I have ahead of him (Santo, Bando, Bell and Boyer), and that probably means he stays on the outside, unfair as that may be.

Darrell Evans—He’s behind Nettles and so has an even greater problem in terms of the guys in front of him than Nettles did. Add to it the fact he only meets the WAR and top 3 in WAA standards (though close everywhere else), and it’s tough to support his case.

Hack—His peaks aren’t what you’d like, but he made over 50 WAR, and is close on total score and career WAA. If he wasn’t the best major league 3B between Frank “Home Run” Baker and the guys who came after WW II, he wouldn’t have a case. I think there are two Negro Leaguers who would surpass him in Jud Wilson and Beckwith, and for that reason I think I’d pass.

Groh—Really only makes the standard of best five consecutive WAA, and just barely. He is the 20th best 3B—but Baker is enough of a contemporary to deny him that argument as well. I’ll pass.

Traynor—Played a long time and was a defensive wizard. Unfortunately with the bat he didn’t walk much nor demonstrate much power. That prevented him from reaching any of the standards the system sets. I can’t support that record.

Dandridge--Same basic model as Traynor, but transferred to the Negro Leagues. Same result in my book.

Tommy Leach--A guy I was once persuaded to support, but when the only benchmark he can top is 50 WAR, it's not enough.

[jalbright]

Catcher

One of the reasons I like this system is that overall, it captures the consensus of the regulars in the HOF forum of BBF quite well. That isn’t as true of the catcher ratings, though. Subjectively, I think Berra should be at least third and Campy fourth. Cochrane should be at the top of the bunch between Dickey and him, rather than the bottom, and Hartnett is too low. Now Campy’s rating is tough because of the Negro League years, and Cochrane is close to where he belongs. It’s not terrible, but it’s not the finest moment of the system. However, except for Hartnett, it’s quibbling over placement rather than the in/out call.

Historically, catchers have played less than those at other positions, so I did make an adjustment. Arguably, it wasn’t quite enough. I’d also use that adjustment to help explain shortfalls from the standards I suggest for other positions.

Tenace—He’s as much a catcher as anything, and he does pass the overall score test. The question is, should he be seen as a catcher? If not, he’s in trouble. He’s not a guy I’d stump for, but also not a guy I’d stand in the way of if he got close.

Torre—Were it not for his managing, Torre would present much the same issue as Tenace. Torre belongs one way or another, so he’s more likely to get my support (and that of others).

Hartnett—Even though he comes out rated in a way I subjectively think is too low, he’s still the 18th best catcher, and without the issues presented by Torre or Tenace. It’s easy to include him.

Bresnahan—He does well under this system, as it recognizes how much playing time catchers in his era lost. He’s the best catcher of his time, and this setup views him as the 19th best overall. He belongs.

Deacon White—He’s the 20th best catcher under this system, but I suspect he deserves a little more sympathy for being both in the 19th century and a catcher in his prime. I support him.

Bennett—He’s the 21st best catcher under this system, but with the same concerns as Deacon White but in a career catcher. I still support him.

Freehan—He’s the 22nd best catcher, and a little further behind the rest. I’d say he’s the kind of guy I’m on the fence about. That means I won’t stump for him, but if he’s close to making it, I probably won’t withhold my vote from him, either.

[jalbright]

Center field

Kenny Lofton—He makes every last one of the standards, and as a result comes in 13th among CF. That may be a bit high, but that subjective feeling isn’t enough to justify saying he doesn’t belong. Until or unless someone persuades me there are real reasons to keep him out, he’s got my support.

Jimmy Wynn—He too makes all the standards, and comes in 14th among CF. That wins me over to his case. I think the fact Win Shares makes him look worse in its system due to injuries and the like than WAA does is a key factor in that change of heart.

Cesar Cedeno—He makes all the standards. I think I prefer Gore to him, and the subjective view isn’t enough to keep me from casting a vote for him if he’s close. OTOH, I doubt I’ll stump for him as there are others ahead of him.

Gore—is only 0.5 shy in his total of his best 3 in WAA, and he missed 50 WAR by a little over 4 wins. His total score is a mere 0.5 shy as well. I think a little sympathy for the shorter seasons of 19th century guys solves at least the two really close calls, and that’s enough to put him over the top.

Hack Wilson—The system sees him as close but no cigar due to missing 50 WAR and the career WAA standards. I think the consensus agrees, and I’ll stick with that.

Edd Roush—He’s the 23rd best CF under the system, and short of all the standards. I can’t support that kind of record.

Pete Hill—It’s possible that further research will modify our view of him, but for now, I’ll pass.

Earl Averill—The only real way for me to go for him is to buy into giving him credit for his Pacific League play. He started late, and that is on him. I’m just not going there, and so he falls short for me.

Puckett—He doesn’t make any of the standards in this system, so I think you have to give him an enormous boost for having glaucoma. I wouldn’t do it for anyone else, and I won’t do it for him. I can’t support him.

Paul Hines--I had supported him in the past, but he doesn't make a single benchmark. Being a player in the early days doesn't cover that.

[jalbright]

Left Field

Wheat—He’s really a borderline candidate at best for this system. His overall score is a little low, and he’s the 23rd LF. He’s only 0.1 win short of the career WAA benchmark. His top three aren’t good enough, nor are his best five consecutive. The consensus in his favor isn’t enough for me to overrule all that.

O’Rourke—He comes in as the 24th LF. He’s a 19th century hitter, which might entitle him to a little bit of a break, and he did make 50 WAR and his career WAA are good enough. I think he’s a guy I won’t advocate, but if he’s on the edge of election, I’d give him the nod given that he’s done well with our voters before.

Stovey—He didn’t make 50 WAR, and his total of his top three in WAA is 0.4 short of the benchmark. Other than that, he makes the benchmarks. He’s got two competing extraneous issues, being a 19th century guy and playing in the generally regarded as weaker AA. He’s the 22nd LF, and I’d say given his support here at BBF before, I’d say he’s not one I’ll advocate, but if he’s on the edge of election, I’d give him the nod.

Billy Williams—The 25th LF, according to the system. The system doesn't like that Billy makes only one benchmark: over 50 WAR. His career WAA is 24.7, the benchmark is 30. His best five consecutive is 12.1, the benchmark is 17.5. The total of his top 3 in WAA is 13.2, the benchmark is 14. The total he had is 56.2 while the benchmark is 65. The system is saying he's a bit too much of a compiler (i.e., someone who hung around and had a lot of mediocre or slightly above average seasons). You may or may not accept that verdict, but that's what it's saying. I’ll go with that verdict.

J Rice—The closest he can come to making any of the benchmarks is 1.8 wins away from the top three total of WAA. He’s not close in my book.

[jalbright]

Right Fielders

Larry Walker—Despite Coors, he comes in as the 12th best RF, and meets all the benchmarks. I’ve got to support someone with that profile.

Chino Smith—He was a monster for only six years. I wouldn’t trust the guys in charge of the Hall with making an exception for Chino, but when it comes to our voters, I will.

Reggie Smith—His peak marks are less than what you’d want, but he did well on the career marks, so much so that his overall score is favorable. He’s the kind of guy I won’t advocate, but if he’s on the verge of election, he’s got my vote.

Bobby Bonds—His only failure is missing the top three seasons in WAA by 1 win. He’s the 20th RF under this system. That’s a case I will support.

Sam Thompson—He meets the career and peak WAA benchmarks, but not by a lot in any one of the three cases. He’s 3.3 wins short of 50 WAR, and his overall score is 1.9 shy. He is a 19th century guy, which probably works in his favor. He’s the 25th RF under the system, which hurts. I’d say he’s one of those guys I won’t advocate, but I would give a vote for to put over the top.

[jalbright]

Relief Pitcher, DH]

John Hiller—Under the relief pitcher adjustment, he comes in third. It’s not by a great distance over Quisenberry, Wilhelm, or Sutter, and I think all three of those have better support. I’ll respect the consensus in this case.

Lee Smith—He’s just below Wilhelm, but I don’t think the consensus is that he’s particularly close to Wilhelm. I’ll go with the consensus here as well.

Edgar Martinez—He really is a DH rather than any defensive position, so I went with that. He meets all the benchmarks, generally by good margins. I’ve got to support that kind of record.

[jalbright]

Shortstop

Rizzuto—He really got hurt by wartime service. He lost three prime years, and as it is, he’s not his peaks are a little off 1.5 in the top 3 category, and 1.6 in his best 5 consecutive. I don’t think it’s a great stretch to think he could have improved his marks by that much had he had those prime years. Of course, it’s not guaranteed that he would have. He’s within 8.2 of 50 WAR without those three years, and I’m confident he would have easily bested that. He’s only 4.1 wins shy on his career WAA, and again, had he had those three years, I think he makes it. It does require a bit of a leap of faith, but if Rizzuto doesn’t deserve it solely as a player, his play (taking into account his wartime service) plus his long broadcasting career means he deserves his spot in the Hall at least as a contributor IMHO.

George Wright—Figuring out how to handle his pre 1871 seasons is a headache, and I think it’s likely he’s a little underrated as a result. He had to contend with the shorter seasons, and still he winds up darned close. I think he belongs.

John Ward—The fact his career involves both significant pitching and position play elements before the 60’ 6” pitching distance era really makes it a mess to figure him out. The pitching probably is overrated and the position play underrated. It’s anyone’s guess how it balances out. I will say this, he’s close in this rendition, and if he’s not solely good enough as a player, he was such a force in the business side of the game he clearly belongs on that basis. If folks prefer he go in as a contributor rather than as a player, I can’t argue too much.

Bancroft—If there weren’t so many shortstops in front of him (I count 25 in this evaluation), he would be close enough to make it. But he’s a little short in all but top five consecutive, and the combination is enough to leave him out as far as I’m concerned.

Sewell—He fails to meet the benchmark in every category, and that’s definitely enough to leave him out for me.

Jennings--The only benchmark he doesn't surpass is 50 WAR, and the rest are often excellent. He belongs.

[jalbright]

Starting Pitchers, Part I

There are so many starting pitchers to comment on that I’ll break them into two groups.

One thing that has to be clear is that I’m putting in a pitcher’s hitting (if he came to the plate), so differences in offensive production among pitchers do count.

I don’t necessarily buy the rating of Joe Williams over Satchel Paige, but both clearly belong.

Bob Caruthers is overrated here despite the downward peak adjustments for pitchers before the 60’ 6” distance. That said, he’s so far over the benchmarks that you’d have to ridiculously discount his achievements to knock him out of the ranks of the qualified.

Mike Mussina passes every benchmark, and did so at a high enough level to be the 30th ranked starter. That’s makes him clearly qualified in my book.

Kevin Brown passes every benchmark and is ranked as the #35 starter—but he has the steroid boogeyman at his doorstep. I think I’d vote for Kevin if he got enough support to make a serious run at getting in.

Curt Schilling also passes every benchmark, and is ranked as the #39 starter. I have never liked his mouth, but I have loved watching him pitch. He belongs.

Charlie Buffinton passes every benchmark and is rated as the #41 starter. I think he’s still too high because he’s a pre 60’ 6” pitcher, but the question is whether he should be discounted so much as to knock him out of the running. My gut says no, but unless he makes a serious run at election here, I won’t be put to that test.

Rick Reuschel passes every benchmark and is the #44 ranked starter. I may not push his candidacy hard, but if it looks like he can draw some serious support, I’ll join in.

Silver King has the same qualifications at a lower level than Buffinton, and comes from that pre 60’ 6” era, so the question about him is the same. I’ll take basically the same approach with him, only to note that if he gets support, I’ll point out Buffinton is better.

Dave Stieb passed all the benchmarks and is the #52 ranked starter. He’s basically got the same arguments Reuschel does, but at least on the surface he looks better. I’m not convinced the initial impression holds up under closer scrutiny, though. The approach I’ll take to him is the same as I will take with Reuschel.

John Smoltz is a little shy on the peak performances (2.6 wins on his total of his best 3 in WAA and 1.2 short in his best five consecutive) I think he more than makes up for it with his performances in the career marks (career WAR and career WAA), and his total score reflects that. I’ll vote for him when the time comes.

David Cone is a bit shy (0.6 wins) of the benchmark for best five consecutive in WAA, but otherwise he hits all the marks. He’s the #57 starter, and overall that’s enough to get my support if others will join in.

Bret Saberhagen and Frank Tanana meet all the benchmarks, and I’ll support both if they draw significant support.

Tiant’s peak performances are not quite what you’d like, 0.6 shy of the best 3 WAA benchmark and another 0.6 shy of the best 5 consecutive benchmark. He does quite well in the career level, and that pushes his overall total well over the benchmark as well. I think he’s a guy I won’t push, but if he’s got a real chance of election, he’s got my vote.

Tony Mullane is another pre 60’ 6” guy. However, after the adjustment, his peaks are below the benchmarks. He does well on the career marks, and I suspect I’d give him the same kind of treatment I’ll give Tiant.

[jalbright]

Hershiser makes every benchmark and is the #63 ranked starter. If he gets support from others, he’ll get it from me as well.

Chuck Finley is the #64 ranked starter, and makes every benchmark but the best five consecutive, which he misses by a mere 0.2 wins. If he can draw support from elsewhere, he’ll get it from me.

Al Spalding is a pre 60’ 6” pitcher who is rather close to the borderline per the ranking system. He had a significant role beyond playing that qualifies him for the HOF, and I think I prefer to put him in that way.

Stan Coveleski, Burleigh Grimes and Eppa Rixey fail to meet any of the standards, and for that reason will not get my support.

Jim McCormick makes the career and 50 WAR benchmarks, and his overall score is 66, which would generally be good enough. His peaks are already below the mark because he’s a pre 60’ 6” distance pitcher—and that fact means those already weak peaks are likely still too high. Take some more away from the peaks, and his overall score dips below where I want it. That’s enough for me to withhold my vote.

Pud Galvin—He’s the #83 ranked starter, and I’d like to cut it off at 80. The only standard he meets is 50 WAR—and he’s a pre 60’ 6” guy. Add to that he had a fluky best season which was 5.8 WAA better than his second best (8.9 to 3.1), and it’s easy to pass on him.

Dizzy Dean—His peaks are sufficient, his overall ranking is 74th but 0.9 shy of the 65 I’d like to see. He misses 50 WAR and the career WAA mark. I won’t get out in front for him, but given his renown and the fact the consensus about him is favorable, I’ll give him a vote if he’s on the verge of election. If you take his case to the contributor category, he definitely belongs for being so close as a player combined with a long and noteworthy broadcasting career.

Whitey Ford—Stengel consistently put him up against the best teams, which screws up most rating systems, which assume a fairly even distribution of opposition. Even so, he surpassed 50 WAR and the career WAA benchmarks. I think his less impressive peaks are largely a function of this usage pattern, and that in turn is why he’s only ranked 75th and is 1.7 points shy of what I’d like to see in the overall category. He gets my support.

Ted Lyons—His peaks are not what I want to see, but the rest of the package is good enough to place him 71st while meeting the other benchmarks. I’ll vote for him.

Bob Lemon—He makes all the benchmarks which comprise the overall score, but by such thin margins that his overall score is 0.1 shy of the benchmark (but ranks 72nd among starting pitchers). That’s good enough for me.

Joe McGinnity—His peak marks are good, he beat 50 WAR (barely), but his career WAA and overall scores are under the benchmarks (the latter not by much). He’s well regarded, so I’ll give him my vote.

Rube Waddell—He’d be over 50 WAR if it were not for his bat, his peaks are good, and he’s close overall. He’s fairly well regarded, which is just enough to get him my vote.

Red Faber—He did exceed 50 WAR and limped 0.2 over the top 3 benchmark because his third best season in WAA was a relatively paltry (by HOF standards) 1.9. The rest of his case isn’t there, and the fact he really didn’t have a great peak dooms his candidacy for me.

Vic Willis—He basically reprises the Faber case, but with a more normal distribution of scores for his top three seasons. I’ll pass on him, too.

Don Sutton—His peaks are quite low for a HOF candidate, and the only benchmark he meets is 50 WAR. That’s not enough for me.

Mickey Welch—His top three are good enough and he had over 50 WAR. He didn’t do well enough in the other categories, and he is a guy who predates the 60’ 6” era. Not enough for me.

Hilton Smith—He had an odd usage pattern of often cleaning up what Paige started due to the economic imperatives of Negro League ball. Also, he could hit for a pitcher, being credited by Shadows of Glory with career .294/.311/.397 marks. As my method puts him right around the borderline without accounting for these two factors, I think he belongs in as both work against him.

[jalbright]

Al Spalding and Clark Griffith[/B] are pre 60’ 6” pitchers who are rather close to the borderline per the ranking system. Both had significant roles beyond playing that qualify them for the HOF, and I think I prefer to put them in that way.

Beady made this correction:

Actually, Griffith pitched virtually his entire career, and all his significant seasons, at sixty-feet-six.

I've edited Griffith out of the quote, and now I'm going with this on Griffith:

Rather close to the borderline per the ranking system. He had a significant role beyond playing that qualifies him for the HOF, and I think I prefer to put him in that way