Dick Bartell, SS (1927-1943, 1946) - 1st Year
Wally Berger, CF (1930-1940) - 7th Year
Jim Bottomley, 1B (1922-1937) - 10th Year
Tommy Bridges, SP (1930-1943, 1945-1946) - 1st Year
Mace Brown, RP (1935-1943, 1946) - 1st Year
Ben Chapman, CF/RF (1930-1946) - 1st Year
Harlond Clift, 3B (1934-1945) - 2nd Year
Earle Combs, CF (1924-1935) - 12th Year
Kiki Cuyler, RF (1918-1938) - 9th Year
Babe Dahlgren, 1B (1935-1946) - 1st Year
Curt Davis, SP (1934-1946) - 1st Year
Paul Derringer, SP (1931-1945) - 2nd Year
Bill Dickey, C (1928-1943, 1946) - 1st Year
Vince DiMaggio, CF (1937-1946) - 1st Year
Leo Durocher, SS (1928-1943, 1945) - 2nd Year
Wes Ferrell, SP (1927-1941) - 6th Year
Rick Ferrell, C (1929-1945, 1947) - 2nd Year
Lefty Gomez, SP (1930-1943) - 4th Year
Burleigh Grimes, SP (1916-1934) - 13th Year
Babe Herman, RF (1926-1937, 1945) - 10th Year
Pinky Higgins, 3B (1930, 1933-1944, 1946) - 1st Year
Bob Johnson, LF (1933-1945) - 2nd Year
Chuck Klein, RF (1928-1944) - 3rd Year
Red Kress, SS (1927-1936, 1938-1940, 1946) - 1st Year
Tony Lazzeri, 2B (1926-1939) - 7th Year
Heinie Manush, LF (1922-1939) - 7th Year
Rabbit Maranville, SS (1912-1933, 1935) - 14th Year
Pepper Martin, CF/RF (1928, 1930-1940, 1944) - 3rd Year
Buddy Myer, 2B (1925-1941) - 6th Year
Sam Rice, RF (1915-1935) - 13th Year
Eppa Rixey, SP (1912-1917, 1919-1933) - 14th Year
Red Ruffing, SP (1924-1942, 1945-1947) - 2nd Year
Mike Ryba, RP (1935-1938, 1941-1946) - 1st Year
Hal Schumacher, SP (1931-1942, 1946) - 1st Year
Hal Trosky, 1B (1933-1941, 1944, 1946) - 1st Year
Lloyd Waner, RF (1926-1945) - 2nd Year
Lon Warneke, SP (1930-1945, 1945) - 2nd Year
Hack Wilson, CF (1923-1934) - 13th Year
None of the Above (Blank Ballot)
Matt, here is my point.
I think to make the HOF, it HAS to be ok to be closer to Ron Santo in ability than Babe Ruth.
The average pitcher among the next ten starting pitchers to make the HOF will be closer to Bert Blyleven in ability than Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove.
And that HAS to be OK.
And when I vote for Harlond Clift, it is because I think he is good enough, not because he is a hair below Mike Schmidt.
And Rabbit is over-rated by enough other people. He does not need my vote to be over-over-rated.
I agree with you JDD...the problem, as I see it, is that you're either badly underrating Ron Santo when you make these comparisons, or there are a lot of players you're overrating if you think they're on par with Santo...I just don't see how Harlond Clift even remotely compared to Ron Santo.
Yes, I know he's not on the board yet, but JDD is the one making that comparison.
Second election in a row that I made a mistake. Please add a vote for Bill Dickey. Forgot the check him on the ballot. Think it's time I get my eyes checked or something. Geesh
Last edited by Sockeye; 06-13-2009 at 10:00 PM.
"A ballplayer has to just go out and be mean. You can't play half-heartedly. If you do, there's someone right over your shoulder that'll take your job away. If you don't do your job, what they're paying you for, why should they pay you? You just can't put in eight hours, that's what a lot of people don't realize about athletes. Very few people realize the pressure." Dave Kingman
Some may over-rate Santo, because he is a SABR darling and it is fashionable to do so.
That said, using as many vague terms as possible, I can state the following:
"Many" think Santo should be in the HOF.
"Some" present HOFers are considered by "some" "experts" to be even less worthy than a player with Santo's resume. Meaning if Santo gets in one day, he won't be the worst non-pitcher there.
If that is the case, and if "some" consider that to be reasonable, then a "few" fans who like doing what we do here at this site may wish to use Santo as some sort benchmark for consideration. The leap some would take is this... if you are close to Santo, you are close to the HOF, because well, he is. It gets tricky if you make the line of dominoes too long because you lose your comps.
I say there are more players close to Santo's ability and record than you think. I don't overrate him. I don't think very many do. I think we have him pegged about right (very good for a decent amount of time and great during those seasons he was leading the league in walks while slugging .500). It is my opinion people talk him up just to join the HOF conversation, and in doing so overrate him in the process.
So if he is borderline, then I maintain if you rate him correctly, then there are a lot more borderline candidates than you think. I choose to vote for almost all of them, because many don't vote for any. They rank Santo too high, and thereby push the actual HOFers even higher. Which is odd because some don't belong in the first place, right?
That's why I vote for 15 in these little polls. Someone has to vote for the borderline candidates. That is what makes them borderline. Some say yea, some nay.
duplicate post, sorry.
Last edited by SavoyBG; 06-13-2009 at 10:35 PM.
I do have a conduct policy here now, so let's stop the negativity that I saw earlier. Don't make me regret taking over this project because I'll put this on hiatus again if I have to. Keep this on baseball discussion and stop with the personal attacks.
There's a decent argument for Harlond Clift and I cast a vote for him. He'll likely lose it once Stan Hack is on the ballot.
Last edited by Ace Venom; 06-13-2009 at 11:30 PM.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
Ruffing's career:Code:Yr Wins DIO PCABA 1916 0.77 135 0.281 1917 0.41 581 0.231 1918 4.78 776 0.286 1919 2.01 550 0.260 1920 10.25 893 0.339 1921 10.16 917 0.335 1922 0.39 810 0.228 1923 5.10 989 0.276 1924 2.07 949 0.246 1925 1.22 760 0.240 1926 3.14 670 0.271 1927 4.01 775 0.276 1928 8.16 954 0.310 1929 4.66 687 0.292 1930 4.16 466 0.314 1930 -0.29 159 0.205 1931 2.83 640 0.268 1932 0.08 433 0.225 1933 -0.10 41 0.199 1933 0.37 202 0.242 1934 0.39 20 0.421 1934 0.14 87 0.240 1934 -0.07 56 0.211Ruffing has a career PCA-BA of .287 to Grimes' .275.Code:Yr Wins DIO PCABA 1924 0.05 73 0.230 1925 2.39 660 0.260 1926 2.42 492 0.273 1927 1.9 472 0.264 1928 4.17 867 0.272 1929 1.06 746 0.238 1930 3.09 595 0.276 1930 0.02 78 0.226 1931 3.82 712 0.278 1932 7.7 756 0.326 1933 5.34 699 0.301 1934 4.87 747 0.289 1935 4.75 634 0.299 1936 6.06 795 0.300 1937 6.69 753 0.313 1938 7.61 738 0.328 1939 3.72 676 0.279 1940 3.82 661 0.282 1941 3.5 543 0.288 1942 3.46 573 0.284 1945 1.84 260 0.295 1946 2.76 166 0.391 1947 -0.12 161 0.216
Ruffing amassed 102.4 pitching marker points to Grimes' 71.2
Ruffing's peak was a little less impressive at the top but lasted one hell of a lot longer at a high level of performance.
GrimesRuffingCode:Yr Wins DIO PCABA 1920 10.25 893 0.339 1921 10.16 917 0.335 1928 8.16 954 0.310 1923 5.10 989 0.276 1918 4.78 776 0.286 1929 4.66 687 0.292 1930 4.16 466 0.314 1927 4.01 775 0.276
Ruffing's career:Grimes is clearly better in just looking at each player's top 8 seasons. Ruffing wins the PCA battle based on having 9 pretty good years to Grimes only having 4 pretty good years, to go along with each player's reall good years.Code:Yr Wins DIO PCABA 1932 7.7 756 0.326 1938 7.61 738 0.328 1937 6.69 753 0.313 1936 6.06 795 0.300 1933 5.34 699 0.301 1934 4.87 747 0.289 1935 4.75 634 0.299 1928 4.17 867 0.272
Win shares makes both pitchers pretty even as Ruffing has better career value, but Grimes kills Red in peak value.
Ruffing - 322
Grimes - 286
BEST THREE SEASONS
Ruffing - 27, 25, 24
Grimes - 32, 30, 29
You might prefer the extra career value, and even I think that Ruffing was a bit better than Grimes, but I still don't think you can say that it's "ludicrous" to vote for Grimes.
The HOF Marker puts a lot more emphasis on the peak than it does on the string of "pretty good" seasons as you put it. Grimes is getting a lot of value back for having a better peak that Ruffing can't touch...but Ruffing still flat out blows Grimes away in total Marker score...I think it's more important to be a very good player and hold that level for a long time than it is to have a better 3-year peak...even though my system puts extra added emphasis on the peak.
It's certainly not "ludicrous" to believe that Grimes is a hall of famer. Bill James ranks Grimes above Lefty Gomez, Clark Griffith, Urban Shocker, Addie Joss, Tony Mullane, among others that I don't think you would say were "ludicrous" hall of fame choices.
Bill James' evaluation of pitchers is famously screwed up because he completely failed to consider defense independent evaluation techniques.
BTW...the career values of those pitchers you mentioned:
I just cannot agree with James on Grimes' position...I was too harsh in my wording however, at least as it refers to Grimes...he shouldn't have been on my "ludicrous" list...there is at least a strong traditional case to be made for his being a HOFer. So I understand his being chosen more than a number of others (Rick Ferrell?? Really?? Did that guy JDD mean Wes just like the idiots on the BBWAA who accidentally voted for the wrong Ferrell?)...but he's not making my cut.
You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates...in other words...like our hundreds of attempts to find clutch hitting...we can't find clutch pitching either...which leads me to believe that is not a repeatable skill or if it is a skill...it's a very small magnitude of influence), team defense, and strength of schedule.
Lately, if I'm away from this thread about half a day, I'm coming back to see either personal attacks or at least nasty backbiting and squabbling. It doesn't become any of you who participate in it, and if someone irritates you, I strongly suggest use of the "ignore" feature. If this keeps up, I'm soon going to have to start handing out suspensions, and, rest assured, I will do so. I hope that will not be necessary and that this will prove a word to the wise.
Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.
Here's the problem with DIPS in this case. You've got two pitchers who each threw over 4,000 innings:
Ruffing - 4344
Grimes - 4179
with almost the same career ERA+
Ruffing - 109
Grimes - 107
With Grimes having the clearly better peak:
BEST 5 ERA+ YEARS
Ruffing - 149, 149, 137, 132, 131
Grimes - 166, 152, 144, 138, 136
Grimes was a very good hitting pitcher, Ruffing was an excellent hitting pitcher. I've already gone through the win share totals.
You take everything into account I think you have to rank Ruffing ahead of Grimes, but not by all that much, certainly not anywhere near as much as PCA says.
The problem with DIPS is that instead of going by what DID HAPPEN, you are now going by the DIPS speculation of WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
DIPS is telling us that the ERA+ numbers of 109 and 107 are not where each pitcher SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they had had the same environment for their careers. So DIPS is saying that Ruffing, who played for the greatest dynasty in the sport's history, had worse fielding behind him than Grimes, who played for bad teams for most of his career.
Grimes - 270-212 ERA+ 107
Ruffing - 273-225 ERA+ 109
Something has to be wrong with a system that has Ruffing with 50% more career value than Grimes.
Last edited by SavoyBG; 06-14-2009 at 07:49 AM.
I see stats all the time where a pitcher allows a significantly lower batting average (and OBP) with runners in scoring position, even over the course of several seasons. Even if he can get out 70% of the time instead of just 67% of the time, that can prevent a lot of runs over the course of a season.
You yourself showed that the DIPS-based PCA win totals look very similar to James' win share totals...the system shows Grimes with the superior peak, Ruffing with the superior career win total and slightly superior rate stats (109 to 107 ERA+ is not as insignificant of a difference as you let on in this post...it's close, but not a tie). The career WIN VALUE generated by PCA places Ruffing ahead of Grimes by score of 80.9 pitching wins to 64.6 pitching wins. (Win Shares has the tally at 107 1/3 wins to 98 1/3 wins...so the ratio gap is slightly smaller but not by a huge margin)
The difference in HOF Marker value is caused by PCA's strong emphasis on the need to be above average for as long as possible. If you look at the bottom half of Grimes' career vs. the bottom half of Ruffing's career, you'll see why the ratio between Grimes and Ruffing gets larger...the Marker system is penalizing Grimes for having so many below average seasons, including a few that were EXTREMELY poor...while rewarding Ruffing for having very few such clunkers by comparison.
And While Hack was probably the better player (where are the homers?), I think there is room for both in the HOF.
If Harlond had played a little longer, it would be a better comp but what else could I ask for when I have same position and same era? Same League?
OK...I have to hear this...what is you argument for Clift?
He lasted barely long enough to qualify for the hall, his OPS+ is 116...which would be nice for a guy with a 20 year career, but not for a guy with half that longevity, and his fielding reputation and statistical record are solid but unspectacular. So make your case...I'm eager to listen. It's not like his one lost season in 1944 is going to make much of a difference...
Here's his PCA player card FWIW:Code:Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins 1938 AL 9.29 1.75 14.4 1.7 11.04 1937 AL 8.12 1.91 11.9 1.9 10.03 1940 AL 7.00 2.62 10.0 3.5 9.62 1942 AL 7.12 2.24 10.1 2.8 9.36 1936 AL 8.06 0.50 11.7 -0.8 8.56 1939 AL 6.62 1.39 9.1 1.0 8.01 1941 AL 5.47 2.30 6.5 2.8 7.77 1934 AL 4.53 0.95 4.9 0.1 5.48 1935 AL 4.85 0.61 6.1 -0.4 5.46 1945 AL 3.79 1.15 4.7 1.0 4.94 1943 AL 2.73 1.79 2.5 2.1 4.52
Last edited by SABR Matt; 06-14-2009 at 09:18 AM.
Okay, so when you say "PCA's strong emphasis," what you actually mean is "SABR Matt's" arbitrary decision to place more importance on being above average for as long as possible. You (not the system) have made a subjective decision to put more weight on that aspect.
And this decision on your part goes against what your system emphasises, which is actual value rather than value in consecutive years, or peak value. If you believe that value in consecutive years is totally irrelevant, than I would think that you would also believe that a value that went something like this...
+ 6.7, + 7.1, - .9, + 8.3, + 4.3, - 2.1
would be just as good as a value that went like this...
+ 3.8, + 4.1, + 2.7, + 4.1 + 4.8 + 3.9
since both groups add up to a value of 23.4
But I am glad that you have now explaned this "HOF marker" thing. Your system actually ranks both players about where they should be, but your totally subjective decision as to how the HOF Marker should work is what makes Ruffing rank so much higher than Grimes.
Last edited by SavoyBG; 06-14-2009 at 10:12 AM.
Last edited by Second Base Coach; 06-14-2009 at 11:49 AM.