Circle of Greats: 1965 Ballot

147 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion of the fourth round of voting for the Circle of Greats, which adds players born in 1965. Rules and lists are after the jump.

As always, each ballot must include three and only three eligible players. The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots cast win four future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots, but less than 50%, earn two years of extended eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances (or who appear on at least 10% of the ballots) wins one additional round of ballot eligibility. Note that this round I’ve reduced the percentage required to stay eligible (below the top 9) for another round from 20% to 10%. Thus far we have enough voters participating that the 10% level does indicate a meaningful level of interest in a player, so I think we can reasonably drop the survival percentage to 10%.

All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EST on Saturday, January 12, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Thursday, January 10.

If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: 1965 COG Vote Tally . I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover players; additional player columns from the born-in-1965 group will be added as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The holdovers are listed in order of year through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the eligibility year is the same. The 1965 birth year guys are listed in order of the number of seasons they played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.

Holdovers:
Frank Thomas (eligible through 1956 vote)
John Smoltz (1962)
Tom Glavine (1964)
Mike Mussina (1964)
Curt Schilling (1964)
Roberto Alomar (1965)
Kenny Lofton (1965)
Larry Walker (1965)

Everyday Players (born in 1965, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues):
Craig Biggio
Benito Santiago
Ruben Sierra
Steve Finley
Jay Bell
Matt Williams
Ron Gant
Todd Zeile
Greg Vaughn
Mike Bordick
Charlie Hayes
Luis Alicea
Mike Benjamin
Jeff Blauser
Rob Ducey
Glenallen Hill
Kirt Manwaring
Hal Morris
Joe Oliver
Luis Sojo
Lenny Webster
Geronimo Berroa
Mike Blowers
Joey Cora
Felix Jose
Manuel Lee
Mark Lemke
Paul Sorrento
Turner Ward
Chris Hoiles
Jerome Walton

Pitchers:(born in 1965, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues)
Kevin Brown
Al Leiter
Greg Swindell
Mark Guthrie
Buddy Groom
Ken Hill
Steve Reed
Jose Rijo
Todd Stottlemyre
Willie Blair
Mike Magnante
Mike Munoz
John Smiley
Erik Hanson
Gil Heredia
Xavier Hernandez

0 0 votes

Article Rating

147 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Mike

11 years ago

Frank Thomas
John Smoltz
Tom Glavine

The only 1965 players to even make me pause were Kevin Brown & Mike Benjamin. (Just kidding about Benjamin, but he did have a HOF week once)

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Mike

Not even a pause for Biggio?

T-Bone

11 years ago

Glavine, Biggio, Frank Thomas

cubbies

11 years ago

thomas, schilling, mussina

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Mussina, Schilling, Thomas.

I consider many others deserving and hope they don’t fall off.

koma

11 years ago

Craig Biggio, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine

MikeD

11 years ago

In the dead hour I will cast my vote, remaining true to my picks the first few rounds: Alomar, Mussina and Frank Thomas.

Tom

11 years ago

Thomas, Mussina, Schilling

Editor

Doug

11 years ago

Thomas, Biggio, Mussina

latefortheparty

11 years ago

Larry Walker, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina. I hope Craig Biggio and Kevin Brown get enough votes to stick around for a little while.

bstar

11 years ago

Thomas, Glavine, Schilling

Nick Pain

11 years ago

Michael Cole Mussina, Curtis Montague Schilling, Larry Kenneth Robert Walker. As a side, I did not know that Larry Walker had a nickname of Booger. He certainly makes my Revenge of the Nerds All-Star team.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to Nick Pain

To truly Hock a loogie, one must retrieve the phlegm not only from
the stomach, but from the soul.

This round should be very interesting.

Only Kevin Brown and Craig Biggio make me think.

Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina and John Smoltz.

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Nick Pain

How the hell can you pick Walker of Thomas?

Michael Sullivan

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

Thomas has 16 years on the ballot. It’s reasonable to vote for someone you think belongs but less than in order to keep them on the ballot for a bit. that said, I’m giving up on Walker and Lofton — too many here cannot see their greatness and they will never make it. Plus, for this much smaller hall, they really are borderline. I’m looking at the level of support and trying to push guys that look like they have a shot here but aren’t certain yet very clearly belong, like Mussina or Schilling. Thomas looks like getting in, and… Read more »

oneblankspace

11 years ago

CBiggio, KBrown, FThomas

oneblankspace

11 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Biggio : Doubles, versatility
Thomas : consecutive MVPs on division-leading teams (’93-94)
Brown : Dominant in his era, with the bonus that I actually saw him pitch at the ballpark (LaRussa left the Cardinal starter in a little too long that night)

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Not to just vote for the same people over and over again, but:

Curt Schilling
Frank Thomas
Mike Mussina

Even if none of these guys gets in, one of my votes will change next round due to one of the 1964 candidates. The other two will remain the same, however.

Jeff Harris

11 years ago

Thomas, Glavine, Smoltz

John Z

11 years ago

This early in the voting procedure and the “Big Hurt” has already had a few people not vote for him on arguably the weakest round/year so far. I like Biggio for his 3000 hits and versatility in the field (Catcher/2B/OF) but not enough to include him in this round, Kevin Brown was nice, but not nice enough to warrant any real votes here, while pitchers like Glavine, Smotlz, Mussina and Schilling are still hold overs. My 65′ Ballot looks like this, and I am happy to believe that Mr. Thomas will join his brethren in the “Circle of Greats”: Thomas… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to John Z

John Z – Count me among those who will not be voting for the Big Hurt. Personally I’ve been a bit surprised by his level of support in our votes. It’s not that he wasn’t a great player. And he obviously belongs in the real HOF. But when we can only vote for three people and there are many quality candidates on the ballot, I can’t bring myself to vote for someone who was completely one-dimensional, no matter how good he was at that dimension. Had he been an average fielder or an average baserunner that would change things for… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

I don’t know that I’d consider hitting .350 with power and drawing a ton of walks one-dimensional. Having a career 156 OPS+ is really a combination of several batting skills: high average, power, and great patience.

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Definitely Bstar. Obviously it depends on your definition of one-dimensional. In Thomas’ case all of his skills are batting related so in my opinion there are part of the same dimension. But that’s my perspective and others may have a different perspective.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Every time I saw the Big Hurt in the batter’s box, he looked distinctly three-dimensional. Definitely among the most voluminous players ever. 🙂

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

John: Were you wearing those special 3D glasses?:-)

John Z

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

I concur Ed, his fielding was abysmal and his speed, well he did not really have any did he. But It can be argued that Frank was one of the tops in the majors during his first decade. I would argue he was as valuable as A-rod and more valuable then Bonds, McGwire and even Clemens in the decade of the 90’s. He was paid to wear a bat on his shoulder and that is what he did best, irregardless of what he lacked in other aspects of his game.

Mike L

11 years ago

Reply to John Z

John A, you meant “irrespective” or “regardless”?

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Mike L, you meant “John Z”? 🙂

Mike L

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

I did, John A. Clearly, from A to Z I erred.

kds

11 years ago

Reply to John Z

For his career, the Big Hurt was +690 Rbat (about #14 overall), and -308 for baserunning, avoiding the DP, (mis-)fielding his position, and the position adj for !B and DH. I think this is probably the worst ever in history. (Sheffield is -304.) In the 90’s his bat was just behind Bonds’ in value, but all the other stuff means that in total it was not close. All those runs he cost outside the batter’s box are each as important as the batting runs he added. Bagwell was a better player over the 90’s and for his career, because he… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to kds

Kds – I agree with most of what you wrote. Except, in my opinion, the penalty for being a DH isn’t strong enough. I’m not really sure how they derive these sort of things but when Thomas was a full-time first baseman, his combined Rfield and Rpos was about -18 to -20. After moving to DH has position adjustment was about -14 or -15. So it seems to me that in terms of WAR he definitely benefited from moving to DH in a way that doesn’t really seem fair. Had he been forced to stay at first base the way… Read more »

kds

11 years ago

Reply to kds

Ed, The positional adjustment for DH started as 10 runs worse than 1B But it was cut to 5 to reflect the fact that on average players hit worse when DH than when playing the field. The pinch hitting penalty is bigger per PA than the DH penalty, but I don’t know if they make an allowance for that in figuring the positional adj. for PH’s. I may well agree with you that -10 is more appropriate. I agree that FT2 was more a DH than a 1B, though much of his value was earlier in his career when he… Read more »

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to kds

I think it’s entirely accurate that his value as a DH is higher than as a 1B. He was such a terrible first basemen that the DH spot added value to him. That’s what the stats should do. If the stats had him equally valuable at 1B and DH, I would criticize them. Somebody has to play DH. If you have Frank Thomas on your team, that’s an easy decision.

11 years ago

Very close, a lot of great players, and reading above it appears no one’s a lock: Thomas, Mussina, Glavine. If I had a 4th vote I suppose I’d have to take Schilling, who has a slight edge as the best pitcher in the group IMO.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

The link to the vote tally spreadsheet should now be open. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AklDUJiangSrdDZkZ2RQVUd1RGlrRWpaMUl2RFdpb3c#gid=0

The Diamond King

11 years ago

Frank Thomas
John Smoltz
Tom Glavine

11 years ago

Alomar, Biggio, Mussina.

Hub Kid

11 years ago

Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio, and Kevin Brown.

11 years ago

Biggio Glavine Mussina

11 years ago

Frank Thomas, Kevin Brown, Craig Biggio

Mike L

11 years ago

Thomas, Glavine, and Mussina. It’s really becoming a minefield of very close calls.

JamesS

11 years ago

Thomas, Biggio, Glavine

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

The most interesting race here might turn out to be among Lofton, Alomar, Walker and Kevin Brown to see who gets dropped. From the early returns it seems one of those four guys is likely to fall out of eligibility. It is conceivable that the voting could result in all four surviving, either if there is a tie for ninth or if somebody like Smoltz, who is protected for the next few rounds anyway, ends up coming in tenth.

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Birtelcom – Those were my thoughts exactly. I assumed heading into the ballot that either Brown or Lofton would get dropped. I’m surprised to see that Brown has 3 early votes, what with the competition among starting pitchers on the ballot. But maybe people are voting for him just to keep him on the ballot. Anyway, I know I’m in the minority here, but I have no problem with people getting dropped. There are enough people getting carried over from year to year that if you don’t get carried over you’re probably not “Circle of Great”-worthy, you probably belong in… Read more »

Bells

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

After this is done, we can embark on our next ten-year project at HHS: “Concentric Circles of Diminishing Greatness”.

Dr. Remulak

11 years ago

Biggio, Mussina, Schiling.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Craig Biggio started his career as a comp to Joe Ascue. Ended it comped to Paul Molitor. AllStar at both Catcher and Second Base (has anyone else done that?) 15th all time in Runs Scored. Biggio is my one pick from the 1965 class. It seems appropriate to me to pick at least one player from the year of voting. As for the other two, I’m going to approach this as if I were building a team. Who would I want to start with? I want the centerfielder who can fly. That is Kenny Lofton. I would pick Alomar next,… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Biggio versus Alomar is the battle that interests me most this round. If I were voting I think I’d have a hard time picking between them.

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

I had Alomar on my ballot but not Biggio, even though they both belong. It’s more a strategic vote, hoping Alomar, as well as Thomas and Mussina (the three I picked) make it in and clear room for others in following rounds.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I’m changing my vote.
No Frank Thomas.
Larry Walker’s athleticism and sustained peak have changed my mind.

Lofton
Biggio
Walker

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

And I had made assumptions about his Coors-effect that aren’t entirely true. Here’s the splits from his HOF 1997: .384 .460 .709 1.169 .346 .443 .733 1.176 ____________________ Though…. Here’s ’98: .418 .483 .757 1.241 .302 .403 .488 .892 ____________________ Oh! What the! Check out ’99: .461 .531 .879 1.410 .286 .375 .519 .894 Okay, that’s freakin’ obscene. __________________ Dare we look at 2001? .406 .483 .773 1.256 .293 .416 .549 .965 Okay, I don’t care, I’m still going with Walker, altitude be damned. Walker was fun to watch, and the arguments posted in comments #50 and #66 have swayed… Read more »

Editor

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

In batting average in home games when hitting safely, 12 of the top 13 seasons since 1993 belong to Rockies, with Rusty Greer the lone exception. Rk Player Year PA AB H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA ▴ OBP SLG OPS 2 Eric Young 1996 310 277 127 13 4 7 55 22 10 .458 .506 .610 1.117 3 Todd Helton 1999 282 249 114 22 4 23 73 27 17 .458 .514 .855 1.370 4 Dante Bichette 1998 293 279 128 25 2 17 78 12 20 .459 .481 .746 1.227 5 Todd Helton 2003 294 255 117… Read more »

Andy

11 years ago

Thomas
Glavine
Schilling

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine

Nadig

11 years ago

Schilling, Thomas, Walker.

Atlcrackersfan

11 years ago

Glavine,
Smoltz
Mussina

11 years ago

I’d like to pull Kevin Brown from my ballot and add Larry Walker. New ballot: Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio, Larry Walker

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to qx

I thought I read something in prior threads that all votes, first votes, are final and can’t be changed.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to MikeD

That rule, established for the first vote, was subsequently amended. Changes can be made up until the last two days of the round.

David Horwich

11 years ago

Thomas, Glavine, Alomar.

Phil

11 years ago

Same: Alomar, Thomas, Glavine.

Artie Z

11 years ago

Frank Thomas, Roberto Alomar, Mike Mussina

RonG

11 years ago

Biggio, Smoltz, Alomar

Alex Putterman

11 years ago

Thomas, Mussina, Glavine

Insert Name Here

11 years ago

As I did last time, I’m going to make an initial vote based on my method for determining the top three (using primarily WAR/162 games during a series of 5+ “peak” seasons), and make any strategic changes later. My initial vote: 1. Curt Schilling – 7.3 WAR/162 during 6-yr peak (2001-06) (raised after adjustment for relief season in 2005) 2. Kevin Brown – 7.4 WAR/162 during 6-yr peak (1995-2000) 3. Larry Walker – 6.6 WAR/162 during 12-yr peak (1992-2003) If I could list more names on my ballot (say, an actual 10-man HOF ballot), I would go in this order… Read more »

ATarwerdi96

11 years ago

Frank Thomas, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz

Adam

11 years ago

Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling

bstar

11 years ago

Does anyone have the list of juicy 1964 candidates handy?

Mike L

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Bstar, you can find it here:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1964-births.shtml

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

I knew they were out there but forgot where to look. Thanks Mike!

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Some of the most notable: Barry Bonds, Barry Larkin, Rafael Palmeiro, Jose Canseco, Doc Gooden

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

plus Will Clark, Mark Grace and Kenny Rogers

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

No love for Jose Canseco? I mean, he’s clearly had an historic impact on the game, impacing on multiple levels, all the way up to and including the HOF votes of other players. : -) It was interesting to comb through the list, for a quick reminder of players’ careers, including the ones who had fine careers, but ones well short of HOF caliber. While I knew BJ Surhoff had a long career, I would not have guessed anywhere near the number of hits and doubles he had. Surhoff also brings into focus another element of the game rarely discussed.… Read more »

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

MikeD- you might want to look at number 60 a little more closely…
😉

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Bonds next time, Johnson the year after (err, before) that, and Clemens after that. The ’61 vote is going to be interesting for the holdovers as ’60 brings on Ripken and Gwynn, and Puckett.

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Yeah next year’s vote should be interesting. With Bonds, Larkin and Palmiero all coming onto the ballot, that means some people are going to start falling off the ballot.

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Actually the vote that should be REALLY interesting is the ’58 vote. Rickey Henderson, Wade Boggs and Alan Trammell all come onto the ballot that year. With Boggs and Henderson entering the ballot, it will be the first time that two guys with 80+ WAR enter the ballot at the same time. Will be interesting to see who survives that ballot and gets carried over to the next round.

Bells

11 years ago

Reply to PP

@ Ed 75 – yeah the more I look at it the more it seems there are a few phases to this project. The first several decades will just be ‘who survives on the ballot’, because it’s just a brutal amount of talent and accomplishment around. I just discovered that B-Ref had a ‘born in this year’ feature under ‘seasons’ yesterday, and was perusing back through time, and it seems like there’s a steep dropoff in the number of quality candidates (and ballplayers in general) before 1930 or so (which makes sense, because that’s about the time you’d have to… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to PP

“a brutal amount of talent and accomplishment” describes it exactly

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Bells @98 – I also wonder, once we’re done with this, if we shouldn’t have some sort of final review process to make sure we elected the “right” people. Because of how this is being done, someone may get in during a weak year when there’s no one else available to vote for. And at the end, we may be scratching our heads, wondering how Player X got in, but Player Y was left out.

Artie Z

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Ed @ 107 I think there’s going to be a “review” one way or the other because the results are public – that’s the fun part 🙂 I think there would be more of a problem if birtelcom started with a weak year, like 1967. With all due respect to Kevin Appier, Robin Ventura, Trevor Hoffman, and maybe one or two others, the only really viable candidates (thinking about this as a “top 110” or “top 120” project and not a HOF debate) from 1967 are Smoltz and Kenny Lofton (they are the only holdovers left from that year). So… Read more »

Jim Bouldin

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Ed, that will almost certainly happen. It’s not at all clear just what the point of this whole exercise is. Clearly, the methods used are going to have an effect on who gets in, and if you use some other set of methods, you’re going to elect a different set of people, how different being directly dependent on the critical specifics of the two methods. What I see this as so far is simply an experiment/discussion on how one might want to proceed. That discussion should be expanded until a more meaningful method is chosen, and then the whole exercise… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Jim – I doubt we’ll start over…what would be the impetus for that? Anyway, I think you and I generally tend to be in agreement on this exercise. Personally, I would have preferred if we started with a ballot of all current HOFers plus anyone above a certain WAR threshold. I don’t understand why we’re adding people to the ballot based on birth year. That doesn’t make any sense to me. My other big issue is that ballots should be weighted if we’re only electing one person at a time. Frank Thomas will likely be the top vote getter this… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to PP

My assumption has been a lot of great players aren’t going to make it. Eddie Mathews being one. I’ll have to check some more but I don’t see it happening. Which would mean one of the three best 3rd baseman ever might not be in the Circle.

Bells

11 years ago

Reply to PP

@113 I dunno… Even if Matthews is 3rd or 4th on his year, he can still get carried back on the ballot, and there’s a good 70 ballots to go after him. Frank Thomas finished 3rd on his ballot and 4 years later he’s set to join. So I highly doubt Matthews will get overlooked; in fact, looking at the years preceding 1931, I’d be shocked if he was still awaiting enshrinement by 1925. And Ed @111, I’m not sure I see the problem with unweighted ballots if you get only 3 choices. With ten, yeah sure, but this exercise… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to PP

@115 Bells – Well this is why we should have a closed ballot. It would cut down significantly on strategic voting. (you could still let people see the results AFTER they’ve voted…lots of websites do that). And if we’re only electing one person at a time, we really should only be voting for one person per ballot. Otherwise, there’s really no way of telling who the winner is. Anyway, it really doesn’t matter. I think we have to see this for what it is. A fun little exercise for the HHS community. Ultimately, the number of people who care about… Read more »

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to PP

I wrote a long post earlier and then I lost it when I clicked submit. Short version- project ain’t perfect but it’s fun so what the heck. I do think that by the time 1930 rolls around and assuming Bells is right & the field clears out a little bit that we will probably have close to a couple of dozen borderline candidates mostly from the modern era that well have to figure out how to go back & deal with otherwise players from the 20’s and 30’s are going to end up being over-represented just like they are in… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Hartvig @117 I agree with what you wrote. I know I tend to get emotional about these sort of things (I’m not happy that Frank Thomas is winning this round!) but it’s better to just relax and enjoy it. It’s not like this is a Presidential election. Anyway, it will definitely be interesting to see how things play out and who drops off the ballot when. I’ve already mentioned 1958 when Boggs, Rickey Henderson and Trammell all come on at the same time. Then look at 1954 when 4 HOFers debut – Ozzie, Gary Carter, The Eck, Dawson – plus… Read more »

Luis Gomez

11 years ago

Alomar, Walker, Biggio.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Career Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:

Schilling 56.2
Mussina 49.4
Walker 48.6

Brown 43.2
Glavine 42.2
Thomas 40.9
Smoltz 40.2
Lofton 39.5
Alomar 37.3
Biggio 35.9

Easiest call yet. Top three above are my ballot.

Gary Bateman

11 years ago

Alomar, Mussina, Glavine

brp

11 years ago

Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio, Larry Walker.

Pitchers are too lumped together in my mind for me to take one over the other. This is starting to get difficult… Mussina, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, K Brown, Lofton, Alomar are all reasonable choices.

Also how did Felix Jose log 10 years of service?

Brent

11 years ago

Thomas, Alomar and Glavine

Jameson

11 years ago

Thomas, Mussina, Biggio

BryanM

11 years ago

Schilling Mussina. Walker. Not wishing to disrespect anyone’s choices, but could one of those who chose. Glavine over the. Two pitchers named above oblige with the rationale? I didn’t see him pitch much , but I just can’t find it in the record. I could be talked out of Walker, Thomas obvious other choice

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

I haven’t voted yet in this round and didn’t vote for Glavine in the last round but I did vote for Lofton over Frank Thomas in that one- not because I think that Lofton is a better player but to keep him from falling off the ballot. Strategic voting, in other words, might be one answer. I’m also using 3 tools kind of as a kickoff point. One is Adam Darowski’s wonderful Hall of Stats, the other is Baseball-Reference’s JAffe War Score system (JAWS) and the third is Bill James’ player rankings in The New Historical Baseball Abstract, the 2000… Read more »

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

BryanM, we seem to have more in common than the spelling of our name. We had the same ballot this round, and I was considering asking the same question you did. Hartvig, I think HoS and JAWS illustrate Schilling’s and Mussina’s superiority- but not by an extreme margin- over Glavine. Anything published in 2000 misses an enormous portion of the value Schilling and Mussina accumulated and is not relevant to this discussion. I think your analysis could have benefitted from some data from fangraphs, whose FIP-based WAR could shine a different light on the argument. Here’s their take: Schilling –… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Glavine’s FIP and fWAR are very controversial. He outperformed his FIP by close to half a run over the course of his entire career. fWAR leaves out the fact that Glavine is the all-time leader in LOB-wins. After pitched 20+ years in the league, I think it’s pretty safe to assume Glavine’s incredible strand rate had nothing to do with luck. I see no justification for not including it. Here’s the rWAR leaderboard: Mussina 78.2 Glavine 76.8 Schilling 76.1 ————– Smoltz 65.9 Brown 64.3 To me, the top three are very close and the bottom two are in a slightly… Read more »

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

That’s a valid point regarding Glavine, or at least one worth consideration. There are pitchers, even if they are in the minority, who have been shown to outperform their FIPs over a period of time. There comes a point when it should be recognized as a skill, not a fluke. Glavine through his career also had a low K/9 percent. I’m sure if he started his career today, there would be people writing articles every season about how this will be the year he regress. Never happened. He could very well be even better than what his WAR shows.

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

In my post I fully admitted I can’t stand Schilling though I thought he was the best in a photo finish of these pitchers. He had the best 3 year and 5 year WAR, not to mention a rather strong postseason resume (11-2, 2.23, 0.968). Thus, I voted for Glavine and Mussina, or Mussina and Glavine, actually. But personality is enough to kill a vote when there’s only 3 in a strong group.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Oh, and for the sake of completeness:

Brown – 77.2 fWAR, 9.3 peak, 7 seasons 5+
Smoltz – 82.5 fWAR, 8.4 peak, 8 seasons 5+ (plus three as a dominant closer and a Schilling-esque postseason resume)

Glavine’s a distant fifth by this measure.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

BryanM, not to disrespect you either, but can you justify your pick of Larry Walker over Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas (or, for that matter, any of about 10 other worthy candidates)?

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Ibstar , as I implied in my post , my support for Walker is soft , and I recognize that there is a logjam of worthy candidates at his level . I think my rationale is partly peak value, party anti-DH bias and partly strategic. I have learned from others above (particularly hartvig) perspectives in which Glavine can be seen as closer to Mussina/Schilling If LOB over a long career represents a skill not fully captured in Tom’ s traditional stat pack, so too does the big hurt’s. 26 career RS% – his OBP is not a valuable as it… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Fair enough, Bryan. I think who you pick with so many players so close in value is largely subjective. I just found it a little odd that you singled out Glavine, to be honest.

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

I suppose because I had no trouble seeing where people could have supported , say, Thomas over Walker – I didn’t , but the opposite perspective was not opaque to me; whereas for pitchers , I just couldn’t see any perspective where TG was the equal of moose or Schilling. You and others have helped. put another way, a ballot that was Mussina, Schilling , Glavine would not have puzzled me, but several posters have Glavine as their only pitcher , and I just couldn’t see how they could get there.. so I asked for, and got, help.

Abbott

11 years ago

Thomas, Glavine, Biggio

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Thomas, Moose, Smoltz.