Circle of Greats: 1969 Balloting

206 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion in the 39th round of balloting for the High Heat Stats Circle of Greats (COG). One year ago, in December, 2012, we started the Circle of Greats voting by selecting our first inductee from among the players born in 1968. Since then we’ve moved backwards in time with the birth years we’ve added, and as of now we’ve reached the 1938 birth year. But with a full twelve months of voting now complete since we began, we can add a later birth year, while remaining within the original parameter of inducting only players 44 years old or older. So this round, in honor of the first anniversary of the beginning of the COG voting, adds to the ballot those players born in 1969. Rules and lists are, as usual, after the jump.

The new group of eligible players born in 1969 joins the holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full group eligible to receive your votes this round. The new group of 1969-born players must, as always, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers).

Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, 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 that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:00 PM EST on Wednesday, December 18, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:00 PM EST Monday, December 16.

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: COG 1969 Vote Tally. I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet 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 new born-in-1969 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The 15 current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The new group of 1969 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played. For the third round n a row, we have one player who makes the ballot via the 20 WAR threshold without having played at least 10 seasons in the majors — this time it’s Rusty Greer.

Holdovers:
Lou Whitaker (eligibility guaranteed for 10 rounds)
John Smoltz (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Bobby Grich (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Edgar Martinez (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Craig Biggio (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Willie McCovey (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Gaylord Perry (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ron Santo (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Kenny Lofton (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ryne Sandberg (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1969, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Ken Griffey
Brad Ausmus
Damion Easley
Juan Gonzalez
Jose Hernandez
Bret Boone
Jeromy Burnitz
Jeff Cirillo
Scott Hatteberg
Todd Hundley
Mark Sweeney
Dan Wilson
Greg Colbrunn
Delino DeShields
Mike Difelice
Travis Fryman
Orlando Palmeiro
Eduardo Perez
Tony Womack
Joe Randa
Fernando Vina
Kevin Young
Darren Bragg
Tim Laker
Mark Lewis
Dave McCarty
Damian Miller
Troy O’Leary
Craig Paquette
Matt Walbeck
Rusty Greer

Pitchers (born in 1969, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):

Arthur Rhodes
Mariano Rivera
David Weathers
Bob Wickman
Troy Percival
Frank Castillo
Mike Myers
Ricky Bottalico
Hector Carrasco
Kevin Jarvis
Ricky Bones
Jason Christiansen
Pete Schourek
Brian Boehringer
Alex Fernandez
Robb Nen
Hipolito Pichardo

0 0 votes

Article Rating

206 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Mike

10 years ago

Ken Griffey, Jr
Mariano Rivera (if he were active would he have been eligible?)
Dave Winfield

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Mike

Yes, the COG rules allow an active player to be inducted if he is at least 44 years old. I assume that by the time a player is age 44, we have a pretty good sense of the parameters of his career achievements.

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Talking of age… Pop Quiz!

Which four players on the ballot were at some point the oldest players in their league (according to their b-ref page)?

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to RJ

Winfield, Perry, Rivera come to mind pretty quickly…but who’s the 4th?…aha! Reuschel. Wouldn’t have guessed him.

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Yup! I would have had my money on McCovey; he was 2nd oldest in the NL four times. Vic Davalillo’s return from the Mexican league at the age of 40 kept McCovey off the top spot.

Abbott

10 years ago

Murray, Santo, Biggio

Editor

Dan McCloskey

10 years ago

This one’s going to be interesting.

Ken Griffey
Gaylord Perry
Mariano Rivera

KalineCountry

10 years ago

Lou Whitaker
and two legends who should be automatic;
Junior Griffey
Mariano Rivera

JEV

10 years ago

Griffey, Perry, Rivera

10 years ago

Ken Griffey, Mariano Rivera, Gaylord Perry

Jeff Harris

10 years ago

Griffey, Whitaker, Smoltz

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

I think the most interesting wrinkle is transposing these “modern” players against some more “old-timer” types. We haven’t really had that; of course, more recent players have carried over, but we haven’t had “new” players against “old” ones quite like this. It shall be interesting. Anyway, I don’t think this is too tricky of a ballot. From my perspective, the top three guys have a pretty fair lead over the rest of the pack. The player that gives me a little pause is Mariano. For this ballot, I considered all 16 holdovers, plus Griffey and Rivera. Rivera has the fewest… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Interesting thoughts on Rivera. Unlike with many of these players, I’m not sure Mariano’s candidacy can be debated much. He’s either a stone-cold lock or, by virtue of being a reliever, simply not CoG material.

bells

10 years ago

Perry, Griffey, Rivera.

Can’t see much other choice, Rivera obviously doesn’t compete with the rest of the ballot on a simple WAR rating eyeball test, but the way to evaluate relievers has never been simple. I’m going to revert to the fact that this is the ‘Circle of Greats’, and there is no way I can argue that Rivera isn’t one of the 3 ‘greatest’ players on this ballot.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

10 years ago

Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:

Griffey 54.8
Perry 50.9
Grich 43.6
Santo 43.3
Whitaker 42.7
Martinez 41.3
Reuschel 40.6
Smoltz 40.1
Lofton 39.3
McCovey 38.9
Sandberg 38.8
Alomar 36.8
Biggio 36.3
Allen 35.9
Murray 34.9
Rivera 33.1
Winfield 30.5

I support Rivera’s candidacy, but I’m not sure I can vote for him before we induct Smoltz, who was practically Rivera for three years as a reliever and pitched 2,190 more innings.

Griffey, Perry, Smoltz

David Horwich

10 years ago

Alomar, Griffey, Sandberg

Luis Gomez

10 years ago

With apologies to Rivera, my vote goes to Ken Griffey Jr., Roberto Alomar and Lou Whitaker.

Josh

10 years ago

Rivera, Smoltz, Winfield

Chris C

10 years ago

Griffey
Perry
Biggio

Voting for the best pitcher and the best hitter on the ballot. I’m also continuing my unwavering support for Biggio. I feel bad not voting for Rivera…but then again I feel bad for not voting for Santo, Alomar, Sanderg, Martinez and a couple others. Every ballot is loaded now.

Oh, and a big Red Sox shout out to Troy O’Leary! Another shout out for Rusty Greer for helping my fantasy teams back in the mid 90’s!

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Chris C

Though never an All-Star, Greer was arguably the second-most valuable left fielder in the AL over the period of his (unfortunately short) career, behind only Albert Belle.

jeff hill

10 years ago

Reply to Chris C

I beg to differ on the “best hitter on the ballot” part…that belongs to Edgar Martinez.

Chris C

10 years ago

Reply to jeff hill

Solid point there, which I agree with. I’ve voted for Martinez myself several times. I’ll rephrase with Griffey as the “best position player”.

10 years ago

Griffey, Perry, Rivera (subject to subsequent strategery).

Bix

10 years ago

Griffey, Lofton, Allen

(Strategically not voting for Rivera, as I assume he’ll be elected easily).

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to Bix

Right now, there have been 17 votes cast. Rivera has been named on 9 ballots. Griffey has been named on 15. It’s still early going, but I wouldn’t count on that easy election for Rivera. Not if you meant it would happen this round, anyway.

Nick Pain

10 years ago

Griffey, Perry, Whitaker

brp

10 years ago

Griffey
Perry
Lofton(-y?)

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Pitching WAR for the top “saves” leaders:

56.6 Mariano Rivera

28.0 Hoffman

29.4 Lee Smith

23.7 Franco

27.7 Wagner

62.5 Eckersley

19.1 Reardon

17.2 Percival

15.1 Myers

25.0 Fingers

26.3 Nathan

19.2 Wetteland

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

From 1996 – 2011

Averaged 3.3 WAR
Averaged 72 IP
________________

And this fact that somebody has got to mention, before the sabermetric dismissal of Rivera becomes a nerdy rolling snowball:

He is the greatest postseason performer since the Lemurians played Plasmaball.

96 games
141 IP
0.70 era

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

That last comment came off more shnarky than I intended. I shouldnt try to post under duress. Sorry. Consider those 16 years, 1996 – 2011. (Omitting 2013, where he came back from a year-long freak injury, at age 44, and still posted 2.5, while pitching a perfect inning in the All-Star game, partially helping the Boston Red Sox win the World Series) The Yankees made the playoff 15 out of 16 times. 7 World Series 5 Championships. Many reasons why. But consider that a team pitches roughly 1600 innings in a season. The Yankees had, reliably, for 16 years, 3.3… Read more »

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Indeed, I wanted to post something equally snarky back. 🙂 I am curious, though, why you think sabermetrically-minded folks would be more down on Rivera than anyone else. I think sabermetric analysis shows that Rivera is NOT your ordinary closer. As you can see in your list, none of the “pure” closers on the list cracked even 30 WAR; Rivera is at nearly 60. In my opinion, sabermetric analysis is HELPFUL to Rivera’s case; not hurtful. Unless your sole criterion for the Hall is “saves” (which, historically, have not mattered all that much to voters; if they did, Lee Smith… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

You’re right. I clicked submit with an incessant clamoring for my attention happening in the room. My brain was lasagna al dente with no cheese.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

One perplexity in valuing Mariano as compared to players of other positions is in the inherent ceiling on the value of the modern closer. In 2005, Mariano had a 1.38 ERA, the best of his career, finished a league-leading 67 games, had 43 saves and came in second in the AL Cy Young voting. That year the Yankees won 83 out of 85 game in which they led going into the ninth inning, a 97.6% winning percentage when leading after 8 innings. But the rest of the teams in the majors, not including the Yankees, won on average 95.2% of… Read more »

MikeD

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Agreed. Most saber-minded types would say that closers are overvalued, yet beyond that would recognize the Rivera is in a class by himself. I think most also recognize that WAR does not do as good a job of properly assessing the value of closers compared to other positions.

bells

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Plus didn’t Andy posit that he was the greatest pitcher of all time, way back when?

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

@ 36, birtlecom So, you seem to be saying that in the sample year, that Rivera was worth two wins more than the average closer. The stats back that up. His WAA from ’96-11 was an even 31.6. Two per year. This seems to me a preposterously HIGH number. Is the ‘modern’ closer foolishly used? Would Rivera have been worth more if he had been brought in more often in the 8th? Or brought in, period, on the road in a tie game? I’m the first to say yes. But 2 wins better than his contemporaries, pitching 70 innings? That… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Good points, Voomo. Two games above average is impressive for anyone and it is terrific over the number of innings that Mariano pitched (and it is probably true that using him “optimally” in more tie games, high-leverage 8th innings, etc, would have expanded his value by only a small amount) . But it’s still two games above average over a whole season. Halladay’s six best seasons in terms of WAA were 7.0, 6.4, 5.6, 5.1, 4.1 and 3.8.

Gary Bateman

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Birtelcom–Is your comparison based on all games in which the team led after 8 or only save situations? I wonder if the winning percentage discrepancy might possibly be higher if the latter. On the othe hand, it might be important to note, as people do with Whitey Ford, that Rivera never had to face the Yankees with the game on the line.

bells

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

@#48 Voomo – yeah, when you put it like that, for me that even strengthens Rivera’s case. For someone whose role it is to come into a situation where it’s very likely his team will win, and for that person to contribute to 2 wins more per season than the average relief pitcher, so consistently for so long, is simply mind-boggling. Like, if an average pitcher would hold a lead after the 8th 95% of the time, but Rivera was that much better than that… it’s simply mind-boggling.

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

@48 Voomo (and others): Here’s my problem with the Mariano love. Rivera was a FAILURE. Period. There’s simply no way of getting around that. The reason he was made a closer is because he failed as a starter (the much more important role). And when you’re comparing him to other closers, you’re comparing him to other failures. So yes, he was the best closer of all time but I’m not sure what that says. He simply wasn’t a great pitcher. If he was, he would have been a starter. At the end of the day, Mariano is being given a… Read more »

TheGoof

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Ed, the idea that you will call a guy a failed starter and chalk up his entire career as limited to that status would be more credible if you meant someone who had a 5.00 ERA over four or five years. Rivera made a total of 10 MLB starts at age 25. He was an effective starter in the minors. It is very, very conceivable that he would have become a decent, or even very good, starter. I mean, his ERA as a reliever in nine games that year was 4.24. Does that reflect ANYTHING about his career? No.

MikeD

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

@97, TheGoof, the signing today of Bartolo Colon by the Mets reminds me of the question often asked, which is would Rivera have been a successful starting pitcher. I am in the camp that not only would he have been a successful starting pitcher, he would have been a great starting pitcher, a Cy Young Award caliber pitcher. Comparing Colon and Rivera may not be intuitive, at least by body types, but there is an area where they are similar. One pitch. Rivera’s cutter is legendary, but the understandable belief is that wouldn’t be enough for him to be a… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Pretty sure I’m going to bellow “NERDY ROLLING SNOWBALLLL!!!” the next time I go out sledding.

I don’t know much … but I know what I am!

Darien

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

From now on, that’s my new nickname. I’m thinking about becoming a superhero so I can wear it on my chest.

Richard Chester

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

45.7 of Eckersley’s WAR came during his seasons as a starter.

10 years ago

Griffey, Whitaker, Reuschel

J.R.

10 years ago

Griffey, Rivera, Grich

Editor

Doug

10 years ago

Griffey, Rivera, Allen

--bill

10 years ago

Perry, Rivera, Reuschel

MikeD

10 years ago

Somehow it feels off to have the most recent group of potential inductees also competing against an entire year of hold overs. That said, I don’t why it’s wrong, it just feels wrong!

Griffey, Rivera, Alomar.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

10 years ago

Reply to MikeD

The result will be the same as if we evaluated this group first. It seems the biggest difference is that, had we started with ’69, Rivera would have competed with Piazza, Bagwell, Thomas, and Mussina in ’68. The likely casualty would have been Larry Walker or Tim Raines, who may not have snuck in with an extra no-doubter on the holdover list when their turns came.

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Walker beat out Raines who beat out Gwynn if I recall. They were competing directly on a lot of those ballots. I’d wager if we had started at 1970, Mo would have gotten in pretty quickly and Gwynn or Trammel would be sitting atop our holdover list with some absurdly high number of protected rounds.

latefortheparty

10 years ago

Gaylord Perry
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Lou Whitaker

Andy

10 years ago

Griffey
Mo
McCovey

Phil

10 years ago

Griffey, Rivera, and, I’m positive for the last time, Alomar.

Bill Johnson

10 years ago

Whitaker

McCovey

Rivera

jeff hill

10 years ago

Mo Rivera, Santo, Lofton

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Biggio
Murray
Griffey — the sooner the Junior the better.

10 years ago

Gaylord Perry, Ken Griffey, Lou Whitaker

Darien

10 years ago

Mariano Rivera, Gaylord Perry, and Kenny Lofton.

At the risk of sounding distressingly like Colin Cowherd, it’s not the Circle of WAR, and I think I broadly agree with RJ above — either Rivera’s a lock, or we pretty much disqualify relief pitchers out of hand. The latter approach doesn’t sit well with me; like it or hate it, it’s a legitimate part of the game. I don’t hold with keeping DHes out either, even though I personally don’t care for the rule.

DaveR

10 years ago

Reply to Darien

My whole deal with the DH is: Is baseball better off WITHOUT Martinez, Ortiz, or Molitor? I say no.

brp

10 years ago

Reply to Darien

Based on the modern reliever usage (since Eck in the late 80s), the only full-time reliever even worth considering is Rivera. But I never got to know the answer: could Mo pitch as a starter? Smoltz could and did. Eckersley could and did. As Dr. Doom said at 11, Smoltz was pretty much as good as Mo as a closer… but he also proved he could start and was therefore more valuable. Mo’s only year as a starter was pre-cutter, so it’s just guesswork as to whether he could have started. But 1 good year as a starter is worth… Read more »

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to brp

“but it always drove me nuts the Yankees never tried using him as a starter.” Me too. Only a team with nearly limitless resources like the Yankees could afford that luxury and even so I have to question if it really paid off for them, at least during the regular season. Even if he wouldn’t have been in Pedro Martinez’s class as a starter but instead let’s use another Yankee and teammate- Andy Pettitte. Even on some of those incredible Yankee rotations you’re going to be seeing a significant upgrade over guys like Stirling Hitchcock and Hideki Irabu and suchlike.… Read more »

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

I think part of the effectiveness of “the cutter” which was poorly understood was simply focusing a pitcher in on one arm slot, one speed, one delivery, one follow through, etc. Rivera made himself into a pitcher who would change ONLY his grip on the ball making it virtually impossible to differentiate 4sfb from cutter. The cutter’s movement was unusually large, but that too can be somewhat attributed to focusing on grip and basically locking down all else. Relievers who are successful routinely drop tertiary offerings which made up probably 25% of their pitch totals as starters to focus on… Read more »

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

Some would say On the one hand, a reliever is a failed starter. On the other hand, if a starter didn’t fail, you would not need relievers. I recall what Dan Quisenberry said one year when he won the relief man award: I want to thank my pitchers who could not go nine innings, and my manager who would not let them.

Darien

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

I get your point, and I basically agree with you, but I’d say a guy with a 50% chance of hitting a home run is about as “great” as they come. 😉

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

Darien, I meant 50% greater chance of hitting a home run. If you have two similar careers with a guy who hit 300 HR and a guy who hit 450 HR, you’d need to look a lot wider than that to see who made the bigger contribution. When you throw out rivera’s numbers, you know what made him special. They’re unique.

Gary Bateman

10 years ago

Rivera, Griffey, Alomar

DaveR

10 years ago

Griffey Jr, Gaylord, and Rivera

PaulE

10 years ago

Allen Sandberg Grich

Does anyone else suspect Juan Gonzalez of possible steroid use?

Chris C

10 years ago

Reply to PaulE

Suspect? I think it’s a basic assumption.

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to PaulE

I suspect nearly everyone. I suspect guys from the 80s too.

and if you ask me what percentage of the HOF took Greenies, it’s pretty f-ing high.

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to PaulE

Don Sutton did not use a foreign substance on the baseball. Vaseline is made in the USA.

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Well-quipped. +324 for that last comment.

Darien

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Did you remember to adjust that for era and blog factor? I’m only getting +313.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Good quip, yes
But you know, Sutton actually said that.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Whitey Ford:

also threw a “gunk ball,” which combined a mixture of baby oil, turpentine, and resin. He kept the “gunk” in a roll-on dispenser, which, the story goes, Yogi Berra once mistook for deodorant, gluing his arms to his sides in the process.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Sutton:

Was teammates with Gaylord Perry for a while. “He gave me a tube of Vaseline,” joked Sutton. “I thanked him and gave him a piece of sandpaper.” Umpires took the allegations seriously, and sometimes gave him a good going over. Once, he left a note inside his glove for the men in black. It said, “You’re getting warm, but it’s not here.”

Mike L

10 years ago

Rivera, for unsurpassed, sustained excellence. Griffey, because he has to be, even though I’m neutering my vote for Mo. And, in probably my last purely strategic vote, Sandberg.

But if I could, I would just vote for Mo. He was the finest miniaturist of all time.

koma

10 years ago

John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mariano Rivera

Mike L

10 years ago

@62, Ed, and his extended “Mariano’s a failure” post” It’s pointless to compare Rivera to someone like Maddux, and I wouldn’t. They are different animals, and I would vote any day to put him in first. But, consider the following: In 1987, Maddux first time up beyond a cup of coffee, he was 6-14, 5.61, ERA+ of 76 in 155 innings. Randy Johnson was 7-13 with a 4.82, an ERA+ of 82 in 161 innings. Halladay was so bad in his 3rd time up (10.64 ERA and a 48 ERA+ in 67 innings) that he was banished to the minors.… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Mike L

A metaphor I might prefer to the community college one could perhaps be to a great (or, better, a greatest ever) field goal kicker. A major contributor, often in critical moments, the best ever in his area of skill, but still inherently limited in the full impact he can have on the game just by the nature of what he does — a touchdown is still worth twice one of his successes. In response to Gary Bateman’s question @56, I used all leads after the 8th inning, not just save situations, in my calculations @36. You are right that limiting… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Mike L @63 A few points: 1) I didn’t start the comparison of Mariano to starters. I was responding to the idea that Mariano was somehow better than Halladay. 2) It’s true that Mariano wasn’t given much chance to start in the majors. But teams don’t move someone to the bullpen if they believe that person can be successful as a starter. I have to trust the Yankees judgement that Mariano’s stuff wouldn’t cut it long-term as a starter. 3) Again, Mariano was certainly special among a group of pitchers who couldn’t hack it as starters. But I also would… Read more »

bells

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

I think point number 3) is the important one. If you believe that ‘most decent starters’ could do what Mo did, and that what he did is so much less valuable that it’s impossible to consider him for an all-time greats list, then that sets some clear criteria for debate. I don’t think most decent starters could do what he did. I think having no-hit (or at least no real contact) stuff for one or two innings is a very specific talent. And then there’s the longevity aspect – look at modern relievers. It’s a revolving door, guys are dynamite… Read more »

Mike L

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed@66, the object in putting together a team is to find a winning combination of talents. Mickey Mantle was a “failure” as a shortstop. Rivera had a very specific talent (I think Birtelcom’s field goal kicker is a good analogy) that the Yankees put to excellent use. We have no idea what kind of starter he might have been because, when switched, he turned into an extremely potent weapon. I never suggested Mo was better than Halladay any more than I would suggest, one way or another, than Thome was better than Paul Waner (totally different skill sets, both with… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Mike L @72 – Thank you, you just made my point for me! You’re right, it’s up to a team to put together a winning combination of talent. And based on the way the Yankees decided to use Rivera, he accumulated 56.6 WAR which is LESS than Dave Stieb, Jerry Koosman, Frank Tanana, Chuck Finley, and Bret Saberhagen among many others. Their teams chose to use them in a way that was different then the way the Yankees chose to use Rivera. And in doing so, they had a greater impact on their teams than Rivera had on his. And… Read more »

John Z

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

@ED I think the point you are missing is this, we can not compare starting pitchers to closers the same way we can not compare starting catchers to say a Short Stop. Both are valuable to their teams success, both are middle defenders but their jobs and talents are very different. So the only fair comparison we can make is to another closer, IE Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, Rich Gossage, Hoyt Wilhelm and yes his peers Trevor Hoffman, etc. I think if you compare Rivera to these vetrans you will look at it much clearer. I am not a big… Read more »

Mike L

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed @84, when you are ready to argue that you would have preferred Jerry Koosman or Frank Tanana to Sandy Koufax, the lawyer and political junkie in me tells me that two people can look at exactly the same set of facts and come up with completely different conclusions. I’ll stick to admiring Rivera without feeling the need to trash other pitchers.

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

John Z – As I said previously, I’m not the one who started comparing Rivera to starters. It’s the Rivera supporters who keep doing that. But the second I start doing the same, I get called out on it and told we can’t do that. Sorry but that doesn’t work for me.

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

Mike L – Where did I say that I would have preferred Koosman or Tanana to Koufax? This is the second time in this thread that you’ve insinuated something that no one has actually said. (the first being that people were saying that Rivera “stinks” something no one in this thread has said) I don’t mind having a debate over these things and we can agree to disagree but I don’t appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

I think to some extent the question that COG voters try to ask themselves, and that methods like WAR try to get a hold of, goes something like this: If you had a draft pick to make, and you could be guaranteed that would you get, for the identical amount of salary paid over the years, the entire carer as it actually played out of Mariano Rivera or the entire career as it actually played out, of, say Frank Tanana, which one would you draft? If you take WAR literally, it is suggesting the answer is that it would be… Read more »

Mike L

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed, the argument isn’t worth continuing. You need to have your way with this one and I’m prepared to let you enjoy your special personal truth. Gentlemen, I’ve enjoyed the site. Some of the best baseball writing I’ve seen, with some of the best thought out and presented comments. Signing off.

bells

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed @94: I think it’s more than a little misleading, and serves to deflect debate, to say ‘Rivera supporters’ started comparing him to starters (at least, I’m assuming you mean in this thread). Looking back at this discussion and how it started, Voomo made some comparisons of Rivera to other relievers and how good he was compared to them, and made the point that Rivera was more clearly better than his comtemporaries in relief pitching than, say, Halladay was to is contemporaries as starters. I suppose in some way that’s ‘comparing Rivera to starters’, but no more than it is… Read more »

John Z

10 years ago

I just have to say, this ballot threw me for a loop. Here i was ready to vote for Brooks, Juan Marichal and Don Buford, but to my surprise i am looking at names and reading the debates of Griffy, The Sandman and others born in 69′. It is all good it just that it slipped my mind that we were doing the 69′ ballot before the 1937 ballot. Ok, first and formost and the one that should win this round, none other then “The Kid” Ken Griffey Jr.Second on my list this round is The Sandman, He sucked as… Read more »

paget

10 years ago

Reply to John Z

@64 “He sucked as a starter and was servicable [sic] at best as a setup/hold man” His best, most productive year was almost certainly 1996 when he was, in point of fact, a setup man for the vastly inferior john wetteland. I have a lot of problems with the position (principally espoused on this thread by Ed) that “Rivera was a FAILURE” since he was moved from the rotation to the bullpen. It’s enough to look at his 1996 year to see why this logic isn’t tenable. While 107.2 innings pitched obviously doesn’t constitute a full season from a starting… Read more »

paget

10 years ago

Reply to paget

Also, it’s important to note that in 1995 Rivera did not have his cutter. He learned his signature pitch in 1996. So using his results from 1995 as if they had anything to do with his later career doesn’t make any sense.

10 years ago

Reply to paget

Paget: 1996 is basically the opposite of evidence of what Rivera might have done as a starter. He never pitched more than 3 innings in a game which means that he never had to deal with pitching with high pitch counts or facing the same batter more than once in a game. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

paget

10 years ago

Reply to Ed

@70 I wasn’t claiming he would have made a great starter — I have no idea, since we never saw it post-cutter. (My sense is that he would have, simply by learning how to throw a change of pace, but we’ll never know.) We do, on the other hand, have a very good idea of what 100+ innings a year from him looks like. Let’s say -just for the sake of argument- that you’re right, that he would have made a horrible starter. Does that somehow invalidate the incredible contribution he makes over the course of what is tantamount to… Read more »

John Z

10 years ago

Reply to paget

I’m pretty sure you misconstrued my notion that Super Mario was anything less then superior and spectacular at his role as the closer for the evil empire, but I am pretty positive that the powers that be, be that Buck Showalter, Mel Stottlemyre (1996 – 2005 pitching coach), or Billy Connors(1995 Pitching Coach)felt that he was not meant to be a starter or set up guy and that his greatest asset was how effective he was over 1 inning pitched. Some how/some way they recognized this and took full advantage making Super Mario what he is and was, the best… Read more »

paget

10 years ago

Reply to John Z

JohnZ/@76
Actually, in the end my comment was more directed at Ed – I should have made that clear. The part that was in response to you was in reference to the inaccurate statement that he was only “serviceable at best” as a setup man. I wanted to draw attention to his extraordinary 1996 season in which he only served as setup man.

John Z

10 years ago

Reply to paget

I did not mean for my word “serviceable” to be taken that he did poorly, only that he did his job, while his stats show that he was above average or better then John Wetteland as you mentioned, but in all his job is to be serviceable so to reach the closer. I am sure it would be a serviceable task to find another setup man that had/has similiar stats as the sandman(and i dont mean Ed)and did a serviceable job at setup.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to John Z

John Z back at comment 64: To the extent you were getting ready to vote for Marichal, Brooks Robinson and Buford, keep in mind that 1937 will be one of those years when the birth-year class is split into two rounds. We’ve been doing that every third year as we go back in time. In these two-round years, the birth year class gets split in two, with the top half alphabetically debuting in one round and and the bottom half in a separate, second round. So Robinson and Buford are unlikely to debut in the same round.

John Z

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Well thanks for the heads up Birtelcom, you are making my task of picking 3 from the class of 37′ (twice) much more daunting, I better start now preparing my selections.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to John Z

Yes, you really have to pick in effect six from that class, a task I don’t envy. I generally enjoy your no-holdover picks, as they often bring a fresh name or two into the mix, but you might want to re-think the policy for our double-round years. The birth-year lists are going to get shorter as we reach birth years that produce players who played pre-expansion. It’s entirely up to you, though.

Lawrence Azrin

10 years ago

Back to saving the on-the bubble guy Murray Allen Sandberg:

– Eddie Murray
– Dick Allen
– Ryan Sandberg

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Ken Griffey’s son, Ruben Rivera’s cousin, and Jim Perry’s brother.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

Wow, Ruben Rivera, hadn’t thought about him in a while. Baseball America’s highest ranked Yankee prospect in 1995, and 1996, and 1997. (Beware of guys who are the top prospect three years in a row — that’s like getting A’s in community college, to coin a phrase). Ruben didn’t manage to reach the Griffey, Sr. or Jim Perry level.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

BTW, I think that’s the seventh Rivera/Griffey/Perry ballot already — I believe we don’t usually get that many identical ballots.

Paul E

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Re reliever WAR, starter WAR, etc…., how about:

WAR age 31-35

37.9 Bob Gibson
37.3 Gaylord Perry
37.0 Kevin Brown

Perry threw an awful lot of innings in that stretch

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

While ballots with the same three candidates are rare, it’s REALLY tough to argue that they aren’t head-and-shoulders above the other candidates, and the overall voting so far certainly supports this idea. I think that if everyone voted for who they truly believed were the three best candidates, instead of trying to save the eleventh-best player on the ballot, 90% of all ballots would have the same three guys. Of course, I’ve rallied against “strategic voting” since literally the first ballot- I always vote for the three best players, because I always vote based on merit instead of really, really… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

It’s entirely possible to vote on merit without necessarily voting for the top 3 guys eligible on one particular ballot. If a voter’s goal is to try to assure that the best available player wins not just in this round but in future rounds as well, it may make sense for a voter to to use one or more of his or her three choices to try to keep a guy on the ballot who may not be in the top three now but who the voter expects will be the top guy on a future ballot if he can… Read more »

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

While that’s totally valid, I would love to see someone make the argument that Rick Reuschel or Kenny Lofton will ever be one of the three best players on the ballot (and I say that as a big Kenny Lofton fan).

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

It’s just too hard to say who the best play on the 1881 ballot will be, as of right now. Is it Johnny Evers? If so, and Lofton and Reuschel are still around, I would gladly vote for one of them over Evers, assuming that the more qualified players have been elected. I think it’s just too hard to know what we’re going to be thinking 60 some weeks from now, so I can totally understand people trying to keep their favorites around. It’s a valid point birtelcom makes, and not one I immediately thought of.

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

I, too, have avoided strategic voting each round, including this one. I would much rather have had Ron Santo than Mariano Rivera. Plenty of reasonable people disagree quite drastically on Mo’s value; I doubt 90% of us would put him in on this ballot, even solely on merit. Over 50%? For sure. Maybe even 75%. But I’m almost positive it wouldn’t be 90%.

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

That’s a fair statement, Doom. I don’t think it would dip down to 50%, but I could see 65-70%

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Griffey, Perry, Murray

Hartvig

10 years ago

Griffey, McCovey, Sandberg

It absolutely kills me not to vote for Santo. Grich & Martinez at least have a little cushion and Sweet Lou has the votes. Depending on how the rest of the voting goes in this round I may come back and change this. With all that’s coming on the horizon as far as talent goes I could see a year when we have half a dozen holdovers fall of the ballot in one fell swoop.

mosc

10 years ago

I require myself to vote for the best player on the ballot, so that’s how I can fathom leaving Jr. off even though I guess he’s going to win over Mo. I’m not voting for him because I’d rather have Mo, not because I don’t think he’s a shoe-in.

Mo, Perry, Biggio

RonG

10 years ago

Grich, McCovey, Perry

Josh

10 years ago

The thing is, everybody has their own different criteria to determine who is a better player or who isn’t. If everybody had the exact same criteria, this would be a pretty boring discussion. the different criteria for choosing is the reason there isn’t just 1 person picking a Hall of Fame. For those who are going by total career WAR, regardless of position or role, then Jerry Koosman is better than Mariano Rivera. If that’s somebody’s rationale, so be it. A friend (who knows nothing about baseball) was having an issue and I actually explained it along these lines and… Read more »

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Reply to Josh

C’mon, what fun is it to not debate? Actually I think it is less of an issue with Ruth and Cobb than it is with the pitchers. Ruth likely has the most overall value and the highest value/PA or game or AB or whatever you like. Ruth is the only player with 500 PAs and 0.015 WAR/PA (or 1.5 WAR/100 PAs) in history. That’s pretty impressive – Mike Trout has had an amazing start to his career and he’s not accumulating WAR at that rate, though he makes the next list (as does Cobb). There are 27 players (including Ruth)… Read more »

bells

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

Artie, thanks for this summary, it gives quite a bit of context to chew on about how careers develop (at least in terms of WAR), and is relevant to the current discussion or relievers’ roles in the game. Craig Gentry, eh?

Paul E

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

Curiously enough, 500 PA (actually 502) represents a “qualified/eligible” player for the batting title. Likewise, 162 innings will get you an ERA title. Based on that line of illogical thinking (my own, of course), Mariano Rivera is the greatest player in the history of the universe, past and present, at 7.13 WAR/162 innings. I believe my comments adequately demonstrate the futility/absurdity of comparing relievers with position players and, probably, even starting pitcher comparisons are a stretch as well. Either that, or I may have stumbled upon the true inaccuracies, fallacies, and inadequacies of WAR in general. Wow! WTH are we… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Paul E

502 PAs also happens to be about a that Mariano crosses when you count up his batters faced in post-season games. Actually he faced 527 batters in his post-season career, which as you point out Paul, is a full worth of activity for a hitter. Post-season batters agaisnt Rivera had a slash line of .212 OBP/.227 SLG/.438 OPS. In the 2000 regular season Pedro Martinez had one of the greatest seasons a pitcher has ever had, facing 817 batters and holding them to a .473 OPS. Pedro was pitching at the height of the recent high-scoring binge, but on the… Read more »

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

WPA for a starter and a closer is… not fair at all. If you’re a starter and you’re on the road, your team could score a bunch in the top of the first and effectively suck away all the potential WPA. If you’re a closer you enter a 1 run game with 3 outs left that’s a finite but sizable chunk and it’s all yours to go get, no bats required. if you needed bats, you wouldn’t be in the game. A closer doesn’t have more to lose, starters rarely get pulled early unless they’ve done terribly. A closer gets… Read more »

Paul E

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

BirTelCom:

Let’s take all this stuff to the Nth degree and put up a guy with a .333/.445/.683 slash line in the postseason.

And, if we exponentially take his numbers in 51 career postseason games out to his 2046 career games, he becomes 1/2 Teddy Ballgame, 1/2 Babe Ruth with 640 career homers, 1,800 RBI, 5,000 total bases, with the 2nd greatest OPS ever….and no rings (teammates not good enough?).

Is Carlos Beltran a Hall of Famer if his career ended this past October? I digress. Anyway, my point is that in a small sample, anything is possible

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to Josh

Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2013, Played 5% of games at P, (requiring HR>=300), sorted by greatest Home Runs, there is only one player on the list. I don’t subscribe to the play index, but he has 714 home runs.

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

How low does that HR total have to go to get someone other than Ruth? 50?

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

76. Rick Ankiel. Then it’s Johnny Lindell at 72, whose career arc went reliever-outfielder-starting pitcher/part time .300 hitter.

After that it’s full-time (or near enough) pitchers: Wes Ferrell (38), Bob Lemon (37), Red Ruffing (36), Warren Spahn (35), Earl Wilson (35)…

I’m guessing Lindell is the only player to have lead the league in total bases (as a hitter) and either walks or wild pitches (as a pitcher) in his career.

opal611

10 years ago

For the 1969 election, I’m voting for:
-Ryne Sandberg
-Ken Griffey Jr.
-Gaylord Perry

Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Alomar
-Biggio
-Martinez
-Smoltz
-Whitaker
-Grich
-Lofton
-Santo
-Reuschel
-McCovey
-Murray

mosc

10 years ago

We’re on pace for a 1970 round too, wow. We really aught to speed this thing up.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

“It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters, in the end.” –from The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

In the initial post, when we were still in the process of determining how this thing would go, I believe birtelcom pointed out that it would take over two years. One election per week for 112 (or more, depending on the next HOF ballot) weeks is over two years. 1969 and 1970 ballots have been inevitable since the very beginning of the COG.

donburgh

10 years ago

Ken Griffey, Mo Rivera, Craig Biggio

jajacob

10 years ago

Griffey, Perry, Winfield.

I find it amazing all the people who say no steroid candidates in the HOF but make no motion to throw out Perry.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to jajacob

I can make an argument for distinguishing on-the-field cheating like Perry’s, which is at least in theory catchable with vigilant umpiring, from off-the-field cheating such as use of banned PEDs. But I’m a lawyer, I can make an argument for just about anything.