Circle of Greats: 1913 Part 2 Balloting

This post is for voting and discussion in the 73rd round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG).  This round completes the addition to the eligible list, begun in the previous round, of those players born in 1913. Rules and lists are after the jump.

Players born in 1913 are being brought on to the COG eligible list over two rounds, split in half based on last names — the bottom half by alphabetical order this round, the top half having been added in the last round.  This round’s new group joins the holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full set of players eligible to receive your votes this round.

The new group of 1913-born players, in order to join the eligible list, must 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 11:59 PM EDT Thursday, October 9, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Tuesday, October 7.

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 1913 Part 2 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 candidates; additional player columns from the new born-in-1913 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 thirteen 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 1913 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. In total there were 13 players born in 1913 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Seven of those are being added to the eligible list this round, alphabetically from Johnny Mize to Bill Zuber (I see only nine players in the annals of the major leagues further down in alphabetical order than Bill Zuber, including current Seattle catcher Mike Zunino.  The six eligible players in the 1913 birth year with last names higher up alphabetically were added in the previous round.

Holdovers:
Whitey Ford (eligibility guaranteed for 9 rounds)
Lou Boudreau (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Joe Gordon  (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roy Campanella  (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1913, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Johnny Mize
Rudy York
Ken O’Dea
Cecil Travis
Jimmy Outlaw

Pitchers (born in 1913, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Bill Zuber
Eddie Smith

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

143 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago

Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:

Mize 45.2
Brown 43.3
Boudreau 42.3
Reuschel 40.6
Tiant 37.5
Gordon 37.1
Alomar 37.1
Eckersley 34.3
Murray 33.7
Killebrew 33.0
Winfield 31.1
Minoso 30.6
Ford 29.3
Campanella 19.2

I look forward to the discussion about Cecil Travis in this forum, but I won’t start it (unless I just did).

Mize, Brown, Boudreau

Jeff Harris
Jeff Harris
10 years ago

Mize, Brown, Bourdeau

Doug
Doug
10 years ago

This round’s tidbits. – Johnny Mize and Joe DiMaggio jointly became (in 1939) the second and third players to bat .340 with 80 HR and 400 RBI over the first four seasons of a career. Who are the other two players to do this? – Rudy York was the first catcher to record 80 HR and 250 RBI over the first four seasons of a career. Who are the four other catchers to do the same? – Ken O’Dea is the player who most recently caught 250 games for both the Cubs and Cardinals. Who are the two catchers who… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Additional tidbits.

Johnny Mize hit 51 HR in 1947 with just 42 SO. That made him the only player to have 50+ HR with more HR than SO in a season.

Harlond Clift in 1938 became the first third-baseman to hit 30+ HR in a season. Running the PI for third-basemen in 1938 shows Mel Ott with 36 HR and Clift with 34 HR but at least 7 of Ott’s came as a right-fielder while all of Clift’s were as a third-baseman.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago

Another additional tidbit. Rudy York is one of three players to complete a season with 100+ RBI with fewer than 400 AB. He had 103 RBI with 375 AB in 1937. Barry Bonds, in 2004, and the second Frank Thomas, in 1994, are the other two. Jeff Bagwell just missed with 400 AB and 116 RBI in 1994. At the end of the 1947 season York was tenth on the all-time list of career HR with 277. With the retirements of Mel Ott and Hank Greenberg, York became the active HR leader at the start of the 1948 season. He… Read more »

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

I’ll bet York would be the name everyone misses when answering the question “Name all the players since Ruth who have been active leaders in career HR”.

Dwight Evans would be another name that people would miss. He became active leader when Mike Schmidt retired after the 1989 season. Eddie Murray had tied Evans by the end of the 1990 season, with Dave Winfield one HR behind.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago

Looks like I jumped the gun on Harlond Clift. He was born in 1912. I prepared that remark about him several days in advance, then had a senior moment when I posted it. I’ll just repeat it again for the 1912 voting.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Answer to the Cecil Travis question: Buck Weaver, Cal Ripken and Rico Petrocelli.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

Correct.

Petrocelli is the one that surprised me in that he played 700+ games at those two positions, something only A-Rod and Toby Harrah have also done.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

@20/Doug;

Luis Aparicio replaced Rico at SS in 1971, then after he retired after 1973, in 1974-75 the Rooster (Rick Burleson)gradually worked his way into the starting Red Sox line-up at SS.

Rico was always a favorite of mine, especially for being on the ‘Impossible Dream’ 1967 team. He also managed Pawtucket (RS AAA team) for a while.

bells
bells
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

The Mize and DiMaggio question is interesting. Obviously one of the other two is Ted Williams, but I’m having trouble figuring out who would be the player to do it prior to those guys. Gehrig seemed an obvious first choice, and would fit the mould but for his 2 short stints (10 and 13 games) before playing his first full season. Are we taking a relaxed view to ‘seasons’? Probably not. Al Simmons comes very close but only had 65 HR in his first 4 seasons. But for a single game before his first real season, Hank Greenberg would almost… Read more »

Doug
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  bells

Klein and Williams are correct.

With one more home run, Mize would have joined the other three with .340, 100 HR, 400 RBI over those first four seasons.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Answer to the Bill Zuber question.

Monte Pearson. He had 1429.2 IP,703 SO, 740 BB, 4.43 SO/9 and an ERA+ of 112.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

Correct.

Pearson is also one of only 6 retired starting pitchers since 1901 with a .600 career W-L% in 200+ games and fewer than 1500 IP. Pearson’s teammate Spud Chandler leads that group with a .717 winning clip.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

I’ve got three of the catchers from the Rudy York question: Johnny Bench, Roy Campanella, and Mike Piazza.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

The fourth was a contemporary of Bench.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Doug, I couldn’t find it. I looked, but never managed to figure it out. Who is it? I’m dying to know!

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

It’s Earl Williams.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Ken O’Dea question: Mike Gonzalez and Bob O’Farrell
Eddie Smith question: Ken Raffensberger is the 20 game loser, 1944.

Doug
Doug
10 years ago

That’s it.

Re: O’Dea, what do you think about the Cubs/Cardinals? Just a coincidence no catchers have had significant time with them in the last 70 years. Or, do they not do many trades because they’re such keen rivals.

Here are the transactions between the two:
1940s – 5
1950s – 9
1960s – 18
1970s – 9
1980s – 1
1990s – 1
2000s – 2

Doug
Doug
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Remaining quiz answer.

Eddie Smith question: other pitchers to lead league in losses the year after recording a win in the ASG – Bob Friend (1961), Steve Carlton (1970)

Bix
Bix
10 years ago

Eckersley, Campanella, Mize

Chris C
Chris C
10 years ago

Mize, Tiant, Eckersley

Abbott
Abbott
10 years ago

Winfield, Murray, Killebrew

mo
mo
10 years ago

Mize Killebrew Ford

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

Mize, Gordon, Campanella I’ll be keeping an eye on Minoso and Travis as the voting & discussion progresses. I think there’s a good case for Travis for the Hall of Fame but at this point I don’t see him rising to the level of the COG. And I once ate at Bill Zuber’s restaurant in Homestead, Iowa. It would have been somewhere around the time that he died and until we went there and I saw all of the pictures from back in his playing days I wasn’t aware that he was a former ballplayer. As I recall the food… Read more »

JEV
JEV
10 years ago

Killebrew, Mize, Campanella

David P
David P
10 years ago

Mize for the win.

Tiant to stay on the ballot since he was the low vote getter last time around.

Murray because I didn’t vote for him last time.

koma
koma
10 years ago

Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Johnny Mize

Steve
Steve
10 years ago

Whitey Ford; Harmon Killebrew; Roy Campanella

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
10 years ago

Ford, Alomar, Minoso

Brent
Brent
10 years ago

Mize, Alomar and Campy

Andy
Andy
10 years ago

Mize, Boudreau, Kevin Brown

wx
wx
10 years ago

Johnny Mize, Whitey Ford, Eddie Murray

MJ
MJ
10 years ago

Johnny Mize, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown

jeff hill
jeff hill
10 years ago

Brown, Boudreau, Mize

Paul E
Paul E
10 years ago

Alomar
Killebrew
Mize

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago

Big Cat, no matter how you skin it… Here is Wins Above Average, expressed as a rate stat, by dividing it into Plate Appearances (PaWaa): 164.5 … (7370) Johnny Mize 166.4 … (7024) Lou Boudreau 176.2 … (6537) Joe Gordon 287.8 … (7712) M Minoso 306.7 … (4815) Roy Campanella 322.0 … (10400)Rob Alomar 350.0 … (9833) Harmon the Killer 471.0 … (5416) Cecil Travis 474.8 … (12817)Steady Eddie 480.2 … (6723) Rudy York 521.4 … (12358) Dave! Dave! Dave! Winfield _________________________ This stat in its raw form favors the career that abruptly ended at age 34-35 (Gordon, Boudreau) to… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago

Innings Pitched per Win Above Average
IpWaa:

80.3 …. (3256) Brown
93.1 …. (3548) Reuschel
101.0 … (3486) Tiant
107.4 … (3286) Eckersley
109.3 … (3170) Ford
________________________

All very closely lengthed careers.
And none of them hung around for very long in mediocrity, if at all.

latefortheparty
latefortheparty
10 years ago

1. Johnny Mize
2. Kevin Brown
3. Rick Reuschel

Mize was a monster. Criminy.

Mike HBC
Mike HBC
10 years ago

Mize, Gordon, Boudreau

RonG
RonG
10 years ago

Mize, Tiant, Minoso

bells
bells
10 years ago

Here’s the vote according to my statistical methodology. I take four measures of player value as a gauge of how players compare across advanced metrics that value things slightly differently. Then I give them a cumulative rank with all players on the ballot over 50 WAR, adding their ranking of each measure. Here are the measures: WAR – the ‘classic’ way of measuring a player’s value over a player the team could have gotten to replace the player, over that player’s career, to show how ‘good’ that player was. WAA+ – adding the wins above average players (rather than replacement)… Read more »

Steven
Steven
10 years ago

John Mize, Harmon Killebrew, Whitey Ford. I don’t think it will take Mize as long to enter the COG as it did for him to get into the HOF.

Mike HBC
Mike HBC
10 years ago
Reply to  Steven

My god, I did NOT realize that he didn’t get in until almost three decades after he retired. He was never even CLOSE on the writers’ ballots. How in the world is that possible?

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  Mike HBC

The first year he came on the ballot (1960) was in the midst of a time when the BBWAA just wasn’t voting anyone in but the automatics – they didn’t elect anyone in 1958, they didn’t elect anyone in 1960, they needed runoffs in 1964 to elect someone. 134 different players received votes in the 1960 election. 36 of them eventually made the Hall as players, another 3 as managers. That’s a crowded ballot! (By the way, it appears that for some reason Lefty Grove received 6 votes in the 1960 election, even though he’d already been in the Hall… Read more »

David P
David P
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

David H – According to this site, Grove’s 6 votes in 1960 were likely intended for Lefty Gomez. Voters either entered the wrong name or the votes were tabulated incorrectly.

http://nowiknow.com/leftys-return/

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  David P

Ah, I see. Thanks!

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

Mize’s case appears fairly similar to Hank Greenberg’s. They were both monster hitters but didn’t contribute much else from an all-around standpoint. That’s irrelevant from a value standpoint because they were so great with the bat, but perhaps in Mize’s case it played a larger part in how he was precieved as he was reduced to basically a pinch-hitting role in his final years. Similar to Mize, Greenberg stayed on the ballot for awhile, humming along at 30 or 40%. But, unlike Johnny, his totals suddenly jumped to 62% in 1955 and then he got over the line in ’56.… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Don’t you think Greenberg’s percentage probably rose with his status as the architect of one of the AL’s greatest teams in 1954? It just seems to me that a drastic rise so chronologically near to his greatest success as a GM would indicate that the two may be related…

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

In Greenberg’s case, when he first became eligible, there was still a backlog of deserving players not yet voted into the HOF. Looks like he got in just as the backlog cleared. Mize is a different story, I remember NY sportswriters complaining that that he had not been elected.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I would say that Greenberg’s vote share rose simply due to removing the backlog of HOFers. 1954 – Greenberg is at 38.1%. He’s 8th in the voting behind Maranville, Dickey, and Terry, all of whom went in, and DiMaggio, Lyons, Vance, and Harnett, all of whom were still on the ballot in 1955. 1955 – he’s still in the same spot in rank order, but with 3 of the 8 guys ahead of him off the ballot he just picks up more votes. I think this is just what happened to everyone – Cronin (right behind Greenberg in the rank… Read more »

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

It’s not like they were electing players who provided value from both sides either. At the same time Mize and Greenberg were languishing on the ballot with low totals, so were Luke Appling and Arky Vaughan, both of whom, like Mize, had solid hall cases without considering war years at all, and should have been pretty much locks if you took it into consideration. Here’s the thing: If you’re only electing guys who hit like Mize *and* provided a lot of defensive value, or guys who hit like Gehrig from the 1B slot, then you’re only electing inner circle guys.… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago

Johnny Mize
Kevin Brown
Joe Gordon

That’s the ballot for me. I’m thinking that Boudreau and Gordon are really close. The more we talk about it, the closer I think they are. But I’m still going to go with Gordon. It’s tough, but I’m taking Gordon for now.

Joel
Joel
10 years ago

MI’ve
Campanella
Ford

dr. remulak
dr. remulak
10 years ago

Mize, Ford, Campanella.

brp
brp
10 years ago

Side note of how I’m generally amused by the spirited discussion the last few rounds about how much to discount players who played during the war years which still ignores the fact that the average player in 1941 was still not anywhere near as good as Joe Ballplayer today, and that the league had essentially zero by way of Asian, Latin, or black players. But yeah, for sure it was as hard to be a superstar in 1940 as it is today. No question. That said I’m still going to vote for some “long-ago” ballplayers because I believe they could… Read more »

brp
brp
10 years ago
Reply to  brp

Ugh, that should be: Mize, Ford, Murray

Yes after my rant I still put in some old-timers…

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  brp

Are you suggesting, then, that the purpose of the COG (and HOF) is supposed to be to enshrine only the BEST players? Let’s assume that players will continue to get better. Should we not enshrine any ‘recent’ ones either, because the ones in 100 years will be better?

brp
brp
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

No, I’m not suggesting that. The goal is to enshrine the best players, though. Right? What are we doing otherwise? I’m of course going to vote for truly dominant players like Cobb or Ruth, but I think the backup infielders or mop-up pitchers those guys played with would probably be bouncing around high-A ball nowadays. Just my opinion. I also think the gap between baseball in 2114 and 2014 is going to be much smaller than the gap between 1914 and 2014. In 1914 you’re talking about a sport that was only 25 years removed from changing the number of… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I agree with the general premise that in general, over considerable periods of time, the overall talent level of MLB players has clearly improved. HOWEVER, I think that some people overstate the rate of increase (or, if you will, the decline in overall quality going back some decades…). If this were true, than the long-career (20+ years) all-time greats would not be able to play almost as well near the end of their careers, as at the start – the sharp increase in league quality wouldn’t allow them to be anywhere as dominant. Yes, overall MLB has increased, but very… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

I think some people REALLY overstate the rate of increase/decrease in quality as we go forward/back in time. For one thing, transporting players from 100 years ago and guessing how they would do in today’s game—-why has this become the de rigueur of baseball timeline analysis? I think it really misses the mark. It’s completely unfair. I like to think of it this way, and we’ll use Tyrus Cobb as an example. Instead of placing Cobb in a souped-up DeLorean and beaming him to modern times, just consider Cobb’s innate skill set and true talent. Now imagine if Cobb were… Read more »

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

I agree no drastic discounts yet. If anything, I think the league quality dropped a bit during expansion, such that the late 50s early 60s was probably as strong as the 70s and 80s despite the overall upward trend. That’s why I tend to start my adjustments at the integration line. I think that made a big difference. That said, I think there’s as big a difference between the teens and the late 30s, and an even bigger difference between the 19th century and the deadball era. Those are differences I take into account in deciding on the COG. I… Read more »

bells
bells
10 years ago
Reply to  brp

I’m not really sure what the comparison of pre-integration 1940s players to today’s players (or to post-integration 1950s players, for that matter) has to do with trying to figure out the war years. Integration, or athletic improvement, or just general spread of baseball leading to more physiologically promising talents recognizing that ability, those are all gradual cultural shifts (okay, in the case of integration, the effect was more like a dam breaking and talent bursting forth, but it was the result of gradual cultural shifts), but the war was different. It was a discrete and brief period of time in… Read more »

brp
brp
10 years ago
Reply to  bells

The point was that if you’re going to (reasonably) discount for players playing in war-depleted leagues, then you should (reasonably) discount for players in pre-integration leagues as well. I just found it funny that we had monstrous discussions about Gordon & Boudreau while not thinking that just maybe Robbie Alomar had it a little bit tougher than either one in terms of quality of competition. That was the point. We can bicker on percentage and quality of league play and everything else, but IMO it has to be at least A factor in comparing players during this voting process. The… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  bells

@54; Well stated, bells. I think the distinguishing factors between Time Lost to Military Service and Pre-Integration Adjustments are: – there is a discrete period in time that the players in question either missed time, or played in MLB during wartime years in question -we usually know how these players performed both before and after that particular time in question WHERE-AS….. – We have no “benchmark” to measure pre-integration performance against. We are merely making informed speculation as to how their actual performance would decrease if there were full integration in the period that they played. In ‘time-lining’, we likewise… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

LA: The PI Split Finder can be used to determine the percentage of innings pitched by starters. From 1914 through 1920, for each season, there were anywhere from 80.5% to 83.5% of IP by starters. From 1921 through 1946 those numbers ranged from 76.2% to 79.8%. From 1947 through 1986 the range was from 69.1% to 75.5%. From 1987 to 2014 the range was from 64.8% to 70.9%. Perhaps Doug could present a graph for % of IP by starters per year.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

I think it’s a misconception to say that discounts to player performance are already factored into advanced stats. What *has* been factored in is the change in difference between replacement level and average. That suggests that WAR should take a smaller hit or no hit, but WAA has not been adjusted at all, so you definitely need to figure out how to adjust WAA. Personally I find the adjustment suggested by the 2003 article to be much more reasonable than an adjustment of just 3 runs for the whole year. How I model this is that WAA went down the… Read more »

J.R.
J.R.
10 years ago

Ford, Mize, Gordon

Jeff
Jeff
10 years ago

Ford, Killebrew, Winfield

T-Bone
T-Bone
10 years ago

Mize, Reuschel, Boudreau

aweb
aweb
10 years ago

Brown
Boudreau
Gordon

oneblankspace
10 years ago

I do not object to the Big Cat getting in.

I am not going to vote for Biggio this round, and that’s unusual for me.

Murray
Minoso
Killebrew

Doug
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

Actually, a vote for Biggio is unnecessary as he’s already been elected.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago

Mize, Ford, Killebrew

Shard
Shard
10 years ago

The COG should enshrine players based on the era they played. According to WAR, Jack Glasscock was the best shortstop in the 1880’s. Would he be any good today?. Who knows? Can’t wait to vote on players born in 1857!!

MIZE
ALOMAR
GORDON

birtelcom
birtelcom
10 years ago
Reply to  Shard

Because the Circle of Greats is intended as a head-to-head alternative to the selections to the Hall of Fame that have been made over the years by the BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America), and because it was never really the BBWAA’s role to pick players who played primarily in the 19th century, the current plan is not to vote on or include in the Circle those players whose major league careers fell entirely in the 1800s or included more seasons in the 1800’s than the 1900’s. Once we’ve concluded the main part of the voting on the Circle, we… Read more »

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

Have you made a decision on George Davis? He played 10 years in the 1890s and 10 years in the 1900s. Not only that, his WAR is almost equally split between the two (though he has very slightly more 19th century WAR, it is close 42.9 to 41.8).

There’s always a corner case. I’d be inclined to include him, since you can’t have a COG without Cy Young who was born earlier.

There may be some other corner cases, but he’s the only one who looks like a potential inductee.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago

@66/MS;

What about Wee Willie Keeler? He has more years in 1900s than the 1890s, by 11-9, but considerably more of his value in the 1890s (31.6 to 22.6 WAR. So, there’s arguments both ‘for’ and ‘against’ him.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago

@95;

Yes, I vaguely recall that discussion (cf. the COG ‘break point’) from a couple years ago.

Too bad that we are not yet going to consider 1890s superstars whose careers ended in the very early 1900s, such as (to start) Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Kid Nichols, and Hughie Jennings. I guess we’ll have to see how the numbers work out when we get to the ‘end’ (or is it the ‘beginning’) of this project…

Doug
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

Possibly, we might want to make 1893 our cutoff year, being the year the pitcher’s mound moved to its current distance from the plate. Also, a maximum 4 balls and 3 strikes were in place by that time, after much experimentation over the preceding decade. Only significant rules change yet to come was having foul balls counted as strikes.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

Makes sense.

That would make Monte Cross (who was born in 1869) our model for the last guys who would be COG-eligible. His PA are split an almost perfect 50/50 between pre-1901 and later service.

Cy Young (who was born in 1867) has a 55%/45% split in his pre-1901 and later IP.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

I think the cutoff as described above is reasonable. Some of the players of the 1890s do fall into a gray area in terms of whether the BBWAA considered them one of “their” players to vote on – just to consider the players mentioned @98, Ed Delahanty drew substantial support, and Hughie Jennings made a passable showing, in some of the early elections before both were chosen by the Old-Timers Committee of 1945. By contrast, Billy Hamilton and Kid Nichols received only a handful of votes in those early elections. All 4 of these players were direct contemporaries, beginning their… Read more »

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

Mize, Brown, Alomar

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
10 years ago

Mize, Killebrew, Winfield.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago

Mize, Steady Eddie, and Alomar

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

Tally note: the ballot @ 60 hasn’t been tallied yet.

billh
billh
10 years ago

Winfield, Alomar, Murray

Darien
10 years ago

Killebrew, Mize, and Eckersley

PP
PP
10 years ago

Mize, Killer, Murray

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
10 years ago

The Big Cat doing well, so time to help some redeemed guys:

Reuschel, Tiant, Eckersley

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago

Vote:

Lou Boudreau
Kevin Brown
Dennis Eckersley
________________

bstar
bstar
10 years ago

Boudreau, Reuschel, Eckersley

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

Alomar, Tiant, Winfield

I voted for Tiant and Winfield last redemption round, so it seems like I should do my part to keep them around.

paget
paget
10 years ago

Mize is in good shape so I’ll vote:

Ford
Campanella
Winfield

Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson
10 years ago

Killebrew, Ford and Eckersley.