Circle of Greats 1901 Part 1 Runoff: Cochrane vs. Simmons

83 Replies

We need a quick runoff vote to resolve the tie at the top in the 1901 part 1 voting. Voting closes Sunday night, so vote early.

More after the jump.

This runoff vote is particularly interesting because the two candidates, Mickey Cochrane and Al Simmons, were contemporaries who debuted a year apart, both at age 22, and were teammates for their best seasons with the powerful Philadelphia Athletic clubs of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Both were also sent packing by the As for the identical sum of $100,000 when Connie Mack decided to cash in his chips when his best players were commanding top dollar (but had already started their career declines). The two would don the same uniform once more for the 1936 Tigers, when the younger Cochrane was also Simmons’ manager.

Cochrane posted 52.1 WAR (Baseball-Reference version), for a short time the top career mark for catchers, a feat more impressive for the relative brevity of his 13-season career, including only 11 years as a regular. Simmons compiled the heftier total of 68.7 WAR, but in over 50% more PA in the less demanding position of left-field (which he played quite well, by reputation and by traditional defensive metrics). Their career OPS+ numbers were also quite close at 129 for Cochrane and 133 for Simmons, with Cochrane having the edge in OBP and Simmons in SLG.

So, the choice is yours: Cochrane or Simmons. However you decide, your ballot in this runoff round, unlike the usual three-name ballot, should identify just one name, Cochrane’s or Simmons’. You will also need to add at least a little bit of extra verbiage though, because the WordPress engine that supports the site won’t accept comments of only one or two words.

This is a short-deadline runoff election. All votes must be in by 11:59PM EDT on Sunday night, April 5th. If the result of this runoff is still a tie, the tie-breaker will give the win to the candidate who received the most runoff votes immediately before the very last runoff vote cast. So it may not be advisable to wait till the end of the runoff period to cast your vote, because if your vote happens to be the last one cast, your vote may not count for tiebreaker purposes. If you would like to keep track of the vote tally for the runoff, you can check this tally spreadsheet: COG 1901 Part 1 Runoff Vote Tally.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

83 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Scary Tuna

9 years ago

Since I don’t want to forget and be scrambling to get my vote in at the last minute again, I’ll start this off by voting for Cochrane.

Hartvig

9 years ago

I think they both belong so I’m going with Cochrane because of the Tigers connection.

Darien

9 years ago

I’ll buck the trend and pick Al Simmons, then.

koma

9 years ago

I’ll go for Mickey Cochrane.

9 years ago

2 philly stars

I vote Cochrane

9 years ago

Cochrane plus some extra words.

latefortheparty

9 years ago

Mickey Cochrane

Dr. Doom

9 years ago

Like many others, I think they both belong, but I have to go with the very best player from my own hometown: Al Simmons.

JEV

9 years ago

It’s Simmons for me.

Dave Humbert

9 years ago

I choose Simmons, and the other guy will get in soon as well. Aloysius was such an offensive force on those great teams, cannot pass him up.

Bill Johnson

9 years ago

I’ll go with Mutt Mantle’s favorite player-Mickey Cochrane.

9 years ago

I’ll vote for Simmons.

Chris C

9 years ago

Cochrane has my vote.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

9 years ago

Cochrane by a hair.

Brent

9 years ago

Not much of a difference at all. I think if Connie Mack had to choose one of them and deal the other, he would have kept Cochrane. I will choose Cochrane on that basis.

David Horwich

9 years ago

I’ll vote for Cochrane.

Kirk

9 years ago

Cochrane for me

Richard Chester

9 years ago

Simmons…and a few more words.

donburgh

9 years ago

Cochrane for me.

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Bucketfoot Al. I can’t separate them based on regular season stats, but Simmons kicked butt in the Series, while Cochrane was just okay. I couldn’t pick a winner from a position comparison for the era, 1920-45: — Cochrane is one of three great catchers who are almost indistinguishable. He’s a hair behind Dickey and Hartnett on WAR and WAA totals, but just ahead of them on rates. — Simmons would be my #1 LF. But he’s not far up on Goslin or Bob Johnson, balancing totals and rates. And if you include RF in the rankings, Simmons would clearly trail… Read more »

Low T

9 years ago

Mickey Cochrane vote

Artie Z.

9 years ago

Went Cochrane in the regular vote, so Cochrane in the runoff.

Steven

9 years ago

Al, Ted or Curt. I vote Simmons.

Joseph

9 years ago

Simmons has much higher peaks (three WAR >= 7.5 compared to none for Cochrane–indeed, Simmons has 4 higher WAR seasons than Cochrane’s highest) in addition to higher WAR, higher batting average, higher slugging percentage–and almost everything else, with the exception of OBP.

Vote for Simmons.

dr. remulak

9 years ago

Cochrane and more respect needed for Catchers.

Andy

9 years ago

I’m going with Al Simmons

Paul E

9 years ago

Mickey Cochrane for me. I believe Cochrane was the catcher on the 1869 – 1969 All Century/First 100 Years team, ahead of Dickey, Campanella, Harnett, Bresnahan, Schang, and Clay Dalrymple

Author

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to Paul E

If true, also ahead of Yogi Berra!

Paul E

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

“The greatest all-time team included Lou Gehrig at first base, Rogers Hornsby at second, Honus Wagner at short, Pie Traynor at third, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and DiMaggio in the outfield, Mickey Cochrane catching, Walter Johnson as right-handed pitcher and Lefty Grove as left-handed. John McGraw was the manager.”

…from the National Pastime Museum

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

9 years ago

Reply to Paul E

I hope, when that teams plays the 1969-2069 team, that Ted Williams at least gets to DH.

Paul E

9 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

34) Bryan,
I guess in the eyes of voters/sportswriters in 1969, the legend of DiMaggio and all those pennant winners exceeded Ted Williams’ hitting. I do rememeber articles of the period indicating “surprise” in Cochrane finishing ahead of Dickey…but, not necessarily Berra.
Back then, sportswriters were all over the “champions” and the good old days and the legends of the World Series. It’s always beneficial to have great team mates

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

@39;

Well, Yogi Berra both played in and won more World Series than anyone else, more than Dickey, far more than Cochrane.

I think the image of Yogi in 1969 was more of a short, dumpy funny-looking guy who happened to be a really good player, as opposed to an all-time great, winner of three MVPs, and probably the greatest catcher ever till then.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

9 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Paul, I’m sure you’re right about championships factoring heavily in the writers’ decision, but they also picked a centerfielder who never played for a World Series winner. DiMaggio had immense value as an elite-hitting centerfielder, but I’m surprised they chose him over perhaps the greatest hitter ever at that point when that guy filled the one position not otherwise represented.

Paul E

9 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Bryan (41)
They took DiMaggio over Mays, Cochrane over Yogi, and Traynor over Mathews. Mays was still playing, Yogi was only retired 5-6 years and Mathews had just retired. I guess it was retired “legends” over the superior “moderns”?

In that same vein, it’s probably difficult for a lot of current fans to regard Pujols as the superior of Jimmie Foxx…I dunno

Michael Sullivan

9 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Also among those skipped over in electing DiMaggio was Stan Musial, mostly a contemporary — while his career *ended* 12 years later, it began only 5 years later than Joe Ds, and Hammerin’ Hank, who, while still active, had already by the end of the 1968 season amassed career value well in excess of DiMaggio’s even giving Joe some *very* generous war credit, and Mickey Mantle who had just retired. Let’s not also forget Tris Speaker, a contemporary of Cobb. From a 2015 perspective, I’d put Mays at least, ahead of even Cobb for sure, and tentatively could say the… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Reply to Paul E

@27, 28, 32;

In 1969, that’s not a bad team, with the exception of third (Eddie Mathews, Brooks, Frank Baker over Traynor, for starters). Also I’d take Yogi at catcher, Speaker over DiMaggio, maybe Eddie Collins over Hornsby, but otherwise it’s hard to argue over these choices.

Also remember that the first comprehensive baseball reference book had just come out that year, so there was a lack of reliable sources to research these players.

robbs

9 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

The writer of “56” Kostya Kennedy devotes a lot of space to DiMaggio being named the “greatest living player” more so than him being on the all-time team. He also gives a lot of credence to Mays’ apparent enthusiastic endorsement of DiMaggio at the banquet, though I don’t know what he expected ted Mays to say. Like Speaker for that time frame, would like to know how the HHS crown feels in Speaker vs. DiMaggio.

Joseph

9 years ago

Reply to Paul E

I think you’re right:

http://www.thenationalpastimemuseum.com/article/baseballs-centennial-greatest-players-ever-poll

But they were wrong. 😉

Abbott

9 years ago

I heart Mickey Cochrane

bstar

9 years ago

Either one is fine — but I’ll go with Simmons

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Mickey Cochrane: “You have to have a catcher, otherwise you will have a lot of passed balls.” – Casey Stengel Someone else has probably mentioned this already, but I think we should pause and appreciate how amazing those A’s teams were from 1928 to 1932 – having not only Cochrane and Simmons but also Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove on them – not merely four HOFers, but four players all considered amongst the best-ever (top-10 at minimum) at their positions, and in their primes. Not only that, but the A’s also had a number of other fine players, including Max… Read more »

Paul E

9 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

LA 33,
Didn’t ESPN (or somebody else) do a series where they kind of had a computer-generated elimination tournament amongst the great teams (’55 Dodgers, ’27 Yankees, ’29 A’s, ’39 Yankees, etc…) and the ’29 Athletics won? Maybe I’m crazy but, I seem to recall something of this sort a few years back? Maybe Bill James?

Brendan Bingham

9 years ago

My vote is for Cochrane.

bells

9 years ago

They’re pretty close, but Elvin Charles Mantle didn’t name his son Aloysius after his favorite ballplayer. That’s tiebreaker enough for me.

Mickey Cochrane

David Horwich

9 years ago

Cochrane is out to a healthy lead, 21-11 (through #36), and a ten-vote lead is effectively an eleven-vote lead, given the tiebreaker rules.

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

I’ll go with Simmons.
_____________________

And if any of y’all are Allegiant pilots, please don’t freaking go on strike tomorrow.

JamesS

9 years ago

Mickey Cochrane for the win

robbs

9 years ago

Tiger Champ hometown bias vote for Cochrane.

Gary Bateman

9 years ago

I’ll cast my vote for Simmons.

Arsen

9 years ago

My vote is Cochrane. The Circle needs more catchers. Simmons will get in soon enough.

Stephen

9 years ago

I will vote for Cochrane

T-Bone

9 years ago

Simmons for the win.

MikeD

9 years ago

Cochrane is the man.

Steve

9 years ago

too close to call but I’ll say Mickey Cochrane.

brp

9 years ago

Wisconsin Voters for Simmons

Dr. Doom

9 years ago

Reply to brp

27-15 in favor of Cochrane right now, though I agree with the sentiment of brp’s comment!

jajacob

9 years ago

simmons, his peak value was much more than mickey, and mantle played in the outfield he didnt catch.

Michael Sullivan

9 years ago

Reply to jajacob

mantle?

I don’t understand this comment.

Mantle did play in the outfield. OTOH, he’s not up for a vote (already went in as a slam dunk many elections ago) and NO WAY was Al Simmons peak value even CLOSE to mickey MANTLE’s peak value.

OTOH, this mickey COCHRANE guy that we’re actually voting on, was indeed a catcher.

David P

9 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

Michael Sullivan – I assume this is a response to Bells #36.

jajacob

9 years ago

simmons, his peak value was much more than cochrane, and mantle played in the outfield he didnt catch.

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

I thought that the Toronto Blue Jays early/mid-80s OF trio of George Bell (LF)/ Lloyd Moseby (CF)/ Jesse Barfield (RF) would make this list; however, they didn’t play together as regulars until they were all 25 years old. They were much discussed at that time.

I also thought that the Red Sox OF of Rice/ Lynn/ Evans would show up for 1975, 1976 and/or 1977 (2/3rds did), but I see that Rice didn’t have 3.5 WAR in 1975 or 1976, and was primarily a DH in 1977.