Circle of Greats 1956 Ballot

221 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion in the fourteenth round of balloting for the Circle of Greats. This round adds those players born in 1956. Rules and lists are after the jump.

As always, each 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, 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 EDT on Sunday, April 7, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:00 PM EDT Friday, April 5.

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: 1956 COG 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-1956 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 10 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. (Note that after several candidates on the bubble fell off the ballot in the last round, and with Lou Whitaker joining the list of holdovers with two rounds of eligibility, there are no holdovers who are on the bubble this round. The new group of 1956 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.

Holdovers:
Tom Glavine (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Tony Gwynn (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Barry Larkin (eligibility guaranteed for 6 rounds)
John Smoltz (eligibility guaranteed for 6 rounds)
Craig Biggio (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Tim Raines (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ryne Sandberg (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Alan Trammell (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Lou Whitaker (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)

Everyday Players (born in 1956, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Paul Molitor
Eddie Murray
Lance Parrish
Dale Murphy
Rance Mulliniks
Ken Oberkfell
Garry Templeton
Hubie Brooks
Pedro Guerrero
Terry Puhl
Thad Bosley
Terry Kennedy
Tom Herr
Ron Oester
Gary Redus
Luis Salazar
Butch Wynegar
Mookie Wilson
Dale Berra
Vance Law
Ozzie Virgil
Tony Bernazard
Jody Davis

Pitchers (born in 1957, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Scott Sanderson
Rick Sutcliffe
Bob Welch
Mike LaCoss
Charlie Leibrandt
Bob Walk
Frank DiPino
Moose Haas
Mario Soto
Mark Clear
Steve Farr
Andy McGaffigan
Dickie Noles
Joe Price
Eric Show
Dave Rozema

0 0 votes

Article Rating

221 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

I’m really tempted to include former Brewer Molitor, but I don’t think he’s one of the top the infielders, much less one of the top three players. But I AM going with three infielders:

Trammell
Larkin
Sandberg

Wish I could vote for Kevin Brown. Oh well.

11 years ago

I’m going to start this off by saying I’m shocked that Thad Bosley lasted 14 years in the majors! He only picked up 1,754 PAs in those 14 seasons. Normally that would indicate that someone was a catcher or perhaps a defensive whiz in the middle infield. But Bosley was an OFer, mostly a LFer with some time in Center and Right as well. Rbat shows he was a below average hitter, an average fielder and an average baserunner. So how exactly did the guy last so long??? Looking at his splits, I notice two things: 1) He was platooned… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

I immediately thought of Mark Sweeney.

– 14 years in the majors
– 2131 plate appearances: 799 as a pinch hitter, 619 as an outfielder, the rest mostly as a first baseman.

– Platooned massively: 1947 PAs against righties, 184 against lefties.
– .751 OPS against RHP vs .558. against LHP

– Slightly negative value as baserunner and fielder

However he hit equally ‘well’ as a pinch hitter and a starter, although he has more hits, runs, homers etc from pinch hitting than any one other single position.

Total career WAR:
Bosley: 2.5
Sweeney: 2.0

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Good find RJ! Sweeney definitely seems to be a good comp for Bosley. Guess I was wrong about there be no more Bosley types.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

The mention of Thad Bosley got me looking … Most seasons with less than 250 PAs (non-pitchers): 17, by Jamie Quirk and Tom Prince. Both backup catchers. But Quirk had one year as a regular, more or less (109 G, 334 PA). He also filled a utility role, and did enough with the stick to get 268 PAs as a pinch-hitter. Prince was a pure backup catcher. Never the regular, he peaked at 66 games and 215 PAs, totaled 519 G and 1,357 PAs. So bad with the bat that he pinch-hit just 51 times in 17 years. Played just… Read more »

oneblankspace

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Quirk was also a left handed bat off the bench who could play C, 2B, 3B, corner outfield, … almost anywhere.

11 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Quirk did something….quirky!!! Check out this game log:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE198409270.shtml

As you can see, Quirk hit a walk off home run in the bottom of the ninth. What makes it so quirky? It was his only career plate appearance for the Indians!!! I can’t imagine that anyone else did that…one plate appearance for a team and they hit a walk off home run. (though I imagine someone will prove me wrong with is one of the reasons I love HHS so much!)

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed: I think you’re in the clear. I found only one other player who had one HR for a team in his only PA with them. It was Gustavo Chacin who did it for Houston in 2010 and it was in no way a walk-off HR,

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

@26 Richard: That one at-bat for Chacin providing more value (0.2 WAR) than his 44 games pitching for Houston that year (-0.1 WAR).

Quirk’s OPS+ with the Indians: 1201. No matter how little it means, sometimes I just like seeing bonkers numbers like that.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Career Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:

Larkin 45.5
Trammell 45.1
Whitaker 43.1
Glavine 42.2
Molitor 40.7
Smoltz 40.2
Sandberg 39.1
Alomar 37.3
Raines 37.2
Gwynn 36.8
Biggio 36.7
Murray 34.9
Murphy 24.5

Glavine-Smoltz is a toss-up, but I’m giving Smoltz a boost because I think he left some wins on the table when the team needed him to close. Molitor is tempting, but he wasn’t the hitter Edgar Martinez was, and we just dumped Edgar from the ballot.

Smoltz
Larkin
Trammell

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

But Molitor gets baserunning brownie points right? Plus he has big leads in counting stats, although obviously in far more games. Having said all that, Edgar’s WAA is actually greater than Molitor’s.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Of course. It wouldn’t be a travesty if Molitor got in the CoG and Edgar never did, but my method prefers Edgar.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

Molitor fielded 1495 games
Edgar 592

Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

He also had a WS MVP and over 500 steals, and started out as a middle-infielder. I don’t see the argument for dismissing Molitor as being one-dimensional.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

According to Rfield, Molitor and Martinez were both thoroughly average fielders when they did don a glove. True, Molitor started as a middle infielder and stuck at third for longer, but there’s little evidence that Edgar got moved to DH because he couldn’t handle first or third. Their respective teams’ decisions to move them off the field absolutely impact their value, but I don’t think that should affect our assessment of their greatness. If either of these guys should be in the Circle of Greats, it’s because of what they did with their bats. I will concede that Molitor’s baserunning… Read more »

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Bryan @ 28 I love HHS! my memory of Molitor was as a suberb baserunner, maybe one of the best ever. He was great at anticipating the play and advancing on ground balls. On the other hand, My memory of Edgar was one dimensional, I had forgotten that he was a competent defender at one time, so thanks for that.– positional adjustments can sometimes be unfair , when a team ends up with two third basemen, or CF ,or whatever, and Edgar may have been dinged by that

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

If you look at Edgar’s 14 best WAR seasons (non-consecutive) those add up to a WAR of 68.1, a bit ahead of Molitor’s 66.8 over his own best 14 seasons. But Edgar had essentially zero net WAR outside of those 14 seasons, while Molitor had 8.7 total WAR outside of his best 14 seasons.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

But, but birtelcom, that would entail looking at a player’s entire career instead of just his peak years.

That’s downright heresy!

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

As it relates to this discussion, I’m not sure I care about the numbers Molitor tacked on before and after his peak. Sure, they had some value to his teams, but do they make him “greater” than Martinez?

Was Bob Dylan greater than the Beatles because he kept putting out decent albums for thirty-something years after his peak?

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

@115 Bryan, this comment has made me think about peak vs longevity quite a bit, specifically with regards to these two players. It’s an interesting comparison: one player who was basically all peak, and another whose peak was less spectacular, but was solid for pretty much his entire career and had some decent seasons at either end of his career. I’m struggling to come to any real conclusions, but I’ll say a couple of things. One, whenever I think about music as a comparison it always makes me realise I value peak over longevity. (Does it matter that those involved… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Eddie Murray and Paul Molitor are two great examples of how there’s more to a player’s career than just his peak.

The Diamond King

11 years ago

Gwynn, Molitor, Murray

ATarwerdi96

11 years ago

Paul Molitor, Tony Gwynn, Tom Glavine

JasonZ

11 years ago

Gwynn
Molitor
Murray

oneblankspace

11 years ago

Gwynn, Molitor, Biggio.

He played so long for the same team, and that hardly happens anymore. Oh, I guess all three did.

I saw three games of Molitor’s 39-game when the Brewers played at Comiskey Park in August of 1987.

Biggio, like Quirk, could play catcher, second base, and the outfield — including some games against Mark McGwire where he played as a fourth outfielder. Plus he had a bunch of doubles.

Tony Gwynn just got a lot of hits.

Daniel Longmire

11 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Ummm…hate to be the know-it-all here, but Molitor played for the Blue Jays (’93 WS MVP) and Twins as well.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Eddie Murray had

3255 hits
without ever cracking 185 in a season

560 doubles with a high of 37

504 homers with a high of 33

1099 XBH (18th alltime) with a high of 70

And is the all time leader in sacrifice flies without ever leading the league.
_________

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Murray also holds the AL record for game winning RBI 117. Granted the stat was only around for 9 years and coincided with Murray’s AL peak.

And Murray definitely earned his nickname of “Steady Eddie”. OPS+ wasn’t around during Murray’s time but here are his OPS+ from 81-84: 156, 156, 156, 157.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

A few weeks ago someone on this site suggested that Molitor is a PED suspect.
I googled it, and learned that Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20chafets.html?_r=0

So, it looks like we’ll still be having the PED conversation when we get to the 1856 vote.

Mike HBC

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Honest question: Is monkey testosterone more Performance-Enhancing or Disgust-Enhancing?

11 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

Since they have superior muscle structure to humans, I’d say performance enhancing.

11 years ago

3 members of them 3000 hit club and I’m thinking only one of them might get in (Murray), though I’ll likely vote for 2. Right now I dDon’t understand the criticism against Molitor. He has more WAR than Murray and neither hada high peak. Agree with the above that Martinez was a a better hitter, but he was probably a better hitter than everyone on the ballot. Will explore some more.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to PP

4 x 3000
Biggio,
Capt. Vid,
Steady,
The Ignitor

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Aha. I overlooked Biggio. Guess that means I’m not thinking of voting for him?

RonG

11 years ago

Murray, Trammell, Whitaker

Dr. Remulak

11 years ago

Gwynn, Biggio, Smoltz

David Horwich

11 years ago

Larkin, Glavine, Trammell

latefortheparty

11 years ago

My ballot feels so empty without Larry Walker to vote for anymore. Regardless, moving forward:

Tom Glavine
Paul Molitor
Lou Whitaker

I was glad to see the Bad Thad discussion above. He was a fan favorite when I was an usher for the Iowa Cubs in ’83 and ’84. Also, a shout out to fantasy secret weapon Gary Redus, who never got enough at bats.

oneblankspace

11 years ago

Reply to latefortheparty

At there’s still an LW on the ballot for you.

Nadig

11 years ago

Glavine, Gwynn, Molitor.

Brooklyn Mick

11 years ago

I don’t know about you folks, but when I was watching baseball in the 80’s I thought Dale Murphy was a certain HOFer. In the 8 year period from 1980-87 Murph’s 264 home runs was second only to Mike Schmidt’s 295. His 768 RBI’s trailed only Dave Winfield, Steady Eddie, and again, Mr. Schmidt. His cumulative WAR of 40.1 was a nick behind Brett’s 40.3 and good for 9th overall. The top 7 were Mr. Schmidt, Rickey, Kid, Boggs, Hernandez, Eddie, and Trammell. Pretty darn good company. At the completion of his age 33 season, his last full season with… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Brooklyn Mick

Dale Murphy in Colorado: .130/.259/.174/.433
Dale Murphy everywhere else: .265/.346./469/.815

Oh, sorry, wrong discussion.

oneblankspace

11 years ago

Reply to Brooklyn Mick

DaMurphy had the longest consecutive game streak that started and ended during CRipken’s streak.

Mike

11 years ago

Molitor
Murray
Gwynn

Hartvig

11 years ago

Not really any easier than it has been. I still see 10 people on the ballot that I feel definitely belong in the COG plus 2 more that I’m leaning towards and a 3rd I’m on the fence about. Add in an old Tiger favorite in Parrish, a guy who looked like a sure thing at one point (Murphy) plus guys named Mookie and Moose and it’s tough to decide. Add in that I can see a reasonable case to be made for any one of 7 different guys being the best player on the ballot and… Trammell Whitaker Larkin… Read more »

JasonZ

11 years ago

As I have said previously, a close friend since ninth grade who pitched in the AL from 91-95, when I asked him who was the best hitter he ever faced…

Without hesitation he said Molitor.

He faced Molitor during his age 35-39 seasons.

I would also ask our elder statesman who saw DiMaggio if they would comment on the similarity of their swings,

BryanM

11 years ago

Not ready to vote yet, I’d still like the benefit of the community”s reasoned arguments on some of these players. In preparing for the mental adjustments I have to make to WAR in order to make my own choices, I thought it would be instructive to compare Trammell and Whitaker, on 3 dimensions . Data, contemporary opinion, and HHS opinion. As we move back in time, the data becomes more sketchy, especially for defense and base running, and we will have to rely on contemporary opinion if we are not to blindly follow the data. Perhaps no two players in… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Bryan: Nice work, interesting discussion.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

I would dispute a couple of your conclusions, the first of which was that Whitaker was a better hitter than Trammell, let alone significantly better. Sweet Lou was remarkably consistent including with the bat in his hands. But Trammell, at his best, was better. Their career totals differ because Sweet Lou stayed consistent right to the end. Trammell had a couple of less-that-stellar mid-career seasons- at least one relating to a nagging injury- plus a few seasons at the end where he was a liability with the bat. And while there’s a lot to be said for consistency there’s a… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

According to b-ref, Whitaker had a negative Rbat in two of his 19 seasons, while Trammell had a negative Rbat in 11 of his 20 seasons. Here are the guys I found with the highest career Rbat among all hitters with at least 11 seasons of negative Rbat:
Alan Trammell 129
Ivan Rodriguez 70
Tommy Davis 67
Deacon McGuire 24
Mark Loretta and Mike Jorgensen 9

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig, I couldn’t really tell from Bryan M’s post if he was actually suggesting Trammell and Whitaker were similar fielders or not. If so, here’s my reply: Just because two players have equal Rfield does not mean they are equal in value as fielders. Trammell is being compared to a league-average shortstop while Sweet Lou is being compared to a league-average second baseman. Since the two standards are not the same, we need the positional adjustment to get things back to a level playing field. Lou Whitaker was tried at short in the minors at age 18. The result? 7… Read more »

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

I was unclear I guess . I was saying that they were similar apart from the position adjustments so of course after that tramells value was higher. Net bref has W ahead sin e his hitting was enough to compensate

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig thanks for posting about two great players. Just a couple of points in reply. 1- I was not saying that Whitaker was better, only that a pure data perspective would show that. My belief is that the numbers can’t capture everything and we need to balance with informed opinion, which as I pointed out tends to favor Trammel. Your post is an additional data point in that. 2 I am aware that Jaws has T ahead but the bref data is firmly for W even after the 5WAR position advantage for SS I am agnostic on whether 5 is… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Two things (neither of them sentiment) lead me to rate Whitaker and Trammell dead even, despite Whitaker’s small lead in WAR: 1) Trammell played an extra year after Lou retired, and scored -1.0 WAR. I can’t see that year meaning anything in a head-to-head comparison. Ignoring that extra year narrows the WAR gap to 3.4, less than 5% of either’s total. That seems within the margin of error. 2) While both were very rounded players, Whitaker had one significant weakness — he didn’t hit lefties well, and was somewhat platooned over his last 8 seasons. I can’t guess exactly how… Read more »

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

First , apologies to Hartvig @ 40 , and Bstar @45, my replies to them were typed on the phone during a big family dinner and may be unclear. The internet connection here in the doghouse is much better so maybe I can clear things up. The purpose of my original post was methodological – how to think my was through the mental adjustments we have to make in order to rank players in our minds; some of these , like park factors, or position adjustments can generate a lot of heat and not much light; as we have recently… Read more »

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

sorry ,in my 55 , the last para should have been just before the words “to summarize” please read it as such.

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

JA @53 ; while I am in complete accord with your conclusion, it seems to me that your points 1 and 2 are contradictory; 1- AT played badly in some games late in his career which hurt a counting stat, if we ignore these , he’s closer to LW 2- LW did not play in some games late in his career, in which if he hypothetically had, and played badly , it would have hurt a rate stat , which optically would make him look closer to AT, although it probably would not have hurt his counting stat advantage. I… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

BryanM @58 — I see why you consider my points self-contradictory. But another way to see it is, in both cases I’m talking about games *not* played by Whitaker under more difficult conditions. He sat against some lefties in the 2nd half of his career, and he didn’t play in ’96 at age 39 (as Trammell did). But perhaps that is just linguistic legerdemain. Still, the circumstances behind Trammell’s decision to play in ’96 also lead me to dismiss that year for the head-to-head comparison. As I understand it, the club — which had been suffering at the gate for… Read more »

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig , specifically to this post – Your opinion that Trammell was the greater of the two, albeit by a narrow margin, is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to elicit. to be clear, I was saying they were equally competent fielders at their respective positions, which of course makes the shortstop a more valuable defender, since the position is more difficult to play well , I apologize if this was not clear. Trammell’s great 1984 post season is of course a great point in his favor – neither one was very good in the 1987 ALCS. Trammell’s… Read more »

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Truth is in re-reading your original post I “over-responeded” in regards to what you said about the positional differences. But more to the point of your original question- I saw the Tigers play in Detroit at least a couple of dozen times between 1983 and about 1994 plus a couple more times in Chicago. The majority of those games were between 84 & 88 (a friend had moved to Detroit after graduating from law school in the summer of 83- by 89 when his second kid came on the scene I cut my visits down to once a year for… Read more »

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

I’ve pointed this out before but the thing that gets me is Lou’s late career offensive numbers. I guess my opinion of his bat was formed earlier in his career.

Ages 20-30: .279/.355/.406/.761
Ages 31-38: .273/.376/.458/.834

That’s a big jump in walk rate (+.027) and slugging (+.052) which takes you from above average bat to all-star bat. Always a good defender at a skill position, the later part looks clearly like the total HOF package. But in my mind, I still see the younger Whitaker. Slick glove, good but hardly dominant bat.

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

Mosc, I was surprised as well -although a late power surge is not uncommon, as is an increasing walk rate, accompanied by a decline in BA. Lou was also helped by his high platoon splits – he was platooned late in his career. Some see this as a negative (he couldn’t hit lefties) , but a reliable tendency that your manager can exploit has real value, leading to real wins, so it can just as easily be seen as a positive.
good LH bats attached to skilled middle infielders have been pretty rare in baseball history…

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

I was just thinking about JAWS for Whitaker (it doesn’t like him as a HOFer). If you flipped his batting stats around to line up more naturally with his defensive value, he’d get a huge bump in JAWS of probably 10 or so.

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

I’m not sure why you think JAWS doesn’t like Whitaker. He’s 11th among second basemen, though not that different from the #7 guy.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

By JAWS, Whitaker is ahead of nine HOFers and also behind nine HOFers, putting him squarely in the middle (I’m not counting Bucky Harris,who was elected as a manager). I’d say that JAWS likes Whitaker pretty well -certainly a lot better than the BBWAA should have.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

I really don’t want anyone to get the idea I’m piling on here since this has already been addressed twice but just for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t already know about JAWS and how it works I wanted to be sure that they understand what’s being discussed. JAWS is an average of a players career WAR and their WAR for their 7 year peak. Add those numbers together & divide by 2 and you have the players JAWS “score”. The idea is to combine career value and peak value into one number. Lou Whitaker’s JAWS number is 56.3. Just… Read more »

11 years ago

I noticed Templeton had 28 SBs and 24 CSs in ’77. Has anyone with 20 or more SBs been caught more times?

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to PP

There have been 61 players with more than 20 SB who have been CS more than 24 times. Tops is Rickey Henderson who was CS 42 times in 1982 when he stole 130.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

I have to re-word that statement. There have been 42 players that match the criteria who have done it for a total of 61 times. Ty Cobb and Burt Shotton did it 4 times each.

Chris C

11 years ago

Reply to PP

In 1988 Harold Reynolds had 35 steals and 29 cs.

11 years ago

Reply to PP

I should have stated that better. Sorry ya’ll. I meant has anyone with over 20 SBs been caught more times than they succeeded?

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to PP

It’s happened 12 times by 12 different players. Last one to do it was Jack Fournier in 1921, 22 CS and 20 SB.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Actually I think caught stealing information is mostly unavailable for both leagues for seasons prior to 1920. There seems to be a few seasons or at least players that some information is available for prior to that (if you look at Ty Cobb & Zach Wheat you’ll see what I mean) but for the most part it’s missing. What information is available however shows that no small number of guys were stealing with some fairly lousy success rates. And while Buddy Bell never managed to crack double-figures for stolen bases he did make a good run at getting caught stealing… Read more »

Insert Name Here

11 years ago

As a result of this change in WAR, I am changing my peak WAR/162 methodology ONLY to allow for peaks to be shortened (from, say, 9 or 10 years to 5 or 6) if it causes the peak WAR/162 to be above 5 (the minimum for HOF-caliber). I made this rule specifically for Tom Glavine, who wouldn’t be a HOFer by my method if I didn’t do this. Of course, he still isn’t nearly high enough on the list for a COG vote. That said, here’s my initial vote for 3 candidates: 1. Barry Larkin (6.8 WAR/162 during 12-yr peak… Read more »

brp

11 years ago

Reply to Insert Name Here

Just as a note, I usually wait until after you’ve run this. It’s by no means a deciding factor but I certainly look at it. We’re going to induct a MIF, one way or another.

Larkin (think he should win this round)
Trammell
Murray

Hard not to put in a vote for The Ignitor but it looks like he’ll hang around and he’s probably not one of the 112 best players, so whatever.

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Insert Name Here

Career Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons ranks Molitor 5th on this ballot and only 10% behind the leader. Not that I agree with either INH’s metric or your metric as an entire summation. Just that there are multiple ways of skinning the cat and your way is particularly harsh to Molitor even when both are looking at peak contributions.

11 years ago

Reply to Insert Name Here

INH, I’d also like to say that I always look at your selections and appreciate that not only do you have a clearly explained method for making your choices, but also that you’re willing to make adjustments to those choices if necessary. (In fact, your choices this time are the same as mine in the last round and possibly this round as well.) However, in this instance, if the system is suggesting that Pedro Guerrero is more CoG worthy than Paul Molitor, then perhaps the system is being an ass.

Insert Name Here

11 years ago

Reply to RJ

Indeed it is being an ass. On a hypothetical “all-time list” a la EloRater, I’d list Molitor above Guerrero, and I’d list Glavine and Smoltz much higher than the system thinks, etc. But when it comes to HOF/COG, I want to hold to a consistent method, remembering that I came up with this after reading a Tom Verducci piece about how “dominance and how long he was dominant” (or something like that) is most central to a player’s HOF debate. As we all now know, it’s seen many changes over time, some necessitated like this most recent one, others urged… Read more »

Insert Name Here

11 years ago

Reply to Insert Name Here

Vote change: Dropping Trammell and Whitaker for Dale Murphy (struggling to get 10%) and a shoutout vote to Pedro Guerrero, who, according to my method, actually is more worthy than Murphy.

Final vote: Barry Larkin, Pedro Guerrero, Dale Murphy.

Jeff Harris

11 years ago

Larkin, Whitaker, Trammell

Joel

11 years ago

Larkin, Murray, Molitor

Darien

11 years ago

Gwynn, Raines, and Trammell, though if we hold a “Circle of Great Names” induction I’m picking Moose Haas, Bob Walk, and Butch Wynegar.

Also, I’m going to start a campaign to get Grant Balfour nicknamed “Bob Walk Jr.” Who’s with me?

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to Darien

This round is full of great names that I loved as a kid (from getting my dad’s old baseball cards): Rance Mulliniks, Butch Wynegar, Norman — I mean, Gary Redus…

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

“…from getting my dad’s old baseball cards…” –

WOW, I feel old; I remember the entire careers of all these guys.

Now, if you had old baseball cards of, say, Ted Williams or Pee Wee Reese or Johnny Mize, I’d call those “old”.

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I had most of a set in 1955 where the players were framed in TV screens — I’m pretty sure I had Reese, I know I had 3 copies of Kaline ,which ,since I lived in Detroit, was playground gold dust.

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

That was a great set of cards. I was little and couldn’t get over how the TVs had color.

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I was born in ’88 and started collecting at the age of maybe eight or nine, so anything made before then seems “old.” Anything made before ’76 or ’77 seems “ancient” and I want it in my collection, even if it’s Kurt Bevacqua.

Fireworks

11 years ago

Monitor, Murray, Gwynn

Fireworks

11 years ago

Is Coors the old argument, and (not Lou and Alan but) Lou versus Alan the new one?

I punted on the Detroit Duo this round because I don’t want to take up two spots on my ballot with them and I can say without prejudice (or humor) that anyone who chooses to have one of the duo on the ballot without his complement deserves to have Hawk Harrelson follow them around all day, every day, all the rest of the days of their life serving as a narrator to all the events in their life.

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Reply to Fireworks

I actually do encounter a lot of ducksnorts during the course of my day.

BryanM

11 years ago

Reply to Fireworks

Fireworks, As the one who started the Lou vs Alan bunfight @36 , concluding that ” I was foolish to try to separate the inseparable” I assume I can put you down for an “amen”?

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

I was enjoying voting for Walker and Lofton every week.
_________________

Glavine
Gwynn
Molitor

Gary Bateman

11 years ago

Gwynn, Molitor, Murray

Chris C

11 years ago

Hmm. I think I’ll be happy with about 12 different guys getting in on this ballot. The differences appear to be razor thin. I’ve changed my personal methodology from haphazard gut feeling to haphazard stat perusal. So far I’ve been mostly for Biggio, Alomar, and Raines. I’m changing that around as the stats altered my opinion and I just don’t see the overall support for those guys. Also, I want to see a middle infielder selected so: Larkin Whitaker Biggio (forget everything I said, I’m voting for him anyway) Lastly, I’m embarrassed I never voted for Edgar Martinez. His stats… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Chris C

“Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone”
–Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi.

bells

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Yeah, except we get to vote paradise back in, after it’s been paved.

--bill

11 years ago

Glavine, Molitor, Murray

mosc

11 years ago

All these guys have multi-rounds left so nobody’s dropping off. I keep looking up and wondering why Alomar is still around and he’s got 3! years left! I guess he soaked up some love in compound on earlier years when the pool was far less deep. I am very very tempted to just vote Molitor, Murry, Murphy and move on. I can’t imagine not electing Molitor and Murry. Not saying that there aren’t comparable players on the ballot. Dale Murphy was a great player who I enjoyed watching and in most rounds would love to give him a shoutout… but… Read more »

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

EDIT: Murray. Disrespectful spelling. *Sigh*

Also, I am excluding a lot of deserving players to give a clearer delineation between Larkin and the rest of the field.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

The biggest difference between Welch and Brown, I think, is that Welch played in a much lower-scoring environment than Brown. B-ref’s neutralized pitching numbers (based on standardized run-scoring environment of 4.42 runs per game) would put give Brown a neutralized ERA of 3.48 and Welch a neutralized ERA of 4.11. The difference is also reflected in their respective ERA+ numbers at b-ref: Brown’s career ERA+ is 127, Welch’s is 106.

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Well, they had 4 years of overlap despite their ages where they both were eligible for the ERA title. Using 1989-1993 as the comparison: Welch 3.79 ERA 958 IP Brown 3.64 ERA 1080 IP Similar again (Welch had some injury issues in 1992). But ERA+, as you said, makes a clear difference of the two, 10pts during this snapshot. Arlington Stadium was a pretty neutral place. The colloseum gets a pitcher’s boost, but these guys were in the same division those years playing in each other’s parks. I don’t know, I think Brown’s peak was too short and through much… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

But what a peak! 37.0 WAR in five seasons. Welch’s best five years add up to 21.6 WAR. Outside of those years, Brown outscores Welch 31.7 to 22.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to mosc

mosc @73: Actually Robbie Alomar, who was born in 1968 and thus has been on every COG ballot from the beginning, didn’t get any ballot eligibility advantage from the first couple of ballots because we didn’t adopt the “25% gets you a two-round extension” rule until a few rounds into the voting. Although Alomar was above 25% the first couple of rounds, that did nothing for him except allow him to survive to the next round. He’s earned his extensions against pretty tough competition and has never fallen below 10% such that he has had to use up any of… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Let’s go with the new “M” guys from 1956:
– Eddie Murray
– Paul Molitor
– Dale Murphy

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I almost did it. Knew someone would.

11 years ago

Murray, Molitor, Larkin

11 years ago

Lou Whitaker, Tony Gwynn, Tom Glavine

mosc

11 years ago

I am going to call it first right here. There will come a year when Trammel and Whitaker tie… with the highest vote total. Somebody will make it happen on purpose if it’s not going to happen naturally.

Also, I was expecting some Lance Parrish love from our vocal Detroit faithful.

BryanM

11 years ago

Paul Molitor — 75.5 WAR, and in addition I believe that his baserunning in undervalued by WAR. scored 28 runs in 29 postseason games. Was the WS MVP in 1993 when he slashed a sick .500/.571/1.000. In 3000 PA throughout a long career ,with RISP, slash was .326/.405/.458. Went to the Twins in 1996 as a 39 yr old , hit .341 and led the league with 225 hits as the twins improved by 20 games. First ballot HOF with 85 % of the vote. Your mileage may differ, but I see him as the peerless leader of this year’s… Read more »

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

I also think replacement level for DH is double counted by some people (not generally by the stats). Yes, there is a big defensive adjustment for having your position be DH, but the offense provided should be against replacement level for an average position. You don’t call up a AAA player and put him at DH for his bat alone. I can’t name an example of that. You are going to get a replacement level player in terms of offense and defense. Similar to the Coors offensive adjustment issues, I think DH’s get double hit by having their career WAR… Read more »

Jeff Hill

11 years ago

Reply to BryanM

BryanM…I tried that argument against Walker last round, didn’t work. He finished with just over a 20% average voting in his 4 years on the HOF ballot and yet he gets in with a mediocre 48-50% in here while Larkin and Co. sit and wait.

Mike G.

11 years ago

Glavine, Smoltz, Sandberg

Jeff Hill

11 years ago

Gwynn, Larkin, Molitor.

Still shaking my head from the last round…

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Jeff Hill

But right back in there swinging — good to see it. By the time we’re done, every voter here will have seen an election result they are not happy with. That’s baseball.

Editor

Doug

11 years ago

Molitor, Murray, Whitaker

J.R. Lebert

11 years ago

Eddie Murray, Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines

Luis Gomez

11 years ago

Gwynn, Alomar, Whitaker.

Mike L

11 years ago

I think it’s Larkin’s time. A sustained level of superior play deserves enshrinement. After that, I will stick with Trammell and go against the grain a little with Molitor. I always thought Molitor was one of the best pure hitters I’ve ever seen, and someone who could do a bit of everything.

bstar

11 years ago

I thought this was supposed to get easier.

Edgar, Booger, and Lofton are gone but Murray and Molitor get thrown into the mix.

In hopes of balancing things a bit, I’ll go with an all-“compiler” vote this time.

Glavine *sigh*
Murray
Molitor

No vote but a big shout-out to Dale Murphy. Murph, you brought me so many hours of enjoyment watching you play, and the strength of your character is perhaps greater than any accomplishment of yours on the diamond. (Sounds like bullsh!t, I know, but Murph’s the real deal in that department.)

Arsen

11 years ago

It’s amazing the career Molitor put together after the injuries he sustained in his 20s. He only played in 64 games at 24, 13 at 27 and 105 at 29. He entered his age 30 season with just 1203 hits and 29.6 WAR. He finished with over 3300 hits and 75.5 WAR. In 1987 he led the league in runs and posted a 6.0 WAR despite playing in only 118 games. In 1996 he led the league in hits as a 39-year old. He was a DH in the second half of his career but was jerked all over the… Read more »

koma

11 years ago

Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Just an observation: I think we treat newcomers to the ballot exactly the opposite of the way the BBWAA treats them. As of this moment, Molitor leads the voting, with Murray in second. I’m not saying either is undeserving, but given the similarity of these guys to so many of the holdovers, it’s pretty clear that they’re getting a boost from appearing for the first time. Meanwhile, so many members of the BBWAA need to take another year to decide whether the best hitting catcher of all time was among the 209 best players. This might have something to do… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

I don’t know Bryan. Is it really surprising that someone with 3,000+ hits and 500+ home runs who was also a plus defender at his position is drawing support his first time on the ballot? As for Molitor…9th in base hits, 17th in runs scored, 37th in stolen bases. ELO meter has him 50th among position players. On this ballot, only Gwynn (44th) is higher. Sure those are “traditional stats” but lots of people still put value in them.

So I’m not sure you can really attribute their performance to being on the ballot for the first time.

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

I most definitely voted for them because they were on the ballot for the first time. If Molitor gets in a little early, I’m fine with that though. Great player. I don’t think he would have been off my ballot anytime soon. Murray will take a nose dive after this year but he’ll stick around until the right moment, which is what people are trying to ensure.

bells

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

I think generally he’s right though. Remember when Tim Raines came on the ballot, and beat everyone but Schilling? This included Glavine, Smoltz, Larkin, Gwynn and Biggio, all of whom are (well) ahead of him on this ballot. Maybe this is because people who are fans of Raines somehow have a strong overlap with people who are fans of Murray and Molitor, and so he’s squeezed out, but I think we do treat first round players the opposite way as the BBWAA. It’s true that it’s unsurprising that Molitor is in front, but I think with so many similarities between… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to bells

Bells – Perhaps but it’s so hard to know for sure. I’m sure novelty may play some factor but every vote is different and each person has their own methodology for deciding who to vote for. I do think the methodology of this process probably plays a stronger role. If Murray and Molitor don’t receive sufficient votes this time around, they’ll fall off the ballot. The same isn’t true of this year’s holdover candidates. So the early voters are probably voting for Murray and Molitor at least partially to ensure that they stay on the ballot. The later voters may… Read more »

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

It indeed might turn out differently if we still had Martinez, Lofton, and Brown on the bottom of this ballot scrounging for votes pulling some support from Molitor and Murray. I think it’s pretty easy to see that they would take more from the new guys than from Larkin, Smoltz, Glavine, et al. Honestly, it’s why I’m glad those guys are gone. Having a ballot where only the new guys are up for elimination (so to speak) does seem to make you look more at the new guys.

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Basically I’m saying if you are voting for Larkin, Smoltz, Glavine, or Gwynn, you are voting for them to win this round, no other reason. If you are voting for Molitor or Murray, you have additional motives you don’t have with any other candidates.

bells

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Yes, that also makes sense. I actually didn’t think of it that way. With Raines, I think it was a combination of him being new (and therefore exciting, like ‘Tim Raines! Yeah I like this guy’), people wanting to keep him on the ballot, and then once he had a healthy amount of votes, the anti-Schilling contingency wanting someone to beat him.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

For what it’s worth: The Hall of Stats ranks Murray as the 15th best first baseman with a score of 122, right behind Mark McGwire (123) and Rafael Palmeiro (122) which is just below the 125 mark that is the low end of the top 112. JAWS likes a 3 a little better with Palmeiro coming in at #12 with 55.3, Murray at #15 with 53.4 and McGwire at #17 with 51.9. My guess is that the top 112 cutoff with JAWS is somewhere between 51 & 52 or thereabouts. Bill James ranked McGwire #3, Murray #5 and Palmeiro #19… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

I think the Hall of Stats ranking for Murray is a bit off. For one thing, he’s ranked behind three turn of the century first basemen who towered over leagues of nobodies. Plus, back then, the position adjustment for first basemen was zero (not sure why) which gives them an advantage of 15-20 WAR over Murray. He’s also ranked behind three multi-position players – Banks, Carew and Thome. Banks accumulated about 80% of his value as a shortstop so placing him on the first baseman table is a bit odd, even if he did play more games at first than… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

JAWS is very useful way of separating out the worst HOFers at each position, at a glance. For instance, at first base is: – Highpockets Kelly (89) Which is a shorthand way of saying “this guy has no business being in the HOF”. The worst-ranked position player I could find was Tommy Mccarthy in RF: #123. Two RFers(Stengal, Southworth) elected as managers actually rank better. There is a rumor that some writers thought that they were actually voting for the longtime very popular press steward in the Boston Braves press box of the same name. Wow, what a scary thought;… Read more »

Hartvig

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Ed- You point is exactly right and you even missed one- Stan Musial. Both JAWS & James put him in left field. Only the Hall of Stats has him at first. Plus only the Hall of Stats has a separate category for DH’s so that sort of puts Frank Thomas back into the equation. And I was not aware that there was no WAR positional adjustment for the early first basemen. That makes me even more suspect of how they’re ranked. While I don’t think that we need to make anywhere near the adjustment for early position players as we… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig – It’s not that there’s no position adjustment for first baseman in the early years. The position adjustment is literally zero. You can see the historical position adjustments about halfway down this link: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_position.shtml I don’t really know how these are calculated. I’m sure Sean is basing these on sort some of data. But it still seems a bit unfair to certain players. As for the Hall of Stats, I’m guessing that Adam is placing players based on where they played the most games. So he’s at least trying to be consistent. But I think it probably makes more… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Yes, this would be the best option. This way we keep Molitor at third, Banks at short, Musial in the outfield, Carew at second base, etc. Right where they belong.

aweb

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

First basemen had to be much more involved fielders in early baseball, and were not a lower-spectrum defensive position. Constant bunting, as I recall, is the main reason.

Abbott

11 years ago

Molitor, Murray, Biggio

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Using my “Actual Value” methodology, my top three are Glavine (107.1), Whitaker (101.4), and Molitor (100.1). I would consider swapping out Molitor for Smoltz, who is close behind (97.0) and whose tale of two careers I admire, but he is neither getting any voter support this round nor does he immediately need it.

My initial ballot is Glavine, Sweet Lou, and The Ignitor.

brp

11 years ago

Just out of curiosity, why didn’t Rance Mulliniks get more playing time? His rate stats seem good, his fielding stats don’t look atrocious… is it just because he was a ridiculous-looking human being?

11 years ago

Reply to brp

Mulliniks’ rate stats look good because he was platooned most of his career. Over 92% of his PAs were against righties. His OPS against righties was .770 whereas it was .642 against lefties.

His primary platoon partner was Garth Iorg who quite frankly wasn’t very good against righties (.589 OPS) nor lefties (.677 OPS).

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

We need a better leverage formula for describing platooning than their percentage against favorably armed pitchers. Most pitchers in the MLB are right handed. That percentage needs to be deducted so that you can see how much he was actually favored. Almost every player sees a little bit of platooning as well. So basically I’d like to see a yearly tracking for righty and lefty bats separately of the league average platoon split and then calculate how much “extra platooning” a player got from there. I mean clearly these guys were platooned, not arguing. Just that 92% doesn’t tell the… Read more »

brp

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Thanks, that does explain it somewhat. I didn’t think about the platooning aspect of it…

I was certainly not real familiar with the 1980s Jays but definitely remember laughing at the guy named RANCE with his ridiculous glasses when going through baseball cards as a kid.

Good times!