Circle of Greats 1953 Balloting

103 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion in the eighteenth round of balloting for the Circle of Greats. This round adds those players born in 1953. Rules and lists are after the jump. The group of players newly eligible this round joins the holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to receive your votes. The new group of 1953-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 career Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers).

As always, each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:00 PM EDT on Tuesday, May 14, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:00 PM EDT Sunday, May 12. 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: 1953 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 newly eligible born-in-1953 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 13 current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and in alphabetical order when the future eligibility number is a tie. The new group of 1953 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and in alphabetical order among players for whom the number of seasons played is a tie.

Holdovers:
Tony Gwynn (eligibility guaranteed for 11 rounds)
John Smoltz (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Paul Molitor (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
Lou Whitaker (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
Alan Trammell (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Craig Biggio (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Tim Raines (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ozzie Smith (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Andre Dawson (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ryne Sandberg (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1953, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
George Brett
Dave Bergman
Jim Gantner
Keith Hernandez
Jim Rice
Ivan de Jesus
Charlie Moore
Larry Parrish
Tony Armas
Ron Hassey
Larry Herndon
Bo Diaz
Tom Brookens
Sixto Lezcano
Tom Veryzer
Gary Ward
Roy Howell
U.L. Washington
Rob Wilfong
Barry Bonnell
Warren Cromartie
Kiko Garcia
Ron Jackson
Terry Whitfield

Pitchers (born in 1953, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Frank Tanana
John Candelaria
Larry Andersen
Rick Rhoden
Jamie Easterly
Rick Mahler
Tim Stoddard
Dan Quisenberry
Bruce Sutter
Larry Christenson
Tom Hume
Tom Underwood
Pete Falcone
Ed Glynn

0 0 votes

Article Rating

103 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

koma

11 years ago

Lou Whitaker, Ozzie Smith, George Brett

Jeff Harris

11 years ago

Whitaker, Trammell, Brett

Nick Pain

11 years ago

Brett, Ozzie, and Eck.

Mike

11 years ago

Quiz (he won’t make it but I loved him)
Osmosis Smith
George Brett

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:

Brett 56.7
Trammell 45.1
Smith 44.0
Whitaker 43.1
Molitor 40.7
Smoltz 40.2
Sandberg 39.1
Alomar 37.3
Raines 37.2
Gwynn 36.8
Biggio 36.7
Dawson 35.4
Murray 34.9
Eckersley 34.3
Hernandez 34.1
Tanana 26.2
Hall of Famer Jim Rice 22.6
Quisenberry 13.9
Hall of Famer Bruce Sutter 12.0

Much ado about second and third place votes this round. I’d like to see a few names drop off the ballot.

Brett. Ozzie. Smoltz.

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

“I’d like to see a few names drop off the ballot” You and I alike. There’s one guy who I definitely don’t wan’t to see go, though, and that’s Sandberg. I find the lack of support for Ryno kind of interesting, as my methodology usually rates him as about the 6th or 7th best player available, yet players who rate the same or lower, namely Gwynn, Biggio, and Alomar, consistently garner more votes. I think Sandberg’s problem is that he falls right into our voters’ blind spots. He was a good, but rarely outstanding, hitter. He was a good defender… Read more »

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

I completely agree with your assessment that Sandberg would be getting more support had he not sailed quietly into the Hall of Fame. I think he also suffers from an inability to stand out from this crowded second base field. A quick look at the second basemen on the ballot: Whitaker 75 WAR, 42 WAA, 117 OPS+ 67 oWAR, 15 dWAR Sandberg 67 WAR, 38 WAA, 114 OPS+, 60 oWAR, 13 dWAR Alomar 67 WAR, 32 WAA, 116 OPS+, 70 oWAR, 2 dWAR Biggio 65 WAR, 29 WAA, 112 OPS+, 75 oWAR, -4 dWAR These guys were all similarly talented… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

The only thing I remember about Sandberg’s career was the announcement of him retiring (for good), but I actually believed for years that his reputation was cemented on defense. Maybe it was because of the baseball card I have from 1990 or 1991 boasting about his longest-ever errorless streak for a second baseman. Sandberg is certainly not the best second baseman available right now and it will probably be awhile before he is one of the three best players available, if ever. To me, it’s a matter of justice — I would hate to see him go while Alomar, who… Read more »

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

“Sandberg is certainly not the best second baseman available right now” I disagree. I assume you mean that Whitaker is the 2B who’s better than Sandberg. But Ryno had 4 seasons better than Whitaker’s best (per WAR or WAA). Sandberg’s flame burned out faster than Sweet Lou’s – but it burned brighter. In their ten best seasons, Ryno out-WARs Whitaker 55.5-48.7. If I could have one or the other to start a career, I’d definitely take Sandberg. Whitaker was a wonderful and consistent player, but he played for winners, and he’s a sabermetric darling (who has gotten a lot of… Read more »

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

As a follower of the Cubs during Sandberg’s entire career, I’d point out to Dr. Doom that while Whittaker played for winners, Sandberg had a following and reputation built by WGN’s nationwide cable presence in that era, led by his greatest fan and cheerleader, Harry Caray, who consistently overlooked Ryno’s flaws and exaggerated his talents, as he did with his other favorites, notably Dawson. Ryno strikes out in the eighth? “Tough luck.” A lesser player? “Can’t these guys do anything right?” Sandberg’s bat disappeared for long stretches, and, as I’ve pointed out before, he wasn’t the guy you wanted at… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@47 Dr. Doom I guess it’s just a matter of how you look at it. Sandberg at his best was better than Whitaker at his best; that’s one good way of defining a great player. I see things a little differently, looking at total value accumulated in WAR and WAA for most of the players we’ll be evaluating. What I see is that Whitaker was more valuable to his team over the entirety of his career. Is my approach sentimental? No, but I’ll have to rely on it very heavily now, since most of the players born before 1960 retired… Read more »

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@GrandyMan

I just think that looking only at total WAR and WAA is only one side of the coin. Most people would rather have Sandy Koufax than Bret Saberhagen, even though Saberhagen outduels Koufax on both WAR and WAA. Totals alone aren’t enough, because HOW those totals are accumulated matters.

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@54 Dr. Doom Would I rather have Koufax’s 6 best years (’61-’66) than Saberhagen’s 6 best years(’85-’90)? Of course; anyone would. In fact, I’d rather Koufax’s six best years than any six-year block of Mike Mussina’s career, for example. However, when I think about who should be in the COG, I take the whole career into consideration. Mussina pitched 18 seasons to Koufax’s 12. I’d rather have Koufax’s 6 best years to Mussina’s 6 best, but I’d rather Moose’s 6 worst to Koufax’s other 6. In addition, if I wanted to equal Mussina’s career by putting together Koufax and 6… Read more »

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Reply to GrandyMan

@66 GrandyMan, Do you see a difference between 2 players who have 10 WAR, one of them with 9 WAR one season and 1 WAR the next, and the other with 5 WAR each season? I do. I would prefer the player with one big year and one small year to a consistent player. But that’s just my preference. I would rather have Saberhagen’s career than Koufax’s, too. I picked that as an example that most people would agree with (you’ll notice I didn’t actually say that I’d take Koufax over Saberhagen – I said most people would). But I… Read more »

GrandyMan

11 years ago

Brett, Smith, Sandberg.

The Diamond King

11 years ago

Murray, Ozzie and Brett

Doug

11 years ago

Brett, Ozzie, Raines

Brent

11 years ago

As tempted as I am to go all Royals (Brett, Quiz and U.L.’s toothpick), I will only vote for Brett and Quiz and throw in Alomar in an attempt to keep him on the ballot.

11 years ago

Brett, Quisenberry, Gwynn

J.R. Lebert

11 years ago

Brett, Gwynn, Raines.

--bill

11 years ago

Brett, Ozzie Smith, Quisenberry

Dr. Remulak

11 years ago

Brett, Gwynn, Smoltz.

brp

11 years ago

One vote for Brett as the easy winner.
One vote each for Sandberg and Whitaker as I’ll take them at 2B.

Sandberg and Alomar are the only 2 of the 4 on the bubble this round that I would vote for, and I want Alomar out.

11 years ago

George Brett
Ozzie Smith
Lou Whitaker

Nadig

11 years ago

Smith, Molitor, Brett.

aweb

11 years ago

Brett, Trammell, Molitor

Abbott

11 years ago

Biggio, Raines, Brett

T-Bone

11 years ago

Sandberg
Brett
Raines

Aaron W.

11 years ago

George Brett
Tim Raines
Ryne Sandberg

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Molitor, Gwynn, Brett

Gary Bateman

11 years ago

Brett, Molitor, Gwynn

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

George Brett (who will win in a landslide, I would hope)
Alan Trammell
Ryne Sandberg

bcholm

11 years ago

Brett, Sandberg, R. Alomar

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

The two right-handed relievers Sutter and Quisenberry were born a month apart, and each pitched in 12 seasons in the majors. Sutter had 1,042 career regular season IP, Quiz had 1,043. Sutter faced 4,252 batters, Quiz faced 4,247. Those batters put up an OPS+ against Sutter of 75; batters were slightly more successful in OPS+ against Quiz with an 80. Sutter’s career WAR was 24.5, Quiz’s was 24.9. Sutter’s career Win Probability Added was 18.2, Quiz’s was 20.7. They each won one World Series ring. Yes, they were radically different pitchers in style, both in terms of their arm motions… Read more »

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Nice comparison Birtelcom! A stunning 43.2% of Quiz’s walks were intentional which appears to be a record for pitchers with 1000+ innings. The second highest percentage I can find is Kent Tekulve at 36.5%. Actually most of the guys on the list were contemporaries…managers of that era must have been infatuated with the intentional walk. Taking out the intentional walks, Quiz walked 0.8 batters per 9 innings. Wow! BTW, I always wondered why KC took Quiz out of the closer role in ’86 and had him start sharing it with Bud Black and Steve Farr, two guys who had no… Read more »

Brent

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

Ed: A couple things from a KC fan who watched all those games in the mid 80s. Quiz was starting to lose his effectiveness in about mid 85, especially against LH hitters. He always had more trouble with lefties, but it worsened about that point. Steve “Hit the Ball” Farr was an effective pitcher in 85 as a set up guy and it seemed he would take that role of ace reliever over. Tekulve and Quiz, of course, were both submariners and I would guess that it must be much easier to put the ball exactly where you want it… Read more »

Andy

11 years ago

Gwynn Smith Brett

Joel

11 years ago

Brett
Alomar
Sandberg

ProfessorLarry

11 years ago

Brett, Whitaker, Trammell

ATarwerdi96

11 years ago

George Brett, Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor

Mike HBC

11 years ago

First two votes: Brett and Ozzie. Probably two of the easiest choices of this entire process.
Third vote: Ah, screw it. I’m gonna be a homer and take Smoltz.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

11 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

I agree completely with your ballot. I disagree completely that they were easy choices (Ozzie, at least).

Phil

11 years ago

Brett, Gwynn, and (goodbye…) Alomar.

Mike G.

11 years ago

Brett, Eckersley, Sandberg

Jeff Hill

11 years ago

Brett, Gwynn, Molitor

David Horwich

11 years ago

Alomar, Brett, Smith

Fireworks

11 years ago

Georgie Porgie. Ryno. Rock.

KalineCountry Ron

11 years ago

Trammell, Whitaker, Brett.

mosc

11 years ago

I tried to find some way to say that Brett wasn’t the best player on this ballot so I wouldn’t have to vote for him. I, uh, couldn’t. The .370 average in the 85 world series capping a >1 ops post season career finally beat me into submission.

Brett, Molitor, Smoltz

Chris C

11 years ago

It’s getting frustrating trying to figure out my own vote. So many very good candidates with minuscule separation. I think I’ve voted for seven of the eligible candidates at one point or another for different reasons. I’ve felt a personal responsibility to vote for Biggio and Raines almost every round. No need to vote for Biggio this time as he has 3 years still. Raines only has two years left so I can justify voting for him. Brett is 32 for 32 so I’m not going to be the one to break that streak. For my last vote I’ll go… Read more »

Artie Z.

11 years ago

Brett, Raines, and Keith Hernandez

Mike L

11 years ago

Brett, Ozzie, Molitor. But, after Brett, we are increasingly picking our way through a “Hall of Qualified”

Luis Gomez

11 years ago

Gwynn, Alomar, Whitaker.

Hartvig

11 years ago

Since Brett is clearly- and deservedly- going to win I’ll do a little strategic voting.

Trammell, Whitaker, Sandberg

All three are on my definitely belong list and have the lowest accrued eligibility of any on that list except for Ozzie who looks to be on his way to easily adding a couple or even more years. I’ll have to leave it to others on Alomar, Raines & Biggio who are on my very likely/almost certainly and Murray & Dawson who are on my “still willing to be convinced”.

Kirk

11 years ago

Brett, Gwynn & Eckersley

Hub Kid

11 years ago

George Brett, Roberto Alomar, Jim Rice I know full well that Jim Rice’s stats look a little weak for a Hall of Famer and I am being a homer-voting New Englander, but while I do not think he is up to the same HoF or CoG standard as say, George Brett, Rice is worthy of some consideration. Except that he hung on and eventually got in to the HoF, Rice is a bit like Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly, with some monster seasons, and some staying power, but not really enough of the latter to be a consensus choice for… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Hub Kid

Over a three-season period, from 1977 through 1979, even sabermetric fans might have reason to acknowledge Rice was the best hitter in the majors.

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Maybe just by a hair over Dave Parker: Rice – 153 OPS+, using 1320 batting outs* in 2144 PAs *(AB-H) Parker – 150 OPS+ using 1238 batting outs in 2055 PAs Very, very similar players in those years. Maybe Rice was the better hitter, but if so, it’s only by a hair. Actually, they’re really, really good career comps, too, I think. Rice’s OPS+ was a little higher (128-121), but Parker did that in 1000 more PAs. Both were MVPs in 1978. And both did very well in MVP voting in their careers: Rice finished in the top five six… Read more »

brp

11 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Dave Parker destroys Jim Rice in the all important nickname (Cobra!) and homemade t-shirt categories.

IF YOU HEAR ANY NOISE IT’S JUST ME AND THE BOYS BOPPIN

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to brp

The Cobra also wins in famous quotes:

“When the leaves turn brown, I’ll be wearing the batting crown.”

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

@59/Dr Doom – FWIW, here are their JAWS rankings,from B-R: DAVE PARKER – 35th in RF, ahead of HOFers: – Sam Thompson (36th) – King Kelly (42nd) – Chick Hafey (64th) JIM RICE – 26th in LF, ahead of HOFers: – Heine Manush (31st) – Lou Brock (33rd) – Jim O’Rourke (34th) – Chick Hafey (54) Parker was a better all-around player then Rice, and had a longer career, but I don’t think he clearly separates himself from Rice. Of course, if Parker hadn’t had a drug abuse-related decline in the early 80s, he’d probably have been in the HOF… Read more »

Dr. Doom

11 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I think Parker had more talent. I think Rice was the better player. I guess I wasn’t really comparing them to one another, nor their HOF credentials. But I was just struck by birtelcom’s comment above, because when he said, “even sabermetric fans might have reason to acknowledge Rice was the best hitter in the majors,” my first thought was, “Well what about Dave Parker?” So I went to look it up, and then just started looking at a career-based comparison, and I kept seeing commonalities, even though one was a lifer with one team and had a much shorter… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Dave Parker did so well in MVP votes that he’s #29 all-time in MVP shares (Rice is #31). I can’t find anyone above Parker who isn’t:

-a Hall of Famer or
-still active or
-currently on ballot but will eventually get in or
-named Pete Rose

Scanning down the list after Parker, Manny Ramirez at #33 may have to wait 50 years to get in the Hall, he’s so PED-stained right now. And Juan Gone at #44 may never get in.

mosc

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

mvp shares is one of my least favorite statistics. It’s misleading in cumulative value and more about who else was doing well then how well the guy you’re even measuring did. Definitely one of the statistics I wonder why is tracked. It’s one critics of sabermetrics can look at and justly brush off. Because they do that, they don’t look at much more relevant stuff like obp, park factors, and cumulative WAR.

The world would be better off if nobody ever mentioned MVP shares again.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

mosc: I suppose MVP shares are useful for the particular purpose of responding to curiosity about a player’s reputation in his own time. For example, discussions about players having been “over-rated” or “under-rated” are common, but hard to evaluate if you don’t have a measure for how a player was “rated” in the first place. MVP shares is one way to do that. Yes, it is influenced by “who else was doing well”, but that is true of most season rankings — they are always partly dependent on how others happened to perform that season. I don’t usually think of… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Exactly, birtelcom. I only mentioned Dave Parker and Jim Rice’s MVP shares because they’re so high relative to their WAR total.

Steve Garvey is another guy from the ’70s whose MVP shares total (59th all-time, 1 win and five top-ten finishes) doesn’t really match up with his career value (38 WAR).

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

Speaking of Manny…check out this…umm…”slide” in a game in Taiwan.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/manny-ramirez-slides-15-feet-short-second-trying-164208444.html

11 years ago

Reply to Hub Kid

those late 70s Sox teams were loaded, Lynn, Rice, Fisk, Yaz, Eck, Evans, Burleson, and Rice was their most intimidating presence at the plate

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to PP

Most RBI in the majors, 1975-1986:
Rice 1276
Schmidt 1221
Winfield 1147

Rice was ideally situated to generate large numbers of RBI. A slugger who didn’t walk much, batting in the middle of the lineup for a high-run-scoring team in a high-run-scoring home park.

Most Team Runs Scored 1975-1986:
Red Sox 9165
Yankees 8825
Royals 8539

The baseball writers who vote for MYP and the HOF have traditionally loved RBI numbers.

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Even as I become familiar with advanced stats I maintain a soft spot for RBIs, even more than homers. Also, I see Rice’s career OBP is only 54 pts higher than his BA. Bonds, with the same career BA, is 146 pts over. Thus, I guess, the big argument against Jim Ed, it took a lot of outs to produce those runs.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to PP

There’s nothing wrong with appreciating RBIs as a stat, so long as you remember that (1) they are very opportunity-dependent in a away that doesn’t necessarily even out over time, and (2) sometimes RBI at bats are counterproductive (for example, no outs, man on third — in most cases you’d rather, given the choice, have the batter walk than get a sac fly RBI)

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

birtelcom:

Just so long as we keep in mind that the opportunity to drive in runs is coupled with the opportunity to fail to do so. The idea that putting a cardboard cutout of Marilyn Monroe at the plate will generate the same number of RBIs as Rice or the other RBI whipping boys may be statistically demonstrable, but it is absurd and only gives people like me material for satire.

wlcmlc

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

birtlecom,

Given the strikeout frequency in the game today, I would think getting a run in with a sac fly is at least as productive as a walk.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

wlcmlc: Baseball Prospectus calculates how many runs score, on average, going forward from each base/out scenario. According to their numbers, in 2012, with a man on third and no one out, 1.308 runs scored on average in that half inning. If the batter at the plate then walks, you have a first and third and nobody out scenario. In that scenario in 2012, on average 1.6772 runs went on to score that half inning. If on the other hand the man at the plate with a man on third and none out hits a sac fly, you now have one… Read more »

11 years ago

man, it’s tough in here, 3026, 1627, 3255, 560, 504, 1917, 5397, 129, .836, 68.2, won’t get you a vote without a real peak

and not from here either, Brett, Smoltz, Gwynn

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Brett
Ozzie
Alomar

Jameson

11 years ago

Brett, Ozzie, Molitor

Lawrence Azrin

11 years ago

One no-brainer, plus two (probably) lost causes:

– George Brett (his COG % will nearly match his actual HOF %)
– Craig Biggio (Quiz has more votes than him?)
– Eddie Murray (NO votes so far? Really?)

David

11 years ago

Sweet Lou tram. Brett

11 years ago

George Brett, Tony Gwynn, Lou Whitaker

Timmy Pea

11 years ago

Reply to wx

I’ve heard Brett can’t control his bowels that well. It’s my understanding that since his hemorrhoid surgery many years ago that controlling his lower digestive track has become difficult. This is a subject that interests me greatly.

Author

birtelcom

11 years ago

Reply to Timmy Pea

I don’t know about the rest of this, but Brett did indeed miss a few innings of the second game of the 1980 World Series with a hemorrhoid problem, and also a few weeks of spring training in 1981 for related surgery. However, I wouldn’t expect an ESPN documentary on Brett’s historic overcoming of adversity anytime soon.

Timmy Pea

11 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

I don’t know, hemorrhoids are an affliction that affect millions of people from all walks of life. Perhaps MLB would consider a fund drive similar to what they do with breast cancer?