Poll question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I noticed that Joe Jax has moved into second place. Granted he had an outstanding career and put some some stellar numbers, but if you look at it from a 1936 perspective as if the scandal had never happened, would you still honestly give him the nod ahead of Anson or Young? Or are you voting with your heart and what your current perspective on the player and situation is?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry</b><p>I think there is alot of things in play on then Jackson voting.<br />1. Alot of People think he should be in the HOF and this is there chance to vote for him.<br />2. His cult status in the Hobby as being a major star with no cards in major card sets and limited cards altogether.<br />3. Him being the best player as part of the Black Sox Scandal.<br />4 His .356 lifetime BA and his percieved stats if he would have been alowed to finish his career.<br />5. Ty cobb calling him the greatest hitter in baseball.<br />6. Having said all that, I voted for Cy young. Hard to go against old CY.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Joe Jackson was nothing more than a crooked Wade Boggs. Almost anyone on the list was more deserving than him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Should tell you something about the quality of the selection process from the outset...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J</b><p>Joe Jackson was just the first Pete Rose, if Joe gets inducted, it will be with Pete, and hell will freeze before that happens!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Why have a poll if there is only one correct answer?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Accepting $5K during the WS [and he did admit that], by definition excludes a player from being considered for the Hall of Fame.<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>Joe Jackson is overrated. His statistics make him deserving of the Hall of Fame but he is not in the same league as the first five players.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason Kaster</b><p>If you look at the question, it does not ask which player is most deserving. It asks which player would you add if you could add a player to the class of 1936.<br /><br />No matter if you like him and his history or not, Joe Jackson has many fans and many people would like to see him in the HOF. That doesn't mean these people think he was a better player than Hornsby, LaJoie, or Anson. It simply means that Joe has more current fans than many of the other players listed.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p><a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/home%5Fartifacts/artifact_17.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/home%5Fartifacts/artifact_17.htm</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Genaro</b><p>I actualy voted for Cy Young but I am also making a case for Joe Jackson for the 37 Class. I wouldn’t put him in the same class as Pete Rose.<br />1st off there was more collusion by the owners and they were cheated the previous year of there bonuses. These guys worked second jobs in the off season just to make ends meet. If Joe Jackson was making Wade Boggs money there would have never been a Black Sox Scandal to start with. I also from all the articles I read Joe was not the sharpest pencil in the box. I think the climate between the owners and players during those times especially Charles Comiskey need to be considered before judging Jackson too harshly.<br />Just an option I could be wrong.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Something to consider when assessing Jackson's career is that his career ended when he was only 31 just when the live ball era was starting. Looking at his 1920 season (.382 BA, .570 SA) it seems safe to assume that he would have had a few more great years and probably would have ended up with a lifetime BA of over .360. Maybe he still wouldn't have made the class of '36 but he was hardly overrated.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>What up with Delehanty not being higher in the poll.<br />He was the dominant hitter in baseball in the 1890s.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I don't know how it works in the Pro Baseball Hall of Fame, but you can only vote in a maximum of five to the Pro Footbal HOF in one year.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Brian, I am not saying there is one correct answer. I am sort of saying that there are some obviously wrong answers that shaded by a 2006 perspective rather than a 1936 perspective. When old-timers get elected, they don't get elected to a retroactive class. They are go in the year they are voted in. Thus, if you are going ask a question like this, then you have to look at as if it were 1936 without all the mythology and hype that had built up the past 70 years. IF, is a huge word and pretty meaningless when discussing missed years etc. IF Tony Oliva stays healthy, he's a shoe in for the HOF. IF Dick Allen wasn't such a pain the ass and played longer, he'd be a show in for the HOF. IF, IF, IF. It's all meaningless and pointless.<br /><br />David, baseball has no restrictions as to a max or minimum number of the players that can be elected each year. The HOF's biggest fear is that voters won't elect someone. I get the feeling that if there is a weak class that looks like no one will get elected, you bet your collection that the HOF is going to lobbying writers very hard to elect someone so that they have put on their cash cow party. No one will come if no one gets elected.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>7,092 hits allowed -- most in history. And it's not all because of his bulk IP -- his hits allowed/per 9 was also terrible. He routinely ranked in the top 10 in the League in hits allowed per 9:<br /><br />Hits Allowed/9IP year/stat/league rank<br />1892-7.21-4<br />1894-10.75-8<br />1895-8.84-4<br />1899-8.97-8<br />1901-7.85-1<br />1902-8.19-6<br />1903-7.74-7<br />1905-6.96-3<br />1907-7.50-10<br />1908-6.92-6<br /><br />316 career losses is also a lot of lost ball games -- most in history.<br />2,147 career earned runs -- most in history.<br /><br />And here is old Cy ranked against career leaders in ERA. Young (ranked 57th All Time) looks a lot more like Vic Willis (ranked 58th All Time) than he does Johnson (11th) or Matty (8th):<br /><br />1. Ed Walsh+ 1.816 R <br />2. Addie Joss+ 1.887 R <br />3. Jack Pfiester* 2.024 L <br />4. Joe Wood 2.030 R <br />5. Jim Devlin 2.050 R <br />6. Mordecai Brown+ 2.057 R <br />7. John Ward+ 2.102 R <br />8. Christy Mathewson+ 2.133 R <br />9. Al Spalding+ 2.136 R <br />10. Rube Waddell+* 2.161 L <br />11. Walter Johnson+ 2.167 R <br />12. Jake Weimer* 2.231 L <br />13. Orval Overall 2.233 R <br />14. Will White 2.276 R <br />15. Babe Ruth+* 2.277 L <br />16. Ed Reulbach 2.284 R <br />17. Jim Scott 2.298 R <br />18. Tommy Bond 2.312 R <br />19. Reb Russell* 2.334 L <br />20. Andy Coakley 2.350 R <br />21. Eddie Plank+* 2.350 L <br />22. Larry Corcoran 2.355 R <br />23. George McQuillan 2.381 R <br />24. Eddie Cicotte 2.382 R <br />25. Ed Killian* 2.382 L <br />26. Doc White* 2.391 L <br />27. Harry Coveleski* 2.394 L <br />28. Carl Lundgren 2.417 R <br />29. George Bradley 2.418 R <br />30. Nap Rucker* 2.421 L <br />31. Jeff Tesreau 2.428 R <br />32. Joe Benz 2.429 R <br />33. Jim McCormick 2.431 R <br />34. Terry Larkin 2.435 R <br />35. Chief Bender+ 2.455 R <br />36. Hooks Wiltse* 2.471 L <br />37. Sam Leever 2.473 R <br />38. Lefty Leifield* 2.473 L <br />39. Hippo Vaughn* 2.486 L <br />40. Candy Cummings+ 2.491 R <br />41. Bob Ewing 2.492 R <br />42. Cy Morgan 2.509 R <br />43. Ray Collins* 2.513 L <br />44. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 2.523 R <br />45. Lew Richie 2.536 R <br />46. Noodles Hahn* 2.546 L <br />47. Frank Owen 2.552 R <br />48. Pete Alexander+ 2.560 R <br />49. Slim Sallee* 2.564 L <br />50. Deacon Phillippe 2.586 R <br />51. Russ Ford 2.590 R <br />52. Frank Smith 2.593 R <br />53. Ed Siever* 2.598 L <br />54. Bob Rhoads 2.612 R <br />55. Fred Glade 2.618 R <br />56. Tim Keefe+ 2.625 R <br />57. Cy Young+ 2.627 R <br />58. Vic Willis+ 2.628 R <br /><br />Julio Franco's been around a long time, too. Do we want to induct him into the Hall of Fame, let alone on the first ballot? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Anyone that has been a member of SABR for any amount of time, or even studies baseball stats, knows that raw stats are very good for comparing players across eras. You need to at least adjust them for the league average and preferably make adjustments for park factor too. A league adjusted ERA and H/9 would be much more telling than the numbers you posted.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />Vague references to SABRmetrics aside, any suggested amendments would not materially change anything I stated. For example, I listed Young's league rankings against his peers, not against generations of baseball players since. The only time I listed everybody in history was with ERA, and I was quite careful to specifically cite only Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson and Vic Willis, all three of whom who played during Young's time.<br /><br />Also, adjusted ERA only means something -- to me at least -- in the post-designated hitter world. And it is true that I did not adjust the recent AL additions to the ERA list, but again, that would only affect the AL pitchers post Ron Blomberg. And it would only make them look BETTER than Young! <br /><br />As for park factor, well, you tell me what the different park factors are for 1890-1920 and then we can decide whether that changes the facts that I listed. If anything, there has been a lot more offense and shortening of the fences since Cy Young's time. I imagine he would look MUCH WORSE if this adjustment was made.<br /><br />Finally, I would appreciate not being belittled for my alleged lack of statistical knowledge. For one thing, such a claim is completely without merit. But moreover, the vague references to SABR and the other adjustment suggestions offered do not materially affect the statistics I provided.<br /><br />Adjust away -- use Baseball Prospectus, or SABRmetrics, or whatever relatively universally accepted method of altering the statistics you want -- and you will still see that Young is highly overrated. And before you start quoting me Cy Young's Run Support/9, make sure that you include Walter Johnson's Run Support/9 right alongside him.<br /><br />What I was trying to say was that in my book, Cy Young has about the same VORP as Julio Franco.<br /><br />Paul (aka T206Collector)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I have no idea what your knowledge of statical analysis, but when someone starts using raw stats to prove overall greatness, etc then it needs to be pointed out that it is not a good way to do it. If you do know about adjusted numbers, then shame on you for continuing the belief that raw numbers are a good measure.<br /><br />You have a misunderstanding of what park factor. Park factor is a number that adjusts stats based on what degree is a park is hitter friendly, pitcher friendly or neutral. Park factor can be figured out without knowing the dimensions of the park. A perfect example of someone who benefited from a ball park is Sandy Koufax. He was a sub .500 pitcher until Chavez Ravine opened. After it opened, he became a dominant pitcher. When you adjust his numbers for the park factor, he is still an outstanding pitcher, but not the great pitcher that everyone has been brainwashed into believing that he was.<br /><br />Some else mentioned mentioned that Bonds benefits from his home park. This is another great myth that is out there. If this were the case, then a lot of lefties would be launching the ball out. Instead, it has provent o be a very difficult part of the park to hit a HR. I've been fortunate enough to stand at home plate in that park. The wall looks so close that I thought I could easily poke one over that wall, but obviously, outside of Bonds, no one has been able to do it an a regualr basis. I'm not sure what the current count is at now, but I think there have been fewer than 10 players other than Bonds that have hit a ball into the bay.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>(1) The raw rankings are easily available on Baseball-Reference.com. If you have knowledge of a website that ranks career ERA based on adjustments for League/Park differentials, please let me know and show us how Young does when compared to Mathewson, Johnson and Willis. I doubt there will be any significant variance that would make Young pull away from Willis. Rather, I suspect that you will have an influx of AL pitchers from more recent years (the Pedros, Johnsons, Ryans and Clemenses) flooding in between Young and Johnson, thus making the gap even larger.<br /><br />(2) Raw numbers are just that -- they are raw numbers. When you compare Matty to Johnson to Young to Willis, less of an adjustment needs to be made than when you are comparing Young to Ryan, for example, who faced the DH when he pitched for the Angels and Rangers. I do not think it is "shameful" to point out that at a very basic level, Young does not stack up. I think it more "shameful" to defend Young on the basis of adjusted numbers without offering any support for how or even why those adjustments would favor Young against Matty, Johnson and Willis.<br /><br />(3) Finally, with respect to Park Factor, I think it is relevant to point out that someone who played in an era where home runs were scarce -- and, by the way, Young still managed to rank in the Top 10 in his League in home runs allowed in 7 of his Major League seasons -- may not be comparable to someone like Clemens who faced the McGwires, Sosas and Bonds of the World, without some adjustment for the parks that Clemens pitched in versus the parks that Young pitched in. Certainly, you could find batters' relative performances in all Major League parks in a given year, and then apply a formula to determine whether parks were hitter friendly -- although you would need to factor out the quality of the rotations in those parks as well -- I think that it is hard to argue that Park Factor does not include the distance to the wall. I understand that Bill James' definition of "Park Factor" only includes Runs, Opponent Runs, At Bats and Opponents At Bats, in its defintion. I am not sure whether this gives you anything useful over time because it does not look at the relevant ERA's and park dimensions, which I think are entirely appropriate for this kind of inquiry. Indeed, how about the fact that they adjusted the mound upwards in Sandy Koufax' time? You do not need to look at a formula to understand why that helped Koufax immeasurably, although I suppose that the formula Bill James' provided would give you some assistance in this regard.<br /><br />Post-script. Tuns out BBRef has "Adjusted ERA+" which bears out what I said, to some degree, but supports the theory that Young was better than the raw ERA numbers tells you. Again, assuming you buy into the adjustments made here, Pedro, Randy, and Clemens all show up now as I predicted they would, ahead of Cy Young. And so does, by the way, Quisenberry and Jim Devlin. But now Mathewson and Willis have dropped below them all. <br /><br />1. Pedro Martinez (33) 166 R <br />2. Lefty Grove+* 148 L <br />3. Walter Johnson+ 146 R <br /> Dan Quisenberry 146 R <br /> Hoyt Wilhelm+ 146 R <br /> Joe Wood 146 R <br />7. Ed Walsh+ 145 R <br />8. Roger Clemens (42) 143 R <br /> Jim Devlin 143 R <br />10. Randy Johnson* (41) 142 L <br /> Addie Joss+ 142 R <br /> Al Spalding+ 142 R <br />13. Kid Nichols+ 139 R <br />14. Mordecai Brown+ 138 R <br /> Greg Maddux (39) 138 R <br /> Cy Young+ 138 R

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>comparing how many HRs a deadball era pitchers gave up is about silliest thing I've ever heard of. H+BB/9 is a much more meaningful comparison. Giving up HRs in the deadball era is about as meaningless as it gets.<br /><br />Find a copy of Thorn and Palmer's Hidden Game of Baseball. This gives is a great, detailed explanation of both park factor and relative (adjusted) era.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Is there any relevance to those numbers? And he ranks 23rd All-Time in BB/9.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>A simple comparison would be to compare lifetime ERAs to the ERA of the league as a whole while a pitcher was active. Although somewhat contemporary to Johnson and Mathewson, Young faced tougher offenses than both of them:<br /><br />Career ERA: League ERA:<br /><br />Young.......2.63 3.62<br />Mathewson...2.13 2.88<br />Johnson.....2.17 3.17<br /><br />It appears as if Young was actually better than his "raw" stats in this case.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Howard,<br /><br />That's the purpose of ERA+<br /><br />It compares a player's ERA to the league after adjusting for homepark. Your conclusion that Young is better than his raw ERA indicates is proved out by his ranking 37 places higher in career ERA + than he did in straight ERA.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>nevermind...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Thanks, Brian. I didn't actually realize the difference was quite that dramatic.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Kal</b><p> First, what and where is this poll you are talking about?<br />Second, what do the numbers signify in T206Collector's post which begins with Pedro at 166?<br /> Sorry for being so dumb.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Is a calculation for "Adjusted ERA+", which takes into account all of the things we were talking about. I am not sure what the actual calculation for adjusted ERA+ is, but I think it available on Baseballreference.com, from where I pulled it.<br /><br />The poll is at the top of the home page for this Net54 board. Click "Inaugural Class of 1936".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Kal</b><p> Pedro's adjusted era is 166. Does that mean 1.66? Lefty Grove is 148. Does that mean he is in second place with 1.48? What does the (33) next to Pedro mean? Once again, sorry for being so dumb.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You guys can throw around numbers till they are coming out<br />of your ears. I agree with T206Collector that Cy Young is<br />overrated.<br />He pitched on teams who were contenders. Same goes for <br />Matty (as much as I love him, he was a gentleman), he was<br />with the Giants, who were the NL Champs 12 years during<br />the years 1904 - 1923.<br /><br />Walter Johnson pitched for a team (Washington) which was a<br /> 2nd division team most of the years he was with them. And,<br />yet he amassed some tremendous stats. Furthermore, he had<br />the most effective side arm motion ever seen in the game.<br />The guy most have had a "bionic" shoulder and arm.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Genaro</b><p>Never new poor old Cy would stir such feelings. I will say this Ill take Walter Johnson in SIM League Baseball any day over just about any pitcher. But as far as being over rated I think he ranks lower than many of the greats but not overrated period. <br /><br />I have left some WHIP stats from other dead ball pitchers Cy Young does rank lowest among the greats of his ERA but 511 wind is 511 wins. <br />As far as playing on great teams how bout those 10 years with the Cleveland Spiders 1 playoff appearance. 2 years with the St. Louis Perfectos / Cardinals Now if you take Young’s Best 10 years and rate the 10 best years of all the other greats of the same ERA his stats are just as good. <br /><br />2 Records that will never be broken 511 Wins 316 Losses<br /><br />Here are Career WHIPS<br /> Walter Johnson 1.061<br /> Cy Young 1.130<br /> Christy Mathewson 1.059<br /> Mordecai Brown 1.066<br /> Ed Walsh 1.000<br /> Addie Joss 0.968<br /> Jack Phiester 1.089<br /> Joe Wood 1.085<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Of course Young was not as good as Johnson. Nobody was. That in itself does not make Young overrated. If it did then it would follow that Hank Aaron was overrated because he was not as good as Willie Mays. Also, while I agree that Mathewson benefitted a great deal from the teams he played on he was not on twelve championship teams. His career ended in 1916 after he had played on "only" five champs.