The greatest player in Houston Astros history, Jeff Bagwell came to Texas with little fanfare.  A native Nor’easterner, Baggy was drafted by his beloved Red Sox only to be traded while still on the farm for quality setupman Larry Andersen.  Larry served his purpose in Boston for about one-third of a season while Baggy became an All-Star with Houston.  The swatter from Beantown won the 1991 Rookie of the Year Award and a few years later gathered the National League MVP Award in 1994.  Jeff remains on the short list of players who received 100% of the MVP vote the year they won the coveted hardware.  Among career MVP shareholders, Baggy ranks 35th all-time in MVP votes.  When one peruses the all-time leader boards the name Bagwell can often be found.

Bagwell ranks 37th all-time in WAR among position players.  His career on-base percentage of .408 is the 40th best mark in the game’s history.  He is the game’s 36th greatest hitter for slugging percentage and when you combine his lofty on-base percentage and slugging average, Baggy jumps up to 22nd all-time in career OPS.  He ranks 35th in career homeruns, 28th in career walks and 46th in lifetime RBI.  His value has been greatly enhanced thanks to the application of Sabermetrics which has made statistical analysis more in-depth.  He is the eighth greatest player in baseball history in “base-out runs added” and finishes 16th in career “Win Probability Added.”  In “Base-out wins added” Jeff is the tenth greatest performer in the game’s storied history.  But all these new-fangled stats mean little to the old school fan.  What these Sabermetrics do, is, in essence, give followers of the game a different perspective on long-held stats.  It’s numbers crunching–plain and simple–that enables researchers to better determine the overall worth of a player.

Jeff Bagwell might just be the God of Sabermetrics.  Stats such as RBI, runs scored, homeruns and batting average have always been the holy grail of baseball numbers, but Bagwell, although he excels in all these departments, adds greater worth when you focus on the numbers and employ a little math.  On-base percentage has become a more valuable stat than batting average of late since many .300 hitters can’t get on base better than a career .254 hitter like Eddie Yost.  Although Yost had a weak batting average, his OBP is higher than many .300 hitters thanks to his excessive number of walks.  When one focuses on OBP, players like Yost start to gain respect.  Bagwell, unlike Yost, was a high average hitter who also posted substantial on-base percentages.  Baggy’s batting skill only added to his worth as an on-base guy.

It is in large part to Bagwell’s overall game, which is better defined by Sabermetrics, that he is viewed by those in the know as one of baseball’s greatest talents.  With high batting averages and on-base percentages, Jeff was a true offensive beast.  During his career, Baggy put together a string of six consecutive seasons (it would have been eight had he not broke his wrist) in which he both scored and drove in at least 100 runs.  At first glance, this seems like an impressive accomplishment but nothing too awe-inspiring.  But know this: recently inducted Hall of Famer Jim Rice had a three-year string and Andre Dawson, also recently inducted, never was able to put together a back-to-back season of 100 runs and 100 RBI.  Some of Jeff’s peers, like Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Fred McGriff–all currently on the Hall of Fame ballot with Baggy–were incapable of duplicating this feat.  McGwire had one back-to-back season while neither McGriff nor Palmeiro were ever able to fashion back-to-back 100 runs scored and 100 RBI seasons.  As far as hall of Fame legends are concerned, Baggy excels some names who wouldn’t expect.  Hank Aaron had five consecutive seasons, Stan Musial had four, Johnny Mize and Orlando Cepeda had just one back-to-back season while men like Mickey Mantle, Willie McCovey and Willie Stargell never had back-to-back 100 runs scored and 100 RBI seasons.

With recent inductions of run producers like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson in the Hall of Fame, Jeff Bagwell’s case strengthens.  Although Baggy came into his own when Rice was done and Andre was winding down, the Astros slugger was a far superior player than the two new members of the Hall.  Jeff rests higher than both Dawson and Rice in career homeruns, runs scored, runs created and WPA (wins probability added).  Baggy’s career WPA is a healthy 59.0 which more than doubles Jim Rice’s career 25.4 and nearly doubles Dawson’s career 29.7 mark.  The following bracket lists the four important average stats: batting average, on-base percentage, slugging average and on-base plus slugging. 

BA: Rice .298, Bagwell .297 and Dawson .279

OBP: Bagwell .408, Rice .352 and Dawson .323

SLUG: Bagwell .540, Rice .502 and Dawson .482

OPS: Bagwell .948, Rice .854 and Dawson .806

Bagwell’s career slash line (BA, OBP, SA and OPS) is one the greatest in baseball history.  When an individual wants to judge the overall worth of a hitter, they shouldn’t focus on batting average or homeruns, but the slash line.  Those batters with impressive slash lines tend to be the game’s elite run producers because they hit for high averages, reach base often and hit for authority.  The OPS is a great indicator of a batter’s worth because it combines the player’s ability to reach base with his ability to drive the ball.  Baggy’s career OPS is higher than such unquestioned Hall of Famers as Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Duke Snider, Mike Schmidt, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Eddie Mathews and Harmon Killebrew.  Even some of Baggy’s much more ballyhooed peers like Ken Griffey Jr. and Gary Sheffield can’t reach his career .948 lifetime OPS. 

The following exercise is the best case I can make for Jeff Bagwell and proof that the man should have been ushered into Cooperstown on his first ballot.  It will show that Baggy was a more valuable player than Hall of Famer Mickey Mantle and his two position peers who received far more ink than he did over the course of his career: Mark McGwire and Frank Thomas.  Now, the value of a player is best defined by his ability to create runs.  Only by the scoring and driving in of runs can a team win.  Without a run scored, no team will ever finish on top, for runs are the only avenue to wins.  In the runs created department, Bagwell greatly excels the previous mentioned stars.

The exercise I have conducted focuses on each players eight prime seasons.  In the case of Bagwell, Thomas and Mantle, their eight seasons came consecutively, but in the case of Big Mac, his prime seasons had a hiccup which is why I have discarded the 1993 through 1995 seasons from the exercise on McGwire’s behalf because he was injured.  This exercise adds the players runs scored and runs driven in stats and divides them by games played, thus giving us the number of runs scored per game courtesy the player.  Let us begin with Mr. Bagwell.

The eight prime years for Jeff Bagwell are the seasons of 1994 to 2001.  His average of runs manufactured per season is listed in parentheses after the years of analysis.

Bagwell: 1994 (2.00), 1995 (1.54), 1996 (1.43), 1997 (1.51), 1998 (1.60), 1999 (1.66), 2000 (1.79) and 2001 (1.59). 

Mantle: 1954 (1.58), 1955 (1.50), 1956 (1.75), 1957 (1.49), 1958 (1.49), 1959 (1.24), 1960 (1.39) and 1961 (1.69)

McGwire: 1987 (1.42), 1988 (1.20), 1989 (1.18), 1990 (1.25), 1991 (0.89), 1992 (1.37), 1996 (1.67) and 1997 (1.34)

Thomas: 1991 (1.35), 1992 (1.39), 1993 (1.53), 1994 (1.83), 1995 (1.47), 1996 (1.73), 1997 (1.61) and 1998 (1.36)

All total, Bagwell has the best prime years average with a number of 1.64 runs manufactured on average per game played.  His mark exceeds Mickey Mantle, a shoo-in Hall of Famer, whose tally comes in third at 1.52–just behind Frank “Big Hurt” Thomas’ 1.53 ledger.  Mark McGwire, who justly has received limited support for the Hall of Fame, is well behind the three great offensive stars with a mark of 1.29.  So, not only was Jeff Bagwell an elite run producer of his day, he is also one of the best all-time.  The man who put the Astros on the map deserves a place in Cooperstown.

Johnny Bench guided his Cincinnati Reds to several World Series contests, Carlton Fisk was the no-nonsense star of the Boston Red Sox and Gary Carter was the clutch star for the World Champion 1986 Mets, but these three Hall of Famers aren’t quite the well-rounded performer that Ted Simmons was.  Although Bench, Carter and Fisk have an edge defensively–this edge isn’t a mammoth gulf, mind you, but a slight separation–Simmons was unquestionably the better offensive performer.  He was a consistent threat to hit .300 and owned the best plate discipline of the quartet.  His arm was on par with Carter’s and Fisk’s and Simmons’ career stats exceed his enshrined peers in many major offensive categories.  Let us take a look at a few, shall we?

HITS: Simmons 2472, Fisk 2356, Carter 2092 and Bench 2048

DOUBLES: Simmons 483, Fisk 421, Bench 381, Carter 371

RUNS BATTED IN: Simmons 1389, Bench 1376, Fisk 1330 and Carter 1225

BATTING AVERAGE: Simmons .285, Fisk .269, Bench .267 and Carter .262

ON-BASE PERCENTAGE: Simmons .348, Bench .342, Fisk .341 and Carter .335

Also, of this amazing catching quartet, Simmons owned the best batting eye, indicated by being the only player who walked more than he struck out.  In over 2,400 games, Simba struck out just 694 times while accepting 855 free passes.  The switch-hitting Simmons was topped by the Hall of Famers in homeruns and slugging, but there is more to baseball than just swatting a long ball.  Simmons was a well-rounded performer who could drill twenty dingers, but he never reached the 40 homerun plateau that Bench toyed with from time to time.  Although Bench hit 40 homeruns in two separate seasons in his career, he also struck out in the excess of 100 times in two seasons (something Simmons never did) while his plate discipline got progressively worse after his 25th birthday.  Most players gather a better understanding of the strike zone as they age, but Bench was the opposite.  At the age of 24 he walked more than he struck out but never again achieved this astounding feat.  At the age of 27, Johnny drew 65 walks but whiffed 108 times.  In half of Simmons’ seasons he walked more than he struck out.

Striking out was something Ted rarely ever did.  In fact, Simba was one of the most difficult strikeout victims of his time.  In ten separate seasons, Ted was in the Top Ten in his league in batters that were most difficult to strikeout.  As for his Hall of Fame peers, Gary Carter had two such seasons in which he made the Top Ten while neither Bench nor Fisk ever had such a campaign.  His knack for making contact enabled him to lead all catchers in the game’s history in a unique little department: intentional walks accepted.  Ted was put on base intentionally by the opposition 188 times over the course of his career.  His mammoth total of free passes eclipses Bench’s by over 50 intentional walks and exceeds both Fisk and Carter by over 80.  Of all players in the game’s history, only 17 batters were walked more than Ted intentionally.

Although Simmons never won a batting title, he was one of the few catchers often in the running.  He had six Top Ten finishes in batting average over the course of his career.  His Hall of Fame peers were never regarded as great hitters for average–they were sluggers and not hitters.  In seven separate seasons, Ted eclipsed the .300 plateau while Fisk was a .300 hitter in just two of his many seasons played.  Gary Carter was never a .300 hitter and Bench enjoyed his only .300 season on the cheap–the strike shortened 1981 campaign.  And everyone knows that a lofty batting average tends to make an on-base percentage lofty as well.  Simba’s best single season OBP was .408, which eclipsed his Hall of Fame peers’ highwater marks: Fisk .402, Carter .381 and Bench .379.

Simmons was able to post over 100 more two-baggers than both Bench and Carter when his career was all said and done.  His drives often went to the gaps which enabled the St. Louis backstop to tally an ample amount of doubles.  Although Ted wasn’t the power hitter that his peers were, he still possessed solid pop and was the only member of this legendary quartet that posted a 40 double/20 homerun season.  Bench’s forte may have been the dinger, but Simmons’ forte was the two-bagger.  Ted ranks second all-time in career doubles among backstops, trailing the future Hall of Famer Ivan Rodriguez with Fisk coming in third behind Simba.  Simmons eclipses Carlton in many categories and some might be surprised that Ted threw out 34% of would-be base stealers–the exact same percentage as the more highly touted Fisk.

The strongest case for Simmons’ Hall of Fame induction comes in the most important category in the game: the scoring of runs.  To cross the plate is the only way to tally a score, making runs and runs batted in the most important stats in the game.  In this regard, Ted was an elite performer.  Of all the all-time great catchers, only the legendary Yogi Berra drove in more runs than Simmons.  Ted is second all-time in career RBI among receivers.  Bench comes in third, Mike Piazza fourth and Ivan Rodriguez, who is still active, but not a threat to move Simba down the ladder, in the fifth slot.  Take a gander at other positions and envision the RBI runner-up not dwelling in Cooperstown.  The runner-up among first basemen is a fellow named Lou Gehrig.  In right field, Babe Ruth is second in all-time RBI.  Willie Mays is the second best center fielder in driving in runs while Honus Wagner plays second fiddle among shortstops in this important stat.  Now, can you imagine the Hall of Fame minus any of those men?

Listed below are the percentage totals racked up by each player on the writer’s ballot.  Given that the Veteran’s Committee elected former Cubs third baseman Ron Santo, Barry won’t go into Cooperstown alone.  No other player on the writer’s ballot received 75% of the vote–the necessary total for induction–as Jack Morris, former Tigers ace, came in second in voting with 66.7%.  The list that follows give the player’s percentage received by the writers beside the prediction I made for each player last month in parenthesis.

Barry Larkin 86.4(70.5%), Jack Morris 66.7 (57.7%), Jeff Bagwell 56.0 (58.2%), Lee Smith 50.6 (49%), Tim Raines 48.7 (41.4%), Alan Trammell 36.8 (26.8%), Edgar Martinez 36.5 (38.6%), Fred McGriff 23.9 (22.2%), Larry Walker 22.9 (25%), Mark GcGwire 19.5 (21.8%), Don Mattingly 17.8 (15.1%), Dale Murphy 14.5 (14.4%), Rafael Palmeiro 12.6 (19.3%), Bernie Williams 9.6 (18.8%), Juan Gonzalez 4.0 (6.2%), Vinny Castilla 1.0 (3.6%), Tim Salmon 0.9 (2.6%), Bill Mueller 0.7 (0.7%), Brad Radke 0.3 (0.2%), Javy Lopez 0.2 (3.8%), Eric Young 0.2 (0.2%), Ruben Sierra 0.0 (0.7%), Brian Jordan 0.0 (0.2%), Terry Mulholland 0.0 (0.2%), Jeromy Burnitz 0.0 (0.0%), Phil Nevin 0.0 (0.0%) and Tony Womack 0.0 (0.0%)

There were a number of shockers for me in this year’s ballot.  I expected, given the lack of star-caliber first-timers on the ballot, that many of the players would see a boost in their percentages.  This happened to many but others either fell off a tad or didn’t quite get the support I figured they would.  Larkin’s 86% seems a bit too excessive, but since his company on the ballot was rather weak, it was his year to make it.  Although Larkin was a terrific player, the writers should not have elevated him to 86% simply because the company he kept on the ballot was suspect.  When the voters do that, they in essence dilute the Hall of Fame, electing the loftiest player among a group of stars, not because he is worthy of any accolade but because he is perceived as better than the rest.  Had Barry had to compete with the likes of Biggio, Piazza, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Schilling, like the holdovers will next year, Larkin almost certainly wouldn’t have netted 80% of the vote and probably not the 75% needed for enshrinement.

Another shock was the steep ascent of Jack Morris.  Jack was a good pitcher, noted more for his big game performances than anything else, who was a solid innings-eater but hardly a dominating pitcher.  The strongest case for Morris is that he won the most games of any pitcher during the 1980s–every other decade leader is in the Hall of Fame.  But if Morris should make the Hall of Fame, his ERA will be the highest of all enshrined.  Although Morris racked up innings, he pales in comparison to some names that will make the ballot in upcoming years–true Hall of Famers like Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens (at least the numbers).  Morris isn’t in their class–not by a long shot.

Jeff Bagwell saw his support spike, as well it should.  He was the greatest all-round first baseman of his time, which is saying a lot.  He played in the rock-’em-sock-’em 1990s and had such stars as Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Fred McGriff, Will Clark and Rafael Palmeiro to contend with.  The 1990s is easily the best decade in the game’s history as far as star-caliber first basemen are concerned and Baggy was the cream of the crop.  Not only could he slug on par with his peers, but he was also swift, fielded his position well and was an exemplary sportsman.  He will make the Hall of Fame eventually.

I was expecting support for Bernie Williams and a lesser jump in percentage for Alan Trammell, but the reverse was true.  Now that Barry Larkin is in the Hall of Fame, there seems to be little reason to keep Trammell out.  The two played the same position and their career numbers are in quite close proximity in all regards.  Also, both men led their team’s to World Championships and did, unfortunately for them, spend an ample amount of time on the DL later in their careers.  The two shortstops are really quite comparable.  No rational person can justify why Larkin received 86% of the vote while Trammell, almost his equal, netted under 40%.  Bernie has always been sort of an unsung Yankee, shadowed by Jeter, Posada and Rivera.  He was a fine player and I expect him to remain on the ballot but never make the Hall of Fame, lest the Veteran’s Committee elects him in in 2048.

Some players my estimations were rather close.  Lee Smith and Bagwell received about the same support I imagined they would get, as did Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff.  Tim Raines, a well-rounded talent, shot up a little higher than I expected, as did Mattingly, but Palmeiro and McGwire didn’t see the slight raises I envisioned for them–the steroid cloud will linger.  My prediction for Dale Murphy was 0.1 percentage points off and I thought that Juan Gonzalez would see enough support this year, given a weak freshman class, to be retained for the 2013 ballot, and then be knocked off that year, but the former Rangers slugger was removed from the ballot this year with an under 5% showing.  As I expected, Bernie Williams was the only first-timer to get the required 5% to remain on the ballot, so the other first-timer’s names will not be seen on the 2013 ballot.

In the game’s early years, Jim McCormick was one of the finest hurlers in the professional ranks.  Such stars as Al Spalding, Jim Creighton and Dick McBride captured the baseball fan’s attention before, during and after the Civil War, for they were the game’s top pitching sensations.  Later, stars like Tim Keefe, Old Hoss Radbourn and Pud Galvin became common names among the sporting pages for their pitching exploits.  These men were stars, and the latter trio Hall of Famers, but the name Jim McCormick is one that should rest among them. 

During McCormick’s time pitchers were expected to be made of iron.  The man who took the mound in the game’s opening frame was expected to be there when the last out was recorded.  Jim McCormick was made of such metal.  Jim completed 466 of his career 485 starts and on five separate occasions, he eclipsed the 500 innings pitched plateau in a single season.  Pitchers nowadays rarely work 200 innings a season, lest their name be Halladay or King Felix.  The star pitchers of McCormick’s era all had rather identical stats when it came to completing their games, but their peripheral stats didn’t quite mirror one another so well.

Around the time McCormick was starring in the pro ranks, pitchers like John Clarkson, Galvin, Keefe, Radbourn, and Mickey Welch were starring as well.  The five men named after Jim all were elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame, but were they any better than McCormick?  The following brackets list these men in order of best to worst in both earned run average and WHIP.

ERA: McCormick 2.43, Keefe 2.63, Radbourn 2.68, Welch 2.71, Clarkson 2.81 and Galvin 2.85

WHIP: Keefe 1.123, McCormick 1.132, Radbourn 1.149, Galvin 1.191, Clarkson 1.209 and Welch 1.226

McCormick is the top man in ERA among the star pitchers of the 1800s and was Sir Timothy Keefe’s runner-up in the WHIP crown.  These two stats are regarded by many as the two most important stats to judge pitchers.  A hurler’s win-loss record is a poor indicator of the pitcher’s worth because many lesser pitchers were able to win on powerfully offensive teams while some star hurlers toiled on clubs with a woeful offense, thus posting poor records.  Felix Hernandez comes to mind as a modern day star pitcher saddled to a poor team.  The best way to judge the merits of a pitcher is by how well he restricts runs, and in order to restrict the scoring of runs by the opposition, an elite pitcher keeps runners off base, thus limiting the chances for the enemy to score.  At this, McCormick was solid.

McCormick, who rests in the Top 40 all-time in both the career wins and ERA departments, posted some amazing single season stats his Hall of Fame peers could not duplicate.  His best single season WHIP was an amazing 0.786.  The top single season WHIPs of the Hall of Fame Five are listed hereafter: Keefe 0.800, Radbourn 0.922, Clarkson 0.953, Galvin 0.988 and Welch 1.022.  And in the ERA department, Jim enjoyed four seasons with a sub 2.00 mark.  None of his Hall of Fame peers could match his total as Keefe had three such seasons, Welch two and Clarkson, Galvin and Radbourn had one apiece. 

McCormick was often among the pitching leaders during his career.  He led the league two times apeiece in both ERA and wins while Hall of Famer Mickey Welch never led the league in either category and Pud Galvin was able to lead his league just once in ERA without ever claiming a wins crown.  In fact, when you compare Jim with Pud Galvin, you see a pitcher, in McCormick, far more difficult to hit.  In just three seasons McCormick allowed more hits than innings worked while Galvin surrendered over a hit per inning in a whopping twelve campaigns. 

Perhaps one the best ways to acknowledge pitching excellence is by focusing on a hurler’s strikeout-to-walk ratio.  The WHIP category is a better indicator of a pitcher’s success because it takes into account hits allowed as well, but the SO/BB ratio is the foundation of WHIP–with the hits allowed addition to the equation.  Jim owned a remarkable 2.28 SO/BB mark over the course of his career.  Only Pud Galvin, who Jim tops in ERA and WHIP, had a better strikeout-to-walk ratio (Pud’s WHIP was swollen because he was easy to hit) among the Hall of Fame Five.  Jim’s 2.28 mark eclipses Radbourn’s 2.09, Keefe’s 2.08, Clarkson’s 1.66 and Welch’s 1.43.

Although Dwight spent his last season in the Majors with the Orioles, he is regarded as a lifelong member of the Boston Red Sox.  The terrific right fielder was the poster child for the modern statistical analysis crowd who value peripheral stats in the same fashion as Athletics General Manager Billy Beane.  Evans became a sensation midway through his career when he developed remarkable plate discipline which boosted his on-base percentage up to the Eddie Yost range.  Modern day fans have grown accustomed to the seemingly never-ending string of peripheral stats, but before such things as WAR and the like, most folks focused on the tried-and-true stats of hits, homers and RBI.  Although Dwight was above average in these departments as well, it was his stellar on-base percentage that separated him from the pack.

Evans has a handful of peers in the Hall of Fame (players who played in roughly the same age and manned the same position) to include Andre Dawson, Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield and teammate Jim Rice–a fellow corner outfielder.  These men were all stars in their day and had plenty talent, but Dwight may have been the best all-round talent of this star-studded cadre.  His on-base percentages were typically high while his peers often struggled to manage lofty OBP.  Andre Dawson never had good on-base skills and Jim Rice’s plate discipline was typically poor.  He occasionally posted decent on-base percentages but that was when he hit for extremely high batting averages while not drawing many walks.  Winfield had good on-base skills and Reggie Jackson owned poor plate discipline–indicated by him resting atop the alltime strikeout board among batters–but he, like Harmon Killebrew, eventually developed good on-base skills.  Dawson’s highest single-season OBP was .365 while Rice’s highwater mark was .384.  Dwight topped Rice’s best mark in six separate seasons and bested Andre’s OBP apex a whopping nine times.

Although Dwight had the lofty on-base percentages of Eddie Yost, he also hit for the power of a Cepeda.  Dwight combined the best attributes of Yost and Cepeda to make a complete offensive player.  If he had a weakness as an offensive weapon, it was a lack of speed, however, Evans wasn’t a base path clog.  He fashioned a number of seasons with solid batting averages, on-base percentages and slugging averages.  In fact, he put together more well-rounded seasons in these three departments than any of his Cooperstown peers.  Over the course of Evans’ distinguished career, he posted six seasons with a batting average of at least .280, an on-base percentage of at least .370 and a slugging average with a base of .460.  As for his Hall of Fame peers, Reggie Jackson and Jim Rice finished with one less season, tallying five such campaigns apiece, while Dave Winfield produced four such campaigns and Dawson never achieved such success in any given season. 

Given his exceptional on-base skills, Dwight was able to score plenty of runs.  The Boston ballhawk posted four seasons with 100 or more runs scored–a higher total than any of the aforementioned Hall of Famers.  Winfield and Rice posted three 100 runs scored seasons, Andre Dawson had two while the self-promoting Jackson only had one such season.  By drawing walks, Dwight was able to cross the dish at a high clip.  His average of 0.564 runs scored per game for his career eclipses Winfield’s 0.561, Jackson’s 0.55 and Dawson’s 0.523. 

With the ability to draw walks typically comes the aversion to strikeout.  In modern times, such isn’t the case with high walk drawers like Adam Dunn and Jack Cust also resting high in the leader board among strikeouts.  Although Evans whiffed occasionally, he was much better at pitch recognition than his Hall of Fame peers.  Dwight posted five seasons in which he walked as much as he struck out–or walked more than he whiffed–over the course of his career.  His Cooperstown peers are nowhere close in this regard.  Dave Winfield accomplished this feat twice in his career while Dawson, Jackson and Rice never once walked on par with their total of strikeouts.  Although Dave the Rave is the only peer close to Evans in this regard, Dwight was arguably the better player.  Winfield led the league once in both RBI and total bases–the extent of his league leading stats.  Dwight paced the American League at least once in each of the following departments: runs, homeruns, walks, OBP, on-base plus slugging and total bases. 

Dwight Evans was a fine offensive performer but what made him one the best all-round stars of baseball history was his ability to combine offensive prowess with defensive excellence.  The Boston star was feared across baseball for his cannon arm which enabled him to tally 228 career assists.  A fixture in the Gold Glove ceremonies, Dwight won eight awards for defensive excellence throughout his career.  Andre Dawson was able to match this feat while Winfield won just one shy with seven.  Reggie Jackson and Jim Rice never won a Gold Glove as Rice was a below average defender and Reggie was abysmal on the field.  Such new stats like WAR attempt to judge a player’s overall worth and the multi-talented Evans proves quite a formidable star in the WAR department.  His career WAR of 61.8 eclipses Winfield’s 59.7, Dawson’s 57.0 and Rice’s weak 41.5 career mark. 

A few years ago the baseball writers elected Jim Rice into the Hall of Fame while they never gave Dwight 11% of the vote.  The voters clearly slighted the better all-round player.  Rice hit for a better average than Evans, but batting average isn’t everything.  The following list compares Evans and Rice in some important career totals.

RUNS: Evans 1470, Rice 1249

HITS: Rice 2452, Evans 2446

DOUBLES: Evans 483, Rice 373

HOMERUNS: Evans 385, Rice 382

RBI: Rice 1451, Evans 1384

STOLEN BASES: Evans 78, Rice 58

WALKS: Evans 1391, Rice 670

OBP: Evans .370, Rice .352

TOTAL BASES: Evans 4230, Rice 4129

ON-BASE + SLUGGING: Rice .854, Evans .840

FIELDING %: Evans .986, Rice .980

ASSISTS: Evans 227, Rice 137

PUTOUTS: Evans 5450, Rice 3103

WAR: Evans 61.8, Rice 41.5

Rice also grounded into 315 career double plays (an enormous amount) while Dwight bounced into only 227 twin-killings.

The Veteran’s Committee has elected for the Class of 2012 former Cubs All-Star third baseman Ron Santo.  An adequate selection by my estimation, Santo was a star player who stroked his share of homeruns, posted lofty on-base percentages and won five Gold Gloves.  Santo was a fine player and a decent selection for the Hall of Fame, but his inclusion into Cooperstown now makes former Cardinals third baseman Ken Boyer a worthy recruit.  Now that Santo resides in the Hall, Boyer must be analyzed for selection as well.  They each played the same position in the same era, making them perfectly compatible for Hall of Fame analysis.  Both men were star hot corner custodians, with Santo making nine All-Star teams and Boyer netting seven trips to the Midsummer Classic.  Right-handed hitters with solid power each, Santo and Boyer both were above average defenders and were awarded, five times each, the Gold Glove for their position.  Similar players, Santo has always been respected a little more, by Hall of Fame voters, than Boyer, indicated by Ken’s high of 25.5% of the HOF vote by the BBWAA to Santo’s highwater mark of 43.1%.

Boyer and Santo have many similarities but they also have many differences–which will be touched in this essay.  Many Hall of Fame voters place a heavy emphasis on October play, which I have always found ridiculous, for it takes a team and not a player to make the postseason, but be that as it may, playoff experience has always carried plenty weight with those casting ballots.  Newly inducted Ron Santo never once played in a postseason game while Ken Boyer was a member of the World Champion Cardinals of 1964. More than just a role player, that year Kenny led the Redbirds to the World Series with an MVP season.  The St. Louis third baseman won the Most Valuable Player Award in ’64–hardware Santo never claimed.  In fact, Ron never finished in the Top Three any given year in MVP voting. 

It takes a well-rounded ballplayer to win an MVP Award and Ken Boyer was most certainly that.  It can be argued that he brought more to the table than Santo.  Sure, a cursory glance at their lifetime stats will show that Santo clubbed more homeruns, but Ken excelled in other facets of the game.  Defensively, both men were in the upper echelon of their third base peers, but Boyer’s glove was perhaps a bit better.  Santo committed 316 errors at third over the course of his career while Boyer had 264 miscues.  Yes, facts are Boyer spent a year manning center field, because his athleticism was more refined than Santo’s, therefore giving Ron more chances at third to commit guffaws.  However, Santo led National League third basemen in errors during three separate seasons while Boyer only topped hot corner custodians in miscues once.  The star from St. Louis only had one season in which he committed 25 or more errors while Santo had a whopping six such campaigns. 

On the defensive side of the sphere, Boyer looks better with his slim error totals when compared to the miscue mountains amassed by Santo.  Granted, third base is a defensive position, but it is an unusual position in that teams want a stellar glove at the post but also expect some brawny blasting out of their man.  Both Santo and Boyer offered this uncommon mixture of talent.  Boyer was a better hitter for average than Santo–Boyer’s career BA was .287 while Santo’s was substantially lower at .277.  Kenny was able to post four consecutive seasons with a .300 batting average while the most Santo could ever muster were two such seasons, back-to-back.  Ken was also able to post three 180 hit seasons while Santo mustered two.

Boyer was a much better hitter for average than Santo and his all-round game was far more diverse.  One of the better speed/combo guys of his era, Ken swiped 105 bases over the course of his career while Santo pilfered just 35.  Not one to pick his steals well, Santo was gunned down attempting steals more than he was successful in his attempts.  Santo’s lack of wheels also presented itself in another unflattering stat which he rests high among baseball’s all-time players: grounding into double plays.  The Cubs star currently rests 25th all-time in grounding into twin-killings while Boyer fails to crack the Top 125.  So notorious was Santo for bouncing into the pitcher’s best friend, he was able to lead the league in that department a handful of seasons.  Had he possessed the athleticism of Boyer, his twin-killings would have been dwarfed.

Santo’s greatest edge on Boyer is his power and on-base percentage.  Boyer was unable to crack the 300 Homerun Club–a fraternity that Santo resides in.  Although Santo’s on-base percentage was better than Boyer’s, Ken was issued more intentional passes.  In three seasons Ken was handed first base freely at least ten times while Santo was never intentionally walked ten times in any given year.  But Santo’s walks totals were always higher than Kenny’s.  Their career slash lines are quite impressive, with Boyer’s being .287 BA/.349 OBP/.462 SA.  Santo’s is equally impressive with a .277 BA/.362 OBP/.464 SA.  Now, they each have relatively the same slugging average with the slightest of edges in Santo’s favor, but in the other departments the balance is not there.  Boyer greatly exceeds Santo in BA while Santo is well ahead of Boyer in on-base percentage.  The question must be asked, is Santo’s lofty on-base percentage more important than Boyer’s higher batting average?  The following exercise will shine a little light on this topic.

This exercise focuses on Boyer and Santo’s first ten years as regulars in the Major Leagues.  The focus of this exercise is on runs scored, and how many runs each player scored, on average, for his team.  When I initially started this experiment, I imagined that Santo accounted for more of his team’s runs on average than Boyer, since Ron had a superior on-base percentage and was thus capable of scoring more runs–the more one reaches the hassocks the better chance he has of scoring: Baseball 101.  But I found out otherwise.

Boyer               Santo

12%                   12.1%             First season

13.4%                 6.9%             Second season

10.7%              13.8%             Third season

16.3%              14.4%              Fourth season

13.4%              13.8%              Fifth season

14.8%              14.4%              Sixth season

15.5%              15.2%              Seventh season

11.8%              14%                  Eighth season

11.5%              13.4%              Ninth season

13.9%             10.2%              Tenth season

Now, Boyer and Santo each split the wins in the above exercise, with Boyer accounting for more of his team’s runs five seasons and Santo accounting for more the other five campaigns.  However, on average, over the course of their first ten seasons in the Majors, Boyer accounted for 13.3% of the Cardinals runs while Santo lagged behind with 12.8% of the Cubs runs.  Both men were middle-of-the-order hitters which has the tendency to render on-base percentages a poor estimation of a player’s value.  The above exercise proves that Santo’s higher on-base percentage really wasn’t that important to his team.  Had he been a leadoffman, his OBP would have been a boon to the Cubs, because the heart-of-the-order could drive him in, but since he was a heart-of-the-order hitter, his high OBP was useless because the five and six slot hitters couldn’t drive him in at a clip comparable to Boyer. 

When focusing on slash lines, Boyer may be weaker in OBP than Santo and his slugging average is a tick below the former Cub, but Boyer was far more consistent with his slash line than Ron.  Ken was able to post a seven-year string of a slash line with at least a .280BA/.355 OBP/.450 SA while Santo’s string was halted at five seasons.  Boyer was able to put together two seasons with 100 runs scored and 180 hits while Santo was never able to achieve this feat in any given season.  Although Santo had the higher on-base percentage, and in theory, the better chance to score runs, he only reached 100 runs scored in one season.  As for Boyer, he crossed the dish 100 times three separate campaigns.  It is my estimation, given the above argument, that since Cooperstown has opened its doors to Ron Santo, Ken Boyer is qualified to join the roll call as well.

If my predictions are right, there won’t be a single former player inducted by the Baseball Writer’s next year.  The Veteran’s Committee might elect Ron Santo and there’s a chance Buzzie Bavasi, Jim Kaat, Gil Hodges and Minnie Minoso could get support, but I really only see Santo and Bavasi as strong contenders. 

Getting my vote, if I had one to submit, on the BBWAA ballot would be Jeff Bagwell and that’s it.  I see too many parallels between Larkin and Trammell–Barry outhit Trammell for average but their career numbers are quite close.  Why has Barry received so much support while Trammell has received so little?  I do, however, see many holdovers jumping up a bit in voting.  I think Bagwell will see a significant rise in his total but still fail to see him make the HOF next year.  Both Larkin and Jack Morris should rise with this extremely weak freshman crop, of which Bernie Williams looks to be the only holdover for 2013.  Juan Gonzalez might be the only holdover from last year to get bumped off the list, ala Harold Baines of last year, but the weak crop should benefit him–next year he might get shuttled off the ballot with a strong freshman class headed by Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, Kenny Lofton and Steve Finley.

This group of former baseball legends is quite an interesting crop and all should garner their share of support.  Buzzie Bavasi was at the helm of the Dodgers during some of their glory years but was also the man in charge when they left Brooklyn and thus has many enemies, albeit fewer than Walter O’Malley–the team owner.  Ken Boyer will undoubtedly receive less attention than position peer Ron Santo because Boyer has been deceased for thirty years while Santo’s memory is yet fresh.  But if Santo should make the Hall of Fame, which there is a distinct possibility, than Boyer should follow on his heels. 

I can’t see Charlie Finley getting much support because he was hated by many in the game.  Unlike Bill Veeck, whose antics were rather tame if not over the top, Finley seemed to make the game less professional and more a spectacle.  His animal farm in Kansas City and bonuses to players for growing facial fuzz is his legacy.  Jim Kaat has had some support of late but his career totals, impressive to the untrained eye, lose their luster when they focus on them.  Kaat was hardly a dominating pitcher–he accumulated his stats through longevity and not stardom.  Kaat, although the greatest defender at his position during his day, is simply the Rusty Staub of pitching–fairly lofty career numbers which are misleading.  He won 283 games but pitched 25 years, which means he barely averaged more than eleven wins a season.

Minnie Minoso was a very good player.  A well-rounded talent, Minnie could do almost anything on the diamond.  He had speed and power and was a fearless defender.  Also, his love for the game was unmatched.  He played in the 1970s and even took the field in his fifties for a game in the 1980s.  Tony Oliva will get some support but he has a massive wall to climb, much like position peer Roger Maris.  Both Oliva and Maris were star right fielders during the 1960s but when one compares them to Hall of Fame inducted right fielders of their day, both Tony and Roger look quite skimpy.  Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline and Hank Aaron all reached 3,000 career hits while Frank Robinson came within 100 of that total as well.  As for Oliva and Maris, they couldn’t tally 2,000 career hits because of injury.

The following two names will probably see the less support of the group.  Allie Reynolds was a good pitcher who didn’t reach 200 career wins and unlike other pitchers with 180-195 wins of his day–think Tommy Bridges, Larry French and Lon Warneke–Reynolds didn’t serve during World War II but played through the fighting.  As for Tiant, he was a good pitcher but his career had a rather noticeable hiccup mid-course.  Luis started strong but was so bad in the middle of his career he was removed from the Majors for a time. 

The two strongest candidates are clearly former Cubs third baseman Ron Santo, who recently passed away and former Dodger slugger Gil Hodges, one of the greatest run producers of the 1950s.  Santo was a great defender who also possessed good power and had terrific on-base percentages–something modern fans value more than the old-timers.  Hodges was the nucleus of those great postwar Dodgers teams.  Although originally a catcher, Gil became a very good first baseman–reliable and sharp. 

Of the ten, I’ll make a grade sheet based on my assumptions of their chances for induction.  Buzzie Bavasi (B), Ken Boyer (D+), Charlie Finley (C-), Gil Hodges (B+), Jim Kaat (C+), Minnie Minoso (C-), Tony Oliva (C), Allie Reynolds (D+) Ron Santo (A-), and Luis Tiant (D)

It wouldn’t shock me if nobody gets enshrined from this class since the Veteran’s Committee, although way too liberal with their votes in the past, have become quite averse to issuing a yay vote of late.  The three that might make it in are Santo, Hodges and Bavasi while there is a glimmer of hope for Kaat and maybe Charlie Finley and Tony Oliva.  Personally, I’m inclined to vote for Hodges–the more I look at Gil’s record the more I like him.  He also gets extra credit points for managing the Miracle Mets of 1969 to a World Series championship.  I’m on the fence with Buzzie Bavasi and Ron Santo.  If I give Santo the go-ahead, then I’d be inclined to also vote for Boyer.  Minnie Minoso was a great player and I’d give him serious consideration but everyone else I would pass over for reasons explained above.  Kaat wasn’t a dominant pitcher, Oliva’s HOF peers have much higher numbers than him, Allie Reynolds, although a good pitcher, benefitted from playing with the Yankees and Tiant’s mid-career swoon isn’t indicative of someone who mastered the highest level.

There are two second basemen from Doyle’s era in the Hall of Fame: the aforementioned Lajoie and the Cubs’ Johnny Evers.  Before them, only Bid McPhee is in the Hall of Fame among second basemen.  Laughing Larry was an exceptional ballplayer and although not up to the ranks of Lajoie–no one was–he has career numbers quite superior to Evers.  Doyle and Evers have their similarities–both played second base during the Deadball Era, both batted from the left side of the dish, they each posted solid on-base percentages and each man won an MVP Award during his career.  They were both star second basemen in baseball’s early period and each was known for his exaggerated disposition: Doyle’s was sunny and Evers’ was morose.  Players across the National League referred to the twitchy, short-fused Evers as “The Crab.”

Named the National League’s MVP in 1912–two years before Evers netted his MVP Award–Doyle was the heart and soul of the Giants lineup.  The Cubs of Tinker, Evers and Chance had their run from 1906 to 1910 and then it was McGraw’s turn to take the NL.  Laughing Larry, who led the league in hits twice and once apiece in doubles and triples, had a superior slash line to both Evers and McPhee.  When Doyle ended his playing days, he had a slash of .290 BA/.357 OBP/.408 SA.  Both McPhee and The Crab were close to Doyle in on-base percentage but were well behind him in both batting average and slugging average.  Evers’ career slash line is .270 BA/.356 OBP/.334 SA while the old second baseman from the late 1800s, Biddy McPhee, had a slash of .272 BA/.355 OBP/.373 SA.

Johnny Evers became famous with his double play partners, Joe Tinker and Frank Chance, when a poet penned a little ditty about the trio turning twin-killings with unrivalled skill.  Although a solid trio, they weren’t anymore crackerjack at turning double plays than other groups.  Over the course of The Crab’s career he turned 688 double plays while Laughing Larry, who played in about as many contests as Evers, turned a little more with 694.  They were both sound fielders but the edge in overall play clearly goes to Doyle.  Larry averaged 0.544 runs scored per game over his career with an average of 0.449 RBI per game.  The Crab, by contrast, averaged 0.515 runs scored per game and a measly 0.302 RBI per game.

Listed below are Doyle’s career stats compared to The Crab’s.

RUNS: Doyle 960, Evers 919

HITS: Doyle 1887, Evers 1659

DOUBLES: Doyle 299, Evers 216

TRIPLES: Doyle 123, Evers 70

RBI: Doyle 793, Evers 538

The edge in every category listed above goes to Laughing Larry.  An interesting fact about Doyle is that he performed a feat that neither Nap Lajoie nor Honus Wagner could duplicate.  During the Deadball Era, when homeruns were hard to come by, Doyle was the only Major League middle infielder from 1901 to 1920 to post back-to-back seasons with double-digit homerun totals.  Most people would assume that the legendary Lajoie or Wagner would have achieved the feat if asked–but few would answer correctly with Doyle. 

Although Doyle’s career isn’t quite up to the standards of Lajoie, he exceeded all other second basemen from that time in many offensive categories.  Even though Bid McPhee played before Doyle, during the offensive heights of the 1890s, Larry was able to post more seasons with 150+ hits than either McPhee or Evers.  Doyle had five such campaigns while McPhee managed three.  Hall of Famer Johnny Evers, Doyle’s most accurate peer, only fashioned one such season during his tumultuous career.

In the years before WWI, baseball had a handful of solid first basemen.  The Chicago Cubs had Frank Chance, who made his way to the Hall of Fame and there were slick fielders like Hal Chase, Stuffy McInnis and Fred Tenney who weren’t slouches with the stick either.  However, of the first basemen from 1900 to 1920, Daubert may have been the best.  At that time, first base was more of a defensive oriented position as teams looked for men like Daubert and Chase and Tenney who could snag errant throws with the crude gloves of the day.  Daubert was often cited as the best all-round first baseman during his day, with none other than Hall of Famer Frank Chance–who knew a thing or two about playing the position–supporting Daubert’s claim as the top man at the initial sack during the second decade of the 20th Century.

An Associated Press article circulated around the States showing Daubert in action, reaching up to bring down a wild toss from one of his infield mates.  The caption read: Daubert, an Animated Telescope.  The nimble, sure-fielding Daubert had twelve Top Three finishes in fielding percentage at first base and currently rests 8th all-time in the putouts department among first basemen.  His peers, Jim Bottomley (17th), Hal Chase (19th), George Kelly (50th) and Frank Chance (107th) all rest quite well behind Daubert.  Jake spent the bulk of his career playing first for the hapless Brooklyn Dodgers whose only other star was southpaw Nap Rucker.  Had Jake turned double plays with the more poetic sounding Tinker and Evers, rather than fellows like Cutshaw and O’Mara, perhaps he would have had a catchy limerick or the like written about him like Frank Chance.

The fabled Tinker-Evers-Chance infield was a solid group but their exploits were vastly overrated.  Frank Chance once committed 36 errors in a season and the most double plays he ever turned were 71.  Daubert, by contrast, was a sparkling gem.  Jake never once committed twenty errors in a single season and he once participated in 127 twin-killings in a single campaign–nearly twice as many double plays as the famous Chance turned in his best season.  However, Caveney to Bohne to Daubert doesn’t quite have the same poetic ring as the Chicago trio. 

Daubert was a defensive wiz but his offense wasn’t far behind.  The former Pennsylvania coal-miner is the only player not in the Hall of Fame to have won back-to-back batting titles before World War II.  The left-handed hitter was team captain of the Reds when they won the 1919 World Series–that tainted affair with the Chicago Black Sox.  Captain Daubert lived up to his rank by doing anything necessary to seal victory.  Over the course of baseball history only Hall of Famer Eddie Collins has more career sacrifices than Jake.  Given that Collins played his entire career in the American League and Daubert played every inning in the National League, Jake is the top sacrifice man in NL history.

Although Daubert was ready and willing to sacrifice his stats for a win, he put together some pretty solid career numbers.  He never once failed to reach 110 hits in a single season over the course of his career.  Daubert’s career hits total of 2,326 exceeds peers Frank Chance (1,274) and George Kelly (1,778) by substantial margins.  And the coal-miner was the only one of that famous trio to ever post a 200 hit season.  Hits came easy to Daubert who tallied nine seasons with 150 or more safeties.  Hall of Famer George Kelly had eight, the legendary crook Hal Chase had seven and Cooperstown resident Chance had just one season with 150 or more hits.

Daubert’s value to the Dodgers was not to be dismissed.  Although sportswriters often bickered about who the best first baseman of the time was, Daubert or Hal Chase, no one argued that Prince Hal was a more valuable man than Daubert.  Chase was notorious for making bonehead plays, such as sluggishly retreating to first base to take a throw from an infielder so the batter could beat him to the bag.  He did this to suit the gamblers that he chummed around with.  Given Chase’s unreliable play, despite his exceptional natural ability, Daubert often received more votes in newspaper polls when the merits of first basemen were scrutinized. 

A terrific fielder and solid hitter, Daubert was also a valuable run-scorer for the lowly Dodgers teams he played for.  Had the Brooklyn boys lacked Daubert’s presence, they would have been doormats year after year but Jake helped them climb the standings occasionally.  Compared to Hall of Famer George Kelly, Daubert was a superior run-scorer.  Jake averaged 0.555 runs scored per game, spent predominately before the Lively Ball Era while Hall of Famer George Kelly, whose career took off thanks to the jackrabbit ball, scored an average of 0.505 runs per game.  In a four-year span, Daubert scored 17% of the Dodgers runs in 1911, 12% in 1912, 13% in 1913 and 14% in 1914.  George Kelly, by contrast, who excelled in a higher scoring era than Daubert, scored 10% of the Giants runs in 1920, 11% in 1921, 11% in 1922 and 10% in 1923. 

For all Daubert’s excellence, his do-what’s-best-for-the-team mindset sent him to an early grave.  While still an active player in 1924, Jake suffered from an unknown malady during the pennant rush.  He had trouble sleeping and many writers felt that the numerous beanings the plate-crowding Daubert sustained was the reason for his health woes.  Despite the illness, Jake soldiered on and led the Reds down the stretch.  After the season ended, it was obvious that something was terribly wrong with Daubert.  It was reported that his appendix had ruptured and he was rushed into surgery but it was too late.  Daubert died shortly after the close of the season.  Days before his death,  a writer asked the old coal-miner why he waited til after the season to go under the knife.  Daubert said, “I didn’t want anyone to think that Jake Daubert was a staller.”

Edgardo Alfonzo, Pedro Astacio, David Bell, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Scott Erickson, Carl Everett, Jeff Fassero, Alex S. Gonzalez, Danny Graves, Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Jose Hernandez, Brian Jordan, Matt Lawton, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Jeff Nelson, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Joe Randa, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Jose Vizcaino, Bernie Williams and Eric Young.

Many of these former players are bound to receive 0% of the vote–some may get a courtesy vote from writer friends, but don’t expect many to be retained for the 2013 ballot.  It wouldn’t be a shock if Bernie Williams is the only man from the above list to get the necessary 5% of the vote for retention.  Of the above group, I wouldn’t elect any and only suspect Williams to remain on the ballot for 2013.  Vinny Castilla may get five percent, Sierra, Salmon and Young are long shots for five percent and the others will almost certainly fail to receive five percent.  That being said, next year will be the year for holdovers because the 2013 ballot will boast such first-timers as Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Steve Finley, Kenny Lofton, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, and Sammy Sosa–players superior to any of the first-timers for 2012.