Blogpen— Our Blogs and Nothing But Our Blogs
Let’s do it.
Post your ballots here, with a full explanation please. For a good example of what it might look like (other formats are good too, this is just one that I liked), look here, Andrew Siegel’s post of 11:08 a.m. on April 1, 2003.
sample ballot
Please do not tabulate the other votes before posting your ballot, and if you calc them after your ballot, please don’t post them here.
If as the week moves on, you realize you want to change your ballot, i.e., you’ve been convinced the John Doe really was better than Jim Smith, note that on this thread, along with the time and date of your original ballot.
Please post any comments on ballots on the discussion thread, try to keep this thread clean for just ballots.
Joe Dimino
Posted: April 07, 2003 at 03:41 PM |
37 comment(s)
Related News:
The general tone of the discussion seems to be that we’ll be moving the first election back to 1898. There haven’t been any major objections or anything, so I figured I’d get this thread up quick to give as much time as possible for discussion.
I’m posting this thread to allow for new discussions of provisional ballots, because . . . the players discussed will be quite different and that other thread was getting very long.
Please don’t add the totals and score them this time . . . if you want to add them up and post a top 10 or something that’s fine (alphabetically, without the total points) that’s fine, but I’d rather not open that can of worms, if people want to do it individually that’s fine, but I don’t think it should be posted. A top 10 accomplishes the goal of seeing the consensus without the other concerns.
The discussion of the merits of moving the ballot back to 1898 is on the First Ballot Schedule thread.
Our new start date will start the with the old opening day most of us grew up with, about a week into April, not the last day or two of March, if that’s any solace to the people who were pumped about starting on opening day :-)
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 27, 2003 at 01:15 AM |
104 comment(s)
Related News:
As requested . . . feel free to start discussing your ballots . . . I will probably not be able to check back in until Monday, I may pop in at some point before then, but it’s unlikely.
Rob Wood has as good of an understanding of this as anyone, he should be able to answer most questions.
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 20, 2003 at 02:03 AM |
57 comment(s)
Related News:
Here’s the article that started all of this off . . . I guess it’s a really long mission statement, for people new to this area of Primer . . .
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 19, 2003 at 09:04 PM |
1 comment(s)
Related News:
Hall of Merit: Links to positional threads from last year
Here’s a link to the postional threads, I’ll just add a few notes if there’s something that needs to be considered that isn’t obvious, for those new to the discussions.
Catchers - by far the worst hitters as a group, so the ones that could hit (i.e. Deacon White, Buck Ewing, Charlie Bennett) were extremely valuable.
First Basemen - the pre-gloves players should get a major boost. Gloves caused the defensive spectrum to shift.
Second Basemen - equivalent to 3B today, it was more offensive ...
Read More...
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 19, 2003 at 04:21 AM |
20 comment(s)
Related News:
Okay, let’s get this rolling.
Let’s open the 1906 polls from March 30 (a Saturday) through April 6 (a Sunday). My fantasy league, of which I’m the commissioner drafts April 5, so I’ll be busy inputting rosters, moves, etc. on the 6th and 7th, but I should be able to tally the ballots by April 9.
We’ll then reopen the polls for 1907 on Monday the 14th, and get on a one-week on, one-week off schedule, generally voting Monday-Sunday. Does this work?
I need suggestions for how to structure the discussion threads leading to the first ballot. Should I reopen the old threads? Organize them by position, etc? What would you like?
The ballot structure we decided on was:
5 electees: 24-23-22-21-20-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
4 electees: 24-23-22-21-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
3 electees: 24-23-22-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
2 electees: 24-23-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
1 electee: 24-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
I think this is the schedule for electees that we agreed on:
1906 5
1907 3
1908 2
1909 2
1910 2
1911 2
1912 2
1913 1
1914 1
1915 1
1916 1
1917 1
Then from 1918 through 1975 we elect two candidates per year. The year we “catch up” to the expected number of HoMers is 1955. Keep in mind that we will be 18.9 candidates behind when we start, plus we should be inducting 1.26 new per year at that time.
From 1976-83 we alternate between 3 in even years, 2 in odd years.
From 1984-95 we elect 3 candidates per season.
From 1996-2008 we elect a 4th candidate in “leap years”.
Starting in 2010, we’ll alternate between 4 in even years, 3 in odd years.
In 2014 we’ll be at 4 every year, except leap year when we’ll elect 3.
We’ll stay with that until another expansion throws us off, but earliest it would change an election would be 2019 (assuming expansion next year).
Here’s a link to the thread discussing the Constitution.
Let me know what else we need.
We’ll be voting through the yahoo group.
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 18, 2003 at 04:39 PM |
31 comment(s)
Related News:
Once again, jimd’s thoughts are in the discussion:
Standings W L PCT GB Adjusted Standings W L PCT GB
Chicago 52 14 .788 -- Chicago 128 33 .794 --
Hartford 47 21 .691 6.0 St.Louis 115 46 .717 13
St.Louis 45 19 .703 6.0 Hartford 112 49 .694 16
Boston 39 31 .557 15.0 Boston 90 71 .557 38
Louisville 30 36 .455 22.0 Louisville 75 86 .467 53
New York 21 35 .375 26.0 New York 61 100 .379 67
Philadelphia 14 45 .237 34.5 Philadelphia 39 122 .245 89
Cincinnati 9 56 .136 42.5 Cincinnati 24 137 .146 104
If you look at the 3 worst teams, only Philadelphia had more than one or two legit major leaguers. Also the three teams were by far the worst fielding teams in the league. Removing them from the standings would produce these records:
Standings W L PCT GB
Chicago 112 48 .700 --
St. Louis 94 66 .589 18
Hartford 89 71 .558 23
Boston 61 99 .379 51
Louisville 44 116 .273 68
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 04, 2003 at 12:45 AM |
8 comment(s)
Related News:
jimd’s summary is in the discussion below.
1875 saw the culmination of the Boston dynasty, Harry Wright’s most dominant team. Here are the standings:
Final Standings W L PCT GB Adjusted Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 71 8 .899 -- Boston 144 12 .926 --
Phil. Athletics 53 20 .726 15.0 Phil. Athletics 125 31 .801 19
Hartford 54 28 .659 18.5 Hartford 114 42 .731 30
St. Louis Browns 39 29 .574 26.5 St. Louis Browns 110 46 .708 34
Phil. Pearls 37 31 .544 28.5 Phil. Pearls 104 42 .669 40
Chicago 30 37 .448 35.0 Chicago 98 58 .628 46
New York 30 38 .441 35.5 New York 93 63 .596 51
St. Louis Reds 4 15 .211 37.0 Phil. Centennials 62 94 .394 82
Washington 5 23 .179 40.5 New Haven 43 113 .277 101
New Haven 7 40 .149 48.0 Washington 43 113 .276 101
Phil. Centennials 2 12 .143 37.5 St. Louis Reds 35 121 .221 109
Keokuk 1 12 .077 38.0 Brooklyn 26 130 .169 118
Brooklyn 2 42 .045 51.5 Keokuk 16 140 .104 128
Boston didn’t just get fat on the club teams either, this team was incredible, probably the most dominant in major league history. They played at least .750 against every team in the league. The Pearls played them the best, taking 2-of-8. Here are what the standings would have looked like if you cut ‘major’ league off with New York, the logical place to draw the line:
Final Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 139 23 .861 --
Phil. Athletics 102 60 .726 37
Hartford 82 80 .507 57
St. Louis Browns 76 86 .468 63
Phil. Pearls 65 97 .404 74
Chicago 55 107 .340 84
New York 47 115 .291 92
I’m just thankful the one season where NY finished 92 games behind Boston concluded 97 years before I was born, and 15 years before my great-grandmother was born.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 24, 2003 at 06:17 PM |
4 comment(s)
Related News:
Thanks again to jimd for the summary in the discussion portion.
1874 Standings W L PCT GB Adj. Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 52 18 .743 -- Boston 120 41 .743 --
New York 42 23 .646 7.5 New York 104 57 .648 16
Phil. Athletics 33 22 .600 11.5 Phil. Athletics 102 59 .636 18
Phil. Pearls 29 29 .500 17.0 Phil. Pearls 84 77 .521 36
Chicago 28 31 .475 18.5 Chicago 78 83 .485 42
Brooklyn 22 33 .400 22.5 Brooklyn 70 91 .433 50
Hartford 16 37 .302 27.5 Hartford 53 108 .329 67
Baltimore 9 38 .191 31.5 Baltimore 33 128 .206 87
Here are the standings removing Hartford and Baltimore, who only had a few true major leaguers amongst them.
Adj.II Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 110 50 .690 --
New York 93 67 .578 17
Phil. Athletics 90 70 .564 20
Phil. Pearls 69 91 .434 41
Chicago 63 97 .395 47
Brooklyn 54 106 .339 56
Boston continues their dominance, winning their 3rd consecutive pennant.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 22, 2003 at 05:29 PM |
10 comment(s)
Related News:
Thanks again to jimd for this summary, which is in the discussion portion.
First the standings:
Actual Standings W L PCT GB Adjusted Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 43 16 .729 -- Boston 120 41 .744 --
Phil. White Stock. 36 17 .679 4.0 Phil. White Stock. 115 46 .715 5
Baltimore 34 22 .607 7.5 Baltimore 100 61 .623 20
Phil. Athletics 28 23 .549 11.0 Phil. Athletics 97 64 .604 23
New York 29 24 .547 11.0 New York 96 65 .594 24
Brooklyn 17 37 .315 23.5 Brooklyn 61 100 .379 59
Washington 8 31 .205 20.0 Washington 38 123 .233 82
Elizabeth 2 21 .088 23.0 Elizabeth 18 143 .109 102
Maryland 0 6 .000 16.5
Just like 1872, a few adjustments need to be made for the weak sisters again. I’ll give the standings how they would look at each possible spot where you could draw the ‘major league’ line.
The first would be to remove Elizabeth, as they were really just a club team that gave it a whirl, Washington had at least tried the year before, and wasn’t total dreck.
The second adjustment would be to remove Washington, who, while not total dreck was clearly not on the level of these teams:
No Elizabeth W L PCT GB No Eliz./Wash. W L PCT GB
Boston 115 47 .707 -- Boston 106 54 .665 --
Phil. White Stock. 109 53 .674 6 Phil. White Stock. 101 59 .628 5
Baltimore 93 69 .571 22 Baltimore 82 78 .513 24
Phil. Athletics 89 73 .549 26 Phil. Athletics 78 82 .489 28
New York 87 75 .538 28 New York 76 84 .476 30
Brooklyn 49 113 .303 66 Brooklyn 37 123 .228 69
Washington 25 137 .156 90
The final adjustment would be removing Brooklyn, since they were clearly below the pack of the other 5.
Top 5 W L PCT GB
Boston 100 60 .622 --
Phil. White Stock. 93 67 .581 7
Baltimore 73 87 .454 27
Phil. Athletics 69 91 .428 31
New York 66 94 .415 34
Feel free to draw the line wherever you’d like.
As far as the individual achievements go, Ross Barnes has solidified his place as the star of the league. George Wright and Levi Meyerle are also looking like superstars, Cap Anson is coming into his own, and Deacon White made his first Silver Slugger squad. Lip Pike and George Hall are also consistently among the best players in the league.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 14, 2003 at 12:52 AM |
3 comment(s)
Related News:
Page 125 of 129 pages ‹ First < 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 > | Features Archive | Site Archive