bump

DanG:
An alternative way to do a project like the HoM is to give everyone perpetual eligibility, even those players "elected". To track these electees' gradual fall from grace would be most informative. Instead, we chose to use a "HOF" type format, removing players' eligibility upon election. But we could have just as easily decided to walk through time, adding in the new eligibles each year and resifting all players.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy:
I think the runoff would be more cosmetic than anything, but I wish we had done it in 1898, IMO. It's easier to convince others outside of group of our selections when the inductees have a majority of the votes, rather than just a plurality.

A completely different election system (building sky-castles here):

Instead of weighted ballots or runoffs, ballots would consist simply of votes-to-elect (VTE). The number of VTE per ballot is initially determined by the HOM schedule. To be elected, a candidate must get VTE from more than 50% of the voters. If an election spot goes unfilled, it is rolled into the next election, adding another ballot slot to that next election.

Example: in 1898, White and Hines and Gore went over the 50% mark. Barnes did not. Barnes and his election spot get rolled into the 1899 election. 1899 started as an elect-2, but is now an elect-3.

How does this relate to DanG's comment? Change the terminology and call Barnes a "provisional" or "interim" electee. Until he gets over 50%, he remains in the candidate pool, and could even lose his "interim" status if he was to finish 4th in 1899, to continue from that example.

This ballot has some advantages over the current HOM ballot. It is self-expanding; the ballot grows as the backlog gets deeper, and the interim candidates at the bottom are continually compared with that backlog. Candidates have to be able to attract voters willing to give them VTE which prevents elections based on "wishy-washy" low ballot support (such as Faber and Nettles) but also have to attract a broad base (over 50%) to shed the "interim" status.

Of course, it's too late to do this now. But we were very focused on the MVP style weighted ballot when the HOM was getting started. No proposal such as this was made at the time, and it may not have gained much support then either (and it might not now either).

Johnny Murphy (#94) wrote: "I'd still like to see a periodic (5 years? 10?) review of the number of inductees per year just in case we get "carried away" too much. The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO"

sunnyday2 (#96) wrote: "The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO."


The Mitchell Report is due in about an hour-and-a-half. I have a feeling this is likely to have real repercussions for the Hall of Fame.

Pretend I'm a BBWAA voter. Here's my line of thought:
"I still have 14 years to decide about Mark McGwire. There's no need to rush to judgment on him or anyone else who is or might become tainted. I can always vote for them at the 11th hour. In the meantime, I get to see what the fallout of the Mitchell Report is. This may only be the start of more skeletons falling out of the closet as players backpedal and perhaps name more names.

"It could be that MLB passes a rule that anyone who retires while under a doping suspension (whether the result of a failed test or a non-analytical failure) is considered permanently suspended and ineligible for HoF consideration. I wouldn't want to have voted in one person, only to find that later players with the same type of doping history are now ineligible.

"In sum, wait until we see the fallout, which could still take years."

This is mere conjecture of course, although I know there are some baseball writers who are thinking along the lines of waiting for the fallout. What this means is that the BBWAA elections could slow to a trickle in the near future. Monitoring their growth closely will be imperative if you want the HoM to remain fairly equal.

The odd thing is that we might actually see future classes with more veterans than moderns being inducted. The writers might also think they (collectively or individually) want to see at least one person going in each year, which might lead to electing Blyleven, Gossage, Dawson and Trammell.

Appier looks interesting to me, Joe D didn't you also mention him somewhere as ranking surprisingly high?

Peak from 1990-1997: 1354K/556BB, 103-74 W/L, peak ERA+ of 165 and 179 in 1992-3, with a career ERA+ of 121.

It would be worthwhile to look more closely at the defense backing him and his run support.

The Royals offense was subpar starting in 1992 looking quickly at the OPS+ numbers on baseball-reference.

He was very consistent until his injury, which is described very suspiciously at baseballlibrary.com:

A freak fall off the front porch at his sister's baby shower injured ligaments close to Appier's pitching shoulder. After surgery, Appier made four spring training starts, but pain in his shoulder persisted. Another round of surgery shelved him for most of the 1998 season.

Is that what really happened?

This is mere conjecture of course, although I know there are some baseball writers who are thinking along the lines of waiting for the fallout. What this means is that the BBWAA elections could slow to a trickle in the near future. Monitoring their growth closely will be imperative if you want the HoM to remain fairly equal.

The odd thing is that we might actually see future classes with more veterans than moderns being inducted. The writers might also think they (collectively or individually) want to see at least one person going in each year, which might lead to electing Blyleven, Gossage, Dawson and Trammell.

I think you're probably right, djrelays. Unfortunately, I see many other players from before the Steroid Era entering the Hall who wouldn't have made it if not for the current scandal.

This report is wreaking havoc on the "five year waiting period" idea. Normally, the writers have a while to digest events and place them into context. Not so for any retired people that are named.

All's I know is Chuck Knoblauch is never gonna make it now.

###### up beyond all recognition.

I doubt the Mitchell investigation goes back far enough in time to assess veterans fairly.

Why would you bring up fairness?

I doubt any evidence will come to light that makes Frank Grant a terrible pick.
He hit well at Buffalo compared to white contemporaries.

At worst, he makes a budding baseball historian say, "Hey, who IS this guy?"

Right, and the Hall of Fame committee, with even more evidence that we had, also elected him. This is a non-issue, IMO.

I'd still like to see a periodic (5 years? 10?) review of the number of inductees per year just in case we get "carried away" too much. The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO.

The comparative aspect with the Hall of Fame was for the project's design.

We should no longer be concerned with that - now we should be concerned with maintaining our own standards, and only worried that historical fairness to all eras is kept in place.

The only way I would think we should consider reducing the number of electees is if baseball contracts. If the Hall of Fame decides to stop electing people, that's not our problem.

Oh, and welcome aboard burniswright, glad to have you here, thanks for taking the time to check it out.

In 5 minutes we will have gone a whole day without a single post to the HoM. When was the last time that happened? Too bad.

Abandon ye not hope, sunny--I'm reading the Dobie Moore thread right now, per your request.

excerpts from Woody Paige's column today in Denver:

Paige: Help Woody cast his Hall votes
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post

I'm sitting here, looking out the window and pondering the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot.

I need your help.

Over the years and in the past week I've received hundreds of letters, calls and e-mails, requesting that I vote for certain players to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Some messages have swayed me. I'm more impressed with Bert Blyleven after hearing from a lot of his supporters.

So, send me an e-mail or letter with your choices (up to 10) and why they should be honored at Cooperstown. I'll consider your opinions before I fax my ballot to the Baseball Writers' Association of America on Dec. 31.

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_7733237

FYI, he's going for Raines, Gossage and Blyleven - but some of the other choices and motivations may cause you to bang your head on the computer table. Still, he's saying he'll listen to reason.

It does almost make me wonder if we should be voting for up to 10 of the eligible players on the actual Hall of Fame ballot, with 75 pct needed to get in. But then we do run into the "would WE suddenly we weighing character, integrity," etc?

It does almost make me wonder if we should be voting for up to 10 of the eligible players on the actual Hall of Fame ballot, with 75 pct needed to get in.

You mean a different election system for HOM beginning in 2009, I suppose.

Otherwise, do you imply a causal relation between election system and the criteria voters actually use?

On the other hand, I'm sure it's true that the stipulated ceiling 10 influences some voters who do not hit the ceiling. How?
- Paige is a columnist and his work is designed to generate interest. This column does so, maybe an extreme example. Although his nine selections are subject to change, stopping short of the ceiling is part of the appeal to readers. You don't need to talk him out of voting for someone who was nice to him or someone who was a class act. If the ceiling were 9, I believe Paige's column would approve only eight.
- Some writers must think of themselves as good conservative guardians of the Hall. Consider such a one (male) who now votes for six. If the ceiling were 5, he would probably vote for no more than four. By definition the ceiling is permissive. Reining in the apparent norm is one thing the conservative wants to accomplish.

I wonder if you (one) could concoct a statistical model, to wit: If HoF voters (BBWAA) vote for an average of 5 players per ballot, X players will be elected. If they vote for 6, X+ will be elected. if they vote for 7, X++ will be elected. And so on. One would have to figure out how to model the distribution of votes, of course, that would be the essence of the task, and how would one do that? Well, by correlating numbers like HoF Monitor and HoF Standards, maybe? You'd have to figure out how many players would get *any votes at all* (above some nominal such as 5%?).

Bottom line, what impact does the number of votes per ballot have as distinguished from the other variables inherent in the player's actual record?

The only way I would think we should consider reducing the number of electees is if baseball contracts. If the Hall of Fame decides to stop electing people, that's not our problem.

But the HOF is never going stop electing people, Joe. If they go into famine mode, they'll have to go into feast mode at some point. Now, they might wind up voting in Hobie Landrith and Clint Hartung because they never used steroids :-), but the MLB/Clark Foundation is not going to allow the HOF to end inducting players for too long.

Marc,
We do not have any data for different ceilings on votes per BBWAA ballot.
- At "best" this will be a probability model directly informed by the data at some points. For example, we might take the data from a year with two nearly unanimous newly eligible candidates such as Ripken and Gwynn, ignore votes for Ripken and Gwynn, and treat it as one observation with ceiling 8 votes per ballot (and no very strong candidate, if that is one of our variables). That is way out on a limb.
- What about a probability model that is not directly tested against or calibrated by any data? (presumably informed by our general observations and by revealing columns from some writers such as Paige) Yes, that is possible. I have a few elements of a model vaguely in mind and I'm sure that others such as Dan Greenia have that too. Beside voter behaviors and preferences both the ceiling number of votes per ballot (10) and the threshold share of ballots per candidate (0.75) may be parameters.

Here's another article on the Hall of Merit, from the San Antonio Express-News: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/dking/stories/MYSA121107.KingP2.en.36f2263.html

That's a nice plug. Thanks to that writer.

The only things I'd mention: First, Dan isn't actually a "founder," not that the distinction matters all that much. Second, he gave only the HoF/not HoM list. I think the flip side list, HoM/not HoF, is in many ways more interesting.

I never said I was in my own piece, just to clarify.

Of course, we think the HoM not HoF list is more interesting. I suppose if you think the world revolves around Cooperstown, you'd see it the other way. He does link the plaque room so interested parties can find out who's HoM not HoF, too.

My only complaint would be that this guy writes his column about stuff he reads in the NYTimes?

I wonder if you (one) could concoct a statistical model, to wit: If HoF voters (BBWAA) vote for an average of 5 players per ballot, X players will be elected. If they vote for 6, X+ will be elected. if they vote for 7, X++ will be elected. And so on. One would have to figure out how to model the distribution of votes, of course, that would be the essence of the task, and how would one do that? Well, by correlating numbers like HoF Monitor and HoF Standards, maybe? You'd have to figure out how many players would get *any votes at all* (above some nominal such as 5%?).

It must be almost 7-8 years now, since I first played around with a couple models along those lines. I don't think I have it anymore; it was nothing too scientific, in any case.

Basically, I took the actual BBWAA voting and based a model on that. I was trying to estimate how much the support for players would increase if voters were required to vote for a certain minimum. I was seeking a minimum that would be likely to push guys like Carter and Rice over the top, but would not ultimately lead to massive numbers of underserving elections.

Pretty cool article, although I agree that I'd rather him list the guys that we think are worthy than those we think aren't. We can change the former, not the latter.

Thanks again for getting us out there Dan.

That's a nice plug. Thanks to that writer.

Indeed. Thanks also again to Dan for inspiring this writer to type it.

BTW, there is an error in the article: Bill Foster is a proud member of the HoM, so shouldn't be included in the HOF/not HoM list.

Thanks John - I passed that along to him.

BTW, there is an error in the article: Bill Foster is a proud member of the HoM, so shouldn't be included in the HOF/not HoM list.

Bruce Sutter should be included in his stead.

I just re-read Chris Fluit's inventory in post 84. For the 1960s, a decade I actually know something about, I would put Brock and Cepeda pretty far above the Howard brothers and Norm Cash among the candidates. You guys DO know that Cash illegally altered his bats by inserting finish nails in order to achieve his outrageous 1961 peak season, right? Of course you do.

On the Bill James list, quoted by sunnyday2 in post 66, I think Maury Wills (definitely), as well as Curt Flood and Vada Pinson, deserve a look-see. In addition to statistical data, is "influence on the game of baseball" a criterion for election to the HOM? If it is, then Wills and Flood HAVE to go in.

If I'm not mistaken, Cash altered his bat throughout his career. None of Wills, Flood, or Pinson got any significant support from the electorate. Influence on the game is not a criterion.

And what influence did Maury Wills have that Luis Aparicio didn't have first?

Ah, the man who is old enough to know something about the fifties.

Jackie Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, Lou Brock, and Rickey Henderson were all credited with bringing back the running game. (For a moment, Billy got more credit than Rickey but Billy didn't last.)

Jackie Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, Lou Brock, and Rickey Henderson were all credited with bringing back the running game. (For a moment, Billy got more credit than Rickey but Billy didn't last.)

And George Case is credited with wondering why everyone thought the running game went away. :-)

I actually wrote to Paige the other day to plug Trammell as his tenth and I was mildly surprised that he responded. On the other hand, he refused to click on links to the HOM, so I cut and pasted some relevant info back to him.

Also, an interesting article by Mr. King. I would have added to his piece that while we deemed those men as not worthy of this rarified tribute, so were deemed less worthy than others.
To wit, Hugh Duffy didn't make our immortal selection, but he has some support. Tommy McCarthy, has none, nor will he ever get any.

is "influence on the game of baseball" a criterion for election to the HOM?

I would say no. The constitution says we are only supposed to take into effect 'on-field' accomplishments. Character and personality are only supposed to come into play when they directly affect the outcome of games. Different voters have different interpretations of that, but that's one of the biggest differences between the HOM and the HOF -- fewer hand-waving arguments about intangibles.

So, the only way Flood gets in is if we create a separate category for that type of contribution. Then he can go in with Marvin Miller.

As for Cash, every voter here knows about the bats. Some voters care, but some most certainly don't. Whitey Ford & Gaylord Perry threw spitballs. HOM-ers Coveleski & Faber were allowed to throw spitballs which no doubt gave them an edge against non-HOM contemporaries who were not. Superballs came flying out of HOM-er Graig Nettles' bat one game. The 1951 Giants stole signs, etc, etc. It varies from voter to voter as to what side of the line Cash's offense goes.

"Superballs came flying out of HOM-er Graig Nettles' bat one game."

OK, never heard that one before; may we assume the bat was broken at the time?

Maybe we need (or at least I need) an entire thread on comparative cheating and its influence on performance. If Cash in fact "altered his bat throughout his career," how did he manage to hit .243 the following year (1962)? He must be a strong contender for least effective cheater ever--a strangely good/bad category.

The whole league went up in 1961 and down in 1962, Cash just went higher and lower than most.

Maybe we need (or at least I need) an entire thread on comparative cheating and its influence on performance.

We have a thread on cheating and how it should affect our voting.

Link

We have a thread on cheating and how it should affect our voting.


I perhaps used too strong language there. There is certainly disagreement as to how it should affect our voting. :-) I don't think any hard rules mandate how cheating should affect our voting. Cash had a career year in 1961. League scoring context was up. It was an expansion year (see also Jim Gentile). Indeed many voters do discount his 1961 season, but he still ends up being a half-decent candidate.

Are we going to run a mock BBWAA ballot this year? If so, shouldn't it be soon?

Are we going to run a mock BBWAA ballot this year? If so, shouldn't it be soon?

A discussion thread will be up Sunday, Ryan.

Basically, we are not concerned with 'cheating'. If the player got away with it and his team won games for it, well, then he gets credit. On field performance is the only criteria, after the first year a player is on the ballot.

David Foss: thanks for the link (I'm still finding my way around this site). I've now read the entire thread. It contains thoughtful arguments on many sides of the issue, and leaves the usual newspaper columnist rant about PEDs looking pretty lame by comparison.