2 + 2, 1-man elections don't have the suspense that a 2 has. (Of course a 3 has more yet, but a 2 + 2 has more total than a 3 + 1.

But won't a 3 and 1 give you more pennants due to the higher peak on the "3" year? :-)

I too would prefer the 2+2 over the 3+1 scheme. And we can still say that our system is based upon the number of teams per season.

This is a good time to raise this issue again. In the New Eligibles thread, Marc wrote:

Then in 1958 we elect 3 (count 'em) for the first time, and you know who is eligible in 1958? Nobody.

The posts above here discuss changing the election schedule as published at the top. The elect-3 in 1958 and the elect-1 in 1961 stick out like sore thumbs. If there is any consensus, it is that we smoothe out the schedule and make it all elect-2 years from 1932 to 1971.

To me, the fact that in 1958 "nobody" comes on the ballot makes it all the easier to change the schedule.

That makes way too much sense, Dan and Andrew and everybody. Let's do it.

I'll chime in for 2 and 2 as well.

Hear, hear. But the elect 3 and elect 4 years are still too far away -- are we going to have to wait till 2011 to elect Beckley?

Put me down for 2 and 2, guys.

Definately count me in for 2 and 2, the way it is now puts too much possibility of an odd election.

Thought experiment:

Who does this affect?

-- The 1958 backlog could potentially lose an electee.

-- The 1959-61 candidates get an extra shot an induction.

The goal with the blip was to acknowlege that the 3-league pre-integration era needed a bit more representation than the post-integration/pre-expansion era. The effect is miniscule and it most likely won't matter, but it's there in the math.

Seeing Paige/Dandridge/Day/Easter on the 59-60 eligibility lists says to me that integration was not a clear cut "contraction" which removes most of any "logical" reason people would have against this switch in my opinion.

My guess is that it won't matter anyways, that if we follow this extra slot through the 58-61 gap it will end up being moot.

I vote for 2+2.

Anyone for 6 in 1958, and -2 in 1961?

A negative 2 election would be great. We could actually do that every 50 years to correct our perceived mistakes. It would be an interesting ballot.

Daryn is spot-on. Sam Thompson and Red Faber ought to pack their bags...

2+2 works for me.

And its Bobby Wallace and Red Faber.

Punctuation Police:

And it's Bobby Wallace and Red Faber.

Mistake Police:

And it's Pud Galvin and Red Faber.

Oh, and P.S. I think it actually WILL make a difference. I mean, do you think the #3 candidate in 1958 and the #2 candidate in 1961 will be the same guy?

Yeah, I agree with Marc, I just lean toward the side of getting more people under consideration for the spot.

And Joe McGinnity and....well....there isn't a second one I'm violently opposed to. Sherry Magee, maybe. Or Max Carey.

I could add a couple of names here, but they are all borderline. Besides, a fan of one of the names would get back at me and list someone I championed. :-)

In all seriousness, if we ever really thought about removing players from the HOM, that would be when I removed myself from the project. There are no terrible choices in the HOM and I honestly don't think anyone could argue the opposite effectively.

I wasn't speaking in opposition to 2+2, just saying I think it will make a difference.

Besides, a fan of one of the names would get back at me and list someone I championed. :-)

Dickey Pearce and . . .

Oh, and P.S. I think it actually WILL make a difference. I mean, do you think the #3 candidate in 1958 and the #2 candidate in 1961 will be the same guy?

True... though #3 in 1958 might get inducted before 1961 pushing the 'slot' along.

1959 is Paige/Mize/Dandridge/Elliott/
1960 is Newhouser/Day

Paige & Mize are easy. I don't know about Dandridge. Newhouser is going to have some questions. It doesn't look like these guys will bury the #3-1958 guy.

Of course, that the elect-me bonuses have been pivotal in some of the closer elections. I don't know... just thinking out loud here.

Dickey Pearce and . . .

I didn't even mention a name and I still get grief! :-)

Just for the record, I favor keeping the schedule 3+1, because there was a rationale behind setting it up. Changing it because it doesn't look pretty seems kinda silly.

I, like Patrick, am in favor of keeping the 3+1 because thats the way the math worked out. However, considering subtle adjustments to the math make it 2+2 and the factors were kind of arbitrary anyway means that I dont care. I think the 3+1 would be kinda cool and interesting though. 1961 as the "last 1 election year" is something to look forward to.

Pike and Spalding. I would also leave at that point, but I have no trouble naming them.

I didn't even mention a name and I still get grief! :-)

Sorry John, I couldn't resist ;-)

Seriously, I completely agree with you concerning the removing players. I've recently begun my PHoM, and while I find some of the selections to be interesting (Dickey Pearce is not one of these BTW), all are viable candidates deserving recognition.

Besides, if we really did 6 & -2, what would the odds be that #5 & #6 end up being #-1 & #-2?

It is entertaining to see the different perspectives, though!

I forgot Rube Foster. Pike and Spalding get to fight it out for the 2nd elimination spot. I guess Lip wins (or is that loses).

When the HOM is finished in 2006 or so, we could have an election to determine the two weakest electees. Same ballot format and counting methods. It'd be interesting to see if there was any consensus, or if the electorate was as fragmented about that as it is for any deep backlog election.

I vote to make it 2 and 2 I'm looking foward to are first 3 man election but I dread the 1 man election more.

Frank Grant who is by far the worst HoMer and Ezra Sutton. of course we should stick with are mistakes like that other hall does.

When the HOM is finished in 2006 or so, we could have an election to determine the two weakest electees. Same ballot format and counting methods. It'd be interesting to see if there was any consensus, or if the electorate was as fragmented about that as it is for any deep backlog election.

I would sit that one out, Jim. I have no interest in going over all those discussions again.

I vote on keeping 3 and 1. I think its more important not to forget the backlog, than it is to support shiny new toys right away.

I would probably participate in a "weakest HOMer" election, not to take them out, but just because its fun. Judging from this post, it will happen anyway.

To date, I have Thompson and Faber as my lowest.

The "remove two HOMers" is just a gag - which should make Vance and Thompson very happy!

I don't quite understand the violent opposition to the idea of recall elections. Looking at Bill Terry, for instance. Nearly every ranking I find has Sisler rated higher. If their eligibility years were switched, might we have elected Sisler? OK, before a dozen posts showing me Hell No, or less friendly words, try to see my point: Terry's election at this point was entirely due to timing. I can easily see a Duffy-like fate for him if he had not snuck in in 1942.

Periodic recall elections would be an opportunity to correct for these accidents of timing. Unlike that hall in Cooperstown, we would not be stuck with HoMers who looked ridiculous, given new statistical and historical discoveries. It would be yet another way our structure would avoid the mistakes of that other hall.

And it's not like we're throwing them on the trash heap. Recalled players could be put right back in our next regular election, although I doubt that would happen.

Not that I'm pushing for the idea, really. Just trying to point out that I think it has merit.

Rube Foster and Vance. I hate the idea; it would lead to all kinds of unpleasant bickering, and is completely unhistorical (because you couldn't do it for the HOF.) Much more fun, when we've finished, to adopt my idea of running the years in reverse order and see who we elect then!

I don't quite understand the violent opposition to the idea of recall elections.

Basically, I'm opposed to recalls. What was done was done.

I'd have to think about it more but I might support the idea of a "redo". It would be different from a recall in that only the candidates that were eligible when the election was first done would be eligible for the "redo". (For example, recall Ross Barnes, and his competition would be the non-elected candidates from 1898.) I'd have to think about it a lot more though.

I don't quite understand the violent opposition to the idea of recall elections.

What violent opposition? I have said that I wouldn't participate with the project anymore, but I didn't attack anybody here for thinking differently.

Unlike that hall in Cooperstown, we would not be stuck with HoMers who looked ridiculous, given new statistical and historical discoveries. It would be yet another way our structure would avoid the mistakes of that other hall.

Except none of our "mistakes" our remotely close to being Highpockets Kelly, Rube Marquard or Jesse Haines. They all have something to point to with pride.

Insofar as the HoM project is designed to recreate a historical process of induction, recall elections are incompatible with it. It wouldn't recreate the set of comparisons that led to each player's election in the first place, and I see no reason to believe that a recall election would lead to a more valid assessment than did the original vote. It would be making a different kind of measurement.

Lord knows it's hard enough to try to be fair and consistent according to our one historical standard; I can't see us doing better by adding a second standard.

I disagree with the electorate on certain choices, but I have no reason to believe that the electorate as a whole would see it as desirable to unmake those choices. If I couldn't persuade the electorate not to elect Player X the first time, why should I expect to succeed a second time? Will the electorate utter a collective D'Oh and vote differently this time? I am doubtful. We all think we can identify the worst players there, but we don't agree at all on who they are.

Imagine pooling together the 20 or so HoMers who have been elected by narrow margins in backlog years and ranking them in order from worst to best, head to head. If we think that the margin of victory is narrow in an individual backlog year, it would be _much_ narrower in a recall election, and thus it seems to me that such a result would be the more questionable. I shudder to think of such an election.

The only way that the outcome might be more definitive is if the composition of the electorate has changed sufficiently that its standards have changed (and I don't see why electorate B's judgment is to be taken as more valid than electorate A's), or if new data or new analysis significantly and convincingly revises our view of a player, which is certainly possible. If a great deal of better data and better analysis became available for the 19th century, for instance, that would be a reason to begin HoM version 2, not to add recall elections to this HoM.

I'd have to think about it more but I might support the idea of a "redo".

jimd, we're thinking along the same lines, but I don't think the redo can be isolated to a single election. Consider that if you redo 1898, that then changes the set of players eligible for 1899, and so on down the line.

The only way a single redo could be accomplished without redoing the whole thing is if a player's value changed so radically that he moved from being a HoMer to being out of consideration all together. That seems _highly_ unlikely. I agree with Karlmagnus completely that even our "worst" choices are players that have very strong credentials. That's why I think a recall election would be a complete nightmare.

The only way a single redo could be accomplished without redoing the whole thing is if a player's value changed so radically that he moved from being a HoMer to being out of consideration all together. That seems _highly_ unlikely. I agree with Karlmagnus completely that even our "worst" choices are players that have very strong credentials. That's why I think a recall election would be a complete nightmare.

Besides, I doubt Joe would go along with it. That would put the kebosh on it right there.

Man. Nothing like a little joke to get the comments up from 15 to 43!

The good news is that of the dozen or so people who commented with their "worst 2", fourteen different names have been mentioned, so there's no "consensus screw up". A recall election would be even more likely to get the "wrong guy" out than we are likely to elect the "wrong guy" in the first place (say, removing Bill Terry by getting a bunch of "10th worst" votes in the recall election, just like he got in.)

Also, of the 14 names mentioned, none of them are Bob Caruthers! And I thought he was the most controversial pick I ever supported!

Oh, but while we're playing:

Bobby Wallace and Jimmy Sheckard.

Caruthers on the 1899 Cleveland Spiders would singlehandedly win the pennant against the other 14 names mentioned ! :-))

Wallace
Sheckard
Thompson
Pearce
Pike
Caruthers
RFoster

Its the 1928 backlog! :-)

The real-time nature of the voting has been part of the fun of this project. It helps remove some of the effects of timelining and lets all era be represented. Several people have commented that their PHOM-not-HOM guys are slipping of their balots and not always due to reevaluations its often due to newer candidates from more recent eras.

Sure, interesting things can happen if we didn't have large "candidate gaps" or if Bill Terry had benched himself a year later, but I don't think we could fix any of that without being accused of 'rigging' the elections.

I vote for 2 and 2.

And even though Faber and Pike weren't on my ballot in the years in which they were elected, I don't view either of them as a "mistake," just a difference of opinion.

Looks like everybody elected between 1926 and 1932 has been nominated for recall (except the 1st ballot guys).

I agree that what makes this project fun, among other things but principally among those other things, is the real time thing. We are not just picking 220 names. So therefore there are no mistakes.

So have we officially gone to 2+2 instead of 3+1?

Bump. How many in 1958?

I think the Commissioner needs to issue an edict, which hopefully will say 2+2, the logical solution. Needs to be done now, as we're getting close.

3 + 1 would be more interesting!

Assuming Wells, Suttles and Beckwith go in in order, the following cluster(s) will be scuffling for those backlog selections in 1958 (1 or 2), 1960 (2) and 1961 (1 or 2). Either way we would elect 8 those years and, I'm guessing, 5 from the following backlog.

Billy Herman
Red Ruffing
Stan Hack
Earl Averill
Eppa Rixey
Wes Ferrell
Hughie Jennings
Biz Mackey

The 3+1 acknowledges a mini-contraction taking place with the end of the NeL and before expansion, but re-reading my post #14 above shows that there are a few NeL candidates who become eligible in the interim.

I voted for 2-2 above, but could go either way. I agree that we need Joe to weigh in on this one.

Permit me to officially declare that I will fully support either decision by the dignitaries of this fine institution......

Permit me to officially declare that I will fully support either decision by the dignitaries of this fine institution......

I honestly don't care either way, so I'll let the Commish make the final decision.

John, can you ask him to decide sooner than later, then?

I certainly can go either way. It's not like carrying a slot for a decade or more....

John, can you ask him to decide sooner than later, then?

No problem, Marc. When I "speak" to him later, I'll mention it.

I'd prefer 2+2.

Sorry, guys, on vacation, first I've checked in in a few days . . . I think we should stick with 3+1.

That's what the system said. While I am the type of "I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night" lawyer (I'm not really a lawyer) that sees the rules a guide that can be overruled when compelling logic says they are wrong, I see no such compelling logic here.

Really, I think our system is probably too backloaded as it is. We'll see how it turns out, but I'm pretty sure that once we 'catch up' two years from now, we'll probably be saying/thinking that we should not continue to elect candidates at the 3-4 per year pace that is set now, 3-per year would probably be sufficient. Which would obviously mean that our system was too back-loaded (if the logic there is only obvious to me, I'll explain later, but kind of busy now . . . )

Not a big deal, but I think we should stick with what the system says . . . changing it just because it seems 'cleaner/neater?' to go with 2+2 instead of 3+1 doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.

I'm fine either way. 3 + 1 is probably more interesting. I figure:

1954--Vaughan and Wells
1955--Leonard and (R. Brown or Suttles)
1956--Appling and (Suttles or R. Brown)
1957--DiMaggio (ya think?) and (Boudreau or Beckwith)
1958--(Beckwith or Boudreau) and (2 among Herman, Ruffing, Hack unless 2 or more are "shiny new toys" and Averill, Rixey and/or Ferrell can move up)

1959--Mize and Paige
1960--2 from among those mentioned but not elected above in 1958 or Leon Day)
1961--Kiner

Who thinks if we did 2 + 2 we would elect the same guy at the #2 spot in '61 as will finish #3 in '58? Not me. Too many variables, too many candidates. But that's fine with me, and more interesting. The suspense is terrible! I hope it will last!

OK, as a 2+2 supporter I'm happy with the Commissioner's Decision. It makes the third 1958 seat a kind of "rotten borough" which as a supporter of the pre-1832 British franchise I can go for :-))

karl, it's still 8 picks '58-'61. The 3rd pick in '58 or the 2nd pick '61 would be equally rotten--or notten.

And neither half as rotten as the 4th pick in 2041!