My personal HoM elections. Stovey, Spalding and Keeler are not yet in. Collins, Bennett and Pike are.

1898 Hines

I'll bite. I only started in 1900, so anyone who was in the "real" HoM before then can be considered in mine, too. :)

Here are my inductions:

1900: Tim Keefe, Monte Ward

Surprisingly close to consensus; Caruthers, Welch Beckley and McGinnity in, Richardson, McPhee, Flick and Keeler out. Richardson pretty close at this stage, but probably won't beat Thompson or Wallace in '20.

1898(didn't vote, and objected to only 1 of the 4 elected) Hines, White, Barnes, Radbourn

James:

Am I correct that Tim Spooneybarger will eventually be in your PHoM?

My personal PHoM does not include Spalding, Rusie or Keeler, though Keeler will be inducted in a year or two and Galvin could be elected in a slow year.

In their places I have Browning, Bennett and Jimmy Collins.

Personal HOM:

1898: Paul Hines, Deacon White, George Gore, Ezra Sutton

Hm, maybe I'm not quite as much a blind slave to consensus as I thought. I've ranged between 1 and 3 off, and while I'm back up to 3 right now, I'm sure they will get in eventually.

1898 - White, Hines, Gore, Radbourn (missing Barnes)

I'm revising my rating system, and consequently "reelecting" my personal HOM. As lord and master over my personal HOM, I can remove and replace at will. I like my new system so far, as it seems to reflect the electorate (and my personal preferences, pretty well). It's not perfect, but it does cull out most of the weaknesses. Unless people get horribly bored, I'll keep posting as I get results.

My new HOM system uses only raw WS. It "counts" any season when a player received at least 1/2 as many WS as the 2nd best position player in his league. It also obviously counts seasons when a pitcher received at least 1/2 as many WS as the 2nd best pitcher in his league. Caruthers-type combination seasons are measured by averaging the pitching and hitting 2nd place finishers. Catcher seasons are counted if they finished within 35% of the 2nd best position player in the league.

I then take a ratio of the player's season total to the appropriate 2nd place finisher or combination thereof. That number is then discounted by Marc's AA-NL discount table, and bonused by .25 per counted season for catchers and eventually relievers. Counted seasons (appropriately discounted and bonused) are then summed. For significant pre-NA careers, I add .5 to that total.

My 1892 election went:

Electees

1893 election (1899)

My 1892 election went:

So, after 1893, I am 1 off:

1898- White, Hines, Gore, McVey (missing Barnes)

The following were selected to my PHoM *before* they were elected to the AHoM (aggregate HoM):

Sam Thompson 1905 vs. not yet

PS. It is no surprise to anybody that the 6 guys in my PHoM and not in the AHoM peaked, on average, about 1877. The 6 guys who (vice versa) peaked on average about 1889. So there's my critique (or bias) of our selections so far. Not enough love for the earliest guys, the ones who not only *played* the game at a high level, but who did so without the benefit of simply inheriting an accepted wisdom re. strategies and techniques. Rather they *invented* the strategies and techniques, and then *excelled* at executing them.

As Steve Goodman once sang, "That's not an easy thing to do..."

(...though he was referring to the fact that his "old man" "could look you in the eye and sell you a car." Anybody know that song? 'Course, now "the old man's gone," and not only that, so is Steve. R.I.P. You, too, Charlie Bennett, Charley Jones and Ezra Sutton. Poor b***ds.)

I noticed after I posted that Clint also had 6 different but I guess yest beats us both. Anybody in double figures?

My PHOM got out of synch for awhile with the majority but by 1913, the HOM and my PHOM were in complete agreement. Since then, I've elected Bennett instead of McVey, and instead of Stovey, first Keeler and now Caruthers. So I'm still pretty close to the consensus (despite my preference for Jim Whitney :-).

To get my personal HoM, take the Actual HoM:

Carl, PERFECT!

Half-assedly retroactively figuring it. My rule of thumb is when in doubt, assume those doing the voting knew what they were doing. Going in to 1921, the HoMers not in my personal HoM would be: Ross Barnes, Pud Galvin, Elmer Flick, & Harry Stovey while Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity, Frank Grant, & Jake Beckley would be in. Galvin & Flick probably go in this year for me.

Through 1920, my PHoM includes (in order of induction):

Bob Caruthers

Here's my personal HoM:

1898 Radbourne

Spalding, Start, O'Rourke, White, Anson, Hines, and Sutton from the NA is enough for me. Except I may have overlooked Wright, I wasn't voting when he was elected so I'll have to look at that.

Barnes won't be joining my HoM, McVey might get in during a drought year, but Pearce probably will make it in pretty soon.

My Personal HOM (I've changed my voting criteria since we've started, so I've retroactively applied my new methods)

1898

Beginning in 1904 --coincidentally the first year whose election results I read in real time-- I have a systematic list of newly eligible players by Dan Greenia. Thus for 1904, in modified format:

Yr, WS, W3, Rookie, Name, Pos, Died

An interesting dilemma. Do I change my PHoM every time I tweak my method? I started to change my PHoM but I decided to stay with my real-time balloting. That is, to do what Cooperstown does. Live with my mistakes. Just like real life, if I tried to correct all my mistakes, I wouldn't have any time left over to make new ones.

An interesting dilemma. Do I change my PHoM every time I tweak my method?

If I ever decide to submit my PHoM, it would have to been created with the help of my present system (or else stupidity such as my championing Tip O'Neill for a few elections would have been rewarded). :-)

Well, I wasn't keeping a PHOM list until after I changed my voting methods. So, it was a simple method to apply those changes to my previous ballots.

If I change my methods in the future, I probably won't change my PHOM.

Well, I wasn't keeping a PHOM list until after I changed my voting methods. So, it was a simple method to apply those changes to my previous ballots.

If I change my methods in the future, I probably won't change my PHOM.

Well, I wasn't keeping a PHOM list until after I changed my voting methods. So, it was a simple method to apply those changes to my previous ballots.

If I change my methods in the future, I probably won't change my PHOM.

Yeah, and Tommy McCarthy's on none of them. :-)

My PHoM starting in 1898. (Note that I was following along since then, although I didn't actually begin voting until 1917...) A quick aside, my personal regrets are Clark Griffith and George Gore - review has made my decisions there seem a little hasty, although I still believe that both would have made the MP HoM eventually. Years that have multiple electees are listed in order of voting.

1898 - Barnes, Radbourne, Spalding, Hines

1899 - Caruthers, Kelly

1900 - Clarkson, Ward

1901 - White, Glasscock

1902 - Brouthers, Thompson

1903 - Anson, Connor

1904 - Gore, G. Wright

1905 - Rusie, McCormick

1906 - Keefe

1907 - Hamilton

1908 - Jennings

1909 - Delahanty

1910 - Galvin

1911 - Nichols

1912 - Burkett, Griffith

1913 - Bennett

1914 - Kelley

1915 - Dahlen, Davis

1916 - Collins

1917 - Young, Flick

1918 - Keeler

1919 - Clarke, McPhee

1920 - Walsh

1921 - Grant Johnson, Wallace

1922 - Lajoie, Mathewson

1923 - Wagner

1924 - Crawford, Plank

1925 - Sheckard, O'Rourke

1926 - Pearce, Pike

1927 - Williamson, Grant

1928 - Baker, Rube Foster

1929 - Ewing, Joe Jackson

1930 - Cal McVey, Pete Hill

As of now, the differences between the MP HoM and the real thing are,

Andrew, keep up the good work on Ed Williamson, a HoMer if there ever was one. Joe, glad you still have Ed under consideration. His relationship to Sutton is no longer relevant of course.

I agree that Williamson is somewhat underrated, and I also agree with Andrew's points. I do have a question about one of them.

But for those of us who are trying to identify the game's all-time elite in a more subjective manner, it matters greatly that Williamson has about four years of playing time where he was in actuality an excellent 3B but was instead being used as a poor SS.

This is the old 'value' vs. 'ability' argument. Yes, Williamson could have been a great thirdbaseman during those years. But the fact is, he wasn't. He was a bad shortstop. Should we give credit to Williamson because he would have been a great thirdbaseman during those years? What are we trying to measure here, Williamson's overall ability, or Williamson's value that he gave to his teams.

Look at it this way, if Williamson had only been a slightly above-average 3B, his team wouldn't have thought he could handle SS, wouldn't have shifted him, and his fielding numbers for those years would be, say, +10 runs rather than -62. Should he be penalized for being such a great fielder that his manager thought (erroneously) that he could make an unorthodox late-career transition to the most difficult fielding position?

This is a very tough decision. On the one hand, I don't think that a player should be penalized because he was a great fielder. But, I also don't want to give credit for what he didn't do, but could have.

I probably won't give him extra credit for those years, since we'll need to then determine what other players were playing their 2nd best position, rather than their primary position, and give them credit for it. That's just a sticky situation all around.

I would just ask Rick to keep an open mind on that point. I mean, how many other cases do we think there will be, where this point would potentially be relevant to whether a guy makes your ballot or not? I think probably very, very few. But if and when a case or two pop up, fine, maybe we've created a precedent, but in the whole history of baseball, there won't be five borderline cases where it will be an issue.

Marc,

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but we've been saying all along on this project that we should vote based on a player's value to his teams, not that player's ability. Should we change that now?

It doesn't matter to me how many players this affects. It could be Williamson alone, or hundreds. It just seems to me that it would be a change in the voting requirements that we've all been using since the start.

I think Williamson is a fantastic player, and have him ranked just off my ballot and I think he deserves more recognition. It is very unfortunate that this situation affects him. But I just can't change the rules we've all been using since the start for any player, even Williamson.

I do think that Andrew's points 1 and 3 are good, and will reconsider Williamson with those in mind.

I do think that Andrew's points 1 and 3 are good, and will reconsider Williamson with those in mind.

I am struggling with Andrew's comments. While I would look for any reason to put Williamson on my ballot, I am just not sure about giving extra credit to players who shifted the opposite way on the defensive spectrum.

It shouldn't matter for guys like Mel Ott (who will have no trouble making the HOM, and only moved for one year) or Pete Rose (who has other issues, but is also a sure HOMer) but like Rick, I'm wary about who should be reconsidered.

BTW, Pedro Guerrero says: Please upgrade my 1983 and 1984 seasons accordingly.

One difference between Big Ed and Pedro is that Ed had a "natural position" at which he was an outstanding defender. I'm not sure I would upgrade a guy who was lousy everywhere.

Rick, in addition, I would have to observe that anybody who timelines is talking about ability not value. IOW, the timeline takes two players of equal value (choose your poison, WS, WARP, whatever) and says that the more recent one is better. Why? Because he "obviously" had to have greater ability to have the same value in the "improved" environment.

So I can't get too excited the injection of this particular ability argument. Just more fodder for the (evaluation) machine.

Rick, in addition, I would have to observe that anybody who timelines is talking about ability not value. IOW, the timeline takes two players of equal value (choose your poison, WS, WARP, whatever) and says that the more recent one is better. Why? Because he "obviously" had to have greater ability to have the same value in the "improved" environment.

Marc,

That's probably true, but that would explain why I have such a problem with it. I don't timeline. I'm one of those people that have Pike and Pearce high on my ballot, as I know you do too.

My question then is, if you're against a using a timeline to measure ability, why is it OK to measure ability because of a position change?

Rick, I construct my ballot in two stages. The first is pretty much numerical and at that stage there's no timeline and no extra credit for Ed's having played SS or any of that kind of stuff. But the result at that point is a bunch of guys so closely bunched that it's incredible. As many have said many times, the difference between #3 and #15 is often a hair's breadth.

So my in constructing my final ballot, I basically make a subjective choice. Ed Williamson and Jimmy Collins have basically the same numbers, which one is going to rank higher? Well, Collins played later against tougher competition (I don't timeline, but I don't deny that it is harder to dominate as time goes by). And Williamson played SS for three years. And...and...and. And which one do I really want to see in the HoM first?

So the subjective stuff is important at that level. But I would say that what we're trying to measure is still value, not ability. And I would say that the timeline has nothing to do with value, it is anti-value. It says my pennant is worth more than my father's pennant. Ed's playing some SS OTOH had value in a team context. So I think Ed's SS thing is a more valid consideration than a timeline.

On Ned Williamson's move to SS. It's actually a position swap. Tom Burns was the SS for Chicago from 1880-1885 (except for 1882 when he was hurt; King Kelly filled in). In 1886, the two of them switched positions, Ned moving to SS and Burns to 3B, and stayed that way until Ned got hurt in 1889, and then the Player's league broke up the old team. And you know what, Burns' defensive stats tell the reverse story; not-so-good defensive SS, great defensive 3B. Ned won the Win Shares Gold Glove at 3B in 1885; Tom won it in 1886, and Chicago won the NL Pennant both years. Maybe the two guys were at about the same fielding level; maybe Chicago's doing something different defensively; I don't know.

My PHoM:

1898: Charley Radbourn, Paul Hines, Ross Barnes, George Gore
1899: Jim O'Rourke, King Kelly
1900: John Clarkson, Harry Stovey
1901: Tim Keefe, Al Spalding
1902: Dan Brouthers, Sam Thompson
1903: Cap Anson, Roger Connor
1904: Amos Rusie, Jack Glasscock
1905: Bid McPhee, Pete Browning
1906: Bob Caruthers
1907: Billy Hamilton
1908: Deacon White
1909: Ed Delahanty
1910: Hardy Richardson
1911: Kid Nichols
1912: Jesse Burkett, Buck Ewing
1913: Mike Tiernan
1914: Cal McVey
1915: George Davis, Bill Dahlen
1916: Elmer Flick
1917: Cy Young, Willie Keeler
1918: Fred Clarke
1919: Joe Kelley, Rube Waddell
1920: Ed Walsh, Bobby Wallace
1921: Addie Joss, Vic Willis
1922: Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1923: Honus Wagner
1924: Sam Crawford, Mordecai Brown
1925: Eddie Plank, Sherry Magee
1926: Joe Jackson, Gavvy Cravath

Dan:

No third basemen picked in fifty years of baseball history (and White doesn't count)?

John, he's got one more HOMer than the rest of us (1920 was a one player election, Dan), but still a lot less 1870's players (no George Wright? Dan, that's harsh ;-). I don't think the he's joining the FODP or FOLP anytime soon.

I don't think the he's joining the FODP or FOLP anytime soon.

He does like Ross Barnes, so it appears he doesn't have any problems with the NA though.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I thought 1920 was a two-player election. In that case, Wallace makes it in '21, not '22, and Willis replaces Cravath in '26.
Jimmy Collins was certainly a terrific defensive 3B, but given that he was only average with the stick, I'd need to see a longer career to elect him (a la Bobby Wallace, Bid McPhee). Sutton was an average defensive 3B (according to BPro) and only rang up a .273 career EqA. By my count, those are the only two that have been elected to the actual HoM, no? We all know 3B is historically the weakest position. Home Run Baker will make my PHoM as the first 3B, most likely.

Can someone explain to me why Wright is so admired? By my count, he had five very good years (1871-6), and was pretty good in 1877 and 1879. Cal McVey (who is in my PHoM) seems at least a better hitter than Wright. I know Wright played SS, but his career was so short.

I have Spalding, Barnes, Anson, White, Hines, McVey, and O'Rourke from the 1870's...just not Ward and Wright. I'd love to hear all of your thoughts.

Jimmy Collins was certainly a terrific defensive 3B, but given that he was only average with the stick,

But he was an above average hitter for the position. Third base then shouldn't be compared to now. There was a higher premium on fielding.

Sutton was an average defensive 3B (according to BPro)

Win Shares disagrees (not to mention contemporary sources). He had the best arm of his generation.

As for his hitting, he was above average there, too. Combine that with a lengthy career makes him the best third baseman of the 19th century, IMO.

Wright was the best player in baseball (or second best) for 4 or 5 years before 1871.
Sutton's career spanned major changes in schedule length. He loses a lot of value at BP because they don't adjust for that, especially in a counting stat like FRAA.

The numbers available for George Wright when he played for the 1869-70 Red Stockings are just phenomemal.

Often its hard to intrepret pre-NA data because of differences in schedule and its incompleteness... but there is more data for 69-70 than there is for previous years and GWright's numbers are so much above any of his teammates (and he had some good teammates) that its just impossible to ignore.

Wright was considered by many contemporaries the best player in baseball 1867-1871 before his injury that cost him a large chunk of that season (and Boston the pennant, most likely). He was pretty good after that too, challenging Barnes and Spalding for best player honors most years 1872-76. His championship resume can stand next to Bill Russell and not be embarrassed with "rings" in 1869-70, 1872-75, 1877-79 (and a case for 1867), 9 in 11 seasons and maybe 10 in 13. (Big Bill was 11 for 13 with the Celtics.)

Can someone explain to me why Wright is so admired?

IMO, Wright was the best major league shortstop from 1867-1870, 1872-1875 (the last year he was tied with Force), 1876 and 1879. I also have him as the best major league second baseman for 1877. That sounds like a HoMer to me, though his career was somewhat on the short side.

There are now three differences between the HoM and my PHoM.

In the PHoM but not in the HoM:
Browning, McGinnity and Bresnahan

In the Hom but not in the PHoM:
Spalding, Galvin and Grant

Lots of fun to go back through the elections and select my PHOM...

1898: Deacon White, Al Spalding, Pud Galvin, George Gore
1899: Jim O’Rourke, Tim Keefe
1900: John Clarkson, John Ward
1901: Paul Hines, King Kelly
1902: Dan Brouthers, Buck Ewing
1903: Roger Connor, Ross Barnes
1904: Cap Anson, Charles Radbourn
1905: George Wright, Bid McPhee
1906: Amos Rusie
1907: Billy Hamilton
1908: Ezra Sutton
1909: Ed Delahanty
1910: Sam Thompson
1911: Kid Nichols
1912: Jesse Burkett, Frank Grant
1913: Cal McVey
1914: Joe Kelley
1915: Harry Stovey, Joe Start
1916: Willie Keeler
1917: Cy Young, Fred Clarke
1918: Elmer Flick
1919: Jimmy Collins, Joe Start
1920: Ed Walsh
1921: Charlie Bennett, George Davis
1922: Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1923: Honus Wagner
1924: Eddie Plank, Grant Johnson
1925: Mordecai Brown, Sam Crawford
1926: Mickey Welch, Joe McGinnity
1927: Jake Beckley, Dickey Pearce

Jack Glasscock, Hardy Richardson, and Bill Dahlen are in the HoM but not my PHoM
Welch, McGinnity, Beckley, and Pearce are in my PHoM but not the HoM.

In the HoM but not in my PHoM:

Charlie Bennett
Jimmy Collins (but he is close every year!)
Buck Ewing
Jow McGinnity
Hardy Richardson
Harry Stovey
Sam Thompson
Ed Walsh
George Wright

In my PHoM, but not in the HoM:

George Van Haltren
Jake Beckley
Jimmy Ryan
Tommy Leach
Spotswood Poles
Mickey Welch
Hugh Duffy
Harry Hooper
Dobie Moore

After much effort, my PHOM. A couple notes...1898-1924 are done completely in retrospect. 1925-1941 are done using my ballots, though I use HOMers/non-PHOMers at that moment in time to erase some more egregious mistakes.

1898: George Gore, Paul Hines, Deacon White, George Wright
1899: King Kelly, Jim O'Rourke
1900: John Clarkson, Charles Radbourn
1901: Jack Glasscock, Monte Ward
1902: Dan Brouthers, Buck Ewing
1903: Cap Anson, Roger Connor
1904: Amos Rusie, Hardy Richardson
1905: Bid McPhee, Charlie Bennett
1906: Ross Barnes
1907: Billy Hamilton
1908: Hughie Jennings
1909: Ed Delahanty
1910: Joe Start
1911: Kid Nichols
1912: Jesse Burkett, Sam Thompson
1913: Bob Caruthers
1914: Tim Keefe
1915: Bill Dahlen, George Davis
1916: Elmer Flick
1917: Willie Keeler, Cy Young
1918: Pud Galvin
1919: Fred Clarke, Joe Kelley
1920: Ed Walsh
1921: Grant Johnson, Bobby Wallace
1922: Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1923: Honus Wagner
1924: Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank
1925: Frank Grant, Jimmy Sheckard
1926: Cal McVey, Harry Stovey
1927: Mordecai Brown, Sherry Magee
1928: Joe Jackson, Pete Hill
1929: Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins
1930: Andrew Foster, Jimmy Ryan
1931: Hugh Duffy
1932: Mike Griffin, Louis Santop
1933: Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson
1934: Ty Cobb, Joe Williams
1935: Eddie Collins, Tris Speaker
1936: Pete Alexander, John Henry Lloyd
1937: Harry Heilman, Cristobal Torriente
1938: Stan Coveleski, Zack Wheat
1939: José Méndez, Bobby Veach
1940: Red Faber, Bullet Rogan
1941: Rogers Hornsby, Babe Ruth
1942: Bill Terry, Dazzy Vance


Not in my PHOM:

1. Lip Pike
2. Max Carey

Both could make it some day in a weak 3-man election year.

3. Al Spalding
4. Ezra Sutton
5. Dickey Pearce

I think we over-romanticized early baseball. I'm not convinced on pitching's importance in the 70s, salaries notwithstanding. Sutton wasn't as good as Williamson, who is at the bottom of my ballot currently. Pearce's 60s stats weren't dominating enough considering the level of competition (they were dominating during and before the Civil War, when competition was even worse).

I could be wrong on all of these guys, though. Not upset they got in.

6. Joe McGinnity - The one guy I think we made a mistake on. Career not particularly long, peak not all that high.

In my PHOM, not in HOM:

1. Hugh Duffy
2. Mike Griffin
3. Jimmy Ryan

Mistakes from earlier ballots that I couldn't avoid inducting, without pretending my earlier ballots didn't exist.

4. Hughie Jennings
5. José Méndez
6. Bobby Veach

More recent inductees, except for Jennings, who has been in forever. All 3 still real high on my ballot.

Personal HOM:

1898: Paul Hines, Deacon White, George Gore, Ezra Sutton
1899: Jim O’Rourke, King Kelly
1900: John Ward, John Clarkson
1901: Jack Glasscock, Ross Barnes
1902: Dan Brouthers, Buck Ewing
1903: Cap Anson, Roger Connor
1904: Hardy Richardson, George Wright
1905: Bid McPhee, Joe Start
1906: Tim Keefe
1907: Billy Hamilton
1908: Cal McVey
1909: Ed Delahanty
1910: Amos Rusie
1911: Kid Nichols
1912: Jesse Burkett, Charlie Radbourn
1913: Pud Galvin
1914: Harry Stovey
1915: George Davis, Bill Dahlen
1916: Joe Kelley
1917: Cy Young, Fred Clarke
1918: Al Spalding
1919: Elmer Flick, Lip Pike
1920: Charlie Bennett
1921: Jimmy Collins, Ed Walsh
1922: Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1923: Honus Wagner
1924: Sam Crawford, Home Run Johnson
1925: Willie Keeler, Eddie Plank
1926: Jimmy Sheckard, Bobby Wallace
1927: Joe McGinnity, Pete Browning
1928: Frank Baker, Joe Jackson
1929: Mordecai Brown, Charley Jones
1930: Dickey Pearce, Pete Hill
1931: Bob Caruthers
1932: Luis Santop, Hughie Jennings
1933: Walter Johnson, Sherry Magee
1934: Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins
1935: Tris Speaker, Pop Lloyd
1936: Pete Alexander, Smokey Joe Williams
1937: Cristobal Torriente, Harry Heilman
1938: Cupid Childs, Frank Grant
1939: Heinie Groh, Zack Wheat
1940: Bullet Joe Rogan, Stan Coveleski
1941: Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby
1942: Clark Griffith, Tommy Leach

Not counting 1942:

in PHOM, not HOM:

Pete Browning, Charley Jones, Hughie Jennings, Cupid Childs

in HOM, not PHOM:

Sam Thompson, Rube Foster, Max Carey, Red Faber

(Since the old version on here went blooey)
Personal HOM:

1898: Deacon White, Paul Hines, George Gore, Old Hoss Radbourn
1899: Jim O’Rourke, Tim Keefe
1900: John Clarkson, King Kelly
1901: John Ward, Ross Barnes
1902: Dan Brouthers, Buck Ewing
1903: Cap Anson, Roger Connor
1904: George Wright, Ezra Sutton
1905: Jack Glasscock, Pud Galvin
1906: Joe Start
1907: Billy Hamilton
1908: Cal McVey
1909: Ed Delahanty
1910: Charlie Bennett
1911: Kid Nichols
1912: Jesse Burkett, Amos Rusie
1913: Bid McPhee
1914: Hardy Richardson
1915: George Davis, Bill Dahlen
1916: Al Spalding
1917: Cy Young, Fred Clarke
1918: Harry Stovey
1919: Jimmy Collins, Lip Pike
1920: Ed Walsh
1921: Elmer Flick, Dickey Pearce
1922: Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1923: Honus Wagner
1924: Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank
1925: Home Run Johnson, Bobby Wallace
1926: Joe Jackson, Joe Kelley
1927: Willie Keeler, Frank Grant
1928: Frank Baker, Three Finger Brown
1929: Bob Caruthers, Pete Hill
1930: Sherry Magee, Jimmy Sheckard
1931: Joe McGinnity
1932: Luis Santop, Cupid Childs
1933: Walter Johnson, Zack Wheat
1934: Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins
1935: Pop Lloyd, Tris Speaker
1936: Pete Alexander, Smokey Joe Williams
1937: Harry Heilmann, Cristobal Torriente
1938: Heinie Groh, Stan Coveleski
1939: Joe Sewell, Bill Monroe
1940: Bullet Joe Rogan, Tommy Leach
1941: Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby
1942: Dazzy Vance, Red Faber

in PHOM, not HOM:

Cupid Childs, Joe Sewell, Bill Monroe, Tommy Leach

in HOM, not PHOM:

Sam Thompson, Rube Foster, Max Carey

(pending 1942 election results, assuming Vance is in)

PHOM

1898: Deacon White, Paul Hines, George Gore, Ross Barnes
1899: Jim O'Rourke, King Kelly
1900: John Clarkson, Tim Keefe
1901: John Ward, George Wright
1902: Dan Brouthers, Buck Ewing
1903: Roger Connor, Cap Anson
1904: Amos Rusie, Jack Glasscock
1905: Charley Radbourn, Al Spalding
1906: Pud Galvin
1907: Billy Hamilton
1908: Hardy Richardson
1909: Ed Delahanty
1910: Ezra Sutton
1911: Kid Nichols
1912: Cal McVey, Jesse Burkett
1913: Joe Start
1914: Bid McPhee
1915: George Davis, Bill Dahlen
1916: Charlie Bennett
1917: Cy Young, Fred Clarke
1918: Lip Pike
1919: Elmer Flick, Dickey Pearce
1920: Ed Walsh
1921: Grant Johnson, Joe Kelley
1922: Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1923: Honus Wagner
1924: Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank
1925: Frank Grant, Jimmy Collins
1926: Bobby Wallace, Charley Jones
1927: Joe Jackson, Sherry Magee
1928: Frank Baker, Harry Stovey
1929: Pete Browning, Pete Hill
1930: Mordecai Brown, Rube Foster
1931: Willie Keeler
1932: Louis Santop, Joe McGinnity
1933: Walter Johnson, Zack Wheat
1934: Ty Cobb, John Henry Lloyd
1935: Eddie Collins, Smokey Joe Williams
1936: Pete Alexander, Tris Speaker
1937: Cristobal Torriente, Harry Heilmann
1938: Cupid Childs, Hughie Jennings
1939: Stan Coveleski, Heinie Groh
1940: Joe Rogan, Eppa Rixey
1941: Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby
1942: Vic Willis, Dazzy Vance

not including 1942:
in PHOM, not HOM

Cupid Childs, Hughie Jennings, Charley Jones, Pete Browning, Eppa Rixey

in HOM, not PHOM

Jimmy Sheckard, Max Carey, Sam Thompson, Bob Caruthers, Red Faber

An interesting exercise. Without going back through 1898-1919, as of 1919 I had enshrined Caruthers, Welch, Beckley and McGinnity, and hadn't enshrined Richardson, McPhee, Keeler and Flick.

1920 Thompson
1921 Duffy and Wallace
1922 Lajoie and Mathewson
1923 Wagner
1924 Crawford and Plank
1925 Brown and Harry Wright
1926 Jackson and Levi meyerle
1927 Cicotte and Grant
1928 Griffith and Hill
1929 Keeler and Baker
1930 Browning and Rochardson
1931 Pearce
1932 McPhee and Santop
1933 Johnson and Wheat
1934 Cobb and E. Collins
1935 Speaker and Williams
1936 Lloyd and Alexander
1937 Heilmann and Torriente
1938 Sisler and J. Collins
1939 Leever and Schang
1940 Hack Wilson and Flick
1941 Ruth and Hornsby
1942 Cupid Childs and Charley Jones

So as of 1941, I had enshrined nonHOMers: Welch, Beckley, Duffy, Harry Wright, Meyerle, Cicotte, Griffith, Browning, Sisler, Leever, Schang, and Wilson (12)

I had not enshrined HOMers: Walsh, Bennett, Home Run Johnson, Magee, Sheckard, Rube Foster, Groh, Covaleski, Faber, Carey, Rogan and Pike (12 - whew!)

Walsh, Groh, Covaleski, Faber and Rogan are closest

Wright and Meyerle are now somewhat regretted, but none of the others.

(Since the old version on here went blooey)

John can that be fixed ?

Now 14 non-HOMers enshrined and HOMers omitted. Diverging steadily and proudly from the consensus! Terry may make it at some point; Vance won't.

I'm redoing my personal Hall of Merit from scratch. I think this will help me with the current ballots as well, as players that have dropped off the radar will get a second chance here.

Anyway, my 1892 ballot, just for sh!t and giggles, I'll include Pennants Added (calced with team data through 1891 only), WSaR and WARP3:

PA WSaR WARP3
1. JOE START* .561 207 47.2
2. George Wright* .745 246 45.5
3. Ross Barnes* .851 266 54.7
4. Dickey Pearce* n/a n/a n/a
5. Lip Pike* .627 206 36.0
6. Cal McVey* .684 228 33.1
7. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4
8. Tom York .556 204 44.8
9. John Clapp .399 147 38.5
10. Tommy Bond n/a n/a 31.9
11. Levi Meyerle* n/a n/a 22.1
12. Davy Force .275 101 36.9
13. George Hall n/a n/a 23.2
14. Dave Eggler n/a n/a 20.4
15. Bobby Mathews n/a n/a 18.3
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.</pre>

Notice Pennants Added are considerably lower than they are through 1944 - that is because the best teams were much better than the rest of the pack back then, so the impact one great season could have on a pennant race was smaller, most of these teams were either good enough to win anyway, or didn't have a chance no matter what one player they'd add.

The back end of the ballot (after Meyerle) is a little sketchy, I may have missed someone, but I'm comfortable with this.

This was a 1-electee year, that's why Start is capitalized. His pre-1871 contributions are more than enough to push him past Wright and Barnes. Likewise, Wright's pre-1871 playing pushes him past Barnes.

Okay, let's keep this going - if anyone gets sick of it, let me know, but I think it's an interesting exercise, may as well share it.

RK LY PA WSaR WARP3
1. 2. GEORGE WRIGHT* .748 246 45.5
2. 3. Ross Barnes* .856 266 54.7
3. 4. Dickey Pearce* n/a n/a n/a
4. 5. Lip Pike* .629 206 36.0
5. 6. Cal McVey* .687 228 33.1
6. -- Charley Jones .691^ 241^ 59.7^
7. 7. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4
8. 8. Tom York .556 204 44.8
9. -- Jim McCormick 1.281 378 58.6
10. 9. John Clapp .399 147 38.5
11. 11. Levi Meyerle* n/a n/a 22.1
12. 10. Tommy Bond n/a n/a 31.9
13. 12. Davy Force .275 101 36.9
14. 13. George Hall n/a n/a 23.2
15. 14. Dave Eggler n/a n/a 20.4
Dropped out: Bobby Mathews (15)
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

I decided to bump Meyerle over Bond.

RK LY 1894 PA WSaR WARP3
1. 2. ROSS BARNES* .865 266 54.7
2. - Ezra Sutton .851 298 50.4
3. 3. Dickey Pearce* n/a n/a n/a
4. 4. Lip Pike* .634 206 36.0
5. 5. Cal McVey* .692 228 33.1
6. 6. Charley Jones .694^ 241^ 59.7^
7. 7. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4
8. 8. Tom York .558 204 44.8
9. 9. Jim McCormick 1.296 378 58.6
10. 10. John Clapp .400 147 38.5
11. 11. Levi Meyerle* n/a n/a 22.1
12. 12. Tommy Bond n/a n/a 31.9
13. 13. Davy Force .276 101 36.9
14. 14. George Hall n/a n/a 23.2
15. 15. Dave Eggler n/a n/a 20.4
Dropped out: none
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

I'll stop tonight when we get through 1900 . . . I'll do this a decade at a time . . .

RK LY 1895 PA WSaR WARP3
1. - EZRA SUTTON .848 298 50.4
2. 3. Dickey Pearce* n/a n/a n/a
3. 4. Lip Pike* .633 206 36.0
4. 5. Cal McVey* .690 228 33.1
5. 6. Charley Jones .692^ 241^ 59.7^
6. 7. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4
7. 8. Tom York .555 204 44.8
8. 9. Jim McCormick 1.297 378 58.6
9. 10. John Clapp .398 147 38.5
10. 11. Levi Meyerle* n/a n/a 22.1
11. 12. Tommy Bond n/a n/a 31.9
12. 13. Davy Force .275 101 36.9
13. 14. George Hall n/a n/a 23.2
14. 15. Dave Eggler n/a n/a 20.4
15. - Jim Whitney .973 285 52.1
Dropped out: none
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Major new class for 1896, as Deacon White, Ed Williamson and Fred Dunlap hit the ballot for the first time. The big question for me is whether or not to slot Williamson in before or after Spalding . . . I think he's clearly below Jones and probably above York (despite the numbers below). I also think I've underrated Dunlap over the years.

RK LY 1896 PA WSaR WARP3
1. - DEACON WHITE .947 331 84.8
2. 2. Dickey Pearce* n/a n/a n/a
3. 3. Lip Pike* .638 206 36.0
4. 4. Cal McVey* .695 228 33.1
5. 5. Charley Jones .697^ 241^ 59.7^
6. - Ed Williamson .495 178 50.3
7. 6. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4
8. - Fred Dunlap .493 170 62.1
9. 7. Tom York .559 204 44.8
10. 8. Jim McCormick 1.307 378 58.6
11. 9. John Clapp .401 147 38.5
12. 10. Levi Meyerle* n/a n/a 22.1
13. 11. Tommy Bond n/a n/a 31.9
14. 12. Davy Force .277 101 36.9
15. 13. George Hall n/a n/a 23.2
Dropped out: Dave Eggler (14), Jim Whitney (15)
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Williamson and Dunlap rate ahead of York because I think WS overrates OF a little and underrates IF a little. Williamson rates ahead of Dunlap because I think WARP overrates 2B and underrates 3B from this era.

Another monster class, Paul Hines, Old Hoss Radbourn and Mickey Welch hit the ballot in 1897. Really have to start thinking about how pitchers fit in this year.

The case could be made to place Radbourn as high as #2 (after Hines), or as low as in-between Jones and Williamson. I can't see ranking Welch much higher than McCormick.

RK LY 1897 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. - PAUL HINES .960 339 83.5
2. 2. Dickey Pearce* n/a n/a n/a
3. - Charley Radbourn 1.497 406 68.3 292-212
4. 3. Lip Pike* .638 206 36.0
5. 4. Cal McVey* .695 228 33.1
6. 5. Charley Jones .697^ 241^ 59.7^
7. 6. Ed Williamson .495 178 50.3
8. 7. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4 210-108
9. 8. Fred Dunlap .493 170 62.1
10. 9. Tom York .559 204 44.8
11. - Mickey Welch 1.114 341 37.9 302-215
12. 10. Jim McCormick 1.307 378 58.6 268-211
13. 11. John Clapp .401 147 38.5
14. - Abner Dalrymple .460 163 45.6
15. 12. Levi Meyerle* n/a n/a 22.1
Dropped out: Tommy Bond (13), Davy Force (14), George Hall (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Radbourn was arguably the best pitcher of his generation (clearly in the group with Clarkson, Keefe and Galvin) - I just can't see ignoring this generation of pitchers.

Welch is over McCormick despite the numbers shown for two reasons - 1) his RSI record is better; 2) there is evidence that the numbers don't accurately reflect his value, because he faced tougher opponents than typical due to his usage pattern.

1898 introduces another strong class, George Gore, Hardy Richardson, Pud Galvin and Tip O'Neill.

RK LY 1898 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 2. DICKEY PEARCE* n/a n/a n/a
2. 4. Lip Pike* .633 206 36.0
3. 3. Charley Radbourn 1.494 406 68.3 292-212
4. - George Gore .748 261 83.6
5. - Pud Galvin 1.355 387 60.5 359-315
6. 5. Cal McVey* .688 228 33.1
7. 6. Charley Jones .691^ 241^ 59.7^
8. - Hardy Richardson .625 226 73.0
9. 7. Ed Williamson .489 178 50.3
10. 8. Al Spalding* n/a n/a 28.4 210-108
11. 9. Fred Dunlap .488 170 62.1
12. 10. Tom York .552 204 44.8
13. 11. Mickey Welch 1.109 341 37.9 302-215
14. 12. Jim McCormick 1.302 378 58.6 268-211
15. 13. John Clapp .396 147 38.5
Dropped out: Abner Dalrymple (14), Levi Meyerle (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Congrats John Murphy, Dickey Pearce enters my PHoM in 1898!

I decided to move Pike ahead of Radbourn, he wasn't getting enough pre-1871 credit.

Monster class in 1899 - Jim O'Rourke, King Kelly, Tim Keefe, Harry Stovey, Charlie Bennett, Bob Caruthers, Pete Browning. I'm going to stop here for tonight, leaving Karl in suspsense as I re-ponder the case of Mr. Caruthers :-)

So far . . .

1892 - Joe Start 1B
1893 - George Wright SS
1894 - Ross Barnes 2B
1895 - Ezra Sutton 3B
1896 - Deacon White C/3B
1897 - Paul Hines CF
1898 - Dickey Pearce SS

Note to the new Veterans Committee: 7 PHoMers, just one is in the Hall of Fame . . .

Interesting exercise, Joe. For fun, I've been compiling new eligibles lists for the years before 1904 and will eventually post them.

Anyway, as regards your listings, a couple comments/questions. Did you forget Harry Wright? (Al Reach and Dick McBride are a couple other 1870's stars who come to mind.) Also, you have Jim Whitney coming on in 1895. He pitched 6 games in 1890 (our rule is <5) so he is not eligible until 1896. And this you probably know, but Dave Orr, who received decent support in the first HoM election, is new for 1896.

Thanks Dan!

Dave Orr I had, he just missed.

Harry Wright - yeah, after looking again, I guess it's hard to keep him out after putting Pearce in. Why didn't he get much support from us? No best friend in our group?

Is he (like Pearce or Start) a guy that would be an absolute no-brainer if we had readily available stats from the 1860s? If so, I need to redo the ballots above.

Al Reach, I believe is outside the scope of where we were going here, he only had 400 PA in the NA and wasn't 35 when the league started (he was 31). I could be convinced otherwise.

I'm not a big fan of NA pitching anyway, and if Spalding is having trouble, I can't see McBride. Was he a star pre-NA, is the NA his decline period? Would seem strange, since he was only 26 when the league started.

Lemme know what you think . . . thanks!

Wright is in my PHOM, but his 1860s stats, when we got them about 1928, didn't stand out as much as I expected -- not really as good as Pearce or Start, and he wasn't a SS. So I since downgraded him a bit. The HOM was deliberately designed to count only from 1871; if it had any room for representation from the 1860s, Wright would be in it, I would think.

Wright is in my PHOM, but his 1860s stats, when we got them about 1928, didn't stand out as much as I expected -- not really as good as Pearce or Start, and he wasn't a SS. So I since downgraded him a bit. The HOM was deliberately designed to count only from 1871; if it had any room for representation from the 1860s, Wright would be in it, I would think.

The Marshall Wright data I posted here in the late 20's is still in the Yahoo group. From what that data shows, Harry was spending a lot of time playing cricket in the 1860's and not enough time playing baseball. By the time he settled for the great Cincinnati Red Stockings run in 1869-70, he was one of their least productive batsman.

He's an easy pick for a pioneer/managing wing, of course.

Thanks guys . . . sounds like Harry Wright is a no go for me. Good I didn't want to have to redo it again!

As for pre-1871 Karl, I wouldn't say it doesn't count. I would say we need some evidence of greatness post-1871 then we'll count pre-1871. Like Dickey Pearce. His 1874 is pretty strong evidence that he was a great player at one point. The 1860's info we have backs this up, so I have no problem putting him in.

Kind of like when we get to Ichiro! His accomplishments in Japan should count, even though we aren't considering Japanese players.

Okay, back to the races . . . moving on with 1899:

RK LY 1899 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. - JIM O'ROURKE 1.150 410 99.8
2. - King Kelly .839 294 87.6
3. 2. Lip Pike* .633 206 36.0
4. 3. Charley Radbourn 1.499 406 68.3 292-212
5. 4. George Gore .748 261 83.6
6. - Tim Keefe 1.398 415 65.8 329-228
7. 5. Pud Galvin 1.359 387 60.5 359-315
8. 6. Cal McVey* .689 228 33.1
9. 7. Charley Jones .691^ 241^ 59.7^
10. - Charlie Bennett .413 154 68.4
11. 8. Hardy Richardson .625 226 73.0
12. - Harry Stovey .690 246 68.6
13. - Bob Caruthers .991 300 59.6
14. 9. Ed Williamson .489 178 50.3
15. - Pete Browning .630 220 54.9
Dropped out: Al Spalding (10), Fred Dunlap (11), Tom York (12), Mickey Welch (13), Jim McCormick (14), John Clapp (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

RK LY 1900 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 2. KING KELLY .842 294 87.6
2. 3. Lip Pike* .636 206 36.0
3. - John Clarkson 1.189 355 76.8
4. 4. Charley Radbourn 1.503 406 68.3 292-212
5. 5. George Gore .751 261 83.6
6. - John Ward 1.382 425 77.3
7. 6. Tim Keefe 1.403 415 65.8 329-228
8. 7. Pud Galvin 1.363 387 60.5 359-315
9. 8. Cal McVey* .692 228 33.1
10. 9. Charley Jones .693^ 241^ 59.7^
11. 11. Hardy Richardson .628 226 73.0
12. 10. Charlie Bennett .414 154 68.4
13. 12. Harry Stovey .694 246 68.6
14. 13. Bob Caruthers .995 300 59.6
15. 14. Ed Williamson .491 178 50.3
Dropped out: Pete Browning (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

I moved Richardson over Bennett. Can't justify ranking Bennett higher, when WARP3, which is as friendly to catchers as possible, doesn't.

Caruthers is significantly higher than I've had him before this exercise.

RK LY 1901 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 2. LIP PIKE* .653 206 36.0
2. 3. John Clarkson 1.218 355 76.8
3. - Jack Glasscock .651 231 89.6
4. 4. Charley Radbourn 1.536 406 68.3 292-212
5. 5. George Gore .771 261 83.6
6. 6. John Ward 1.416 425 77.3
7. 7. Tim Keefe 1.437 415 65.8 329-228
8. 8. Pud Galvin 1.395 387 60.5 359-315
9. 9. Cal McVey* .710 228 33.1
10. 10. Charley Jones .709^ 241^ 59.7^
11. 11. Hardy Richardson .645 226 73.0
12. 12. Charlie Bennett .426 154 68.4
13. 14. Bob Caruthers 1.020 300 59.6
14. 13. Harry Stovey .712 246 68.6
15. 15. Ed Williamson .504 178 50.3
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Caruthers climbs again - the big year argument pushes him past Stovey for me. It's close, could flip them again.

RK LY 1902 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. - DAN BROUTHERS 1.071 355 101.4
2. - BUCK EWING .652 229 82.9
3. 2. John Clarkson 1.232 355 76.8
4. 3. Jack Glasscock .658 231 89.6
5. 4. Charley Radbourn 1.552 406 68.3 292-212
6. 5. George Gore .780 261 83.6
7. 6. John Ward 1.432 425 77.3
8. 7. Tim Keefe 1.452 415 65.8 329-228
9. 8. Pud Galvin 1.409 387 60.5 359-315
10. 9. Cal McVey* .718 228 33.1
11. 10. Charley Jones .719^ 241^ 59.7^
12. 11. Hardy Richardson .651 226 73.0
13. 12. Charlie Bennett .430 154 68.4
14. - Sam Thompson .547 192 79.3
15. 13. Bob Caruthers 1.035 300 59.6
Dropped out: Harry Stovey (14), Ed Williamson (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

The first two are no brainers, everyone waits another year for them. Thompson is a tough one. WARP and WS are wildly divergent in their opinions of him.

Thompson played 12 years, the equivalent of Jones. Thompson had a 146 OPS+ vs. Jones 149. But . . . Jones missing two years would very likely have been at a higher rate than 149 (158, 183, 156, 147, 168, 157 in the 3 years on either side). Also, his OPS+ is more OBP driven than Thompson's. And he wasn't considered a butcher like Thompson in the OF, in fact, Jones played 28% of his games in CF. Sure there's a timeline factor, but I'm not very big on timelining, I see it as a tie-breaker really. So Thompson is definitely behind Jones, and it's not a difficult choice.

RK LY 1903 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. - CAP ANSON 1.504 516 124.1
2. - ROGER CONNOR 1.034 350 120.7
3. 3. John Clarkson 1.214 355 76.8
4. 4. Jack Glasscock .646 231 89.6
5. 5. Charley Radbourn 1.536 406 68.3 292-212
6. 6. George Gore .766 261 83.6
7. 7. John Ward 1.411 425 77.3
8. 8. Tim Keefe 1.433 415 65.8 329-228
9. 9. Pud Galvin 1.392 387 60.5 359-315
10. 10. Cal McVey* .706 228 33.1
11. 11. Charley Jones .708^ 241^ 59.7^
12. 12. Hardy Richardson .639 226 73.0
13. 13. Charlie Bennett .422 154 68.4
14. 14. Sam Thompson .537 192 79.3
15. 15. Bob Caruthers 1.017 300 59.6
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

RK LY 1904 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 3. JOHN CLARKSON 1.226 355 76.8
2. - AMOS RUSIE .755 235 79.0
3. 4. Jack Glasscock .652 231 89.6
4. 5. Charley Radbourn 1.549 406 68.3 292-212
5. 6. George Gore .773 261 83.6
6. 7. John Ward 1.424 425 77.3
7. 8. Tim Keefe 1.446 415 65.8 329-228
8. 9. Pud Galvin 1.405 387 60.5 359-315
9. 10. Cal McVey* .713 228 33.1
10. 11. Charley Jones .714^ 241^ 59.7^
11. 12. Hardy Richardson .646 226 73.0
12. 13. Charlie Bennett .426 154 68.4
13. 14. Sam Thompson .542 192 79.3
14. - Mike Griffin .537 192 75.0
15. 15. Bob Caruthers 1.017 300 59.6
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Amos Rusie, I was torn on him, but then I realized even if he comes on early for his generation, he actually stradles two generations, and excelled in both of them. His translated pitching line on Prospectus is by far the best we've seen (looks a lot like Ron Guidry's real line). At the time I thought we may have jumped the gun, but looking back I think we did the right thing moving him right in.

Mike Griffin? Yeah, we've forgotten about him, but he was a heckuva player. WS and WARP see him as nearly identical to Thompson, which is quite interesting since they were very dissimilar players. But they had similar career length, played at the same time and here we are. Who am I to disagree with both systems. I'll take him over Stovey and Caruthers, by a hair.

RK LY 1905 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 3. JACK GLASSCOCK .650 231 89.6
2. - BID McPHEE .631 233 94.1
3. 4. Charley Radbourn 1.549 406 68.3 292-212
4. 5. George Gore .771 261 83.6
5. 6. John Ward 1.422 425 77.3 152-114
6. 7. Tim Keefe 1.444 415 65.8 329-228
7. 8. Pud Galvin 1.404 387 60.5 359-315
8. 9. Cal McVey* .711 228 33.1
9. 10. Charley Jones .712^ 241^ 59.7^
10. 11. Hardy Richardson .644 226 73.0
11. 12. Charlie Bennett .425 154 68.4
12. 13. Sam Thompson .540 192 79.3
13. 14. Mike Griffin .535 192 75.0
14. 15. Bob Caruthers 1.024 300 59.6
15. - Harry Stovey .712 246 68.6
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Bid McPhee hits the ballot. Pretty fitting that he goes in with Glasscock. Glasscock was clearly the better player, IMO, but McPhee was very good for 18 years and a glove wizard at a somewhat important defensive position, the Brooks Robinson of the 19th Century.

RK LY 1906 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 3. CHARLEY RADBOURN 1.550 406 68.3 292-212
2. 4. George Gore .771 261 83.6
3. 5. John Ward 1.422 425 77.3 152-114
4. 6. Tim Keefe 1.445 415 65.8 329-228
5. 7. Pud Galvin 1.404 387 60.5 359-315
6. 8. Cal McVey* .711 228 33.1
7. 9. Charley Jones .712^ 241^ 59.7^
8. 10. Hardy Richardson .644 226 73.0
9. 11. Charlie Bennett .425 154 68.4
10. 12. Sam Thompson .540 192 79.3
11. 13. Mike Griffin .535 192 75.0
12. 14. Bob Caruthers 1.025 300 59.6
13. 15. Harry Stovey .712 246 68.6
14. - Mike Tiernan .577 203 62.3
15. - Ed Williamson .503 178 50.3
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

I still have no clue why Tiernan and Thompson are viewed so differently by WARP and WS. Current backlog includes (in order) Pete Browning, Al Spalding, Fred Dunlap, Billy Nash, Tom York, Mickey Welch, Jim McCormick, John Clapp. That's about as far as I could ever see hitting a ballot.

RK LY 1906 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. - BILLY HAMILTON .829 286 96.1
2. 2. George Gore .757 261 83.6
3. 3. John Ward 1.398 425 77.3 152-114
4. 4. Tim Keefe 1.421 415 65.8 329-228
5. 5. Pud Galvin 1.382 387 60.5 359-315
6. 6. Cal McVey* .698 228 33.1
7. 7. Charley Jones .701^ 241^ 59.7^
8. 8. Hardy Richardson .632 226 73.0
9. 9. Charlie Bennett .417 154 68.4
10. 10. Sam Thompson .530 192 79.3
11. 11. Mike Griffin .525 192 75.0
12. 12. Bob Caruthers 1.007 300 59.6
13. 13. Harry Stovey .698 246 68.6
14. - Hugh Duffy .651 231 74.1
15. - Cupid Childs .514 183 70.7
Dropped out: Mike Tiernan (14), Ed Williamson (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Duffy vs. Griffin. I know WS likes Duffy better. WS overrates his 1891 in a terrible AA, but that's not enough on it's own. WARP sees them as equal in both WARP1 and WARP3. Duffy had a slightly longer career, but much of that extra length is filler, Griffin actually had more productive seasons (12-10). Also, since WARP's replacement level is too low, if WARP has two players equal, the one with the shorter career is the better player.

As hitters they were essentially equal. But Griffin played CF (was great out there too), while Duffy spread his time around the OF.

I think I've got to keep Griffin ahead for now. I could be convinced that I'm wrong though.

Duffy vs. Stovey now, ugh. Basically comes down to what you think of the AA. Also, what you think of 1B defense in this era. I'm going to keep Stovey ahead for now, but that's splitting hairs, essentially the same value from these two.

Cupid Childs pops on this year. I've got him ahead of Williamson and Tiernan, below Duffy and Stovey. I could see him possibly as high as Griffin, but that's about as high as I could push him.

Elmer Smith had a few nice years, but he's backlog. Same for Nig Cuppy.

RK LY 1908 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 2. GEORGE GORE .753 261 83.6
2. 3. John Ward 1.393 425 77.3 152-114
3. 4. Tim Keefe 1.416 415 65.8 329-228
4. 5. Pud Galvin 1.378 387 60.5 359-315
5. 6. Cal McVey* .694 228 33.1
6. 7. Charley Jones .698^ 241^ 59.7^
7. - Hughie Jennings .513 177 65.6
8. 8. Hardy Richardson .628 226 73.0
9. 9. Charlie Bennett .414 154 68.4
10. 10. Sam Thompson .527 192 79.3
11. 11. Mike Griffin .522 192 75.0
12. 12. Bob Caruthers 1.003 300 59.6
13. 13. Harry Stovey .694 246 68.6
14. 14. Hugh Duffy .647 231 74.1
15. 15. Cupid Childs .511 183 70.7
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Jennings is a very tough player to slot. Five years of greatness and nothing else. He's Sandy Koufax pre-incarnated as a shortstop. They are within 3 of each other in career WARP3. They each have 4 years of 10+ WARP3, one year at 7.7 and a bunch of filler. Jennings actually has about 20 more WARP1, meaning in his time and place he was even more valuable, the rest is timelined off.

I'm going out on a limb here. I'm essentially moving him as high as possible (for me), ahead of Richardson and below Jones. He really did compress 8 years into 4. Score one point for the peak guys. This will likely have an impact on my 1944 ballot.

I realize Childs and Duffy look very similar by the methods above. The difference is that 2B are overrated in this era by both WS and WARP. SS are probably underrated by WS which pushes Jennings higher.

Congrats to George Gore who gets in after 11 years on the ballot.

Done for the night . . . hopefully I can finish this by the end of the week.

RK LY 1909 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. - ED DELAHANTY .857 291 105.0
2. 2. John Ward 1.408 425 77.3 152-114
3. 3. Tim Keefe 1.431 415 65.8 329-228
4. 4. Pud Galvin 1.392 387 60.5 359-315
5. 5. Cal McVey* .703 228 33.1
6. 6. Charley Jones .707^ 241^ 59.7^
7. 7. Hughie Jennings .519 177 65.6
8. 8. Hardy Richardson .635 226 73.0
9. - Frank Grant n/a n/a n/a
10. 9. Charlie Bennett .419 154 68.4
11. 10. Sam Thompson .534 192 79.3
12. 11. Mike Griffin .528 192 75.0
13. - George Van Haltren.716 259 78.9
14. - Jimmy Ryan .646 235 80.0
15. 12. Bob Caruthers 1.014 300 59.6
Dropped out: Harry Stovey (13), Hugh Duffy (14), Cupid Childs (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>

Ugly, just no idea where to slot the guys from 10 thru 17. Honsestly any of them could be 10th or 17th. This is a best guess for now after about an hour of messing around with them. I'll work things out again when one of them is close to being elected.

Frank Grant seems pretty comparable to Richardson. I think it's fair to slot him in one behind Hardy.

update for 1910 - I've decided to finally add the AL into the Pennants Added Calculation. This will change things some, for convenience sake, I previously used only the NL. So there will be some drastic changes to the overall numbers, as the AL in the 1910's was a much more compressed league than the NL (this will boost the hi-peak players Pennants Added).

RK LY 1910 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI
1. 2. JOHN WARD 1.552 425 77.3 152-114
2. 3. Tim Keefe 1.570 415 65.8 329-228
3. 4. Pud Galvin 1.522 387 60.5 359-315
4. 5. Cal McVey* .780 228 33.1
5. 6. Charley Jones .786^ 241^ 59.7^
6. 7. Hughie Jennings .578 177 65.6
7. 8. Hardy Richardson .708 226 73.0
8. 9. Frank Grant n/a n/a n/a
9. 10. Charlie Bennett .468 154 68.4
10. 11. Sam Thompson .595 192 79.3
11. 12. Mike Griffin .589 192 75.0
12. 13. George Van Haltren .799 259 78.9
13. 14. Jimmy Ryan .721 235 80.0
14. 15. Bob Caruthers 1.118 300 59.6
15. - Harry Stovey .783 246 68.6
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>
Nothing new for 1910. John Ward gets in finally. Duke Farrell was the only newcomer to receive a vote. He slots in about #33 for me, between Tony Mullane and Denny Lyons.

RK LY 1911 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI Trans
1. - KID NICHOLS 1.410 405 105.9 363-206 245-141, 3.39
2. - Jesse Burkett .994 310 93.6
3. 2. Tim Keefe 1.571 415 65.8 329-228 167-154, 4.26
4. 3. Pud Galvin 1.524 387 60.5 359-315 187-171, 4.46
5. 4. Cal McVey* .778 228 33.1
6. 5. Charley Jones .784^ 241^ 59.7^
7. 6. Hughie Jennings .576 177 65.6
8. 7. Hardy Richardson .706 226 73.0
9. 8. Frank Grant n/a n/a n/a
10. 9. Charlie Bennett .466 154 68.4
11. 10. Sam Thompson .593 192 79.3
12. 11. Mike Griffin .587 192 75.0
13. 12. George Van Haltren .796 259 78.9
14. 13. Jimmy Ryan .718 235 80.0
15. 14. Bob Caruthers 1.118 300 59.6 199-118 94- 77, 4.18
Dropped out: Harry Stovey (15).
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>
I added Prospectus' translated pitching records to the line. Here are the lines for the pitchers elected to my HoM already, as well as a couple in the backlog:

John Clarkson 179-115, 3.68 (1904)
Amos Rusie 174- 89, 3.24 (1904)
Charley Radbourn 153-129, 4.18 (1906)
Al Spalding 71-122, 5.72
Mickey Welch 144-141, 4.68
Jim McCormick 130-123, 4.36
Tony Mullane 136-145, 4.73
Silver King 118- 92, 3.93
Bill Hutchison 116- 89, 3.86
Tommy Bond 93-121, 5.25
Dave Foutz 54- 61, 5.11
Nig Cuppy 102- 71, 3.91
Jim Whitney 106-110, 4.61
Bobby Mathews 139-167, 5.22</pre>

RK LY 1912 PA WSaR WARP3 RSI Trans
1. 2. JESSE BURKETT .994 310 93.6
2. 3. TIM KEEFE 1.571 415 65.8 329-228 167-154, 4.26
3. 4. Pud Galvin 1.524 387 60.5 359-315 187-171, 4.46
4. 5. Cal McVey* .778 228 33.1
5. 6. Charley Jones .784^ 241^ 59.7^
6. 7. Hughie Jennings .576 177 65.6
7. - Clark Griffith .681 216 71.9 231-152 175-106, 3.80
8. 8. Hardy Richardson .706 226 73.0
9. 9. Frank Grant n/a n/a n/a
10. 10. Charlie Bennett .466 154 68.4
11. 11. Sam Thompson .593 192 79.3
12. 12. Mike Griffin .587 192 75.0
13. 13. George Van Haltren .796 259 78.9
14. 14. Jimmy Ryan .718 235 80.0
15. 15. Bob Caruthers 1.118 300 59.6 199-118 94- 77, 4.18
Dropped out: none.
*significant pre-1871 playing not accounted for here.
^includes blacklist estimates.</pre>
Clark Griffith joins the group. A great peak from 1894-1901. I give the 1880s pitchers a bump over their translated records, obviously.

Finally blew an evening and figured out a PHOM. 9 players are different.

In PHOM, out of HoM:
Mickey Welch, Charley Jones, Pete Browning, Hugh Duffy, Cupid Childs, George Burns, George Van Haltren, Vic Willis, Ed Roush

In HoM, out of PHOM:
Spalding: have not been able to do enough research about how valuable pitching was at that time. He did receive the highest fielding support of any pitcher in history by a huge margin.
Rube Foster: Was not convinced by the numbers provided. Think Redding, B Foster, Mendez, Rogan, Williams, Paige (at least) are better.
Bobby Wallace: Rates slightly higher for me than Beckley. No peak. 1 time a league all-star by STATS or Win Shars.
Faber. OOO!! OOO!! I had two really good years and then a bunch of slightly above average, can I be in the Hall of Merit?
Carey. Did not understand the fascination with him. Does not stand out from many other outfielders.
Terry. Another instance of retiring in the right year. (see Faber, Red; Vance, Dazzy;) If he is in, so should Chance, Sisler, and Konetchy (and Fournier if you give credit for minor league time, a la Cravath).
Vance. Will make my PHOM before anyone else on the list.
Pike. Thought he was overrated.
He Who Shall Not Be Named. *oe *ack*on. Could not even buy a ticket to enter the PHOM.

Well, my honest PHOM lasted about 3-4 elections. Inspired in part by Joe, and in part by a complete lack of connection to my PHOM with my mistakes in it, I redid from scratch.

I have 9 differences.

In: Jennings, Waddell, Griffith, Cross, Dunlap, Monroe, Méndez, Sewell, Beckwith

Out: I'll put these into two categories.

Likely to be inducted in the long run (In order of eventual induction; not feeling the need to argue against them too heavily when I plan on inducting them myself)

Lip Pike
Harry Stovey
Max Carey

Never, never, never (Candidly, I'm tougher on the early players. I think we got romantic about how many from that era needed to get in. I admit the possibility that I am wrong.)

Al Spalding: Not sold that pitching in his era that key.

Dickey Pearce: Did not hit *nearly* enough in the 60s by the stats we were provided. The Ozzie Smith/Bobby Wallace from the semi-organized days is not going in.

Ezra Sutton: Don't see it. Much prefer Williamson, who will be PHOM'd along with the guys above in the very long run.

Jimmy Collins: Didn't hit enough, didn't have a peak, or an exceptionally long career.

Joe McGinnity: Aside from, perhaps, Pearce, my least favorite inductee. Short career, and peak was not in the galaxy of the inductable peaks (Ferrell, Vance, Coveleski, Waddell). On second thought, I like him much less than Pearce, who is at least defensible as he played forever.

Sherry Magee: A very good hitter, but the NL was bad in those days, and his defense was insufficient to give him a peak. If he'd played in the AL, he wouldn't have been a HOMer, I think.

my pHoM 30 differances beetween mine and the group's HoM but hopefully that would be 27 after this year
1898
Charlie Radbourn
Mickey Welch
Al Spalding
Pud Galvin
1899
Tim Keefe
Jim O’Rourke
1900
John Clarkson
Monte Ward
1901
Deacon White
King Kelly
1902
Dan Brouthers
Sam Thompson
1903
Cap Anson
Roger Connor
1904
Amos Rusie
Buck Ewing
1905
Ross Barnes
Cal McVey
1906
Pete Browning
1907
Billy Hamilton
1908
Hugh Duffy
1909
Ed Delahanty
1910
Lip Pike
1911
Kid Nichols
1912
Jesse Burkett
Clark Griffith
1913
Bid McPhee
1914
Joe Mcginnity
1915
Jake Beckley
Joe Kelley
1916
Willie Keeler
1917
Cy Young
Rube Waddell
1918
Addie Joss
1919
Fred Clarke
Bill Dahlen
1920
Ed Walsh
1921
George Wright
George Gore
1922
Christy Mathewson
Napoleon Lajoie
1923
Honus Wagner
1924
Sam Crawford
Three Finger Brown
1925
Eddie Plank
George Van Haltren
1926
Joe Jackson
Jimmy Ryan
1927
Pete Hill
Rube Foster
1928
Home Run Baker
Gavvy Cravath
1929
Paul Hines
Harry Stovey
1930
Jake Daubert
John McGraw
1931
Bobby Veach
1932
Ginger Beaumont
George J. Burns
1933
Walter Johnson
Zack Wheat
1934
Ty Cobb
Tris Speaker
1935
Eddie Collins
John Henry Lloyd
1936
Grover Cleveland Alexander
George Sisler
1937
Harry Heillman
Edd Roush
1938
Smokey Joe Williams
Ray Schalk
1939
Joe Sewell
Rabbit Maranville
1940
Sam Rice
Hack Wilson
1941
Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
1942
Bill Terry
Pie Traynor
1943
Mickey Cochrane
Frankie Frisch
1944
Lou Gehrig
Goose Goslin
1945
Oscar Charleston
Dazzy Vance
1946
Al Simmons
Turkey Stearnes
1947
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
1948
Charlie Gehringer
Cool Papa Bell
1949
Carl Hubbell
Biz Mackey
1950
Paul Waner
Joe Cronin
1951
Jimmie Foxx
Chuck Klein
1952
Mel Ott
Bill Dickey
1953
Hank Greenberg
Josh Gibson
1954
Arky Vaughan
Willie Wells
1955
Billy Herman
Stan Hack
1956
Luke Appling
Joe Medwick
1957
Joe Dimaggio
Heinie Manush
1958
Joe Rogan
Mule Suttles
Jud Wilson