Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

1902 Ballot Discussion

Here you go fellas, this list is from Howie Menkel, I don’t have time for links, double-checking it, etc. right now, but I wanted to get the thread started without further delay . . . Here are the new eligibles, quite a class.

DAN BROUTHERS,1896,1904 -> 2
BUCK EWING,1896,1897 -> 1
SHORTY FULLER,1896
CONNIE MACK,1896
TOMMY MCCARTHY,1896
CHIPPY MCGARR,1896
DOGGIE MILLER,1896
SAM THOMPSON,1896,1897 -> 3,1898 -> 14,1906 -> 8
AD GUMBERT,1896
ADONIS TERRY,1896,1897 -> 1
GEORGE STOVEY,Negro Leagues

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 27, 2003 at 02:58 PM | 215 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. RobC Posted: June 07, 2003 at 01:50 PM (#513618)
DanG -

I dont just bump guys up on my ballot. Each of my ballots is reconstructed from scratch. Yes, the results generally come out the same, something would be wrong if they didnt.

1906 is the year when the Richardson/Sutton/Galvin/Spaldings will finally get a chance to get elected. It will be a key year where a mistake could be made. I think years without new candidates should, if any change was going to be made, have more discussion time, not less.

If you wanted to make 1903 a short year, I would be opposed to it, but less so. 1903 would be a absolute slam dunk vote if it wasnt for the Anson-Racism clause.
   202. Howie Menckel Posted: June 07, 2003 at 04:33 PM (#513619)
I agree with Rob C's reasoning.....
   203. Jeff M Posted: June 07, 2003 at 04:35 PM (#513620)
Heartily agree with Rob C . I'm opposed to changing the schedule. If there's nothing to discuss during discussion week, there won't be many posts and we'll all do some other things with our lives. So what? What's the hurry? There's a benefit to not deciding on a week-by-week basis whether there will be a discussion week or not. People get locked into a regular schedule, and I don't want to lose voters b/c of irregular voting schedules.

Besides, have you seen how many posts there are? I doubt there will be silence during the discussion week, even without new candidates.

We'd think the HOF was crazy if it said, "This year we're going to have our normal election process. But, since we know that no one interesting is retiring in the upcoming season, we'll have another vote 6 months later to see who else gets in."

We may as well just elect 4 this time.
   204. dan b Posted: June 07, 2003 at 04:50 PM (#513621)
RobC yes, DanG no.
   205. DanG Posted: June 09, 2003 at 03:39 AM (#513622)
I don't see where any of the objections to my suggestion carry much weight.

Rob says, "1906 is the year when the Richardson/Sutton/Galvin/ Spaldings will finally get a chance to get elected. It will be a key year where a mistake could be made. I think years without new candidates should, if any change was going to be made, have more discussion time, not less."

Discussion of the above (and all) candidates is ongoing. I don't see where stalling an extra week should somehow produce a seachange into how anyone's candidacy is assessed. I agree that it will be a key year because a couple from our backlog will get their due, but the potential for a "mistake" is there in any case; I doubt that an extra week (or two!) will serve to radically alter the voting outcome. Extra time could just as easily seve to produce the mistake Rob seeks to avoid.

JeffM says, "People get locked into a regular schedule, and I don't want to lose voters b/c of irregular voting schedules."

That's why we would only occasionally go to the one-week schedule, while giving a good deal of lead time. This serves to lessen the odd chance the change would prove disruptive to someone's participation in this project.

Jeff also tosses in this idea:

"We'd think the HOF was crazy if it said, "This year we're going to have our normal election process. But, since we know that no one interesting is retiring in the upcoming season, we'll have another vote 6 months later to see who else gets in."

IMO, this is clearly an inappropriate and invalid comparison. Because: 1) The HOF must run on an annual cycle, but the HoM is not necessarily bound to an inflexible structure. If we want to compress a year into one week rather than two, it's not a problem. 2) The HOF elects players with a 75% super-majority so they don't know how many, if any, players they are inducting. The HoM has an organized, long range plan; with MVP-type voting we know exactly how many will be inducted and when.

OTOH, it's not a major issue. I put it out there as an alternative for those who feel we're going a bit too slow. So far, the reactions expressed (three people) can be summed up by saying, "No. Just because we have no problem with a perpetual two-week schedule."

I want everyone to be happy. So if the general feeling is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," then so be it.
   206. Adam Schafer Posted: June 09, 2003 at 04:03 AM (#513623)
I personally would be oppossed to such an idea. This thing will be over before we know it and we'll be looking back wishing we had found a way to stretch it out longer. My opinion is that if you like something, that you should enjoy it as long as you possibly can.
   207. MattB Posted: June 09, 2003 at 01:46 PM (#513624)
I also agree with those opposed. Besides those of us with increasingly fixed views on candidates, this week about seven new voters were added. Newcomers will feel more welcome with a more leasurely pace that allows them time to "catch up" before jumping in.

Also, even if there are no top-tier newcomers, I can't imagine there will be any year that the top newcomer couldn't slip on to some ballots as a number 15 (when new spaces open.) Even Ted Breitenstein may be worthy of a 15 or two. (Certainly no less so than this years' Foutz, Hutchison, and McCarthy).

And finally, I don't see how examining closely mid-level candidates who move up is inherently less difficult than leaving everything the same and placing Roger Connor on top. In fact, I think years dominated by holdover candidates will require more examination, not less.

For example, at present exactly half of the voters rank Richardson ahead of Sutton, and Richardson holds a very narrow lead on points (15 points), even though both Dan G. and I have Sutton ranked higer. It would only take a handful of people moving up Sutton. 1906 may be the year that one of them will make it, and I would like that week to argue that Sutton should be moved up before the first pro-Richardson ballots are cast.
   208. MattB Posted: June 09, 2003 at 01:50 PM (#513625)
I'd also like to point out that there was earlier a suggestion that we skip 1901 because the Top 2 candidates were obviously so much better than anyone else. Now, there is a contrary argument to contract the election spefically in years where there are no new top tier candidates.

I advocate not deciding in advance which years will be "easy". You never know when someone will supply a link to this page from the "Official Bert Cunningham Fan Club." Things could get messy pretty quickly.
   209. Carl Goetz Posted: June 09, 2003 at 01:53 PM (#513626)
I'm against any shortening of the schedule. A few people said we should shorten the '02 election because of Brouthers and Ewing being slam dunks. I think we ended up with our most lively debates to date.
   210. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 09, 2003 at 02:09 PM (#513629)
I understand Dan's impatience with the elections. I feel like a kid on Christmas Eve hoping I got the toys that I wanted.

Nevertheless, I vote to stay with the current process.
   211. Jeff M Posted: June 09, 2003 at 02:47 PM (#513630)
>>Dan G wrote: IMO, this is clearly an inappropriate and invalid comparison.<<

You are certainly entitled to an opinion that it is an invalid comparison, but "inappropriate?"
   212. Rusty Priske Posted: June 09, 2003 at 06:38 PM (#513631)
I guess my real question is, "What's the hurry?"

I am really enjoying the discussions and debate. Shortening the cycle would lessen the discussions.
   213. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 09, 2003 at 06:55 PM (#513632)
I'd say wait until we're through an "empty year" and see how it goes. If those weeks' discussions turn out fairly blah, then shorten it up in the future.
   214. DanG Posted: June 10, 2003 at 02:24 AM (#513633)
JeffM wrote: "You are certainly entitled to an opinion that it is an invalid comparison, but "inappropriate?"

That's why I love dictionary.com. Don't like a word? Heck, they give you a whole list to choose from:

Entry: inappropriate
   215. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 09:44 PM (#814270)
All posts reconstructed up to #111.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.2908 seconds
49 querie(s) executed