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

Monday, June 09, 2003

1902 Results - Dan Brouthers and Buck Ewing elected

Dan Brouthers and Buck Ewing have been elected to the Hall of Merit. Brouthers was the most overwhelming selection to date, garnering 39 of 42 first place votes, and is the first unanimous selection, in that he was named first or second on all ballots.

Ewing (752.5) edged Jack Glasscock (704) and Charles Radbourn (658) in the balloting. It was the 2nd consecutive near miss for Glasscock who lost to George Wright by 21 points in the 1901 voting. With Cap Anson and Roger Connor coming on the ballot in 1903, it’s likely Glasscock will have to wait until 1904 for enshrinement.

Hardy Richardson and Ezra Sutton were #5 and #6 for the second straight year. Joe Start made a run, jumping from 9th to 7th. He was tied for 7th with Al Spalding and won the tie-breaker 21-20 (higher placement on individual ballots). Start also jumped over Harry Stovey, who slipped to 11th, dropping from 50% of the possible points to 43%. Sam Thompson finished 9th in his first year of eligibility, and Pud Galvin jumped over Stovey and Bob Caruthers (who slipped to 13th), rounding out the top 10.

RK  LY  Player       Pts   Ballots  1  2  3   4   5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1  n/e  D.Brouthers 1005    42.0   39  3
2  n/e  B.Ewing      752.5  42.0      12  9 6.5 7.5  2  2  1                 1  1
3    3  J.Glasscock  704    42.0       7 11   7   4  2  3  2  1  4        1
4    4  C.Radbourn   658    41.0    3  4  7   5   4  3  5  3  1	2     2     1  1
5    5  H.Richardson 525    40.0       1  1       7  6  5  4  4  5  1  2  1  3
6    6  E.Sutton     510.5  37.0       2  2 7.5 3.5  3  4  2  3  1  1  2  2  3  1
7    9  J.Start*     495    36.0       5  2   3   1  4  2  3  4  2  2  2  2  2  2
8    7  A.Spalding   495    36.0       4  4   3   2  4  4  1  1  2  1  2  3  3  2
9  n/e  S.Thompson   457    39.5       1      3   2  4     5  2  5  6  1  6  3  1.5
10  11  P.Galvin     440    35.0          2   5   3  2  1  4  2  3  7  2  2  2
11   8  H.Stovey     433    36.0       1  3          4  4  4  2  7  3  2     3  3
12  12  C.Bennett    374    34.0              1   1  2  4  4  3  5  3  1  6  1  3
13  10  B.Caruthers  313    25.0       2  1       4     1  4  4     2  2  1  1  3
14  14  C.McVey      302    27.5                  2  3  3  1  4  1  4  3  2  1  3.5
15  13  P.Browning   244    25.0              1      1  1     3  2  2  8  2  2  3
16  15  E.Williamson 151    18.0                           1  1  1     4  4  5  2
17  16  L.Pike       133    15.0                           1  2     3  3     3  3
18  17  M.Welch      127    14.0                           1  1     3  4  2  2  1
19  20  D.Pearce      72     8.0                        1     1     1  1  1  1  2
20  18  J.McCormick   71     7.0                        1  1     1  1  1  1     1
21  19  F.Dunlap      59     8.0                              1           2  1  4
22  21  T.Mullane     42     4.0                     1           1        2
23  22  T.O'Neill     39     3.0                  1  1                    1
24 n/e  G.Stovey      33     5.0                                          1  1  3
25  26  J.Whitney     26     2.0                        1     1
26  24  C.Jones       13     2.0                                             1  1
27  25  D.Foutz       12     1.0                              1
28T 28  B.Hutchison   10     1.0                                    1
29T 29  L.Meyerle     10     1.0                                    1
30T 27  B.Mathews      7     1.0                                             1
30T 31T	T.York         7     1.0                                             1
32  --  T.McCarthy     6     1.0                                                1
Dropped out: Arlie Latham (23); Harry Wright (30); Dave Orr (31T); Oyster Burns (33).
*won tie-breaker, 21-20.
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 09, 2003 at 11:45 PM | 15 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.

   1. Chris Cobb Posted: June 10, 2003 at 12:54 AM (#514180)
Very exciting to see the results after watching all the lively debate. I've found it helpful to see reports of over- & underrated players from others, so here's my list, comparing the results to my ballot.

Most overrated
Richardson -- I think I've underrated him
Thompson -- Overrated; more scrutiny will lower his position.
Caruthers -- I don't see the value others do, but he's hard to rate

Most underrated
Mickey Welch -- I'd like to see a more detailed comparison of him to Radbourn and Galvin
Harry Stovey -- Underrated; demonstrably better than Thompson
Cal McVey -- A documented career as good as George Wright.'s.

   2. Sean Gilman Posted: June 10, 2003 at 01:05 AM (#514181)
As requested, here's the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Senators in the annual HOM game:

http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=8870382&ad=1

Be sure to check the pitchcount for Al Orth. . .
   3. Marc Posted: June 10, 2003 at 02:08 AM (#514182)
Underrated

McVey--I had him 7th, he came in 14th. I rate about 50/50 peak and career. Short career by today's standards but not by standards then--11 years going back to his time with the Cincy Red Stockings as (initially) an 18.5 year old phenom. We tend (IMHO) to overrate players with 20th century career profiles at the expense of some star players with 19th century career profiles. We see them too much on our terms rather than on their own. He was so much better than Deacon White it's incredible, he just didn't choose to hang on in that 20th century way.

Also Spalding--2nd vs. 8th--and Pike--11th vs. 17th. A couple more high peaks and, well, not even very short careers, just poorly documented pre-1871. Spalding was a star longer than Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean. Again, our terms, not theirs--that's how they're being evaluated.

Overrated

Sutton (I had him 19th vs. 6th) who was not very well regarded in his own time but has a nice 20th century profile to him.

Sorry, guys, that's how it looks to me.
   4. dan b Posted: June 10, 2003 at 02:20 AM (#514183)
Most overrated - Tommy McCarthy
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 10, 2003 at 06:45 AM (#514185)
Sutton (I had him 19th vs. 6th) who was not very well regarded in his own time but has a nice 20th century profile to him.

Are there actual quotes that state he wasn't regarded favorably in his time or are you assuming this because of the "Ed Williamson is God" quotes right after "Ned" died?
   6. MattB Posted: June 10, 2003 at 12:56 PM (#514187)
Most underrated: Joe Start. For all the reasons I discussed already.

Most overrated: Hardy Richardson. Slightly better offense than Sutton at an easier defensive position mix. He will be most overrated as long as he is rated above Sutton.
   7. MattB Posted: June 10, 2003 at 01:05 PM (#514188)
New question:

Of the 12 inductees so far, who was the least Meritorious?

Possible answers:

Ross Barnes: Finished in 4th place with only 68% of the vote. The lowest placement and percentage.

George Wright: Only inductee left off of two ballots altogether, and the one who has had to wait the longest (4 elections).

Tim Keefe: Lowest peak of the three inducted pitchers.

And, my answer:

Monte Ward: Great pitcher for a very short time, then merely an above average shortstop for a long time. I consider him "12th best" so far.
   8. Rusty Priske Posted: June 10, 2003 at 01:12 PM (#514189)
I think these over/under rated things come across as a little egotistical, but what the heck!

Most underrated: Tony Mullane

Most overrated: Technically I have Joe Start, but really I just don't have a handle on him. More likely Ezra Sutton.
   9. MattB Posted: June 10, 2003 at 01:29 PM (#514190)
Stats through 1902:

Top electees by vote %:

Brouthers: 99.70
White: 94.40
Hines: 93.97
O'Rourke: 93.95
Clarkson: 90.00
Kelly: 84.01
Gore: 79.45
Keefe: 78.21
Wright: 76.19
Ewing: 74.70
Ward: 73.45
Barnes: 68.39

Top % vote getters among non-electees (min. 55%)

Glasscock: 73.69 (1901)
Glasscock: 69.84 (1902)
Radbourn: 66.07 (1901)
Radbourn: 61.35 (1898)
Richardson: 57.74 (1901)
Radbourn: 57.62 (1900)
H. Stovey: 55.11 (1899)

Lowest % vote getters among eventual electees:

Keefe: 64.52 (1899)
Wright: 67.88 (1899)
Barnes: 68.39 (1898)

Jack Glasscock is currently the only non-inductee to have received a higher percentage of votes than the lowest percentage inductee (Barnes).
   10. Carl Goetz Posted: June 10, 2003 at 08:26 PM (#514192)
I believe the idea is that players are awarded bonus points for being 'electable' on a given ballot. ie if Player A is ranked 2nd and Player B is ranked 3rd on Voter C's ballot, Voter C thinks Player A should go into the HoM this year and Player B should not. There is a similar bonus at the back given to players that make the top 15 over unlisted players.
   11. jimd Posted: June 10, 2003 at 08:36 PM (#514193)
The ballot model is the MVP ballot, which gives a four point bonus for the 1st spot, your personal choice for MVP. The HOM ballot gives a four point bonus for the election spots; on the 1898 ballot when we elected four candidates, the first four spots got the bonus points.
   12. Marc Posted: June 10, 2003 at 09:37 PM (#514194)
That's right, and it (the bonus) gives us voters a little extra incentive to think extra hard about the players we put at the top of our ballot (in the election positions). #2 and #3 might be very, very close, but one gets 24 and the other 18, so it reinforces the very real difference that only one of them will get elected.

I think the 20-19-...7-6 underlying is an even better innovation becuase the difference between, say, a #5 and a #15 is not 11-1 which it would be in a straight 15-14-...2-1 system. Rather a 16-6 differential is a better reflection of the value relationships that are at work. Good stuff, Joe and others who designed the voting.
   13. MattB Posted: June 11, 2003 at 08:25 PM (#514197)
I believe that the original idea was to have a 10-man ballot, with points going from 15 to 6, but there was some concern about the difference between 10th place and 11th place being so large. If I recall correctly, the ballot was expanded to 15, the thinking being that a #10 could eventually rise to the top, but there was no way that a #15 would. In any event, the difference between 15 and 16 was set so that the difference between 10 and 11 wouldn't be that great. Generally, there was an assumption that very few players (with Ross Barnes being a named exception) would ever be #1 to some, but not in the top 15 to others. That has obviously turned out to not be the case, as several candidates have now been elected despite being left off several ballots.

I agree with Tom, though, that the difference between 15 and 30 is very small, and a penalty seems appropriate for a player who can't crack a Top 15 list.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2003 at 10:24 PM (#514198)
I don't remember who, but one of our voters pointed out to us "A Clever Base-Ballist," the biography of John M. Ward (excellent book, BTW). In it, Ward felt that Ewing was the #1 cause of the Players League's demise. Buck was the one who brought together the owners of the two NY clubs from the NL and PL as a peace gesture. When the two owners consolidated their teams as the new edition of the National League's NY Giants in 1891 (destroying the PL's NY team), it was only a matter of time before all the other owners jumped ship.

Ward wasn't very happy with Glasscock, but Ewing was far worse in his eyes. I imagine Buck would have lost some votes if that information had been known at the time in 1902.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 01:27 AM (#813135)
This thread is now fully reconstructed.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2485 seconds
49 querie(s) executed