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, July 14, 2003

1905 Ballot

Time to start voting . . .

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 14, 2003 at 05:03 PM | 123 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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Carl Goetz Posted: July 18, 2003 at 10:45 PM (#515707)
My ballot took a little longer this time for 3 reasons: 1)I lost most of my past research and had to re-run alot of numbers,2)This is probably the most important ballot we've had, as far as needing to get my order exactly right, and 3)I've had a major change in my thinking. Previously, I was against adjusting W3 for season length because I didn't think it was guaranteed that the player would keep up a strong performance from 30 games throughout a 162 game season(Obviously, that is true). I've realized that, if I'm to be consistent with my 'Pennant is a Pennant' philosophy, I need to adjust for the season length, or else I'll be saying that an NA pennant is less valuable than another, later pennant. I do not wish to make this implication in my ballot, so I must make these adjustments. I've also decided that there is enough documented evidence for Pike and McVey to make conservative estimates for their pre-NA play(2 years for McVey, 5 for Pike). As you can see, I've been busy this week.
   102. Carl Goetz Posted: July 18, 2003 at 11:07 PM (#515708)
I guess if I want it counted, I should actually post my list:
   103. MattB Posted: July 19, 2003 at 08:59 PM (#515712)
"Duh. Of course Start would get elected because the talent pool would be so small if you pushed the HoM start back 8 years."

Dan's point was that the election time period was begun with a built-in 8 player backlog that we slowly worked off through this year. Starting in 1890 would have been more in line with the intent of the project, but would have lengthened it by four months. The point was that the electees today are very different than they would have been if we had started at 1906, like we originally intended, and would be different if we had started at 1890, where there would have been no backlog at all.
   104. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2003 at 02:01 AM (#515715)
Incidentally, if Joe Start is such a no-brainer, why isn't he in yet? Not even I could keep Geo. Wright out, and with the increase in voters, I'm certainly not enough to keep Start out.

The same with me and Rusie. I tried to sway some of the voters against electing him, but I was in the minority. Hey, you can't get everything that you want. That's democracy.

As long as we are not voting in abominations such as Tommy McCarthy, I can live with it.
   105. Esteban Rivera Posted: July 20, 2003 at 03:14 AM (#515716)
My ballot for 1905:

1. Al Spalding - Still is number one on my ballot.

2. Charles Radbourne - I still believe what he accomplished at his peak and after, even with a somewhat bum arm, is unbelievable.

3. Cal McVey - Finally feel that I am giving him the respect he deserves. I strongly feel McVey is a HOMer. Played very demanding positions, produced at high offensive level and, when he left because of the reserve clause, his career was looking like Cap Anson's. Was still playing when he was 40 in the Texas League.

4. Pud Galvin - Holds steady this year.

5. Joe Start - Was the best "old" player of his time.

6. Hardy Richardson - Moves up this year. The analysis of the second basemen made me rethink Hardy's position on my ballot. Reminds me of Glasscock. Was the top second baseman of his time.

7. Ezra Sutton - Best third baseman of the 19th century according to my interpretation of the numbers. Interesting note, Sutton was supposed to join the Big Four and Anson in Chicago in 1876. Public opinion made him reconsider.

8. Charlie Bennett - Best catcher available. His defense was excellent and his hitting great for a full time catcher, even if his numbers are uneven. Campanella was pretty uneven during his career and not many people discredit his greatness as a catcher.

9. Harry Stovey - More value than the numbers tell.

10. Bid McPhee - Enters my ballot here. Just can't reason him being ahead of all the others. Will probably move up next year.

11. Pete Browning - You don't suppose his health problems are what caused his terrible defense? He did shockingly win two win shares gold gloves early in his career. Maybe there is a correlation between his decline in defense and his rise in health problems?

12. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball. Definitely deserves more attention.

13. Bob Caruthers - Staying on and moves up one.

14. Sam Thompson - Not sure what to make of him.

15. Jim McCormick - Seems to be better than I thought. Will look even closer at him next year.
   106. Brad Harris Posted: July 20, 2003 at 06:27 AM (#515718)
1. Joe Start
   107. Ken Fischer Posted: July 20, 2003 at 01:40 PM (#515719)
1905 Ballot

1-Bid McPhee: 305 win shares...career value

2-Al Spalding: 1871-1876 seasons make him unique in early days

3-Joe Start: 27-year career would give HOM a connection back to pre-Civil War era

4-Old Hoss Radbourn: 1884

5-Pud Galvin: Career value?364 wins?interesting arguments touting his fielding

6-Harry Stovey: slugger penalized for serving in the AA

7-Hardy Richardson: peak win share season higher than McPhee?s

8-Mike Tiernan: penalized for short career

9-Bob Caruthers: if a couple of his 29+ win seasons were in the NL he would have more support

10-Bud Fowler: like Pearce & Start a pioneer?Grant may?ve been a better player but Fowler blazed the trail

11-Sam Thompson: strong numbers in offense crazy mid-90s

12-Mike Griffin: an all-around performer who gets penalized like Tiernan & Caruthers for a short career

13-Pete Browning: can?t ignore his PL batting title

14-Dickey Pearce: connection to mid-1850s

15-Erza Sutton: part of the Spalding/White/Barnes cohort?convinced by discussion he belongs on the ballot
   108. dan b Posted: July 20, 2003 at 05:33 PM (#515720)
1. Hoss Radbourne ? Best pitcher 3 years running. Of all the players on ballot, this is the one whose omission would most damage our credibility.
   109. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: July 20, 2003 at 05:39 PM (#515721)
dan b,

I don't get how you (and others) can argue so heavily for Radbourn's election then turn around and leave Jim McCormick off your ballot. Radbourn and McCormick has similar career numbers, and to believe that there are at least fifteen players who should be between them on the ballot simply beggars credulity.
   110. KJOK Posted: July 20, 2003 at 06:22 PM (#515723)
Radbourn is almost a twin of Tim Keefe, who is already in the HOM, and not McCormick. McCormick is almost a twin of Tony Mullane and Mickey Welch, only I have him as slightly INFERIOR to Mullane and almost dead even with Welch.

Some of the ways McCormick doesn't measure up:
   111. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2003 at 06:24 PM (#515724)
1. Hoss Radbourne ? Best pitcher 3 years running. Of all the players on ballot, this is the one whose omission would most damage our credibility.

Our credibility will only be damaged if we elect people that absolutely don't belong (Marquard, McCarthy, etc.) or bypass no-brainers (Young, Ruth, etc.). Since he wasn't the best of his time, there has been an appropriate pause in regard to him.
   112. Brian H Posted: July 20, 2003 at 07:01 PM (#515725)
Without going into too much more detail I would point out that:

McCormick (265 - 214) v. Radborne (309-195)

McCormick also had 21 of his wins and just 3 of his loses in the lowly UA in 1884 (so his record is really 244-211 in truly "Major Leagues"). Conversely, all of Radborne's career was played against the best organized competition of the day (ie all in the NL except 1890 in the PL). Obviously, subtracting for these 21 UA wins also makes the players' Win Shares less comparable.

James awards Radborne 3 (consecutive) Best Pitcher in Baseball awards and McCormick just one.

Personally I see McCormick about two notches below Radborne and Spalding, one notch below Carruthers and Galvin and just a bit below Mullane and Welch. That's alot of Pitchers on one ballot even for Pitcher friendly voters like myself.
   113. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2003 at 09:59 PM (#515728)
re: backlog

I'm not concerned if Joe Start or Al Spalding have to wait a few more years before being elected because of a backlog. What I'm worrying about is if we see guys like Andres Gallaraga or Tommy John being placed above them in our time (if the former two are still on the ballot) - players that clearly can't be seen as great players.
   114. MattB Posted: July 21, 2003 at 01:16 AM (#515730)
"What does "Starting in 1890 would have been more in line with the intent of the project" mean? I thought that the intent of the project was to elect the best players period."

The intent is not the elect the 200+ best players. If the best 200 players are all playing today, they clearly all won't be elected. The intent is to mimic the Hall of Fame voting procedures, improving it where necessary, and starting at the "beginning". Joe's calculations would have had us electing about 1 player per year from about 1890 (give or take) until 1908, and then slowly increasing the number. But to save time we jumped to 1898, and elected 4 that year.

Dan was merely pointing out that not starting at the "beginning" (the year when the formula states that the HoM should have exactly one person) put those persons who would have been eligible that year against later competition. I all of the players Dan named will be elected eventually, but I believe he was merely pointing out that it would be a shame if a decision made for administrative convenience ended up effecting the eventual electees.
   115. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 21, 2003 at 01:33 AM (#515731)
Hmm - the way he is going, Galarraga might stick around another 10 yrs. Eat your heart out Joe Start, Andres is coming!

Now, that would be a different story. :-)
   116. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 21, 2003 at 03:22 AM (#515732)
Not a lot of changes this week:

1)Hoss Radbourn (1) Briefly, I think he's slightly better than Galvin, and I think they're both signifcantly better than the other 1880s pitchers. If they both get in, I don't think 4 1/2 pitchers from 1877-90 is excessive.

2)Ezra Sutton (2) I have him as clearly the best 3B on the ballot, and possibly the broadest array of arguments - good fielder, decent hitter, had a nice peak, long career.

3) Pud Galvin (4) Very close to Hoss, so very close on the ballot.

4) Joe Start (5) Lots of career value, and I'll accept the evidence of his pre-71 quality.

5) Cal McVey (8) The man could flat-out hit. Frankly, I don't care that people would laugh at McVey over Spalding. "Contemporary observors" are making stupid mistakes today.

6) Charlie Bennett (6) I think he deserves to be in, but I may have been a skosh optimistic last time, so McVey passes him.

7) Bid McPhee (new) He never had a great season offensively (although he never had a bad one, either). His defense was great, he had a long career, but I can't bring myself to rate him higher than this. Bennett's also a defensive specialist, but he had a better offensive peak. As for his SBs, they're important, but he was only in his league's top 10 4 times, and we don't know how many are "real" SBs.

8) Hardy Richardson (9) I have him close to McPhee, but not quite there. As always, right on the cusp on my personal in-out line.

9) Al Spalding (11) Went up a bit because I was undervaluing his hitting, but I'm not convinced on the importance of pitchers in the NA.

10) Dickey Pearce (12) Moving him completely ahead of the outfielder glut.

11) Pete Browning (10) I don't buy BP's AA discount, so I have him ahead of all the others. I've said before, I think his fielding isn't quite as bad as everyone else does.

12) Mike Griffin (13) Reasonably good hitter, great fielder.

13) Sam Thompson (14) Anyone who uses his OPS+ to put him ahead of Browning isn't making sense. Too similar to other players to rank much higher.

14) Harry Stovey (NR) Okay, he's back on but I just don't see the love some people are giving him. As a 1B/OF, his career wasn't that long and his numbers weren't truly remarkable.

15) Mike Tiernan (New) Similar to Thompson, so he's close by.

Dropped out: Lip Pike (15). A good player, but a definite step behind McVey, and I don't feel as good about his out-of-documentation level of play.
   117. Rusty Priske Posted: July 21, 2003 at 01:00 PM (#515733)
I don't know if this has even happened before, but we have a player appearing on every ballot position (including "Off the ballot")
   118. DanG Posted: July 21, 2003 at 01:10 PM (#515734)
MattB wrote: "The intent is not the elect the 200+ best players. If the best 200 players are all playing today, they clearly all won't be elected. The intent is to mimic the Hall of Fame voting procedures, improving it where necessary, and starting at the "beginning". Joe's calculations would have had us electing about 1 player per year from about 1890 (give or take) until 1908, and then slowly increasing the number. But to save time we jumped to 1898, and elected 4 that year.

Dan was merely pointing out that not starting at the "beginning" (the year when the formula states that the HoM should have exactly one person) put those persons who would have been eligible that year against later competition. I [thnk] all of the players Dan named will be elected eventually, but I believe he was merely pointing out that it would be a shame if a decision made for administrative convenience ended up effecting the eventual electees."

Exactly. Thank you for articulating the point so clearly.

There is no "right" structure for this project; however we choose to do it will have some effect on whom we elect. We could've had just one election and elected the best 213 and say that those left out lost fair and square. I have no doubt that among the omissions would be some players we've already elected. That would be a shame.

So let's keep in mind the intent of the project as we make our selections.
   119. MattB Posted: July 21, 2003 at 01:29 PM (#515736)
"I don't know if balloting is closed yet, but one thing is for sure: as close as this week is, next week is going to be even closer. My numbers aren't exact, but I've got 11 points separating 3rd and 6th place this week, with 7th place just another 25 back."

Obviously someone is going to be completely unprepared for the Ted Breitenstein landslide of 1906.
   120. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 21, 2003 at 02:16 PM (#515738)
Obviously someone is going to be completely unprepared for the Ted Breitenstein landslide of 1906.

LOL

Seriously, I can't see any logical reason, peak or career, for any of the newly eligible players for 1906. We'll be voting for the same guys again.
   121. Howie Menckel Posted: July 21, 2003 at 05:37 PM (#515740)
Party at Old Hoss's tonight!!!
   122. jimd Posted: July 21, 2003 at 06:20 PM (#515742)
I'd go to Hardy's if I were you guys. Hoss is a posthumous induction.
   123. Howie Menckel Posted: July 21, 2003 at 06:28 PM (#515743)
I didn't want to ruin the drama, but..
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4059 seconds
49 querie(s) executed