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, September 15, 2003

1909 Election Results - Delahanty Elected in Landslide

It was the most lopsided election ever, as Phillies leftfielder Ed Delahanty received 40 of 43 first place votes and was elected to the Hall of Merit in first year of eligibility.

Joe Start held onto the position of 1st runner-up for the 2nd straight year, but Pud Galvin made progress, jumping over Bid McPhee for 3rd place, and cutting the gap between he and Start from 36 to 9 points.

Other notable newcomers were Jimmy Ryan (8th) and Frank Grant (9th).

Cal McVey finished 5th for the second year in a row. Charlie Bennett passed Harry Stovey into 6th place, and Hugh Duffy rounded 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 Ed Delahanty      1015   43.0   40  2     1
 2    2 Joe Start          672   40.0    2  9 11  5  4  3  1     1  2           1    1
 3    4 Pud Galvin         663   41.0       9  6 10  4  4  3  1        2     1  1
 4    3 Bid McPhee         608   38.0    1  9  1  9  5  4  2  3     1     1  1  1
 5    5 Cal McVey          571   38.0       5  8  5  7  2  1     1  3  1  1  1  1    2
 6    7 Charlie Bennett    527   36.0       3  4  3  4  8  5  2  1     3  2     1
 7    6 Harry Stovey       518   40.0       3  3     4  4  5  4  4  4  2     3  1    3
 8  n/e Jimmy Ryan         417   35.0             3  3  1  6  2  3  3  6  3  3  1    1
 9  n/e Frank Grant        410.5 34.5       1  2     4  3  2  3  3  6  1  1  2  3.5  3
10    8 Hugh Duffy         387   34.0          2     1  4  2  3  4  4  3  3  4  3    1
11    9 Sam Thompson       365   33.5       1  2        3  2  3  3  3  3  2  4  4    3.5
12  n/e George Van Haltren 316   32.5             2     1  2  2  2  2  1  5  7  5    3.5
13   10 Hughie Jennings    229   23.0       1  1  1           2  3  1  1  3  2  1    7
14   14 Lip Pike           208   18.0                   1  4  4  2  2  1  1  1       2
15   11 Cupid Childs       207   19.0                1  1     4  5  1  1  2     1    3
16   18 Jim McCormick      149   13.0          1     2     1  2        2  2     3
17   12 Mike Tiernan       145   15.0                      1     3  2  2     5  1    1
18   13 Pete Browning*     138   13.0                   1  1  1  2     3  3  1  1
19   15 Bob Caruthers      138   10.0          1  1  2     1  1  1  2  1
20   19 Dickey Pearce      122   10.0             3           1  2     2     1       1
21   17 Mike Griffin       119   12.0                      1  1     3  2  2     3
22  n/e John McGraw         85    9.0                1           1     1  3  1       2
23   16 Ed Williamson       78    9.0                   1              1  3     2    2
24   22 Jim Whitney         66    5.0          1        1  1  1                      1
25   21 Tony Mullane        57    5.5                      1     1  1     1  1       0.5
26   20 Mickey Welch        51    5.0                1     1                    3
27   23 Charley Jones       40    5.0                                  1  1  1  1    1
28   27 Jack Clements       38    4.0                               2        2
29   24 Harry Wright        37    3.0                   1     1           1
30  n/e Herman Long         32.5  4.0                                     2  1  0.5  0.5
31   26 Fred Dunlap         27    3.0                         1                 2
32   25 Tip O'Neill         25    3.0                                  1  1          1
33  n/e Chief Zimmer        24    3.0                                  1     1       1
34   28 Billy Nash          17    2.0                               1                1
35   31 Tom York            13    1.0                            1
36   34 Bill Hutchison      12    1.0                               1
37   33 Tommy Bond          10    1.0                                     1
38T  29 Bud Fowler           7    1.0                                           1
38T  35 Levi Meyerle         7    1.0                                           1
40   37 Silver King          6    1.0                                                1
*Won tiebreaker, being named higher on ballots (11-10).
Dropped out: Dummy Hoy (30), Dave Foutz (32), Elmer Smith (36)
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 15, 2003 at 05:04 PM | 22 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. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 15, 2003 at 05:16 PM (#517741)
Big Ed makes it in a cakewalk. Undeniablely great.

Burkett is now the last of the nineties outfield guys that definitely deserves a spot high on a ballot, IMO.

The gap between Start and Galvin will actually be greater this "year" (if current trends stay the same) because Start will get 10 more additional points for his two first place votes. I don't know if I would bet money on him, but Joe looks like the man to beat in 1910.
   2. sean gilman Posted: September 15, 2003 at 05:30 PM (#517742)
A world series rematch for this year's HOM game as Honus Wagner, Fred Clarke and the Pittsburgh Pirates take on Ty Cobb, Wahoo Sam Crawford and the Detroit Tigers:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031207165754/http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=10590402&ad=1
   3. Marc Posted: September 15, 2003 at 05:32 PM (#517743)
Another great day for the Irish.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 15, 2003 at 07:12 PM (#517745)
1 pitcher in the top 15.

On average, how many pitchers should be inducted into the HoM, Mark? I'm actually curious about all of the voters views about this. If I had a good reason to add more, I might be persuaded to change my rankings.

When Galvin goes in, that will make four for the nineties, one for the seventies, and three for the nineties (Nichols deservedly going in soon). I don't really see any eligible candidates close to those four from the eighties, so for now, I'll abstain. If you want to talk about seventies pitchers (not necessarily you, Mark :-), I'll have more of an attentive ear.
   5. Rusty Priske Posted: September 15, 2003 at 07:20 PM (#517746)
I'm a big pitching booster... but they are in. The only truly deserving pitcher on the ballot is Galvin, who will get in, I believe. McCormick, Caruthers, Mullane etc., were very good players who I think deserve mentions, but they aren't really HoM calibre, imo.
   6. Carl Goetz Posted: September 15, 2003 at 07:36 PM (#517747)
Did the schedule change? I had 1909 as a year where 2 were elected.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 16, 2003 at 04:07 AM (#517751)
Also John Murphy wrote that Burkett is the last great OF of the '90s to be voted in, but he is going to have some very stiff competition from Kid Nichols in a year that only one person is getting in.

Either one is OK with me.
   8. sean gilman Posted: September 16, 2003 at 05:38 AM (#517752)
Adams only started 12 times that year, so WIFS has him listed as a reliever.
Babe Adams's 1924 season is probably the most popular closer-season in WIFS history.
   9. dan b Posted: September 19, 2003 at 08:25 PM (#517753)
I'm back. File under FWIW - had I posted a ballot, Big Ed's margin of victory would have been bigger and Bennett would not have moved ahead of Stovey. IMHO, jaw dropping that we didn't have our 1st unanimous selection
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2003 at 05:44 AM (#517754)
IMHO, jaw dropping that we didn't have our 1st unanimous selection

Delahanty didn't dominate his position (combination career and peak) like, IMHO, McPhee did at his.
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2003 at 02:44 PM (#517756)
How did McPhee dominate his position peak wise??

I didn't say that. I said a combination of peak and career. IMO, more emphasis on the career part.
   12. Marc Posted: September 21, 2003 at 03:55 PM (#517757)
Faulty logic alert.

John, you gotta be kidding me. What you mean by "didn't dominate" seems to me to be that there were a few other pretty good LFers who were better than any of the 2Bs would could have challenged Bid. But that has nothing to do with how good of a player Ed or Bid was. I could just as easily say that Willie Mays (or Mickey Mantle or Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker or Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx) didn't dominate their positions.

But besides all of that, Ed Delahanty had one of the best (usually the best) 3 and 5 year rolling WS totals throughout a period of 8 years which no other 19th century player did. None. Didn't dominate his position? Hell, he dominated the whole league which at that time, BTW, means he dominated all of baseball. Bid was rarely if ever one of the top 20 players, he "became great" by hanging around, which is of course an oxymoron. He was not as dominant in his niche as Bill Mazeroski.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2003 at 04:43 PM (#517758)
John, you gotta be kidding me. What you mean by "didn't dominate" seems to me to be that there were a few other pretty good LFers who were better than any of the 2Bs would could have challenged Bid. But that has nothing to do with how good of a player Ed or Bid was. I could just as easily say that Willie Mays (or Mickey Mantle or Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker or Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx) didn't dominate their positions.

But besides all of that, Ed Delahanty had one of the best (usually the best) 3 and 5 year rolling WS totals throughout a period of 8 years which no other 19th century player did. None. Didn't dominate his position? Hell, he dominated the whole league which at that time, BTW, means he dominated all of baseball. Bid was rarely if ever one of the top 20 players, he "became great" by hanging around, which is of course an oxymoron. He was not as dominant in his niche as Bill Mazeroski.


Marc, I didn't mean dominate as in peak. Again, I meant combination peak and career. I'm not arguing Delahanty's peak (can you please show some evidence that I posted that Delahanty didn't have a high peak, please?) is the same or smaller than McPhee's (though I will argue the difference is smaller than most people assume here because playing second base affected McPhee's career and peak to a degree that Delahanty didn't have to experience in left).

What I will argue is that the career value of McPhee was dominant over Delahanty and significant. Playing second base for 18 years during the 19th century is not the same thing as 16 years in left field during the same century. McPhee was the only one who did the former, while there were quite a few who played around the same amount of years (if not more) in left field as Big Ed.

BTW, you can argue that Hamilton, Childs, Jennings and maybe others were as dominant as Delahanty.

Marc, no offense, but you need to calm down. I think you are taking this project a little too seriously.
   14. Marc Posted: September 21, 2003 at 08:01 PM (#517759)
John, no offense taken but apparently offense was given. I am calm. This is how I express myself. If I make you, John, or anybody uncomfortable, I apologize. I will try to sound as calm as I really am :-)

The term "dominant" just doesn't sound like something that describes a career after the fact. "Dominate" is something you do on the field at a given point in time, which sounds like a peak factor. That's all.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2003 at 08:46 PM (#517760)
John, no offense taken but apparently offense was given. I am calm. This is how I express myself. If I make you, John, or anybody uncomfortable, I apologize. I will try to sound as calm as I really am :-)

No offense taken. I wasn't in any way annoyed with you or your post. You just seem to take this project a little more to heart than I do. Not that I'm not passionate about it myself. I must be up there in overall posts at this site! :-)

The term "dominant" just doesn't sound like something that describes a career after the fact. "Dominate" is something you do on the field at a given point in time, which sounds like a peak factor. That's all.

I admit I could have phrased it better. All you have to do is look at my ballot from '09 to realize that I acknowledge the impressive peak of Delahanty. To say something different would be the height of ignorance.

BTW, it's funny that I'm having this conversation with the other person that placed Delahanty in second place on the ballot. :-)
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2003 at 10:11 PM (#517762)
The point is that Delahanty put more value into his 16 seasons than McPhee did in his 18 years

Obviously, I disagree. McPhee has the equivilant of five or six more seasons than Delahanty. If you value career, that can't be ignored.
Besides, it's not as if I had Delahanty tenth or lower.

Babe Ruth is an unanimous selection. Willie Mays is an unanimous selection. Ted Williams is an unanimous selection. Josh Gibson is an unanimous selection. Cy Young is an unanimous selection.

Delahanty? Close, but no cigar.

   17. Marc Posted: September 22, 2003 at 10:53 PM (#517764)
Beg Ed had 2 2nds and a 4th. John and I would like to point our fingers firmly and officially at the idiot who had him 4th! Seriously, I think that Joe Start "packed" more value into 27 seasons that Ed did into 16. OK so they were loosely packed.

I don't think that with 40+ voters we'll have more than a dozen unanimous ballots, probably less. Of course any given unanimous ballot will depend as much on who the competition is as who the possible unanimousity is. But I don't think of Ed as a top dozen player, second dozen perhaps.
   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 23, 2003 at 03:16 PM (#517765)
I don't think that with 40+ voters we'll have more than a dozen unanimous ballots, probably less. Of course any given unanimous ballot will depend as much on who the competition is as who the possible unanimousity is. But I don't think of Ed as a top dozen player, second dozen perhaps.

I thought the greatest hitter of the 19th century was going to be a slam-dunk in '02, but three others differed. While I disagreed with them at the time, I could see their reasoning and could respect their decision.
   19. DanG Posted: September 23, 2003 at 06:51 PM (#517767)
Babe Ruth unanimous?!? Wat cha talkin' 'bout??

Yo, brothuh, I hear ya. Pie Traynor comes on the ballot that year. Babe couldn't carry his glove in a gunny sack!
   20. MattB Posted: September 23, 2003 at 07:18 PM (#517768)
I'm with Dan. I mean, what's Ruth's deal? He starts out as a pitcher, then chucks all that away to be an outfielder? Talk about moving right on the defensive spectrum.

As a pitcher alone, he's clearly less valuable than Bob Caruthers. I'll give him a little "bump up" for his offensive accomplishments, but you've got to subtract against that the replacement level pitching they were forced to accept when Ruth abandoned the mound. (The 1927 team, for example, was forced to put up with 27 innings of 8.00 ERA Joe Giard. You're telling me Ruth couldn't make it to the mound for the equivalent of 3 games the entire season? Talk about not being a team player.)

I can see starting Ruth around 10th or 12th on my ballot, and maybe moving him up from there based on the other players.
   21. OCF Posted: September 23, 2003 at 07:42 PM (#517769)
According to his post in the "Let's get to know each other" thread, MattB is a Philadelphia lawyer. Remember that if you ever have a case in Philly that needs an, um, creative argument.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 08, 2004 at 02:30 AM (#957173)
This thread is fully restored now.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4334 seconds
51 querie(s) executed