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, September 30, 2003

1910 Results - Galvin Elected

He’s finally made the long climb up the ballot and into the Hall of Merit . . . congratulations to Pud Galvin!

He finished 12th in 1898, and dropped to 16th in 1899 (behind 7 candidates that are still on the ballot). He made a big run from 1903 through 1905 (it wasn’t a sympathy rise, after his death in 1902, but that sure would make a good story!), he’s bounced around a little near the top of the ballot for the past few elections, and he’s now a HoMer.

Joe Start finished as the first runner-up for the 3rd consecutive year, and actually finished with more first place votes than Galvin (12-9), but was left off five ballots entirely (Galvin was left off one) and finished 37 points short.

Bid McPhee, Cal McVey, Charlie Bennett and Harry Stovey were next in line for 2nd straight year. The final four from the top 10 were closely bunched, and shuffled a little. Hugh Duffy and Sam Thompson jumped over Jimmy Ryan and Frank Grant, but the four were separated by just 18.5 points.

Duke Farrell was the only new eligible to be named on a ballot, he finished 29th.

RK   LY Player             Pts Ballots  1  2  3  4  5  6   7   8   9 10 11 12 13  14  15
 1    3 Pud Galvin         780   43.0   9 12 10  1  2  3   1   1      1        3
 2    2 Joe Start          743   39.0  12  9  4  4  5  2       1   1        1
 3    4 Bid McPhee         714   42.0   9  2 11  3  2  4   4   1      1  1     2   1   1
 4    5 Cal McVey          639.5 40.0   5  6  6  8  2  1   1   1   2  1     2  1   2.5 1.5
 5    6 Charlie Bennett    599   37.0   3  7  3  4  6  4   1   4   1     3     1
 6    7 Harry Stovey       598   41.0   3  2     8  4  4   5   5   3  1  1  1  1   1   2
 7   10 Hugh Duffy         446.5 35.0      2  2  2  3  1   2   7   3  2  4  4  1.5 1.5
 8   11 Sam Thompson       443	 38.0   1  1  2     3  3   2   5   3  1  2  5  1   4   5
 9    8 Jimmy Ryan         436   36.0            2  3  5.3 5.3 1.3 4  3  1  5  4   2
10    9 Frank Grant        428   34.0   1        2  5  1   6   5   1  3  2  2  2   3   1
11   12 George Van Haltren 357   34.5            1     3   6   1   1  2  3  5  3   8   1.5
12   13 Hughie Jennings    293   28.5   1  1  1     1  1           3     5  4  3   4   4.5
13   14 Lip Pike           282   24.0         1  2  2  3.3 2.3 0.3 1  4     1  1   2   4
14   15 Cupid Childs       254   24.0            2         1   2   5  1  4  3  2   2   2
15   18 Pete Browning      201.5 18.0               1      2   3   4  3     1  2   0.5 1.5
16   17 Mike Tiernan       183   18.0                  1       3   2  1  3  3  3   1   1
17   16 Jim McCormick      176   15.0            1  2  2   1          3  2  1  1   1   1
18   20 Dickey Pearce      156   13.0         2  1     1           2  3     2      1   1
19   19 Bob Caruthers      154   11.0      1  1  2     1       1   2  1  2
20   21 Mike Griffin       129.5 13.0                  1   1   1   1  3        2.5 1.5 2
21   23 Ed Williamson       90   11.0               1                    3         2   5
22   26 Mickey Welch*       86    9.0         1        1              1        2   2   2
23   22 John McGraw         86    9.0               1              1     3  1      1   2
24   25 Tony Mullane+       70    7.0            1                 1  1     2          2
25   24 Jim Whitney         70    5.0      1        1  1           1           1
26   27 Charley Jones       49    6.0                                 1  1     1   2   1
27   30 Herman Long         44    5.0                                    3     1       1
28   29 Harry Wright        39    3.0                  0.3 1.3 0.3    1
29  n/e Duke Farrell        38    4.0                              1  1        1   1
30   28 Jack Clements       31    3.0                              1  1        1
31   32 Tip O'Neill         27    3.0                          1               1       1
32   31 Fred Dunlap         25    2.0                      1          1
33   34 Billy Nash          20    2.0                                 1     1
34   33 Chief Zimmer        18    2.0                                    1     1
35   35 Tom York            14    1.0                      1
36T  36 Bill Hutchison      11    1.0                                 1
36T  37 Tommy Bond          11    1.0                                 1
38   39 Levi Meyerle         8    1.0                                          1
39   40 Silver King          6    1.0                                                  1
*won tiebreaker, ahead on individual ballots 9-8.
+won tiebreaker, ahead on individual ballots 6-5.
Dropped Out: Bud Fowler (38).
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 30, 2003 at 10:09 PM | 32 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: October 01, 2003 at 12:15 AM (#518065)
I'm glad I came on board the Galvin Express before he was elected so I wouldn't be pissed off about it. :-) Good choice.

I was surprised that he moved ahead of Start so strongly, however. Nothing new was added to the discussion about him. Of course, having Start outside of the top forty players of the 19th century on five ballots (?) didn't hurt Pud's cause. Old Reliable will have to wait a few more seasons.
   2. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: October 01, 2003 at 04:27 AM (#518066)
Congrats to the FOPG on a long, hardfought battle, speaking as one of the people who basically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get Pud to the top of my ballot.
   3. Marc Posted: October 01, 2003 at 12:14 PM (#518067)
Galvin jumping over Start was pretty simple. In '09 Galvin made 41 balots and Start 40, and in '10 Galvin made 43 and Start 39. Start still led on a per ballot basis: in '09 it was 16.8-16.2, in '10 he was even further ahead per ballot, 19.1-18.1. In other words, among those who voted for each, Start averaged in 2nd place, Galvin in 3rd this year vs. 4th and 5th last time. So Start also moved up pretty decisely despite dropped off of one ballot, Galvin just moved up more.

It seems that almost as big was McPhee's move from 38 to 42 ballots and from a 37 to a 75 vote margin over McVey and from a 64 to a 29 vote deficit vs. Start. All in all a big week for the EO'70sB.
   4. Chris Cobb Posted: October 01, 2003 at 02:06 PM (#518069)
But, EOGWQTSCOFAIILOW:

Joe Start is the antithesis of that -- "Old Reliable," 27-year career, played until it was clear that he just couldn't anymore.

Marc has presented a plausible statistical analysis that indicates that Start and McVey similarly lost ground in comparison to Galvin and McPhee. Maybe they lost ground for entirely different reasons -- enemies of adventurous slackers are dropping McVey on their ballots while enemies of guys who stick around too long are dropping Start on their ballots. The evidence of the voting doesn't completely rule that out. But if you want us to laugh off Marc's analysis, you'll need to find an EOGWSATL to back you up. In the meanwhile, I think we can expect some discussion of the reasons for an against time-lining during the next couple of elections . . .
   5. Rusty Priske Posted: October 01, 2003 at 03:11 PM (#518070)
Personally, I just think Galvin was better than Start. That is why I had Galvin #1 and Start #2.

Unfortunately for Start, he won't move up to #1 this week because Kid Nichols has popped up.

He will get in eventually. (I think McVey will as well, though I am less certain)
   6. Chris Cobb Posted: October 01, 2003 at 03:23 PM (#518071)
? Personally, I just think Galvin was better than Start. That is why I had Galvin #1 and Start #2

Me, too. In fact, my first post on the 1910 ballot thread explained why I was going to vote for Galvin over Start. The key point that Marc is making, and I think he is right, is the change in the relative position of Start and Galvin took place in bottom-of-the-ballot voting, not at the top.
   7. Marc Posted: October 01, 2003 at 04:31 PM (#518072)
I didn't make any value judgements about the ballot movements, I just looked at the votes. But EOGWQTSCOFAIILOW is not much of a theory, it's more like a novel. As a theory (and also noting the continued trashing of Lip Pike which I was more than willing to leave behind in 1910 and not bring fwd into 1911) EO70sB has the virtue of simplicity to it while nevertheless covering at least three different observed phenomena.
   8. RobC Posted: October 01, 2003 at 04:51 PM (#518073)
Marc,

It aint a novel when it explains my ballot. (BTW, I am EOGWQTSCOFAIILOW post). Start is prominently placed on my ballot (middle, but above my personal HoM line), while McVey, Spalding barely got mentions. McVey made my 1910 ballot at #15 for the first time, but wont make my 1911. It has nothing to do with the 1870s, and all to do with his short career. Give me 5 more years, and he would be in. Same for Spalding (except he made it despite me).

I think there are more primarily career value voters than there are extreme timeline voters.

That doesnt explain Start though.
   9. Marc Posted: October 01, 2003 at 05:37 PM (#518074)
RobC, I would agree as a rough guesstimate that our group of ~43 would be about 2/3 (or maybe a little more) career and 1/3 peak (not that any but a very few would be all of one or all of the other, I myself probably being more like 2/3 peak, 1/3 career). Possibly more than 2/3 career, however, because those very few who are all one way are all career; I don't think there are any all-peak voters. I agree that may explain McVey but not Start.

I would guess that there are just enough who heavily timeline the '60s and/or '70s or who don't consider qualitative data that, together, give Start a tough row to hoe. It will be interesting to see how the Negro Leaguers do since that will have to include some qualitative info. My guess is they'll get a little more of a pass than Joe does.

I think at some future time it would be interesting to do a survey of this group along the lines of: Agree strongly, agree, neutral, disagree, disagree strongly: And then follow up with a whole variety of assertions about the utility and validity of various kinds of data and the levels of competition (pre-'71, NA, AA, Negro Leagues, etc.), and do a statistical profile of the various beliefs and attitudes and assumptions and methodologies, etc. etc. that are at work here. I think there might even be a dissertation in that.

And BTW, if there is any redeeming value to the HoM effort, I have to believe it is in the establishment here of "timeline" as a verb ;-)
   10. DanG Posted: October 01, 2003 at 07:02 PM (#518076)
I've done a couple tabulations regarding the HoM voting results. I measured the 23 HoMers in two ways: 1) Percent of maximum possible points; 2) Percent of all points cast in the election. There are a few minor differences between the lists, I'm not sure which way I prefer.

Percent of possible points in their year elected
99.7 Brouthers-1
98.4 Delahanty-1
94.4 White-1
94.0 Hines-1
94.0 O'Rourke-1
93.2 Connor-1
90.0 Clarkson-1
89.1 Hamilton-1
85.2 Anson-1
84.0 Kelly-1
82.4 Glasscock-4
79.5 Gore-1
78.2 Keefe-3
76.2 Wright-4
75.6 Sutton-11
74.7 Ewing-1
73.9 Galvin-13
73.5 Ward-1
73.4 Spalding-9
71.7 Radbourn-8
69.8 Rusie-1
68.4 Barnes-1
67.1 Richardson-8

In the 1910 election, Start (70.4%) and McPhee (67.6%) topped Richardson's election support.

Percent of all points in their year of election
11.86 Delahanty-1
11.79 Brouthers-1
11.11 O'Rourke-1
11.02 Connor-1
10.75 Hamilton-1
10.74 White-1
10.69 Hines-1
10.64 Clarkson-1
10.08 Anson-1
9.93 Kelly-1
9.74 Glasscock-4
9.25 Keefe-3
9.12 Sutton-11
9.04 Gore-1
9.01 Wright-4
8.91 Galvin-13
8.86 Spalding-9
8.83 Ewing-1
8.68 Ward-1
8.48 Radbourn-8
8.25 Rusie-1
7.93 Richardson-8
7.78 Barnes-1

Again, in 1910 Start (8.49%) and McPhee (8.15%) received more support than some HoMers did.

   11. RobC Posted: October 01, 2003 at 07:07 PM (#518077)
While Im not sure about Marc's theory, it is clear that there is a bias towards borderline candidates whose last name begins with R.
   12. MattB Posted: October 01, 2003 at 07:16 PM (#518078)
I think I prefer Dan's first chart. It correlates fairly well with the 75% of the ballot required for HoFers, plus the Veteran's/ Negro League committee selections (another 10%, say) creates an In/Out line around 65% of the vote.
   13. sean gilman Posted: October 01, 2003 at 08:33 PM (#518080)
Sorry, I kept meaning to do this yesterday. . .
Johnny Lush matches up against Joe Lake as the Browns take on the Cardinals in this year's all-St. Louis HOM game.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031207172333/http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=10845455&ad=1

Those are some ugly, ugly teams.

   14. Howie Menckel Posted: October 01, 2003 at 09:22 PM (#518081)
Barnes and Rusie may have gotten in 'weakly,' but it was in their first try.
For those judging such things, Radbourn and Richardson clearly head the 'timing is everything' team. With slightly different selection numbers by year, coulda been a lot tougher for either to ever get in. Spalding, Sutton, and Galvin are the others in somewhat the same boat.
That said, ANY format leaves a few 'barely made its.' Doesn't make them crappy players or anything, and we're still doing quite well so far....
   15. DanG Posted: October 02, 2003 at 02:12 PM (#518082)
Howie, I agree with everything you said. There are absolutely no crappy players among the 23, all are deserving. However, there are future elections where we will be in much dicier territory with regards to getting it right choosing among the candidates in the Gray Area. The upcoming elections in 1912 to 1914 will be very interesting in this regard - a lot of good candidates (Griffith in 1912, Beckley and Cross in 1913, Joe Kelley, Jimmy Collins and Fielder Jones in 1914). But are any of these guys better than McVey, Bennett and Stovey?
   16. Marc Posted: October 02, 2003 at 02:33 PM (#518083)
DanG, I've commented on our tendency to over-value newly eligibles myself, but I don't think the issue is whether a player goes in on his first try or not. I don't know that we have a two-tier system that recognizes first ballot electeds separate from the rest. The issue of course is whether we might elect a newly eligible who doesn't belong at all. I'm very comfortable with Rusie and Ward and (while I have no idea where he will be on my ballot yet) I am fairly comfortable with Jimmy Collins but, yes, Jake Beckley and Joe Kelley scare the hell out of me. They are classic borderline cases and a little newbie bump could be a problem.
   17. Carl Goetz Posted: October 02, 2003 at 03:01 PM (#518084)
I think our 'newbie' tendency is slightly overbrown and has largely subsided over the last 6 or 7 elections. Those 'newbies' we have elected in that period are 'slam-dunk' types. That last questionable 'newbie' was Rusie and I still maintain he's a clear-cut HoMer, although he doesn't fit into that 'slam-dunk' category. I'd like to reiterate that I don't believe there are any mistakes in our 23-man HoM so far. I suspect there will be a natural tendency for new players to be rank higher simply because the best of the older players are already in, and thus, not on the ballot anymore. I don't think its unreasonable to expect that, on average, at least 1 player from each new class will be a top5, or at least top10 guy. Sometimes there will be more(like 1911), sometimes less(like 1910). Notice that when Duke Farrell was the top newbie, he didn't crack the top 10 and wasn't even named on alot of ballots. The best players will be 'newbies' at some point and the guys who are holdovers were the 2nd best players on at least 1 previous ballot. I think that saying we overrate new eligibles does a disservice to the dozens of hours of research and analysis and discussion that most of us have been involved in over the past few months. Let me close this long-winded rant by saying that we have done a spectacular job in our first 13 elections(a trend that I expect to continue) and I am proud to be a part of this project.
   18. Howie Menckel Posted: October 02, 2003 at 03:24 PM (#518085)
Well, I think I was one of the first to worry about newcomer bias, since I was an enemy of Amos Rusie (not that he wouldn't likely be in by now anyway). I'd always prefer to see a not-slam dunk HOMer wait several years before getting in.

But I'm not so sure it's a grave problem, either. It's worth noting, but not worth losing any sleep over. I think we're fine overall...
   19. Chris Cobb Posted: October 02, 2003 at 04:11 PM (#518086)
I agree with Howie and Carl that the process is in good shape -- nothing to lose sleep over -- but it is interesting to examine how it is shaping up. And clearly we will talk HoM even when there isn't a gripping election debate to focus on :-) .

I think our balloting situation right now is actually quite stable -- witness the fact that we are looking ahead to future elections rather than talking about the one upcoming. This is due to the excellence of the voting system and the commitment of the voters to research and debate. However, I think it's worth looking at the basis of that stability to see its limits.

We have a solid majority judgment among the voters about who belongs in the top half of the ballot. That produces a well-defined group of candidates for the top third of the ballot -- (Galvin), Start, McVey, McPhee, Bennett, Stovey -- who rank substantially ahead of the rest. Outside of the voters sustaining this majority judgment, there are respected dissenters on each of these candidates who play an important role in determining who reaches the top of the ballot, as we saw this year. We've seen players go right in over the top of this defined group when there are no dissenters, but we haven't seen any players earn a place in it for several years. Some of the very good (but not obviously first-ballot) players coming onto the ballot may earn a place in this group. It will be interesting to see how this works, but I think as long as this sort of group is well-defined (which it will be as long as we have substantial agreement about who belongs on the top half of the ballot and who belongs on the bottom half), we're unlikely to "accidentally" elect someone who doesn't have really solid support. There's no way this group is going to disappear prior to 1915, I think.

Immediately below this group is a much less stably arranged, much more closely bunched group of candidates: Duffy, Thompson, Ryan, and Grant. Maybe they will sort themselves out easily over the next few years as we all become firmer in our judgments of them. Maybe they will stay as a tightly bunched but unstable middle underneath a more stable top-ballot group and the first-ballot guys. If, however, they more upwards in the late 1910s without being more clearly sorted out, then I think it will be time to worry about making sure we are electing the right guy, but that very uncertainty would probably provoke intense and productive debate needed to do that sorting.

The candidate who most represents the potential challenge the we face is Sam Thompson. Unlike the other candidates with a lot of support, whose votes are bunched in one place or other in the rankings, Big Sam's are spread pretty evenly between 1 and 15 -- there's no identifiable agreement about him. We can have a few candidates like that and still have confidence in our results because candidates with such mixed support won't reach the top of the ballot, but if we end up with a lot of candidates like that, they will reach the top of the ballot: we'd have a large number of candidates with point-totals in the 400s milling around the top half of the ballot. In that case, we're more likely to make mistakes because we're simply unable to reach any sort of agreement about a player's merit. I think that's unlikely to happen, but that's the evidence in the voting patterns that would lead me to be worried about the validity of our results.
   20. DanG Posted: October 02, 2003 at 04:36 PM (#518087)
Well, Carl, you made me go to work. The tendency for newbies to see their initial support soon decrease has continued in recent elections. I?ll rely on percent of maximum possible points for these comparisons.

Let?s start with the election of 1906, when there were zero newbies on the radar. We replaced the one electee from 1906 with one no-brainer and two other very good candidates, Duffy and Childs.

After electing one in 1907, we replaced him with one good candidate, Jennings. We would expect the holdover candidates to increase their support in 1908. Duffy did, from 44.4% to 48.7%, a typical increase for the top candidates. But Childs? support decreased from 32.9% to 31.8%.

After electing one in 1908, we replaced him with one no-brainer and three other strong candidates (Grant, Ryan, Van Haltren). Naturally, holdover candidates saw their support drop by a lot. Biggest losses were by Jennings (37.8% to 22.2%), Tiernan (28.8% to 14.1%), Browning (28.0% to 13.4%), Childs (31.8% to 20.1%), and Duffy (48.7% to 37.5%). You can understand the OFers dropping, but why should Jennings and Childs be plummeting? (Partly, it?s because the voters who had them #13-15 tended to drop them off.)

After electing one in 1909, we replaced him with nobody. The holdover?s support naturally should skyrocket. Duffy rebounded to 42.3%, still below his first year. Childs came back to 24.1%, still far below his first year. Jennings came back to 27.7%, still far below his first year. Ryan and Grant, newbies in 1909, gained less than 1% in 1910, when those around them were gaining 4% to 7%. Van Haltren increased by 3.2%, also a smaller increase than the other holdover candidates. Another 1909 newbie, McGraw, saw his support decrease, from 8.2% to 8.1%.

The evidence shows that every new candidate since 1906, with the possible exception of Duffy, has had lagging support after his first year on the ballot. This can be attributed, in part, to an increasingly crowded ballot. In a period where we?ve elected Spalding, Sutton and Galvin from the backlog, we?ve added Duffy, Ryan, Grant, Van Haltren, Jennings, and Childs.

I think our tendency for a ?newbie boost? is still there, but to a lesser degree than earlier years.
   21. ronw Posted: October 02, 2003 at 04:41 PM (#518088)
As the newcomer here, I have to agree that you have not elected one undeserving player. You have done an excellent job. My first election will be easy, with Nichols most likely making it in 1911, and Burkett to follow in 1912 (most likely with one of the current top five joining him).

I don't take much stock in first-ballot vs. non first-ballot, I think everyone should vote in the best player available. For example, I would be shocked if either Nichols or Burkett did not get everyone's first-place vote this year. This does not appear to be because of a newbie bias, as I think Candy LaChance will not get any support, except perhaps from his mother and Sammy Davis, Jr.

During the next ten years, there are going to be clear cases like 1911 where newcomers vault over established players (Davis & Dahlen in '15, Young in '17, Lajoie, Mathewson in '22, Wagner in '23.) However, the occasional 2 player election will allow a few of the McPhee's, Start's, etc. to get elected.

Sam Thompson may never make it, but with only 213 players allowed in for the entire history of baseball, should he?

In closing this rambling, I would also like to point out that your limitation to 1 or 2 candidates (later 3) should weed out undeserving candidates, and will require some deserving candidates to wait a bit before election, as will be demonstrated by the Nichols/Burkett result in 1911.

However, I would like to warn people to remember to look at each election independently. I'm not in 100% agreement with everything Bill James says, but I do agree with his Politics of Glory indication that players should not be compared to those already in the Hall. Many earlier players, with less competition, made the HoM more easily than their later equivalents will.
   22. Marc Posted: October 02, 2003 at 04:50 PM (#518089)
I'm with DanG, the newbie bias we're talking about is not at the very top of the ballot (I was a FOAR, EOAR may disagree) nor has it subsided just because we haven't elected a non-slam dunk first-ballot HoMer. My evidence is less substantive than Dan's but it's right at the top of this page.

In 1909, Grant and Ryan came on to the ballot in 8th and 9th places, immediately ahead of Duffy and Thompson. In 1910, with Grant and Ryan's newness rubbing off a bit, Duffy and Thompson bounced up ahead of them.

So the newbie bias is not that a player received more votes than he "should" have. That is a value judgement that no one can make. It is that he received more support initially than he himself received later on. DanG's evidence shows exactly this, though the percentages he uses are subject to a lot of variability based on the competition. I think the rank ordering makes this phenomenon more clear.

But because it has not resulted in the election of an unqualified HoMer, it is something to talk about but not a big deal.
   23. DanG Posted: October 02, 2003 at 05:02 PM (#518090)
Chris,
Here is how I currently have the candidates arranged:

1) Very likely to be elected within next four elections: Start, McPhee.
2) Top of Gray Area: McVey, Bennett, Stovey.
3) Middle of Gray Area: Duffy, Thompson, Ryan.
4) Bottom of Gray Area: Grant, Van Haltren, Jennings, Pike.
5) Fade to Black Out: Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Caruthers.
6) Also Ran: McCormick, Pearce, Griffin, Williamson, Welch.

Your statement regarding groups 1 and 2 was: "There's no way this group is going to disappear prior to 1915". I would say at least 1919, possibly into the late 20's.

It may not seem like it now, but Duffy and Thompson are likely to make the HoM by 1930. Ahh, those will be exciting times to be a part of this, next year in the late spring and early summer. Those guys in group 4 above may start looking pretty tasty by then. Harry Hooper is a likely first-ballot HoMer for 1931.

   24. Marc Posted: October 02, 2003 at 05:06 PM (#518091)
>Harry Hooper is a likely first-ballot HoMer for 1931.

Now, scientific proof! We are electing too many HoMers! Count me among the small hall-ers.
   25. DanG Posted: October 02, 2003 at 05:26 PM (#518092)
Well, I don't know that the case against Hooper is all that strong. An OPS+ of 114 in a very long career (10,000+ PA), fast runner, fine OBP. Best 5 years in OPS+: 142-137-133-124-123.

His case hinges on modern analyses of his fielding, which show him as super, IIRC.
   26. jimd Posted: October 02, 2003 at 06:08 PM (#518093)
Harry Hooper, the Bid McPhee of OFs?
   27. Jeff M Posted: October 03, 2003 at 01:14 PM (#518094)
Following up on someone's post last week, Harry Hooper was one of the players Mr. Burns wanted to recruit for his nuclear plant softball team on The Simpsons. The others were:

Joe Jackson, Jim Creighton, Pie Traynor, Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie, Cap Anson, Three Finger Brown and Gabby Street.
   28. Robc Posted: October 03, 2003 at 01:44 PM (#518095)
Jeff,

It was my post, thanks for the info, I hadnt freeze-framed or googled for the answer yet. It did lead me to two questions, who the heck is Gabby Street? (Ive looked him up so that one is answered) and Why was he selected?

My count is 6 eventual HoMers on that team.
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 06, 2003 at 03:11 AM (#518096)
Harry Hooper, the Bid McPhee of OFs?

No. Not even close.

McPhee is much closer to the top of the list for second baseman than Hooper is in the right field section by a considerable amount. Bid's career value is much greater than the Hoopster for their respective positions, also.

If Hooper ever gets in the HoM, I'm taking up bird watching instead. :-)
   30. Jeff M Posted: October 06, 2003 at 01:00 PM (#518097)
...who the heck is Gabby Street? (Ive looked him up so that one is answered) and Why was he selected

I think they were just selecting some old names to be funny. I don't think the players were selected on merit.

John Swartzwelder, one of the writers on the show, is a big baseball fan and named "Jim Creighton" to the team because it was the oldest name he could come up with in a writing brainstorm session (without reference to any computers or books). It was the setup for the line "Sir, your rightfielder has been dead for 130 years".

I think there was a tendency to select players with funny first/nick names: Gabby, Three Finger, Cap, Nap, Pie, Shoeless Joe, Honus. That explains everyone but Creighton (explained above) and Harry Hooper. Not sure the writers spent a heckuva lot of time coming up with the names for such a short visual joke that most people wouldn't "get".
   31. Carl Goetz Posted: November 05, 2003 at 09:20 PM (#518098)
Gabby Street was probably selected to manage the team since he wasn't very good as a player. He did manage the Cardinals to 2 straight NL championships in 1930 and 1931 and they won it all in 1931. That said, Jeff's suggestion is probably valid too.
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 08, 2004 at 02:17 AM (#957168)
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
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5716 seconds
49 querie(s) executed