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, October 27, 2003

1912 Results - Burkett and Start elected

The class of 1912 has been named—Jesse Burkett and Joe Start.

Burkett, 44, was the only player named on each of the 42 ballots. He received 22 first place votes and 36 of the 42 had him in the top 2 (meaning they endorsed his election this year). He cruised to election in his second year of eligibility, finishing with 957 points.

The most discussed candidate in the 15 years of Hall of Merit balloting, Start has finally made it in his 15th try. The 69 year-old Start has been on every ballot since the first election in 1898, when he finished 11th. He was the first runner-up from 1908-1910, and slipped to second runner-up in 1911 when Burkett came on the ballot. Start finished with 731 points (15 of the 42 voters had him in the top two, 16 more had him third or fourth).

Bid McPhee and Cal McVey have moved into 3rd and 4th place, separated by just 8 points (658-650). Like Start, McVey has been on the ballot since 1898 (when he finished 13th).

Charlie Bennett and Harry Stovey continue to see-saw, this year Bennett is in front, finishing 5th with 557 points, Stovey was 6th with 555.

Hugh Duffy was 7th, Frank Grant 8th, Jimmy Ryan finished 9th and Sam Thompson rounds out the top 10.

The top newcomer was Clark Griffith who finished 17th. Deacon McGuire also debuted in 1912, finishing 28th.

Dickey Pearce is creeping higher up the radar, he was named on 4 additional ballots this year, and he jumped ahead of Mike Tiernan and Pete Browning, into 15th place.

RK   LY Player             Pts Ballots  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 1    2 Jesse Burkett      957  42.0   22 14  5  1
 2    3 Joe Start          731  38.0    6  9 11  5  2  2  1        1  1
 3    4 Bid McPhee         658  39.0    6  3  9  5  2  4  3  1     1  2     1     2
 4    5 Cal McVey          650  38.0    4  4  7 11  3  1  1  2  1     1  1  1  1
 5    7 Charlie Bennett    557  35.0    3  3  3  3  8  3  2  1  4  2  1  1  1
 6    6 Harry Stovey       555  39.0       4     6  4  3  4  6  5  1  1  2     1  2
 7    8 Hugh Duffy         434  36.0          2  1  3  3  3  5  1  6  2  6  2  1  1
 8    9 Frank Grant        382  31.0       1        5  4  2  3  3  4  2  2  1  2  2
 9   10 Jimmy Ryan         378  33.0             2  1  4  7  1  4     3     3  7  1
10   11 Sam Thompson       375  30.0    1     2     2  3  6  2  1  3  2  4  1  1  2
11   12 George Van Haltren 287  27.5             1  1  1  3  2  3  2  3  1  3  5  2.5
12   13 Lip Pike           286  20.0       2     1  3  2  4  2  3  1     1     1
13   14 Hughie Jennings    263  24.5       1  1  1  2  1     1  1  2  2     6  4  2.5
14   15 Cupid Childs       209  20.0                1     1  1  3  4  3  2  3  2
15   18 Dickey Pearce      201  17.0             2     2  2  1  3  1  2  1  1     2
16   16 Mike Tiernan       195  20.0                   1     4     1  4  3  3  2  2
17  n/e Clark Griffith     178  18.0       1     1        1     2        2  6  4  1
18   17 Pete Browning      174  16.0                   1     5  3  1  2  1        3
19   19 Jim McCormick      164  16.0                   2  1  1     4  1  2  1  3  1
20   20 Bob Caruthers      147  11.0          2  1  1  1        3        3
21   22 Mickey Welch        91  10.0                1  1           1        2  3  2
22   21 Mike Griffin        81   8.0                   1     1        3  1  1     1
23   23 John McGraw         75   8.0                   1           1  2     2  1  1
24   28 Charley Jones       64   8.0                            1     1  1  1  1  3
25   26 Harry Wright        63   5.0                1        2  1        1
26   25 Tony Mullane        59   6.0                      1        2     1  1     1
27   24 Ed Williamson       58   7.0                1                 1     1     4
28  n/e Deacon McGuire      42   5.0                                  3           2
29   27 Jim Whitney         40   3.0                1  1                 1
30   29 Herman Long         32   4.0                               1     1        2
31   32 Tip O'Neill         19   2.0                         1                    1
32   30 Duke Farrell*       18   2.0                               1           1
33   33 Billy Nash          18   2.0                                     2
34   37 Tommy Bond+         17   2.0                               1              1
35   31 Jack Clements^      17   2.0                                     1  1
36   34 Fred Dunlap         17   1.0             1
37   35 Levi Meyerle        16   2.0                                     1     1
38   36 Tom York            11   1.0                               1
39  38T Bill Hutchison       7   1.0                                           1
*won tiebreaker (ahead on individual ballots 2-1)
+won tiebreaker (more 10th place votes)
^won tiebreaker (ahead on individual ballots 2-1)
Dropped Out: Chief Zimmer (38T), Perry Werden (40).
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 27, 2003 at 11:46 PM | 9 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 28, 2003 at 12:11 AM (#518734)
The class of 1912 has been named -- Jesse Burkett and Joe Start.

Congrats to the new members!

Bid McPhee and Cal McVey have moved into 3rd and 4th place, separated by just 8 points (658-650). Like Start, McVey has been on the ballot since 1898 (when he finished 13th).

I think McVey is going to sneak in this year. Always put your money on the bat over the glove.

Dickey Pearce is creeping higher up the radar

Still making his inexorable climb to the top! :-)
   2. sean gilman Posted: October 28, 2003 at 01:24 AM (#518735)
For the 1912 HOM game we're going to match the Boston Red Sox and the new York Highlanders. Hopefully the Sox can do better with personal favorite Smokey Joe Wood on the mound than they did with personal favorite Pedro Martinez. . .

http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=11258537&ad=1
   3. karlmagnus Posted: October 28, 2003 at 03:34 PM (#518736)
I don't know what's wrong with modern pitchers. A complete game with an 89 pitch count is PRECISELY what we wanted from Pedro in Game 7!
   4. Marc Posted: October 28, 2003 at 03:43 PM (#518737)
It is amazing to me that ballplayers in the deadball era did not work deep into the count and make pitchers work a little harder. That is something that would fit the image of the era quite well--i.e. the smart, heady player working the angles and all of that. But I guess in reality they just hit and run or bunted the runner over or whatever on the first pitch or 1-0 or 0-1 counts and be done with it.

This is why MLB's effort to shorten up games is doomed, is it not? How ya gonna shorten up a game other than making for a 2 strike K and a 3 ball walk? How ya gonna force batters to swing the bat? (Well, aside from a "real" strike zone, especially a high strike at the letters, of course, but if I'm an umpire, I guess I demand the privilege to establish whatever strike zone I damn well please.)

All of that aside, however, this fall certainly reminded me how entertaining a 3 hour ball game can be!
   5. Marc Posted: October 28, 2003 at 03:45 PM (#518738)
To elaborate just a bit, think about it. If batters go up and take and take and take to the absolute extreme, never swinging the bat until a 2 strike count, the best a pitcher could do is to throw 81 pitches (all strikes), right? Compared to an 89 pitch complete game!
   6. Chris Cobb Posted: October 28, 2003 at 03:58 PM (#518739)
Marc,

1) Without the threat of the home run, pitchers have much less incentive to paint the corners, so there's much less advantage simply taking pitches -- all that will do when the pitcher has a commitment to throwing strikes is get you behind in the count.

2) Without the threat of the home run, pitchers aren't throwing all out on every pitch, and when pitchers are not going all out on every pitch, you're basically not going to wear them out. If you try it, you end up behind in the count all the time.

At least, that's what the strategic ramifications of the dead-ball game between pitcher and hitter look like to me.
   7. OCF Posted: October 28, 2003 at 05:32 PM (#518740)
A neccessary part of a "work the count" batting strategy is the need to spoil by fouling strikes or near-strikes that you couldn't have hit well. One of the key components of kicking off the deadball days was the change in the foul strike rule, which sharply increased the cost of foul balls. If you try to work the count, you risk striking out - and strikeouts were considerably more common in the Oughts than they had been in the 90's. Sure, there were a few guys like Roy Thomas who were so good at spoiling pitches that it barely mattered - but it mattered to most hitters.
   8. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: October 28, 2003 at 06:05 PM (#518741)
Geez, Smokey Joe Wood in his best year vs. Russ Ford right AFTER he went off the cliff. The Sox better have won.
   9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 08, 2004 at 01:27 AM (#957129)
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
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.1903 seconds
49 querie(s) executed