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

1913 Ballot Discussion

The 1912 results will be posted later today, but we can start the discussion for 1913 now . . .

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 27, 2003 at 07:52 PM | 155 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. OCF Posted: October 30, 2003 at 07:15 PM (#518647)
Ahem.</i> James Newberg: could you give us a reference to which post on which previous thread you used to explain the case for Dickey Pearce?
   102. Howie Menckel Posted: October 30, 2003 at 07:26 PM (#518648)
Ironically, I'm 100 percent Irish (well, we don't count the English fraction, for obvious reasons).
   103. jimd Posted: October 30, 2003 at 07:31 PM (#518649)
Commy, how about "The only player with a stadium named in honor of him who didn't also own a piece of said stadium"? That excludes you and Connie and Clark. (Did I miss anybody?)
   104. Paul Wendt Posted: October 30, 2003 at 07:53 PM (#518651)
Given a measure of player-season value such as single-season Win Shares (the one JoeDimino uses in his Pennants Added measure), analysts should use "high" and "low" estimates of a player's contribution to a team selected at random. In turn, that will yield high and low estimates of a player's expected contribution (such as Pennants Added(WS), by JoeDimino).

"High" presumes perfect convertibility of value in-season. In my illustration (#129-130), Jake Beckley's or Mark McGwire's value can be converted at no cost for use at any fielding position; the value of Beckley 1901 (18 Win Shares) to the 1998 St Louis Cardinals (with incumbent 1B Mark McGwire, 41 Win Shares)is 18 Win Shares or 6 Wins. "Low" presumes no convertibility of value in-season. Eg, the value of Beckley 1901 or McGwire 1998 can be realized only at first base; the value of Beckley 1901 to that team is zero (or a small number representing his play during McGwire's down time).
   105. Paul Wendt Posted: October 30, 2003 at 08:00 PM (#518652)
N.B. This may convey my meaning but it will not explain my reasoning.

On the low measure of WA, one 28-WS season and one 8-WS season will score better, in sum, than two 18-WS seasons. That is, the low estimate of WA is a strictly convex function of WS. (*)


In order to illustrate the difference between this low measure and WA = min (0, WS - replacement), I need to understand replacement value. <b>JoeD:
   106. Marc Posted: October 30, 2003 at 08:05 PM (#518653)
Thanks, jimd, for rushing to my defense (or rather to Charlie Bennett's). You guys knew what I meant! Mixers, the lot o'ya, and especially the Irish.
   107. Howie Menckel Posted: October 30, 2003 at 09:35 PM (#518656)
Is it too soon to chuckle at the fact that in various seasons, 1914 OF nominee Joe Kelley's best comps are Duffy, Ryan, Tiernan, and Van Haltren?
   108. OCF Posted: October 30, 2003 at 11:41 PM (#518657)
We've had George Val Haltren as a candidate for a while. Van Haltren started as a pitcher - and most voters have been taking his pitching as a very minor element in his value. This year, along comes Kid Gleason, who started as a pitcher. It might be a natural inclination to dismiss his pitching the way we dismiss Van Haltren's - but there's a considerable difference. The heaviest part of Gleason's usage as a pitcher was the four years 1890-1893. What does his record look like?

I took Gleason and the best pitchers of the time for those four years, found their RA+ (I'd rather use RA than ERA), converted the RA+ into a winning percentage, and multiplied that by IP/9 to get a record.

What did the very best pitchers look like for those four years?

Pitcher name_ IP__ W__ L__
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 31, 2003 at 12:22 AM (#518658)
Gleason wasn't as good as Nichols, Young, Rusie, Hutchison, and Clarkson

... or Jack Stivetts. Gus Weyhing was about even and a few others were not that far behind.

He was an OK pitcher who deserves to have those years as part of his resume. Unfortunately, being an OK pitcher and an OK infielder is not enough.
   110. Marc Posted: October 31, 2003 at 12:32 AM (#518659)
Well, oddly enough, Ward and Gleason make each other's comps as hitters. Otherwise, Ward is similar to Herman Long, Jack Glasscock and Maury Wills. For Gleason, it's Bobby Lowe, Peckinpaugh, Johnny Evers (the only HoFer), Donnie Kessinger, Tony Taylor. Wards comps look a little better but then there's Gleason.

Their pitching differs quite a bit, however. Ward's #1 comp is Addie Joss. Gleason's is Harry Staley, and the two lists continue in those veins. The 162 game averages are 20-12, 118 for Ward, 16-15, 103 for Gleason.
   111. OCF Posted: October 31, 2003 at 01:30 AM (#518660)
... or Jack Stivetts. Gus Weyhing was about even
   112. Chris Cobb Posted: October 31, 2003 at 01:56 AM (#518661)
Gleason's career division is closer to Elmer Smith's than to George Van Haltren's. Gleason was a better pitcher for longer than Smith was, but Smith was a top-notch outfielder, while Gleason was a fine defensive infielder but couldn't hit much. Incidentally, Jack Stivetts was a much better hitter; I imagine if he could have played an effective second base he could have stuck around the majors a long time.
   113. Chris Cobb Posted: October 31, 2003 at 04:32 AM (#518662)
1913 Preliminary Ballot

This may change yet quite a bit. The top group on the ballot simply moves up, but I've made some changes lower down. I'm giving more weight to career value in response to discussions of Beckley and Cross. This change doesn't benefit them very much, as both just miss the ballot because they _still_ have very little peak value and shaky claims to "greatness," but it moves McPhee, Van Haltren, and Ryan upward while moving Jennings and McGraw downward relative to the rest of the list. Our sense of the "outfield glut" has lowered the standing of many of the outfielders, but it remains the case that outfielders are certainly not overrepresented in the HoM: they are perhaps underrepresented. I still give positional bonuses to infielders in doing the rankings, but I've stopped downgrading outfielders just because there are a lot of them. I just can't justify giving a first baseman like Beckley credit for a long career after we've elected two first-basemen with 27-year careers and not give Ryan and Van Haltren credit for their long careers. Cross and Beckley fall in the group just off the bottom of the ballot behind the last two players who have a strong combination of career and peak value -- Charley Jones and Tony Mullane.

This is a very level ballot. I'm quite clear that the top 4 belong at the top, and I hope/expect that all four will be elected by 1920, they're not that far ahead of the rest of the pack, and not much at all separates #5 from #20. I wouldn't be scandalized if any in that group were elected between 1924 and 1932, but I won't feel that we've messed up if many of them don't get elected.

Win shares are adjusted for fielding, season-length, and league quality. Pitchers' win shares are derived from WARP ratings, not official BJWS.

1) Cal McVey (3) (4) (3) 354 CWS. Total peak = 76 Peak rate, 71-79 = 34.86 Among top 5 position players 5 times, at/above avg. WS in 9 seasons. With Burkett and Start elected from the top of my ballot, McVey reaches the top for the first time. Among the very best in the game for a decade, and possibly longer. Wasn't a great defensive player, but his ability to play key defensive positions and his very high peak make him the best player eligible.
   114. Paul Wendt Posted: October 31, 2003 at 05:48 PM (#518663)
Joe, thanks for #155.

Evidently, replacement level is a historical constant (for 8-position players?), namely 6.5 WS per 162 games, or 0.04 WS per game.

One plausible derivation is 0.5 WS per game for a replacement team (winning 1 game in 6); of which 0.18 for pitchers (including a little bit of batting) and 0.32 for 8-position players; thus 0.04 per game for the player(s) at each of 8 positions.
   115. Marc Posted: October 31, 2003 at 06:20 PM (#518664)
1 in 6 is of course 27 wins in a 162 game schedule. And thus even the lowly Detroit Tigers of 2003 are substantially above replacement level, which I think makes good sense. Most of the Tigers roster was made up of replacement level players, but spiced up by a few of their betters--Dmitri Young, for sure, and even the much maligned Bobby Higginson, and a couple others. I'm not sure that you can argue that any Tigers who were on the roster all or most of the year and played at least a platoon role was seriously below replacement. So I think this makes great sense. 6.5...0.5...1/6...27. OK one less thing to think about.
   116. DanG Posted: October 31, 2003 at 06:40 PM (#518665)
Kid Gleason ... Putting the two disparate halves of his career together, he had a nice career shaped sort of like Davy Force's.

You mean Dave Foutz, right?
   117. DanG Posted: October 31, 2003 at 06:54 PM (#518666)
Dumb Question: since the replacement level is determined to be 6.5 WS per 162, what does that make the average player?
   118. Carl Goetz Posted: October 31, 2003 at 08:29 PM (#518669)
Tom,I use the same average and your calculations match mine perfectly.
   119. OCF Posted: October 31, 2003 at 08:40 PM (#518670)
Outfielders: Billy Hamilton, Ed Delahanty, Jesse Burkett, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren, Hugh Duffy, Sam Thompson, Joe Kelley, Willie Keeler, not to mention Mike Griffin, Mike Tiernan, Dummy Hoy, et al.
   120. Chris Cobb Posted: October 31, 2003 at 09:00 PM (#518671)
Kid Gleason ... Putting the two disparate halves of his career together, he had a nice career shaped sort of like Davy Force's.

DanG wrote: You mean Dave Foutz, right?

No, I mean Davy Force. Force was a star in the NA and put a terrific peak in the first five years in his career. Then, due to rule changes to which he couldn't adjust or other factors, he lost most of his value as a hitter and spent a decade as a light-hitting defensive specialist who never had another above-average season. Gleason was a star pitcher with a strong peak in the first five-six years of his career. Then, due to his not being able to pitch any more, he spent a decade+ as a light-hitting defensive specialist. Force stopped being able to hit, Gleason stopped being able to pitch, but the value progression in their careers is quite similar.
   121. Marc Posted: October 31, 2003 at 09:19 PM (#518673)
An average player playing 162 games = 18

An average player out of a 15 man roster playing a more realistic number of games? An "merely" average player, after all, will sit out or get pinch hit for platoon reasons, and of course he'll suffer an average number of injuries and hangovers.

So a real vs. hypothetical average player might really be 15-16, don't you think? If I want to be exact I should look him up and see if he's at 18/162, of course. But if I see an 16 next to a player's name in the WS book, I can safely think "average." If I see an 18, I can safely think "slightly above average"?
   122. Chris Cobb Posted: November 01, 2003 at 04:09 PM (#518682)
I'm quite interested to see info on the importance of first-base defense. I'm open to persuasion, but at present I'm skeptical.

Jim Spenser wrote: The odd thing is that Comiskey and Tebeau's teams were both pretty successful, even though their 1B-managers were terrible at the plate.

Is it possible the defensive value of a first baseman was this high during the period? Or is this just an example of ego trips by people who couldn't get fired, like Pete Rose in 1986?


A possibility: perhaps the teams were successful because they were saving money on salary by playing the manager, enabling them to afford better talent elsewhere.

JoeDimino wrote in response to Jim:
   123. Jeff M Posted: November 01, 2003 at 05:39 PM (#518684)
I haven't done a large-scale defensive survey, but at a first look I don't find any evidence that 1B arms were particularly important in this era.

Agreed Chris. I was about to post some similar data.
   124. Jeff M Posted: November 01, 2003 at 06:07 PM (#518686)
Rob, I think you have him about right. Right now, I'm debating between Thompson and Cross for the fifth slot.

Rob C and John Murphy, I was surprised to see you rate Cross as highly as #5, which approaches election territory. He was an outstanding defensive 3b, but he was actually a below average hitter from a RC/27 perspective. Since hitting ability has always been significantly more dominant than fielding, the ranking surprises me.

Compare a guy like McPhee, whose value comes from a long career and great defense. McPhee still hit 20-25% better than the average player. I know you both have McPhee rated very highly, but it is a precipitous drop from being 25% better than the league as a hitter to being below average as a hitter (all other things being equal).

Could you guys explain why there would be only a gap of 4 spots on the ballot for those two players, or why a great defender/poor hitter would be rated more highly than a guy like McVey, who was a truly dominant hitter and was neutral on defense?
   125. Chris Cobb Posted: November 01, 2003 at 06:18 PM (#518687)
Table again, with 1968 NL added

Yr -- 1B A -- P PO -- P A -- Games -- 1B A/ G -- P PO/ G -- P A/G
   126. Chris Cobb Posted: November 01, 2003 at 08:49 PM (#518688)
Table once again, with NL 1906 added and R/G listed for each season:

Yr -- 1B A -- P PO -- P A -- Games -- 1B A/ G -- P PO/ G -- P A/G -- R/G
   127. Chris Cobb Posted: November 01, 2003 at 08:51 PM (#518689)
Table once again, with NL 1906 added and R/G listed for each season:

Yr -- 1B A -- P PO -- P A -- Games -- 1B A/ G -- P PO/ G -- P A/G -- R/G
   128. Paul Wendt Posted: November 01, 2003 at 10:46 PM (#518690)
On my reconstruction of replacement level (above), 6.5 WS is 0.04 per game or 6.48 per 162 games, plus roundoff; a team of replacement-level players wins 1 game in 6. Along those lines, MLB average is 0.12 per game for the 5th batter, which must be adjusted up and down for players who bat higher and lower in the lineup and for teams who played more games or fewer than games scheduled.

Win Shares per season for a full-time regular batting 5th.
   129. Paul Wendt Posted: November 01, 2003 at 10:49 PM (#518691)
On my reconstruction of replacement level (above), 6.5 WS is 0.04 per game or 6.48 per 162 games, plus roundoff; a team of replacement-level players wins 1 game in 6. Along those lines, MLB average is 0.12 per game for the 5th batter, which must be adjusted up and down for players who bat higher and lower in the lineup and for teams who played more games or fewer than games scheduled.

Win Shares per season for a full-time regular batting 5th.
   130. Paul Wendt Posted: November 01, 2003 at 10:55 PM (#518692)
I tried to cancel the first "copy" ([ESCAPE]) but I wasn't quick enough. The second includes bold face and one sentence at the end.

redsox1912 (#180)
   131. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 02, 2003 at 01:03 AM (#518693)
Rob C and John Murphy, I was surprised to see you rate Cross as highly as #5, which approaches election territory.

I think I might have him a little too high now that you mention it because of a typo on my spreadsheet. I'm confident he'll still be on my ballot, though.

He was an outstanding defensive 3b, but he was actually a below average hitter from a RC/27 perspective.

But he shouldn't be compared with the hitters from the easier positions. He should be compared to his peers at the position he manned (where he was above average for a third baseman).
   132. Marc Posted: November 02, 2003 at 02:34 AM (#518695)
I've finally finished incorporating WARP into my rankings of position players, and all of you know better than me that WARP likes some guys that WS doesn't and vice versa, so it's an effort to get a more balanced view. Also, the simple fact of looking at the numbers again always brings out some new insight. And finally, I am still emphasizing peak but in a less rigid way. So my new list of the top position players:

1. Charlie Bennett (+) leapfrogs ahead of Cal McVey. If you adjust to 162 (team not individual) games, Bennett's peak is as good as just about any documented peak with WS. With WARP, only Jennings (and another surprise party) is better. And his career was of pretty fair length and consistency besides.

2. McVey--no new insights to report. EqA is 4th best on the board. Very high WS peak and WARP is almost as generous.

3. Harry Wright--not by the numbers, obviously, just my gut as to where he belongs.

4. Dickey Pearce--ditto.

5. Bid McPhee (++)--has been on and off my ballot--on usually meaning somewhere down in the double digits. The main change here is looking at a "prime" as well as a "peak." Over 8-10 years, Bid catches up in value to even some of the highest 3-5 year peak players. My low ranking of him was due to a somewhat arbitrary emphasis on 3-5 years versus some other number.

6. Charley Jones (+++) is the big surprise. I had him on my ballot way back in the beginning and he just slid off as the newly eligible came on board. I don't give him any credit for his blacklist years, but I count the years on either side of them as "consecutive." Even so, his peak years were not always consecutive anyway, and I'm now flexible about when a peak occurs.

7. Lip Pike--could be #2 or 3, could be #10-12, for obvious reasons. No obvious weaknesses in his record except for missing data.

8. Hughie Jennings--his WARP peak is even more impressive than WS but you all know that if you looked at his career totals and didn't know what the curve was, he'd be nowhere. Kinda like Hugh Duffy only Duffier.

9. Ed Williamson (++) moves back up. WARP likes him more than WS. His prime really separates him from the other 3Bs--i.e. the 7-8 year stretch. No other 3B sustained as well as long, and his 3-5 year peak stands up even to McGraw's.

10. Harry Stovey stays out ahead of the OF glut though he fell behind Jones. But a good solid record even if his peak isn't quite what some others had.

11. Frank Grant (+)--I said just the other day that I was convinced he was better than McPhee. I guess I've changed my mind--even if he was better at age 22-23 and/or at his peak, I can't assume he would sustain like Bid did. No infielder sustained like Bid so that would be too much to assume. On the other hand, Grant has not been on my ballot before--and seeing him as comp to McPhee while also moving McPhee way up my ballot--well, that makes Grant ballot-worthy.

12. Sam Thompson--didn't move. WARP likes him a lot better than WS of course, but not enough for a big move. Very close to Stovey.

13. Jimmy Ryan--now we're getting down to the guys who won't make my ballot after I put in the pitchers. Good peak, good longevity but just not enough to be a HoMer.

14. Cupid Childs (+) moves up a bit but not on to my final ballot. Nice peak, though.

15. Pete Browning (+)--another guy who looks really, really good until you match him up head to head to Stovey and Thompson, and he just doesn't leapfrog anybody.

Close--Tip O'Neill (++) to my surprise--huge peak even with AA discount.
   133. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 02, 2003 at 02:59 AM (#518696)
9. Ed Williamson (++) moves back up. WARP likes him more than WS. His prime really separates him from the other 3Bs--i.e. the 7-8 year stretch. No other 3B sustained as well as long, and his 3-5 year peak stands up even to McGraw's.

If you are using WARP for his peak, that 1884 season is going to overrate him significantly. WS is much closer to the truth concerning him for that year.

I honestly don't see Williamson over Nash, but I'm in the minority here.
   134. Marc Posted: November 02, 2003 at 05:46 PM (#518698)
John, WARP indeed gives Williamson his highest rating of his career for 1884 by a good margin, while WS sees '81, '82 and '85 as being equal or better. But if I cut his WARP for '84 down to, say, the '85 level (20%) or even if I cut it by 50%, Williamson still looks better for 3 years peak, 5 year peak and 7 year prime. Their careers are close by WARP and WS but both favor Big Ed, and PA scores do too. I have voted for both before but it looks like Ed to me.
   135. OCF Posted: November 03, 2003 at 04:36 PM (#518699)
Why isn't this thread appearing on the sidebar?
   136. Marc Posted: November 03, 2003 at 04:55 PM (#518700)
A whole year's worth of Clutch Hits disappeared the other day. There seem to be some software problems at the Primer level.
   137. Jeff M Posted: November 04, 2003 at 01:39 PM (#518702)
But he shouldn't be compared with the hitters from the easier positions. He should be compared to his peers at the position he manned (where he was above average for a third baseman).

A below average hitter is a below average hitter, no matter where you put him in the lineup. The worst hitting catcher on the consensus ballot hit 25% better than the league. The worst hitting 2b on the consensus ballot hit 25% better than the league. So how can a 3b who hit worse than the average player be in their company? Someone either contributes to the team in a way that warrants HoM consideration, or he doesn't. 3b may have been more important than it is now, but it isn't THAT important. But we differ on this position-by-position analysis concept, so there's no need to rehash that again.
   138. KJOK Posted: November 04, 2003 at 04:18 PM (#518703)
Luis Aparacio & Rabbit Maranville were around 18% BELOW league for their careers.

Ray Schalk was around 17% below.

Bill Mazeroski around 16% below.

Ozzie Smith a consensus HOF'er, was around 13% below.

So, it certainly appears that a player could be a below average hitter and still have enough value due to the position he occupies and how well he defends, to warrant HoM consideration.
   139. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 04, 2003 at 06:50 PM (#518704)
Keltner List for Dickey Pearce

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

I would say probably yes to this question.

Was he the best player on his team?

Many times (though Joe Start could be argued as the best player on the Atlantics by the mid-1860s).

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

There is a clear consensus that he was the best shortstop of his era for roughly ten years (until George Wright comes on the scene).

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

He was a member of two championship teams (1864 and 1865). Nothing indicates that he hurt his team with his play those years.

Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Without a doubt. Due to age and injuries, he wasn't a star player anymore by the time the NA was formed. Nevertheless, he was still able to play until the age of 41. Not only the oldest shortstop to play during his era, he was also the oldest shortstop for the 19th century to play.

Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Merit in 1913?

No, I would pick McPhee and McVey off the top of my head.

Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

No. Most of his career is undocumented, so the question cannot be answered accurately.

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

No again, but I have to give the same answer from the previous question.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

There is great anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that he was a great player during his undocumented career.

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Merit in 1913?

That's arguable. Hughie Jennings was a great player at his peak, but had a short career. Herman Long had a fairly long career, but didn't have a truly high peak.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Hard to say since his best years were undocumented (and there was no MVP). He certainly would have been argued for the award if it had been around numerous times.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

He was an All-Star as a shortstop in 1858 and as a catcher in 1861. He would have been selected many more times if the All-Star games was more established.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I would say yes to this question.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Pearce changed the game in so many ways. However, the HoM doesn't honor that aspect of a player's career.

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

It sounds like he was an upstanding citizen for baseball.

Going over all of the questions, I think the case is very good for Pearce.
   140. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 04, 2003 at 07:26 PM (#518705)
The worst hitting catcher on the consensus ballot hit 25% better than the league. The worst hitting 2b on the consensus ballot hit 25% better than the league. So how can a 3b who hit worse than the average player be in their company?

I was just stating that a third baseman should be compared with other third baseman. I wasn't saying that Cross was as good as McPhee. Since you disagree with this argument, maybe you can be the first to disprove it. I'm still confident that if we both have average players at all positions on both of our teams (except we both have Barry Bonds clones to the tenth power in leftfield and you have a third baseman that is 20% worse than mine), I will beat you for the majority of the games. My third baseman will be the deciding factor, not my leftfielder.
   141. Carl Goetz Posted: November 04, 2003 at 07:33 PM (#518706)
I was just looking over my personal HoM and realized that, if Cal McVey gets elected by the group this year, my HoM will exactly match the real HoM. Granted, the years players got elected are wildly different, but the players the same. How close is everyone else(whose actually keeping track of their personal HoM) to the real thing?
   142. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 04, 2003 at 07:44 PM (#518707)
Jeff:

BTW, I have Cross below Bennett, too.
   143. Jeff M Posted: November 04, 2003 at 09:58 PM (#518709)
My third baseman will be the deciding factor, not my leftfielder.

I agree with this of course. I do not agree that your third baseman is necessarily a HoMer as a result. :)
   144. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 04, 2003 at 10:25 PM (#518710)
I agree with this of course. I do not agree that your third baseman is necessarily a HoMer as a result. :)

:-)

I'm not arguing that, either. BTW, I have Cross slotted at #9 right now. It's not like I'm that enthusiastic about him myself.
   145. ronw Posted: November 05, 2003 at 12:52 AM (#518712)
I've joined late, but I kept track of my personal HOM off and on since the beginning of this. I'll probably catch up by 1914.

My elections so far:

1898 - Hines, White, Barnes, Spalding
   146. Sean Gilman Posted: November 05, 2003 at 04:01 AM (#518713)
My Personal HOM:

1898: Paul Hines, Deacon White, George Gore, Ezra Sutton
   147. Philip Posted: November 05, 2003 at 12:05 PM (#518714)
Bennett, McVey and Pike are in my personal HoM but Radbourn is going in this year and Spalding and Ward are now on the top of my list.
   148. MattB Posted: November 05, 2003 at 04:40 PM (#518715)
How are y'all calculating your personal HoMs? I mean, I had guys like Keefe and Rusie about 6th or 8th when they went in on their first ballots. I've never compared them to each other, so don't really know who I would have put on top if I ever had to compare them head to head.
   149. OCF Posted: November 05, 2003 at 04:51 PM (#518716)
As long as we're listing our "personal HoM":

I joined this party in 1904, and for the purposed of this, I'll consider what the rest of you did through 1903 to be already done.

1904: Glasscock, Radbourn
   150. RobC Posted: November 05, 2003 at 05:04 PM (#518717)
Personal HOM. The S boys (Start, Sutton, Spalding) are the top of the not-in-yet list.

1898: Hines, White, Richardson, Galvin
   151. Carl Goetz Posted: November 05, 2003 at 06:30 PM (#518718)
'How are y'all calculating your personal HoMs? '

I can't speak for everyone, but I've just been doing it in tandem with my election list. After I've submitted my ballot for the actual HoM, I remove the players who are already elected to my personal HoM and add the players who have been actually elected by the group(but not by me). So, I do compare those players directly, even if they never were on an actual HoM ballot together. I then take the top x players on my list and elect them into my personal HoM. x being the number actually elected that year.
   152. RobC Posted: November 05, 2003 at 07:16 PM (#518719)
Mine isnt as exact as Carl's. I just drop the already elected players into my list where they seem to go relative to when they got elected. For example, if a player was below Bennett on my ballot when he got elected, I still have him "below" Bennett on my current ballot. Its a tough call some times. Plus, I havent reevaluated any elected players, so it took George Gore longer to make my personal HOM than it should have, because I had him too low in 1898.
   153. Carl Goetz Posted: November 05, 2003 at 08:49 PM (#518720)
I don't re-evaluate already elected players as much as I'd like, either. Hardy Richardson is my 1913 electee and I feel I might have underrated him in my personal rankings, but haven't really bothered to go back and check. No matter, he's in now anyway.
   154. OCF Posted: November 05, 2003 at 10:22 PM (#518721)
Re: these "personal HoM" lists.

Each person has an "in" list of players whom he would have picked but the group hasn't, and an "out" list of players picked by the group but not him. The number of players on the "in" list must match the number on the "out" list (think about it).

For the posts on this thread starting at #213:

Ron Wargo
   155. Howie Menckel Posted: November 06, 2003 at 05:53 PM (#518723)
loved this baseballlibrary.com stuff on newcomer Beckley:

"When on a hitting spree, his blood-curdling cry of "Chickazoola" rattled pitchers."
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 Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4929 seconds
43 querie(s) executed