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

Friday, January 30, 2004

1918 Results - Flick latest HoMer

In his 3rd year of eligibility, Elmer Flick has been elected to the Hall of Merit, outpointing Wee Willie Keeler, 747-711. Joe Kelley finished a close 3rd with 700 points. Kelley was ahead of Keeler in 1917.

Jimmy Collins moved past Charlie Bennett into 4th place. Bennett received 50% more first place votes than anyone on the ballot (12 - Keeler was second with 8), but he was left off 12 ballots entirely. Bennett finished 13 points behind Collins, who received just one first place vote. Collins had deeper support though, as he was only excluded from two ballots.

Joe McGinnity and Bob Caruthers finished 6th and 7th, their ‘pecking order’ was unchanged. Sam Thompson moved past Frank Grant and into 8th place, just five points behind Caruthers. Rube Waddell rounded out the top 10.

In other noteworthy developments, Lip Pike’s candidacy rallied - he was named on 5 more ballots and he gained 84 points in the standings. For every winner there’s a loser in the Hall of Merit balloting, and Hugh Duffy was Pike’s foil. Duffy dropped off 3 ballots entirely, despite no new eligibles coming in ahead of him this year. He should have gained 44 points just from ‘attrition’ and he lost 8 points. The 52 point swing dropped him from 11th among the returnees to 17th.

Cupid Childs also came back to life, he appeared on 14 ballots after appearing on just 7 in 1917, that moved him from 25th among the returnees to 20th.

The Hall of Merit will be electing 2 players in 1919, Keeler and Kelley are the front-runners, though Jimmy Sheckard should also be taken seriously. Kelley has finished as the first or second runner-up every year since he first became eligible in 1914. Keeler was third runner-up in 1916 and 1917, before moving past Kelley this year.

Rk   LY  Player             Pts Bal    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 1    3  Elmer Flick        747  44    6  7  6  5  5  7  1  3     2     1  1
 2    5  Willie Keeler      711  42    8  7  4  4  3  4  4  1  1  2  2     1  1
 3    4  Joe Kelley         700  43    7  5  5  5  6  2     1  2  4  3  2     1
 4    7  Jimmy Collins      614  43    1  6  6  4  3  1  4  1  6     3  4  3     1
 5    6  Charlie Bennett    601  33   12  3  2  4  2  2  2  3              2  1
 6    8  Joe McGinnity      534  38    2  3  4  2  6  2  3  2  1  3  2  3  3  1  1
 7    9  Bob Caruthers      417  31    3  3  1  2  3     1  1     2  5  2  4  2  1
 8   11  Sam Thompson       412  31    1  2  5  1  2  3  2  1  1  3  2  2  2  2  2
 9   10  Frank Grant        400  31       1  2  3  3  1  4  2  5  1  1  3  1     3
10   12  Rube Waddell       362  28    1     1  1  3  5  3  2  4  1  1  1  1  2  2
11   14  Lip Pike           324  24    1  3  2  3     1  2  1  2  2  1  2  1     3
12   16  Hughie Jennings    297  23    1     3  2     1  2  4  2  1  1  2  1  1  2
13   15  George Van Haltren 290  25             1  2  4  1  1  5     6     2     3
14   18  Jimmy Ryan         277  25          1     1  2  1  3     8  2  1  2  3  1
15   17  Jake Beckley       268  24          1     1  2  2     4  4  4  2     2  2
16   19  Dickey Pearce      247  19    1  1     2  1  2  2     2  2  2  1  1  1  1
17   13  Hugh Duffy         242  19          1  2  2  1  2  4        2  3  2
18   21  Clark Griffith     229  24                   1     4  2  2  3  2  3  2  5
19   20  Pete Browning      165  14       1  1  1        1  2  1     2  2  1  1  1
20   27  Cupid Childs       119  14                         1  1  2     1  2  5  2
21   22  Addie Joss         117  10                1     3  1  1  1     1     2
22   25  Vic Willis         111  14                      1     1        1  3  4  4
23   24  Frank Chance       102   9             2        1  1     2           1  2
24   23  Mickey Welch        80   6       2           1        1           1  1
25   26  Sol White           74   8             1           1           1  2  1  2
26   28  Jim McCormick       65   8                         1        1     1  4  1
27   29  John McGraw         50   4    1                    1                 1  1
28   32  Herman Long         48   5.5                          1     1  1  1     1.5
29   31  Charley Jones       44   4                      1        1  1  1
30   33  Lave Cross*         42   5                               1     1  1  2
31   30  Harry Wright        42   3                   1  1  1
32   38  Fielder Jones       25   3                                     2     1
33   36  Mike Tiernan        23   3                                     1     2
34   45T Ed Williamson*      19   2                               1        1
35   --  Tony Mullane        19   1.5              1                             0.5
36   39  Tip O'Neill         15   1                   1
37   37  Denny Lyons         14   1                      1
38T  35  Jim Whitney         13   1                         1
38T  40  Tom York            13   1                         1
40   41T Levi Meyerle        12   1                            1
41T  34  Roy Thomas           9   1                                     1
41T n/e  Jimmy Williams       9   1                                     1
43T  45T Cy Seymour           8   1                                        1
43T  48T Deacon Phillipe      8   1                                        1
45   41T Harry Davis          7   1                                           1
46T  --  Sam Leever           6   1                                              1
46T n/e  Jack Powell          6   1                                              1
46T  41T Silver King          6   1                                              1
*won tie-breaker
Dropped Out: Tommy Bond (44), Fred Dunlap (45T), Mike Griffin (48T), Topsy
Hartsel (48T).
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 30, 2004 at 01:21 AM | 25 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. Marc Posted: January 30, 2004 at 01:45 AM (#521377)
I remember (vaguely) when Flick was named to the Cooperstown HoF, though I had to look up the fact that it was in 1963. Hey, that's only 41 years ago.

The choice was regarded quizzically by many at the time. Who had heard of Elmer Flick? And the main point that was included in the news stories was that he won the batting title one year with a paltry .306 average (this [his selection] was before Yaz' .301 title), which was somehow construed to mean that he hadn't really been much of a player.

In retrospect, compared to other VC choices of that era, Flick was not only a good and a worthy choice but a perceptive one, because it would have been easy at that time to overlook him. OTOH this was an era of pretty good choices, not to be confused with the poor choices of the '40s and even poorer ones that came soon after (as early as 1970) under the unforgivable "leadership" of Freedom Frankie Frisch.

For the record, VC (player) choices of the '60s:

1961--Carey and Hamilton
   2. DanG Posted: January 30, 2004 at 05:47 AM (#521379)
But how did the BBWAA miss Goslin? And how did it take the VC until the '60s, ... to get to Hamilton, Clarkson, Ward and Keefe?

A couple things to remember. Goslin never really had a clear shot at the Hall. For about its first twenty years the Hall was clearing up the backlog. When they figured they were done with that, they went to biannual elections after 1956. Then, after the 1962 election, the rules were changed, reducing the eligibility time frame for candidates from 30 years to 20. This threw Goslin and a couple dozen others into the waiting arms of the veterans committee. Over the next twenty years, the VC busied itself picking up these "oversights". The 1962 balloting now includes more than three dozen hall of famers.

As for the 19th century stars elected in the 1960's, I recall Bill James explaining this in his classicThe Politics of Glory. The vc was revived in 1953, holding elections in odd-numbered years through 1961. In that year, IIRC, Fred Lieb began supplying the VC with data on the 19th century stars that led to their elections. I believe they stopped doing this when they received too many complaints along the lines of "Who the hell is Elmer Flick?!"

There was another flurry, from 1971-77, that saw a few more 19th century guys elected: Beckley, Kelley, Welch, Thompson, Connor, Rusie. Finally, there was the 19th century committee in the 1990's that gave us Willis, Davis and McPhee.
   3. Rick A. Posted: January 30, 2004 at 04:58 PM (#521380)
Are we still doing the HOM games? I haven't seen then for a while, and one I'm interested in seeing is a rematch of the 1919 Series.
   4. Marc Posted: January 30, 2004 at 06:07 PM (#521382)
Andrew, ditto Ed Williamson who had much more support and was so much more highly regarded in his own time in comparison to Mike Griffin. Williamson's numbers are absolutely interchangeable with Jimmy Collins.' I understand the timeline, though I don't use it myself. But what kind of timeline ranks player A about #5 and player B around 40th purely (as far as I can tell) due to the passage of 15 years?
   5. DanG Posted: January 30, 2004 at 06:49 PM (#521383)
Something seems to be wrong with the tally above. With 45 ballots cast I only count 44 second place votes and 44 ninth place votes. Also, Frank Grant shows a total of 31 ballots, but his line only adds to 30. The same for Caruthers, 31 shown but only 30 added.

Wha' hapn?
   6. jimd Posted: January 30, 2004 at 07:15 PM (#521384)
I think the choices from the 1940's are less mysterious than they are sometimes portrayed to be. Here's the top of the BBWAA results for 1945. In italics are the players also eligible with the Old-Timer's Committee (the straddlers who played both before and after 1900). In bold are the players that the OTC selected in 1945 after the writers election. Results are from the HOF web-site.

1945
   7. Marc Posted: January 30, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#521385)
jim, good stuff. So the BBWAA was really in the driver's seat, except for the guys you mentioned (Mac and Jack and, well, Plank though that's a pretty bulletproof choice). From the longer view, you still have to ask what the hell the writers were thinkin' re. Evers and Bresnahan OTOH vs. Clarke and Plank OTO.

And secondly, are more recent players who get 16 and 27 and 37 and 49% of the vote going to be treated with the same kind of respect as the old-timers? No way.

I also think these totals knock J. Collins down a notch vs. the idea that he was the best 3B of all-time. Mixed signals as to his real reputation.
   8. jimd Posted: January 30, 2004 at 08:47 PM (#521386)
So the BBWAA was really in the driver's seat

I wouldn't say that either. It's a long way from 20% to 75%. The fault still lies with the OTC; they made the selections. In a sense, it's even worse than random in that the OTC couldn't be bothered with doing some research of their own to make the best choices, but just piggy-backed on the writer's, memorializing the sentiments of some small sub-groups.

Jimmy Collins? He did out-poll Delahanty (and Frisch and Traynor), not that anybody is getting full attention on that crowded ballot (more than 50 people now in the HOF received votes on the 1945 ballot, and all of the top 33 are in, Kling being 34th at just under 5%).
   9. OCF Posted: January 30, 2004 at 09:01 PM (#521387)
Following up on DanG's #7: I don't know about the specific votes, since I have them tallied in a different way. I do think the point totals are correct, with one exception: I have Mickey Welch at 92 points instead of 80. Welch would still be in 24th place.
   10. jimd Posted: January 30, 2004 at 09:19 PM (#521388)
For more information on HOF balloting, here's the 1945 results which has links to all other ballots by year and voting results for every candidate who has ever received votes.
   11. RobC Posted: January 30, 2004 at 09:39 PM (#521389)
Some analysis of the results, some of it obvious.

I divided the players into 5 groups based on the percent of ballots they are on. The groups and analysis are as follows (rounding to the nearest 25%):

100% group - Keeler to Collins - will get in and soon. Duh. Everyone who gets on all the ballots gets in. Its just waiting now.

75% - Bennett to Waddell - I think they will all get in, but it will probably be determined by picking up other ballots. There are some people who will never put some of them on their ballot, but the same is true for the first group apparently.

50% - Pike to Griffith - I dont think anyone in this group will get in, without a Caruthers type rally. They all have something fundamentally wrong with them (from a vote getting POV). Pike and Pearce are 60s guys, Jennings wont get votes from the career guys, Beckley likewise from the peak guys. Van Haltren, Ryan and Duffy are gluteriffic, and Griffith just isnt that good. Clark may have the best chance.

25% - Browning to McCormick - Good players who just arent quite good enough. Although some think they are.

0% - McGraw to King - they are getting votes but they probably shouldnt be on a ballot at all. Two are on my ballot. Filler.
   12. Marc Posted: January 30, 2004 at 11:23 PM (#521390)
I agree that # of ballots is a better predictor of electability than total points, though for most that is a distinction without a difference. But McGinnity may go in ahead of Bennett, and Griffith may have a slightly better shot than the guys immediately ahead of him. Willis may outlast Joss, Long and Cross may outlast McGraw, etc., though now we're into the realm of who cares?
   13. Paul Wendt Posted: January 31, 2004 at 03:38 AM (#521391)
DanG #3
   14. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: February 01, 2004 at 03:33 AM (#521392)
Incidentally, I have updated my sponsorship of Elmer Flick on baseballreference.com to indicate his election to the HoM and put in a link.
   15. sean gilman Posted: February 01, 2004 at 08:38 AM (#521394)
"Are we still doing the HOM games? I haven't seen then for a while, and one I'm interested in seeing is a rematch of the 1919 Series."

Actually, I kept forgetting to do them, I'll try to remember.
   16. Marc Posted: February 01, 2004 at 05:55 PM (#521395)
Sean, I have a feeling that the loser of this game may be cursed for many years to come. But with that Ruth fella in the line-up, I gotta agree with you re. the Red Sox! Dynasty! Juggernaut!
   17. DanG Posted: February 09, 2004 at 03:06 PM (#521396)
My post (#7) seems to have gotten ignored, but I will venture to ask again.

Something seems to be wrong with the tally above. With 45 ballots cast I only count 44 second place votes and 44 ninth place votes. Also, Frank Grant shows a total of 31 ballots, but his line only adds to 30. The same for Caruthers, 31 shown but only 30 added.

Wha' hapn?
   18. Paul Wendt Posted: May 28, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2380918)
9. OCF Posted: January 30, 2004 at 04:01 PM (#521387)
Following up on DanG's #7: I don't know about the specific votes, since I have them tallied in a different way. I do think the point totals are correct, with one exception: I have Mickey Welch at 92 points instead of 80. Welch would still be in 24th place.

Last hour I checked the election data posted by David Foss to the yahoogroup against the number of voters and the number elected (which is the number of 4-point bonuses in the tally). If David's scan is correct then the official results sums to 8943 points which is 12 points short of 8955 = 45 ballots * 199 points per complete ballot to "elect one".

12 points matches the discrepancy that OCF reports by candidate. 12 points is the value of one ninth place vote and I agree with DanG in counting only 44 ninth place votes. So I guess that there were 45 complete ballots and one ninth place vote for Welch is missing from the report.

Yet I agree with DanG in counting 44 second place votes, too. I didn't check anything else.

--
This is the only one of 101 elections where the sum of Points in the David Foss data is not a multiple of 195+4e --where e is the number elected, so 195+4e is the number of points awarded per complete ballot.
   19. Paul Wendt Posted: May 28, 2007 at 01:06 AM (#2380925)
P.S.
Re the forecast by Rob Wood
- 5/8 of his group three have been elected leaving only Ryan, Van Haltren and Duffy
- 1/8 of his group four have been elected, Childs
   20. DavidFoss Posted: May 31, 2007 at 06:14 AM (#2385735)
Yet I agree with DanG in counting 44 second place votes, too. I didn't check anything else.

OK... there is a missing tally in the 2nd place, 6th place and 9th place columns. DanG's observations about Caruthers & Grant are correct, but it looks like their totals do include the missing votes.

The Caruthers tallies add up to 398 which is 19 short of 417 so it looks like he got the missing 2nd place vote. Increase his 2-tally by one.

The Grant tallies add up to 385 which is 15 short of 400 so it looks like he got the missing 6th place vote. Increase his 6-tally by one.

All the other tallies add up to the total in the 'Pts' column... Paul's observation that the total adds up to 12 short of 8955 is correct. The missing 9th place vote was not included in anyones count. Since the ballot thread has been mangled, OCF's 3.5 year observation is really all we have to go on. I guess they go to Welch. Thankfully, he's in 24th place with or without the extra 12 points.
   21. OCF Posted: May 31, 2007 at 06:43 AM (#2385746)
I first started tallying in 1916. I seem to have had a file-saving accident somewhere, and two years are missing: 1918 and 1919. So I have no way to re-check the claim I made above.
   22. jimd Posted: May 31, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2386475)
I found an old .txt file containing post #6.
What follows is what I originally wrote
(though I might have tweaked it while in the preview box).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the choices from the 1940's are less mysterious than they are sometimes
portrayed to be. Here's the top of the BBWAA results for 1945.
In italics are the players also eligible with the Old-Timer's
Committee (the straddlers who played both before and after 1900).
In bold are the players that the OTC selected.

1945
Frank Chance 179 72.47
Rube Waddell 154 62.35
Ed Walsh 137 55.47
Johnny Evers 134 54.25
Miller Huggins 133 53.85
Roger Bresnahan 133 53.85
Mickey Cochrane 125 50.61
Jimmy Collins 121 48.99
Ed Delahanty 111 44.94
Clark Griffith 108 43.72 </b>
Frankie Frisch 101 40.89
Hughie Jennings 92 37.25
Pie Traynor 81 32.79
Wilbert Robinson 81 32.79
Hugh Duffy 64 25.91
Fred Clarke 53 21.46

Add to this Dan Brouthers, King Kelly, and Jim O'Rourke,
who were not in the writer's domain, and not bad choices at all.

I'd speculate that they bypassed Chance and Waddell because they
didn't want to usurp the writer's after their very first deadlock.
The question really seems to be: Why not Griffith?

-----------------------------------------------------

1946 is similar. The BBWAA deadlocked again, and the OTC were granted
(by themselves) overlapping jurisdiction over the dead-ball era players.

1946
Frank Chance 144 71.29
Johnny Evers 130 64.36
Miller Huggins 129 63.86
Rube Waddell 122 60.40
Ed Walsh 115 56.93
Frankie Frisch 104 51.49
Carl Hubbell 101 50.00
Mickey Cochrane 80 39.60
Clark Griffith 73 36.14
Lefty Grove 71 35.15
Pie Traynor 65 32.18
Mordecai Brown 56 27.72
Joe Tinker 55 27.23
Joe McGinnity 53 26.24
Rabbit Maranville 50 24.75
Charlie Gehringer 43 21.29
Herb Pennock 41 20.30
Dizzy Dean 40 19.80
Bill Dickey 40 19.80
Frank Baker 39 19.31
Chief Bender 39 19.31
Ray Schalk 36 17.82
Eddie Plank 34 16.83

Add to this Jesse Burkett, Tommy McCarthy, and Jack Chesbro, and
the OTC did not do themselves proud with the latter two picks.

I'd speculate that Huggins was skipped because his fame was managing
during the 1920's and therefore clearly a writer's choice (they hadn't
been restricted to players only yet). Brown? Too many Cubs?
Plank vs Bender? Was Connie playing favorites?

-----------------------------------------------------

I apologize for the long post, but I haven't read this anywhere else.
I just realized this recently, looking at BBWAA voting results for 1945/46.
I'm sure that somebody else must of noticed this before, but it's not
mentioned in the popular write-ups on the HOF (James, etc.) where these
selections are portrayed as random acts of malfeasance, rather than a
misguided attempt to "undeadlock" the writers by selecting the most
popular of the Old-Timers (meritorious or not). OTOH, it still doesn't
explain McCarthy or Chesbro.
   23. Paul Wendt Posted: May 31, 2007 at 09:09 PM (#2386491)
Was the group constituted upon the death of Commissioner Landis?
or merely a change in personnel following the death of the committee chairman? (The committee chaired by Landis never met, iiir.)
   24. jimd Posted: May 31, 2007 at 09:52 PM (#2386516)
I have a copy of the 1918 ballot thread (source: Google shortly after the site-change) and so have all of the ballots. Except for Rusty Priske's. His ballot was an "absentee" ballot cast in advance on the Discussion thread. It was never copied onto the Ballot thread, though it was counted anyway. The Discussion thread ballot was mangled in the site move. So I have no copy of his ballot.

His ballot should be reconstructable from the counts above, but that becomes problematic given they are also in question.

From the other ballots:
I have Caruthers with 3 #2 votes (Yardape, Craig B, RMc)

I have Grant with 1 #6 votes (Rick A.)

I have Welch with the following votes (80 points):
2nd karlmagnus and Adam Schafer
6th yest
9th daryn
13th Jeff M
14th Howie Menckel


The reconstructed Rusty Priske ballot should look as follows:
The numbers following the names are ballot positions in 1917 and 1919.
(In 1917 he voted for Young and Clarke 1 and 2 as did the majority)
(In 1919 Sheckard debuted at #2 on his ballot)
1 Keeler (3,1)
2 ? Caruthers (4,3)
3 Kelley (5,4)
4 VanHaltren (6,5)
5 Flick (7,elected)
6 ? Grant (8,6)
7 Beckley (11,7)
8 Duffy (12,11)
9 ? Welch (13,9)
10 Ryan (10,8)
11 Collins (14,10)
12 Pearce (x,12)
13 McGinnity (x,13)
14 McCormick (15,14)
15 S.White (9,15)

The assumptions that Caruthers was #3, Grant was #6, and Welch was #9
is consistent with his prior and following ballots.
   25. jimd Posted: May 31, 2007 at 09:57 PM (#2386520)
Typo alert:
Caruthers was #3

Caruthers was #2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5871 seconds
68 querie(s) executed