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, January 27, 2004

1919 Ballot Discussion

Sorry it’s late, but a 17-hour door-to-door first day is a reasonable excuse. In a nutshell - roads were brutal, and I have a 50-mile commute on backroads in ice, and that damn new email virus, argh! As brutal a first day as one could ask for.

New eligibles:

ART DEVLIN
JOHNNY KLING
JOHN KNIGHT
CHARLEY O’LEARY
JIMMY SHECKARD
JOHN TITUS
TOM HUGHES
JOE LAKE
LEFTY LEIFIELD
LEW RICHIE
DOC WHITE

Hopefully I get the results up tomorrow early afternoon (I’m working 3-11 tomorrow, 7-3 Wednesday), but if I don’t it’ll be dinner time Wednesday. That’s still faster than the Hall of Fame turns them around though!

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 27, 2004 at 08:20 AM | 216 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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. DanG Posted: February 05, 2004 at 07:22 PM (#521355)
I'm glad to see someone thinks my idea has "merit".

Tom wrote:

I would vote for inducting 4 players each special election, and then after all five periods are done, going back and adding in the 5 "other" best - each period may not necessarily generate exactly 5 great players, and while era-balancing is a worthy goal, so is a bit of flexibility.

Actually, I had in mind pepetual eligibility, not to elect exactly five from each era. So I don't think your suggestion is necessary.

Also, there would only be four interruptions to the regular project, since the fifth IHOM election would be at the end.

I went back and counted. After the 2012 election we will have 247 HoMers. So if we want five elections base on number of enshrinees, they would follow enshrinees #50,99,149,198,247. That is, after our regular elections in 1927, 1952, 1977, 1996, 2012.
   202. OCF Posted: February 05, 2004 at 07:36 PM (#521356)
I'm not sure I would want to slow down our regular process too much...

If we did an "inner circle" election in 1927, I see an unavoidable issue that would be hanging over our heads. Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, and Pete Alexander are all still active players, still adding a little to their counting stats - but in all three cases, their peaks are far enough past that we have a very good idea of their overall value. They won't have been elected to the HoM yet, but as 1927 voters we would have to be very aware of them.
   203. DanG Posted: February 05, 2004 at 07:46 PM (#521357)
I really don't see that as a problem, or even a relevant issue, OCF. The 1927 IHOM is for the earliest stars, and those three clearly are of a later era. They'll have their shot in the next IHOM election.

What we do need to hear more of is the first thing you mentioned. How do people feel about interrupting the regular process? Would it be disruptive or a welcome change of pace?
   204. jimd Posted: February 05, 2004 at 08:42 PM (#521359)
To make this proposal more like the way that the HOM works, would be to operate as follows: elect 2 members as of 1907 (from HOM membership 20), and then add another IHOM member after each increment of 10 new HOMers, i.e. 1915, 1922, 1927, 1933, then every 5 years until the pace picks up in the 1980's. OTOH, this may be even more disruptive due to more elections.

How disruptive can it be? We've already analyzed these guys, so we each have some ratings for them. OTOH, we haven't necessarily put them all side-to-side, so there is considerable comparing and contrasting to be done. (What fun!)

Me? I'm in favor.
   205. jimd Posted: February 05, 2004 at 08:52 PM (#521361)
Good idea, Eddie. At 10:1 the "Inner inner HOM" should have two members when we've caught up the present, and the "Inner inner inner HOM" should be ready to receive its first members sometime in the 23rd century. (Wanna bet the commander of Deep-Space 9 will be voting?)
   206. Daryn Posted: February 05, 2004 at 10:06 PM (#521363)
DanG, I don't think we can have the 2012 election in 2007 real time. Once we reach 2007 real time we're going to have to have one of these elections every year, not every two weeks. On July 7, 2007 (approximately), we are caught up.
   207. DanG Posted: February 05, 2004 at 10:31 PM (#521364)
daryn,

Yes, but by July 2007 we will have a pretty fair idea who the players are who retired in 2006, so we will be able to hold the 2012 election as our final one.

Right now, we _pretty much_ know who the new eligibles are for the HOF elections in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Sure, a player or two could return and play semiregular, but that doesn't change things too much.
   208. MattB Posted: February 05, 2004 at 10:33 PM (#521365)
I'm not ENTIRELY against the idea, but I'm not exactly sure what an inner sanctum is supposed to do.

The purpose of the HoM is to vaguely track the HoF, but make better selections. What does looking at the top 5 from each quarter century add? Top 213 comes with a built-in reason. Why top 25 instead of 50 or 100?

It seems to me that the concept might be pretty well covered when we are done by looking at "First Ballot" HoMers, "Second Ballot HoMers", etc. Some players elected First Ballot in weak years may be worse than some All-Stars who had the bad luck to enter the ballot the same year as Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, and Willie Mays, but in general Inner Sanctum guys are the ones who got in quickly.

What would an ad hoc inner sanctum add to that list of First Balloters -- other than at the extreme margins? Or, put differently, if afterwards if you wanted to know who the BEST OF THE BEST were, would you get more information by a separate list of Best #X, without any guidance in Top 25 (or whatever) was a meaningful category or not, or by the election totals and who got in quickly and who had to wait 20 years?
   209. DanG Posted: February 05, 2004 at 10:45 PM (#521366)
Matt,

The idea came up in the 1917 balloting. Cy Young, wow, yeah I guess he's in. There's no competition. Wagner, Lajoie, Mathewson, etc, etc. What fun is doing the obvious?

Young is on a different plain even from many first-ballot guys like Kelly, Rusie, etc. I think it would be fun to formalize this higher status.

The top 10% is just an arbitrary number, it seems to work reasonably well.
   210. jimd Posted: February 05, 2004 at 11:02 PM (#521367)
MattB, I also agree with you. The IHOM serves no real purpose. It could be a distraction, which is why we have to think about it carefully. But it also would be fun, debating the relative merits of the guys that, under the current setup, we all just nod our heads and say "Yup" (and think "no-brainer").
   211. Rick A. Posted: February 05, 2004 at 11:12 PM (#521368)
I'm not ENTIRELY against the idea, but I'm not exactly sure what an inner sanctum is supposed to do.

The purpose of the HoM is to vaguely track the HoF, but make better selections. What does looking at the top 5 from each quarter century add?


Matt, don't take this the wrong way, but what's wrong with just doing it for fun? Yes, the HOM was originally designed to improve on and correct the HOF selections, but the main reasons I'm doing this project is to learn more about baseball history and to have fun, not just to correct the HOF (although that is another good reason).

An inner sanctum vote is fine with me.
   212. Marc Posted: February 05, 2004 at 11:13 PM (#521369)
To me, the inner sanctum is already decided--first ballot winners. Or you could refine that, in the case of Cobb, Speaker, Collins, you could include the 3rd place guy assuming he was at least #3 on every or almost every ballot. I think you could construct a criterion that would be fair but that would derive the inner sanctum from the top 15 ballots already being submitted. Anybody could do the calculations with an additional ballot and/or without anybody's "permission."

Re. ed's and Tom's discussion about Keeler and Thompson. ed's method is a good rational method. But for me it goes back to WARP3 and the huge timelines it imposes. It is as if WARP is trying to answer the question, "If you could go back to the 1880s and pick up Sam Thompson and Ed Williamson, and then bring them to 1900 and plug them into a lineup in place of Collins and Keeler, would they be better or worse than Collins and Keeler." That, it seems, to me, is the question WARP3 is formulated to answer.

To that, I say, who cares!?

WARP1, on the other hand, is formulated to answer a question worth answering. Did Ed Williamson or Jimmy Collins (or Keeler or Thompson) do more to help their respective teams compete in their own time or place? So I would like to see what ed's method would produce using WARP1 in place of WARP3. Maybe Collins and Keeler still win. And if they do, they would then win something worth winning. Being better on WARP3 proves nothing other than what Clay Davenport's assumptions are.
   213. RobC Posted: February 05, 2004 at 11:17 PM (#521370)
Regardless of the merits of the IHOM, I oppose slowing the process down. Once we "catch up" to real time, then we can fill the next year with inner circle votes, manager votes, pioneer votes, japanese league votes, etc. without slowing the process down. There is no reason we couldnt implement DanG's plan across 5 fortnights in 2007. Probably after the manager and pioneer wings are filled.
   214. Jim Sp Posted: February 06, 2004 at 12:29 AM (#521371)
I'm with RobC, let's do this when we're done with the current project. Might ease the withdrawal a bit.
   215. OCF Posted: February 06, 2004 at 02:21 AM (#521373)
Even an inner circle has a difficult to find outer edge. Sure, Cy Young is inner circle, but maybe in the end there's only room for one of Kid Nichols or Greg Maddux - which one? Is Roger Connor inner circle - and who would we be comparing him to to figure that out? Whether someone is first-ballot or not tells us more about the state of the competition at the moment he became eligible than it does about where he ranks overall.

Fun, yes, but I don't want to delay the schedule we're on.
   216. Daryn Posted: February 07, 2004 at 08:32 PM (#521374)
I may be the only one who cares, but when we get to 2007 I really think we should wait until 2008 to do the next election. Each year we should do our election at the same time as the HOF, not 5 years ahead. If this project gains legitimacy it will be very interesting to juxtapose our results with the BBWAA votes each year.

My two cents.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2623 seconds
49 querie(s) executed