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, March 01, 2004

1921 Ballot

Here goes . . . 2 electees this year, and every year except 1923 between now and 1930. This is the beginning of a run where we’re going to do some of our most important work, I urge everyone to take another look at everything just to be sure.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 01, 2004 at 12:21 PM | 128 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. EricC Posted: March 09, 2004 at 04:12 AM (#522555)
The voter who is clearly furthest away from the total ballot is yest. The next two are KJOK and EricC.

yest and I both have more HoFers on our ballots than the consensus (no, I'm not using anybody's Cooperstown status as a factor in my vote). Are we unconventional by being conventional?

And what's happened to John Murphy? No Tip O'Neill? Maybe you forget to take his pitching contributions into account... :-)
   102. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2004 at 06:08 AM (#522556)
And what's happened to John Murphy? No Tip O'Neill? Maybe you forget to take his pitching contributions into account... :-)

Tip O'Neill? He hasn't been on my ballot for months. After I refined my system, he slid off pretty quick.

But I liked the joke about his "pitching." :-)
   103. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 09, 2004 at 06:11 AM (#522557)
What's interesting to me about the future breakdown is how it corresponds to my personal HoM ballot. 3-6 (Johnson, Keeler, Kelley and Wallace), I absolutely think belong. 7-8 (Grant and Sheckard) I'm not as certain but I'm pretty sure. Then Jennings at 9, who's even iffier but I guess I can live with, and Caruthers at 10, who I'd have to think about a LOT. I can't be sure where I'll slot the new candidates, of course, but it's going to be fun, in that incredibly frustrating how-do-I-pick-these-guys-apart kind of way.
   104. Brian H Posted: March 09, 2004 at 07:05 AM (#522558)
I often wonder how many voters design systems and rigidly adhere to them versus how many just look at lots of data and then sort of wing it ?
   105. Marc Posted: March 09, 2004 at 01:46 PM (#522561)
Brian, I'd be surprised if there are any "rigid systems" out there and I'd be surprised if anybody is "winging it," though those are two valid extremes on a continuum of voting styles. I'd guess everybody is somewhere in between. My "system" is analogous to Bill James'. I.e. I develop a list based on a set of numbers and then I vary from the formal list based on the stuff in my "bullshirt dump." But the "rigid list" serves as a consideration set--e.g. my #1 player on my ballot has to be in the top 3 of the numerical list, etc. I can't just dip down to #10. However, players like Pearce and Wright and half of Pike and most of the Negro Leaguers, well, no, they float with no numerical anchors.
   106. ronw Posted: March 09, 2004 at 05:33 PM (#522563)
As an unofficial tallier, I say a hard and fast deadline of 5:00 p.m. West Coast time on Monday evening, so that by Tuesday everyone knows. The unofficial talliers should be able to post results up in any election where the difference between the electee and the runner up is greater than 25 points, like this one, when my tally shows Jimmy Collins with 814 points, Charlie Bennett with 701, and also-ran Joe McGinnity with 659.
   107. karlmagnus Posted: March 09, 2004 at 05:50 PM (#522564)
Joe presumably meant EST not West Coast, since he's located in suburban Va. (I think.) If his time to look at it is 6-8pm EST, the polls should have closed already. It doesn't matter, but I agree we should be clear.
   108. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2004 at 05:50 PM (#522565)
when my tally shows Jimmy Collins with 814 points, Charlie Bennett with 701, and also-ran Joe McGinnity with 659.

I have 716 for Bennett.
   109. Sean Gilman Posted: March 09, 2004 at 07:15 PM (#522566)
I've got 724 for Bennett, counting LennoxHC's ballot.
   110. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2004 at 07:46 PM (#522567)
I've got 724 for Bennett, counting LennoxHC's ballot.

Joe ended the election before LennoxHC submitted his ballot so it's not valid (as Lennox acknowledged himself).

With that said, it appears I screwed up somewhere.
   111. Marc Posted: March 10, 2004 at 12:54 AM (#522568)
Not counting Lennox, I had 702 for Bennett and 662 for McG. Ron and Sean's counts actually agree--701 w/o and 724 with Lennox' ballot. I also had 813 for Collins. Assuming I am (again) one off, then I would say that Ron seems to have it right.

BTW, after 46 ballots it was 664-662 on my scorecard. Who knew there would be 3 more ballots and how they would vote (61-0 for Bennett over Joe, counting Lennox).
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2004 at 07:11 AM (#522570)
Marc:

You forgot to add Heinie Groh as a eligible candidate somewhere in the early thirties. He'll be high on my ballot.
   113. Brad G. Posted: March 10, 2004 at 04:32 PM (#522571)
Not to sound pushy, but any chance one of the unofficial talliers will post full unofficial election results here?
   114. OCF Posted: March 10, 2004 at 05:48 PM (#522572)
All right, Brad. Here's what I have. This is with 48 ballots: Max Parkinson counts but Lennox HC does not count. However, Lennox HC, with a score of +17, takes over the title of the voter in the greatest agreement with the consensus as measured by the vote totals, ahead of ed (+15) and Al Peterson (+14).

Point totals only:

01: 814 Collins
   115. Brad G. Posted: March 10, 2004 at 06:08 PM (#522573)
Much thanks, OCF!
   116. OCF Posted: March 10, 2004 at 07:25 PM (#522574)
As a hint at what each voter's style is, here is a list. Behind each voter's name I've put 6 names. The first three are the three highest-ranking (by vote total) players who did not make that voter's top 15. The last three are the three lowest-ranking players who did make that voter's top 15.

Rusty Priske: Bennett, Thompson, Waddell; Welch, Leach, Monroe
   117. Marc Posted: March 10, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#522575)
I just want to acknowledge my soul-mates. jimd and Max Parkinson excluded the same three players I did: McG, Waddell and Bresnahan. Nobody included the same three nor even two of the same three, but karl, Sean Gilman, Rick A., Mark McK., Esteban R., Philip and Max (again) caught the same theme which was including 3 19th century guys. Max's ballot was close to mine on both dimensions, plus he had at least one of the same 19th century guys (Ed Williamson), so Max, you're my guy.

Thanks OCF, fun stuff.
   118. Daryn Posted: March 10, 2004 at 08:04 PM (#522576)
Interesting stuff ocf, but i actually had beckley 8th; van haltren was the third highest guy I left off (at 16).

Can you post the list of most similar to consensus to least similar to consensus? I always thought I was close to the consensus, but it seems that there are several people who are closer.
   119. OCF Posted: March 10, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#522577)
Correction:

daryn: Waddell, Jennings, Duffy; Welch, Leach, Monroe

Van Haltren is 18, not 16. You left off Duffy (14), Pearce (16), and Ryan (17) before Van Haltren. At +12, you're definitely one of the people whose agreement with the consensus is high. There are quite a few others in that neighborhood.
   120. OCF Posted: March 10, 2004 at 10:25 PM (#522578)
Correction:

karlmagnus: Bennett, Johnson, Waddell; McGuire, Meyerle, Wright

I warned you there were clerical errors! That's a pretty bad mistake - sorry, karlmagnus. Your "similar to the consensus" score is -8, 5th from the bottom.
   121. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2004 at 11:05 PM (#522579)
With definite top fifteen guys Mathewson, Lajoie, and Brown jumping on my ballot next election, I'll be much closer to the norm.
   122. Marc Posted: March 10, 2004 at 11:18 PM (#522580)
John, we all will be closer to the norm but somebody will still have to be most dissimilar. Don't give up hope! ;-)

I wonder how much difference a 1) Matty, 2) Nap ballot will make in dissimilarity scores?
   123. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2004 at 11:32 PM (#522581)
John, we all will be closer to the norm but somebody will still have to be most dissimilar. Don't give up hope! ;-)

LOL
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2004 at 11:42 PM (#522582)
BTW, I'm the number nine poster all-time here at Baseball Primer: Over 200 million characters and still going strong...

I guess that makes me the poster involved with the HoM project who has the most free time. :-)
   125. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2004 at 12:18 AM (#522583)
I wonder how much difference a 1) Matty, 2) Nap ballot will make in dissimilarity scores?

I think Brown is the key.
   126. OCF Posted: March 11, 2004 at 01:32 AM (#522584)
I wonder how much difference a 1) Matty, 2) Nap ballot will make in dissimilarity scores?

I think Brown is the key.


I may or may not run it next year - whim of the moment. Matty and Nap will get the great majority of the "elect me" votes, and the difference between 24 and 23 points is quite trivial. I also expect that a clear majority will have Three-Finger on the ballot somewhere, and as long as he's between #3 and #15, he won't be contributing all that much to dissimilarity from the consensus. It's likely that everyone's similarity to the consensus score will be higher next year, and that highest possible score will also be higher next year. (This year, the highest possible score was about +22.)
   127. Paul Wendt Posted: March 11, 2004 at 02:08 AM (#522585)
Esteban Rivera's 3rd highest excluded (Pearce) was lower-ranked than his 3rd lowest included (Pike). I don't think anyone else can claim that.

That is, 13 of the consensus top 15 are on his own 15-place ballot, eh?
   128. OCF Posted: March 11, 2004 at 02:36 AM (#522586)
That is, 13 of the consensus top 15 are on his own 15-place ballot, eh?

That's exactly what it means, only I just discovered he's not alone - I should have similarly marked RMc, whose 3rd highest excluded (Ryan) is below two of his three lowest included (Pearce and Pike). RMc's 15 votes all came from the top 18 candidates, which is the tightest clustering of anyone. RMc's similarity-to-consensus score is "only" +10 because the relative ordering of the 15 he did vote for was somewhat different than the final total. He gave his "elect me" bonuses to Caruthers and Johnson. That's still 13 of the consensus top 15 on his ballot.

There were five voters who had 12 of the final top 15 on their ballots: Sean M., Sean Gilman, Al Peterson, favre, and Lennox HC.
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
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.4266 seconds
49 querie(s) executed