|
|
|
Hall of Merit— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
1926 Results - Grant and Magee elected
After 27 elections without electing a Negro League player, The Hall of Merit elects its second in as many years in 1926. Frank Grant topped the voting with 736 points, moving past Joe McGinnity and Sherry Magee. Magee was elected as well, with 722 points.
Bobby Wallace finished 3rd with 653 points, edging McGinnity (651). McGinnity was the top returning vote getter, but slipped to 4th this time around.
Jimmy Sheckard finished 5th. Sam Thompson moved into 6th place, passing Bob Caruthers who finished 7th.
Completing the top 10 were Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike and newcomer Joe Jackson. Jackson was boycotted on several ballots due to his actions during the 1919 World Series, and should move up significantly in 1927.
RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 5 Frank Grant 736 42.5 5 11 6 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 1 1 1.5
2 4 Sherry Magee 722 46 8 1 3 2 6 6 5 7 1 1 1 1 2 2
3 6 Bobby Wallace 653 41.5 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2.5
4 3 Joe McGinnity 651 43 2 5 6 4 5 3 3 2 4 1 2 2 2 2
5 7 Jimmy Sheckard 581 39 1 5 3 5 3 3 4 3 3 2 1 3 1 2
6 9 Sam Thompson 522 35 4 2 7 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 1
7 8 Bob Caruthers 497 34 3 4 1 5 1 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 3 1 2
8 10 Dickey Pearce 488 30 4 6 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 1
9 11 Lip Pike 414 28 6 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 4 1 1
10 n/e Joe Jackson 410 23 6 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
11 13 Jake Beckley 363 27 1 1 3 5 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
12 12 George Van Haltren 361 29 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 2
13 14 Jimmy Ryan 312 25 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 6 2 2 1 1
14 15 Rube Waddell 294 25 2 1 2 1 3 4 2 1 4 2 2 1
15 17 Roger Bresnahan 262 24 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 4
16 16 Hughie Jennings 231 20 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 3
17 19 Clark Griffith 223 22 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 3 5 2
18 18 Hugh Duffy 219 20 2 3 2 1 6 2 2 1 1
19 21 Bill Monroe 212 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3
20 23 Rube Foster 195 17 2 2 4 3 3 1 2
21 22 Mickey Welch 175 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
22 25 Cupid Childs 172 17 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 2
23 20 Pete Browning 164 12 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1
24 24 Tommy Leach 145 15 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 3
25 n/e Gavy Cravath* 134 12 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2
26 n/e Larry Doyle 134 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
27 26 Charley Jones 121 9 2 2 1 2 1 1
28 27 Ed Williamson^ 112 12 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
29 28 Addie Joss 112 9.5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0.5
30 n/e Eddie Cicotte 97 7 1 2 1 2 1
31 32 Vic Willis 56 6 1 1 1 2 1
32 29 John McGraw 54 4 1 2 1
33 31 Frank Chace 52 5 2 1 1 1
34 30 Fielder Jones 46 5 1 1 1 1 1
35 33 Harry Wright 39 3 1 1 1
36 36 Tommy Bond 32 2 1 1
37 35 Jim McCormick 31 4 1 1 2
38 34 Lave Cross 27 2 1 1
39 43 Mike Tiernan 25 2 1 1
40 37 Herman Long 18 2 2
41 39T Tom York 16 1 1
42 38 Silver King 10 1 1
43 39T Tony Mullane 9 1 1
44 n/e Ray Chapman 8 1 1
45T 42 Levi Meyerle 6 1 1
45T -- Joe Tinker 6 1 1
47 -- Fred Dunlap 3 0.5 0.5
*Ahead on individual ballots 10-9. ^Ahead on individual ballots 11-10.
Dropped Out: Sol White 39T.
Joe Dimino
Posted: May 25, 2004 at 06:00 AM | 115 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Most Meritorious Player: 1983 Discussion (40 - 12:03pm, Jun 18)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1982 Discussion (56 - 4:28pm, Jun 17)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1982 Results (7 - 9:27pm, Jun 15)Last: Chris FluitMost Meritorious Player: 1982 Ballot (25 - 4:13pm, Jun 07)Last: DL from MN2014 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (86 - 8:02pm, May 23)Last: Ivan Grushenko of Hong KongMost Meritorious Player: 1981 Results (11 - 3:30pm, May 16)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1981 Discussion (72 - 10:54am, May 13)Last: bjhankeMost Meritorious Player: 1981 Ballot (47 - 9:51am, May 06)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1979 Discussion (115 - 2:09pm, Apr 19)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1980 Results (10 - 12:23pm, Apr 15)Last: DL from MNGeorge Scales (70 - 10:52am, Apr 10)Last: Ivan Grushenko of Hong KongLarry Doby (94 - 12:28am, Apr 10)Last: KJOKMost Meritorious Player: 1980 Ballot (21 - 11:03pm, Apr 09)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1980 Discussion (45 - 1:04am, Apr 09)Last: lieiamMost Meritorious Player: 1979 Results (12 - 4:30pm, Mar 14)Last: TomH
|
|
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.
I don't think we're in any position to judge someone's intelligence here (high or low), but I hope no one has interpreted the back and forth on this topic as commenting on anyone's intelligence.
I favor open-mindedness towards the possibility of making a change in the future.
mdb1mdb1's statistical analysis convinces me that expanding the ballot would have no impact at present on the reliability of results, so I'm with Andrew Siegel on reconsidering as we approach 1958.
dan b has indicated that he wouldn't want to give credit towards election for players he's now ranking 16-20; I wouldn't mind doing so; I think there are some damfine players, off the bottom of most people's ballots, who would be no disgrace to the HoM. I suspect my view on this point is in the minority at present, so I don't wish to advocate for it, merely to note it.
I think DanG is right to warn us that the pool is going to get deeper fast once we reach the mid-30s. In preparing his candidate lists, he has probably looked more carefully at the future prospects than most of us, so his warnings should not be dismissed. I think the tipping point for his idea will arrive when the majority of voters feel like they are leaving players off their ballot whom they would like to give some support for election. When we start electing three players a year, they will move up and off much faster, out of a much deeper pool, and we may find it important to weight a #18 placement differently than we do now.
As always, I'm trying not to limit my view to this particular election, or to recent results, etc. Trying to consider how visitors here might view us and being mindful of what the ultimate legacy of this project could be. Also trying to use well my limited time here.
The 20-man ballot isn't a big deal, of course. It just seemed like some were rejecting it out of hand, so I was glad to see a more thorough discussion of the topic. There are better arguments for it than I have made to date; at some point we'll revisit the topic, I'm sure.
Wow, this is an intelligent group - everyone knows what a Luddite is. As to my own intelligence, Marc knows me better than probably anyone here so you should listen to him.
P.S. The New Eligibles thread fails to show up on Hot Topics. The newbies thru 1942 are now posted there.
I don't doubt that you are smart and I wasn't really arguing with Marc.
As I'm sure Marc will testify, however, over the two years of this project, it is apparent that most of us 50 regulars are pretty smart. We've got professors, scientists, professionals and tons of people of varying vocations and avocations that indicate a high level of intelligence. Yet, we don't really know each other well enough to determine who is smartest (if that determination is even possible).
This isn't directed at you DanG, but we are all probably better off if none of us assumes, when making our arguments, that we are smarter than the other people here. That's the sort of thinking that tends to get people in trouble when they go to battle and later find out they were wrong. Then, they can't figure out how to extract themselves artfully.
Wait, am I still talking about baseball? :)
Those who know, know. Those who don't know, don't know.
And this one:
Eschew obfuscation; apotheosize disambiguation!
Jeff, please reconsider. It was only one moment of youthful (well, somewhat youthful...) indiscretion on my part. I'm back to my normally heterosexual ways and promise never to do such a wicked act again (not that there's anything wrong with being gay, mind you)! :-)
It wasn't the same sex nature of the relationship for which I scorned you. It's because you chose a guy named "Tip." :-)
You're not. I agree with almost everything you've said in that regard, Jeff. I don't usually post a prelim ballot on the discussion thread, instead just discussing whichever candidate I'm most interested in, but I'd be happy to start if we'd limit the ballot thread to Top 15 and top ten omissions.
I think I see your .. uhh ... point. :-D
This is a ballot point scheme that adds 5 new slots while preserving both the on-ballot-bonus and the percentage for #1 (12% of total points). It may be useful should this topic ever get revisited.
Slot 01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20
-Pts 55-52-39-36-33-30-28-26-24-22-20-18-16-14-12-10-09-08-07-06
xxx 45-42 plus 10 point bonus to elect
(when we go to elections of 3, 3rd goes from 39 to 49)
Michael, nice idea to increase the differences between slots higher in the ballot.
In my expierence, the preview page doesn't mean a thing WRT the character limit.
For the last election, it cut my ballot in half when using the preview section. This time it didn't. Of course, I haven't actually posted yet so you may be correct still.
Well, that answers my question. Damn!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main