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, 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.
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 25, 2004 at 06:00 AM | 115 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. Jeff M Posted: May 28, 2004 at 12:45 AM (#648352)
Everybody needs to know that DanG is one of the smartest guys on this thread.

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.
   102. Chris Cobb Posted: May 28, 2004 at 01:35 AM (#648473)
I do not favor a change at the present moment, or in 1934.

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.
   103. DanG Posted: May 28, 2004 at 03:37 AM (#648587)
That's what I really enjoy--a spirited discussion! Blame it on Joe for encouraging me when I was ready to move on.

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.
   104. Jeff M Posted: May 28, 2004 at 03:48 AM (#648589)
As to my own intelligence, Marc knows me better than probably anyone here so you should listen to him.

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? :)
   105. DanG Posted: May 28, 2004 at 04:00 AM (#648594)
I'm reminded of one of my favorite aphorisms:

Those who know, know. Those who don't know, don't know.

And this one:

Eschew obfuscation; apotheosize disambiguation!
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2004 at 04:12 AM (#648598)
This is the sort of scandal that will cause me to omit Murphy from the first ballot year when he becomes eligible for enshrinement. I did not omit O'Neill from his first ballot, because I see him as an innocent victim of Murphy's wily ways.

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)! :-)
   107. Jeff M Posted: May 28, 2004 at 04:16 AM (#648603)
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." :-)
   108. Yardape Posted: May 28, 2004 at 04:42 AM (#648619)
I've taken to only glancing at the ballots, and really only at #1-#15 and the newly eligible candidates. I doubt I'm the only one.


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.
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2004 at 04:42 AM (#648620)
It wasn't the same sex nature of the relationship for which I scorned you. It's because you chose a guy named "Tip." :-)

I think I see your .. uhh ... point. :-D
   110. jimd Posted: May 29, 2004 at 02:55 AM (#650307)
Since I bothered to figure this out I might as well post it before I misplace it.

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.
   111. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2004 at 04:17 PM (#651324)
Have they extended the limit for the number of characters in a post? I previewed my ballot before to see if the whole thing would fit and it appeared to do so.
   112. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: May 30, 2004 at 04:44 PM (#651334)
Have they extended the limit for the number of characters in a post? I previewed my ballot before to see if the whole thing would fit and it appeared to do so.

In my expierence, the preview page doesn't mean a thing WRT the character limit.
   113. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2004 at 06:34 PM (#651500)
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.
   114. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: May 31, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#652345)
John, FWIW, I just found out the hard way posting my TDiH thing in the lounge that yes, the limit still does exist.
   115. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 31, 2004 at 08:29 PM (#652466)
John, FWIW, I just found out the hard way posting my TDiH thing in the lounge that yes, the limit still does exist.

Well, that answers my question. Damn!
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 Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2646 seconds
49 querie(s) executed