Earlier today, Andrew Siegel wrote:

I know it's early, but I'm curious how the battle for 4th place is shaping up. The winner of that battle (leading contenders: Pike, Beckley, Van Haltren, Foster? Welch?) becomes the favorite (or co-favorite with Jose Menendez)for the second slot in 1932. Whoever doesn't get in that year has to wait until at least 1938 to have a shot and may well be doomed to an eternity in HoM purgatory.

The 1932 election is going to be very interesting, isn't it? Pearce looks to be well-positioned for election in 1931, but the 1932 election is wide open. Assuming Santop carries the #1 spot (that's where he'll be on my ballot, anyhow), Van Haltren, Pike, and Beckley are practically dead even. Griffith and Foster continue to close in on that trio, although they don't pass anyone this year. Their paired move upward over the last three elections has been quite impressive, so I wouldn't rule either of them out for 1932 yet, either.

Their move in terms of ranking:

Player -- 27 -- 28 -- 29 -- 30
Griffith -- 15 -- 12 -- 9 -- 7
Foster -- 19 -- 15 -- 10 -- 8

Their move relative to Van Haltren, Beckley, and Pike
Points behind top and bottom of these three players

Griffith -- 191/112 -- 127/87.5 -- 107/65 -- 53/35
Foster -- 242/162 -- 184/144.5 -- 121/76 -- 55/37

Right now, it seems to me that there's just no telling what continuing discussion of these five players (and the next 10 in the rankings, and the new arrivals) will produce by the 1932 election. Very interesting indeed. . .

One more note to follow up on Max Parkinson's post #200 --

I heartily agree with his exhortation for us all to continue to research and study and to be open to persuasion, especially given the importance of the elections prior to 1933.

I don't think, though, that 1930's results' high correlation with 1929 indicates that we are re-cycling our ballots with no new thinking in an unusual degree.

I would suggest, rather, that significant changes in the rankings are generally not large enough to show up in a single election, esp. not now that the electorate is over 50.

Ron Wargo's history of Bob Caruthers shows very significant changes in his standing, but they show up clearly only over 4 and 5-year stretches of voting. If 80-90% of voters' rankings stay in the same order from one year to the next, that suggests that most voters will significantly rethink what they are doing every 5-10 elections. Significant re-evaluations of a player's merit take several years to spread through the electorate, but spread they do.

That's not to say we should be _complacent_ as an electorate, but to say that I believe the evidence shows that we have not been, collectively, overly rigid in recent elections.

Do we get can-can girls at the HOM game, alas only in memory of him?

That's right... we're only electing one next year!

Oooh... the drama! :-)

The most disagreed about candidate was Sheckard (the first time the #1 guy has had the most disagreement), followed closely by Pike and then Pearce.

It sure is a shame that our voting structure favors deeply divisive candidates like Sheckard, who will score more points than "consensus" candidates like Bob Caruthers, about whom there is little difference of opinion among the electorate.

It sure is a shame that our voting structure favors deeply divisive candidates like Sheckard, who will score more points than "consensus" candidates like Bob Caruthers, about whom there is little difference of opinion among the electorate.

Matt, Caruthers appeared on 41 of 51 ballots; Sheckard appeared on 40 of 51. I think it's fair to say that since BOTH electees are left off of 20% of the ballots, then they are BOTH divisive candidates.

In addition, Caruthers was in "ballot filler" spots (ranked 11-15; there's prob. a better name but I don't know how else to call it) on 8 ballots, Sheckard on only 3. Are you saying Bob is more worthy because he received 5 more down the ballot votes? If the ballot were only 10-man long (or 20-man for that matter), your conclusion might be totally different.

...it worries me somewhat that we've all just settled into our voting patterns, and that the discussion threads are having precious little impact on any of us.

I think it may simply represent the lack of excitement we feel for this so-called "backlog". In addition, it's because most of these guys have been discussed for 10-20 years, and our discussions have become repetitive in some cases.

I actually like to see a little bit of consistency in voting patterns of players who have been on the ballot for a long time. It comforts me that the most talked about player of the week isn't moving way up or down the ballot based on being the hot topic of discussion.

In short, I agree that players shouldn't be entrenched on the ballot and we should constantly be (re)evaluating, but I don't want to see movement for the sake of movement (and I know you weren't advocatign that, Max).

Yeah, I don't see how any system would have given Caruthers more points than Sheckard based on being named on one more ballot when Sheckard's votes were, by and large, much higher on the ballot.


Well, there is one: The HOF's voting structure. I don't think anyone's calling for that.

I dunno... considering how low Caruthers' candidacy had sunk in the early teens, you'd figure FOBC would be happy enough and go dancing in the streets.

Y'know, Tilden's middle name was Jones. Surely you aren't suggesting Charley got elected.

No.

:-)

I'm sure that it's a function of time - we all have jobs and whatever, the Hall of Merit isn't our entire lives (well, maybe Murphy's),

Smiley-face when you say that, pardner! :-)

I work out of my home, so that's why I can be on top of the discussions here more than most.

The bottom 3: Guapo -18, KJOK -16, Jim Sp -15.


What?

Can it be?

My name is not there?

Adding Mickey Welch will bring me a little closer to the average next week.

My name is not there?

Being an FODP is becoming a consensus position these days. :-)

Pearce looks to be well-positioned for election in 1931

I don't know. I'll be looking out for any new "reevaluations" of Van Haltrem and Beckley next week. :-)

I actually like to see a little bit of consistency in voting patterns of players who have been on the ballot for a long time.

Same here. All players will reach a "saturation point" where there is almost nothing left to discuss about them anymore. Many of the backlog players have been analyzed ad nauseum for "decades" now.

Do we get can-can girls at the HOM game, alas only in memory of him?

No, but there will be an unveiling of a full-length portrait painted by none other than Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec when Caruthers made his only trip to Paris during the mid-1880s!

Okay, I'd rather see the can-can girls, too. :-)

Ron Wargo's history of Bob Caruthers shows very significant changes in his standing, but they show up clearly only over 4 and 5-year stretches of voting.

Check mine over the past thirty "years." I'm all over the place.

BTW, I think Beckley is going to be co-inductee with Santop in '32.

Being an FODP is becoming a consensus position these days. :-)

"For the times they are a changin..."

"consensus" candidates like Bob Caruthers

Sorry if my irony was too subtle. I assumed we would all agree that Caruther is the LEAST consensus candidate we have ever elected. I thought it was funny that he appeared on MORE ballots than Sheckard this year.

There's surely no question Caruthers has a wider standard deviation of opinion than anyone else we've elected. I rather think he'd have been proud of the fact -- salary holdouts from Paris at 21 and organising the team poker games must have made him a difficult and disruptive team-mate. He doesn't strike me as having been one of the world's long term thinkers and of course, he was dead by 48 (though so were a lot of people in those days.) One of the best examples I've ever come across of Edna St. Vincent Millay's lines:

"My candle burns at both ends
It will not last the night,
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends,
It sheds a lovely light!"

...salary holdouts from Paris at 21

Interestingly, David Nemec questions whether Caruthers actually was in Paris. In The Beer and Whiskey League. Chris Von der Ahe, the owner of the Browns, searched the transatlantic ship records and there was no Bob Caruthers listed. So he either never left the States, or he sailed under a false name.

By the way, during the contract dispute, Caruthers said he would happily continue to sell shoes (as he did in the off-season) rather than work for the $2,000 salary he was being offered. He then threatened trips to England, Scotland and Australia.

Von der Ahe's low offer was the result of a player salary cap put in the National Agreement between the AA and NL. A clear antitrust violation, but then baseball was good at that.

Sailed under a false name or worked his way across as crew on a freighter; either's possible. Knowing what we know about him, I can imagine the idea of going to Paris to chase can-can girls with his first big paycheck may well have been irresistable.

Maybe he just stowed away. He was a little feller.

My name is not there?

John, you were 4th from the bottom at -11. I was 6th from the bottom at -8.

John, you were 4th from the bottom at -11. I was 6th from the bottom at -8.

You've been slumming the past few weeks, haven't you? :-)

The top 3 consensus scores: RMc 13, Rusty Priske 12, Ken Fischer 10.

The bottom 3: Guapo -18, KJOK -16, Jim Sp -15.

where did I fit in?

yest, you're with me and Dolf Lucky, all at -8. John, what happened to me was that certain candidates I never voted for rose up the ballot. Everyone's scores in 1934 should be at least 10 points above where they are now, because we will agree about who is in the top group of candidates, even if we find different orderings within that group.