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, February 21, 2005

1945 Ballot Results: The Goose and Big Bill are Certified as Hall of Merit Inductees!

With a record 68 candidates who earned at least one vote on one of our 52 ballots, Senators and Tigers slugger Goose Goslin pushed through the crowd fairly easily to claim the top spot for induction into the Hall of Merit in his second year of eligibility. 

In his third year as a candidate, lefty pitching great Willie Foster earned the second spot for immortality. He becomes the eleventh Negro Leaguer to claim that distinction (his half-brother Rube Foster was elected in 1932).

Rounding out the top ten were John Beckwith, Eppa Rixey, Clark Griffith, Hughie Jennings, Wes Ferrell, Joe Sewell, George Sisler and George Van Haltren.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    3  Goose Goslin             998   49  19 11  4  4  4  2  2  1              1     1
 2    4  Willie Foster            796   47   8  7  4  5  2  2  3  4  6  3  1  1        1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3    5  John Beckwith            617   40   6  2  6  3  3  5     1  2  2  3  4  1     2
 4    6  Eppa Rixey               497   36   1  1  1  3  6  5  6  3  1  1     3  3  1  1
 5    7  Clark Griffith           412   29   2     5  3  2  3  3  2  1  1  1  1  2  2  1
 6   12  Hughie Jennings          411   25   3  5  2  3  1  1  1  1  2  2     3        1
 7    8  Wes Ferrell              390   28   2  3     1  4  2  2  1  1  1  5  3  1  1  1
 8   11  Joe Sewell               374   26      4  1  4  2  1  4  2  1     1  1  1  4   
 9   13  George Sisler            366   26   2  2  3  3     2  1  2     3  2     3  2  1
10    9  George Van Haltren       360   23   1  4  1  4  2     2  2  2  2     2  1      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   10  Jake Beckley             351   25   1  3  2     4  2     2  2  2  1  1  3  1  1
12   14  Hugh Duffy               323   24      1  3  4     1  1  3  3  1  3  2  1  1   
13   17  Edd Roush                297   25         1  1  1  2  1  7  2  2  2  1  3     2
14   15  Rube Waddell             294   25         2  1  1     5  2  2  2  3  1  3  2  1
15   16  Tommy Leach              248   23      1  1     2  1  3     1  1  1  1  3  4  4
16   18  Mickey Welch             222   13   3  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  2     1            
17   19  Cupid Childs             216   18         2     3     1  1  4  1  1     2  2  1
18   20  Pete Browning            209   14      2  1  2  1  1  3  1        1     1  1   
19   26  Roger Bresnahan          201   19      1        1  2        3     3  2     6  1
20   21  Cannonball Dick Redding  198   17         1  1     1  2  3     5           2  2
21   23  Charley Jones            174   12   1  1  2     1        2  2     1  1        1
22   22  Burleigh Grimes          170   15         2     2  1  1  1  1        1  1  1  4
23   24  José Méndez              160   13         1     2  2     1  3     1     1  1  1
24   29  Dick Lundy               160   12   1  1  1     1  1     1        2  1  1  2   
25   27  Dobie Moore              146   15            1                 3  5  1  3  1  1
26   30  Bill Monroe              141   13               1  2  1        2  2  2  1  1  1
27   28  Larry Doyle              141   12            2     2  1  2           1  1  2  1
28   25  Jimmy Ryan               127   10            1  2  2           2  2           1
29   32  Wally Schang             118    8   1     2        1  1  1           1     1   
30   31  Sam Rice                 106    9            2     1           2  1  1  2      
31   34  Pie Traynor               88    7      1           1  1        1     2     1   
32   35  George J. Burns           74    8                     1  1     1     1  1  1  2
33   37  Gavy Cravath              73    6         1           1     1  1     2         
34   33  Kiki Cuyler               69    6            1        1     1     1  1     1   
35   41  Carl Mays                 61    7                           1  2        1  1  2
36T  39T John McGraw               55    5                  1        1  2              1
36T  36  Ben Taylor                55    5            1        1              2        1
38T  39T Harry Hooper              51    5                           1  3              1
38T  45  Spotswood Poles           51    5         1                 1           1  1  1
40   38  Vic Willis                44    4                        2        1     1      
41  n/e  Tony Lazzeri              41    4               1                 1  1        1
42   43  Ed Cicotte                40    4               1                 1        2   
43   60T Ed Williamson             39    4                           1     1  1  1      
44   42  Urban Shocker             32    4                              1        1  1  1
45   46T Hack Wilson               30    4                              1           1  2
46T n/e  Frank Chance              29    4                              1              3
46T  60T Addie Joss                29    4                                    1  1     2
48   51T Ed Konetchy               23    2                     1              1         
49   49  Fred Dunlap               22    2                  1                       1   
50   55T Rabbit Maranville         21    3                                       1  1  1
51   46T Bobby Veach               19    2                                 1  1         
52  n/e  Heinie Manush             16    2                                    1     1   
53T n/e  Tommy Bond                15    1                  1                           
53T  50  Dolf Luque                15    1                  1                           
55  n/e  Fielder Jones             14    2                                       1     1
56   55T Buzz Arlett               13    1                        1                     
57T  51T Donie Bush                12    1                           1                  
57T  46T Wilbur Cooper             12    1                           1                  
57T  54  Waite Hoyt                12    1                           1                  
60T  58T Sam Leever                10    1                                 1            
60T n/e  Oliver Marcelle           10    1                                 1            
62T  58T Mike Griffin               9    1                                    1         
62T n/e  Judy Johnson               9    1                                    1         
64T  62T Dave Bancroft              8    1                                       1      
64T  44  Lave Cross                 8    1                                       1      
64T  62T Jim McCormick              8    1                                       1      
67   51T Tom York                   7    1                                          1   
68  n/e  Ray Schalk                 6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Duke Farrell(55T).


John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 04:43 PM | 70 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:26 AM (#1158199)
The numbers may change later on since I haven't received anybody else's tally yet to compare with (not to mention favre's and Trevor's ballots that may be included later on).
   2. jimd Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:37 AM (#1158236)
Big surge for Hugh Ambrose Jennings. Ee-yah!
   3. OCF Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:40 AM (#1158248)
I agree except for one thing: there should be one 15th place vote for Monroe and one less 15th place vote for Moore. Moore 146 points, Monroe 141 points, no changes to the order.

I won't calculate consensus scores just yet - I'd still like to see if we can include favre and Trevor. If they send in corrections, I would include them in the official tally.
   4. OCF Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:49 AM (#1158265)
Oh, and that's 50 ballots, not 51. Goslin was on 48 ballots and left off exactly two (jhwinfrey and Jeff M). Trevor and favre would make 52.
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:49 AM (#1158267)
Thanks, OCF! That was easy to correct.
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:53 AM (#1158268)
Alltime voting pts through 1945, top 15

Van Haltren grabs the No 2 slot, Jennings is about to overtake Thompson and Duffy for No 3, and Griffith climbs into the top 10.
At this rate, Van Haltren would grab the top spot after the 1948 election, but the stellar incoming crop more likely makes him wait until 1949.

Pike 13399
VAN HALTREN 12395.5
Thompson 12349
DUFFY 12149
JENNINGS 12116
BECKLEY 11583
Bennett 11503
BROWNING 10818.5
Caruthers 10704
GRIFITH 10129
RYAN 10043
H Stovey 9576
WADDELL 9505
CHILDS 8551
WELCH 8436
(Bresnahan 6076)

All are welcome to trot out all-time lists if they like. I was updating one from a few yrs back, but seem to have misplaced the full list.
   7. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:56 AM (#1158272)
Also...

Can anyone make this Foster teams list more accurate?

BILL FOSTER
1924 CHI AM GIA (Mem)
1925-30 CHI AM GIA
1931 HOME GRE (Chi Am Gia)
1932-35 CHI AM GIA
1936 PIT CRAW (part-time)
1937 CHI AM GIA

Should 1935 with Chicago American Giants also be a "part-time" season, for instance?

Thanks!
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1158312)
This is what I have, Howie:

Memphis Red Sox (1923-24, 1938); Chicago American Giants (1923-30, 1937); Birmingham Black Barons (1925); Homestead Grays (1931); Kansas City Monarchs (1931); Cole’s American Giants (1932-35); Pittsburgh Crawford (1936)
   9. Chris Cobb Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:19 AM (#1158447)
I have the same teams for Foster as Joh, except that I list "Cole's American Giants" as the Chicago American Giants. The Cole's American Giants team was the Chicago American Giants: the franchise name was temporarily changed during its ownership by Cole and Hall.
   10. OCF Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:55 AM (#1158875)
I went ahead and did the consensus scores. For this purpose, I did go ahead and include a best guess as to Trevor's ballot. (Move everything from his second #5 down one, drop his #15 off.)

The average consensus score was -2.7. That's a considerable drop from the 9.8 and 9.2 of the last two years but still well above 1942's -9.0.

The top 6 scores: Howie Menckel 10, Ardo 8, jschmeagol 6, andrew siegel 6, Tiboreau 6, Chris Cobb 6.

The bottom 5 scores: David C. Jones -19, EricC -19, John Murphy -17, karlmagnus -17, yest -16.

Trevor's ballot would be a -1.

I haven't done it yet, but this year looks worth running the voter-to-voter cross-correlation. After all, David C. Jones and karlmagnus don't have much in common.
   11. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 22, 2005 at 08:41 AM (#1158932)
Seven of David Jones' picks were also on my ballot. I'm guessing that's the most he has in common with any other single voter... though I'm too lazy to figure it out for myself. ;)
   12. OCF Posted: February 22, 2005 at 10:43 AM (#1159045)
I did the pairwise agreement scores between voters for 1945. This is a 0 to 100 scale.

The highest few agreements between voters:

82 andrew siegel & jschmeagol
82 Thane of Bagarth & Michael Bass
80 Ron Wargo & Devin McCullen
80 jschmeagol & David Foss
80 jschmeagol & Howie Menckel
79 Dr. Chaleeko & Andrew Siegel
79 Dan G & Chris Cobb
79 Dr. Chaleeko & Andrew M
79 Andrew M & Trevor

The lowest few:

8 karlmagnus & David C. Jones (surprise!)
11 EricC & Jeff M
12 karlmagnus & Brent
12 EricC & jhwinfrey
14 Michael Bass & John Murphy
15 sunnyday2 & jhwinfrey
15 David C. Jones & yest
16 karlmagnus & jimd
16 Brent & yest
17 karlmagnus & Dr. Chaleeko
17 Brent & John Murphy
17 sunnyday2 & John Murphy
17 EricC & David C. Jones

The hardest person to agree with was John Murphy: his highest score with anyone else was a 51. Next on that scale was EricC at 56.

The hardest people to disagree with were Ardo, Howie Menckel, and Eric Enders; for each them their lowest score with anyone else was a 32.

Eric: your agreement score with David C. Jones was 46, but David had a 62 agreement score with Jeff M.

In my case, my 28 with David Jones was my lowest score; I had a 57 with Eric (and a 77 with Rob Wood.)
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:00 PM (#1159084)
thanks, John and Chris.

which years do you consider 'token' or part-time?
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 03:19 PM (#1159131)
The hardest person to agree with was John Murphy: his highest score with anyone else was a 51.

Not that I'm usually Mr. Consensus, but as I pointed out somewhere else, I'm upgrading my system. Therefore, until the new system is fully implemented, I'm probably going to be a little more contrary than normal.

York falls off my ballot in '46, so that has to help. I will also definitely have the next two winners in my top three, too.
   15. jhwinfrey Posted: February 22, 2005 at 03:50 PM (#1159168)
Looking at the voting trends, it's not surprising that without any strong new candidates this election, several players achieved new highs in voter support:

John Beckwith - 51.4%
Wes Ferrell - 32.5
Edd Roush - 24.8
Dick Lundy - 13.3

Beckwith is the only unelected player to have received at least 51.4% of the possible points in any election.

Only one candidate among the 33 I am tracking saw his support fall in 1945:

Lave Cross - 0.7

Cross received 17.6% of the vote in his first election, but has not bettered that mark in the 30 years since. If he falls off next year, he would join Tip O'Neill and Mike Tiernan as the only players to initially receive at least 15% of the vote and receive 0% in a later election.
   16. Daryn Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:08 PM (#1159201)
I thought the Foster's were half-brothers, not step-brothers. Coming from a family with both halfs and steps, it makes a difference. Does anyone know for sure which is right?
   17. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:12 PM (#1159206)
The lowest few:
...
17 sunnyday2 & John Murphy


This one made me smile. I had these two grouped together in my mind when I first joined the project. (They were two of the most vocal Dickey Pearce supporters). Its fun to watch our notions of 'voter agreement' shift as the electorate changes.
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:26 PM (#1159226)
Howie:

My sense is that Willie Foster was "part-time" 23-25 and 36 (35 i'm just not sure about -- what is your line between ft and pt for pitchers?). 38 is "token" at best; some sources say he worked out with the team in the spring, but didn't actually pitch during the season.
   19. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 22, 2005 at 05:28 PM (#1159333)
Does anyone know for sure which is right?

It's half brothers, definitely. They shared the same father, which of course means they did not grow up together... in fact, until Willie made the Negro Leagues they barely knew each other. Rube was nearly a generation older.
   20. Trevor P. Posted: February 22, 2005 at 06:27 PM (#1159484)
Oy, what a way for me to make a first impression. I'll get that whole counting thing right for my 1946 ballot. I did graduate kindergarten, really.
   21. karlmagnus Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:13 PM (#1159539)
Trevor, AND you were a Beckley fan :-((
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1159564)
It's half brothers, definitely

Absolutely. I meant to post half instead of step (what the hell is a step-brother?)

Oy, what a way for me to make a first impression. I'll get that whole counting thing right for my 1946 ballot. I did graduate kindergarten, really.

:-)

This one made me smile. I had these two grouped together in my mind when I first joined the project. (They were two of the most vocal Dickey Pearce supporters).

We're probably the most vocal anti-timeliners, too. Since Pearce and the 19th Century guys are not really an issue anymore, Marc's peak preferences pushes our ballots apart.
   23. Daryn Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:37 PM (#1159569)
A step brother happens when one of your parents marries someone with a boy already. He becomes your step-brother.
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:49 PM (#1159594)
A step brother happens when one of your parents marries someone with a boy already. He becomes your step-brother.

Just ignore me, Daryn. I'm drowsy still and babbling.

Of course your right. After years of genealogical research (most of it from the actual source documents so I guess I'm not a plagiarizer like that Chris guy :-) for my family (plus watching every episode of "The Brady Bunch") I should know that. :-)
   25. Brent Posted: February 23, 2005 at 04:10 AM (#1160535)
6 12 Hughie Jennings

9 13 George Sisler


I've noticed several times that when another strong candidate at the same position enters the ballot, a player's score will drop; when the strong candidate is elected, their score will often rebound. In 1944 we elected a first baseman (Gehrig) and a middle infielder (Frisch), and the two biggest gainers are a middle infielder and a first baseman.

This observation suggests to me that several voters may be trying to "balance" their ballots across positions, adjusting their ballots to try to maintain a steady mix of players across the various positions.
   26. DanG Posted: February 23, 2005 at 03:16 PM (#1160894)
I think you're right, Brent. IMO, those voters are on the wrong track. Rather than ranking voters against all candidates, they're being ranked within a sub group. Their standing can be greatly affected by a debut of a strong candidate in the same class. So, rather than being ranked on their own merits, they are ranked based upon some artificial grouping. This can cause them to bounce up and down, on and off and back on the ballot again. It only takes a few voters to cause the movement shown for Jennings and Sisler.

In general, continually reranking players makes no sense to me. I think that after about ten years, your pecking order should be pretty well established. An occasional reassessment of a player is understandable, but some voters seem to draw names out of a hat every election.
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 23, 2005 at 03:24 PM (#1160912)
In general, continually reranking players makes no sense to me.

If that's what is happening, then I agree with both of you. If Jennings is #6 one year, he should be near the same ranking the following year even if a Wagner or Lloyd make their debut (unless the vast majority of a returning candidate's votes are located at the bottom of our ballots).
   28. PhillyBooster Posted: February 23, 2005 at 03:33 PM (#1160935)
In general, continually reranking players makes no sense to me. I think that after about ten years, your pecking order should be pretty well established.

To a certain degree this is true. On the other hand, there is a certain recursiveness to my rankings. Just as I weigh into my rankings that "Bill James ranked him 16th at his position," I also consider the fact that "the electorate inducted this player in the HoM." In fact, I consider the collective wisdom of the group much more than I do the rankings of any other individual.

So, for example, if the group inducts Bill Terry or Max Carey, and I think that George Sisler is comparable to Terry or that George van Haltren is comparable to Carey, that will increase my rankings of them. Sort of like seeing how many of a player's "Most Similar" are in the Hall of Fame, I will look at how many are in the HoM. For the HoM, this is a much more dynamic process, since we induct semi-weekly instead of annually.

Seven out of 10 of Hugh Duffy's most similar (on bb-ref) are in the Hall of Fame, but only four are in the HoM (not Cuyler, Roush, or Manush). If we eventually induct one of them (or Jimmy Ryan, GvH or Kenny Lofton or some guy who is not on Duffy's bb-ref most similar list who I consider to be more similar, era adjusted), that is something I would consider, and Duffy's standing on my ballot would rise as a result.

It is not a positional quota, but it is a recognition that "Y is better than X" changes in degree significance when X becomes a HoMer.
   29. DanG Posted: February 23, 2005 at 03:45 PM (#1160952)
I wonder if OCF could do a ballot similarity study, comparing a voter's current ballot to their previous one.
   30. PhillyBooster Posted: February 23, 2005 at 03:51 PM (#1160964)
Meanwhile, I think that Brent's observation may be an improper personification of the voting process -- what the "electorate" did -- that doesn't match the voting pattern of any individual voter.

This is how Jennings finished in 1945.

Jennings, 1-3: 10
Jennings, 4-6: 5
Jennings, 7-9: 4
Jennings, 10-12: 5
Jennings, 13-15: 1

Assuming no new candidates, we can add two ballot places (no one had Jennings first or second in 1944).

This is how Jennings finished in 1944, shifting the rankings down two places.

Jennings, 3-5: 9
Jennings, 6-8: 4
Jennings, 9-11:4
Jennings, 12-15: 6

Essentially, there was one voter who voted for Jennings lower than fifth in 1944, who moved him into the top 3 in 1945. (That could be a voter who bumped him up one or two space relative to another player, or a voter who didn't vote in 1944 ranking him high in 1945 paired with one who didn't vote in 1945 who ranked him lower in 1944 -- I didn't check.)

Jennings had 23 votes in 1944 and 25 votes in 1945 (an increase which actually low, considering that he had four 14th or 15th place votes in 1945 -- so at least two voters dropped him in 1945 relative to his 1944 placement.)

Beware of attributing motive to a collective action. Sometimes every individual acting in a reaonable manner will look unreasonable when viewing the many individuals as a single "electorate".
   31. PhillyBooster Posted: February 23, 2005 at 04:10 PM (#1161005)
Put another way, the mere fact of everyone moving Jennings up 2 places on their ballots, without any rearranging on anyone's part would have gotten him from 12th to 7th place because he had so many 3rd and 4th place ranking in 1944.

He got some extra points somewhere that launched him over Ferrell into 6th, but that could have been caused by one or two new voter placing him on a ballot that excluded Ferrell.
   32. Max Parkinson Posted: February 23, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1161012)
Philly has it correct. Marc (sunnyday) didn't vote in 1944, but did in 1945 - he's a Jennings backer. The 3 or 4 regulars who didn't vote in 1945 never vote for Jennings. Thus a bump. Incidentally, had Marc voted in 1944 (he actually submitted a prelim...), Jennings would have been 9th. The move from 9th to 7th with no superstars arriving on the ballot is not strange at all.
   33. DavidFoss Posted: February 23, 2005 at 04:28 PM (#1161045)
The move from 9th to 7th with no superstars arriving on the ballot is not strange at all.

Plus he's got a top-heavy ballot distribution. Those 8 "elect-me" bonuses that come in backlog years and go in first-ballot-shoo-in years are worth 40 points alone. Only 61 points differentiate slots 5-11 on the ballot.
   34. OCF Posted: February 23, 2005 at 05:27 PM (#1161166)
DanG (#29) - nah, too much work for too little result. Since my systems are based on ballot points rather than ranks, the dominant factor in how similar a voter's ballot is to his previous year's would be whether his own top candidates were elected or not.
   35. DanG Posted: February 23, 2005 at 05:40 PM (#1161204)
OCF--Thanks for the response. I just hoped it would be easy to do, given your current database. It's not, so no big deal.
   36. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 23, 2005 at 06:37 PM (#1161326)
Philly has it correct. Marc (sunnyday) didn't vote in 1944, but did in 1945 - he's a Jennings backer.

This is also true of mysself.
   37. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 23, 2005 at 06:37 PM (#1161328)
(and myself.)
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: February 24, 2005 at 08:30 PM (#1163727)
(of me)?

BTW, it is not true that John and I are half-brothers or even step-brothers.

Interesting though that we agreed on Dickey Pearce. I'm not sure whether our agreement otherwise was high or low or in between.

But I can tell you my methodology has changed a lot over the years, as I know John's has, too. I started this project with a ranking/rating method that had been developed mostly with 20th century players in mind. Starting out in the 19th century, I decided very quickly that it wasn't working, partly because of shorter careers on average and of course because it didn't take into account non-statistical data which was indispensible in understanding players before 1871. And it also did not adjust nearly enough for short seasons. So I developed a new (old?) system for the 19th century.

Well, now that it's the 20th century, my old old system works just fine and I understand the remaining 19th century players well enough to slot them in sort of like I do the Negro Leaguers--subjectively.

So anyway, it is not surprising that any of us who have significantly reworked our evaluation system at any time would drift together and then apart in our judgments over time.
   39. sunnyday2 Posted: February 24, 2005 at 08:35 PM (#1163741)
One analysis I would really really like to see from those of you who tabulate, recognizing that it represents work for somebody other than me:

I would like to see a tabulation of votes by newbies, voters who have joined over the past decade or so, maybe since the big backlog period in the '20s and '30s. The theory being that newcomers to this project are either a) latercomes because they were not interested in the old-timers but are interested in the 20th century/golden age players, or b) might be interested in the 19th century but missed out on all the research and analysis and discussion and so are not well-informed re. the 19th century.

Either way, the hypothesis being that newbies (again, defined as joining since year X or perhaps defined as the last 5-10 newcomers to join, or whatever)...anyway, the hypothesis being that they vote less for old-timers (19th century for sure and maybe deadballers, too) than the electorate as a whole.

Anybody got an easy way to test the hypothesis?
   40. Daryn Posted: February 24, 2005 at 10:47 PM (#1164040)
I joined in 1915 (there were a little over 40 voters back then). I didn't join earlier despite lurking from the start due to my lack of knowledge about 19th Century baseball. That lack of knowledge made it very difficult to intelligently determine which of the individuals who eventually became HoMers between 1898 and 1914 were better than the others. By 1915 and certainly the 1920s, there were fewer left to analyze which made the job easier. As a result, I have a reasonable number of 19th players on or close to my ballot, but maybe fewer in my 58 person consideration set than I should, because it is a lot of work to place those guys accurately between 40 and 60 when I have already determined they aren't good enough to make the top 40.
   41. jimd Posted: February 24, 2005 at 11:33 PM (#1164116)
MW=Welch PB=Browning CJ=Jones NW=Williamson
FD=Dunlap TB=Bond JM=McCormick TY=York

1 MW/dary MW/KfSD MW/EsRi CJ/RicA
2 MW/karl PB/SeGi PB/RicA CJ/KfSD
3 MW/jhwi PB/KfSD CJ/SeGi CJ/JoDi
4 MW/yest PB/JefM PB/diEE
5 MW/Budd PB/EsRi CJ/Tibo
6 MW/RuPr PB/karl TB/sunn FD/jimd
7 MW/PhBo PB/yest PB/DonF PB/KeFi
8 MW/KeFi PB/AlPe CJ/ansi CJ/DaFo
9 MW/JoMu MW/HoMe CJ/karl CJ/JefM NW/sunn
10
11 MW/DonF PB/PhBo CJ/JoMu NW/favr
12 CJ/sunn NW/SeGi
13 PB/dary NW/Ardo JM/jhwi
14 PB/TBag FD/MiBa TY/JoMu
15 CJ/TBag

These are the votes recieved by 1870's/80's guys and who cast them (I trust the voter abbreviations are not too cryptic). About a quarter of the votes for Welch, Browning, and CJones come from voters for whom the historical Spalding/Start/Sutton debates were required reading in school ;-) Relative newcomers such as KfSD, jhwi, diEE, Budd, Tibo, Ardo and TBag all are mentioned here, some multiple times.

I don't think the elder marginals are being ignored by the new generation of voters (though a more indepth analysis may prove me wrong).
   42. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 25, 2005 at 12:23 AM (#1164189)
I definitely vote for fewer 19th century players than some people, but that's mostly because I feel you guys had already elected most of the deserving candidates before I got here. Here are the ones I've voted for:

1933 -- Browning, Jennings, Van Haltren, Pike
1934 -- Browning, Jennings, Van Haltren
1935 -- Browning, Jennings, Van Haltren
1945 -- Browning, Jennings
   43. Thane of Bagarth Posted: February 25, 2005 at 01:17 AM (#1164262)
Hmmm..."TBag"? That doesn't exactly conjure the most flattering mental image.

Anyhow, I've actually been reevaluating my ranking of Browning and Charley Jones. I think I was giving Jones too much credit for his missed seasons, and generally overrating Pete by just a tad. Given that there isn't a huge difference between #15 on my ballot and #35, this change may drop them 10+ spots.
   44. jimd Posted: February 25, 2005 at 01:31 AM (#1164278)
Sorry about that. Next time I'll use 'ThBa' instead.
   45. PhillyBooster Posted: February 25, 2005 at 03:46 AM (#1164545)
The alternate theory, of course, is that we "old timers" are too hung up on the guys we've been voting for 30 or 40 years in a row, and just can't let them drop off of our ballots despite what the disinterested newcomers see as their clear inferiority.
   46. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 25, 2005 at 04:07 AM (#1164578)
Yeah, I am with PhillyBooster on that. You old guys just need to get with it ;-)
   47. Chris Cobb Posted: February 25, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1164618)
I first voted in aught-three, so I guess that makes me an old-timer, though I still see myself as a young whipper-snapper next to the Founders. . . .

Anyway, I don't have any pre-1890 players on my ballot. I think we've done a good job with the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s. My first assessment of players is in the context of their era, and I think we have the HoMers we should from the first 30 years. The only two players from that era who I consider possible HoMers are Welch and Bond, whom we may have erred in leaving out of the HoM. Welch was on my ballot until recently and I could see supporting him in future; I've never supported Bond, but I know that I don't know enough about his real value to say that I could never support him. I respect Sunnyday2's long-running support for Bond, certainly.

The other pre-1890 players still getting support were very good players, but not outstanding enough in the context of their time to get close to my ballot at this point: I really can't see Charley Jones, Pete Browning, or Ned Williamson as top candidates now.

The 1890s are a whole different ballgame, of course. I've had Griffith, Jennings, and Van Haltren on my ballot forever, with Duffy and Ryan close. I have not supported Beckley or Childs myself. Since the electorate has (partly by an accident of the election cycle) underrated the players of the 1890s era, and I think it's important for us to elect another 2-4 players from that era to get it right, I'd rather have Beckley and Childs than nobody. Given that five of these players are among the top 10 returning candidates, there's a lot of support out there for this group, just not quite enough to get them over the top, perhaps because there are seven of them, and they all have this or that gap in the resume that has caused them to be buried by just enough voters to keep them from election.
   48. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 25, 2005 at 02:56 PM (#1165192)
I believe that we should take Chris' advice and all vote for Jennings in 1946. Turkey who? Mule what? Who are these guys?
   49. Cblau Posted: February 25, 2005 at 08:00 PM (#1166011)
Re: underrating of 1890s players. I'm not so sure. There's a discussion on SABR-L now about whether some eras have better pitching than others. Upon reflection, it seems to me that the mid-1890s was very likely an era of weak pitching. Not just because of high scoring, but because the rules changes and economic conditions led to the early termination of some pitchers' careers, and others couldn't adapt to the new rules. Thus, until there was an influx of new pitchers who had adapted, in the late-1890s, pitching was weak. Therefore, when evaluating the hitters of that time, a larger than normal deflator should be used.
   50. sunnyday2 Posted: February 25, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1166159)
First, I am happy that my hypothesis has been confirmed false for now.

Second, Chris' distinction between 1890s and pre-1890s players is exactly appropriate. The 1890s players are now a familiar part of baseball lore, though I must admit it is therefore surprising that we seem to have a shortage thereof in the HoM. But who doesn't have a mental image of the Billy Hamiltons and Hugh Duffys and Ed Delahantys and Clark Griffiths.

Meanwhile, our mental imagery of the 1860s-'70- and '80s players is quite different once you get past the obvious King Kellys. I mean, who even has a mental image of Jim O'Rourke? I have a statistical image but not a mental image. And so anybody who cannot be elected strictly by the numbers cannot get elected (I say this in reference to the bizzaro HoF discussion elsewhere).

Add to that the difficulty of creating a clear statistical legacy in 50-75-100 game seasons.

Again, Chris' basic observation goes against intuition--i.e. we should have too few from the '80s and too many from the '90s. Except that I would say we still do have too few from the '80s. If, as we get into electing 3 a year, if we don't elect any more from the '70s and '80s, that is, there will be too few.

Think of it this way. Our timeline today (you and me in real time) goes to 2005 and no further, or about 2010 in election time. But in the real/not real world, the voting will continue after 2010, after you and I are gone. If between 2010 and 2040 our kids and grandkids fail to elect any more players pre-1893 the HoM will become unbalanced over time because we are electing more and more players per year.

Now I know that the number of electees per year was set up that way to mirror the number of teams, but let's be honest. The number of teams has nothing to do with the number of players out at the far right end of the bell curve of baseball talent. I mean, that is exactly the point of those who say that so-and-so (Norm Cash?) should be discounted for "flukey" achievements that occur just after expansion. So we could double the size of the MLs today, and elect twice as many players from exactly the same talent base. And we would get really out of balance really fast.

But that is what we are going to be doing anyway, just not so egregiously. But, getting back to Chris' point, we will catch up on the '90s I think, but pre-'93, probably not.
   51. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 25, 2005 at 09:08 PM (#1166221)
sunnyday,

While the number of teams has no real effect, in theory, on the number of players at the far end of the spectrum, we will be culling from a much larger population base.

In the 1890's there were no blacks, latinos, or asians, we had a much smaller population, AND not all of the country was well scouted.

The percentage of players at the top is what we should worry about, not the raw number. Since the pool in 2005 is probably 2 or 3 times larger then we should be sending in more players. Not 2 or 3 times more for a variety of reasons, but maybe 1.5-1.8 times more or something like that.

cblau,

I don't see how the weakenss of the pitching means that we should elect fewer 1890's position players. If you want to use that argument against Clark Griffith, fine. But it isnt' really relevant to Jennings, Childs, Duffy, et al. especially since uberstats like Win Shares and WARP aren't really affected by the weak pitching. If anything if the pitching was weaker during this period, a few Win Shares should be shifted from the pitchers to the position players.
   52. EricC Posted: February 25, 2005 at 11:42 PM (#1166595)
HoMers by birth decade (through 1945):

1830s 1
1840s 4
1850s 20
1860s 10
1870s 15
1880s 20
1890s 10
1900s 5

This doesn't prove one way or another that any particular era is underrepresented or overrepresented, as clumping in the distribution of random events can occur by chance, but the large number of 1850s-born HoMers jumps out. Also, it proves that we need to elect Levi Meyerle to get the number of 1840s-born players divisible by 5. :-)
   53. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: February 26, 2005 at 01:21 AM (#1166714)
Also, it proves that we need to elect Levi Meyerle to get the number of 1840s-born players divisible by 5. :-)

Should we elect Harry Wright, Nate Berkenstock, Dave Birdsall and Al Barker to bring the 1830s up to speed, too? ;)
   54. DavidFoss Posted: February 26, 2005 at 01:28 AM (#1166723)
Should we elect Harry Wright, Nate Berkenstock, Dave Birdsall and Al Barker to bring the 1830s up to speed, too? ;)

Nah... it almost looks like binomial coefficents if we leave the '1' in there.

Never heard of Al Barker... is he Bob's little brother?
   55. Cblau Posted: February 26, 2005 at 03:39 AM (#1166855)
I don't see how the weakenss of the pitching means that we should elect fewer 1890's position players. If you want to use that argument against Clark Griffith, fine. But it isnt' really relevant to Jennings, Childs, Duffy, et al. especially since uberstats like Win Shares and WARP aren't really affected by the weak pitching.
It wouldn't affect the comparison of them to their contemporaries. But if you are comparing them to players of another era, it is like using Buzz Arlett's PCL stats without adjusting them for the weaker pitching he faced.
   56. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 26, 2005 at 04:08 PM (#1167182)
I see your point, but I am nto one to spend a lot of time looking at raw stats because of timeline issues. Dont' get me wrong I use them, but it isn't like they are the base of my system or anything.

When I use traditional stats I generally look at BP's translated or equivalent stats, regualr raw stats and draw a happy medium between them. I feel BP uses a very strong timeline, a little too strong maybe.
   57. jimd Posted: March 04, 2005 at 11:44 PM (#1181040)
Electees by election date by decade of prime
      1870's      1880's      1890's      1900's      1910's      1920's      1930's
1898  White
      Hines       Gore
      Barnes
1899  O'Rourke    Kelly
1900              Clarkson
                  Ward
1901  Wright      Keefe
1902              Brouthers
                  Ewing
1903  Anson       Connor
1904              Glasscock   Rusie
1905              Radbourn
                  Richardson
1906  Spalding
1907                          Hamilton
1908  Sutton
1909                          Delahanty
1910              Galvin
1911                          Nichols
1912  Start                   Burkett
1913              McPhee
1914  McVey
1915                          Davis
                              Dahlen
1916              Stovey
1917                          Young
                              Clarke
1918                                      Flick
1919                          Keeler
                              Kelley
1920                                      Walsh
1921              Bennett     Collins
1922                                      Lajoie
                                          Mathewson
1923                                      Wagner
1924                                      Crawford
                                          Plank
1925                                      Johnson
                                          Brown
1926                          Grant       Magee
1927                                      Hill        Jackson
1928                                      McGinnity   Baker
1929                          Thompson    Wallace
1930              Caruthers               Sheckard
1931  Pearce
1932                                      Santop
                                          Foster
1933                                                  Johnson
                                                      Wheat
1934                                                  Cobb
                                                      Speaker
1935                                                  Lloyd
                                                      Collins
1936                                                  Alexander
                                                      Williams
1937                                                  Torriente   Heilmann
1938                                                  Groh        Coveleski
1939                                                  Carey       Faber
1940  Pike                                                        Rogan
1941                                                              Ruth
                                                                  Hornsby
1942                                                              Vance
                                                                  Terry
1943                                                              Charleston  Cochrane
1944                                                              Frisch      Gehrig
1945                                                              Goslin
                                                                  Foster

 85   12          16          14          16          13          12          2
 11                            1           4           3           3
      CJones      Welch       GRIFFITH    WADDELL     SISLER      BECKWITH    FERRELL
                              JENNINGS    LEACH                   RIXEY
                              VANHALTREN                          SEWELL
                              BECKLEY                             ROUSH
                              DUFFY                               

23-34-28
      1-5-6       6-4-6       3-7-4       6-5-5       3-6-4       4-6-2       0-1-1


Numbers:
85 etc. Number of electees by decade
11 etc. Number of NeL electees by decade
CJones etc. Leading candidates by decade (caps denotes top 15)
23-34-28 etc. Breakdown by position group.
23 "arms" (pitchers)
34 "bats" (1B/OF)
28 "gloves" (C/SS/3B/2B)

Note: position groups probably should balance evenly, with a small lag for pitchers due to short rotations in the 19th century. Expectation should be about 24-30-30. As usual, "bats" are proving popular, though not alarmingly so (yet).
   58. DavidFoss Posted: March 05, 2005 at 12:29 AM (#1181121)
Slick chart jimd!
   59. sunnyday2 Posted: March 05, 2005 at 02:15 AM (#1181280)
Yes, great chart.

One quibble, okay two.

Pearce's prime clearly was in the '60s. Start's peak clearly was in the '60s though you could argue prime in the '70s depending on how many seasons make a prime.

OTOH I'm not advocating a whole new column just for that.

I had stopped counting the mix of arms, bats and gloves, nice to get caught up. I do think we are a little bat heavy and glove weak. My PHom/not HoM includes Childs, Jennings and Williamson, while HoM/not PHoM includes Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Pete Hill and Keeler, though it is true that Stovey is queued up to be the next current HoM/not PHom to go into PHoM.

Oh, and who says we haven't elected enough 1890s? Seems to me we are well within the margin of error, or rather what would be expected to be a random distribution of "greats," unless you assume a priori that the number of electees should increase ad infinitum. Which brings me to post #55.

The real difference between Arlett and Duffy et al, is Duffy played against the best available competition, Arlett (for whatever reason) did not. The issue was never whether Duffy could step off a time machine and be a star in the '20s, at least not to me. (Of course he is not in my PHoM or anything.)
   60. Michael Bass Posted: March 05, 2005 at 02:26 AM (#1181288)
I'd caution against using the chart to judge whether the 90s (or any other decade) is well-represented, obviously some judments made here where players are basically split.

With that said, I'll do just that. :)

What stands out to me is the apparent long-run deficit for the teens. It's not that it's low now (it has one more, for example, than the 20s), but that it only has one of the next 15 backloggers likely to get in.

I suppose this is my roundabout way of stumping for Mendez again. ;)
   61. OCF Posted: March 05, 2005 at 02:45 AM (#1181301)
I suppose this is my roundabout way of stumping for Mendez again. ;)

My horse in that particular race is Doyle. Of course he (and Beckwith) sort of throw a monkey wrench into jimd's simple classification of "bats" and "gloves."

On the other hand if the we were somehow counting for each decade not the headcount of how many we were electing but some kind of measure of total value (above replacement, above average - whatever you prefer) of those elected with primes in that decade ... if we were to count things that way, the teens are doing just fine.
   62. Howie Menckel Posted: March 05, 2005 at 03:52 AM (#1181375)
I'm somewhat agnostic on the 1890s thing, I just think it's helpful for all to look at it and decide from there.

My only query is that the one time where MLB teams decreased also is the one time we go 'backwards' in HOM selections.
Which doesn't guarantee that we've made any mistakes, either.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 05, 2005 at 04:00 AM (#1181386)
Fred Clarke and Jimmy Collins belong in the 1900 section since they unquestionably had more value in that decade, IMO. I also agree with Marc about Pearce and Start.

With that said, good chart, Jim!
   64. jimd Posted: March 05, 2005 at 04:02 AM (#1181390)
Of course he (and Beckwith) sort of throw a monkey wrench into jimd's simple classification of "bats" and "gloves."

Don't get too hung up on the names of the groups. The groups are based on defensive spectrum position groupings, not on analyzing the individuals. That is, Carey is a "bat" because he played CF; Hornsby is a "glove" because he played 2B, despite their respective reputations. Most "bats" are elected for their bats, but not all; most "gloves" get extra credit for their position, but not all. It's more mnemonic (and fun) than calling the groups Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.
   65. jimd Posted: March 05, 2005 at 04:09 AM (#1181393)
I also agree with Marc about Pearce and Start.

I didn't have room for a 60's column. No misrepresentation intended.

Fred Clarke and Jimmy Collins

Players who turn 27-29 at the turn of a decade tend to be harder to classify because their peak may be in one with more value in the following. Hines and McPhee were also problems. Sisler would probably be, absent sinus infection. Another year or two and Terry too. Caruthers if he lasted longer, McGinnity the reverse if he got started earlier. And so on.
   66. yest Posted: March 06, 2005 at 04:05 AM (#1183286)
shouldn't Anson be in the 80's
   67. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 07, 2005 at 04:41 AM (#1185102)
Yeah, I got totally different results when I did this, but I went more by total value. I had Pearce in the 60s, Hines and O'Rourke in the 80s, Clarke and Collins in the 00s, Magee, Santop and Hill in the 10s, and Terry in the 30s.
   68. jimd Posted: March 08, 2005 at 04:05 AM (#1187064)
Sewell continues to sink. It looks like there will be very few "gloves" elected to the HOM from the 1920's. No catcher between Santop and Cochrane? No SS between Lloyd and Cronin? No 3B between Groh and Mathews? Just 2B.

I know some will point at Beckwith here, but I tend to doubt that he would have stayed at 3B in the majors, given the questions surrounding his fielding. Hornsby came up as a SS and also played 3B before settling in at 2B. I see Beckwith as doing the same, if not moving directly to 1B.
   69. Paul Wendt Posted: May 28, 2007 at 12:40 AM (#2380907)
It appears that 51 ballots were accepted, not 52.

The election data posted by David Foss shows 10353 total points this year, or 203 * 51.
203 is the number of points per complete ballot in this or any other "elect two".

Near the top OCF observed that the number of ballots would finally be 50 to 52
4. OCF Posted: February 21, 2005 at 09:49 PM (#1158265)
Oh, and that's 50 ballots, not 51. Goslin was on 48 ballots and left off exactly two (jhwinfrey and Jeff M). Trevor and favre would make 52.


--
Following the link to "Our Constitution" earlier this hour, I got a blank template, no title or introduction. I did not find that title in the 9-page index of the
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2007 at 12:05 PM (#2381144)
Following the link to "Our Constitution" earlier this hour, I got a blank template, no title or introduction. I did not find that title in the 9-page index of the


Did you pass out at the end of that sentence, Paul? ;-)

The thread is reopened again. Why it was closed? Who knows?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
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 1.0290 seconds
49 querie(s) executed