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, August 08, 2005

1957 Results: DiMaggio and Beckwith Are the Latest of the Greatest to Be Hall of Merit Immortalized!

By unanimous vote, New York Yankee legend Joe DiMaggio became a new inductee into the HoM. He’s now the seventh to receive 100% of all possible points (joing a group consisting of Cy Young, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Lefty Grove).

Also selected (eligible since 1940) was Negro League slugger John Beckwith, who comfortably won the second spot to gain immortality. He is now the 20th NeL player to enter the portals of the HoM.

Star shortstop Lou Boudreau made a very strong showing at #4 and should be on the road to induction himself fairly shortly.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Billy Herman, Stan Hack, Joe Medwick, Red Ruffing, Hughie Jennings, Wes Ferrell, and Biz Mackey.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Joe DiMaggio            1128   47  47                                          
 2    3  John Beckwith            654   40     13  4  2  5  1  1  3  2  2  2  1  1     3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3    4  Billy Herman             583   41      6  5  2  2  2  8     2  4  2  2  2  1  3
 4  n/e  Lou Boudreau             451   32      3  5  3  1  2  3  5  1  2  2  1     1  3
 5    5  Stan Hack                417   32         4  2  1  5  3  2  4  2  4  2  3      
 6    6  Joe Medwick              369   29      3  2  3  1  1  2  2  3  2  1     1  4  4
 7    7  Red Ruffing              347   26      3     5  2  1  2  1     2  3  3     2  2
 8    8  Hughie Jennings          325   20      4  2  4  3     2  3              1     1
 9   10  Wes Ferrell              292   23      1  2  1  2  4     1  1  3  3  1  1  1  2
10   12  Biz Mackey               268   24      1     1  1  3  2  3     1  1  1  4  2  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11    9  Earl Averill             266   22         1  3  2  1  1     4  1  3  3     2  1
12   11  Eppa Rixey               238   18      1  2  1  2  3  1  1  1     1  1  1  1  2
13   14  George Sisler            231   18      2     2  2  1  1     1  1  2  2  2  1  1
14   13  Clark Griffith           219   17      1  2  1  1  2  1     2  2  1     1  1  2
15   15  Jake Beckley             213   16      1  2  3        1  3        2     3     1
16   17  George Van Haltren       203   17         2  1  2  1     1  2  1  1  3        3
17   16  Cool Papa Bell           198   16         3     1  1     1  3  2     2  3      
18   19  Hugh Duffy               171   14         2        1  2  2  1  2  1  1     1  1
19   23  Mickey Welch             168   11      2  2     1  2     1        2        1   
20   22  Cupid Childs             162   14            1  1  3     1  2  1     1     3  1
21  n/e  Bobby Doerr              155   13         1        1  1  3  2  2     1     2   
22   20  Joe Sewell               154   13         1     1  1  2  2     1  1  1     3   
23   21  Pete Browning            146   11      1  1  3     1                 2  1  1  1
24   27  Bucky Walters            135   11            1  1  1  1  1  3        1  1  1   
25   18  Cannonball Dick Redding  130   11         1  1        1  1  1  2  1  1  1  1   
26   28  Dobie Moore              123   10         1     2     1     3        1  1     1
27   34  Alejandro Oms            119    9            2  1  1     2        2     1      
28   24  José Méndez              111   10               1  1  2  1  1           1  1  2
29   29  Charley Jones            109    7      1  1  1     1  1     1     1            
30   30  Tommy Leach              100    9            1        1  1  2     1     2     1
31   26  Gavy Cravath              98    8      1     1  1     1                 1  2  1
32   35  Burleigh Grimes           97    9               2  1        1        1  2  1  1
33   25  Joe Gordon                96   10               1        1  1  2           3  2
34   31  Rube Waddell              88    9                  1  1     1        1  3  2   
35   36  Roger Bresnahan           86    8         1     1              1     3     2   
36   32  Wally Schang              78    6      1              1  1        1  2         
37   33  Edd Roush                 67    6      1                       2     1     1  1
38   39  Larry Doyle               64    5               2        1        1  1         
39   37T Dizzy Dean                61    6            1                 1  1  1  1     1
40   43  John McGraw               50    5                     1     1     1        2   
41   37T Bob Johnson               46    4               1              1  1  1         
42   42  Ernie Lombardi            41    3      1                          1     1      
43   44  Chuck Klein               39    3                  1     1     1               
44T  41  Tommy Bridges             38    4                              1  1  1  1      
44T  40  Bill Monroe               38    4               1                       1  2   
46  n/e  Charlie Keller            36    3               1              1     1         
47   45  Ben Taylor                35    3                  1           1     1         
48   48  Addie Joss                31    3                     1              1  1      
49   46T Sam Rice                  24    2                     1           1            
50   58T Vic Willis                21    2                              1  1            
51   46T Wally Berger              20    2                           1           1      
52   50  Carl Mays                 18    2                              1           1   
53   53T Ed Williamson             17    2                                    1  1      
54   51T Pie Traynor               17    1            1                                 
55   51T Ed Cicotte                16    1               1                              
56T  55  Tommy Bond                15    1                  1                           
56T n/e  Fred Dunlap               15    1                  1                           
58  n/e  Bobby Veach               14    1                     1                        
59T  56  Dolf Luque                13    1                        1                     
59T  57  Leroy Matlock             13    1                        1                     
61  n/e  Fielder Jones             11    1                              1               
62   53T George J. Burns           10    1                                 1            
63T  58T Lefty Gomez                8    1                                       1      
63T  58T Sam Leever                 8    1                                       1      
63T  49  Dick Lundy                 8    1                                       1      
66  n/e  Rabbit Maranville          7    1                                          1   
67T n/e  Wilbur Cooper              6    1                                             1
67T  63T Hack Wilson                6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Buzz Arlett(61T), Frank Chance(63T), 
Spotswood Poles(61T).
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 08, 2005 at 11:02 PM | 41 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: August 09, 2005 at 04:09 AM (#1531589)
Congrats to both stars! It'll be nice not having Beckwith near the top of my ballot anymore. :-)
   2. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: August 09, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1532159)
I continue to be impressed at the level of consideration non-AL and NL players receive. By my count out of 109 HOMers, 20 have been negro or Cuban league players and 20 others played for now defunct clubs in the 19th century. OK this counts guys like Cy Young but it's still impressive, and Pike was "emplaqued" as "recently" as 1940. Also Oms jumped 7 places this time.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2005 at 02:56 PM (#1532168)
and Pike was "emplaqued" as "recently" as 1940.

If "emplaque" is not a word, it should be. :-)
   4. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 09, 2005 at 03:43 PM (#1532286)
I still don't get why Boudreau gets 451 points and Dobie Moore gets 123.... This does not compute.
   5. karlmagnus Posted: August 09, 2005 at 03:46 PM (#1532294)
I don't understand why Boudreau gets 451 points and Doerr 155. The two together suggest the problem is a gross overrating of Boudreau.
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2005 at 03:53 PM (#1532321)
I still don't get why Boudreau gets 451 points and Dobie Moore gets 123.... This does not compute.

I agree. They're comparable players.
   7. yest Posted: August 09, 2005 at 04:25 PM (#1532389)
how exactly did Sewell go from almost being elected to 22?
   8. Michael Bass Posted: August 09, 2005 at 05:11 PM (#1532489)
This is obvious by the fact that I had them 2 and 5 on my last ballot, but IMO the problem is an underrating of Moore, not an overrating of Boudreau.
   9. DanG Posted: August 09, 2005 at 05:16 PM (#1532501)
One of the most unusual vote distributions ever is Hughie Jennings in 1957:

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-Off
0-4-2-4-3-0-2-3-0--0--0--0--1--0--1--27
   10. TomH Posted: August 09, 2005 at 05:44 PM (#1532561)
how exactly did Sewell go from almost being elected to 22?
--
good question, yest!

My dad (as he tells it) suffered on the high school track team as beng an athelete wihtout an event. He could finish 4th in the 100 yds, the mile, the shot put, the high jump...but he was never 'great' at any of them.

Sewell doesn't have the bestest peak, prime, or career; he merely is good at everything.

I guess that still doesn't explain why he USED to be electable tho. He is basically on-half smidge behind Boudreau in my book.
   11. OCF Posted: August 09, 2005 at 05:55 PM (#1532591)
Voted this year and not last: Adam Schafer, Kelly from SD. Both of them long-term regulars, presumably returning from vacation/computer trouble/etc. Voted last year and not this: favre, Max Parkinson. Have voted in the last 5 years but not the last two: Craig B., David C. Jones. It's been 5 years now: Eric Enders.

Our electorate is a stable body that shows no signs of growing. The last new member we accepted was Gadfly, who started voting in 1946.

We had a split-personality election: a unanimous #1 new candidate masking the fact that it was basically a backlog election. The average consensus score was -1.2, the lowest since 1945, and the best possible was a mere 15. Of course, the average consensus score is about to plunge much lower, perhaps challenging the all-time record lows.

Individual scores:

Adam Schafer: 9
dan b: 7
jschmeagol: 6
Andrew Siegel: 6
Patrick W: 5
...
Don F: 0.4 (median)
...
Al Peterson: -1.2
...
Brent: -11
yest: -11
Gadfly: -13
karlmagnus: -17
Kelly from SD: -18
   12. OCF Posted: August 09, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1532653)
The decision to declare jimd's ballot unconstitutional and force him to include his "lost causes" is not neutral with respect to the competing candidates. If we encourage a voter to vote for no-chance candidates like Fielder Jones, who won't he be voting for? Probably not someone like Jennings whose support is intense but narrow. Thowing the occasional vote to F. Jones won't hurt Jennings, but will hurt the candidates who rank in the 15-20 range for a lot of people - like maybe Sewell, or Doerr.

We are supposed to influence each other - why else make the voting public? There have been occasions when I voted for someone - Ginger Beaumont, Johnny Evers - only to discover than no one else was voting for them. So I dropped them. That no one else could see what I thought I saw - well then maybe it wasn't even there. Is that re-evaluation, or is that dropping a lost cause? For years, Jimmy Ryan was coupled to George Van Haltren - and then they decoupled. Van Haltren is still a candidate, and Ryan has disappeared. That's certainly "lost cause" thinking - I know it was for me, as I gradually let new candidates filter into the space between them. Why isn't KJOK voting for Frank Chance? He doesn't even mention him any more.

The only difference with jimd was that he said it. As we have discovered, the issue with having a Hall with ~200 members is that the difference between #200 and #500 isn't very large. We elected Max Carey. Are we 100% sure that Max Carey was better than Fielder Jones? But you can turn that around - are we sure the Fielder Jones was better than Mike Griffin?
   13. Michael Bass Posted: August 09, 2005 at 06:24 PM (#1532677)
You're right that there is no way to police the "lost cause" stuff unless people admit they are using that logic as jimd did. We're counting on people be honest in their evaluations, just like we're counting on people not looking at the top 5 returners this year and thinking, "Hmm...I really don't like Hack. I think I'll make Ruffing #1 on my ballot to help him top Stan."

I hope everyone's being honest...jim obviously was, and has accepted the ruling. Karl and yest, to name a couple, obviously are as well. Let's not turn the HOM into a contest of strategic voting; let's discuss the players, and everyone rank their top 15 eligible, even if everyone else thinks they are batshit crazy. :)
   14. PhillyBooster Posted: August 09, 2005 at 06:41 PM (#1532735)
From my perspective, dropping lost causes only dilutes the value of your ballot. I'm not really sure why anyone would even WANT to, even if they were deviously strategic.

Voters who vote for "lost causes" probably have more of an effect on the outcome than those who don't.

I am currently the only Dolf Luque voter, and he will probably never be elected. But why should I drop him and give more points to a lower rated candidate who I don't really think deserves it? For me, dropping Luque in the last election would mean adding #16 Averill. Why do I want to help him pull away from lower-ranked (by the electorate) but better (in my evaluation) Eppa Rixey?

If I wanted to be strategic, I would suddenly "discover" some lost causes to add to my ballot next year instead of Averill, not drop my lost causes so I could dilute my vote.
   15. PhillyBooster Posted: August 09, 2005 at 06:43 PM (#1532743)
Put another way, there's really no reason to even try to police players who drop their lost causes. They are self-policing by having their own votes count less, overall.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2005 at 06:49 PM (#1532772)
The key thing is that you need to have the fifteen best candidates on your ballot. No ifs, ands, or buts. That doesn't mean we shouldn't influence others - that's to be encouraged. But if Jim honestly felt that Dunlap, Veach, Maranville, and F. Jones belonged on his ballot (which he did since he changed his ballot), then that's where they belong.

Anyone who is eliminating "lost causes" from their ballot are just as wrong as he was (except that Jim was upfront in regard to it). Thankfully, Jim had no problem with revising his ballot.

I hope everyone's being honest

I do, too.
   17. DanG Posted: August 09, 2005 at 06:53 PM (#1532783)
Matt re Strategic voting. Suppose I didn't vote for Hack last time, but I'm worried that Boudreau will be elected. I could drop a lost cause like Roush then add Hack to help push him past Boudreau. Maybe I only have to do this a couple years, bringing Roush back after Boudreau's SNT effect has worn off and he's safely drifting down the queue.

Just a hypothetical.
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: August 09, 2005 at 07:05 PM (#1532828)
Once the "strategic voting" can of worms is opened, all kinds of invidious possibilities appear, so let us not go there . . .

jimd can explain his reasoning for his "lost causes" approach (and I think he has), but one thing that it does is call attention to the possibility that certain older candidates are being unfairly neglected.

I'm certainly going to take a closer look at Bobby Veach than I have in a while.
   19. PhillyBooster Posted: August 09, 2005 at 07:19 PM (#1532871)
Dan,

It is certainly possible to construct a hypothetical in which dropping a lost cause would be to your advantage strategically in a specific case.

I am referring to the pattern of systematically dropping lost causes in favor of consensus choices. Over the decades, the voter with 7 or 8 consensus picks and 7 or 8 lost causes will have a much greater impact on the voting than a voter with 15 consensus choices, in whatever order (or, alternatively, 15 lost causes).
   20. sunnyday2 Posted: August 09, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1533140)
Some lost causes...

Dobie Moore
Tommy Bond
Jose Mendez
Addie Joss
Ed Williamson

...who are on my ballot. (Can't believe I'm not in the bottom 5 in consensus, though I admit there is some imcredibly stiff competition for the bottom there.)

If I announce them as lost causes next year and delete them from my ballot, and then get a post from John saying no, you can't do that, and resubmit my ballot with my lost causes back in place, will more people give consideration to my lost causes then?

I didn't think so ;-)

PS. Matt, check back in about 40 years and you can ask karl how it feels to have 15 lost causes! ;-) ;-)
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2005 at 09:46 PM (#1533347)
If I announce them as lost causes next year and delete them from my ballot, and then get a post from John saying no, you can't do that, and resubmit my ballot with my lost causes back in place, will more people give consideration to my lost causes then?

I didn't think so ;-)


I guess it couldn't hurt to try it, Marc. :-D
   22. OCF Posted: August 09, 2005 at 09:50 PM (#1533356)
sunnyday2: -6

So there were several people - including jimd - between you and the bottom 5. You did have the top 4 candidates, and 6 of the top 8, on your ballot. Kelly from SD didn't vote for anyone from #2 through #8.

I will say that neither Moore nor Mendez really count as lost causes. The current discussion is focusing on our infielder glut - and Moore is very much a part of that conversation, with some strong supporters. And I expect at least one of Mendez or Redding to hang on for a long time and eventually climb up the ballot.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: August 09, 2005 at 10:25 PM (#1533447)
Just thinking out loud. Is the 2B glut better than the SS glut?

2Bmen 88 total ballots, 1,113 points
SSs 77 and 1,068

1 and 2. Herman and Childs 55 and 745
Boudreau and Jennings 52 and 776

3. Doerr 13 and 155, Sewell 13 and 154
4. Gordon 10 and 96, Moore 10 and 123

5-6-7. Doyle, Monroe, Dunlap 10 and 117
Lundy and Maranville 2 and 15

At 1 and 2, the career guy, Herman, leads a pair of slightly short careers (and more peak type candidates) and a really short career (and pure peak candidate). But if one of these 4 is not like the rest, seems to me it is Childs.

At 3 and 4, oddly enough, the career guys, Doerr and Sewell pair up, and the peak guys, Gordon and Moore, pair up. One of these 4 is not like the rest, and some think that makes him better, others not. For myself, I think we have both pairs (2Bs and SSs) in the wrong order.

At 5-6-7, are Doyle, Monroe and Dunlap that much better collectively than Lundy, Maranville and (your choice, mine would be Dave Bancroft)? Depends on how you value hitting versus defense, seems to me. I love Doyle and Monroe, but I also love Lundy and Bancroft. Dunlap and Maranville would fall into the category of l.c. (lost cause).

Of this entire group, Doerr and Maranville are the only ones who have never been on my ballot, and the Rabbit is clearly the weakest of the candidates, but Doerr is just up against some tough competition and I have him about equal to Doyle in about the middle of the pack--behind Jennings, Moore, Herman, Boudreau and Gordon, but ahead of Childs, Sewell, Monroe, Dunlap and Rabbit, in that order.
   24. kthejoker Posted: August 09, 2005 at 11:03 PM (#1533525)
You all agreed to the decision to limit the number of electees in every year to be 2 (with the few exceptions noted.)

Clearly this was going to raise the problems of overinclusion (being forced to pick 2 - Bill Terry?) and underinclusion (having a glut of probably Merit-worthy players underneath their betters.)

Why is this just now becoming an issue?
   25. Sean Gilman Posted: August 09, 2005 at 11:15 PM (#1533559)
It's an issue?
   26. mommy Posted: August 10, 2005 at 01:26 PM (#1535435)
"My dad (as he tells it) suffered on the high school track team as beng an athelete wihtout an event. He could finish 4th in the 100 yds, the mile, the shot put, the high jump...but he was never 'great' at any of them."

The Kid With the 200 IQ would have recommended he take up decathlon.
   27. TomH Posted: August 10, 2005 at 01:46 PM (#1535460)
yeah, I told him that once. Apparently not an event in the 1950s high school he attended
   28. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: August 10, 2005 at 02:38 PM (#1535598)
Wasn't Dickey Pearce once a "lost cause"?
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 10, 2005 at 02:41 PM (#1535608)
Wasn't Dickey Pearce once a "lost cause"?

He may be the king of all "lost causes" that was somehow found. I seem to remember a little bit of his back story. :-)
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 10, 2005 at 02:42 PM (#1535614)
It's an issue?

If it is, it's not a major issue. We do need to be on our toes for this election, though.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: August 10, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1535728)
Let's assume we elect the 3 top runners-up in 1957. And assume that they all move up 2 slots on every ballot and pull 2-4 additional ballots where they may have been rated 16-17 last year. All of this is a bit generous, too.

In this scenario, Hack is elected with 36 ballots, 4 1sts and 500 points. Compare that with:

Lyons 1949 47 ballots, 818 pts
W. Foster 1945 46, 784
Terry 1942 42, 571
Pike 1941 26, 496, 7 1sts
Faber 1939 44, 589
Carey 1939 37, 580
Coveleski 1938 49, 799
R. Foster 1932 40, 595
Pearce 1931 40, 661
Caruthers 1930 41, 693
McGinnity 1928 44, 685
Hill 1927 45, 706
Magee 1926 46, 722
M. Brown 1925 45, 766
Bennett 1921 37, 701
J. Kelley 1919 45, 768
Stovey 1916 41, 667
McVey 1914 37, 723
McPhee 1913 40, 751
Start 1912 38, 731
Spalding 1906 42, 758
H. Richardson 1905 41, 660
Rusie 1904 42, 720
G. Wright 1901 32.5, 640
J. Ward 1900 35, 617
K. Kelly 1899 31, 625
Gore 1898 29, 553
R. Barnes 1898 28, 476, 3 1sts

IOW we have never elected a player who didn't exceed Hack's anticipated total in either ballots, or points, or firsts, and Pike and Barnes are the only players who did not exceed him in ballots or points, and there were only 29 voters when Barnes was elected.

This is not an argument against Hack, of course. Whoever finishes 3rd will become one of if not the least widely supported electee yet.
   32. Daryn Posted: August 10, 2005 at 03:42 PM (#1535755)
According to your list, Hack exceeds Barnes in ballots, points and firsts.
   33. Chris Cobb Posted: August 10, 2005 at 03:59 PM (#1535811)
Sunnyday2,

Does your projection of Hack's point total include the revised point structure for a 3-electee year? (Probably does, but I thought I confirm it.)
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: August 10, 2005 at 04:01 PM (#1535815)
Daryn is correct.

Of course Barnes is the only #4 ever elected, Hack or someone will join Gore as the second #3.
   35. DavidFoss Posted: August 10, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1535838)
According to your list, Hack exceeds Barnes in ballots, points and firsts.

There were only 29 voters in 1898. We've been building up the backlog quite a bit since 1942, I'm not too worried about inducting a lemon this time. We should be careful with Boudreau because he's a shiny new toy, but Herman & Hack have been a few ballots now. I'd hope that the new car smell had worn off on those guys by now.

Of course, we still have another week of discussion if anyone out there has any strong objections. :-)
   36. DavidFoss Posted: August 10, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1535866)
As far as "lost causes" go, we'll be getting a taste of the backlog in the 60s and 70s but starting in the mid 80's we'll be overflowing with elect-me slots. I have a feeling it will start being like an HOM-Veterans-Committee where we'll have a century of baseball history from which to induct 1-2 old timers a year. The style of discussion may have to shift before then as the backlog will be so huge. Who knows what position-shortages or era shortages we'll find that will boost the candidacies of guys whose candidacies are -- as of the late-50s -- looking quite bleak.
   37. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 10, 2005 at 04:18 PM (#1535884)
I think it's not out of the realm of logic to say that it's a good thing that there's a fractured nature to the backlog. These guys are in the backlog truly because they are borderliners, players with many plusses but also many questions. That such players should be elected without resounding majorities therefore does not trouble me.

What does trouble me is that we're still looking for more good information on guys like Lundy, Mendez, Redding, Cooper, Moore, Bell, Brown, Mackey, and even Monroe, players whose candidacies can truly benefit from more scrutiny and more knowledge.
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: August 10, 2005 at 04:19 PM (#1535891)
Chris, double oops. No it doesn't. But add in one 3rd for an additional 4 points and it doesn't change the general picture too much.

What I did (or what I am doing now) was give him an additional 32 points (1 for each ballot he is on*), plus 4 bonus points for each elect-me position (7), plus 2 14ths and 2 15ths which are purely hypothetical. I didn't go back and actually look at any ballots to see if he was really 16th or 17th last year.

* The assumption here is that DiMaggio is ahead of all of these guys but Beckwith is not. So generally they will move up one slot rather than two. The effect of ballots on which Beckwith was in fact rated #2 is therefore not factored in, and this of course could make a difference of a few points. Don't think it will matter.)

But add all of that to 417 (+ 32 + 28 + 14 + 12) = 493, so considering the extra 4 ballots is also a bit hypothetical, the 500 was generous.

By the same method:

Herman 45 ballots, 701 points, 6 1sts
Boudreau 36, 553 and 3 1sts
Hack 36, 493, 4
Medwick 33, 456, 3
Ruffing 30, 411, 3
Jennings 24, 411, 4
Ferrell 27, 357, 1

Jennings gets a "structural" boost because if his higher number of elect-me spots, but there is nothing structural in our point system that will change the order. it will take approximately 3 voters changing their mind quite dramatically either about Hack (down-grading) or Medwick (up-grading) for a change. Or two of one and one of the other, etc. For Medwick to catch Boudreau we're talking 6 to 8 voters and that's not going to happen.

Willard Brown is of course the wild card.
   39. Chris Cobb Posted: August 10, 2005 at 05:42 PM (#1536130)
What does trouble me is that we're still looking for more good information on guys like Lundy, Mendez, Redding, Cooper, Moore, Bell, Brown, Mackey, and even Monroe, players whose candidacies can truly benefit from more scrutiny and more knowledge.

Well, looking into my crystal ball, I see that along about 1984 we'll get nifty new infusion of data on the post-1920 Negro-Leaguers. The candidacies of Lundy, Redding (in part), Cooper, Moore, Bell, Brown, and Mackey will, if they have not yet been elected, become a more informed proceeding. I think we're on our own with the pre-1920 candidates, however.
   40. Chris Cobb Posted: August 10, 2005 at 05:44 PM (#1536136)
Willard Brown is of course the wild card

And, to a lesser extent, Oms. A number of voters indicated on their 1957 ballots that they haven't placed him yet, but everybody is trying to get all their ducks in a row for this backlog election -- there's a lot to do!
   41. Howie Menckel Posted: August 11, 2005 at 12:49 AM (#1537499)
I missed the jimd vote nullification but..

Props to the 'rule of law' being applied and equally to jimd for I guess accepting the ruling. Good stuff all around; I know the feeling of getting 'bored' with candidates, but if you still really believe they are top 15, you gotta vote for them.

Now, back to watching tigers chase their balls tomorrow....

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robinred
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 0.6604 seconds
49 querie(s) executed