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, August 23, 2005

1958 Results: Infielders Herman, Boudreau, and Hack Can Now Play Pepper in the Hall of Merit!

In his sixth year of eligibility, All-Star second baseman Billy Herman won the first spot for induction fairly easily.

Barely making the second spot was Chicago Cub third baseman Stan Hack,  in also his sixth year on the ballot.

Cleveland Indian shortstop Lou Boudreau earned induction by attaining the third most number of possible votes in only his second year on the ballot.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Joe Medwick, Hughie Jennings, Red Ruffing, Biz Mackey, Wes Ferrell, Earl Averill and Eppa Rixey.

A record 71 candidates found their names on at least one ballot for this election.

 

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    3  Billy Herman             676   40   9  4  2  1  5  4  3  3  2     2  2  3      
 2    5  Stan Hack                548   39   2  2  5  3  1  4  1  4  2  2  3  2  4  1  3
 3    4  Lou Boudreau             547   34   5  4  2  2  3  4  3  2  1  2     1  3  2   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    6  Joe Medwick              433   31   1  3  4  2  2     3  3  2           6  3  2
 5    8  Hughie Jennings          407   23   6  4  2  1  2  2  1                 2     3
 6    7  Red Ruffing              398   27   2  2  2  3  2  2     2  4  2  2  1  1  2   
 7   10  Biz Mackey               355   29   1     1  1  3  2  4  1  2  3  2  3  1  3  2
 8    9  Wes Ferrell              350   23   1  3  2  2  3  1  1  3     2  1  2     1  1
 9   11  Earl Averill             338   26      2  2  2  2     1  4  2  2  2  1  1  3  2
10   12  Eppa Rixey               293   22   2  1  3     2     2  1        2  2     3  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   14  Clark Griffith           271   19   2  3     1  1     2  1  2        2  3  2   
12   13  George Sisler            268   19   1     2  5           2  1  4     3        1
13  n/e  Willard Brown            237   19   2  1     1     1     1  3  1  2  3  1  1  2
14   15  Jake Beckley             234   16   1  3  2     1     1        2  1  1     2  2
15   16  George Van Haltren       231   15   1  1  2  2     1     3  3     1           1
16   20  Cupid Childs             219   18         2  2  1  2  1        1  1  1  4  1  2
17   18  Hugh Duffy               219   17   1        1  1  2  2  3  1  2     1  1  2   
18   23  Pete Browning            206   14   1  2  2     1     1        1  3     1  1  1
19   17  Cool Papa Bell           193   14      3     1        1     1  4  2  1  1      
20   21  Bobby Doerr              193   13      1     2  1  3  3     2        1         
21   19  Mickey Welch             186   10   2  2  1     2  2                    1      
22   22  Joe Sewell               185   15      1     2  1  1  2     1     2  2     1  2
23   26  Dobie Moore              176   13      1     2     3  2  1     1        2     1
24   25  Cannonball Dick Redding  171   13   1     1        2  2     3        1  1  2   
25   27  Alejandro Oms            165   12      1  1  1  1     2  1     2  1        2   
26   28  José Méndez              164   14            3     2  2  1           1  1  1  3
27   24  Bucky Walters            151   11         1  2     2  2        1  1  1     1   
28   29  Charley Jones            136    9   1  2        1     1  1        1        1  1
29   33  Joe Gordon               119   11         1  1           2     1     1  1  2  2
30   31  Gavy Cravath             117    9   1     1     2                 1  1  1     2
31   32  Burleigh Grimes          116    9   1        1  1     1           2  2     1   
32   34  Rube Waddell             108    9         1     1  1     1        2     2     1
33   35  Roger Bresnahan          103    8   1     1                 1  3              2
34   36  Wally Schang              98    7   1              1  1  1  1     2            
35   30  Tommy Leach               92    7      1           1     1     3        1      
36   38  Larry Doyle               78    5         2              1  1        1         
37   37  Edd Roush                 70    7                           2  1  2     1  1   
38   39  Dizzy Dean                70    6         1                 1     3           1
39   44T Bill Monroe               58    6            1                       3     2   
40   41  Bob Johnson               52    5               1              1  1     1  1   
41   40  John McGraw               52    4               1     1  1           1         
42   46  Charlie Keller            47    4            1              1  1           1   
43   42  Ernie Lombardi            45    3   1                          1  1            
44T  44T Tommy Bridges             43    4                           1  1  2            
44T n/e  Jimmy Ryan                43    4                  1        1        1     1   
46   47  Ben Taylor                38    3               1           1     1            
47  n/e  Dizzy Trout               37    3               1        1              1      
48  n/e  Quincey Trouppe           36    3               1        1                 1   
49   53  Ed Williamson             27    3                           1        1        1
50T  48  Addie Joss                25    2                  1              1            
50T  50  Vic Willis                25    2                        1  1                  
52   43  Chuck Klein               24    2                           2                  
53   49  Sam Rice                  22    2                              2               
54   54  Pie Traynor               22    1         1                                    
55   62  George J. Burns           18    2                           1                 1
56  n/e  Dom DiMaggio              17    2                                    1  1      
57   55  Ed Cicotte                17    1            1                                 
58T  56T Tommy Bond                16    1               1                              
58T  61  Fielder Jones             16    1               1                              
60T  59T Leroy Matlock             15    1                  1                           
60T  58  Bobby Veach               15    1                  1                           
62T  63T Dick Lundy                14    2                                       1     1
62T  67T Hack Wilson               14    2                                          2   
64   59T Dolf Luque                14    1                     1                        
65   56T Fred Dunlap               11    1                              1               
66T  63T Lefty Gomez                9    1                                    1         
66T  63T Sam Leever                 9    1                                    1         
66T  52  Carl Mays                  9    1                                    1         
69T  67T Wilbur Cooper              6    1                                             1
69T n/e  Sam Jethroe                6    1                                             1
69T  66  Rabbit Maranville          6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Wally Berger(51).


John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:00 AM | 55 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 23, 2005 at 12:13 AM (#1564334)
Congrats to the three! That's three new spots I have to find new candidates now for the next election. :-)

BTW, I still don't understand Doerr over Gordon, while Medwick scares me.

I'm surprised that Oms didn't improve much, though Brown may make the top-ten by '59.

Of course, now that I don't have to bother with Beckwith (who used to get switched with Beckley on the ballot counter), now I have Brown/Browning to contend with. :-)
   2. karlmagnus Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:27 AM (#1564402)
Should be a new low in similarity score, since only #10 was on my "real" ballot at all, and the top 3 were all ranked below #40. Jeez!
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1564427)
Perusing the ballots, Brad G. may wind up with highest similarity score for this election.
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:36 AM (#1564449)
HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct at a position)

C (7.11) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 98, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (12.03) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Leonard 95, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10

2B (9.50) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (7.08) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (13.43) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, HWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15

OF (32.00) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10

SP (25.30) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

INF: 49.15
OF: 32.00
P: 25.30

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching weight of players like Ruth or Caruthers.

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.


25 pitchers, plus four hybrids. Seems a little low.
   5. OCF Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:40 AM (#1564467)
Wow! Such a spread in the voting - but yet, it came down to the three who were leading after the 1957 ballot.

The scale for consensus scores might be slightly different for an elect-3 election, but that effect should be small and I'm not even sure in which direction.

We did wind up with an average consensus score of -10.3, which is an all-time record low, comfortably beating out the previous record of -9.0 set in 1942.

The best possible consensus score was +9. As we'll see, no one came particularly close to that. In fact, only one person had a positive score, and only barely so.

Adam Schafer: +1
dan b: 0
Jeff M: -1
jschmeagol: -1
Brad G: -2
TomH: -3
Mark Donelson: -3 (contiuning a tendency for new guys to be above average)
...
OCF: -6
...
Jim SP: -10 (median)
...
flaxseed: -11 (in previous votes, he was always within ±3 of average)
...
Rick A: -17
Dr. Chaleeko: -17
Brent: -18
yest: -19
Kelly from SD: -26
Gadfly: -28
karlmagnus: -28

Despite the extreme nature of the year, we did not set the record for lowest absolute consensus score (yest, 1955, -29) and were nowhere close to any records for lowest score compared to average.
   6. karlmagnus Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:43 AM (#1564480)
Didn't we have fewer voters this year? -- in which case the maximum possible negative consensus would also be lower.
   7. OCF Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:44 AM (#1564483)
Of course, now that I don't have to bother with Beckwith (who used to get switched with Beckley on the ballot counter), now I have Brown/Browning to contend with. :-)

It looks like Walker Cooper won't be eligible until 1963. Will Wilbur Cooper still be getting votes then? (And will Walker Cooper get any?)
   8. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:47 AM (#1564498)
HOMers by year (10 G min) thru 1958
1856-59 - 1
1860-65 - 2 (3 1864)
1866-67 - 4
1868-71 - 6/8/9/10
1872-76 - 12
1877-78 - 11
1879-80 - 16/17
1881-84 - 20 to 22
1885-89 - 23 to 25
1890-92 - 29 to 30
1893 ---- 26
1894-03 - 21 to 22 (20 1900)
1904-07 - 24 to 25
1908-15 - 26 to 28 (25 1912)
1916 ---- 31
1917 ---- 26
1918-21 - 22 to 25
1922 ---- 27
1923 ---- 31
1924-25 - 35/37
1926-27 - 40/39
1928-32 - 33 to 36
1933-36 - 31 to 31
1937 ---- 29
then steady decline to 12 by 1943, as many future HOMers increasingly are not yet eligible.
   9. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:53 AM (#1564532)
Dammit, need to include Herman and Hack.

Fixing 1928-37:
1928-30 - 36/34/33
1931-32 - 36
1933-34 - 33
1935-36 - 32
1937 ---- 31
then steady decline, as many future HOMers increasingly are not yet eligible.
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: August 23, 2005 at 12:56 AM (#1564546)
I tracked votes for positions #16-20 and awarded 5-4-3-2-1, just as if we had a 20 person ballot and awarded 24-23-18-17...3-2-1. The point is to anticipate what might happen if and when the backlog (16-20) moves up.

The big problem is that there were only a hand full of ballots (a dozen-15 maybe) where 16-20 were clearly and completely and unambiguously identified. In other cases there were partials (some 16-20 mentioned by not others, usually when it was a required player) or I made estimates (e.g. where a voter listed 5 players in no particular order). So take this for what it is, which is to say an incomplete list.

In double figures for additional points:

1. Gordon 22 (8 mentions)
2. Doerr 18 (5)
3. Duffy 18 (4)
4. Boudreau 17 (7) elected
5. Bell 17 (5)
6. Sisler 16.5 (5)
7. Averill 16 (5)
8. Ruffing 14 (6)
9. Herman 14 (3) elected
10. Browning 13 (4)

11. Ferrell 12 (4)
12. Mackey 10.5 (3)
13. Roush 10 (4)
Childs 10 (4)
Rixey 10 (4)
15. Waddell 10 (2)

Just taking these votes at face value is also misleading. If they move up to 10-15 they will be getting 6 or more points rather than just 1 or more. So they are directional only.

Gordon gets the most 16-20 mentions, with 8. But he only has 11 ballots at present and rates only #29. Doerr is now #20 and his current 13 ballots + 5 at 16-20 adds up to one less than Gordon, so Joe could catch up to his alter ego, among others.

Ruffing, #5 overall, could really give Jennings, #4 overall, a run for his money if he gets those extra 6 ballots, while Hughie has a possible 3 more ballots. Medwick, for that matter, has only 2 more possible ballots, so Ruffing could pass him too. Ironically, Ruffing and Medwick actually tied at the top of the 1967 BBWAA HoF vote with 212 points, but neither had enough to get elected. So there was a run-off in those days, with a maximum of one elected, and Ruffing was elected 266-248. Medwick went in the next year.

All in all, I'm not sure learned much, especially considering only about half the voters gave any indication about #16-20 and only half of those were precise. In general the same players who placed 3-15 (by consensus) also got the most 16-20 mentions, so they all possibly just offset one another.
   11. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:04 AM (#1564594)
Whew! A tight race for second, but comforting to see a solid 100 point gap between the elected and unelected.

Congrats to Hack-Boudreau-Herman!
   12. Kelly in SD Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:21 AM (#1564659)
Congrats to the elected.

I did not vote for any of the elected (Notice that attractive consensus score...) but Herman was my #2 second baseman after Childs, Boudreau was my #3 shortstop after Moore and Jennings, and Hack was my #1.5 third baseman after Leach.

Could the big backers of Medwick (those who voted him 1 through 4) please describe why he is so attractive? Is it the peak? If yes, how do you respond to the idea that many of the 1930s Cards teams overachieved their pythag projections.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:22 AM (#1564662)
Whew! A tight race for second, but comforting to see a solid 100 point gap between the elected and unelected.

That gap was actually tightening by the weekend, then opened up today.
   14. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:34 AM (#1564723)
All-time 'vote points totals' leaders, through 1957

JENNINGS 16170
VAN HALTREN 15336.5
DUFFY 14759.5
BECKLEY 14750
GRIFFITH 13651
Pike 13399
BROWNING 12764.5
Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
WADDELL 11371

WELCH 10706
Caruthers 10704
CHILDS 10573
RYAN 10550.5
Beckwith 9920
H Stovey 9576
Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5

Grant 7969.5
Suttles 7696
BRESNAHAN 7404
RIXEY 7347
T LEACH 7197
(Sisler 6835, C Jones 6296, Sewell 5523, Monroe 5207, Ferrell 4899, Doyle 4328, Williamson 4289, Roush 4276, Redding 4117, Mendez 4088)
(I'll doublecheck Averill next year)
   15. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:35 AM (#1564726)
that's thru '1958,' of course.
bah.
   16. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 23, 2005 at 02:35 AM (#1564942)
Wow. With a -17 consensus score, I think I've finally achieved a level of electoral idiosyncracy commensurate with my real personality.

But I guess pHOMing Leroy Matlock and Gavy Cravath will do that to a guy....
   17. Chris Cobb Posted: August 23, 2005 at 02:51 AM (#1564996)
I note that, in this election, 5 players appeared on a majority of ballots cast.

We are unlikely to see any more than 5 players on a majority of ballots for quite some time, unless discussion builds consensus much more strongly than it has in the last couple of (vacation-heavy) election cycles.

Now that we see what vote-counts of this sort look like, are is the electorate satisfied with this sort of distribution as the norm?
   18. yest Posted: August 23, 2005 at 03:00 AM (#1565032)
yest: -19
Kelly from SD: -26
Gadfly: -28
karlmagnus: -28

Despite the extreme nature of the year, we did not set the record for lowest absolute consensus score (yest, 1955, -29) and were nowhere close to any records for lowest score compared to average.

I thought I would have been closer to the conseus this year
at least I have my record :>)
   19. yest Posted: August 23, 2005 at 03:08 AM (#1565066)
for anybody who's keeping score was there was Medwick ever in the lead?
   20. sunnyday2 Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:13 PM (#1565583)
I've never ever actually looked at our results and asked this question before. What if we were using the BBWAA method?

Well, we had 47 ballots I think and 75 percent of 35-and-change, so a player would need 36 ballots. Only Herman and Hack did that.

But then you'd only be able to put 10 on your ballot, not 15, though of course we don't know if voters would have voted for 10 if that was just a cap, not a requirement. But assuming all of us voted for 10:

• Herman made top 10 on 33 ballots, short of the required 36

• Hack made top 10 on just 26 ballots, way short

• Boudreau--we know he didn't make top 10 on 36 ballots because he didn't make top 15 on 36 ballots, but he made top 10 on 28 ballots, 2 more than Hack

So, now does everybody have an appreciation of why the HoF has sometimes had difficulty electing anybody?
   21. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:45 PM (#1565639)
I had Medwick seventh, not in the top four, though he woudl have been that high if I didnt' take off a little credit for his pythag infalted peak. However, at the same time, the Cardinals got those wins, is it totally unreasonable for their players to get some credit for them as well?

I also want to say that the after the fact strength of schedule argument against Win Shares is bogus to me as well. I will only serve to hurt players on good teams and help players on bad teams. But dont' those good teams win because they have better players? Good teams only have tougher schedules because they happen to win. Should we punish them for it?

The only place a tougher adjustment is helpful, in my opinion, is for pitchers (which teams/offenses did they play against) and for the very modern era of the unbalanced schedule.
   22. sunnyday2 Posted: August 23, 2005 at 02:07 PM (#1565669)
j,

How many WS do you penalize Medwick for the Cards' overachieving their pythag? It's beem shown that that was 9 wins for the '30s, 27 WS, of which Medwick can't have gotten more than 3 or 4.
   23. Chris Cobb Posted: August 23, 2005 at 02:13 PM (#1565673)
I also want to say that the after the fact strength of schedule argument against Win Shares is bogus to me as well. I will only serve to hurt players on good teams and help players on bad teams.

The only place a tougher adjustment is helpful, in my opinion, is for pitchers (which teams/offenses did they play against) and for the very modern era of the unbalanced schedule.


You aren't thinking through the implications of your argument here. If this adjustment is valid for pitchers, it has to be valid in all cases, because in every case it's accounting for the same phenomenon: the set of opponents faced by each team is different, just as the set of opponents faced by each pitcher is different. The only difference between the case of the individual pitcher and the team's position players is that the effect on the position players is likely to be quite a bit smaller. Red Ruffing obviously had a somewhat easiser time of it in the 1930s because he never had to pitch against the Yankees' hitters. At the same time, the Yankees hitters never had to face him and Lefty Gomez. Red Sox hitters didn't have to face Ferrell and Grove in the mid-1930s.

The competition adjustment isn't "penalizing" good teams for being good. It's an adjustment that applies equally to all teams to register the fact that teammates don't face each other in competition. Having good teammates is not something that a player should get credit for, just as a player should not be penalized for having bad teammates.

In most cases, this adjustment is small enough that it makes no difference for an individual player's win share totals in a given season. But for extreme teams, both good and bad, it does matter.
   24. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 23, 2005 at 02:58 PM (#1565787)
Sunny,

I don't penalize him any amount of real WS so much as it slid him behind Cupid Childs and Willie Wells in my rankings and took away any chance he had of reaching Billy Herman. It was more of a mental note or tiebreaker. Medwick is now the top of my PHOM backlog, battling Duffy and Lyons.

Chris,

I didn't say that I put much weight on it, only that I can deal with it. Your points are well taken, but whether a pitcher is thrown out against a top offense more than the #2 or #3 guy on his team can have an affect. Actually, now that I think about it I dont' think we were talking about the same thing.

I also dont' think the benefits are really that great to the schedule adjustment. Even on extreme teams, what are we talking about, an extra two to three win shares for the best players on that team? I am comfortable with that. As a peak guy I really dont' look at career WS, career WARP, career hits, career, HR, or anyhting like that. They are only factored in at the end. So again that makes no difference to me.
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 03:01 PM (#1565800)
that's thru '1958,' of course.
bah.


Humbug?
   26. TomH Posted: August 23, 2005 at 03:55 PM (#1565975)
Hmmm...kind of surprised that I made the 'most consensus' list. Shouldn't happen next week, as neither of our top 2 returnees (Medwick and Jennings) will be on my ballot, and my #15 guy may be someone who last week was tied for 72nd with Hal Chase, Donald Duck, and John Murphy.
   27. Chris Cobb Posted: August 23, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1566013)
ven on extreme teams, what are we talking about, an extra two to three win shares for the best players on that team?

Yes, as compared to what those players would probably earn with the same performance on a .500 team. As compared to what those players would probably earn with the same performance on a terrible team, we're talking a 4-6 win-share difference: basically the difference between Jimmie Foxx, 1935, and Jimmie Foxx, 1938.
   28. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 04:17 PM (#1566053)
and my #15 guy may be someone who last week was tied for 72nd with Hal Chase, Donald Duck, and John Murphy.

Tom, if I actually rated that high based on my baseball "talent," I would be ecstatic. :-)
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 04:20 PM (#1566066)
BTW, I haven't been with the bottom five on the consensus list for quite a few elections now, though I suspect I haven't been that far off.

Having Mize and Paige at the top of my ballot in '59 shouldn't make my consensus any lower, though.
   30. OCF Posted: August 23, 2005 at 04:35 PM (#1566122)
John was at -15, 11th from the bottom. At 5 below the average, that was a pretty typical placement for him. He was higher than usual in 1957 with a near-average -2.

Some people who weren't in their usual places:

Higher than usual:Brad G (-2), sunnyday2 (-14), DanG (-4)

Lower than usual: Chris Cobb (-7), Devin McCullen (-6), Patrick W (-10).
   31. OCF Posted: August 23, 2005 at 04:47 PM (#1566148)
I started voting in 1904. For each year, at what ballot position did I have the elected candidates? Here's the list:

"Elect me" positions:
Glasscock (1904), Radbourn (1905), Hamilton (1907), Delahanty (1909), Nichols (1911), Burkett (1912), Dahlen (1915), Davis (1915), Stovey (1916), Young (1917), Clarke (1917), Kelley (1919), Keeler (1919), Walsh (1920), Bennett (1921), Lajoie (1922), Mathewson (1922), Wagner (1923), Crawford (1923), Plank (1923), G. Johnson (1925), Magee (1926), J. Jackson (1927), Baker (1928), Sheckard (1930), Santop (1932), W. Johnson (1933), Wheat (1933), Cobb (1934), E. Collins (1935), Alexander (1936), J. Williams (1936), Torriente (1937), Heilmann (1937), Coveleski (1938), Faber (1939), Rogan (1940), Ruth (1941), Hornsby (1941), Vance (1942), Charleston (1943), Cochrane (1943), Gehrig (1944), Goslin (1945), Stearnes (1946), Simmons (1946), Grove (1947), Hartnett (1947), Gehringer (1948), J. Wilson (1948), Hubbell (1949), Waner (1950), Dihigo (1950), Foxx (1951), Cronin (1951), J. Gibson (1952), Ott (1952), Greenberg (1953), Dickey (1953), Vaughan (1954), Wells (1954), Leonard (1955), R. Brown (1955), Appling (1956), DiMaggio (1957), Beckwith (1957), Hack (1958)

#2 (in an elect-1 year): Sutton (1908), Galvin (1910), McPhee (1913), Flick (1918)
#3: Wallace (1929), Speaker (1934), Lloyd (1935)
#4: Start (1912), Groh (1938), Frisch (1944)
#5: Rusie (1904), Lyons (1949), Boudreau (1958)
#6: Richardson (1905), Spalding (1906), Brown (1925), Terry (1942)
#7: Grant (1926), McGinnity (1928)
#8: Carey (1939), W. Foster (1945)
#9:
#10: McVey (1914), J. Collins (1921), Suttles (1956)
#11:
#12:
#13:
#14:
#15: R. Foster (1932)

Off-ballot positions:

#17: Billy Herman (1958)
#19: Thompson (1929)
#21: Caruthers (1930)
#24: Pearce (1931)
Not listed: Pike (1940)

Everyone that I've ever put into an "elect me" position has eventually been elected, with four exceptions: George Van Haltren, Larry Doyle, Joe Sewell, and Red Ruffing. All of them are still on my ballot.
   32. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2005 at 04:59 PM (#1566183)
So, now does everybody have an appreciation of why the HoF has sometimes had difficulty electing anybody?

Cool demonstration. We're including VC/NeL inductees in our target induction count so we do indeed need to induct them faster than that.

On an unrelated note, Hack lead Boudreau 5-2 in third place votes, so the order of the top three was unaffected by the three-way ballot.
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 05:07 PM (#1566209)
On an unrelated note, Hack lead Boudreau 5-2 in third place votes, so the order of the top three was unaffected by the three-way ballot.

BTW, Boudreau snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory with the last few ballots.

John was at -15, 11th from the bottom. At 5 below the average, that was a pretty typical placement for him. He was higher than usual in 1957 with a near-average -2.

Thanks for verifying my gut feeling, OCF.
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: August 23, 2005 at 05:28 PM (#1566253)
That's great. Higher than usual at -14!

Well, I did have Herman, Boudreau and Hack on my ballot, though Hack just barely. He had been off-ballot but with his impending election I included him in a selective re-eval, boosted him above Gordon and on.

John, we're all gonna have Paige and Mize 1-2 or 2-1 so that isn't gonna help!
   35. Michael Bass Posted: August 23, 2005 at 05:33 PM (#1566263)
Actually, I'm early in the number crunching, but I'm not sure Mize is gonna be top 2 for me. Top 5 yes, but perhaps behind my uber-peak group. So maybe I'll make my first bottom 5 appearance!
   36. Michael Bass Posted: August 23, 2005 at 05:34 PM (#1566266)
Actually scratch that. Forgot war credit. He's #2. :)
   37. Jim Sp Posted: August 23, 2005 at 05:49 PM (#1566292)
I'm the median consensus variation!

Which I guess means I'm half as disagreeable as the average voter ;-).
   38. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 05:56 PM (#1566307)
John, we're all gonna have Paige and Mize 1-2 or 2-1 so that isn't gonna help!

Well, that's true. :-)
   39. yest Posted: August 23, 2005 at 06:02 PM (#1566319)
John, we're all gonna have Paige and Mize 1-2 or 2-1 so that isn't gonna help!

no were not:,)
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 06:39 PM (#1566397)
I knew I could count on yest.

:-D
   41. Evan Posted: August 23, 2005 at 07:34 PM (#1566571)
On an unrelated note, Hack lead Boudreau 5-2 in third place votes, so the order of the top three was unaffected by the three-way ballot.

Actually, doesn't this mean the order was affected by the three way ballot? In a 2-person election, there would not be an "elect-me" bonus for the 3rd place slot, so Hack would have finished with 25 fewer points, and Boudreau would have finished with 10 fewer, placing Lou in second place overall, no?
   42. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2005 at 07:56 PM (#1566632)
Actually, doesn't this mean the order was affected by the three way ballot? In a 2-person election, there would not be an "elect-me" bonus for the 3rd place slot, so Hack would have finished with 25 fewer points, and Boudreau would have finished with 10 fewer, placing Lou in second place overall, no?

Whoops... you are right! I'm not thinking this morning.
   43. Tiboreau Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:06 PM (#1566659)
So, now does everybody have an appreciation of why the HoF has sometimes had difficulty electing anybody?

Of course, using the HoF rules several candidates would no longer be eligible, giving Herman, Boudreau and Hack a better chance of reaching voters' top 10.
   44. sunnyday2 Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:08 PM (#1566664)
What in the world is with the clock on this site? Just this a.m. I gave props for the new log-in which boots one back to the page one was just on. But David's post #42 is shown as 12:56 PM in the header of the post itself, and as 3:56 PM up on the Hot Topics. Yikes.
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:20 PM (#1566707)
What in the world is with the clock on this site? Just this a.m. I gave props for the new log-in which boots one back to the page one was just on. But David's post #42 is shown as 12:56 PM in the header of the post itself, and as 3:56 PM up on the Hot Topics. Yikes.

The times are fine on my side of the Internet, Marc, though I have noticed some weird things in regard to the time over the past year before today's changes.
   46. TomH Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:21 PM (#1566712)
how many ballots were there? Is there a place where the # of voters per election is recorded? I'd like to see this small piece of info as part of the intro to each 'results' thread.
   47. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:30 PM (#1566746)
But David's post #42 is shown as 12:56 PM in the header of the post itself, and as 3:56 PM up on the Hot Topics. Yikes.

I'm on the west coast, so it was indeed 12:56 PM when I wrote that. :-) I half the opposite behavior that you describe now. PDT in hot topics, EDT on post headers.

The site has always been a bit flaky with time zones. Sometimes even a simple reload changes it for me. Most sports sites are EDT so I'm used to doing a double-take/double-check whenever I see a time on the internet. It could be better, but might not be worth all the effort to fix it.
   48. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:35 PM (#1566763)
half the opposite

have the opposite...
   49. OCF Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:42 PM (#1566785)
Tom - there were 47 ballots in 1958.
   50. jimd Posted: August 23, 2005 at 08:52 PM (#1566816)
how many ballots were there? Is there a place where the # of voters per election is recorded? I'd like to see this small piece of info as part of the intro to each 'results' thread.

Seconded, with gusto.

(One of the little things that occasionally drives me nuts ;-)
   51. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 23, 2005 at 09:04 PM (#1566869)
Well, I guess Boudreau will join the short list of players that are HOM not pHOM.

My list includes: Max Carey, Red Faber, Bill Terry, Ted Lyons, and now Lou Boudreau.

Herman and Hack are also not currently pHOM, but they are just ahead of Lyons on the list, and they will likely pHOM in the mid 1960s, just in time to scoot off the ballot before the next big spate of backloggers comes on the scene and pushes Lyons back down the ballot.

Terry and Boudreau are somewhere in the 16-25 range, but Carey and Faber are utterly buried and won't see the light of day for a good long time. Bill and Lou could finally have their day in my pHOM in the three- and four-man elections of the 1980s and 1990s, but there's no guarantee at this juncture.
   52. sunnyday2 Posted: August 23, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1567009)
HoM/not PHoM:

Boudreau, Sutton, Beckwith, Hack, Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Hill, Keeler, Galvin, Faber

(Boudreau, Beckwith, Hack probable; Stovey, Keeler and ???possible PHoM)

PHoM/not HoM:

Sisler, Childs, Jennings, D. Moore, Williamson, C. Jones, Medwick, H. Wright, Bond, Waddell, Mendez

(Medwick, Sisler, Jennings probably the only with a chance to go HoM someday)
   53. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 24, 2005 at 02:37 AM (#1567907)
The interesting thing is that my consensus score is lower than usual, but I had Herman 1, Hack 3, and Boudreau 6, so it's going to keep dropping. Heck, about 5 "years" ago I was in the top 5.
   54. TomH Posted: September 01, 2005 at 01:44 PM (#1590570)
We had 24 players get at least one first-place vote in 1958. I assume this is a record.

Billy Herman got the most, with 9. I asssume this is a record (for fewest by the guy with the most) as well.
   55. yest Posted: September 01, 2005 at 04:17 PM (#1590839)
leaders Bobby Wallace(1929),HR Johnson (1925) and Jimmy Collins (1921) had 8.
but the record I think is Frank Grant who had 5 first place votes in 1926 though second place sherry Magge had 8

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8101 seconds
49 querie(s) executed