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, October 24, 2005

1964 Ballot Discussion

1964 (November 14)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

314 95.4 1940 Pee Wee Reese-SS (1999)
232 88.2 1946 Bob Lemon-P (2000)
198 75.1 1942 Virgil Trucks-P (living)
139 48.4 1945 Sal Maglie-P (1992)
108 31.1 1946 Bobby Adams-3B/2B (1997)
088 33.8 1948 Bill Wight-P (living)

1964 (October 30)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

00% 42-54 Bonnie Serrell-2B (1922) xx 2b – 0 – 2*
00% 46-58 Bob Thurman-OF/P (1917) – 0 – 0*

Players Passing Away in 1963

HoMers
Age Elected

77 1928 Frank Baker-3b
66 1941 Rogers Hornsby-2B
64 1948 Jud “Boojum” Wilson-3B/1B

Candidates
Age Eligible

82 1926 Gavvy Cravath-RF
79 1924 Bill Hinchman-RF/LF
73 1932 Hooks Dauss-P
72 1938 Clarence Mitchell-P
71 1939 Eppa Rixey-P
69 1933 Irish Meusel-LF
68 1933 Lee Meadows-P
68 1940 Joe Judge-1B
67 1937 Cy Perkins-C
67 1940 Muddy Ruel-C
66 1934 Slim Harriss-P
66 1935 Earl Smith-C
64 1943 Ski Melillo-2b
58 1947 Bump Hadley-P

Thanks Dan and Chris!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 24, 2005 at 02:43 AM | 134 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 01, 2005 at 02:13 AM (#1713860)
Pee Wee is the king of this heap!
   2. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 01, 2005 at 02:43 AM (#1713897)
No rush, John, since I know you're busy, but Quincy Trouppe's thread seems to be missing. When I click on the link under Negro League players, I get a blank entry, and I don't see it on the HoM Archives list.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 01, 2005 at 02:50 AM (#1713912)
It's working now, Devin.
   4. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 01, 2005 at 03:01 AM (#1713932)
Thanks, John
   5. DavidFoss Posted: November 01, 2005 at 03:12 AM (#1713945)
Should be an interesting week. Reese should make my top ten easy, but I'm not sure exactly where to place him yet. Lemon is a fascinating case. With seven twenty-win seasons in nine years, its easy to see why the HOF voted him in. After that, the ERA+ is 119 which is respectable, but I like to see it a bit higher if a guy only pitches 2850 IP. He was a workhorse compared to his contemporaries, though, with four IP titles and seven top five. Have IP levels dropped for pitchers compared to the 30s and we need to adjust?
   6. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 01, 2005 at 03:16 AM (#1713951)
FWIW, in the Negro Leaguers thread I mentioned I deleted the RSI site. I just sent Dimino almost all the info I have on disk (RSI, RSI Math sample, AOWP, Pitcher OPS+). I doubt I'd be willing to send it out to everyone who wants it, so if interested, contact Joe by e-mail and see if he'll send it out. I'm passing the buck. Normally I wouldn't stick someone like that, but hey - he's head honcho around here.
   7. Kelly in SD Posted: November 01, 2005 at 08:53 AM (#1714177)
Chris,
Thank you for all of your great work. I understand your situation. Every finals period saw me delete or hide various programs from the computer and basically put a lock on all my bookshelves. My last quarter's finals period while getting my LLM included not looking at the internet for 3 weeks solid.
Good luck on your work.
Kelly
   8. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 01, 2005 at 09:14 AM (#1714182)
Chris, if you don't mind, I'll post it on the Hall of Merit yahoo group's files page, so anyone who wants it can grab it, is that okay?
   9. Kelly in SD Posted: November 01, 2005 at 09:26 AM (#1714186)
Prelim ballot for 1964:

1. Mickey Welch
2. Charley Jones
3. Pete Browning
4. Wes Ferrell
5. Charlie Keller
6. Hugh Duffy
7. Bucky Walters
8. Quincy Troupe
9. Alejandro Ohms
10. Luke Easter
11. Vic Willis
12. Willard Brown
13. Burleigh Grimes
14. Bob Lemon: 7 20 win seasons, 7 years with 20+ win shares, 7 times a win shares All-Star. The seven times a win shares All-Star may not have great meaning, but it is unique. The last pitcher with 7 or more win shares All-Stars was Lefty Grove and the next with 7 or more are Robin Roberts and Warren Spahn. Grove did do it 12 times and Spahn 13 so I am NOT saying they are comparable.
Lemon has 4 seasons of 25+ win shares. Only Ferrell (6), Willis (5), and Griffith (5) have more among eligibles. Many others have 4 also though.
He was a very good pitcher who didn't get hurt. 9 top tens in IP. 9 top tens in wins. 6 top tens in winning percentage. 6 top tens in ERA. 5 top tens in ERA+.
15. PeeWee Reese: 7 times a win shares All-Star, 6 times a STATS All-Star. 10 times in All-Star Game. 10 years with 20 or more win shares, 5 over 25. 3 win shares Gold Gloves. 3 years of War credit available on top of that. Always in the line-up - played at least 140 games every year from age 22 to 37 (except for the War years.) Career OPS+ was 99, but would have been over 100 if no War. He missed his age 24, 25, and 26 years. 8 years top 10 in MVP voting, though never in top 5. 11 straight years in top 10 in walks. 11 years in top 10 in stolen bases out of 13. 8 years in top in runs. 5 years top ten in OBP. Top of the order hitter whose job it was to get on base and play great defense. He did for 12 straight years + 3 for the war.
Reese will move up. With War credit, he has between 370 and 390 win shares. His peak is not great, but he was very consistent.

Lemon and Reese need to be slotted. Lemon will be between 11 and 15 and Reese should slot in 6 to 12 I think.

I think Reese will be elected on the first ballot. He is HoM-worthy, I just like other guys better. Ohms, Brown, Lemon, Mackey, Bill Terry, and Dobie Moore will battle it out to join Reese as inductees to my PHoM.
   10. Kelly in SD Posted: November 01, 2005 at 10:06 AM (#1714190)
Trucks doesn't quite have enough, though the Tigers certainly had good pitchers in the 30s and 40s: Newhouser, Rowe, Newsom, Trucks, Trout, Bridges. I am thinking about 2 years of War credit. These would have been his age 27 and 28 years. Using the surrounding 5 years, it looks like 2 years of 14-10, 10 CG, ERA 3.25 to 3.50, 115 to 130 K each year. Figure 16 win shares each year. Add that to his career numbers and you get 205-155 with a 116 ERA+ in 3100 innings and 230 win shares.
Candidacy is hurt by lack of big years. <u>Only 3 years over 16 win shares</u>. But they are 27, 25, and 22 seasons. 1950 to 1952 plus the War killed his HoF chances. 1950 he was injured and it looks like he went through a bit of a dead arm period in 1951-1952. I seem to remember that many hard throwers go through a dead arm period in their early or mid30s. Well, at least in 1951 though that may be injury recovery. And the Tigers were just crap in 1952.

Maglie is under consideration and I look forward to more discussion of him on his thread.
   11. Daryn Posted: November 01, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1714256)
Where does reese get all his WS from? Does he get a disproportionate amount of fielding WS as compared to his ss contemporaries? His raw hitting stats, without the war credit, do not look like a 300 WS guy.
   12. Daryn Posted: November 01, 2005 at 03:50 PM (#1714278)
There are 9 pitchers on my prelim ballot, which is a record for me --- I don't know if it is a record for our group, but does anyone else think we are simply not electing enough pitchers?

1. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data shows those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his oft repeated record against HoMers.

2. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (HOMer) are two of his three most similars. 3200+ hits adjusted to 162 games.

3. Eppa Rixey – see Grimes comment. Nice to see him reaching the top 10.

4. Red Ruffing – fits nicely in between Rixey and Grimes – definitely better than Grimes, perhaps better than Rixey.

5. Burleigh Grimes – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between Rixey and Grimes. There is not much of a spread between here and Griffith (who is at 15 this week).

6. Cool Papa Bell – I have decided to move Bell up from the outfield glut to here. As flawed as they may be, I have chosen to rely, in part, on the 1952 Courier poll and more importantly the 1999 SABR poll. I know the former has its flaws but it doesn’t appear to canonize Bell (he is a 2nd team all-star there). I know the SABR poll takes into account non-playing influence, but it has Bell ahead of Charleston and Gibson, among others, and that must mean something (particularly when it accords with all the anecdotal evidence and a possible Cobb MLE of over 4000 hits).

7. Pee Wee Reese – the war credit (including an extra 450 hits and an all star appearance or two) gets him on the ballot for me. The career 99 OPS+ at a key defensive position is a similarity with Bell. His contemporaries' evaluation, measured by All Star appearances and MVP voting, is impressive. Another similarity to Bell.

8. Dick Redding – probably the 6th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams and Paige and likely behind the Fosters and Brown), and that is good enough for me.

9. Biz Mackey – I vote career over peak, so I like Mackey the best of the eligible catchers. It is close though, and Mackey is not that much ahead of Schang.

10. George Sisler – I like the hits, the OPS+ and the batting average.

11. Ralph Kiner – He is my highest peak/prime only candidate. I cannot ignore seven consecutive home run titles.

12. Wes Ferrell – Wes has been hanging around in my 20s for a decade or so. I finally realized the significance of his 100 OPS+.

13. Bob Lemon – a bit of a ringer for Ferrell. I take Ferrell’s hitting advantage over Lemon’s slight pitching advantage.

14. Rube Waddell -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+, the .574 winning percentage, the 46 black ink points, and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown). I simply don’t understand how Vance and Newhouser get elected easily and Rube gets hardly any votes.

15. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected. I’ve decided to slot him right behind the three short career pitching balloters, though he could just as easily be ahead of them. He is barely better than Harder, Warneke, Smith, Bridges, Gomez, Hoyt, Mendez, Joss, Dean, Luque, Pennock, Quinn, McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Bender, Mays, Cooper, Shocker, Mullane, Byrd and Mullin. It is tough to separate the wheat from the chaff among the pitchers.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 01, 2005 at 03:56 PM (#1714288)
Daryn:

35% of Reese's WS was for his defense (111.3 compared to 203.9 for his offense).

I'm signing off now and wont be back on for a few days, so if you have any problems, Joe is the man to seek out.

Later, guys!
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:12 PM (#1714307)
Reese is an A- fielder and earned 35 percent of his WS on defense. IOW 204 on offense and 110 on defense. Here are some other guys who overlap his career (1940-1958).

Appling B 29% defense
Banks C 20
Bartell B+ 38
Boudreau A+ 32--188 offense 89 defense
Cronin A- 29
Groat A- 43
Hamner A 47
Joost B- 32
Marty Marion A+ 55! 80 offense 97 defense
Pesky A- 28
Phil Rizzuto A+ 42--134 offense 97 defense
Stephens B 28--191 offense 74 defense
Vaughan B+ 23

Reese had 14 years of 10+ WS NOT including WWII. Boudreau only had 10 including WWII. Rizzuto had 10 NOT including WWII. So Boudreau (or Stephens) was a much better hitter than Pee Wee but Reese has more career offensive WS, and Rizzuto was a better defender but Pee Wee has more career defensive WS.

Peak

Boudreau 32-30-28 (before WWII discount)
Reese 27-26-26
Rizzuto 35-26-25

Pee Wee doesn't even do too badly on peak if you discount Sweet Lou's WWII years and also not giving too much weight to one single season by Sweet Phil that is out of character. Otherwise Pee Wee and Phil's peaks are interchangeable other than the distribution of offense and defense.

And that is with no peak value inferred from his hypoethetical WWII seasons. But note that his two best years came in '42 and '46.

As a peak voter, I still see Pee Wee as definitely ballot-worthy.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:15 PM (#1714308)
Here's the MLEs I've calculated for Bonnie Serrell. The playing time is much overstated (and thus also the SFWS), but with that kind of OPS+, there's not much point in worrying over them. He's very similar to Piper Davis or Ray Dandridge among candidates we've looked at.
YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG    G   PA   AB    H   TB  BB ops+ sfws
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1941 NL 19  2B .233 .276 .233    9   32   30    7    7   2  44   0.3
1942 NL 20  2B .340 .393 .441  150  580  534  181  236  47 144  26.4
1943 NL 21  2B .252 .295 .442   88  331  313   79  138  19 112  10.2
1944 NL 22  2B .304 .349 .355  126  477  446  135  158  31  99  14.3
1945 NL 23  2B .252 .303 .350  138  525  489  123  171  36  81  12.1
1946 NL 24  2B .259 .316 .320  124  476  440  114  141  36  80  10.2
1947 NL 25  2B .234 .282 .338  164  623  584  137  197  39  64  12.0
1948 NL 26  2B .259 .300 .398  152  572  540  140  215  31  87  15.8
1949 NL 27  2B .248 .293 .357  137  517  487  121  174  31  73  11.7
1950 NL 28  2B .277 .327 .326  143  547  509  141  166  38  72  13.0
1951 NL 29  2B .240 .277 .318  123  461  438  105  139  23  60   8.0
1952 NL 30  2B .276 .313 .350   92  345  328   90  115  18  84   8.7
1953 NL 31  2B .280 .315 .407  160  597  568  159  231  29  87  18.7
1954 NL 32  2B .287 .347 .395  154  597  547  157  216  50  94  19.6
1955 NL 33  2B .267 .314 .342  140  532  498  133  170  34  74  12.7
1956 NL 34  2B .285 .316 .356  137  510  487  139  174  22  81  13.5
1957 NL 35  2B .238 .275 .310  107  401  381   91  118  19  58   6.6
====================================================================
               .270 .315 .363 2146 8124 7619 2053 2767 505  84 213.9
   16. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:18 PM (#1714312)
Grrrrrrr. I hate that bar. His lifetime rates are 270/315/363. OPS+ is 84.
   17. Chris Cobb Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:29 PM (#1714331)
Where does reese get all his WS from? Does he get a disproportionate amount of fielding WS as compared to his ss contemporaries? His raw hitting stats, without the war credit, do not look like a 300 WS guy.

He does not get a disproportionate amt. of fws. Here's a quick comparison to the other 3 top shortstops of the 1940s and early 1950s:

Reese 203.9 bws, 111.3 fws 315.2 total. 35.3% fielding
Boudreau 187.5 bws, 89.3 fws, 276.8 total, 32.3% fielding
Stephens 191.4 bws, 73.2 fws, 264.6 total, 27.7% fielding
Rizzuto 132.9 bws, 97.2 fws, 230.1 total, 42.2% fielding

I think that there are instead two explanations of Reese's career win-share total:

1) He had a long career, esp. for a shortstop.
Reese has such a large ws total in part because, even losing 3 years to the war, he played a lot of games at a high-value defensive position: 2166 career vs. 1720 for Stephens, 1661 for Rizzuto, and 1646 for Boudreau. His GP are due both to a longer careeer and to exceptional in-season durability: from 1941 through 1956 (excluding 3 yrs. missed in the war), he never played in fewer than 140 games. That's 13 seasons at that level. Rizzuto has only 6 seasons of 140+ games, Boudreau 8, and Stephens 7.

2) His offensive value is underrated by raw stats, esp. raw career stats. Unlike Boudreau and Stephens, Reese had a long decline phase, so he was generally a better hiter than his career rates show. Reese was also the kind of hitter who is going to be somewhat underrated by OPS+. He has excellent OBP, below-avg. power, and early in his career he has high sacrifice rates, low gidp rates, and a decent percentage base-stealer. By career OPS+, he looks like he's not in the same class with Vern Stephens as a hitter: 99 OPS+ to Stephens' 119. But Stephens gains all his value above average as a hitter from slugging. Career EQA has thenm at Stephens .283, Reese .272. And their peaks are closer than that:

Stephens top 5 EQA
.303, .302, .296, .293, .290

Reese top 5 EQA
.300, .298, .290, .287, .283


All that said, Reese was only a great player during the 1940s, when he was a durable, great-fielding, very-good-hitting shortstop. From 1950-55, he was merely a very good player: a durable, very-good-hitting, adequate-fielding shortstop.

Overall, he's the second-best shortstop of the 1940s by peak, following Boudreau, and his career value far exceeds that of any of his contemporary infielders.
   18. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:32 PM (#1714340)
Here's the MLEs for Bob Thurman as well. I asked Gadfly about it, and Thurman was a 29-year-old rookie in the NgLs in 1946. I've included Thurman's real big-league stats and WS to give you a sense of his full career. Thurman didn't get tons of playing time in the NL and kind of bounced up and down between the bigs and AAA in the 50s. Gad also mentioned that he sustained fractures after a pitch broke his hand in 1949, just after he entered the white baseball power structure. Apparently, he was never the same hitter and he suffered from chronic hand problems thereafter.

YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG    G   PA   AB    H   TB  BB ops+ sfws
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 NL 29  OF .379 .464 .485   52  215  185   70   90  30 169  11.6
1947 NL 30  OF .343 .424 .479  139  564  494  169  237  69 139  26.7
1948 NL 31  OF .298 .374 .430  148  588  524  156  226  64 117  20.4
1949 NL 32  OF .308 .384 .436  154  613  546  168  238  67 119  22.6
1950 NL 33  OF .267 .340 .399  156  617  555  148  222  62  93  16.5
1951 NL 34  OF .259 .329 .407  107  420  380   98  155  40  97  11.0
1952 NL 35  OF .273 .344 .370  125  494  445  122  165  49  98  12.0
1953 NL 36  OF .246 .310 .279  137  533  488  120  136  46  55   6.2
1954 NL 37  OF .269 .340 .434  142  560  506  136  219  54 101  17.0
1955 NL 38  OF .217 .296 .408   80  169  152   33   62  17  85   2.0
1956 NL 39  OF .295 .340 .532   80  149  139   41   74  10 130   5.0
1957 NL 40  OF .252 .309 .523  100  304  281   71  147  23 119  10.0
1958 NL 41  OF .230 .320 .382   97  198  178   41   68  20  85   3.0
1959 NL 42  OF .250 .250 .250    4    4    1    1    1   0  34   0.0
====================================================================
               .282 .355 .418 1522 5429 4875 1374 2039 551 108 163.9




   19. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:37 PM (#1714350)
One might draw a comparison between Reese and Aparicio. Both were good gloves, were durable, didn't have much power, had good speed/steals relative to their generation, and could play small ball. But Luis didn't have the walks, so while Reese is a good career-based candidate and among my top-twenty shortstops, Aparicio is, IMO, not all that close to electable.
   20. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 04:38 PM (#1714355)
Oh, and if you're using a pre tag and you don't want to get the bar, just use a few carriage returns at the bottom of your chart as I did in post 18. It's not the ideal solution, but it gets the job done.
   21. Mark Donelson Posted: November 01, 2005 at 06:31 PM (#1714604)
As someone who puts very little weight on career, I'm fearing Reese is going to be yet another dent in my consensus score. I completely agree that he's by far the best of the remaining SS from this period, and that he's closer to Boudreau (who's in my pHOM, but got there later than he got into the HOM) than to the others.

But the peak (using WS) just isn't that great, even with war credit (unless you give him peak years for the war that are BETTER than any year he actually had). I'm giving him a good chunk of war credit, and nudging him up a bit more for all the other reasons people are excited about him, but that just gets Reese to around #30 on my list.

Lemon does even worse (he's clinging to the bottom of my top 50), so this is gonna be an all-backlogger year for me.
   22. Chris Cobb Posted: November 01, 2005 at 06:57 PM (#1714652)
Mark,

How are you assessing peak? By win shares and with war credit, Reese varied between above average and MVP-candidate play every year for 13 years, from 1942-1954. That's quite a considerable peak, in my view.
   23. Rusty Priske Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:18 PM (#1714692)
Prelim, as always...

PHoM: Pee Wee Reese & Monte Irvin

1. Red Ruffing
2. George Van Haltren
3. Willard Brown
4. Eppa Rixey
5. Joe Medwick
6. Jake Beckley
7. Cool Papa Bell
8. Biz Mackey
9. Mickey Welch
10. Pee Wee Reese
11. Dobie Moore
12. George Sisler
13. Hugh Duffy
14. Tommy Leach
15. Edd Roush

16-20. Rice, Ryan, Childs, Griffith, Powell
21-25. Trouppe, H.Smith, Streeter, White, Strong
26-30. Gleason, Redding, Sewell, Doerr, Doyle
   24. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1714706)
While I can't speak for Mark anything that involves the word 'average' has nothing to do with peak for me and only roughly hits on prime. However, Reese is very likely to have an elect-me spot from this peak heavy voter. He does have some impressive WS years and a very long prime. And it isn't like there are any no brainers or even Heilmann/Irvin/Appling level players on the board this year.

prelim

1. Reese
2. Ferrell
3. Childs
4. Medwick
5. Duffy
6. Lemon
7. Redding
8. Keller
9. Walters
10. Moore
11. Kiner
12. Griffith
13. Trouppe
14. Gordon
15. Browning

The last PHOM spot is a battle bewteen Duffy and Lemon with Redding as a dark horse. Does anyone have any arguments regarding those three players?
   25. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:38 PM (#1714723)
Duffy: my 16th best ever CF (just lost 15th to Doby!)
Lemon: my 36th ranked starting pitcher, which is like being the 12th best at any other position.
Redding: No friggin' clue. He's one of the players I've had the most difficulty with. He seems like his peak isn't that impressive, but that his bulk might be. I prefer Mendez as the second-best black pitcher of the teens.
   26. Mark Donelson Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:39 PM (#1714727)
Chris--

My peak standards are pretty high, unless we're talking about an underrepresented position (C, 3B, 2B at this point). 27s and 26s are certainly excellent, but heck, Eddie Stanky had a few of those.

I know, of course, your point is that Reese had many, many more of them than the Stankys of the world. I think the main point of difference is that the duration Reese shows isn't that relevant to me, except to give him an extra boost at the end. Yes, Reese was a really, really good player for a long time. But I favor those with higher but shorter peaks (Dobie Moore, say) over smaller, longer ones like Reese's; the latter tend to fall into my Hall of Very Good category.

I'm not done with my thinking here, so it's possible Reese will move up a bit more before I vote. But at this point, I'd be surprised if he makes it to my ballot.
   27. Mark Donelson Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:42 PM (#1714731)
Just to follow that up--yeah, I agree with jschmeagol's point. And I'm not a big prime guy either--it's peak, peak, peak with me.
   28. Trevor P. Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:47 PM (#1714741)
Funny, with Lemon's candidacy I actually revisited a few pitchers hovering in the 10-25 range on my ballot last night, and I came away with the impression that Redding's a slight bit more worthy than Lemon. Though Lemon has a slight edge in ERA+ (119 to about 115), Redding's got about a 600-800 IP advantage. Both have mid-to-high peaks - though Lemon's career shape seems more typical, with Redding peaking early in his career then fizzling.

I'd say the difference between the two (along with Ferrell, Walters, and a number of other similar pitchers) may come down to offensive production. It's pretty preliminary right now, but I have Lemon just off-ballot around #18, neck-and-neck with Bucky Walters. One of the big beneficiaries of my review, I might add, is Dutch Leonard. He'll probably show up next year in the mid-twenties.

Perhaps I missed it in his thread, but I'd love to hear some accounts of how proficient Redding was with the stick.
   29. Mark Donelson Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1714743)
And to follow again...

On further examination, I'm remembering a point Joe made a while back--he said roughly that those of us with qualifying criteria should be careful about those who just make them and who just miss them, as we're probably inadvertently overrating the former and underrating the latter.

I think I may be doing this with Reese, so I'll check the numbers again and adjust accordingly. Maybe he'll make the ballot after all (though he has a way to go to get there).
   30. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1714753)
I'm remembering a point Joe made a while back--he said roughly that those of us with qualifying criteria should be careful about those who just make them and who just miss them, as we're probably inadvertently overrating the former and underrating the latter.

In the words of Dirty Harry: A man's gotta know his limitations.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: November 01, 2005 at 07:58 PM (#1714764)
As a peak/prime voter, here are my IFers for 1964:

1. Dobie Moore
2. Pee Wee Reese
(2a. John Beckwith)
3. Joe Gordon
4. Ed Williamson
5. Vern Stephens
(5a. Stan Hack)
6. Bobby Doerr
7. Larry Doyle
8. Cupid Childs
9. Joe Sewell
10. Pie Traynor

11. Dick Lundy
12. Bill Monroe
13. Phil Rizzuto
14. Dave Bancroft
15. Bob Elliott
16. Fred Dunlap

From 2a to 16th is a hair's-breadth, with all in or near my top 50 for all positions.

17. Bus Clarkson
18. Tommy Leach
19. Al Rosen
20. John McGraw
   32. Kelly in SD Posted: November 06, 2005 at 11:22 PM (#1720986)
test / bump / making sure the thread works since no posts since Tuesday.
   33. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 06, 2005 at 11:29 PM (#1720993)
I think it has just been a slow week. There seem to be very few controversial/hard to figure candidates.
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: November 06, 2005 at 11:37 PM (#1720995)
Well, there are two major newbies, both of them hard to figure! Or three,with the Barber harder to figure yet! I would guess this is an all-time record for fewest posts on the weekly ballot discussion and probably the first time the thread has disappeared from hot topics!

Honey, what's wrong?
   35. Paul Wendt Posted: November 07, 2005 at 12:44 AM (#1721033)
Maybe that brilliance shut down Bob Lemon.

In 30 hours there is activity on this thread alone; in 42 hours, only two threads. Sometimes I forget that most people participate M-F on the boss's dime.
   36. TomH Posted: November 08, 2005 at 05:16 PM (#1723484)
It's true that many of us (like me!) are more active M-F. Even during work hours. Because my dial-up conneciton is so slow at home, it's much more convenient to often stay an extra hour here at the office and use a little time at 7am or during lunch or at 5pm to read and add to these threads :)
   37. DavidFoss Posted: November 08, 2005 at 07:27 PM (#1723798)
There was some talk about how fast we'll be dipping into the backlog last week
and I remembered that I did a mini-study on it but couldn't find it.

Well, I found it on my work computer's desktop this morning.

Here when HOF-ers will be HOM eligible and how that tracks with
the number of inductees.
(1 HOF-eligible + 2 inductees => +1 on the list)

<pre>
1964 - Pee Wee Reese, Bob Lemon E
1965 - Larry Doby, Enos Slaughter E
1966 - Ted Williams +1
1967 - None +3
1968 - Richie Ashburn, Red Schoendienst +3
1969 - Stan Musial, Yogi Berra, Early Wynn+2
1970 - Duke Snider +3
1971 - Warren Spahn, Nellie Fox +3
1972 - Sandy Koufax, Robin Roberts +4
1973 - Whitey Ford +5
1974 - Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews +5
1975 - Don Drysdale +6
1976 - None +7
1977 - Ernie Banks, Jim Bunning +7
1978 - Clemente, Wilhelm, Mazeroski +6
1979 - Willie Mays, Luis Aparicio +6
1980 - Al Kaline, Orlando Cepeda +7
1981 - BGibson, Killebrew, Marichal +6
1982 - Aaron, FRobinson, BWilliams +5
1983 - Brooks Robinson +6
1984 - None +8
1985 - Lou Brock, Catfish Hunter +9
1986 - Willie McCovey +10
1987 - None +13
1988 - Willie Stargell +14
1989 - Yastrzemski, Bench, GPerry, Jenkins+13
1990 - Joe Morgan, Jim Palmer +14
1991 - Rod Carew, Rollie Fingers +15
1992 - Tom Seaver, Tony Perez +15
1993 - SCarlton, RJackson, PNiekro +15
1994 - Don Sutton +17
1995 - Mike Schmidt +19
1996 - None +22
1997 - None +25
1998 - Gary Carter +27
1999 - GBrett, Yount, NRyan +27
2000 - Carlton Fisk +29
2001 - Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett +30
2002 - Ozzie Smith +32
2003 - Eddie Murray, Ryne Sandberg +33
2004 - Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley +34
2005 - Wade Boggs +36
<\pre>

Obviously there are guys like Schoendienst who we won't induct
and guys like Santo who we will and a large number of borderline guys as well.
Still you can see the general areas of when the backlog guys will be added.
1967, 1984, 1987 and then a period from 1994-1998 where this
project will almost be like a Veteran's Committee.
   38. DavidFoss Posted: November 08, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1723803)
shucks -- stupid pre-tag! ARGH! Well, you can still read it (I'm not going back and adding in all those spaces :-))
   39. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 08, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1723931)
Just to stir up the pot a little....

Of those guys up there on the list, here's the ones I think will have trouble, or who will at least be forced into the backlog awhile.

1965 - Enos Slaughter
1966 -
1967 -
1968 - Richie Ashburn, Red Schoendienst
1969 -
1970 -
1971 - Nellie Fox
1972 - Sandy Koufax
1973 -
1974 -
1975 -
1976 -
1977 -
1978 - Mazeroski
1979 - Luis Aparicio
1980 - Orlando Cepeda
1981 -
1982 -
1983 -
1984 -
1985 - Lou Brock, Catfish Hunter
1986 -
1987 -
1988 -
1989 -
1990 -
1991 - Rollie Fingers
1992 - Tony Perez
1993 -
1994 - Don Sutton
1995 -
1996 -
1997 -
1998 -
1999 -
2000 -
2001 - Kirby Puckett
2002 - Ozzie Smith
2003 -
2004 - Dennis Eckersley
2005 -

Also Ryan and Wynn are in a group of pitchers who haven't faired terribly well with us, the long career, low peak type. So those two, despite the wins, could have some trouble.

So if we don't elect these sixteen, or even if we just delay their entry, the backlog will really come gushing forth.


And just for extra fun, the post-05 borderliners (major candidates follow in parens):
2006 - Will Clark, Orel Herhiser, and several closers (n/a)
2007 - Bonnila, Canseco, Baines, Saberhagen (Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire)
2008 - Cone, Chuck Finley (Tim Raines)
2009 - Orosco, McGriff (Rickey)
2010 - Edgar Martinez, Robin Ventura (R. Alomar, Larkin)
2011 - (Maybe R Palmeiro, L. Walker, G Maddux, Clemens, and Sosa? Inquiring minds want to know...)
   40. Daryn Posted: November 08, 2005 at 09:17 PM (#1724015)
It looks like 1998 is going to be Dick Redding's year. But seriously, everyone down to him on the current ballot looks like they'll have a fighting chance. I, sadly, draw the cut off line at Welch because his support is not broad. He is not hanging around in the 16-30 spots on many people's ballots like most of the others are.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: November 08, 2005 at 09:41 PM (#1724079)
Raffy and Sammy. You know something we don't? Baseball just isn't the same since they banned Viagra.
   42. OCF Posted: November 08, 2005 at 11:32 PM (#1724362)
Just to stir up the pot a little....

From me, no arguments before their time. I'll disagree if and when I'm good and ready to disagree.

That's what makes this all fun.
   43. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 08, 2005 at 11:41 PM (#1724385)
This probably isn't the place for it but I can't imagine Koufax languishing in our backlog. I know that if he were eligible in 1964 he would be an easy #1 for me, above Reese and Ferrell, my elect me spot guys. I would think that a lot of my peak centered brethren would agree.

Also interesting is whether is how much support Edgar Martinez will garner. I for one have no real idea how I will rank him but I will say that I think DH's deserve less defensive value than the Derek Jeter's and Kevin Reimer's in their worst years. Making one play is more valuable to me than making zero plays. In this way Win Shares is probably preferred to WARP, where players can have negative fielding values. Of course Edgar could stright up rake as well.
   44. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2005 at 01:10 AM (#1724531)
This probably isn't the place for it but I can't imagine Koufax languishing in our backlog. I know that if he were eligible in 1964 he would be an easy #1 for me, above Reese and Ferrell, my elect me spot guys. I would think that a lot of my peak centered brethren would agree.

Yeah, you may be right but it will be interesting. We've rejected some short-career high-peak guys (Dean, Rosen, Keller, Joss) and welcomed others (Walsh, Jennings, JJackson). I'd like the discussion to go forward when he's eligible and not just coronate him because "he's Sandy Koufax". We're entering the era where many of us lived to see these guys and I'd hate for us to lose the objectivity that has made this project so cool.
   45. sunnyday2 Posted: November 09, 2005 at 02:54 AM (#1724574)
As I recall, it really comes down to ERA+. Walsh had it, Dean didn't. Lemon, not close. Of course, Joss has it, too, but he wasn't the workhorse that Walsh was. Can't really say right now what that means for Koufax. Is he more Walsh, or Dean? My gut tells me that the ERA+ and workload together will add up.
   46. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 09, 2005 at 08:36 AM (#1724736)
How exactly is Bob Lemon much different from Stan Coveleski?

He created 90 more runs while making 8 more outs with the bat.

Knock 90 runs off his ERA, and 2 2/3 IP and it's 2.95 in against an era norm of 3.87.

Coveleski had a 2.89 ERA in an environment that posted a 3.67. Coveleski threw 233 more innings, but he also pitched in an era where pitchers threw more innings.

Lemon was the AL Sporting News Pitcher of the Year 3 times. Since there was no Cy Young Award in his time, I think it's perfectly accurate to consider his peak like you would that of a 3-time Cy Young Award winner. I think I'm going ot have him very high.
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: November 09, 2005 at 01:53 PM (#1724789)
Well, I currently have Coveleski at...

Oh, wait, Coveleski's not eligible anymore! Good thing we elected him when we did. Because this pitcher who is similar to Bob Lemon was not better than a half dozen pitchers who became eligible since we did.

Joe, the if X then Y argument just doesn't work because the voting doesn't work that way.

And if we elected everybody who was better than Stan Coveleski and Max Carey, well... We just want to elect the best candidate and I'm convinced that we just might do that.
   48. DanG Posted: November 09, 2005 at 03:36 PM (#1724869)
Joe, the if X then Y argument just doesn't work because the voting doesn't work that way.

Ultimately, it should. Now that the HoM is about half filled, discussion should rightly turn more and more to comparisons with those who are enshrined. I think it makes for good arguments. If the projections from David Foss are right, there will be a period of catching up towards the end where this will be especially pertinent.

No doubt it's true, in a micro sense, that "we just want to elect the best candidate". Toward this end it's useful to see how current candidates measure up to those on the inside. It's worth examining why Coveleski, Carey or your favorite whipping boy is in and Your Favorite Candidate is not. It's not always simply a matter of ballot timing. Often, those Whipping Boys acquired a certain cache, beyond tangible merit, that needs to be identified.

So if the analysts here can demonstrate that Coveleski or HoMer X is no better than Lemon, well, I think that's useful to see.
   49. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2005 at 04:52 PM (#1724977)
If the projections from David Foss are right

I've already found an error (should jump two in 1976, not one). I'll fix that and try to keep this up to date with DanG's lists in the newly eligibles thread.

The trend is real, though. At the point where the HOF is getting more conservative, the HOM is jumping to 3 electees per year.
   50. DanG Posted: November 09, 2005 at 05:26 PM (#1725039)
The trend is real, though. At the point where the HOF is getting more conservative, the HOM is jumping to 3 electees per year.
Yes, this is the case with the way Joe designed the election schedule. The HOF inductees far outstrip ours among players retired in the 1930's and 40's. At present I count 29 players who are HoM and not HOF; I count 56 that are HOF and not HoM. So they are 27 players ahead of us in 1963. By 2005, we will have surpassed their total. (This is partly due to the fact that players retired in the 1970's, 80's and 90's have not yet been thoroughly considered by the HOF.)
   51. Chris Cobb Posted: November 09, 2005 at 09:41 PM (#1725460)
Bob Lemon and Stan Coveleski:

When we elected Coveleski in 1938, he was #1 on my ballot, just ahead of Clark Griffith, who is currently at #2 on my preliminary ballot behind Pee Wee Reese.

I believe that I overrated Coveleski slightly by not fully accounting for the drag of his poor hitting on his own run support -- I added that tweak to my system when Dazzy Vance became eligible two years later. So Coveleski, were he eligible now, would be a little bit below Griffith now -- I'd be debating whether or not he was better than Wes Ferrell.

For me, Ferrell vs. Lemon has been the big comparison of the week, so I find Joe's claim that Lemon is similar to Coveleski pretty accurate.

I believe that we have players on the ballot now who are better than some players who were rightly elected as the best available player at the time. In other words, the player we are electing now are still above the lowest point the in-out line has reached.

I don't think we have any cause for concern about some players being "shafted" by becoming eligible at the wrong time, because in the 1970s, we'll be lowering the in-out line below any point it has previously reached, and we will do so again in the 1990s as we approach the present. The only way players will be shafted is if they get time-lined out of serious consideration before the in-out line gets down to them.

While that's a possibility, and the supporters of early players have eloquently opposed such injustice, I think that the borderline players of the 1940s -- the Joe Gordons and the Bobby Doerrs and, yes, the Ralph Kiners -- are in more danger of being overlooked than the Brownings.
   52. jimd Posted: November 10, 2005 at 06:00 AM (#1726038)
The HOF inductees far outstrip ours among players retired in the 1930's and 40's. At present I count 29 players who are HoM and not HOF; I count 56 that are HOF and not HoM. So they are 27 players ahead of us in 1963.

Actually, as of 1963, the HOF 1930's and 1940's bloat has yet to occur. Considering only players elected to the HOF as of 1963, the HOM has 62 players HOM, not HOF (51% of our electees). There are 20 players HOF, not HOM. Most of the "HOM, not HOF"ers are from either the 19th century (24) or Negro Leagues (22 including Irvin). There are 4 "HOF, not HOM"ers from the 19thC (McGraw, Duffy, Griffith, McCarthy).

The MLB 20thC electees (as of 1963):
HOM, not HOF (16)
Magee Jackson Sheckard Groh Coveleski
Faber Goslin Vaughan Appling Herman
Hack Boudreau Mize Newhouser Averill
Campanella

HOF, not HOM (16)
Sisler Bresnahan* Chance* Chesbro* Evers*
Tinker* Waddell* Pennock Traynor Dean
Bender* Maranville Schalk* Roush* Rice*
Rixey* (* indicates VC selection)

While some of its HOF selections are ill-considered, the VC has not yet begun to pack the HOF, wholesale.
   53. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 10, 2005 at 12:47 PM (#1726123)
The point of the Coveleski/Lemon comparison wasn't so much an "if X then Y," but an, "if you liked X, why do you not like Y?" question. Coveleski went in quite easily, and this isn't an incredible ballot we have going this week. I can't see Ferrell over Lemon, and Ferrell was the top runner up last time.

I'll have Lemon probably below Ruffing and Rixey and ahead of all the other pitchers.

But the main point was to show that if you adjust for hitting Lemon was every bit as good as Coveleski, if not better and if you supported Coveleski and don't support Lemon, that is pretty inconsistent of you. That's all.
   54. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 10, 2005 at 12:53 PM (#1726126)
Don't forget, one of the reasons we 'backloaded' the HoM election schedule was that we were erring to the side of caution. If we frontloaded it too much, you'd put in players you couldn't ever take out. But if you backload it, some wait longer, but you don't put in too many players early that would be worse than their future counterparts.

I think with what's been said about what is going to happen in the 1970s and 1990s, we were probably a little too conservative in the backloading. For that reason, I would definitely say that we should keep the electees at 3 per year going forward after 2007, and not increase them to 4 etc..
   55. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 10, 2005 at 12:55 PM (#1726127)
Chris - the inconsistent comment wasn't directed at you, BTW. You explained the reasoning behind your inconsistency for one, but the 'you' there was a general you as in the group . . .
   56. karlmagnus Posted: November 10, 2005 at 02:22 PM (#1726158)
Couldn't we have a "centenary" slot for each fourth slot, so that the fourth slot in 2007 was only open to players eligible in 1907, etc. That would ensure that timeliners were weeded out, which is what worries me about the backloading, particularly as we were especially sparse when the 1890s guys became eligible. We might have made it up, but then the NELers (who IIRC weren't included fully in the original calculation) started appearing in the 1924-32 gap, and have been ubiquitous until the last year or two. The lists of who played when and simple logic suggests that the 1890s got shortchanged, with Beckley, Griffith, Van Haltren and Duffy being the most obvious losers.
   57. Chris Cobb Posted: November 10, 2005 at 03:24 PM (#1726208)
The lists of who played when and simple logic suggests that the 1890s got shortchanged, with Beckley, Griffith, Van Haltren and Duffy being the most obvious losers.

Looking ahead at who will become eligible and how many spots will open up, I wouldn't call Beckley, Griffith, or Van Haltren losers yet. They all look to be placed pretty well for eventual election, even though they are not on the cusp just yet. Maybe they will have had to wait longer than they should, but it seems highly probable that they will be elected.
   58. TomH Posted: November 10, 2005 at 03:47 PM (#1726226)
so when we get to the 'ballot years' of 1996 and 1997 - when no obvious eligibles show up, according to a previous post - we spend 2 weeks rehashing some of our longest backloggers who have slowly moved to the top. And, in the words of the NASA guy in Apollo 13, it "could be our finest hour".
   59. karlmagnus Posted: November 10, 2005 at 03:55 PM (#1726236)
My worry is that in 1996-7 we'll have some second tier 70s player and enough people will be timelining that he slides into the HOM ahead of the 1890s guys even though the non-timeliners have them properly placed ahead of him. It's one thing when the gap's 10-20 years, it's another when candidates have to dig up through 80-90 years of dirt to reach the surface.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: November 10, 2005 at 04:05 PM (#1726257)
I agree with karl. I also worry about that. But I wouldn't tinker with the voting. I will rely on karl's persuasive abilities to keep us on track.
   61. Daryn Posted: November 10, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1726328)
It also seems less of a worry because we haven't had the expected (at least by me) influx of voters. If we add 30 new voters between now and 1990, many of whom stayed out of the voting because of their lack of interest in or knowledge of early players, we may yet have a problem.
   62. DavidFoss Posted: November 10, 2005 at 05:06 PM (#1726336)
We've been pretty harsh with second-tier newbies of late. Just ask Kiner, Gordon, Doerr & Rizzuto -- plus we have recently inducted Hughie Jennings. Right now you have to go down to 18th place (Doerr) in our backlog to get to anyone with significant post-WWII play.

There's always the worry that there will be another Bill Terry election where a borderline guy can sneak in first ballot. Now I know Terry had his fans and may well have been inducted anyways, but ballot-timing made his candidacy much briefer than, say, Mule Suttles who we had a few ballots to hash and rehash.

The worry with the 1990's guys is some of them might be our childhood heros. A dozen "conservative" 10th place votes for Steve Garvey or Don Mattingly will have a big effect on the even-more-splintered-than-now backlog. As long as we're conscious of these effects and debate well the week before we should be fine.
   63. Chris Cobb Posted: November 10, 2005 at 05:27 PM (#1726378)
My worry is that in 1996-7 we'll have some second tier 70s player and enough people will be timelining
that he slides into the HOM ahead of the 1890s guys even though the non-timeliners have them properly
placed ahead of him.


To channel Dan G. for a moment, I would say that we ain't seen nuthin' yet in terms of ballot fragmentation.
Here's a partial list of the borderline position-player candidates we'll be adding to the mix from 1980-2000:

Orlando Cepeda Norm Cash Vada Pinson Tony Oliva Bill Freehan Willie Davis
Jimmy Wynn Bobby Bonds Sal Bando Reggie Smith Gene Tenace Bert Campaneris
Ken Singleton Rusty Staub Al Oliver Tony Perez Toby Harrah Cesar Cedeno
Darrell Porter Ron Cey Graig Nettles Jose Cruz Buddy Bell Dave Concepcion
Keith Hernandez Jim Rice Dave Parker Dwight Evans Jack Clark Willie Randolph
Dale Murphy

Now, a bunch of these guys may never get a vote and a few might end up as first-ballot electees for all I know,
but every one of them will probaby break somebody's top 30.

Ballot construction is not going to get less interesting as we go along. If I were to offer a prediction, I would
guess that ballot fragmentation will offest the impact of time-lined voting, because few of these types of
candidates will acquire a substantial following, but we will see.
   64. TomH Posted: November 10, 2005 at 07:08 PM (#1726556)
My worry is that in 1996-7 we'll have some second tier 70s player and enough people will be timelining that he slides into the HOM ahead of the 1890s guys even though the non-timeliners have them properly
placed ahead of him.

--
My worry is that we'll succumb to the goofiness of the BBWAA and various Vets committees, who reversed timelined enough to induct everyone who put on a glove in 1935, yet can't find room for guys like Barry Larkin and Lou Whitaker. If someone calls the almost-best players of 1980 'second tier', we're going to have a spirited discussion. I can see different views on league quality, but if we don't elect more players per MLB year from the 1970s than the 1900s, we'll be loony.
   65. OCF Posted: November 10, 2005 at 07:44 PM (#1726617)
You have to understand that the Bill Terry election wasn't an aberration; it was the beginning of a pattern. The pattern is this: against a deeply fragmented backlog, a new candidate comes on that ballot. This new candidate is nowhere close to being an inner circle or "no-brainer" candidate, but is still solid enough to get a significant chunk of the electorate to say he's at least worthy of some consideration. And he cruises to an easy first-ballot victory. That's exactly what's happening this year with Reese, and it will happen again and again. And that's how we're going to elect a sizable number of the candidates Chris mentions in #63 or those whom Tom is worried about in #64.

But "first ballot" isn't and won't be a distinction that's worth anything in our system. (And the fact that Eddie Collins wasn't first ballot doesn't mean anything either.)
   66. sunnyday2 Posted: November 10, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1726732)
I agree with O. Whether the culprit is the timeline or the shiny new toy, I don't know. Or maybe the problem is when player has both goin' for him.

OTOH, both Terry and Reese would get elected eventually anyway. They were not gonna pull a Sewell, were they?
   67. DanG Posted: November 10, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1726737)
Good observation, OCF. Trying to trace the origins of the phenomenon, I think I would date it from Faber, three years prior to Terry. Earlier examples of this could be Hill in 1927 and Rusie in 1904.

I think a good policy for newbie candidates would be, "when in doubt, leave him out." IOW, if a new guy is deemed "worthy of consideration" that doesn't necessarily translate to a place on your ballot. As fragmentation increases, just getting named on a ballot becomes more significant than in the past, so it shouldn't be done casually. Those bottom ballot votes are NOT just throw-ins.
   68. Chris Cobb Posted: November 10, 2005 at 09:26 PM (#1726788)
This new candidate is nowhere close to being an inner circle or "no-brainer" candidate, but is still solid enough to get a significant chunk of the electorate to say he's at least worthy of some consideration. And he cruises to an easy first-ballot victory. That's exactly what's happening this year with Reese, and it will happen again and again.

Not to dismiss the issue, but I don't think Reese is similar to Bill Terry. Terry notched a mere 3 first-place votes in 1942. I think I can say without revealing too much about the balloting that Reese already has more first-place votes than that, with less than half of the expected ballots submitted. He's receiving a different pattern of support than Terry did.

I think players like Whitaker and Larkin, whom TomH worries that we might snub, will indeed be elected on the Reese model. If many guys from my list get elected on the Terry model, then we'll be making some mistakes, but I think we should elect some of them.

The last half-dozen elections or so have eased my concerns about "shiny-new-toy" problems somewhat. As David Foss rightly notes, "We've been pretty harsh with second-tier newbies of late." I hope that harshness is in fact fairness, which is what we really need with respect to all candidates.

I can see different views on league quality, but if we don't elect more players per MLB year from the 1970s than the 1900s, we'll be loony.

Agreed.
   69. OCF Posted: November 10, 2005 at 11:33 PM (#1727023)
Chris's post was well put. I think in #65 I should have included the tag line, "and that's not a bad thing." DanG in #67 suggests an "anti-shiny-new-toy" bias. That thought has a place in our thinking, but we don't want to follow its implications to the extreme. After all, what does happen if very few voters include the candidate? Then we get summary dismissal. We get a vote count too low to offer much hope that the candidate will ever come back - say, Rizzuto now, or Bancroft a generation ago. We get a candidate who may be, in practice gone from the very backlog that David Foss was saying will get elected.

We have had cases of candidates who started fairly low, but eventually climbed the ladder to election. But they were all less-documented candidates: Negro Leaguers, Joe Start, Dickie Pearce. We might not be completely done with that - I could see some of Mendez, Redding, Brown, or Trouppe still possibly making that trip - but nearly all of our new candidates are well-documented. And the well-documented have a tendency to stick in the queue fairly close to where they first enter it.

There's no one-size-fits-all rule, no lazy man's way out. When we evaluate new candidates, we need to get them right - neither too "shiny" nor too cautious.
   70. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 11, 2005 at 12:10 AM (#1727123)
I'm awash in catalogue deadlines this week, so it's a quickie ballot for me.

1. Jose Mendez: No change for J-Men.
2. Leroy Matlock: I'm still L-Mat's best friend.
3. Bucky Walters: I've got, what, four or five of these 2500-3250 INN pitchers with good bats on my ballot? Another blind spot revealed. B-Walt rocks.
4. Quincy Trouppe: He and Lemon are extremely close for me.
5. Bob Lemon: B-Lem's all about the prime. He threw a lot of innings for his time, and they were of generally high quality. His hitting helps a lot.
6. Charley Jones: A better blacklistee than Maglie.
7. Wes Ferrell: A lot like Bob.
8. Roger Bresnahan: R-Bres has a little less of everything than Q-Tru.
9. Hugh Duffy: H-Duf has been on my ballot since I was in swaddling clothes.
10. Cupid Childs: C-Chi-squared has the kick-butt peak I love and the outstanding prime I need to give him a ballot spot.
11. Pee Wee Reese: Debuts at number 11 for me. He's a career guy who relies on war credit to be number 17 at his position all time. A soft 17.
12. Joe Medwick: J-Med's a sinking ship. Will he get close this year, or be elected in the 1960s? Or do the newbies spell imminent danger to his short-term outlook?
13. Dobie Moore: D-Mo has the peak I love, and most of the prime I need, and that's good enough for the moment.
14. Willard Brown: The dubya-bee presents WB. Too bad he didn't walk.
15. Biz Mackey: B-Mac? Biz Mac? Bernie Mac? A close shave for the fifteenth spot, but it's Biz's.

Virgil Trucks: Dominating at times, not often enough
Sal Maglie: S-Mag's career started too late. Even with blacklist credit, he's not registering in ballot territory.
Bonnie Serrell: Ray Dandridge Part 2...this time it's personal.
Bob Thurman: Too bad his rookie year was at age 29. Sort of like Maglie when you think about it. Not enough goodies to fill the jar.
   71. DavidFoss Posted: November 11, 2005 at 01:07 AM (#1727211)
so it's a quickie ballot for me

Did you mean to post that in the ballot thread?
   72. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 11, 2005 at 03:28 AM (#1727366)
""We've been pretty harsh with second-tier newbies of late." I hope that harshness is in fact fairness, which is what we really need with respect to all candidates."

To throw another monkey wrench into this great conversation . . . I'm hoping that's not because of being way too conservative with war credit . . .
   73. Chris Cobb Posted: November 11, 2005 at 03:51 AM (#1727383)
To throw another monkey wrench into this great conversation . . . I'm hoping that's not because of being way too conservative with war credit . . .

It's certainly a possibility; we'll have a better sense when the post-war generation starts becoming eligible. If Nellie Fox places far ahead of Bobby Doerr and Joe Gordon, we'll need to have another discussion of war credit.
   74. yest Posted: November 11, 2005 at 02:05 PM (#1727572)
I think that even with giving players all star seasons during the war it eliminates the fact that they could had a great year or two which would put them in the HoM

for example if Pesky would have had years in the war simaler to before and after he would be in my mind a HoMer but if he would have been just very good during those years he wouldn't and thats not to mention players could have had historic seasons
   75. Daryn Posted: November 11, 2005 at 03:32 PM (#1727618)
If Nellie Fox places far ahead of Bobby Doerr and Joe Gordon, we'll need to have another discussion of war credit.

Am I missing something -- Doerr only missed one season due to the war -- that really shouldn't effect his candidacy too much. Gordon missed two, but even with full credit he should be on the ballot for peak/prime voters and off it for career voters.

Fox is the opposite of Gordon -- he could make the ballot for career voters but doesn't have much to show for a peak.

The great similarity between the 3 of them (if war credit is given) is their unbroken All Star appearances of 9, 11 and 12 years. All pretty impressive.
   76. Daryn Posted: November 11, 2005 at 03:38 PM (#1727625)
Taking a look at Fox's career, the 1959 MVP voting was unusual. White Socks finished 1, 2 and 3. Has that ever happened before or since? Aparicio and his .647 OPS almost pulled out the victory.
   77. DavidFoss Posted: November 11, 2005 at 04:36 PM (#1727709)
I hope that harshness is in fact fairness, which is what we really need with respect to all candidates

Yeah. There was a concern that second-tier newbies could fly in thirty 'years' from now. I was just pointing out that it hasn't happened yet.
   78. Chris Cobb Posted: November 11, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1727775)
Daryn,

You're right that Fox, Doerr, and Gordon will appeal differently to different voters. However, if Fox places far ahead of the other two in the overall voting, I think that would be an indication that the war-credit issue is creating more of a difference among the three than is warranted.
   79. jimd Posted: November 11, 2005 at 09:09 PM (#1728208)
I track the candidates that appear in the top-15.
(I call it the Consensus-Ballot.) Some stats.

Debut ballot positions by HOMer
01 38
02 25 (burkett crawford)
03 18 MBrown ECollins Cronin Dickey Flick
-- -- Frisch Glasscock GORE Goslin Groh
-- -- Heilmann Irvin Lyons Plank Suttles
-- -- Vance Wells Wilson
04 10 BARNES Boudreau WFoster GJohnson Keefe
-- -- Keeler Kelley Lloyd McPhee Wallace
05 04 JCollins Radbourn Stovey Williams
06 06 Averill Herman Magee Sheckard Torriente Wright
07 01 Sutton
08 04 Coveleski Hack McGinnity Richardson
09 04 Carey Grant Spalding Thompson
10 02 Jackson Jennings
11 02 Caruthers Start
12 02 Bennett Galvin
13 01 McVey
14 01 Beckwith
15 01 Pike
Off-Ballot (not top-15)
21 01 RFoster
29T 1 Pearce

Gore and Barnes were also first ballot.
Burkett and Crawford were not (debuted in elect-1 year).
63 of 121 HOMers (52%) elected on first ballot.

Debut positions of current Consensus-Ballot
(finished in top-15 in the last election)
01
02
03
04
05
06 Medwick Rixey
07 Ruffing
08 Ferrell
09 Beckley Duffy Mackey
10
11 Childs
12 VanHaltren
13 WBrown
14 Sisler
15
Off-Ballot (not top-15)
17 Bell Griffith

Debut positions of former Consensus-Ballot
(finished in top-15 in at least one election)
01
02
03
04 Sewell
05
06
07
08 Ryan
09
10 Williamson
11
12 Bresnahan Waddell
13 Browning Tiernan
14 O'Neill
15 Griffin
Off-Ballot (not top-15)
17 Roush Welch
18 Redding
19 McCormick
21 Leach
   80. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: November 12, 2005 at 01:12 AM (#1728620)
My worry is that in 1996-7 we'll have some second tier 70s player and enough people will be timelining that he slides into the HOM ahead of the 1890s guys even though the non-timeliners have them properly placed ahead of him.

Well, I think the 19th century holdovers are second-tier players themselves, and would already be in if they were better than that. I'm concerned that the modern players, except for the more obvious ones, are being squeezed off ballots, including mine, because of the presence of the old-timers.

The opposite of the "shiny new toy" is the "beloved teddy bear." When somebody's been on your ballot for years, decades, it's really hard to move him down or off it in favor of somebody new. To throw in a boxing metaphor, the new guy has to win by a knockout to move ahead.

I had Browning on my ballot, sometimes pretty high, for many years. At some point I was looking at Earl Averill as a just-on/just-off candidate. And I thought something along the lines of: wait a minute, I'd much rather have the Earl in my outfield than Pete "Oh no! Flying things!" Browning. And in context, I like his bat better too. I guess that's timelining, well, so be it.

I guess the point, if there is one, is that if somebody's on your (my) ballot for a long time and may be staying there from habit or sentimentality, he might need a fresh look.
   81. Brent Posted: November 12, 2005 at 04:02 AM (#1728760)
Chris Cobb wrote:

To channel Dan G. for a moment, I would say that we ain't seen nuthin' yet in terms of ballot fragmentation.

I'm not looking forward to the prospect of many future HoM elections going to candidates who appear on a minority of the ballots--an outcome that I think can only undermine the authority of the selections. I'd be interested in re-opening the discussion of modifying the balloting rules to try to include the opinions of a larger share of the electorate (expanding the ballot to 25 names, or having a run-off election). With past discussions on this topic having been inconclusive (many voters supporting a change, but no consensus) I'd especially be interested in actually reaching resolution on the issue, via an election to consider a change to the constitution.

Do others agree?
   82. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 12, 2005 at 11:56 AM (#1728915)
Brent, I'd be willing move to 20 on the ballot tomorrow if:

1) We can get a consensus that agrees with it.

2) It can be shown that it won't favor/harm the candidacies of any certain group of players, be it old-timers, shiny new toys, pitchers, infielders, outfielders, career guys, peak guys, strong-narrow support guys, less-strong but wider support guys, etc..

2 basically means - I'd like for voters to be able to express support for more candiates, without giving any group an advantage. Anyone want to take on the task of showing whether the 16-20 guys on the ballots that post that far are balanced demographically or not?

I think going to 25 would be a bit much, I think we need to take baby steps, not gigantic leaps as far as this is concerned.

Also note, if we go to 20 spots, the penalty for being left off a ballot increases. Now the first place guy beats the off ballot guy 29-0 instead of 24-0. The law of unintended consequences could rear it's head here, as this could make it even more likely for a guy with strong but narrow support to get elected - which is something we are trying to avoid. Maybe we say players 16-17 get 5 points and 18-20 get 4 points or something? Or that 16-20 get 3 or 4 points and don't have to be listed in any order? That would keep the frame of reference on point totals in tact.

Also, while we'll have more candidates coming on the ballots post-1970 - we are also going to be inducting more players per year too.

So while I'd lean towards increasing to 20, I don't think it's something that we should do without thinking long and hard about it . . . and how we implement it if we do it.
   83. sunnyday2 Posted: November 12, 2005 at 02:24 PM (#1728939)
What if you went to 20 but the scoring stayed as is, except obviously you would have a 5-4-3-2-1? The "penalty" for not being in the top 20 drops to just 1 point. Instead of 29-0 it's still 24-0 for the guy who is outside the top 20. This makes more sense to me in terms of being a less dramatic change to the scoring. Of course, maybe the point is you want a dramatic change to the scoring.

I've tallied 16-20 a couple times over the years, the limitation on it being that only about half the voters list their 16-20 and there is no way to know if it is a more or less random distribution--in fact, I would doubt that it is (small sample). But I didn't find that it changed the tally much at all. The good news, however, was that the vast majority of them were guys who were already on some ballots, it didn't simply increase the total number of players who got votes. It increased the consensus rather than increasing the fragmentation. But it didn't change the order of the rankings, and I think one of the years I did it was quite recently when the #3-4-5-6 were all within 10-20 points.

IOW my final thought is that it won't have much impact.
   84. karlmagnus Posted: November 12, 2005 at 02:31 PM (#1728942)
If we go to 20 I'd much rather go to 5-4-3-2-1 for the last 5 spots. The line between just on and just off is a bit too hard, IMHO (because it doesn't represent anything real), and going to 20 but with small point totals would reduce the probability of players being elected with lots of #12 votes.
   85. Brent Posted: November 12, 2005 at 08:38 PM (#1729200)
I'm ok with going to a ballot of 20. Just about every election I have two or three of the consensus top-10 ranked between 16 to 20, and I've found it frustrating that these preferences don't count. I suggested 25 because I figured that by the 1990s 20 candidates will start seeming too few, but I agree with the idea of making changes in baby steps.

Also, I agree with the idea of counting them as 5-4-3-2-1, which would have less impact on the rest of the rankings.
   86. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 12, 2005 at 09:40 PM (#1729248)
What we should do is have a voting thread next week on whether or not to extend the ballot. This way we can figure out how widespread this preference is. By the way I am not against it but I dont' think it is that big of a deal.
   87. Brent Posted: November 12, 2005 at 11:43 PM (#1729318)
I'd like Joe to define what he means by consensus. If it means unanimity or near-unanimity, I think with this group we can forget it--about the only thing we're unanimous on is that Cooperstown is messed up. The U.S. Constitution requires a supermajority for constitutional amendments--two thirds of both Houses and three fourths of the states. I think a supermajority may be possible, but near-unanimity won't be feasible.

Another possible step forward, based on Joe's second criterion--to show "that it won't favor/harm the candidacies of any certain group of players"--would be to ask all voters in next year's election (1965) to list 20 candidates so that we can do the comparison, without the 16th to 20th places actually counting yet. If it is shown to be reasonably neutral, we could then call for a vote on an amendment. The risk would be that people would see whether their favorite candidate would benefit or lose from the change and might approach the vote strategically.
   88. sunnyday2 Posted: November 12, 2005 at 11:49 PM (#1729321)
Brent, great idea. Yes, let's run a test and tabulate votes on the traditional 15-man model (which would be the official vote) and also on the 20-man model (which would be the test before any vote to change the system).

Either that or forget the whole thing.

IOW either keep what we have or consider change only very very carefully and thoroughly.
   89. Kelly in SD Posted: November 13, 2005 at 01:20 AM (#1729353)
I second/third Brent and sunnyday2's idea to have 20 person ballots for the next election and see where that takes us.
   90. yest Posted: November 13, 2005 at 02:11 AM (#1729389)
I fourth Brent, sunnyday2's and Kelly (back) in SD idea to have 20 person ballots (unofficial of course)for the next election to see if and how much a differance it makes.
   91. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2005 at 10:53 AM (#1729695)
Responding to #87 . . . By consensus, I something most of us agree on. If we have to vote, fine, but generally we tend to get most everyone on baord as far as these things go without having a formal vote.
   92. TomH Posted: November 13, 2005 at 07:43 PM (#1729878)
I'm with everyone else. Test run next ballot would be a good thing.
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2005 at 10:11 PM (#1730017)
I have no problem with altering the ballot structure, but I don't really think anything of significance will occur. Some players will be elected earlier than they would have and some players will be elected later. One borderline player will replace another one. IMO, that about sums it up.
   94. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2005 at 11:55 PM (#1730121)
John, I agree and said so in #83. But what the hell, let's give it a whirl.
   95. Chris Cobb Posted: November 14, 2005 at 03:21 AM (#1730302)
If we expand the ballot to twenty, would we lose the great formatting of our ballots results page?

I know it seems like a trivial matter, but if we're looking to expand the ballot primarily so our results look better by having electees appearing on more than 50% of the ballots, we should consider other presentational consequences . . .

More seriously, I think that expanding the ballot to 20 spots is a fine idea, but I'd hope that we would make the expansion because we felt that it would help to insure good results.

Given that I believe there are more than 20 candidates who are sufficiently qualified for the HoM currently on the ballot, I think that by making the division between on-ballot and off-ballot correspond more closely to the division between qualified and unqualified would be a moderatly good thing, because, as Brent says, it would enable voters to show support for the players whose election they actually support.

The expanded ballot would seem less desirable were it requiring me to give some support to candidates I think are unqualified for election. Will we ever reach such a state again? Perhaps not, but we might consider whether there's any likelihood that, 30 elections from now, we will be discussing ballot contraction. Obviously, fragmentation will continue, but does that necessarily mean we will want longer ballots?

I raise these questions for discussion, not because I oppose the idea of testing a twenty-slot ballot. It's no extra work for me, since I rank the top 30 pretty carefully already.
   96. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 14, 2005 at 07:10 AM (#1730544)
I see no harm is testing a 20 person ballot in 1965, to see how it changes results. Obviously we wouldn't count #'s 16-20 in 1965. We can't know if we don't try right?
   97. sunnyday2 Posted: November 14, 2005 at 01:27 PM (#1730747)
I'm looking forward to the test,I think it will be interesting.

But how will we know if it is successful or not? I saw a post above (couldn't find it just now) that said essentially that the test will be successful if it is neutral, if it doesn't help or hurt anybody.

Surely that is wrong. It is meant to help candidates who have more of a consensus and hurt those who have a few strong supporters, right? It is meant to affect the outcome of the election.

Can anybody figure out an algorithm for that analysis, or will it just have to be an eyeball kind of thing?
   98. sunnyday2 Posted: November 14, 2005 at 01:29 PM (#1730748)
PS. Larry Doby looks like a slam dunk to me, and our experiment won't affect slam dunks, right?

I wonder what the race for second place will look like? Obviously it depends on who finishes second in 1964 as that person will not be on the ballot. And I would have to think that Enos Slaughter will be in the thick of it. If the race for second place is like the one this year, then this will indeed be an interesting test.
   99. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 14, 2005 at 01:49 PM (#1730751)
"Surely that is wrong. It is meant to help candidates who have more of a consensus and hurt those who have a few strong supporters, right?"

No, it's not meant to hurt or help either. It is meant to give voters the chance to voice their support for 5 more candidates, since many of us don't think 15 is enough. It isn't meant to make us appear to have more of a consensus, at least that's not what I'm looking for from it.
   100. Daryn Posted: November 14, 2005 at 03:41 PM (#1730807)
I see no harm is testing a 20 person ballot in 1965, to see how it changes results. Obviously we wouldn't count #'s 16-20 in 1965. We can't know if we don't try right?

This is correct right? We are not actually counting the 16-20s, we just want to see if it will make a difference over a certain trial period.

For the record, I'm against expanding the ballots. It smells too much of mid-stream gerrymandering. Our system isn't perfect but it is just as good as the other suggested systems. As we get into the backlog, we will have more and more people on our ballots that we do not think are Hall worthy. It is debatable whether it is meritorious to know whom people prefer among two candidates they think should be on the outside looking in.

And lastly, Doby won't come close to my ballot. Am I missing something? I don't see how you can project a pre-1947 career, and as career voter, he doesn't come very close. His peak isn't even eye popping.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9274 seconds
49 querie(s) executed