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

Sunday, January 22, 2006

1968 Results: “Eppa Jeptha” and “Whiz Kid” Ashburn Get the Hall of Merit Nod!

In his 30th year on a ballot, Phillie and Red pitching star Eppa Rixey earned 39% of all possible points to finally get his HoM plaque.

Leadoff hitter extraordinaire Richie Ashburn gained 38% of all possible points to be awarded induction in his first year of eligibility.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Biz Mackey, Clark Griffith, George Van Haltren, Cool Papa Bell, George Sisler, Bobby Doerr (huge jump for him!), Jake Beckley, and Willard Brown (first time in the top-ten).

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    3  Eppa Rixey               437   28   3  5  3        5  2     2     3  1  2  2   
 2  n/e  Richie Ashburn           430   28   3  4  2  3  2  1  1  3     2  1  2  1  3   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3    4  Biz Mackey               406   30   2     1  3  3  1  5  6     2  1     4  2   
 4    5  Clark Griffith           386   24   5  3  1  3  2     1  1  2        2     3  1
 5    7  George Van Haltren       356   25   2  2  4  1  1  1  2  1     3  3  2  1     2
 6    8  Cool Papa Bell           353   24   1  3  2  1  4  1  2  2  1  1  1  3  1     1
 7    6  George Sisler            329   25   1  2  2  1  2  2  1  1  2  2  2  1  3     3
 8   17  Bobby Doerr              312   23   1  2  3  2  2  1     1     2  1  3  1  3  1
 9    9  Jake Beckley             300   21   3  2  2  1  1        1  1  3  1  2  1  1  2
10   12  Willard Brown            286   20   1  1  3  1  1  1  2  4     2  2     1  1   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   11  Dobie Moore              271   17   4  1  1  1  3     2     1           2  1  1
12   10  Cannonball Dick Redding  267   18      2  2  1  4  1  1  1  2     3     1      
13   16  Hugh Duffy               265   19   1  2  2  1  3     1     1  2  1  2        3
14   19  Ralph Kiner              261   22         1  2  2  3  2  1  2  1        2  4  2
15   18  Joe Sewell               256   19   1  1  2  1  2  2     2  2     1     1  2  2
16   13  Cupid Childs             247   18   1     2  2  1  1  1  3  2  1  1  1  1  1   
17   14  Pete Browning            246   17   3  1  2     1        1  1  4  1     1     2
18   15  José Méndez              240   16   1  2     2     4     2  1     3     1      
19   21  Joe Gordon               220   18   1     1  1        2  2  5     1  1  1  2  1
20   24  Alejandro Oms            208   14   1  2  1  2     2     2     1           1  2
21   22  Bucky Walters            200   15      1  1        3  3  1  2     1  2     1   
22   25  Rube Waddell             196   15         1  2  2     2  1  1  1  3  2         
23   23  Mickey Welch             188   10   3  2     1  1     1  1        1            
24   20  Charley Jones            182   13   1  2        1  2     1  1  2           1  2
25   26  Quincy Trouppe           164   13            2     3  3        2        1  1  1
26   27  Roger Bresnahan          158   14   1  1           1  1     2     1  1  1  1  4
27   28  Tommy Leach              158   12   1  1     2           1  1     1  3  1  1   
28   29  Burleigh Grimes          150   12   1     1  1  1     1        2     2  1  1  1
29   31  Edd Roush                138   10   1           2  1  3           1     1  1   
30   30  Larry Doyle              131    9   1  1  2        1              1  1  1     1
31   32  Gavy Cravath             128   10   1     1     1  1  1     1        1     2  1
32   35  Bob Johnson              127   13               1  2           1     3  3  1  2
33   33  Bob Elliott              115   11               2           2  1  2  1     1  2
34   34  Wally Schang             115    9   1        1     1     1  1     2     1     1
35   36  Charlie Keller            78    6            2     2                       2   
36   38  Tommy Bridges             64    6                     1     1  1  1  1  1      
37   37  John McGraw               62    4         2           1     1                  
38   43T Jimmy Ryan                55    5            1                 1  1  1  1      
39   42  Dizzy Dean                52    6                           1     2        2  1
40   40  Frank Chance              52    5            1              1        1     2   
41   47T Vic Willis                50    4                  2           1     1         
42   53T Vern Stephens             49    4            1     1           1              1
43   43T Phil Rizzuto              48    4               1        1     1        1      
44   56T Fielder Jones             48    3      1              1        1               
45   39  Ed Williamson             46    4                        1  2        1         
46   49  Sam Rice                  42    4                           2  1           1   
47   45T Bill Monroe               41    3      1                          1     1      
48T  45T Ben Taylor                40    3      1                       1              1
48T  41  Dizzy Trout               40    3         1           1                 1      
50   51  Carl Mays                 39    4                     1           1  1        1
51   47T Ernie Lombardi            39    3   1                                   1  1   
52   56T Addie Joss                35    3                     1  1              1      
53   50  Luke Easter               35    2         1  1                                 
54   52  Pie Traynor               30    2            1           1                     
55   55  Chuck Klein               26    2                        2                     
56   60  Fred Dunlap               23    2               1                          1   
57   59  Leroy Matlock             23    1      1                                       
58  n/e  Red Schoendienst          21    2                           1        1         
59   62  Dom DiMaggio              19    2                                 1  1         
60   73T Dick Lundy                18    2                                 1     1      
61   64  Bus Clarkson              17    2                              1              1
62T  63  Ed Cicotte                17    1            1                                 
62T  65  Johnny Pesky              17    1            1                                 
64   76T Wilbur Cooper             15    2                                    1        1
65   56T Bobby Veach               15    1                  1                           
66   66  Tetelo Vargas             14    1                     1                        
67   67T Joe Tinker                13    1                        1                     
68T  71  Artie Wilson              12    1                           1                  
68T  53T Dutch Leonard             12    1                           1                  
70T  72  Sam Leever                11    1                              1               
70T  76T Rabbit Maranville         11    1                              1               
70T  67T Bobo Newsom               11    1                              1               
73T  67T Tommy Bond                 9    1                                    1         
73T  76T Mickey Vernon              9    1                                    1         
75T  70  Lefty Gomez                8    1                                       1      
75T  73T Hack Wilson                8    1                                       1      
75T  76T Al Rosen                   8    1                                       1      
75T  73T Virgil Trucks              8    1                                       1      
79  n/e  Spot Poles                 7    1                                          1   
80T  76T Wally Berger               6    1                                             1
80T  61  George J. Burns            6    1                                             1
80T n/e  Johnny Sain                6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Buzz Arlett(81).
Ballots Cast: 47
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 22, 2006 at 09:16 PM | 91 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: January 24, 2006 at 02:07 AM (#1835111)
Congrats to the new inductees!
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:22 AM (#1835131)
Wow! This is the most surprised I have ever been in, what?, 71 years? (Speaking of Whitey here.)

And what in the world happened to Bobby Doerr? Have we ever had a top 20 player who moved halfway up the charts in one fell swoop? Bob Caruthers did something similar once but not this dramatically I don't think. And Parisian Bob's fortunes were merely following the peaks and troughs of the weekly WARP re-ratings. What happened in Doerr's case?
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:27 AM (#1835138)
What happened in Doerr's case?

You got me, Marc. I'm just puzzled, as usual, that Gordon is still in his shadow. I doubt this would be the case if they had switched parks during their careers.
   4. OCF Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:32 AM (#1835142)
Consensus scores:

Average: -15.4, new record, previous record -15.0 in 1967.

Rusty Priske: -6
DL from MN: -6 (A newbie, huh? Wait till he figures out where we've gone wrong.)
Tom H: -8
Daryn: -10
DanG: -10
Howie Menckel: -10
...
OCF: -13
...
danb: -15.4 (median)
...
yest: -16
...
karlmagnus: -19
...
Gadfly: -20
...
jimd: -21
Jim Sp: -21
Mark Donelson: -22
Kelly in SD: -24
Dolf Lucky: -29
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:34 AM (#1835146)
Didn't make the bottom five (not that it really matters for this election).
   6. OCF Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:37 AM (#1835153)
John Murphy: -19. There's a crowd in that neighborhood.

The other newbie, AJM, was at -16.
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#1835162)
>yest: -16
...
>karlmagnus: -19

(At least a half dozen voters below.)

Who woulda thought this a few years ago?
   8. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:46 AM (#1835170)
I bumped Doerr up a little this week, because in my 2B ratings he finally moved past Childs, but that was only 4 points.

As for Ashburn, he's sort of Bill Terry Part Deux - relatively short career, lots of very good but not great seasons, may have benefited from getting in ahead of the rest of his era's players, and had a lot of mid-ballot support. (Although it's worth noting that he just about beat out Mackey on elect-me bonuses.)
   9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1835172)
Here's an update to Ron's lists:

HOF-not-HOM through 1968

1  Bender
Chief
2  Bresnahan
Roger
3  Chance
Frank
4  Chesbro
Jack
5  Cuyler
Kiki
6  Dean
Dizzy
7  Duffy
Hugh
8  Evers
Johnny
9  Griffith
Clark 
10 Grimes
Burleigh
11 Manush
Heinie
12 Maranville
Rabbit
13 McCarthy
Tommy
14 McGraw
John 
15 Pennock
Herb
16 Rice
Sam
17 Roush
Edd
18 Schalk
Ray
19 Sisler
George
20 Tinker
Joe
21 Traynor
Pie
22 Waddell
Rube
23 Waner
Lloyd

And HOM not-HOF

1  Ashburn
Richie
2  Averill
Earl
3  Barnes
Ross
4  Bennett
Charlie
5  Boudreau
Lou
6  Campanella
Roy
7  Caruthers
Bob
8  Connor
Roger
9  Coveleski
Stan
10 Dahlen
Bill
11 Davis
George
12 Doby
Larry
13 Ferrell
Wes
14 Glasscock
Jack
15 Gore
George
16 Groh
Heinie
17 Hack
Stan
18 Herman
Billy
19 Hines
Paul
20 Kelley
Joe
21 Lemon
Bob
22 Magee
Sherry
23 McPhee
Bid
24 McVey
Cal
25 Mize
Johnny
26 Newhouser
Hal
27 Pearce
Dickey
28 Pike
Lip
29 Richardson
Hardy
30 Reese
Pee Wee
31 Rusie
Amos
32 Sheckard
Jimmy
33 Slaughter
Enos
34 Start
Joe
35 Stovey
Harry
36 Sutton
Ezra
37 Thompson
Sam
38 Vaughan
Arky
39 White
Deacon 
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1835173)
Re. Doerr the two newbies had him at #9 and #2. AJM is not the BFOBD, however, as he's got a first place vote, too. Still there are 32 new points and, well, he's still 11th, which ain't 17th. So there was some other movement, too.
   11. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:50 AM (#1835179)
Actually I bumped Doerr up onto my ballot at #12 so that was 9 new points, too. Doh!
   12. OCF Posted: January 24, 2006 at 03:01 AM (#1835198)
There were times during the tallying when each of Rixie, Ashburn, Griffith, and Mackey were in the #1 position; there was a time (late) when the four were clustered with 10 points of each other.
   13. Cblau Posted: January 24, 2006 at 03:09 AM (#1835215)
Wahoowa!
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2006 at 03:12 AM (#1835222)
Wahoowa!

The Japanese Sam Crawford?

;-)
   15. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2006 at 03:42 AM (#1835266)
Ashburn's election remonds me of Enos Slaughter's. Both didn't really seperate themselves, in my view, from the backlog (though I have since reconsidered Country) but both were obviously borderline to everyone so there was a lot of people who puthim in mid ballots positions. I wonder if someone like GVH would have that happen if he were new this year.
   16. jimd Posted: January 24, 2006 at 04:24 AM (#1835314)
1968 HOF Election
Total ballots cast: 283
Necessary for election: 213
(HOMers in bold)

Name Votes PCT
Joe Medwick 240 84.81
Roy Campanella 205 72.44
Lou Boudreau 146 51.59
Enos Slaughter 129 45.58
Ralph Kiner 118 41.70
Johnny Mize 103 36.40
Allie Reynolds 95 33.57
Marty Marion 89 31.45
Arky Vaughan 82 28.98
Pee Wee Reese 81 28.62
Johnny Vander Meer 79 27.92
Joe Gordon 77 27.21
Phil Rizzuto 74 26.15
Hal Newhouser 67 23.67
Bucky Walters 67 23.67
Bobby Doerr 48 16.96
George Kell 47 16.61
Bob Lemon 47 16.61
Alvin Dark 36 12.72
Terry Moore 33 11.66
Phil Cavarretta 23 8.13
Tommy Henrich 22 7.77
Bobo Newsom 22 7.77
Mickey Vernon 22 7.77
Frankie Crosetti 15 5.30
Ted Kluszewski 14 4.95
Bobby Thomson 13 4.59
Charlie Keller 11 3.89
Sal Maglie 11 3.89
Carl Erskine 9 3.18
Don Newcombe 9 3.18
Walker Cooper 8 2.83
Dom DiMaggio 8 2.83
Johnny Sain 7 2.47
Richie Ashburn 6 2.12
Schoolboy Rowe 6 2.12
Dixie Walker 6 2.12
Ewell Blackwell 5 1.77
Dutch Leonard 5 1.77
Gil McDougald 4 1.41
Wally Moses 4 1.41
Harry Brecheen 3 1.06
Jackie Jensen 3 1.06
Frank McCormick 3 1.06
Augie Galan 2 0.71
Ed Lopat 2 0.71
Preacher Roe 2 0.71
Vic Raschi 1 0.35
   17. TomH Posted: January 24, 2006 at 01:56 PM (#1835625)
I'm third in 'consensus', while voting for Chance and McGraw? Definitely a fractured ballot.
   18. Howie Menckel Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:49 PM (#1835655)
All-time 'vote points totals' leaders, through 1968. Active for 1969 vote in CAPS

Duffy claims No. 3 spot.... Childs passes Waddell for 8th.... Welch reaches the top 10... Rixey checks out for good at No. 14.... Bresnahan and Leach each add 158 to nearly-identical career totals to round out the top 20.

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 18194.5
BECKLEY 17328
DUFFY 17020.5
Jennings 16976
GRIFFITH 16822
BROWNING 14940.5
Pike 13399
CHILDS 12807
WADDELL 12791
WELCH 12521

Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 10999
Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9920
SISLER 9740
H Stovey 9576
BRESNAHAN 8476
TLEACH 8443

Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5

OTHER TOP 25 ACTIVE
(C Jones 7813, Sewell 7513, Redding 6321, Mendez 6051, Mackey 6091, Monroe 5659, Roush 5392, Doyle 5307, CP Bell 5207, Williamson 4684, Moore 4312, Grimes 3874)
ALMOST
(Schang 3690, McGraw 3581)
   19. DL from MN Posted: January 24, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#1835704)
I've already rejiggered the bottom of my ballot (Vic Willis and Tom Bridges on, Beckley and Waddell off) for next year but I didn't change Mackey-Griffith-Bell-Ashburn-Rixey. I'm satisfied with the results.
   20. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#1835743)
DL,

In my first year I have Jake Beckley at #15 and Hughie Jennings at #14. Three years later Jennings was #1 and Beckley was outside of my top 50 never to return again. It is kind of funny how much a ballot changes in a voter's first few years.
   21. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: January 24, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#1835759)
I am scratching my head about these results. This lurker has found the project interesting and amazingly informative. But, if I had to pick, on the whole, I'd prefer the Fame (Hall of) over Merit (Hall of). YMMV.
   22. Daryn Posted: January 24, 2006 at 05:22 PM (#1835854)
28 different #1 picks. That's splinterrific!
   23. BTL: Lesser Primate, 4th Class Trainee Posted: January 24, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#1835863)
I am scratching my head about these results. This lurker has found the project interesting and amazingly informative. But, if I had to pick, on the whole, I'd prefer the Fame (Hall of) over Merit (Hall of). YMMV.

As another lurker (since 1932), I have no idea what you mean. Do you think the HOF not HOM players are better than the HOM not HOF? If so, why?
   24. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#1835880)
Scoriano,

Remember taht we have many years to go in which we can elect the players you want to see elected.

Which guys do you advocatha
   25. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#1835882)
Scoriano,

Remember that we have many years to go in which we can elect the players you want to see elected.

Which guys do you advocate?
   26. kthejoker Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#1835919)
And also remember that the artificially imposed limit/requirement of 2 players per election can at times overrepresent and underrepresent the list of players the HOM voters would probably like to see in the HOM.

For example, this year Biz Mackey placed on 63.8% of the ballots and earned 406 points in a 47-ballot vote, or roughly 8.64 points per ballot. Since every ballot has 120 points, or 8 points per slot, this means on the whole Mackey is preferred by the electorate over the average selection. Without the 2 person limit, it seems reasonable that exceeding 8 points per ballot would be enough to enshrine someone in the HOF.

On the other hand, if you chose to set a higher standard - say, 10 points per ballot (or an average of a Top 5 finish across all ballots) - then nobody this year deserved inclusion into the HOM. If you struck a compromise at 9 points ber ballot (times 47 ballots = 423 points) then Rixey and Ashburn once again squeak through into the Hall of Merit.

In essence, because the rules are different, you can't compare the sets of inductions on any meaningful level.
   27. kthejoker Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1835931)
The major advantage to the HOM's voting system is the timelining effect, in that players who played and retired years before the actual Hall of Fame was invented received full shrift. This not only gives the advantage of hindsight, but also energizes discussions on the larger issues with many of the unworthy HOF selections - comparing eras, leagues, integration, and the like.

The major disadvantage, of course, is that it over-rewards reluctant votes - the rationale and determination behind every 2nd place vote on a ballot is not the same, yet they are treated the same in scoring. The HOF system, on the other hand, ignores weighting and instead places a high emphasis on appearance - again, Biz Mackey would be the top vote-getter here with 30 ballots made using the HOF method (though that would fall short of HOF selection.)
   28. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#1835963)
Well, I think we can compare the 225 players in the HoF with the 225 who will eventually be in the HoM. And if the 225 HoMers are better, then the methodology is better.
   29. Chris Cobb Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#1835977)
Re Scoriano Flitcraft's comment:

I don't think we should lose sleep over such criticism. We elect two players who have been elected to the HoF, he scratches his head at the results and decided he prefers their pick of players? I don't see how this particular election provides any evidence of our difference from the Coop.
   30. Daryn Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#1835984)
Well, I think we can compare the 225 players in the HoF with the 225 who will eventually be in the HoM. And if the 225 HoMers are better, then the methodology is better.

That is really the only test. Mid-project comparisons are just for fun. What will make our Hall noticeably better is that we won't have the 10-20 guys who don't make most evaluators' top 1000. The vast majority of our borderline guys will be arguably among the top 450 of all-time.

I think we'll also win at the next level of borderline guys, but that conclusion will be much more subjective.

What we should do is let an anti-HoM person pick our worst 25 man team and then we can pick the HoF's worst 25 man team and sim them. For the purposes of that project, we might have to ignore the picks we might be most proud of (NeLers and pre-1900 guys for which there are no/limited sims/stats avialable), but it would be interesting nonetheless.
   31. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#1836009)
My comment was more of an invitation. I like it when people come here and lay out arguemtns for players, it is probably th emost fun part of the project. Espeically since I must admit there are plenty of players that I rank in the 30's that I can't give really good arguments as to why they aren't on my ballot.

Sorry if it came across as inflammatory. I have had a habit of that today.
   32. kthejoker Posted: January 24, 2006 at 06:59 PM (#1836036)
sunnday2: Do you think that if instead of having a 2 player limit/requirement that there was simply some sort of voting minimum in every election, and you stopped holding elections when there were 225 people, that that list would be better or worse than the 2 player requirement?

That list would have to be much better, because electing nobody never harms your set of 225, but electing 2 somebodies who are less worthy than easy choices #226 and #227 does.

To wit: If the player who finishes 3rd in the final vote is more HOM-worthy than any player in the HOM, the HOM's 2 player requirement was a mistake.

To wit, redux: The very best player set would be on that after every year of voting compiles the list of 225 best players to date. At the end of all of the voting, the list then becomes the Hall of Merit.
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#1836140)
joker,

>To wit: If the player who finishes 3rd in the final vote is more HOM-worthy than any player in the HOM, the HOM's 2 player requirement was a mistake.

I think you are contradicting yourself. The whole point of the quota per year was as you have already stated as an advantage of the HoM voting procedure:

>The major advantage to the HOM's voting system is the timelining effect, in that players who played and retired years before the actual Hall of Fame was invented received full shrift.

Just that in your earlier post you were referring to the 19th century, and now you're referring to the '50s and/or more recent times. But the concept is the same.

Our purpose is to get a historical cross-section, NOT just the "best" 225 players.
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#1836188)
I am scratching my head about these results. This lurker has found the project interesting and amazingly informative. But, if I had to pick, on the whole, I'd prefer the Fame (Hall of) over Merit (Hall of). YMMV.

Take a look at post #9, Scoriano. You would honestly take the HOF guys elected as of '68 over the HoM guys? I think the guys we have elected kick their butts, IMO.
   35. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: January 24, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#1836264)
Take a look at post #9, Scoriano. You would honestly take the HOF guys elected as of '68 over the HoM guys? I think the guys we have elected kick their butts, IMO.

Could be but that doest make them HOF's in my book. I do think I'd prefer just those 23 even if I disagree with some of the picks in my personal Hall than the HOM 29. Both lists are too inclusive IMO but I'd likely take the smaller. Arky Vaughn may be the only player from the HOM list that is a "must be" HOF for me. If I thought there were a dozen of that (or close to that) caliber in the HOM list for me, I might go the other way on which list I preferred.

Anyway, don't take anything personal I was only expressing my gut feeling, and if I could re-express it, it would be better to say I think ther HOM bar is too low for whatever reason, and not make any comparison to Cooperstown until you are finished. I should have reserved final judgment on that point, and now will.
   36. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: January 24, 2006 at 09:27 PM (#1836272)
In my last post, HOM 29 should be HOM 39. A notably sizable difference.
   37. jimd Posted: January 24, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#1836307)
ther HOM bar is too low for whatever reason

The HOM bar is the HOF bar. It is intended at the end to have the same number of members as the HOF. If we have made better selections at the margins then the project will be a success. (If not, it will still be a success because we're having fun.)

HOF-not-HOM through 1968

The HOF "reign-of-error" is just beginning.

Lloyd Waner, (VC, 1967)
Kiki Cuyler, (VC, 1968)
Waite Hoyt, (VC, 1969)
Earle Combs, (VC 1970)
Jesse Haines, (VC, 1970)
Chick Hafey, (VC, 1971)
Harry Hooper, (VC, 1971)
Rube Marquard, (VC, 1971)
Lefty Gomez, (VC, 1972)
Ross Youngs. (VC, 1972)
George Kelly, (VC, 1973)
Jim Bottomley, (VC, 1974)
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 11:22 PM (#1836567)
If the fundamental gripe is that the HoM is too big, well, yeah. My personal HoF would be about half the size of Cooperstown. But if 225 is the number, then I'll take the HoM over the HoF in a heartbeat.
   39. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: January 24, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#1836598)
The basis of comparison of 225 vs 225 seems fair. I grant that. But you are comparing your effort to one that is widely acknowledged by thoughtful observers to have been mistake prone.

But you could do an even better job IMO if you developed a consnsus by voting to eliminate the bad VC selections, and designing your project to match the number of HOF'ers sans VC mistakes--approaximately what would that remainder be? About 200? Absent that adjustment, you will do better. But not as well as you <strike>sh</strike>could.

In any event, it really is good fun. Kudos to the participants.
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2006 at 11:57 PM (#1836619)
But you could do an even better job IMO if you developed a consnsus by voting to eliminate the bad VC selections, and designing your project to match the number of HOF'ers sans VC mistakes--

The key is, whatever number you choose, to be consistent. The HOF has failed in this department, while I feel we haven't.

In any event, it really is good fun. Kudos to the participants.

We appreciate that, Scoriano.
   41. Daryn Posted: January 25, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#1837068)
designing your project to match the number of HOF'ers sans VC mistakes

That's a great idea, but you can only do it retrospectively since we don't know until we are finished how many Hall of Fame mistakes there are.
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: January 25, 2006 at 03:36 PM (#1837104)
I took the suggestion to mean building a HoM or whatever that would be equal to the number of HoFers elected by the BBWAA, sans any and all VC selections (because in a sense, having a VC or back door is in itself a mistake). My personal small hall is so sized and so I agree this would have been a very interesting and valid alternative approach to this project.

I also agree that sizing our HoM to Cooperstown minus "mistakes" is not possible because you need a method, first, to id. the mistakes, and that is what the HoM project is doing. At the end we could take the HoF not HoM list, subtract it from 225, and declare the remainder to be the appropriate size for the HoM. Then we would have to subtract (un-elect) that many players from the HoM. It could be done and for those who can't bear the thought of this project actually coming to an end, it could be a worthy Phase 2.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2006 at 04:00 PM (#1837129)
I took the suggestion to mean building a HoM or whatever that would be equal to the number of HoFers elected by the BBWAA, sans any and all VC selections (because in a sense, having a VC or back door is in itself a mistake).

Except the reason that he Vets' Committee was set up was because the ones in charge felt that the BBWAA was too restrictive. IOW, the BBWAA and Vets' Committee selections need to be seen as part of the same group.
   44. Daryn Posted: January 25, 2006 at 04:45 PM (#1837193)
for those who can't bear the thought of this project actually coming to an end

The project never comes to an end, it just slows down in about 18 months. It'll be interesting to see how long the discussion threads become when they are left open for 51 weeks.
   45. andrew siegel Posted: January 25, 2006 at 04:55 PM (#1837209)
It seems to me that once we catch up to the present it might be a fun side-project to rank the 225 guys in the HoM. If some of us wanted to do that, we could hash ou the rules in the last 6 months or so of this project. I would recommend, however, that we do so in an unofficial way (sort of like our annnual HoF ballots) and that the rankings not be ofrmally recorded, put on players' plaques, etc.
   46. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 25, 2006 at 05:24 PM (#1837252)
I figured we might put in Japanese/International and managerial or executive wings.
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: January 25, 2006 at 05:54 PM (#1837322)
>Except the reason that he Vets' Committee was set up was because the ones in charge felt that the BBWAA was too restrictive. IOW, the BBWAA and Vets' Committee selections need to be seen as part of the same group.

True in a sense though from what I've read, there wasn't a sense that the BBWAA was too restrictive as it relates to keeping out players who should have been in. The problem was that Coop wanted inductions and it wasn't getting any. It was marketing and PR, not a sense of injustice, that drove the creation of the VC.
   48. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 26, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#1838286)
Regarding Doerr - how can anyone not have him neck and neck with Gordon? To me it's 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the either. If one is 2nd, the other should be pretty high. If one is off the other probably should be too. What exactly is the difference?

Regarding the comparisons to the HoF, I think you guys answered everything pretty well, I don't really have anything to add . . .

I wish Ashburn had had to run the guantlet - I liked him, I wonder if there's anything systematically that causes the Terry/Faber/Ashburn phenomenon? Is it a flaw in our process, maybe an age requirement in addition to a years retired requirement would have been a better way to go?

I'm not sold on Mackey, but I would have been much happier if Griffith, Van Haltren or Bell were elected with Ashburn close behind.
   49. Rick A. Posted: January 26, 2006 at 04:19 AM (#1838379)
Howie,

I've looked at my Vote Totals and there are a few discrepencies between our results. The errors are probably from recent elections and are probably my fault, since I've been a little lax inputting the totals in recent elections. I'll check my totals against recent elections to see if mine are correct.

Here are the +/- totals my totals are off from yours (+ means mine are higher, - means yours are)
Van Haltren -13
Beckley -11
Duffy -14
Childs 78
Waddell -2
Welch -18
Ryan +.5
Beckwith -24
Bresnahan -17
Mackey +230 (this is a big difference, I must have a typo somewhere)
Moore -2

Also, you don't have him listed, but I have Cravath between Moore and Grimes with 3926 points.
   50. Rick A. Posted: January 26, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#1838381)
Just noticed you also listed Schang and McGraw.

Schang +21
McGraw +50
   51. DanG Posted: January 26, 2006 at 05:32 AM (#1838476)
I wonder if there's anything systematically that causes the Terry/Faber/Ashburn phenomenon? Is it a flaw in our process, maybe an age requirement in addition to a years retired requirement would have been a better way to go?

What exactly is the "Terry/Faber/Ashburn phenomenon?" That less-than-overwhelming candidates can be elected on the first ballot? One thing we can do is encourage voters to remember that every point matters in close elections. Don't just knee-jerk list a good new candidate - this ain't the HOF election where you need 5%. I don't think we want to have rules that require a higher level of support for first time candidates, or anything like that.

As for the age requirement, I think it's a good idea, and one that I floated in the formation process of our rules (has it been five years?). File it under Things We'll Do Differently Next Time.
   52. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 26, 2006 at 07:16 AM (#1838650)
"As for the age requirement, I think it's a good idea, and one that I floated in the formation process of our rules (has it been five years?). File it under Things We'll Do Differently Next Time."


Or under: Things We Can Do In Our Personal Hall of Merit . . .

I also agree with encouraging people to be conservative with first year candidates. We can always undo an error of omission, can't do much about the errors of comission . . .
   53. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 26, 2006 at 07:20 AM (#1838655)
I'd also add bummer that Eppa died 5 years ago . . . he's been near the type of my ballot a few years running now.

When did the BBWAA announce their elections back in 1963? Hopefully it was before February 28, and he knew he made it.

My equivalent of sister-in-law (I'm not married) lives near Culpeper, VA (where Rixey was born) in a town called Amissville . . . I get down there from time-to-time. The main road leading into their development is called Rixeyville Rd., I wonder if his family has some history down there.
   54. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 26, 2006 at 07:21 AM (#1838657)
Whoops, he was a Vet's Committee electee, but same thing . . .
   55. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 26, 2006 at 07:24 AM (#1838659)
Sisler has 5 years left until he dies, I'm going to give him another hard look this week.
   56. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2006 at 07:27 AM (#1838662)
When did the BBWAA announce their elections back in 1963? Hopefully it was before February 28, and he knew he made it.

He died after the announcement of his election, but before the actual ceremony.

I know he was the first to have this happen to him, but I don't know if it happened to anyone else in later years.
   57. EricC Posted: January 26, 2006 at 11:36 AM (#1838739)
I wish Ashburn had had to run the guantlet - I liked him, I wonder if there's anything systematically that causes the Terry/Faber/Ashburn phenomenon?

For the sake of argument, Terry is the 26th 1B in the nBJHBA (2001) and Ashburn the 16th CF. Not saying that these are right or that everybody would agree, but if they were "correct", then one of these is not like the other.
   58. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 26, 2006 at 12:50 PM (#1838748)
They aren't correct. It's basically a 90% peak rating, with a huge timeline thrown in. So unless you are a peak guy, who timelines like crazy, the James ranking are at best a reasonable 'guide'.

They are alike in that they are guys who we elected in our their first year of eligiblity with historically (for us, kind of cool that we can say that now that we have 71 elections behind us!) low vote totals. It doesn't make them mistakes necessarily. Nor does it necessarily mean the system is flawed. But it would be nice to see a borderline candidate have to stand up to a little more scrutiny than a week of discussion before running them in.
   59. sunnyday2 Posted: January 26, 2006 at 02:57 PM (#1838770)
Here's a sign of the times. 1968 is the first and only year out of how many elections now that I didn't have at least one electee on my ballot.

Even in single electee years, and even when we elected a guy that is not yet in my PHoM, I had him on my ballot.

E.g. Sutton in 1908 and Galvin in 1910 were sole electees and neither is in my PHoM and yet I had them rated #3 and #13 respectively. (Neither would be in my top 50 anymore what with the larger pool of eligible [backlog] candidates.)

Other close calls include Stovey in 1916 (#12 on my ballot and not yet PHoM) and Averill in 1961 (#15, that's as close a call as you can get!). Then there was 1926 when I had Magee and Grant at 13 and 15 (tie), though both later made my PHoM.
   60. DanG Posted: January 26, 2006 at 03:24 PM (#1838787)
He (Rixey) died after the announcement of his election, but before the actual ceremony.

Eppa was part of the graduating class of 1962. After that BBWAA election, the rules were changed to restrict eligibility to players retired up to 20 years ago, rather than 30. That threw a large number of candidates off the ballot (which doublely screwed this group, since they had gone to biannual elections after 1956). Many of Frisch's cronies were among this group, so he would eventually rectify this "injustice".

This is the list of 19 players who graduated from the BBWAA ballot in 1962, in order of support in that election, who were later elected by the HOF VC:

1963Rice S
1963Rixey E
1964Grimes B
1979Wilson H
1968Cuyler K
1964Faber R
1974Bottomley J
1972Gomez L
1969Hoyt W
1964Manush H
1968Goslin G
1991Lazzeri T
1971Hafey C
1976Lindstrom F
1970Combs E
1970Haines J
1975Averill E
1982Jackson T
1973Kelly G
   61. sunnyday2 Posted: January 26, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#1838892)
If only they had cut it off after 1968! Not that deleting Manush wouldn't also be good. Nor would I object to Averill going in whenever. But if FF's auto accident had happened by 1968, my what a wonderful world this would be!

I know, pretty morbid.

One of the many truly amazing things in the HoF--Manush going in ahead of Goslin! My god.
   62. Mark Donelson Posted: January 26, 2006 at 06:54 PM (#1839124)
1968 is the first and only year out of how many elections now that I didn't have at least one electee on my ballot.

The same was true for me. (Of course, I'm a latecomer to all this, so that's a lot fewer elections.)
   63. OCF Posted: January 26, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#1839236)
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), Paige (1959), Mize (1959), Newhouser (1960), J. Robinson (1962), Feller (1962), Campanella (1963), Reese (1964), Doby (1965), Slaughter (1965), Williams (1966), Ruffing (1966), Medwick (1967)

#2 (in an elect-1 year): Sutton (1908), Galvin (1910), McPhee (1913), Flick (1918)
#3: Wallace (1929), Speaker (1934), Lloyd (1935), Rixie (1968)
#4: Start (1912), Groh (1938), Frisch (1944)
#5: Rusie (1904), Lyons (1949), Boudreau (1958)
#6: Richardson (1905), Spalding (1906), 3F Brown (1925), Terry (1942)
#7: Grant (1926), McGinnity (1928)
#8: Carey (1939), W. Foster (1945), W. Ferrell (1964
#9: Averill (1961)
#10: McVey (1914), J. Collins (1921), Suttles (1956)
#11:
#12:
#13:
#14: Ashburn (1968)
#15: R. Foster (1932), Irvin (1963)

Off-ballot positions:

#17: Billy Herman (1958)
#19: Thompson (1929)
#21: Caruthers (1930)
#24: Pearce (1931)
Not listed: Pike (1940), Jennings (1960)

Everyone that I've ever put into an "elect me" position has eventually been elected, with three exceptions: George Van Haltren, Larry Doyle, and Joe Sewell. All of them are still on my ballot.
   64. Paul Wendt Posted: January 26, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#1839258)
.
Bifurcation? Rixey and Ashburn appeared on 60% of the ballots (28), Mackey a few more. Doyle and Schang appeared on 20% of the ballots (9) and no one else is within two. #34 Schang is almost 50% ahead of #35 Keller in points (115 to 78) as well as 50% ahead in votes (9 to 6). So let Schang and Keller demarcate the backlog and those who have been dismissed.

Is it true as Chris Cobb says (of course it's true) that the backlog is full of older candidates whereas recent ones have been quickly elected or quickly dismissed? Yes, it is. Indeed, it is true for a remarkably long recent period. Looking back about 20 years, the backlog includes no one but Cool Papa Bell (born 1902) and Bob Johnson (b. 1905) in their age group and includes no one who arrived as an important player between Bell in 1922 and Johnson in 1933. In the major leagues, Joe Sewell (born 1898) was an important major league player at his debut in 1920, as Johnson at his debut in 1933. Between them, 3Bman Bucky Walters achieved OPS+ 26 or 27 in 121 plate appearances; he pitched 7 innings in 1934 and arrived in 1935. No one in the backlog debuted in the majors during the ten years 1921-1930; no one arrived as an important player during the ten years 1923-1932 (selected to fit both Sewell/Johnson and Bell/Trouppe).

Following is a list of the Top 34 from the 1968 election results, two elected and 32 in the backlog as I write.
<u>Key</u>
bold :: African-American and Latin American stars
' - ' :: pitchers
' + ' :: catchers
X_____ to
_____X marks everyone on a rough timeline

On that timeline, '[' means earlier/older and 'X' means later/younger members of the group that is marked at one point left to right. The first group represents a longer period of time and the fourth includes no one at all in order to emphasize (while exaggerating the length of) the gap described above, between Bell and Johnson/Walters/Trouppe/Brown.

__[___ - Eppa Rixey
_____X Richie Ashburn
__X___ + Biz Mackey
X_____ Clark Griffith
X_____ George Van Haltren
__X___ Cool Papa Bell
__[___ George Sisler
_____[ Bobby Doerr
X_____ Jake Beckley
____X_ Willard Brown
_X____ Dobie Moore
_X____ - Dick Redding
X_____ Hugh Duffy
_____X Ralph Kiner
__X___ Joe Sewell
X_____ Cupid Childs
[_____ Pete Browning
_X____ - José Méndez
_____[ Joe Gordon
__X___ Alejandro Oms
____X_ - Bucky Walters
_[____ - Rube Waddell
[_____ - Mickey Welch
[_____ Charley Jones
____X_ + Quincy Trouppe
_[____ + Roger Bresnahan
_[____ Tommy Leach
__X___ - Burleigh Grimes
__[___ Edd Roush
_X____ Larry Doyle
_X____ Gavy Cravath
____X_ Bob Johnson
_____[ Bob Elliott
_X____ + Wally Schang

Here is the 'white fielders' subset of that list, 19 of the 34 players.

_____X Richie Ashburn
X_____ Clark Griffith
X_____ George Van Haltren
__[___ George Sisler
_____[ Bobby Doerr
X_____ Jake Beckley
X_____ Hugh Duffy
_____X Ralph Kiner
__X___ Joe Sewell
X_____ Cupid Childs
[_____ Pete Browning
_____[ Joe Gordon
______ Charley Jones
_[____ Tommy Leach
__[___ Edd Roush
_X____ Larry Doyle
_X____ Gavy Cravath
____X_ Bob Johnson
_____[ Bob Elliott

Among major league fielders, the backlog includes only five men later/younger than Sewell: Johnson (debut and arrival 1933), Doerr, Gordon, and Elliott (1937-1939), and Kiner (1946). From that 25-year period, Walters (1931 and 1935) is the only mlb pitcher. Indeed, since Sam Rice (earlier/older than Sewell and Bell), only six more players appear on even three ballots: Keller, Bridges, Dean, Stephens, Rizzuto, and Lombardi.

The youngest prewar players, Musial and Spahn, have not yet arrived, but they will
be elected immediately, as was the later/younger Ashburn. Chris Cobb anticipates that only a few Ashburn contemporaries, 25 to 30 years later/younger than Sewell and Bell, might join the backlog, and wonders whether even they will be promptly elected or dismissed.
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: January 26, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#1839264)
>Everyone that I've ever put into an "elect me" position has eventually been elected, with three exceptions: George Van Haltren, Larry Doyle, and Joe Sewell. All of them are still on my ballot.

Apropos of my consensus scores, I've got 4:

Harry Wright #2 in the dog days of 1925. We later got more data on Harry and that was a mistake.

And the non-mistakes who are still on my ballot (#12, 1 and 2 respectively) in 1968:

Tommy Bond #2 in 1939
Dobie Moore 1 or 2 10 times now between 1956 and 1968
George Sisler who finally hauled up to #2 in 1968
   66. Paul Wendt Posted: January 26, 2006 at 09:09 PM (#1839372)
Simple blunder, I neglected to mark Griffith a pitcher '-' and to drop him when I trimmed the list to white fielders. Freudian slip, I dropped Charlie Jones out of the earliest generation when I posted the 'white fielders' subset. He was eligible for the first election and Browning was not. Correcting Griffith and accepting the slip yields this time-distribution of the now-17 white fielders backlog in the initial class and six subsequent generations
1;5,3,3,0,1,4
A slight rearrangement around WWII also seems appropriate on second thought.
<u>time distribution of backlog, 17 mlb fielders</u>
1;5,3,3,0,4,1

Adding the white pitchers and catchers only, it seems obvious to rearrange also by putting Schang with Sewell rather than Leach. Since Welch is with Jones, eligible for the first election, we have this.
<u>time distribution of mlb backlog in 1968 - 25 including Rixey</u>
2;6,5,6,0,5,1

Retaining the battery men without rearranging around WWII (thus dividing between Johnson/Walters and Doerr/Gordon/Elliott)
2;6,5,6,0,2,4

Is recent bifurcation a genuine phenomenon? It is too early to say whether there is a clearly genuine clearly recent effect. Depending on definitions, the preceding generation maybe contributed five men to the 25-man mlb backlog in 1968, or seven men to the 33-man backlog of all players.

The clearly genuine phenomenon is not recent, for it happened 16 to 25 rather than 6 to 15 years ago, when Traynor and Dean (and everyone else not elected) rather than Johnson and Walters were quickly dismissed. About the very recent quick dismissal of Rizzuto and Trout it is too early to say.
   67. Paul Wendt Posted: January 26, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#1839438)
The analysis is sensitive to the lines drawn between between generations 2/3 and 5/6 of 6 since the first election, because several members of the backlog are near the lines (Schang/Moore/Roush and Doerr/Gordon/Elliott). Lines 1/2 and 4/5 are trivial because no one lives there. Bell started young and played forever, perhaps best placed on our side of the 3/4 line, but that will have little impact.

I can't add the African-American and Latin-American players to the distribution without taking the definition of generations 2 and 3 a lot more seriously than the results warrant. Mendez, Redding and Moore helped me decide to put everyone from Bresnahan to Bell (at least Sewell) in two generations rather than three, and define a slightly short generation with 0 members (or only Bell).

Here is the backlog listed in generations that support the mlb distribution "2;6,5,6,0,5,1" with Kiner alone in a generation that is incomplete.

0 : Jones, Welch
1 : Browning, Duffy, Van Haltren, Beckley, Childs, Griffith
2 : Bresnahan, Leach, Waddell, Doyle, Mendez, [ don't look too closely . . .
3 : . . . don't look too closely ] Oms, Grimes, Sewell, Mackey, Bell
4 : [ no one ]
5 : Johnson, Walters, Trouppe, Brown, Doerr, Gordon, Elliott
6 : Kiner
   68. OCF Posted: January 26, 2006 at 11:39 PM (#1839659)
Among major league fielders, the backlog includes only five men later/younger than Sewell: Johnson (debut and arrival 1933), Doerr, Gordon, and Elliott (1937-1939), and Kiner (1946). From that 25-year period, Walters (1931 and 1935) is the only mlb pitcher. Indeed, since Sam Rice (earlier/older than Sewell and Bell), only six more players appear on even three ballots: Keller, Bridges, Dean, Stephens, Rizzuto, and Lombardi.

My own personal take, using my 1968 ballot position:

Kiner - 4
Elliott - 11
Vernon - 12 (Not listed by Paul; not on 3 ballots)
-- Ashburn 14 (Now removed from ballot)
Walters - 16
Rizzuto - 17
Gordon - 19
Bridges - 20 (Debut 1930)
Bell - 21
Stephens - 24
Johnson - 25
Doerr - 26

Note how many of them are just off my ballot; under either a reevaluation on my part or a deeper dip into the backlog, several of these players could start gaining points from me.

If I were to point a finger and say to the rest of you, "Hey! Look at him!" it would be towards Bob Elliott.
   69. karlmagnus Posted: January 27, 2006 at 04:09 AM (#1839958)
There are two reasons for an uneven backlog: (i) we had a decade of electing only 1 per year, after a decade of electing generally 2 (we jiggered the election schedule about 1908) -- this disadvantaged the 1890s generation and (ii) after 1934, we had too few spots for the candidates, because when calculating the spots we had grossly underestimated our enthusuasm for NEL candidates, so from 1934-60 there occurred a huge blockage. Hopefully in the overreprented with spots 1980s and 1990s we will be able to pick up both the remaining 1890s candidates and those non-NEL 1934-60 candidates who were neglected first time round. However, given the overrepreentation of the latter candidates in the HOF, I regard the 1934-60 blockage as the less critical of the two.
   70. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 27, 2006 at 04:18 AM (#1839969)
Completely agreed on the underanticipation of Negro League candidates karl, very good point. That had a huge impact. I didn't realize the Negro Leagues were that underrepresented in Cooperstown.

If the new Negro League Committee had been announced 4 years earlier, we would have opened up signficantly more election spots from the 40's through the 60's. I just assumed they had the correct number, with a similar mistake ratio to the MLB players.
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2006 at 05:09 AM (#1840009)
Interesting thought, karl.
I know you take some guff from the crew for your stances, and sometimes I agree with a lot of the 'crew.'
But I welcome all varieties of viewpoints, and many times you come at a view from a very interesting angle.
You don't seem to take critics to heart, and that's a good thing, on balance. The trick, we all agree, is both accepting genuine critiques and not folding to the consensus, either.
   72. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 27, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1840453)
While we disagree on which exact player to elect (Childs/Duffy/Griffth for me, Beckely/Leever for Karl) Karl and I do agree that there should be a few more of them. However, I have always thought that the reason we have a bit of a dearth of 1890's players, if you believe that we do, is because there is no consensus on who to elect. There have been the real polarizing guys like Jennings and Beckley, but also which CF should we elect Ryan, Duffy, or GVH? Should we have a 4th pitcher? There are question we as a group don't agree on and it has probably led to an underrepresenting of the 1890's.

What we should agree on, however, is that Cupid Childs is fully qualified for the HOM! Vote Childs in 1970! Or whever there is another backlog opening.
   73. Paul Wendt Posted: January 27, 2006 at 06:56 PM (#1840502)
we had grossly underestimated our enthusuasm for NEL candidates, so from 1934-60 there occurred a huge blockage.

I suppose Karl means beginning with the famous 1934 ballot (Charleston, Torriente). But despite the rather small number of strong candidates newly eligible in the preceding decade, elections 1924 to 1933, the backlog includes several from those years. And during Karl's period, Stan Hack, Billy Herman, Bill Terry, and Ted Lyons waltzed in while Pie Traynor, Buddy Myer, and Dizzy Dean were quickly dismissed; they didn't make the backlog. (Buddy Myer. Bill James once thought that Herman and Myer were practically indistinguishable.)
   74. yest Posted: January 29, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#1841968)
I'm not convinced the best HoF not HoM can beat the worst HoM not HoF team granred the HoM has more players which puts it at a disadvantige(the best of both would be won by the HOM eaisly though)
HoF not-HOM
C Bresnahan, Roger/Schalk, Ray
1B Sisler, George
2B Evers, Johnny
SS Maranville, Rabbit
3B Traynor, Pie
RF Rice, Sam
CF Duffy, Hugh
LF Manush, Heinie
P Chesbro, Jack
P Dean, Dizzy
P Griffith, Clark
P Grimes, Burleigh
P Waddell, Rube

And HOM not-HOF
C Bennett, Charlie/McVey, Cal
1B Start, Joe
2B Richardson, Hardy
SS Pearce, Dickey
3B Sutton, Ezra
RF Slaughter, Enos
CF Doby, Larry
LF Sheckard, Jimmy
P Caruthers, Bob
P Coveleski, Stan
P Ferrell, Wes
P Newhouser, Hal
P Rusie, Amos
   75. Howie Menckel Posted: January 29, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#1841984)
Newhouser's in the Hall of Fame, as is Doby, as is Slaughter, as is Covaleski, as is Rusie.
Or do you mean 'in by 1968' or something?
   76. yest Posted: January 29, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#1842004)
Or do you mean 'in by 1968' or something?
yes
   77. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 29, 2006 at 02:25 AM (#1842042)
yest, you left out Campanella at Catcher (better than Bresnahan/Schalk), Connor (or Mize) at First (better than Sisler), McPhee or Herman at Second (better than Evers), Hack or Groh (better than Traynor), and Vaughan, G. Davis, B. Dahlen, or Boudreau destroy Maranville.

Slaughter also beats Rice in Right, while Doby has quite a few teammates besides himself in the HoM who can give Duffy a battle such as Gore and Hines (better than Duffy, though I like Hugh and hopes he makes it someday).

Sheckard and Magee were better than Manush. I'd also take our pitchers over theirs.

Why did you pick all of these 19th century guys when there were great 20th century guys lying around? I mean, I love Pearce, but even I don't think he's the best guy available from our group at short.
   78. yest Posted: January 29, 2006 at 03:11 AM (#1842121)
yest, you left out Campanella at Catcher (better than Bresnahan/Schalk), Connor (or Mize) at First (better than Sisler), McPhee or Herman at Second (better than Evers), Hack or Groh (better than Traynor), and Vaughan, G. Davis, B. Dahlen, or Boudreau destroy Maranville.

John that was my whole point to take the worst from or group against the best of theirs taking the best best of both and the HoM will destroy them
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 29, 2006 at 04:02 AM (#1842177)
John that was my whole point to take the worst from or group against the best of theirs taking the best best of both and the HoM will destroy them

Okay, I understand what you were trying to do now.

I'd still take our group over theirs, but I admit it's certainly much closer than if we pitted our best against theirs.
   80. Rick A. Posted: February 01, 2006 at 04:26 AM (#1846119)
Well, I've checked my Vote Totals from 1949 to 1968 and I can't find any errors. There may be some errors from before then. However, Mackey first became eligible in 1949, and he's the biggest discrepency between Howie's and my totals.

Hopefully, I'll be able to take a look at my pre-1949 totals tomorrow.
   81. Howie Menckel Posted: February 01, 2006 at 03:25 PM (#1846346)
Rick,
I will tend to believe yours.
I'm not using a spreadsheet or anything, which is a factor.
Also, occasionally I posted the update before there were corrections to the 'final totals.' That's why you see the minor discrepancies. Mackey must be a "carry the 2" or whatever-type mistake, or just a missed year of voting.

My intent has been to give a 95-99 pct guide, with occasional correction by my betters.
Which is now happening...
   82. DavidFoss Posted: February 01, 2006 at 05:10 PM (#1846483)
Why did you pick all of these 19th century guys when there were great 20th century guys lying around?

Its a good thing we started the voting as early as we did or the 19th century would be as underrepresented in the HOM as it is in the HOF.

The main thing that Bresnahan, Sisler, Evers, Maranville, Traynor and Manush have over their earlier HOM counterparts is name recognition -- and some sort of assurance that they were playing a game closer to what is played today.
   83. DanG Posted: February 01, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#1846830)
A couple other factoids I have uncovered re the 1968 election.

1) This was the first election where nobody received 40% of possible points.

2) A new record of 34 players received at least 10% of possible points.

As Daryn posted, "splinterrific!"
   84. Howie Menckel Posted: February 02, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#1847213)
REVISED (assumes that Childs is a +78 and not a -78; no symbol)
All-time 'vote points totals' leaders, through 1968. Active for 1969 vote in CAPS


TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 18181.5
BECKLEY 17317
DUFFY 17006.5
Jennings 16976
GRIFFITH 16822
BROWNING 14940.5
Pike 13399
CHILDS 12885
WADDELL 12789
WELCH 12503

Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 10999.5
Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9896
SISLER 9740
H Stovey 9576
BRESNAHAN 8459
TLEACH 8443

Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5

OTHER TOP 25 ACTIVE
(C Jones 7813, Sewell 7513, Mackey 6321, Redding 6321, Mendez 6051, Monroe 5659, Roush 5392, Doyle 5307, CP Bell 5207, Williamson 4684, Moore 4310, Cravath 3926, Grimes 3874)
ALMOST
(Schang 3711, McGraw 3631)
   85. Daryn Posted: February 02, 2006 at 04:09 PM (#1847659)
A couple other factoids I have uncovered re the 1968 election.

1) This was the first election where nobody received 40% of possible points.

2) A new record of 34 players received at least 10% of possible points.


3) We couldn't get 7 people to agree on the placement of even one player.
   86. Paul Wendt Posted: February 02, 2006 at 04:37 PM (#1847713)
.
radical new system: one point for each first place vote

5 Clark Griffith - elected (10%)
4 Dobie Moore - elected (8%)
3 Richie Ashburn
3 Jake Beckley
3 Pete Browning
3 Eppa Rixey
3 Mickey Welch

Mackey and Van Haltren round out the Top Nine with two votes each.
   87. DL from MN Posted: February 02, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#1847942)
Two points for first, one for second

1 Clark Griffith 13
2 Eppa Rixey 11
3 Richie Ashburn 10
4 Dobie Moore 9
5 Jake Beckley 8
5 Mickey Welch 8
7 Pete Browning 7
8 George Van Haltren 6
9 Cool Papa Bell 5
10 Biz Mackey 4
10 George Sisler 4
10 Bobby Doerr 4
10 Hugh Duffy 4
10 José Méndez 4
10 Alejandro Oms 4
10 Charley Jones 4
17 Joe Sewell 3
17 Willard Brown 3
17 Roger Bresnahan 3
17 Tommy Leach 3
17 Larry Doyle 3
22 Cannonball Dick Redding 2
22 Cupid Childs 2
22 Joe Gordon 2
22 Burleigh Grimes 2
22 Edd Roush 2
22 Gavy Cravath 2
22 Wally Schang 2
29 Bucky Walters 1
   88. sunnyday2 Posted: February 02, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#1847946)
And if our method was the same as the BBWAA's (yes/no voting and 75 percent yes required for election), how many times would we elect no one?
   89. DavidFoss Posted: February 02, 2006 at 08:43 PM (#1848005)
And if our method was the same as the BBWAA's (yes/no voting and 75 percent yes required for election), how many times would we elect no one?

Hard to say. Candidates would expire which would make the available candidate list much shorter which would also reduce much of the splintering. The names would just have to appear on the ballot. On the other hand, we wouldn't have to fill all ten slots if we didn't want to.

I like our method much better. Feels more democratic.
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: February 02, 2006 at 09:16 PM (#1848043)
I meant, if we also had perpetual eligibility....

Though if the voting method is simply yes and no, then I'm not sure the number of eligible candidates would matter.
   91. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 02, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#1848130)
Well if we can only vote for ten players than perpetual eligibility would contribute to a greater splintering of the vote.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.1421 seconds
49 querie(s) executed