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, March 05, 2006

1971 Results: Post-WWII Hurler Spahn and “Inside Baseball” Era Moundsman Griffith Make the HoM!

In his first year of eligibility, Braves pitching legend Warren Spahn was practically voted into the Hall of Merit unanimously with 99% of all possible points.

After 59 past elections, the 60th did the trick for 1890’s and 1900’s hurler Clark Griffith. While his family should be happy with his induction, he does have the dubious honor of achieving the lowest percentage of all possible points ever with 34% (Hughie Jennings in 1960 and Richie Ashburn in 1968 both had 38%).

Rounding out the top-ten were: Biz Mackey, Bobby Doerr, Willard Brown (big jump up!),  Cool Papa Bell, George Sisler, Cannonball Dick Redding, George Van Haltren, and Joe Gordon.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Warren Spahn            1146   48  47     1                                    
 2    3  Clark Griffith           378   27      4  2  2  3  2  1  1  2  1  1  4  2  2   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3    4  Biz Mackey               352   28      1  1     5  2  1  3  6  2     2  2  2  1
 4    7  Bobby Doerr              349   26      3  1  5  3  1  1  1        2  2  3  1  3
 5   12  Willard Brown            319   24      2  2  2  1  2  1  3  3  2  1  1  1  1  2
 6    5  Cool Papa Bell           311   21      3  3  3  1  2     1  2  1     3  2      
 7    8  George Sisler            305   23      1  2  4     2     4  3     2  2  2     1
 8    9  Cannonball Dick Redding  298   21      2  3  1  3  3  1  1        1  4  1  1   
 9    6  George Van Haltren       295   21      3  4  1  1     2     1  1  2  4     2   
10   10  Joe Gordon               288   24         1  2  3     1  4  4  1  1  2  1  3  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   14  Ralph Kiner              277   23            2  3  3  4  1     2  2        3  3
12   11  José Méndez              263   19      2  2  2  1  2  1     2  3     1  1  1  1
13   15  Dobie Moore              261   17      5     1  2  3  2                       4
14   20  Minnie Minoso            246   23            2     1  2     4  2  3  3  1  4  1
15   13  Jake Beckley             245   16      5  1     1  3              1  3     2   
16   16  Pete Browning            223   15      2  3  2     1        1  3  2  1         
17   18  Joe Sewell               221   18         3     2  2  1  1  1  2     1  2  1  2
18   17  Hugh Duffy               220   16      1  2  1  1  1  2  2  1  1  2     2      
19   19  Cupid Childs             218   17      1  1  1  1  3     2     4  1        1  2
20   21  Rube Waddell             188   16         1  1  2        2  1  2  3  1  2     1
21   23  Billy Pierce             178   15            2  1  2     2     1  2  2  2  1   
22   22  Bucky Walters            177   14         1  1     2  2  3  1     2        1  1
23   25  Mickey Welch             166   11      2  2  1  1     1  1     1           1  1
24   26  Charley Jones            164   12      1  2     1     3  1     2              2
25   24  Alejandro Oms            162   12         2  2  1     1  1  2     1  1        1
26  n/e  Nellie Fox               159   13      1           1  2  2  1  2  1  1  1     1
27   32  Gavy Cravath             153   12   1     1        2  1  2     1  1     1     2
28   27  Quincy Trouppe           146   13            2        2  2        2  1  2  1  1
29   29  Roger Bresnahan          131   10      2              1  1  2  1     1  1     1
30   28  Edd Roush                126    9      1        3  1  1           1     2      
31   35  Bob Elliott              121   12                  1  1     3  1        4  1  1
32   30  Burleigh Grimes          116   10      1     1  1        1        1  1  1  2  1
33   33  Bob Johnson              112   10         1     1  2              1  1  1  3   
34   31  Tommy Leach              112    9      1  1     1           2  1           2  1
35   34  Larry Doyle              106    7      1  2  1        1                 2      
36   36  Wally Schang              80    7      1                 1  1     1  1     1  1
37   38  Charlie Keller            75    5               2  1  2                        
38   37  John McGraw               73    5         1  1        2           1            
39   51  Dizzy Dean                44    5                        1  1              1  2
40T  40  Addie Joss                44    4               1     1                    2   
40T  46T Dizzy Trout               44    4               1     1                 1     1
42   42T Vic Willis                42    4                     1        1  1        1   
43T  41  Luke Easter               42    3            2                          1      
43T  52T Pie Traynor               42    3            1        1        1               
45   46T Fielder Jones             41    3            1           1     1               
46   46T Vern Stephens             40    3                  1  1        1               
47   39  Tommy Bridges             37    5                                 1     1  1  2
48   50  Bill Monroe               36    3         1                       1     1      
49   42T Phil Rizzuto              35    3                        1  1     1            
50   57  Ben Taylor                34    2      1                       1               
51   44  Frank Chance              33    3            1                          2      
52   52T Ernie Lombardi            33    2      1                          1            
53   54T Chuck Klein               32    3                     1     1                 1
54   54T Carl Mays                 30    3                  1                 1        1
55T  56  Sam Rice                  29    3                              1     2         
55T  49  Jimmy Ryan                29    3                     1              1        1
55T  45  Ed Williamson             29    3                           1     1        1   
58T  58T Gil Hodges                25    2                  1              1            
58T  65T Tony Mullane              25    2                     1        1               
60   58T Ed Cicotte                22    2               1                             1
61   71  Rabbit Maranville         19    2                              1        1      
62   60T Fred Dunlap               18    2                           1                 1
63   62  Johnny Pesky              18    1         1                                    
64T  67T Bus Clarkson              16    2                                 1           1
64T  60T Red Schoendienst          16    2                                 1           1
66T  63  Tetelo Vargas             13    1                        1                     
66T  64  Bobby Veach               13    1                        1                     
68T  65T Artie Wilson              11    1                              1               
68T  67T Sam Leever                11    1                              1               
68T  67T Dutch Leonard             11    1                              1               
71   67T Tommy Bond                10    1                                 1            
72   72T Wilbur Cooper              9    1                                    1         
73T  76T Dom DiMaggio               8    1                                       1      
73T  79T Lefty Gomez                8    1                                       1      
75T  72T Hack Wilson                7    1                                          1   
75T n/e  Herman Long                7    1                                          1   
75T  76T Spot Poles                 7    1                                          1   
75T  76T Virgil Trucks              7    1                                          1   
75T  79T Mickey Vernon              7    1                                          1   
Dropped Out: Buzz Arlett(79T), George Burns(72T), Dick Lundy(72T).
Ballots Cast: 48
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 05, 2006 at 10:37 PM | 88 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: March 07, 2006 at 02:07 AM (#1886231)
Congratulations to both inductees!
   2. OCF Posted: March 07, 2006 at 02:30 AM (#1886274)
Fairly small spread of consensus scores; near-unanimity for Spahn, then very wide disagreement below that. If the HoF election had any effect, it's hard to see.

Average consensus score:-7.8, almost the same as last year.

Chris Cobb -2
Howie Menckel: -3
Michael Bass: -3
Rusty Priske: -3
TomH: -3
Rob Wood: -4
Brent: -4
Esteban Rivera: -4
...
Al Peterson: -7
favre: -7

[That's the median between those two; I'm the next one after favre, below median but above mean.]
...
Joe Dimino: -12
karlmagnus: -12
Gadfly: -12
EricC: -12
Kelly in SD: -13
KJOK: -13
Dr. Chaleeko: -13
Dolf Lucky: -18

That's as low as my score has been for a while - the big part of it is that we're running up to electing several people whom I don't agree with. I haven't had Griffith on my ballot in a long time, and I don't have Doerr. Are you all sure that Doerr is the the best of the WWII-generation middle infielders, and that we should take any of them?
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 07, 2006 at 02:41 AM (#1886299)
HOF-not-HOM through 1971

1. Bancroft
Dave
2. Beckley
Jake
3  Bender
Chief
4  Bresnahan
Roger
5  Chance
Frank
6  Chesbro
Jack
7  Combs
Earle
8  Cuyler
Kiki
9  Dean
Dizzy
10 Duffy
Hugh
11 Evers
Johnny
12 Grimes
Burleigh
13 Hafey
Chick
14 Haines
Jesse
15 Hooper
Harry
16 Hoyt
Waite
17 Manush
Heinie
18 Marquard
Rube
19 Maranville
Rabbit
20 McCarthy
Tommy
21 McGraw
John 
22 Pennock
Herb
23 Rice
Sam
24 Roush
Edd
25 Schalk
Ray
26 Sisler
George
27 Tinker
Joe
28 Traynor
Pie
29 Waddell
Rube
30 Waner
Lloyd

And HOM not-HOF

1  Ashburn
Richie
2  Averill
Earl
3  Barnes
Ross
4  Beckwith
John
5  Bennett
Charlie
6  Berra
Yogi
7  Brown
Ray
8  Caruthers
Bob
9  Charleston
Oscar
10  Connor
Roger
11 Dahlen
Bill
12 Davis
George
13 Dihigo
Martin
14 Doby
Larry
15 Ferrell
Wes
16 Foster
Rube
17 Foster
Willie 
18 Gibson
Josh
19 Glasscock
Jack
20 Gore
George
21 Grant
Frank
22 Groh
Heinie
23 Hack
Stan
24 Herman
Billy
25 Hill
Pete
26 Hines
Paul
27 Johnson
Home Run
28 Leonard
Buck
29 Lemon
Bob
30 Lloyd
John Henry
31 Magee
Sherry
32 McPhee
Bid
33 McVey
Cal
34 Mize
Johnny
35 Newhouser
Hal
36 Pearce
Dickey
37 Pike
Lip
38 Richardson
Hardy
39 Reese
Pee Wee
40 Rogan
Bullet Joe
41 Rusie
Amos
42 Santop
Louis
43 Sheckard
Jimmy
44 Slaughter
Enos
45 Snider
Duke
46 Spahn
Warren
47 Start
Joe
48 Stearnes
Turkey
49 Stovey
Harry
50 Suttles
Mule
51 Sutton
Ezra
52 Thompson
Sam
53 Torriente
Cristobal
54 Vaughan
Arky
55 Wells
Willie
56 White
Deacon
57 Williams
Smokey Joe
58 Wilson
Jud
59 Wynn
Early 
   4. DavidFoss Posted: March 07, 2006 at 02:59 AM (#1886325)
After a few years of guys getting inducted without making my ballot, my top two get inducted! I guess it all comes around eventually.

Nice bumps for Willard Brown and Minnie Minoso.
   5. DavidFoss Posted: March 07, 2006 at 03:01 AM (#1886327)
The Frankie Frisch era of the VC has started. I think Marquard got added to the wrong list.
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 07, 2006 at 03:13 AM (#1886339)
I think Marquard got added to the wrong list.

Thank God! :-)
   7. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 03:54 AM (#1886380)
The Frankie Frisch era of the VC has started.

Actually, it's been going for a few years now. 1971 was a bumper crop though. IMO, Marquard and Hooper benefited from the "elect 'em while they're still alive" sentiment. Both were in their 80's at this time.
   8. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:03 AM (#1886392)
BBWAA Voting for 1971

Name Votes PCT
Yogi Berra 242 67.22
Early Wynn 240 66.67
Ralph Kiner 212 58.89
Gil Hodges 180 50.00
Enos Slaughter 165 45.83
Johnny Mize 157 43.61
Pee Wee Reese 127 35.28
Marty Marion 123 34.17
Red Schoendienst 123 34.17
Allie Reynolds 110 30.56
George Kell 105 29.17
Johnny Vander Meer 98 27.22
Hal Newhouser 94 26.11
Phil Rizzuto 92 25.56
Bob Lemon 90 25.00
Duke Snider 89 24.72
Phil Cavarretta 83 23.05
Bobby Doerr 78 21.67
Alvin Dark 54 15.00
Nellie Fox 39 10.83
Bobo Newsom 17 4.72
Dom DiMaggio 15 4.17
Charlie Keller 14 3.89
Mickey Vernon 12 3.33
Johnny Sain 11 3.06
Richie Ashburn 10 2.78
Harvey Haddix 10 2.78
Ted Kluszewski 9 2.50
Don Newcombe 8 2.22
Harry Brecheen 7 1.94
Walker Cooper 7 1.94
Wally Moses 7 1.94
Billy Pierce 7 1.94
Carl Furillo 5 1.39
Bobby Shantz 5 1.39
Ed Lopat 4 1.11
Gil McDougald 4 1.11
Roy Sievers 4 1.11
Bobby Thomson 4 1.11
Carl Erskine 3 0.83
Dutch Leonard 3 0.83
Preacher Roe 3 0.83
Jackie Jensen 2 0.56
Wally Moon 2 0.56
Vic Power 2 0.56
Vic Raschi 2 0.56
Vic Wertz 2 0.56
Bill Bruton 1 0.28
Larry Doby 0 0.00

HOMers in bold.
Yogi's first year of eligibility.
Spahn was not yet eligible.
   9. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:05 AM (#1886396)
Also forgot to note that Gordon's eligibility expired.
   10. Chris Cobb Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:11 AM (#1886400)
It's nice to see a player one has supported for many years achieve election. Griffith had been on my ballot every year but one (1917) and has been appearing in elect-me spots from time to time since 1938.

Having added Herman Long and Rabbit Maranville to my ballot and ditched top-tenner Sisler, I am flummoxed by my having once again the top consensus score.

John Murphy wrote:

Griffith . . . does have the dubious honor of achieving the lowest percentage of all possible points ever with 34% (Hughie Jennings in 1960 and Richie Ashburn in 1968 both had 38%).

Records were made to be broken; this one won't last out the 1970s. I'll be surprised, in fact, if it lasts through the 1972 election, unless the "elect three" makes it easier to get a higher percentage of points. But I doubt that.
   11. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 05:54 AM (#1886511)
A few things. If I only knoew how to put in bullet points...

1. I don't think that Doerr is the best WWII generation MIer. However so long as Gordon goes in as well I am comfortable with Doerr induction.

2. OCF, what is my Consensus score? I used to challenge Howie for the highest but I haven't seen my name for a while.

3. I hate to insinuate that voters aren't dong things for good reasons, but I want to make sure that Brown's bump had nothing to do his HOF election. The opinion of 12 people who don't evaluate players in the same way we do and missed out on Beckwith and HR Johnson. Not that what they did was worthless or anything but it shouldnt' affect out evaluation of him.

4. Mackey and Doerr are only three points apart, this could be a burner next year. What is the closest election ever?
   12. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:22 AM (#1886526)
I know the HoF voting didn't affect my ranking for Brown, who was already pretty high on my ballot. It did knock Dick Redding down a few slots, because while I've had him several spots ahead of Mendez, that's not a judgement I feel certain about, so when the voters went the other way, that kind of held me back. Redding was also in line for my PHoM this year (and I'd never felt completely certain about that, either), so I wasn't unhappy to hold off on that until I felt more certain. Mendez still isn't quite on my ballot, but that could change.
   13. Chris Cobb Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:58 AM (#1886553)
1. I don't think that Doerr is the best WWII generation MIer. However so long as Gordon goes in as well I am comfortable with Doerr induction.

I totally agree.

3. I hate to insinuate that voters aren't dong things for good reasons, but I want to make sure that Brown's bump had nothing to do his HOF election. The opinion of 12 people who don't evaluate players in the same way we do and missed out on Beckwith and HR Johnson. Not that what they did was worthless or anything but it shouldnt' affect out evaluation of him.

Didn't in my case. Remember, Dr. Chaleeko revised his MLEs upwards on the basis of new walks data from the PRWL not long before the vote was announced. That probably had an effect also.

4. Mackey and Doerr are only three points apart, this could be a burner next year. What is the closest election ever?

jimd is the expert on this history, but I believe the closest to date was Harry Stovey over Joe Kelley in the 1916, elect-one-only balloting. Stovey topped Kelley by 2 points. It can't get much closer than that without going to the tiebreakers.
   14. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 11:51 AM (#1886691)
I bumped Brown a little because of his election. I had some issues with his translations (which I noted on his thread), I wasn't as confident on him as some others. But seeing that the HoF group liked him enough gave me much more confidence that his translations truly represent what he did. I'd imagine I wasn't the only one, seeing him shoot from 12th to 5th.
   15. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 11:56 AM (#1886692)
I knew having Cravath, Easter and Jones so high would eventually damage my consensus score! First time I think I've shown up outside of the middle.

I don't see how we can rank Doerr over Gordon, I know they are close, but seeing Doerr about to go in makes me think Gordon is the guy being most screwed by the war at this point (excluding cases of guys like Cecil Travis). The missing years or failure to account for park effects (don't think that's an issue with this group) are the only justifications I can see for Gordon being behind Doerr.

I noticed Mendez actually dropped behind Kiner and Brown - so I think the main reasons for Brown moving up were probably the translations. Mendez would have seen a bump in support too if the group was giving the new HoF electees an across the board bump.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 07, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#1886704)
Records were made to be broken; this one won't last out the 1970s. I'll be surprised, in fact, if it lasts through the 1972 election, unless the "elect three" makes it easier to get a higher percentage of points. But I doubt that.

I agree with you, Chris. The record will be broken fairly shortly.

I hate to insinuate that voters aren't dong things for good reasons, but I want to make sure that Brown's bump had nothing to do his HOF election.

I actually moved him down one, so it wasn't me, Mark.
   17. DL from MN Posted: March 07, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#1886767)
I moved Willard Brown near my ballot for the first time ever but he only got a 16th place vote. I have a really hard time ranking Willard Brown over Ralph Kiner and Chuck Klein no matter what translations. Those two have plenty of major league evidence of their slugging ability. Brown v. Gavy Cravath I'm more ambivalent about.
   18. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#1886798)
From the last few posts I guess my worries about Brown have been assuaged somewhat. Joe makes a decent point about Mendez not shooting up as well. I just felt a bit of a wave of support for the newly elected guys in the NeL election threads and wanted to make sure this wasn't the reason someone gets elected to the HOM.

I do want to say that while we both groups (HOM and the HOF NeL Selection Committee) have the burden of proof on them to the public at large, the HOF committee should have the burden of proof toward us. WE know what we have seen while they have yet to show us (or anyone else) anything. Until we see the numbers they are working with I will be skeptical of any selection of theirs that I do not agree with. In other words we shouldn't take them at their word, make them prove it to us.
   19. TomH Posted: March 07, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#1886849)
shouldn't take them at their word, make them prove it to us.

I understand this rationale, but.... what if they don't ever come out and prove it - does that negate their findings? My responsibility is to put Wilard Brown each election where I think he belongs. The fact that 12 very knowledgable people saw him as HoF-worthy over other notables is not inconsequential, and we each ought to account for that in our own way. The guys who voted in the Pittsburgh Courier poll didn't have half the data we do, but I still honor their judgment to some extent. Brown's new HoF status moved him up 3 spots on my ballot.
   20. OCF Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#1886968)
jschmeagol: -6. Still above average.

Remember that we have candidates packed so closely together that a very small change can jump them over several people. Between 1970 and 1971, Brown jumped over Bell, Sisler, Redding, Mendez, Van Haltren, and Gordon. DanG didn't vote in 1971. In 1970, he was a supporter of Van Haltren, Sisler, and Bell, but not Brown (and not Mendez either, so that doesn't explain everything.) But if we're going to continue having extremely close elections, every vote is going to count.
   21. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#1886969)
If theynever come out with their findings then I will not let their opinion affect mine (I calculate that he will be able to make my PHOM, last year he was #20 and my top 8 were PHOM). I don't think it is right to give a guy a bump (or demerits for that matter) because of someone else's opinion when we dont' know what that opinion is based on. Do they know how to evaluate NeL stats in any sort of context? Are they aware of the value of OBP, etc.?
   22. OCF Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#1887021)
The BBWAA couldn't get together to elect Berra in 1971? Wow.
   23. jingoist Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#1887061)
Yeah OCF that is amazing.
You'd think they could see that Yogi was the best (white) catcher (they weren't considering Josh just yet) of all-time and he'd be an absolute no-brainer.

I wonder if HoF voters ever thought to give catchers any type of positional bonus when creating their ballot.

Based on the 1971 results I'd say NO.
   24. OCF Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#1887122)
The interesting thing is that Yogi did very, very well in MVP votes - in many cases, the same voters.
   25. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#1887178)
What is the closest election ever?

As Chris pointed out, 1916, Stovey over Kelley by 2 points. Kelley would be elected 3 years later, in 1919, after losing out to Flick in 1918.

The closest election which has made an actual difference in the HOM is 1940, Pike over Sewell by 13 points. Sewell is still waiting.

The BBWAA couldn't get together to elect Berra in 1971? Wow.

There was still a mystique about first-ballot election. Yogi was not seen as being at the same level as Musial, Williams, Feller, Robinson, etc.

However so long as Gordon goes in as well I am comfortable with Doerr induction.

WARP sees Doerr and Gordon more favorably than does Win Shares, and sees Doerr above Gordon. I observe the WARP voters as having them more favorably placed, with Doerr above Gordon. Win Shares favors Gordon of the two, but many Win Shares voters see other candidates as more deserving than either. Because their preference is off ballot, it doesn't register in the totals.
   26. Chris Cobb Posted: March 07, 2006 at 08:37 PM (#1887230)
Win Shares favors Gordon of the two, but many Win Shares voters see other candidates as more deserving than either.

Good analysis of the voting patterns, jimd! I guess jschmeagol and I are in that small group of win-share voters--Gordon over Doerr--who also have both on the ballot. Maybe we are that group?
   27. KJOK Posted: March 07, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#1887263)
Griffith's election leaves Tony Mullane and Mickey Welch as probably the two most deserving but un-elected 19th century pitchers...
   28. OCF Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#1887309)
Griffith's election leaves Tony Mullane and Mickey Welch as probably the two most deserving but un-elected 19th century pitchers...

There's someone I used to vote for ahead of those two a long, long time ago ... searching the memory vaults ... Ah! Jim McCormick. Not that I particularly remember what my argument in his favor was.
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#1887334)
I guess jschmeagol and I are in that small group of win-share voters--Gordon over Doerr--who also have both on the ballot. Maybe we are that group?

Can I join, too? :-)
   30. OCF Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#1887343)
I'm not exactly a Win Share voter - I don't use them explicitly - but I have more in common with Win Share voters than with WARP voters. And (as diagnosed by Chris) I have Gordon ahead of Doerr but both off ballot. With Rizzuto not that far away.
   31. Howie Menckel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#1887794)
The majority of voters didn't have Griffith in the top 12; I'll step up as one to take a lot of the hit for his election, as both one of his best friends and a (mostly) tireless supporter for decades. ;)
I think the moving of the mound and baseball's contraction made Griffith's time frame a far more difficult one than many realize. And the game was just so different, I always felt as if some voters didn't make the conceptual leap to try to imagine it.

ok, that sounds dumb. My point is, I think this one may not be popular now, but it will grow on you guys eventually!
   32. Howie Menckel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#1887839)
All-time 'vote points totals' leaders, through 1971. Active for 1972 vote in CAPS


GVH took two big steps toward ultimately 'winning' this competition by seeing Griffith eliminated and also by sliding a bit down the overall ballot. Beckley also no longer will hear those Griffith footsteps.
But one does wonder if it's possible for Van Haltren and Beckley to get elected someday, while Duffy forlornly stays behind forever - only to nab this mixed-blessing honor at the wire!
McVey bumped off the top 25 list forever, as Sewell comes aboard.
Anyone have WBrown's career numbers? He's probably around the 4000 vote-pt tally now.

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 19106.5
BECKLEY 18064
Griffith 17924
DUFFY 17652.5
Jennings 16976
BROWNING 15573.5
CHILDS 13491
Pike 13399
WADDELL 13332
WELCH 12987

Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 11067.5
Rixey 10826
Caruthers 10704
SISLER 10611
Beckwith 9896
H Stovey 9576
BRESNAHAN 8835
TLEACH 8809

Start 8378.5
CJONES 8256
McGinnity 8232
SEWELL 8137
Pearce 8073

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Mackey 7366, Redding 7155, Mendez 6789, CP Bell 6148, Roush 5777, Monroe 5762, Doyle 5629, Moore 5024, Williamson 4789, Cravath 4296, Grimes 4226)
ALMOST
(Schang 3962, McGraw 3837)
   33. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#1887878)
I'm with you Howie, I've been a big supporter of Griffith's too, he's been on my ballot for decades. Very happy to see him get in. I'm going to be even happier if Beckley finally gets in - however, I have a feeling that it will take until he's directly comparable to Palmeiro on a ballot before the full group of voters appreciates his case :-)
   34. Rick A. Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#1887897)
Anyone have WBrown's career numbers? He's probably around the 4000 vote-pt tally now.

Howie,

Here's the vote total numbers I have for active players from 2000-4000

Schang 3962
McGraw 3839
Doerr 3385
W. Brown 3326
McCormick 3148(hasn't gotten a vote since 1946)
Walters 2806
Gordon 2803
Joss 2760
Tiernan 2686(hasn't gotten a vote since 1939)
Willis 2608
Chance 2510
Oms 2468
Kiner 2233
Cicotte 2030
   35. TomH Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#1888386)
highest ranked MLB pithcer in our backlog - Rube Waddell at #20. Two electees, 2 NgL hurlers, and 15 position players ahead of him.
   36. Chris Cobb Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:37 PM (#1888413)
Provoked to think about pitchers by Tom's comment and thinking about the data Howie has posted on the ballot thread, I would suggest that

Pierce and Walters seem like excellent candidates for the "most underrated by the electorate" title.

This statement is self-criticism, too, since neither of them are on my ballot.

We've seen a pattern with Doerr and Gordon and, to a lesser extent so far, Kiner for borderline players of this era to start low and then move strongly upward through the ranks. I think it is possible that both Pierce and Walters will follow this model, though they may not make their move until we see, with the benefit of greater historical perspective, that pitchers from 1938-1957 are underrepresented and that they are the obvious picks for each era.
   37. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#1888486)
Pierce and Walters seem like excellent candidates for the "most underrated by the electorate" title.

Walters could have been on my ballot in '71, since I have him in a virtual tie with a couple of my bottom-ballot guys. He'll definitely make my ballot within a few "years."
   38. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:10 PM (#1888546)
Chaleeko Enterprises, proudly leading the Walters/Pierce charge for over two years!

For what it's worth, here's how my adj WSsystem evaluates these two versus the two new guys from best to worst seasons:

BW 39 33 31 27 20 14 14 14 14 12 11 10  6  3  1  1 0 0 0 0  250
BP 26 26 26 25 24 21 20 17 17 16 14 13 11 10  7  3 1 1 0 0  277
RR 36 32 32 29 29 28 23 18 17 17 17 15 15 14 13 13 8 6 3 0  362
SK 33 32 32 23 22 16 10 10  8  7  3  1                      197 


Or stated in other ways

3   5  10  15  career
--------------------------
BW 102 149 216 249   250 
BP  78 127 217 272   277 
RR 100 157 260 333   362
SK  96 141 192 192   192 


My system sees Roberts as numero uno and Walters as better than Koufax. Then Sandy and Pierce are a toss-up depending on your view of peak/prime/career.
   39. Max Parkinson Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#1888931)
Sorry in advance if this doesn't work. It looks great in Live Preview...

The Sewell fall is interesting. We had 41 HoMies vote in both 1940 and 1971. I've listed the results for every candidate who received a vote in 1940. Sewell, Wee Tommie and Waddell have suffered the most serious declines of candidates with a shot at election. Mendez, Redding and Moore have seen the most helium. On the NLers, I chalk that up to more and more voters becoming comfortable with MLEs or other "equalisation" methods for NL and MiL players.

1940                1971
Joe Sewell      396 George Sisler   276
George Sisler   323 Dick Redding    257
Jake Beckley    302 Dobie Moore     238
Rube Waddell    278 Van Haltren     232
Tommy Leach     272 Pete Browning   223
Van Haltren     270 Jake Beckley    220
Pete Browning   249 Joe Sewell      202
Cupid Childs    244 Jose Mendez     198
Mickey Welch    244 Hugh Duffy      196
Hugh Duffy      241 Cupid Childs    188
Dick Redding    216 Mickey Welch    166
Edd Roush       192 Rube Waddell    156
Wally Schang    168 Charley Jones   153
Charley Jones   164 Gavvy Cravath   123
Burleigh Grimes 163 Burleigh Grimes 116
Roger Bresnahan 163 Larry Doyle     106
Sam Rice        160 Roger Bresnahan 106
Jose Mendez     145 Tommy Leach      94
Larry Doyle     141 Edd Roush        79
Bill Monroe     137 John McGraw      73
Jimmy Ryan      105 Wally Schang     73
Harry Hooper     98 Bill Monroe      36
Bobby Veach      86 Ben Taylor       34
George Burns     77 Frank Chance     33
Dobie Moore      75 Vic Willis       31
John McGraw      74 Sam Rice         29
Vic Willis       67 Addie Joss       28
Frank Chance     54 Fielder Jones    28
Ben Taylor       53 Jimmy Ryan       20
Fielder Jones    53 Ned Williamson   19
Carl Mays        49 Maranville       19
Urban Shocker    49 Fred Dunlap      18
Spotswood Poles  48 Eddie Cicotte    16
Hack Wilson      41 Carl Mays        15
Eddie Cicotte    40 Bobby Veach      13
Addie Joss       37 Sam Leever       11
Wilbur Cooper    30 Tommy Bond       10
Ed Konetchy      28 Wilbur Cooper     9
Gavvy Cravath    28 Hack Wilson       7
Ned Williamson   28 Spotswood Poles   7
Dave Bancroft    24 Dave Bancroft     0
Maranville       23 Del Pratt         0
Ray Schalk       19 Donie Bush        0
Donie Bush       18 Duke Farrell      0
Fred Dunlap      17 Ed Konetchy       0
Tommy Bond       17 George Burns      0
Del Pratt        14 Harry Hooper      0
Jim McCormick    14 Jack Quinn        0
Tom York         14 Jim McCormick     0
Sam Leever       13 Lave Cross        0
Jack Quinn       10 Ray Schalk        0
Duke Farrell      6 Tom York          0
Lave Cross        6 Urban Shocker     0 



18 voters moved Sewell down relative to other 1940-eligible players, while only 4 voters moved him up over any other player. I wonder what new information has surfaced to make that many people sour on Sewell, or is it just a case of the hangover after the Shiny New Toy party.

We have lost 10 voters from '40 and picked up seven new ones. Here are the differences for unelected players eligible in 1940:

1940 ex.          1971 new 
Jake Beckley   100 Jose Mendez     65
Joe Sewell      87 Van Haltren     63
George Sisler   83 Edd Roush       47
Tommy Leach     80 Dick Redding    41
Edd Roush       76 Rube Waddell    32
Van Haltren     75 Cupid Childs    30
Burleigh Grimes 67 Gavvy Cravath   30
Rube Waddell    61 George Sisler   29
Hugh Duffy      59 Jake Beckley    25
Jimmy Ryan      56 Roger Bresnahan 25
Mickey Welch    53 Hugh Duffy      24
Harry Hooper    51 Dobie Moore     23
Larry Doyle     49 Joe Sewell      19
Jose Mendez     40 Tommy Leach     18
Gavvy Cravath   35 Addie Joss      16
Dick Redding    33 Carl Mays       15
Cupid Childs    32 Fielder Jones   13
Pete Browning   32 Charley Jones   11
Wilbur Cooper   28 Vic Willis      11
Bobby Veach     27 Ned Williamson  10
Hack Wilson     27 Jimmy Ryan       9
Vic Willis      25 Wally Schang     7
Fielder Jones   24 Eddie Cicotte    6
Roger Bresnahan 24
Sam Rice        24
Wally Schang    24
George Burns    23
Carl Mays       21
Lave Cross      18
Ben Taylor      17
Maranville      16
Dobie Moore     15
Del Pratt       13
Urban Shocker   13
Jim McCormick   12
Bill Monroe     10
Ed Konetchy     10
Eddie Cicotte   10
Charley Jones    9
Frank Chance     8
Jack Quinn       8 


Sewell and Leach are hit hard by voter change as well, along with Jake Beckley.
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#1889021)
At the end of this project, we'll all look back at Sewell as THE symbol of shiny new toy. Not because he might be the best example, but because his shrinking support so strongly suggests it.

Could the reason for his collapse be that fewer and fewer of us are trusting WARP anymore?
   41. OCF Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#1889132)
Max:

1. Use square brackets for pre and /pre, not angle brackets.

2. Don't look at the live preview. It's wrong. If you use angle brackets, the preview will look right but the post will be wrong. If you use square brackets, the preview will look wrong but the post will be right.
   42. Max Parkinson Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#1889238)
Thanks, OCF. I'll not repost the list, as it's basic message stands despite the html transgression.
   43. DavidFoss Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#1889261)
Also, I'm not sure if this applies, but you need to avoid 'tab' characters... pre doesn't like those at all. Whitespace fill must be done with spaces.
   44. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:41 PM (#1889449)
I think that Sewell was dropped because many came to the realization taht being the best SS of the 1920's didn't really mean anything if a player's numbers didn't make him elite on their own. OF course some of us think that Sewell's numbers make him elite, and that is fine, but I bet the drop came from those that didn't see him as elite but gave him credit for begin better than Bancroft, Maranville, and whomever else may have played SS in the 1920's. After his first election they took a look at him again and decided that this didn't make Sewell an obvious HOMer (probably helped by a loud cry from people like me when Sewell was nearly elected). He may still get in.
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#1889605)
I think that Sewell was dropped because many came to the realization taht being the best SS of the 1920's didn't really mean anything if a player's numbers didn't make him elite on their own.

Especially after comparing him to many of the top NeL players at short and third during his era.
   46. Paul Wendt Posted: March 09, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#1889743)
.
Biz Mackey and Bobby Doerr are ahead of the field by a 30-point (9%) gap, roughly the margin of Griffith's election. The next 15 are separated from the rest of the field by another 30-point (now 16%) gap.

These notes cover those 17 leading incumbents, Mackey to Childs.

"Negro Leagues" players, broadly:
#1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12(minoso)

19th Century:
#7, 13, 14, 16, 17

other pitchers:
none

other non-pitchers:
#2, 5, 8, 9, 15
---------------------------------
pitchers:
#6, 10

catchers:
#1

infielders (3b-ss-2b):
#2, 8, 11, 15, 17

outfielders and 1b:
#3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16
---------------------------------
Cobb effect:
#2, 8, 9, 12

Bobby Doerr, Joe Gordon, Ralph Kiner, and perhaps O Minoso compose the group whose small size Chris Cobb has noted and decried: recent major leaguers neither promptly elected nor promptly dismissed. If "dismissed" is too strong a word for Rube Waddell to Larry Doyle, who rank 18 to 33 among incumbents, then the group also includes Billy Pierce, Nellie Fox, and Bob Elliott.
---------------------------------
Chris Cobb wrote regarding Walters and Pierce:
Pierce and Walters seem like excellent candidates for the "most underrated by the electorate" title.
This statement is self-criticism, too, since neither of them are on my ballot.


Precisely so. If the voters unanimously agreed that George Burns ranks 17 by merit among eligible players not in the HOM, then he would show up on the results just where he really shows up, in that big tie 80T with 0 points.

Pierce and Walters rank below no one who appears on fewer ballots and above no one who appears on more ballots. That is for #1, 4-5, 21-22(pierce-walters), and #35-39 in the results table, among those who are on more than three ballots.
   47. Paul Wendt Posted: March 09, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#1889746)
This is a test to see whether a horizontal line [hr] is displayed where I use the <hr> tag in square brackets.
   48. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 09, 2006 at 01:48 AM (#1889774)
Fixed it for you Max, good stuff . . .
   49. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 09, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#1889788)
Fixed you too Paul.
   50. jimd Posted: March 09, 2006 at 03:17 AM (#1889861)
If the voters unanimously agreed that George Burns ranks 17 by merit among eligible players not in the HOM, then he would show up on the results just where he really shows up, in that big tie 80T with 0 points

If the voters unanimously agreed that he ranked 13th, he would have been elected.
   51. Paul Wendt Posted: March 09, 2006 at 05:36 AM (#1889995)
1  n/e  Warren Spahn            1146                                     
 2    3  Clark Griffith           378 


34% of maximum is 33% of Spahn!
Credited with fewer than 1/3 the points of the man just above him is a record that will probably stand for years after 34% falls.

--
>>If the voters unanimously agreed that George Burns ranks 17 by merit among eligible players not in the HOM, then he would show up on the results just where he really shows up, in that big tie 80T with 0 points.<<

If the voters unanimously agreed that he ranked 13th, he would have been elected.


True, but the other point underscores what Chris Cobb said and it would show the irony clearly if I said it well. The electorate may be criticized for collectively underrating someone who ranks "only" 20 or 50 or 80 in the election results, but that cannot be amended except by those individually ranking him 15 or higher.
   52. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 09, 2006 at 10:17 AM (#1890178)
Which is one reason why the results below #15 need to be taken with kind of a grain of salt.

I never thought of this - but I wonder if we should do what the AP does with their sports polls. List the top 15, all broken out and nice, and put the others in a paragraph underneath as 'also receiving votes'.

I realize it's nice to see the breakdowns, and we obviously aren't going to change anything, but I think it almost works like digits of significance in math. You know, if you multiply 20.2 (assume that was rounded off from a longer decimal) and 11.11, you really can only go to 224.4, 224.422 isn't actually valid. Or something like that, it's been awhile, and I'm probably wrecking the concept, but I think you know what I mean.

So it could follow, that the only rankings that are really valid/significant are the ones that go down as far you ask everyone to rank players, or 1-15 in our case.
   53. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 09, 2006 at 10:20 AM (#1890179)
BTW - I've got Pierce/Walters both in the middle of my ballot, so I'm very much in support of any movement to get them moving up the list . . .
   54. Chris Cobb Posted: March 09, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#1890268)
I never thought of this - but I wonder if we should do what the AP does with their sports polls. List the top 15, all broken out and nice, and put the others in a paragraph underneath as 'also receiving votes'.

I drew a different conclusion: this highlights the importance of voters keeping (& perhaps posting) a ranking down another 5-10 places below the ballot, because the issue of who is in line to get up onto the ballot is crucial, and the more carefully voters prepare themselves to add players to the fab fifteen from the backlog whenever a space opens up the better our results will be. I think we've shown that there's no value in giving points for sub-15 finishes, but I think it's really important that voters decide carefully when a player becomes eligible whether he ranks 18th or 28th.

Here's a little indication about that. Doerr and Gordon's rise has been remarked, so I decided to track that rise just a little bit. Although their upballot support has risen, they have gained on the rest of the backlog mostly by adding votes. Where have those votes come from?

In 1965, Doerr and Gordon placed 22nd and 25th in the rankings. Each received 14 votes, worth 176 points for Doerr and 161 points for Gordon.

In 1971 Doerr and Gordon placed 4th and 10th in the rankings. Doerr received 26 votes; Gordon 24. Doerr earned 349 points, Gordon 288.

In the 1965-1970 elections, which determined ballot movement between a place on the 1965 ballot and the 1971 ballot, we elected six players who appeared on the 1965 ballot and six players who became eligible since 1965. If voters maintained a strict rank order for their backlog and moved players up one notch a year as ballot space cleared, players in the backlog would move up six places during this period. Votes already on the ballot in 1965 would tend to advance to above 10th place votes, and added votes would appear in the bottom six ballot spots, 10-15, i.e. a #15 vote in 1965 becomes a #9 vote in 1971, a #16 vote in 1965 becomes a #10 vote in 1971, and a #21 vote in 1965 becomes a #15 vote in 1971. (The addition of Warren Spahn at the top in 1971 would push alll of these numbers down 1).

This model fits the distribution of Doerr and Gordon's votes received in 1965 and 1971 very well:

In 1965 Doerr received 14 votes. In 1971 Doerr received 15 votes in slots #1-#8, and 11 votes in slots #11-#15.
In 1965 Gordon received 14 votes. In 1971, he received 15 votes in slots #1-#9, and 10 votes in slots #10-15.

There may have been some upward reassessment of the D/G dual candidacy going on, but most of their increase in support can be explained without any reassessment being necessary. They have simply moved up steadily as up-ballot space has been cleared by election: they haven't had to _pass_ anybody on individual voters' ballots.

(Actually I think they have benefited from some upward reassessment, helped by the synergy between the pair: If D, why not G? If, G, why not D? Ralph Kiner's more modest but still meaningful upward rise may be more purely driven by the clearing out of higher candidates: he has gone from 15-170 for 23rd place to 23-277 for 1th place. It's interesting that K-K synergy has not developed the way D-G has. Maybe that will change?)

The older backlog players do not see this increase, and they don't show this pattern.

In 1965 Mackey received 26 votes, good for 322 points and 6th place.
In 1971 Mackey received 28 votes, good for 352 points and 3rd place.

In 1965 Bell received 21 votes, good for 254 points and 10th place.
In 1971 Bell received 21 votes, good for 311 points and 6th place.

In 1965 Sisler received 20 votes, good for 253 points and 11th place.
In 1965 Sisler received 23 votes, good for 305 points and 7th place.

In 1965 Van Haltren received 19 votes, good for 271 points and 9th place
In 1965 Van Haltren received 21 votes, good for 295 points and 9th place

Now, there was some shifting up and down in the intervening 6 years, but overall, not much has changed for these candidates. The voters who had them on their ballots in 1965 still have them there in 1971 and have moved them up somewhat, but they have not been gaining votes. The voters who don't have them on their ballots have them so deep in their backlog (or having been moving them down in the backlog by a time-lining system) that they are not gaining any significant amount of new support. These players still get elected from the backlog, as the elections of Griffith and Rixey show, but they seem to lack the capacity for upward elasticity.

So it looks to me like the initial decision a voter makes between placing a candidate at #18 or #28 is ultimately a crucial decision. Will an off-ballot candidate by high enough to have a chance to reach numerous ballots before the onslaught of new arrivals or downward pressure from the timelining segment of the electorate puts a drag on the candidate's ability to rise upward in anything but tiny increments?

I'm not inveighing against the patterns I am describing here, but I think that recognition of this pattern brings out the weightiness of placing off-ballot players carefully, especially if they might land in the top 5 or 10 off-ballot spots. If Billy Pierce and Nellie Fox have landed in a lot of these spots, they may look like candidates without much support now, but they will gain traction as we go farther into the backlog 1975-1979 and in the mid-1980s. I think both will have some of this traction, but how much remains to be seen.

Bucky Walters has been around long enough that if he were going to show this kind of traction, it would have appeared by now. If he is to become a serious candidate, it will entail voters changing their minds about him, not just the system slowing bringing in to view hidden but meaningful support.
   55. Paul Wendt Posted: March 09, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#1890315)
Bucky Walters has been around long enough that if he were going to show this kind of traction, it would have appeared by now. If he is to become a serious candidate, it will entail voters changing their minds about him, not just the system slowing bringing in to view hidden but meaningful support.

Yestereday I wrote:
Cobb effect:
#2, 8, 9, 12

Bobby Doerr, Joe Gordon, Ralph Kiner, and perhaps O Minoso compose the group whose small size Chris Cobb has noted and decried: recent major leaguers neither promptly elected nor promptly dismissed. If "dismissed" is too strong a word for Rube Waddell to Larry Doyle, who rank 18 to 33 among incumbents, then the group also includes Billy Pierce, Nellie Fox, and Bob Elliott.


Bucky Walters and Bob Johnson show up on a slightly looser definition of 'recent' players, plus Charlie Keller on a slightly looser definition of significant support.

Because I again know how to write in two dimensions, the second dimension is age on the ballot. Keller is "younger" than I realized a moment ago.
RK
04     Doerr
10     Gordon
11   Kiner
14 Minoso
21 Pierce
22      Walters
26 Fox
31    Elliott
33       Johnson
37     Keller 
   56. DL from MN Posted: March 09, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#1890329)
If I had to guess, the candidate with the most hidden support is probably Joe Sewell.
   57. Daryn Posted: March 09, 2006 at 11:31 PM (#1891115)
Sewell is a good pick -- the pure peak and pure career candidates have very little hidden support.
   58. yest Posted: March 10, 2006 at 03:22 AM (#1891429)
John
Spahn dosn't belong on the list in post 3 we can't fault them for his not being elected when he wasn't elligable


OCF
where am I on the consensus list I haven't seen my name on either list (well the lowest one anyway) for a long time
   59. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2006 at 03:50 AM (#1891467)
Spahn dosn't belong on the list in post 3 we can't fault them for his not being elected when he wasn't elligable

You're right, yest. I forgot about that.
   60. OCF Posted: March 10, 2006 at 03:55 AM (#1891472)
yest - oh, you're still below average. For 1971, I started listing at -12. You, John Murhpy, and Jim Sp were at -11.

As for John's list in #3 - it is what it is, a historical record. (As long as we put Marquard in the correct column.) That we have a slightly different eligibility rule than the HoF is one of our differences. (And the HoF's "rule" hasn't always been consistently applied.) Quite a few people on that HoM-not HoF list will eventually make it into the HoF, especially the Negro Leaguers. And a handful of those on the HoF-not HoM list still have live candidacies with us.
   61. yest Posted: March 10, 2006 at 09:20 AM (#1891900)
A list of eligible HoFers
HoMers in bold
all HoFers with significant playing careers are included
1936
Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson
1937
Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young , Connie Mack, John McGraw, George Wright
1938
Pete Alexander
1939
George Sisler, Eddie Collins , Willie Keeler , Lou Gehrig, Cap Anson , Charlie Comiskey , Candy Cummings , Buck Ewing , Charles Radbourn , Al Spalding
1942
Rogers Hornsby
1945
Roger Bresnahan , Dan Brouthers , Fred Clarke , Jimmy Collins , Ed Delahanty , Hugh Duffy , Hughie Jennings , King Kelly , Jim O’Rourke , Wilbert Robinson
1946
Jesse Burkett , Frank Chance , Jack Chesbro , Johnny Evers , , Clark Griffith, , Tommy McCarthy , Joe McGinnity , Eddie Plank , Joe Tinker , Rube Waddell , Ed Walsh
1947
Carl Hubbell , Frankie Frisch , Mickey Cochrane , Lefty Grove
1948
Herb Pennock , Pie Traynor
1949
Charlie Gehringer , Mordecai Brown , Kid Nichols
1951
Mel Ott , Jimmie Foxx
1952
Harry Heilmann , Paul Waner
1953
Al Simmons , Dizzy Dean , Chief Bender , Bobby Wallace , Harry Wright
1954
Rabbit Maranville , Bill Dickey , Bill Terry
1955
Joe DiMaggio , Ted Lyons , Dazzy Vance , Gabby Hartnett , Frank Baker , Ray Schalk
1956
Hank Greenberg , Joe Cronin
1957
Sam Crawford
1959
Zack Wheat
1961
Max Carey , Billy Hamilton
1962
Bob Feller , Jackie Robinson , Bill McKechnie , Edd Roush
1963
John Clarkson , Elmer Flick , Sam Rice , Eppa Rixey
1964
Luke Appling , Red Faber , Burleigh Grimes , Miller Huggins , Tim Keefe , Heinie Manush , Monte Ward
1965
Pud Galvin
1966
Ted Williams , Casey Stengel
1967
Red Ruffing , Lloyd Waner
1968
Joe Medwick , Kiki Cuyler , Goose Goslin
1969
Stan Musial Roy Campanella , Stan Coveleski , , Waite Hoyt,
1970
Lou Boudreau , Earle Combs , Jesse Haines,
1971
Dave Bancroft , Jake Beckley , Chick Hafey , Harry Hooper , Joe Kelley , Rube Marquard , Satchel Paige
1972
Yogi Berra ,Early Wynn, Lefty Gomez , Ross Youngs , Josh Gibson , Buck Leonard
1973
, Warren Spahn, , George Kelly , Mickey Welch , Monte Irvin
1974
Jim Bottomley , Sam Thompson , Cool Papa Bell
1975
Ralph Kiner , Earl Averill , Bucky Harris , Billy Herman , Judy Johnson
1976
Bob Lemon , Roger Connor , Freddy Lindstrom , Oscar Charleston
1977
Amos Rusie , Joe Sewell , Al Lopez , Martin Dihigo , Pop Lloyd
1978
Addie Joss
1979
Hack Wilson
1980
Duke Snider, Chuck Klein
1981
Johnny Mize , Rube Foster
1982
Travis Jackson
1983
George Kell
1984
Rick Ferrell , Pee Wee Reese
1985
Enos Slaughter , Arky Vaughan
1986
Bobby Doerr , Ernie Lombardi
1987
Ray Dandridge
1989
Red Schoendienst
1991
Tony Lazzeri
1992
Hal Newhouser
1994
Leo Durocher , Phil Rizzuto
1995
Leon Day , Vic Willis , Richie Ashburn
1996
Bill Foster , Ned Hanlon
1997
Nellie Fox, Willie Wells
1998
George Davis , Larry Doby , Joe Rogan
1999
Joe Williams
2000
Bid McPhee , Turkey Stearnes
2001
Hilton Smith
2006
Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Biz Mackey, , Mule Suttles, , Cristobal Torriente, , Jud Wilson, , Frank Grant, , Pete Hill, , Jose Mendez Louis Santop, , Ben Taylor, Sol White
   62. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2006 at 03:13 PM (#1892002)
As for John's list in #3 - it is what it is, a historical record. (As long as we put Marquard in the correct column.) That we have a slightly different eligibility rule than the HoF is one of our differences. (And the HoF's "rule" hasn't always been consistently applied.) Quite a few people on that HoM-not HoF list will eventually make it into the HoF, especially the Negro Leaguers. And a handful of those on the HoF-not HoM list still have live candidacies with us.

That's a good point, OCF. In that case, I'm not going to worry about eligbility then.
   63. DL from MN Posted: March 10, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#1892049)
We haven't elected Mackey yet.
   64. DavidFoss Posted: March 10, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#1892112)
And a handful of those on the HoF-not HoM list still have live candidacies with us.

The list is fine as its defined. Its just a fun historical chart.

Also, a list of eligible-for-HOM now but "eventually" HOF is also instructive.

Bottomley
WBrown
ACooper
Dandridge
Day
Doerr
RFerrell
Fox
Gomez
TJackson
JJohnson
Joss
Kell
GKelly
Kiner
CKlein
Lazzeri
FLindstrom
Lombardi
Mackey
JMendez
Rizzuto
Schoendienst
HSmith
BTaylor
MWelch
SolWhite
Willis
HWilson
Youngs

Yes, there are some clunkers on that list, but some viable candidates as well. The point of this list is that these are guys we could be voting for *now*.
   65. ronw Posted: March 10, 2006 at 06:00 PM (#1892193)
OK, I'll pull out my (current through 2006, as opposed to Murphy's 1971 list) list of HOM not HOF:

23 guys now, thanks to the recent inductions

Barnes, Ross
Beckwith, John
Bennett, Charlie
Caruthers, Bob
Dahlen, Bill
Ferrell, Wes
Glasscock, Jack
Gore, George
Groh, Heinie
Hack, Stan
Hines, Paul
Jackson, Joe
Johnson, Grant
Magee, Sherry
McVey, Cal
Pearce, Dickey
Pike, Lip
Richardson, Hardy
Sheckard, Jimmy
Start, Joe
Stovey, Harry
Sutton, Ezra
White, Deacon

Only 6 guys who didn't play in the 19th century (Beckwith, WFerrell, Groh, Hack, JJackson, Magee.) If the HOF can have a 19th century committee sometime, our list will be very small.
   66. ronw Posted: March 10, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#1892196)
And HOF not HOM is now 64 guys long. I think they would probably beat our HOM not HOF squad now.

Bancroft, Dave
Beckley, Jake
Bell, Cool Papa
Bender, Chief
Bottomley, Jim
Bresnahan, Roger
Brown, Willard
Chance, Frank
Chesbro, Jack
Combs, Earle
Cooper, Andy
Cuyler, Kiki
Dandridge, Ray
Day, Leon
Dean, Dizzy
Doerr, Bobby
Duffy, Hugh
Evers, Johnny
Ferrell, Rick
Fox, Nellie
Gomez, Lefty
Grimes, Burleigh
Hafey, Chick
Haines, Jesse
Hooper, Harry
Hoyt, Waite
Jackson, Travis
Johnson, Judy
Joss, Addie
Kell, George
Kelly, George
Kiner, Ralph
Klein, Chuck
Koufax, Sandy
Lazzeri, Tony
Lindstrom, Freddy
Lombardi, Ernie
Mackey, Biz
Manush, Heinie
Maranville, Rabbit
Marquard, Rube
McCarthy, Tommy
McGraw, John
Mendez, Jose
Pennock, Herb
Rice, Sam
Rizzuto, Phil
Roberts, Robin
Roush, Edd
Schalk, Ray
Schoendienst, Red
Sewell, Joe
Sisler, George
Smith, Hilton
Taylor, Ben
Tinker, Joe
Traynor, Pie
Waddell, Rube
Waner, Lloyd
Welch, Mickey
White, Sol
Willis, Vic
Wilson, Hack
Youngs, Ross
   67. yest Posted: March 10, 2006 at 06:12 PM (#1892218)
We haven't elected Mackey yet.

a little advanced and wishful thinking
   68. Daryn Posted: March 10, 2006 at 07:20 PM (#1892332)
Only 4 candidates made a majority of the ballots this year. Soon, we'll have no returning candidates who made the majority of the ballots the previous year.
   69. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 10, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#1892373)
Ron,

I wouldn't in clude Roberts and Koufax in the HOF, not HOM list yet as we have yet to even open the polls on them. I also disagree with your assertion that the HOF, not HOM team would beat its opposite, especially is you take Roberts and Koufax (if you think Koufax was a great player) out of the mix.

Let's see...

HOM, not HOF
C - Charlie Bennett
1B - John Beckwith (better than Hack but also better suited to 1B than Hack)
2B - Hardy Richardson
SS - Grant Johnson
3B - Stan Hack
LF - Joe Jackson
CF - Paul Hines
RF - Sherry Magee

SP - Ferrell, Caruthers

HOf, not HOM
C - Bresnahan
1B - Sisler
2B - Doerr
SS - Sewell
3B - Traynor
LF - Brown
CF - Duffy
RF - Kiner

SP - Willis, Waddell, Mendez, Joss

Of course the HOF team is much deeper and most everyone will think taht I got 1-12 players wrong on that team but its depth isn't really something that it can be given credit for since we will soon catch up to it. The only real weakness of the HOM team is that Ferrell and Caruthers will have trouble pitching 3 and four games in a seven game series.

Still, I think we win. Especially since Sisler, Brown, and Doerr look to be coming off of the HOF team in time
   70. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 10, 2006 at 08:44 PM (#1892515)
Actually I should add Sutton to the HOM team at 3B instead of Hack. I missed him the first time.
   71. karlmagnus Posted: March 10, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#1892530)
McVey catching would add a little oomph to the lineup, too.
   72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 10, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#1892734)
There's an intersting distinction here, though. These players would almost all be the worst players elected to the HOM at their positions or nerly the worst. That's why they are borderliners struggling to overcome one another in our current backlog elections. But in the Coop, there are several worse players at each position. You may disagree with the ones i pick, but the point is made by the depth of these lists. Those who are not yet eligible are struck through. Those bolded are HOMers.

C - Bresnahan (Mackey, Lombardi, Schalk, Ferrell)
1B - Sisler (<strike>Perez</strike>, <strike>Cepeda</strike>, Terry, Chance, Taylor, Bottomley, Beckley, Kelly)
2B - Doerr (Evers, Lazzeri, Schoendienst, <strike>Mazeroski</strike>)
SS - Sewell (<strike>Ozzie</strike>, Bancroft, Tinker, Maranville, <strike>Aparicio</strike>, Jackson)
3B - Traynor (Lindstrom, Kell, Dandridge, Johnson)
LF - Kiner (Manush, Hafey)
CF - Duffy (Doby, Averill, Roush, Ashburn, Bell, Carey, Wilson, <strike>Puckett</strike>, Combs, Waner)
RF - Cuyler [substitute for Brown] (Thompson, Hooper, Rice, Klein, Youngs, McCarthy)

SP - Willis (<strike>Ryan</strike>, Keefe, Rusie, Faber, Dean, Coveleski, Plank, <strike>Sutton</strike>, Welch, <strike>Hunter</strike>, Gomez, Waddell, Hoyt, Chesbro, Griffith, Pennock, Marquard, Joss, Haines, Bender)
   73. yest Posted: March 10, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#1892753)
add another vote for the HoF team I like them slightly better (well exept Sisler who destroys Start)at every positon but 2nd and C thats with out the fact that their pitching staff destroys us

2 weeks ago I would have went with us (at least in a best of 1 are 3 man rotation would have made things harder)but since loosing some of are best players to free agency (Suttles, Wilson, R. Brown, Grant, Hill, Torriente and Santop)and the HoF trading Griffth for Fox, Cooper, Brown, Mackey, Mendez, White, and Taylor
   74. karlmagnus Posted: March 10, 2006 at 11:08 PM (#1892913)
Caruthers will be quite happy to pitch say 4 of 7, provided you let him pitch from 50 feet. He did 8 out of 15 postseason games in '87.

Start vs. Sisler depends at what point in their careers you catch them. Late Start is probably better than late Sisler, and early Start would run early Sisler pretty close if they're playing with 1865 equipment!
   75. DavidFoss Posted: March 10, 2006 at 11:31 PM (#1892945)
Start vs. Sisler depends at what point in their careers you catch them. Late Start is probably better than late Sisler, and early Start would run early Sisler pretty close if they're playing with 1865 equipment!

"late start" and "early start" puns are rushing through my head. :-)

Late start crushes late Sisler. Pre-NA Start gives peak Sisler a run for his money, in my opinion, but I agree its so hard to compare between 1868 and 1920.

I'm glad we started balloting so early to give those 19th Century guys a fair shake. It is indeed very difficult to make head-to-head comparisons between them and more modern players.
   76. jimd Posted: March 10, 2006 at 11:56 PM (#1892983)
HOM-not-HOF

John Murphy's list is missing two names.
Joe Jackson (IIRC, removed due to eligibility differences)
Monte Irvin (probably an oversight)
   77. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 11, 2006 at 01:31 AM (#1893132)
I really don't know how you could prefere the HOF team. The only advavntage that I see is pitching depth and it isn't because the HOM team has crappy pitchers but because we have so far agreed with the HOF on pitching (somewhat).

McVe may start at catcher. I wasn't around until 1935 so I am not as familiar with some of those guys.

And yest, do you seriously prefer Brown to Joe Jackson?
   78. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#1893717)
John Murphy's list is missing two names.
Joe Jackson (IIRC, removed due to eligibility differences)
Monte Irvin (probably an oversight)


Right on both counts, Jim.
   79. yest Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#1893849)
And yest, do you seriously prefer Brown to Joe Jackson?
no I use Klein (whose still worse then Jackson) instead of Brown (I don't like Brown) and don't think Joe Jackson should be eligable for are team when he's not for theirs (I moved Stovey to right)
   80. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 12:45 PM (#1894232)
I am back from a week in North Carolina. I have nieces at Duke and UNC and we spent time hiking in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was of course March Madness out there (as it is here in Minnesota but, let's be honest, it's different out there, I mean it's really Madness out there).

Then there was the death of Kirby Puckett--second youngest HoFer ever to die, after Lou Gehrig. I am of course a Twins fan and reliving the '91 World Series Game 6 was bittersweet. For me, 1987 was more exciting, having been the first one, but I don't have specific memories of Puckett's play. Hrbek's slam was the big moment there.

Then of course there was Barry Bonds. I picked up SI at the airport and read the article on the plane coming home. I am not gonna buy the book. I guess I will now be among those who hold off on Bonds for the HoM for a year, same as Pete Rose, same probably as McGwire. Sosa is not a HoMer regardless.

And finally the WBC. I don't care about all the whining, this is a great idea whose time has come. How about the US actually getting a scare about not advancing to round 2!

Amazing how big baseball was during the start of the second season of hoops.
   81. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 12:55 PM (#1894234)
As for what has gone on at the HoM, you guys had a busy week. I don't think I'll ever quite catch up on all the discussion.

I have not voted for Clark Griffith since probably the first 2-3 years he was eligible, but he remained in my top 30 or so throughout. I am in no way opposed to his election, though whether he will make my PHoM or not I don't know.

Which got me thinking. Among the top 10 I am voting for Brown and Sisler and have them in my PHoM, I am voting for Redding and (off and on) Doerr and Gordon, though they are not yet PHoM. I am also voting for 6 of the second ten.

I don't think I have ever voted for Mackey, since I prefer Trouppe, but I wouldn't regard Mackey as a mistake either.

In fact, all the way down through #20 there is not a guy whose election to the HoM I would strongly oppose, though Cool Papa Bell and GVH and Beckley are no longer in my top 50.

Is it just me, or does the continual appearance of a name on our leaderboards all by itself confer some stature on these guys? So eventually I've gotten comfortable with them? Or on the other hand, maybe they really are the 20 best candidates.

In fact all the way through #30 there are precious few that I would regard as mistakes--Pierce and Walters being the highest ranking guys that I would really be opposed to.

Maybe I'm just mellowing out in my old age.
   82. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 01:01 PM (#1894235)
Re. the pitcher discussion in the middle of this thread, I would say there are a few watershed moments in MLB that have tripped us up conceptually. Per Howie's comment, the double whammy of the 60 foot distance and contraction in the 1892-1893 period had a huge impact, especially on pitchers and we probably didn't account for the impacts in evaluating 1890s guys versus 1880s guys.

I still think that WWII also had a very profound impact on a lot of guys. If every single one of us gave absolutely zero extra credit for WWII years missed, we would elect exactly the same guys that we are electing. IOW (borrowing Howie's phrase) we have not really imagined what MLB would have been like in the 1940s if there had been no WWII. Maybe that's OK, but there's been a lot of discussion of extra WWII credit, yet I don't see where it has really affected the voting much (and the actual selections at all).

Somebody asked once: What one guy (if any) is NOT a HoMer based on his "real" record, but should be if credit is given for time missed? Is there a single player you can name who fits this description? Maybe Doerr or Gordon, but neither has been elected, has he?
   83. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:11 PM (#1894393)
Sunny,

I have a question regarding the holding out a player's name for a year. Can we do such a thing with McGwire and Sosa when we have no real evidence of their juicing? To me taking andro (which is both legal in teh real world and in baseball) and not wanting to answer questions posed by congress isn't the evidence I am looking for. I understand nto wanting to vote for Bonds (though I still may since MLB's drug rules almost encouraged players to do what he did), we have pretty strong evidence that he was taking even if what is in the book isn't 100% true. Ditto Canseco, Palmeiro, Caminiti, Giambi and anyone else with whom we have strong or incontrovertible proof.

Also, will you be withholding votes for Paul Molitor and Tim Raines, two players (off the top of my head) who were at least nominal cokeheads? Assuming that your answer is no because cocaine most likely hinders your performance on a baseball field, how about those that took greenies in teh 1960's (didn't williw mays do this)? In fact the greeneies issue is one that we will be dealing with soon.

I don't mean to pick on you Sunny or try and start a backlasheresque thread here at the HOM. But maybe we should try and codify some of this, otherwise it is highly arbitrary and may be the difference between someone getting in or someone staying out.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#1894406)
I don't mean to pick on you Sunny or try and start a backlasheresque thread here at the HOM.

Please, don't!!! :-0

I am back from a week in North Carolina. I have nieces at Duke and UNC and we spent time hiking in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was of course March Madness out there (as it is here in Minnesota but, let's be honest, it's different out there, I mean it's really Madness out there).

If you had some spare time, I would have tried to meet my anti-timeline pal of mine, since I live in Clayton, NC. I would have even bought you a beer or two. :-)
   85. Daryn Posted: March 12, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#1894477)
I have a question regarding the holding out a player's name for a year. Can we do such a thing with McGwire and Sosa when we have no real evidence of their juicing?

As I understand the rules, yes. The one-year boycott is subjective and does not require any proof. You probably do have to acknowledge you are doing it and give a reason, but you don't have to support the reason (we did not see quotations of Cap Anson making racist comments when he was up for election).

I don't bother with a one year boycott, so I say the above without any self-interest. I will also be voting for Sammy Sosa.
   86. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#1894510)
John, I had no idea. Where is Clayton?

I liked your state just fine. The triangle and triad are very nice and the Blue Ridge Mts (north end) are very nice in an entirely different way. We hiked around near Blowing Rock and also on Grandfather Mt. People were all very nice, even the Duke fans. (My niece got me a Wake T-shirt and made me promise to wear it. I watched the 2nd half of the Duke-Wake game in the RDU airport.)

(The Duke campus is a cliche for what a college campus is supposed to look like BTW, though it pains me to say so. UNC also very nice campus. Wake and NC State not as nice.)
   87. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 12, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#1894537)
John, I had no idea. Where is Clayton?

It's not that far away from Raleigh, Marc. I've ben living here since November (I lived in Raleigh the 13 years prior). Still got my Yankee accent, though. :-)

As for college sports, I'm a NC State fan since my youngest brother went there in the '90s.
   88. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#1895072)
Well, we hit the farmers market and the arboretum in Raleigh on getaway day. Drove down Hillsborough from the one to the other, not knowing that it was the main drag thru NC State campus. Stayed in Apex the night before after spending a day in Winston Salem where my niece is attending Wake. That was after the week in the mountains. Blowing Rock is very nice, I can see why people are retiring up there.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.6742 seconds
49 querie(s) executed