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, October 01, 2006

1986 Results: McCovey and Waddell Pass Through the Hall of Merit Turnstiles!

In his first year of eligibility, legendary slugger Willie McCovey earned an extremely healthy 96% of all possible points to become the first inductee in ‘86 for the Hall of Merit.

Demolishing Clark Griffith’s record by eleven years, Philadelphia A’s ace Rube Waddell finally was rewarded with a spot in the HoM on his 71st try. He gained 38% of all possible points.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Ralph Kiner (will he finally make it in ‘87), Billy Pierce (another who may make it next election), Minnie Minoso, Ken Boyer, Cupid Childs, Nellie Fox, Cannonball Dick Redding, and Jimmie Wynn (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  n/e  Willie McCovey          1202   51  45  3  2  1                                 
 2    5  Rube Waddell             475   32   1  5  5  2  1  1  2  3  3  3     2  1  1  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3    6  Ralph Kiner              459   34      5  1     5  3  2  2  2  2  2  5  1  4   
 4    4  Billy Pierce             424   30      3  2  2  2  7     2  3  4  1  1  2  1   
 5    7  Minnie Minoso            386   30      3  2  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  2  1  3  2  2
 6    9  Ken Boyer                344   31         1  2  3  2  4  2  2     2     4  2  7
 7    8  Cupid Childs             340   25      1  5  3  1  2  2     2     4  1  2  1  1
 8   11  Nellie Fox               328   23      1  5  2     3  2  3  3     2        1  1
 9   13  Cannonball Dick Redding  313   22      4  2  1  1  2  1  1  3  1  1  2     2  1
10   14  Jimmy Wynn               308   27            2  4  3     1  2  3  1  4  2  3  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   12  Jake Beckley             299   21   1  3  1  3  1  1  1  1     2     2  4  1   
12   10  Dobie Moore              291   20   1  1  5  1  2     2  2  1     2        1  2
13   16  Hugh Duffy               257   20   1  1     3  1        5     2  1  2  1  2  1
14   20  Bucky Walters            250   17   1  3        4     1  2     2  1     1  1  1
15   15  Quincy Trouppe           247   19         3  2  1  3  1  1     3  2           3
16   17  Charlie Keller           242   17      3  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  1     1  3     1
17   21  Pete Browning            237   17   1  1  1  3     3  1     1  1  1     2  1  1
18   18  Edd Roush                235   19      1  2  1     1  3  1     1  4  1  2  1  1
19   19  Charley Jones            233   15      2  4  2     1  1  2        1  1     1   
20   22  George Van Haltren       187   14      1  1  2        2  2  1  2  1     1     1
21   23  Gavy Cravath             179   14      1        2  3  1     1        5  1      
22   24  Bob Johnson              171   12      2     1  1  1  1  1  1  1  2        1   
23   28  Roger Bresnahan          162   12      2        2     1  1     2  2  1        1
24   26  Alejandro Oms            161   13      1     1  1     2     2     3  1  1     1
25   27  Burleigh Grimes          150   11      1  1  1  1  1  1  1     1     1  1     1
26   30  Lou Brock                139   13         1        2  2     2              3  3
27   29  Tommy Leach              138   11            1  2  1     1  2     2  1  1      
28   32  Orlando Cepeda           123   12         1     2                 3  1  1  2  2
29   25  Mickey Welch             121    8      1        3  2  1                       1
30   31  Norm Cash                119    9            2  2     1  1  1           1     1
31   33  Dizzy Dean               109    9            1  1  2  1              2     2   
32   34  Larry Doyle               96    6      1  1  1        2           1            
33   35  Wally Schang              90    7      1     1              1  1  1  1  1      
34   44  Elston Howard             83    9                        1  1        3  3  1   
35   41  Tommy Bridges             82    7                  1     2  1  1  1     1      
36   36  Bob Elliott               81    8                        1  2     1  3     1   
37   42  Phil Rizzuto              80    7         1  1           1        2           2
38   39  John McGraw               73    5         1  2           1              1      
39   43  Thurman Munson            70    8                     1        2           4  1
40   37  Vic Willis                69    6               1     1        1  2     1      
41   45  Addie Joss                68    6            1           1  1  1        1  1   
42   47  Carl Mays                 67    6                  1  2              2        1
43   40  Pie Traynor               65    5   1                 1        1        2      
44   38  Ben Taylor                57    4            2        1              1         
45   50T Vern Stephens             53    5                     1  1        1  1     1   
46   46  Jimmy Ryan                52    5                     1        2     1     1   
47   48  Sam Rice                  51    5                  1        2                 2
48   55  Al Rosen                  50    5                        1  1     1     1  1   
49   49  Bill Monroe               49    4                  1        1  2               
50   50T Ed Williamson             47    4                     1        3               
51   62  Dave Bancroft             43    5                              2        1  1  1
52   56  Rabbit Maranville         41    3      1                             2         
53   54  Frank Howard              36    5                                    1  1  1  2
54   58  Ed Cicotte                35    3               1           1              1   
55   59T Chuck Klein               34    2         1     1                              
56   61  Tony Mullane              33    3                     1  1                    1
57   63  Bobby Veach               29    3                        1           1     1   
58   59T Ernie Lombardi            29    2            1              1                  
59   57  Luis Aparicio             28    3                        1              1  1   
60   52  Dizzy Trout               28    2               1           1                  
61   64  Frank Chance              26    2               1                 1            
62   66  Lefty Gomez               24    2                  1                 1         
63   65  Urban Shocker             23    2            1                                1
64   67  Jack Quinn                18    1         1                                    
65   77  Don Newcombe              17    2                              1              1
66   68T Tony Oliva                17    1            1                                 
67   68T Fielder Jones             16    1               1                              
68   70  George J. Burns           15    2                                       1  1   
69   71T Fred Dunlap               14    1                     1                        
70T  73T Wilbur Cooper             13    1                        1                     
70T  71T Sam Leever                13    1                        1                     
72T  73T Artie Wilson              12    1                           1                  
72T  53  Dutch Leonard             12    1                           1                  
72T n/e  Mickey Vernon             12    1                           1                  
75   73T Virgil Trucks             11    1                              1               
76   79T Hack Wilson               10    1                                 1            
77T  81T Jim Fregosi                8    1                                       1      
77T  78  Sol White                  8    1                                       1      
79T  83T George Kell                7    1                                          1   
79T n/e  Herman Long                7    1                                          1   
79T  83T Vada Pinson                7    1                                          1   
82T n/e  Dick Bartell               6    1                                             1
82T  83T Kiki Cuyler                6    1                                             1
82T n/e  Harvey Kuenn               6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Wally Berger(83T), Dom DiMaggio(79T), Bob Friend(81T), Gil Hodges(73T), Billy Nash(83T).
Ballots Cast: 52

 

 

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 01, 2006 at 10:48 PM | 72 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: October 03, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#2194989)
Congratulations to Willie and Rube!

HOF-not-HOM through 1986
 
1  Aparicio
Luis
2. Bancroft
Dave
3. Beckley
Jake
4  Bender
Chief
5  Bottomley
Jim
6  Bresnahan
Roger
7  Brock
Lou
8  Chance
Frank
9  Chesbro
Jack
10 Combs
Earle
11 Cuyler
Kiki
12 Dean
Dizzy
13 Duffy
Hugh
14 Evers
Johnny
15 Ferrell
Rick
16 Gomez
Lefty
17 Grimes
Burleigh
18 Hafey
Chick
19 Haines
Jesse
20 Hooper
Harry
21 Hoyt
Waite
22 Jackson
Travis
23 Johnson
Judy
24 Joss
Addie
25 Kell
George
26 Kelly
George
27 Kiner
Ralph
28 Klein
Chuck
29 Lindstrom
Freddie
30 Lombardi
Ernie
31 Manush
Heinie
32 Maranville
Rabbit
33 Marquard
Rube
34 McCarthy
Tommy
35 McGraw
John 
36 Pennock
Herb
37 Rice
Sam
38 Roush
Edd
39 Schalk
Ray
40 Tinker
Joe
41 Traynor
Pie
42 Waner
Lloyd
43 Welch
Mickey
44 Wilson
Hack
45 Youngs
Ross
 
HOM
-not-HOF
 
1  Allen
Dick 
2  Ashburn
Richie
3  Barnes
Ross
4  Beckwith
John
5  Bennett
Charlie
6  Brown
Ray
7  Brown
Willard
8  Bunning
Jim
9  Caruthers
Bob
10 Dahlen
Bill
11 Davis
George
12 Doby
Larry
13 Ferrell
Wes
14 Foster
Willie 
15 Freehan
Bill
16 Glasscock
Jack
17 Gordon
Joe
18 Gore
George
19 Grant
Frank
20 Groh
Heinie
21 Hack
Stan
22 Hill
Pete
23 Hines
Paul
24 Jackson
Joe*
25 JohnsonHome Run
26 Mackey
Biz
27 Magee
Sherry
28 McPhee
Bid
29 McVey
Cal
30 Méndez
José
31 Newhouser
Hal
32 Pearce
Dickey
33 Pike
Lip
34 Richardson
Hardy
35 Rogan
Bullet Joe
36 Santo
Ron
37 Santop
Louis
38 Sheckard
Jimmy
39 Start
Joe
40 Stearnes
Turkey
41 Stovey
Harry
42 Suttles
Mule
43 Sutton
Ezra
44 Torre
Joe
45 Torriente
Cristobal
46 Wells
Willie
47 White
Deacon
48 Williams
Billy
49 Williams
Smokey Joe
50 Wilson
Jud
 
*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. karlmagnus Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:13 AM (#2194996)
Great that Rube got it -- I wasn't a fan initially but concluded I'd been wrong. Maybe a little posthumous atonement for all the razzing he had to go through in life (it can't have been easy.)
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#2195005)
Great that Rube got it -- I wasn't a fan initially but concluded I'd been wrong.

I got back on his bandwagon for this election after decades ignoring him. BTW, my vote didn't make a difference - Waddell would still have won without it.

Kiner was leading for quite a while, though. Rube reclaimed the lead only this afternoon.
   4. OCF Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:30 AM (#2195017)
Average consensus score -7.9, which is quite ordinary these days. Brace for anthor run at the low-side record next year. Highest possible score +7.

Got Melky: +1
Howie Menckel: +1
favre dan b: -1
Esteban Rivera: -2
Devin McCullen: -2
jschmeagol: -2
fra paolo: -2
...
Chris Cobb: -8
DanG: -8
Brent: -8 (median between DanG and Brent)
SWW: -8
OCF: -8
...
John Murphy: -9
...
Joe Dimino: -13
rico vanian: -13
Max Parkinson: -14
jimd: -14
EricC: -15
karlmagnus: -16
KJOK: -16
yest: -30

22 points below average consensus is not a record: that record is 24 points below average (yest, 1947). But the -30 is a record for lowest raw consenus score (previous record of -29, yest, 1955, although Dolf Lucky, 1968, also rounds to -29). And I don't recall ever seeing anything quite like that 14-point gap between next to last and last.

yest, we don't agree with you.

My own consensus score slipping to average comes mostly from not voting for Waddell. You know, I used to vote for Waddell. He got as high as #4 on my ballot in 1929. The great entering classes of 1933-34 pushed him away from the front of my ballot, and then I kept finding new candidates to put in front of him, so he gradually faded away. He slipped off my ballot in 1943, then out of my top 30 in 1962, although he made occasional return visits to my top 30 afterwards. But somehow his case got revived and you went and elected him without me.

(My favorite remaining player from the Oughts is now Frank Chance. But he's not on my ballot either.)
   5. Juan V Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:39 AM (#2195020)
With Freehan gone, I expected to go higher in consensus scores. Not quite. Funny...
   6. OCF Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#2195021)
That was supposed to read

Got Melky: +1
Howie Menckel: +1
favre: 0
dan b: -1
...
   7. OCF Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#2195022)
Juan V: -3.

That still counts as high.
   8. DL from MN Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:58 AM (#2195031)
Who stopped voting for Dutch Leonard?
   9. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2006 at 01:03 AM (#2195035)
Congratulations to Rube Waddell. the HoM has finally come to its senses and elec.......ooh a fire truck!
   10. Howie Menckel Posted: October 03, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#2195040)
all-time 'votes points' thru 1986 - those still eligible in 1987 election are in CAPS. electees not in caps.

Beckley could catch GVH in about 5 years at this rate.... Waddell climbs past Childs for 6th, then 'retires.' Cupid takes the slot right back in 1987, and will grab 5th a year later. And if Waddell had waited one more election, he'd have eclipsed Griffith as the pitcher with the most-ever votes pts. Doesn't look like Welch will ever catch either of them.. Bennett will slide to 20th in a couple of years.

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 22758.5
BECKLEY 22298
DUFFY 21798.5
BROWNING 18826.5
Griffith 17924
Waddell 17596
CHILDS 17587
Jennings 16976
WELCH 15532
Sisler 13892

Pike 13399
Sewell 12769
Mendez 12555
Thompson 12349
RYAN 11805.5
REDDING 11744
Bennett 11503
CJONES 11380
TLEACH 11120
BRESNAHAN 11114

Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9896
H Stovey 9576
MOORE 9234
Mackey 8930

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Roush 8480, Kiner 7245, Doyle 7234, Cravath 6685, Monroe 6381, Grimes 6164, Minoso 5689, Walters 5636, Williamson 5328, Schang 5275, McGraw 4948, Pierce 4718, Trouppe 4549)

not quite
(Oms 4360, BJohnson 3825, Fox 3779, Joss 3439, Willis 3401, McCormick 3148X, Keller 3211, Boyer 3202, Chance 2908, Elliott 2826, Tiernan 2686X)
   11. Lemon Curry? Posted: October 03, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#2195051)
HOMers sorted by the percentage of available points in the year of election. Players in bold were elected in their first year of eligibility.

This year's electees are at opposite ends of the scale.

INNER CIRCLE, BABY!

100.0 - Cy Young (1917)
100.0 - Honus Wagner (1923)
100.0 - Walter Johnson (1933)
100.0 - Babe Ruth (1941)
100.0 - Lou Gehrig (1944)
100.0 - Lefty Grove (1947)
100.0 - Joe DiMaggio (1957)
100.0 - Ted Williams (1966)
100.0 - Stan Musial (1969)
100.0 - Mickey Mantle (1974)
100.0 - Willie Mays (1979)
100.0 - Hank Aaron (1982)

NO-BRAINERS (>95)

99.8 - Sam Crawford (1924)
99.7 - Dan Brouthers (1902)
99.5 - Jimmie Foxx (1951)
99.5 - Warren Spahn (1971)
99.4 - Pete Alexander (1936)
99.4 - Josh Gibson (1952)
99.3 - Ty Cobb (1934)
99.2 - Oscar Charleston (1943)
98.9 - Kid Nichols (1911)
98.8 - Nap Lajoie (1922)
98.7 - Bob Gibson (1981)
98.4 - Ed Delahanty (1909)
98.4 - Arky Vaughan (1954)
98.3 - Roy Campanella (1963)
97.9 - Charlie Gehringer (1948)
97.9 - Bob Feller (1962)
97.8 - Eddie Collins (1935)
96.9 - Turkey Stearnes (1946)
96.6 - Satchel Paige (1959)
96.5 - Christy Mathewson (1922)
96.3 - Willie McCovey (1986)
95.8 - Rogers Hornsby (1941)
95.8 - Frank Robinson (1982)
95.7 - George Davis (1915)
95.7 - Carl Hubbell (1949)
95.4 - Eddie Mathews (1974)
95.3 - Paul Waner (1950)
95.3 - Mel Ott (1952)

EASY CHOICES (>85)

94.9 - Jesse Burkett (1912)
94.8 - Smokey Joe Williams (1936)
94.8 - Johnny Mize (1959)
94.7 - Robin Roberts (1972)
94.7 - Ernie Banks (1977)
94.6 - Duke Snider (1970)
94.5 - Yogi Berra (1969)
94.4 - Deacon White (1898)
94.0 - Paul Hines (1898)
94.0 - Jim O'Rourke (1899)
94.0 - Jackie Robinson (1962)
93.7 - Al Simmons (1946)
93.2 - Roger Connor (1903)
93.1 - Roberto Clemente (1978)
92.1 - Gabby Hartnett (1947)
92.0 - Louis Santop (1932)
91.9 - Pop Lloyd (1935)
91.9 - Al Kaline (1980)
91.7 - Luke Appling (1956)
91.5 - Bill Dickey (1953)
90.6 - Harry Heilmann (1937)
90.3 - Buck Leonard (1955)
90.0 - John Clarkson (1900)
89.1 - Billy Hamilton (1907)
89.1 - Hank Greenberg (1953)
88.9 - Bill Dahlen (1915)
88.3 - Mickey Cochrane (1943)
88.2 - Cristobal Torriente (1937)
87.7 - Ron Santo (1980)
87.7 - Harmon Killebrew (1981)
87.2 - Joe Cronin (1951)
86.7 - Frankie Frisch (1944)
85.2 - Cap Anson* (1903)
85.2 - Fred Clarke (1917)

* Six voters boycotted Anson in 1903.

SOMEWHAT DEBATABLE (>70)

84.0 - King Kelly (1899)
83.5 - Ray Brown (1955)
82.9 - Martin Dihigo (1950)
82.6 - Frank Baker (1928)
82.4 - Jack Glasscock (1904)
82.2 - Eddie Plank (1924)
82.0 - Tris Speaker (1934)
81.5 - Goose Goslin (1945)
79.9 - Bullet Rogan (1940)
79.5 - George Gore (1898)
79.1 - Whitey Ford (1973)
78.6 - Hal Newhouser (1960)
78.4 - Willie Wells (1954)
78.2 - Tim Keefe (1901)
76.9 - Zack Wheat (1933)
76.6 - Jud Wilson (1948)
76.2 - George Wright (1901)
75.6 - Ezra Sutton (1908)
75.5 - Hoyt Wilhelm (1978)
74.7 - Buck Ewing (1902)
74.5 - Bid McPhee (1913)
74.4 - Ed Walsh (1920)
74.4 - Joe Jackson (1927)
73.9 - Pud Galvin (1910)
73.5 - John Ward (1900)
73.5 - Cal McVey (1914)
73.4 - Al Spalding (1906)
73.3 - Willie Keeler (1919)
72.5 - Joe Start (1912)
71.7 - Charley Radbourn (1905)
71.3 - Pee Wee Reese (1964)
70.7 - Jimmy Collins (1921)

SPLIT DECISIONS (>50)

69.8 - Amos Rusie (1904)
69.2 - Elmer Flick (1918)
68.9 - Dick Allen (1983)
68.4 - Ross Barnes (1898)
68.3 - Juan Marichal (1980)
68.1 - Joe Kelley (1919)
68.0 - Brooks Robinson (1984)
67.3 - Mule Suttles (1956)
67.1 - Hardy Richardson (1905)
67.1 - Grant Johnson (1925)
66.8 - Mordecai Brown (1925)
66.8 - Ted Lyons (1949)
65.8 - Billy Williams (1983)
65.0 - Bill Foster (1945)
64.9 - Heinie Groh (1938)
63.2 - Harry Stovey (1916)
62.4 - Stan Coveleski (1938)
62.1 - Larry Doby (1965)
61.6 - Jimmy Sheckard (1930)
61.3 - Frank Grant (1926)
61.3 - Monte Irvin (1963)
61.0 - Bobby Wallace (1929)
60.9 - Charlie Bennett (1921)
60.9 - Enos Slaughter (1965)
60.7 - Joe McGinnity (1928)
60.2 - Sherry Magee (1926)
60.0 - Pete Hill (1927)
59.9 - Billy Herman (1958)
59.9 - Joe Torre (1984)
58.0 - John Beckwith (1957)
56.6 - Bob Caruthers (1930)
56.5 - Dazzy Vance (1942)
54.9 - Don Drysdale (1975)
54.6 - Sam Thompson (1929)
54.3 - Sandy Koufax (1972)
53.0 - Dickey Pearce (1931)

VERY SPLIT DECISIONS (<50)

49.1 - Early Wynn (1970)
48.6 - Rube Foster (1932)
48.6 - Stan Hack (1958)
48.5 - Lou Boudreau (1958)
47.0 - José Méndez (1985)
46.3 - Red Faber (1939)
45.6 - Max Carey (1939)
44.9 - Bill Terry (1942)
44.7 - Joe Medwick (1967)
43.0 - Bill Freehan (1985)
41.8 - Joe Gordon (1976)
41.5 - Bob Lemon (1967)
41.3 - Wes Ferrell (1964)
40.5 - Lip Pike (1940)
40.4 - Earl Averill (1961)
38.8 - Red Ruffing (1966)
38.7 - Eppa Rixey (1968)
38.2 - George Sisler (1979)
38.1 - Richie Ashburn (1968)
38.1 - Rube Waddell (1986)
37.9 - Willard Brown (1976)
37.7 - Hughie Jennings (1960)
37.7 - Jim Bunning (1977)
36.8 - Cool Papa Bell (1973)
35.4 - Biz Mackey (1975)
34.8 - Joe Sewell (1985)
32.8 - Clark Griffith (1971)
32.8 - Bobby Doerr (1972)
   12. Patrick W Posted: October 03, 2006 at 01:51 AM (#2195066)
Went to work early, so I could get home in time to analyze the '86ers. 15 hrs and a project submittal later (and 1 hr past the deadline), I at least am comforted by knowing my ballot wouldn't have changed anything. Oh well, everyone needs a break every 75 years or so, right?
   13. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 03, 2006 at 02:24 AM (#2195089)
Another election, another year of being ensconced somewhere between the median and the fifth-to-last consensus score.... ; )

OCF, when was the last time (if ever!) that I was above the median?
   14. CraigK Posted: October 03, 2006 at 02:34 AM (#2195097)
So, what's going to happen once the HoM passes the "year" 2006 (or, I suppose you could go to 2010, I guess?)

And, damn it, are you still going to have Van Haltren in limbo?
   15. sunnyday2 Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:19 AM (#2195153)
I caught up to the HoM last year with Red Faber. Nice that the HoM caught up to the PHoM with Rube Waddell this year. Alignment increasing. Om.
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:22 AM (#2195156)
O,

Where does sunny fit into the consensus. I liked being at the bottom better, but that was the 19th century.
   17. Chris Fluit Posted: October 03, 2006 at 05:26 AM (#2195255)
Top Ten Returnees Not Elected:

Ed Williamson: 1898.
Ed was a top returnee on the very first ballot in 1898. He hasn't finished that high since.
Pete Browning: 1906.
Another early star with a solo appearance.
Hugh Duffy: 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1932, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981.
Duffy has had two very good runs at election, first from 1908 to 1915, and then again more recently from 1975 to 1981.
Jimmy Ryan: 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1930, 1931.
Ryan was always a bit lower than Duffy, making the top ten one year later and leaving it one year earlier. However, he did place during two elections in the '30s compared to just the one for Duffy.
Jake Beckley: 1913, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1967, 1968, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980
Nobody has had more top ten finishes without being elected than Jake Beckley.
George Van Haltren: 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1940, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973
To answer Craig's question: Yes, it looks like Van Haltren will always be in limbo. There have been a few times that Van Haltren looked destined to be elected: in the mid-'30s and again in the mid-'40s after a string of top ten finishes and finally in the mid '70s after 11 straight placements. But each time he's gotten close, GVH's support has evaporated.
Cupid Childs: 1931, 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986
Childs didn't have the early support of Beckley, Duffy, Ryan or Van Haltren, only making the top ten once before 1980. But he's come on of late and now returns higher than all four of his contemporaries.
Roger Bresnahan: 1931, 1932
Bresnahan slipped into the top ten a couple of times in the early '30s but fell out when the strong classes of '33 and '34 entered the fray.
Mickey Welch: 1933, 1938
Surprisingly, Welch's best placements occured during the more competitive late thirties.
Tommy Leach: 1940, 1941, 1942
Unlike Joe Sewell who was doing well at the same time, Leach hasn't experienced a comeback.
Dick Redding: 1967, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1986
Redding was one of the leading backlog candidates in the 1970s but has faded more recently only finishing in the top ten twice so far in the '80s.
Minnie Minoso: 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986
Minoso's path mirrored that of Mendez as they entered the top ten in the same year of 1973. Mendez eventually rose high enough to be elected. Minoso hasn't risen as quickly but he hasn't fallen either.
Ralph Kiner: 1974, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986
Kiner's early arc was been more like a yo-yo. He was in, then out, in, then out again. Finally, he was in to stay leading to a likely induction.
Dobie Moore: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1985
Moore's candidacy peaked in the mid-70s though he made it back to the top ten in the last election.
Nellie Fox: 1979, 1986
Fox flirted with the top ten before in 1979. Now that he's back, will he be able to stay?
Billy Pierce: 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986
Pierce's candidacy has gained a lot of momentum in recent years as he's passed top ten regulars from the '70s Duffy, Beckley, Van Haltren, Redding, Minoso and Moore.
Ken Boyer: 1985, 1986
Back-to-back top ten finishes are good news for friends of Boyer who might follow Pierce on the fast track to the top.
Jimmy Wynn: 1986
Wynn makes his first top ten finish with this election though it's too early to tell if this this is temporary surge a la Tommy Leach, a steady performer a la Minnie Minoso or a meteoric rise a la Billy Pierce.
   18. OCF Posted: October 03, 2006 at 06:24 AM (#2195275)
Dr. Chaleeko: Except for his one way-out-on-a-limb outlier year in 1978, he's been skimming along at 0 to 4 points below average consensus for a long time. Years that round to 0 points different from average consensus: 1984, 1980, 1977. He was last a point above average in, um, that goes back a ways, looking now ... 1955.

sunnyday2: He was at -6 this year, a couple of points above average. He's been averaging 1 or 2 points above average since about 1971 and was just slightly below average for a decade or so before that. His furthest below average year was in 1924 (at -8 in a +13 average year: who were we electing then anyway) and he had another spell of disagreement in 1948-49.
   19. rawagman Posted: October 03, 2006 at 10:20 AM (#2195312)
When I first joined this project a little over 10 "years" ago, I noticed two players on the ballots who I felt were NB HOM'ers. Hugh Duffy and Rube Waddell. From the very beginning, both men jumped right into my PHOM and were always in the top 4 of my ballot, without any exceptions.

Now, I am halfway to being justified.
   20. sunnyday2 Posted: October 03, 2006 at 11:17 AM (#2195320)
>sunnyday2: His furthest below average year was in 1924 (at -8 in a +13 average year: who were we electing then anyway)

I was much out of the consensus on the 19th century with not only Jones and Browning but also Williamson and Childs and Bond all in my PHoM and all on my ballot through the backlog years before 1934. The latter 3 have now dropped off my ballot--though in the case of Childs that is no longer a consensus position. I have been more consensus with our 20th century picks except for some pitchers like Early Wynn, and of course Dobie Moore is still at the top of my ballot.

Bottom line: it doesn't take a lot of consensus picks on a ballot to get a relatively high consensus score anymore.
   21. Howie Menckel Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:34 PM (#2195348)
Returning candidates by position (50+ pts or top 5 at a position).
More than 150 pts: OFs 12, Ps 3
100 or more pts: OF 14, P 6, C 2, 1B 3, 2B 2, 3B 1, SS 1
So 14 of the 29 players with 100 pts are OFs

P - Pierce 424, Redding 313, Walters 250, Grimes 150, Welch 121, Dean 109, Bridges 82, Willis 69, Joss 68, Mays 67
OF - Kiner 459, Minoso 386, Wynn 308, Duffy 257, Keller 242, Browning 237, Roush 235, CJones 233, Van Haltren 187, Cravath 179, BJohnson 171, Oms 161, Brock 139, O3 Leach 138, JRyan 52, SRice 51
C - Trouppe 247, Bresnahan 162, Schang 90, EHoward 83, Munson 70
1B - Beckley 299, Cepeda 123, Cash 119, BTaylor 57, Chance 26
2B - Childs 340, Fox 328, Doyle 96, Monroe 49, Dunlap 14
3B - Boyer 344 (Leach), Elliott 81, McGraw 73, Traynor 65, Rosen 50
SS - Moore 291, Rizzuto 80, Stephens 53, Bancroft 43, Maranville 41
   22. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 03, 2006 at 12:58 PM (#2195362)
He was last a point above average in, um, that goes back a ways, looking now ... 1955.

Chaleeko Enterprises: A 32 year tradition of slightly wacky voting.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: October 03, 2006 at 01:27 PM (#2195384)
Apparently the average ballot had about 9 OF-1B, 3 C-2B-SS-3B, and 3 P.
   24. DanG Posted: October 03, 2006 at 01:31 PM (#2195389)
The 1957 ballot holds the record, 20 HoMers now with Rube's election.

Here are the top 34 from that election:

Joe DiMaggio
John Beckwith
Billy Herman
Lou Boudreau
Stan Hack
Joe Medwick
Red Ruffing
Hughie Jennings
Wes Ferrell
Biz Mackey
Earl Averill
Eppa Rixey
George Sisler
Clark Griffith

Jake Beckley
George Van Haltren
Cool Papa Bell
Hugh Duffy
Mickey Welch
Cupid Childs
Bobby Doerr
Joe Sewell

Pete Browning
Bucky Walters
Cannonball Dick Redding
Dobie Moore
Alejandro Oms
José Méndez
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Gavy Cravath
Burleigh Grimes
Joe Gordon
Rube Waddell
   25. DanG Posted: October 03, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#2195437)
Craig3410 posted:

So, what's going to happen once the HoM passes the "year" 2006 (or, I suppose you could go to 2010, I guess?)

We covered a lot of this ground in hijacking the Jim Fregosi thread.

This is where we’re at, I think:

Here is my proposal for annual elections.

At our current pace we will catch up to the present, the 2007 election, in late July 2007. The next election after that will then be the 2008 election, with Tim Raines the big name among the newbies. IMO, we want to set up our annual cycle to preempt the BBWAA. The public announcement of their ballot normally happens in November, so I think we want to have our results out before that. I propose we follow this schedule:


New Voter Registration/Final Discussion thread posted: 4th Monday in September (22nd-28th). This will be September 24, 2007. Any voter who is unknown to us would be required to post a preliminary ballot with full explanations of the methodology and justifications for his choices. As we do now, if the consensus agrees with the approach, the new voter would be accepted into our community. This thread would also be used as an alert, a final run-up to the vote; to include previous election recap, preliminary ballots, necrology, official/final list of new candidates, and stuff like that.

Voting thread posted: two weeks later (October 6th-12th). This will be October 8, 2007.

Results posted: two weeks later (October 20th-26th). This will be October 22, 2007. This way, our results are out on the street and up for discussion more than ten weeks before the BBWAA voting results, before their ballot is even announced. The BBWAA casts votes in December. Creating a firestorm for a candidate (based on our results) in the month before that should have a good effect. It might give a guy like Rock the push he needs to get elected to the Coop.
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: October 03, 2006 at 02:53 PM (#2195492)
I can see it now. October 22, 2007. The HoM preempts the HoF ballot by electing Jake Beckley, Dobie Moore and Indian Bob Johnson ;-)
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 03, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#2195494)
How close will the HOF be to the HOM in terms of membership after the 2007 catchup?

Through 2006, the Coop has enshrined 225 Players and Negro Leaguers. In addition, it has elected three pioneers/executives/mangers that we've elected as players and who can be fairly said to have had HOF/HOM worthy playing careers (Foster, Griffith, and G. Wright). So that's 228 total inductees.

In 2007 the Hall is almost certain to elect Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn. That's 230 guys even. It's possible, though seemingly unlikely, that it could add Mark McGwire or someone from the Vets ballot (ha ha...). Which would make 231.

I don't remember how many we're set up for, but I think it's like 225 by 2007. Or thereabouts. OK, but in 2008, we'll probably begin a process whereby we would catch up numerically. The Hall is unlikely to elect any frontlog player other than Raines and so will probably end up with an iffy election like Rice AND Dawson. Either way, I think we'll gain a plaque on them in 2008. 2009 is Rickey's year with David Cone the only other important guy. Looks like a one-guy year, with the Vets taking no one unless the system gets changed. Looks like another plaque or two. 2010 includes Barry Larkin and Roberto Alomar (neither is currently listed on the Hall's site, god only knows why) plus Edgar Martinez with Kevin Appier as the only other mildly interesting guy. I'm guessing that they elect two, while we elect three. So by 2010, assuming we continue in the elect-three mode, there's a decent chance that we catch up entirely, depending on how many we've elected by 2007.

So the question then will be, how many per election after we have reached numerical parity? Do we stick with elect-3? Do we move to elect-2? Do we lag back one year on the Hall's size to keep parity? Do we forge ahead using demographical information on the total HOF membership versus the pool of total players and go off in our own numerical direction?
   28. DavidFoss Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2195519)
I can see it now. October 22, 2007. The HoM preempts the HoF ballot by electing Jake Beckley, Dobie Moore and Indian Bob Johnson ;-)

Better yet. Beckley, Duffy & Roush.

First reaction: Who?!?
A couple of hours later: Wait! We inducted those guys years ago!

:-)
   29. Lemon Curry? Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2195540)
Re #24:

On the other hand, the 1931 ballot has so far only produced six HOMers.

Here are the top 20 from that election:

1) Dickey Pearce
2) Rube Foster
3) George Van Haltren
4) Clark Griffith
5) Lip Pike
6) Jake Beckley
7) Hughie Jennings
8) Cupid Childs
9) Roger Bresnahan
10) Jimmy Ryan
11) Hugh Duffy
12) Rube Waddell
13) Mickey Welch
14) Pete Browning
15) Tommy Leach
16) Bill Monroe
17) Spotswood Poles
18) Larry Doyle
19) Harry Hooper
20) Charley Jones
   30. DanG Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2195545)
Through 2006, the Coop has enshrined 225 Players and Negro Leaguers. In addition, it has elected three pioneers/executives/mangers that we've elected as players and who can be fairly said to have had HOF/HOM worthy playing careers (Foster, Griffith, and G. Wright). So that's 228 total inductees.

In the Coop's total I'm also inclined to count manager McGraw, a player we could elect, and pioneer pitcher Candy Cummings, a good player but a mistake by our estimation. You also forgot to count Spalding, so I have the Coop's total at 231 through 2006. The HoM will match this total after our 2007 election.

As you wrote, we should then catch up to them by 2010, maybe earlier. I say we forge ahead with three per year; Joe has said we'll likely forego any currently scheduled elect-four years, unless the HOF does another big dump-in like this year. I assume that at some point they'll reform the VC and start electing the oldies again.
   31. yest Posted: October 03, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#2195615)
with out Waddell (who made my pHoM all the way back in 1917) , Sisler, Sewell, Mackey or Bell I hardley recognize my ballot anymore
thak goodness for Traynor

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
Sandy Koufax , Yogi Berra ,Early Wynn, Lefty Gomez , Ross Youngs , Josh Gibson , Buck Leonard
1973
Warren Spahn , George Kelly , Mickey Welch , Monte Irvin , Roberto Clemente
1974
Mickey Mantle , Whitey Ford , Jim Bottomley , Sam Thompson , Cool Papa Bell
1975
Ralph Kiner , Earl Averill , Bucky Harris , Billy Herman , Judy Johnson
1976
Robin Roberts, Bob Lemon , Roger Connor , Freddy Lindstrom , Oscar Charleston
1977
Ernie Banks ,Amos Rusie , Joe Sewell , Al Lopez , Martin Dihigo , Pop Lloyd
1978
Eddie Mathews, Addie Joss
1979
Willie Mays , Hack Wilson
1980
Al Kaline, Duke Snider, Chuck Klein
1981
Bob Gibson, Johnny Mize , Rube Foster
1982
Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Travis Jackson
1983
Brooks Robinson, Juan Marichal, George Kell
1984
Luis Aparicio, Harmon Killebrew, Don Drysdale, Rick Ferrell , Pee Wee Reese
1985
Hoyt Wilhelm, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter , Arky Vaughan
1986
Willie McCovey, Bobby Doerr, Ernie Lombardi
1987
Billy Williams, Ray Dandridge
1989
Red Schoendienst
1991
Tony Lazzeri
1992
Hal Newhouser
1994
Leo Durocher , Phil Rizzuto
1995
Leon Day , Vic Willis , Richie Ashburn
1996
Jim Bunning, Bill Foster , Ned Hanlon
1997
Nellie Fox, Willie Wells
1998
George Davis , Larry Doby , Joe Rogan
1999
Orlando Cepeda, Joe Williams
2000
Bid McPhee , Turkey Stearnes
2001
Bill Mazeroski , 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
   32. Daryn Posted: October 03, 2006 at 04:45 PM (#2195661)
yest, why is Ned Hanlon on your list? Wasn't he elected in some non-player category? I guess the same question goes for Connie Mack.
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: October 03, 2006 at 04:46 PM (#2195664)
>with out Waddell (who made my pHoM all the way back in 1917) , Sisler, Sewell, Mackey or Bell I hardley recognize my ballot anymore

Just goes to show that a persistent HoMie can end up having an insidious influence!

Me, on the other hand: Only Waddell and Sisler from that group were on my ballot. So Dobie Moore and Ralph Kiner and Pete Browning and Charley Jones remain, among others, and my ballot is still like a good old friend that I can count on not changing too much. ;-)
   34. Daryn Posted: October 03, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#2195666)
And Durocher, Harris and Stengel and, partly, Cummings?
   35. Daryn Posted: October 03, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#2195667)
And Comiskey?
   36. yest Posted: October 03, 2006 at 06:18 PM (#2195906)
I'm putting down anybody who's career as as player could put them over the top even if though I acnolidge that their playing career does not merit it
Casey Stengel
1219 hits had 1 obp title and led in HBP once

Ned Hanlon
1317 hits he led the leauge in games once was in the top 10 in walks 7 times had
Ned Hanlon's HoF plaque
<quote> MANAGER OF FIVE PENNANT WINNING TEAMS WITH BALTIMORE
AND BROOKLYN, EMPLOYING INNOVATIVE TACTICS SUCH AS
HIT AND RUN, SQUEEZE AND 'BALTIMORE CHOP.' FOUR OF
HIS PLAYERS-McGRAW, ROBINSON, JENNINGS AND HUGGINS
THEMSELVES BECAME HALL OF FAME MANAGERS. ALSO HEADED
BASEBALL'S RULES COMMITTEE. <u>A SPEEDY OUTFIELDER WITH
DETROIT DURING HIS PLAYING DAYS.</u></quote>

Connie Mack
659 hits (which was good for a catcher of the time) most C putouts twice, assits 3 times, and DP twice
Connie Mack's HoF plaque
<quote><u>A STAR CATCHER</u> BUT FAMED MORE
AS MANAGER OF THE PHILADELPHIA
ATHLETICS SINCE 1901.
WINNER OF 9 PENNANTS AND 5
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS.
RECEIVED THE BOK AWARD
IN PHILADELPHIA FOR 1929.</quote>

Candy Cummings
was one the best early game pitchers even without "inventing" the curve

Leo Durocher
1320 hits made 3 all star games
Leo Durocher's HoF plaque<quote>
COLORFUL, CONTROVERSIAL MANAGER FOR 24 SEASONS,
WINNING 2,008 GAMES, 7TH ON ALL-TIME LIST.
COMBATIVE, SWASHBUCKLING STYLE <u>A CARRY-OVER
FROM 17 YEARS AS STRONG FIELDING SHORTSTOP FOR
MURDERERS ROW YANKS, GASHOUSE GANG CARDS, REDS
AND DODGERS.</u> MANAGED CLUBS TO PENNANTS IN 1941
AND 1951 AND TO WORLD SERIES WIN IN 1954. 3-TIME
SPORTING NEWS MANAGER OF THE YEAR.</quote>

Bucky Harris
1297 hits led in HBP 3 times and sacrafise hits 3 times most 2b putouts 4 times and most DPs 5 years in a row
Bucky Harris's HoF plaque<quote>
SERVED 40 YEARS IN MAJORS AS PLAYER,
MANAGER AND EXECUTIVE, INCLUDING 29 AS
PILOT. <u>SLICK SECOND SACKER EARNED TAG OF
"BOY WONDER" BY GUIDING WASHINGTON
TO 1924 WORLD TITLE AS 27-YEAR-OLD IN
DEBUT AS PLAYER-PILOT.</u> WON A.L. FLAG
AGAIN IN 1925. LED 1947 YANKEES TO
WORLD TITLE. MANAGED DETROIT, BOSTON
RED SOX AND PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES.</quote>

Charles Comiskey
1530 hits, most games once, most at bats once, top 10 in rbis 4 times most 1b putouts 4 times and didn't he actualy get a vote for the HoM once
Charles Comiskey's HoF plaque
<quote> STARTED 50 YEARS OF BASEBALL <u>AS
ST. LOUIS BROWNS FIRST-BASEMAN IN 1882
AND WAS FIRST MAN AT THIS POSITION TO
PLAY AWAY FROM THE BAG FOR BATTERS.</u> AS
BROWNS' MANAGER-CAPTAIN-PLAYER WON
4 STRAIGHT AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
PENNANTS STARTING 1885, WORLD CHAMPIONS
FIRST 2 YEARS. OWNER AND PRESIDENT
CHICAGO WHITE SOX 1900 TO 1931.</quote>
   37. Jeff M Posted: October 05, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2198532)
I caught up to the HoM last year with Red Faber. Nice that the HoM caught up to the PHoM with Rube Waddell this year. Alignment increasing. Om.

Didn't you mean "Oms"? Especially with Kiner about to be elected? :)
   38. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 05, 2006 at 06:17 AM (#2198638)
"So the question then will be, how many per election after we have reached numerical parity? Do we stick with elect-3? Do we move to elect-2? Do we lag back one year on the Hall's size to keep parity? Do we forge ahead using demographical information on the total HOF membership versus the pool of total players and go off in our own numerical direction?"

The plan is to stick with elect 3 for the foreseeable future . . . the big Negro League election of 2006 altered things a bit (we won't match after 2006 now) . . . still not sure if we should adjust to that or not.
   39. yest Posted: October 05, 2006 at 06:56 AM (#2198644)
Do we lag back one year on the Hall's size to keep parity?
that's what I would do since where basing this on the HoF we should contiue to do so if not and we just continue to elect 3 or 4 players a year we most probobly would start to elect alot of mistakes and might be needing to have to go to the tie breaking clause in the costitusion
   40. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 05, 2006 at 08:11 AM (#2198654)
That's not exactly what we're doing yest . . .

The idea was that through 2002 the overall size of the Hall of Fame was good.

Well, if the Hall of Fame decides at that point to stop electing people, I don't see it as our problem. If they decide to start electing too many people, I don't see that as an issue either.

We've got a system that meets the overall level through 2002 (when we set it up), so we're going to just stick with that system, and if we deviate from the Hall of Fame at that point so be it.
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 11:21 AM (#2198668)
I actually think we should keep it aligned with the number of HOFers in perpetuity. That would mean that once we catch up, we should set up our annual elections after the BBWAA and Vets' vote so we can see what number of new inductees we need.

Am I totally wedded to this? No, but I like the idea that we are a comparitive institution. Deviating from our original mission would alter that.
   42. Chris Cobb Posted: October 05, 2006 at 11:57 AM (#2198674)
I think it is very important that we continue to induct players at a pace that is consistent with the pace we set prior to reaching the present, proportional to the number of teams in the majors. A major problem with the HoF has been its highly inconsistent standards over the years, and if the rate of election to the HoF changes significantly up or down in the future, that will mean another change in standards, advantaging or disadvantaging some group of players arbitrarily.

By proceeding as we have done, we have established a much more meaningful standard, and if we hold to our own election pace, we will be able to maintain that standard, which will be all the more meaningful a benchmark of merit if the other hall continues to vary widely in its standards, as it has historically done. If we tie our rate of election to theirs, our standards may be forced to change in unforeseeable ways.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 12:19 PM (#2198678)
A major problem with the HoF has been its highly inconsistent standards over the years, and if the rate of election to the HoF changes significantly up or down in the future, that will mean another change in standards, advantaging or disadvantaging some group of players arbitrarily.

I don't see it actually giving an advantage or disadvantage to one era (I'm assuming that you're referring to post-1970 guys here, Chris), since we have to still look at all eras when we submit our ballots. It may take a while, but that era will have its equitable share of stars in the HoM.

The plan is to stick with elect 3 for the foreseeable future . . . the big Negro League election of 2006 altered things a bit (we won't match after 2006 now) . . . still not sure if we should adjust to that or not.

Put me down with an emphatic "yes" and that we should start working on it ASAP, Joe.
   44. yest Posted: October 05, 2006 at 12:30 PM (#2198685)
I think we should continue voting 3 till we catch up a 4 man election would lead to mistakes and tie breakers
   45. yest Posted: October 05, 2006 at 12:36 PM (#2198689)
I think we should continue voting 3 players a year till we catch up with the HoF
a 4 man election would lead to mistakes and tie breakers
   46. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 05, 2006 at 01:35 PM (#2198730)
I think Chris and John are both right...but I have no good way to bridge their points of view quite yet.

I mean, yes, we're in the business of being the Hall's more thoughtful twin. We're also in the business of having higher standards and an election program that works and has its basis in reality.

I kind of wonder whether we should hybridize after 2006 or so. For instance, we could do something like elect players based on a 50/50 split between elect three and a five-year running average of the Coop's number of electees. For 2000-2006 that would have meant
#HOMs       #HOMs
YEAR #HOFS 5-AVG rounded up rounded down
-----------------------------------------
1996   2    N/A    N/A          N/A
1997   3    N
/A    N/A          N/A
1998   4    N
/A    N/A          N/A
1999   5    N
/A    N/A          N/A
2000   4    3.6     3            3
2001   4    4.0     4            3
2002   1    3.6     3            3
2003   2    3.2     3            3
2004   2    2.6     3            2
2005   2    2.2     3            2
2006  13    4.0     4            3 
 
(EXTRAPOLATING FURTHER)

2007   2    4.2     4            4 (Ripken and Gwynn)
2008   1    4.0     4            3 (Raines---or someone)
2009   1    3.8     4            3 (Rickey)
2010   3    4.0     4            3 (Alomar and Larkin and Bagwell)
2011   1    1.6     2            2 (Clemens???)
===================================
      
35           41           34 (straight three per yields 36


Anyway, it's a way of keeping up with the Jones without having to play ### for tat. You can tweak it by adjusting 50/50 to some other proportion and probably get good or better results. Or you can round it up at .75 instead of .50 and maybe come up with 40 or 38 rather than 41.
   47. DavidFoss Posted: October 05, 2006 at 01:35 PM (#2198731)
By proceeding as we have done, we have established a much more meaningful standard, and if we hold to our own election pace, we will be able to maintain that standard, which will be all the more meaningful a benchmark of merit if the other hall continues to vary widely in its standards, as it has historically done. If we tie our rate of election to theirs, our standards may be forced to change in unforeseeable ways.

I concur. As mentioned in Bill James' HOF book, the HOF tends have a cycle of tightening up their standards for a decade, noticing that a bunch of worthy players are uninducted (or even no longer eligible for a ballot!), then overcompensating by drastically changing the rules which opens the floodgates for a while which includes making a couple of questionable inductions, and then tightening up again. We don't want to repeat that cycle.

In 2005, we were projected as being *over* the HOF number due to the recent stinginess of their VC. Now in 2006, due to the big NeL induction we are we'll be well *under* the HOF number. How are we supposed to keep track?

I vote to stay the course and keep the number of inductees linked to recent league size by the current formula.
   48. DanG Posted: October 05, 2006 at 01:54 PM (#2198749)
we should start working on it ASAP

One important item first: exactly how many "players" has the Coop inducted? Do we go with 229, the official HOF number of 225 plus managers and pioneers the HoM has elected (Griffith, Foster, Wright, Spalding)? Or, do you agree with my 231, with includes a player getting fair support from us (McGraw) plus another HOF "pioneer" player(Cummings)? Or do you want to include anyone who we've ever voted for which would bring in Harry Wright and Sol White, maybe someone else? Or do you want to tend towards yest's view and include anyone with a substantial career, which would bring in guys like Huggins, Lopez, Comiskey, Durocher, W. Robinson, et al?
   49. DL from MN Posted: October 05, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2198755)
Just keep electing 3 per year until we get off by more than 5, then adjust accordingly (only elect 2 for a while, have a special election, etc).
   50. Chris Fluit Posted: October 05, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2198806)
I say we go with the 229. If we actually induct McGraw at some point, then he would count towards a new total for both HOM and HOF, the latter becoming 225 plus 5 managers and pioneers we elected as players. I don't think we include Cummings in their total. As much as I dislike the pick, he was chosen as an "inventor/pioneer" and I think we can justifiably ignore him. And I say this as a "big hall" guy. I just don't think we have to count players against the HOF total that they don't count themselves.
   51. DanG Posted: October 05, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#2198938)
I just don't think we have to count players against the HOF total that they don't count themselves.

Except that the reason Cummings is not counted among the players is simply because his career was largely before 1876, like George Wright. Our player count begins a couple decades earlier - we have no "pioneers".

For comparison, consider Tommy McCarthy, who, like Cummings "was chosen as an "'inventor/pioneer'". The Hall counts him as a player, rather than a pioneer, simply because his career was post-1876.

Cummings and McCarthy were elected about the same time for the same reason. It was some years later that one was labeled a pioneer and the other a player.

If we actually induct McGraw at some point, then he would count towards a new total for both HOM and HOF

I have to agree with Chris that we don't want to repeat the Coop's mistake of remaking the rules in reaction to today's circumstance. Most here have argued all along that we want our rules to be rational, defensible and consistent. So, IMO, we should agree on a rule now justifying McGraw as a player or not.

My rationale is pretty simple: since there is a good argument for him being a great player, someone we could conceivably elect, then he should be counted with the players under consideration for the HoM. Under this line of thinking, H. Wright and S. White should not be counted. There is a clear line in the voting that discerns McGraw as being in a higher class than the latter two.

When the day comes that we do a managers' wing, he will be eligible for that as well, along with Torre, Clarke, Chance and all the others.
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 04:55 PM (#2198975)
I say yes for McGraw, Cummings, Spalding, and Griffith, but no for H. Wright and Foster. My opinion is shaped by the plaques themselves.

BTW, Chance's plaque is almost all about his managing, so there's a case for not counting him as a player. Fred Clarke is pretty close himself.

S. White? I lean toward him as a manager.
   53. Daryn Posted: October 05, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#2198991)
How can you say no to Foster when we thought his playing career was worthy? Just based on the plaque?
   54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2199024)
How can you say no to Foster when we thought his playing career was worthy? Just based on the plaque?

I didn't say I didn't think he wasn't worthy as a player, Dan. He was high on my ballot when he was a candidate and I totally support his induction.

But we need to break down the HOF inductees into categories based on how they viewed the candidates, not us. IMO, that's the best way to determine the number of HoMers.
   55. DanG Posted: October 05, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#2199051)
but no for H. Wright and Foster. My opinion is shaped by the plaques themselves.

OK, but the opinion of the HOF plaque writer isn't really the issue. IMO the key question is, How many of the players we have elected, or are seriously considering for the HoM, are enshrined in the HOF? The companion question to this is then: if we are not seriously considering them for election, does the HOF list them as a player?

This may seem to leave Cummings out of our count, but why is he in the HOF? After all, there were other curveball developers simultaneous to him. I think it's because he was a star player that he was singled out as the inventor. He was one of the top five pitchers of his era, mid 1860's to mid 1870's.
   56. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 05, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#2199085)
I also vote to stay on our track. Ignoring the negro leaguers this year, the hall has only been voting about 2 guys in per year recently and leaving many worthy candidates out (and in some cases they don't even get 5%).

BTW, have you guys seen the Veteran's Committee ballot for next year?
   57. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#2199167)
OK, but the opinion of the HOF plaque writer isn't really the issue. IMO the key question is, How many of the players we have elected, or are seriously considering for the HoM, are enshrined in the HOF? The companion question to this is then: if we are not seriously considering them for election, does the HOF list them as a player?

Your last question is part of the problem, Dan. The categories for the early inductees were added many years later. That's why I think we should look at the plaques to get an understanding of what the voters thought was the biggest "claim to fame" for each particular candidate. IOW, Cooperstown might have thought Chance was primarily a manager in 1945 if they have categorized inductees then.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2199200)
I should say I have no real major problem with your 231 number, Dan, and prefer it over the 229 number.
   59. DanG Posted: October 05, 2006 at 06:48 PM (#2199304)
If we go with 231, that puts the HoM three players behind the Coop through the 2006 elections. In 2007 they'll elect 2-3, in 2008 they'll elect 1, probably, so we may catch up that year. In 2009 they'll elect 1-2, so we may pull ahead that year.

I honestly don't see a problem. Rather than try to predict what they will do, I suggest we continue on a course we know is correct.

The HoM should keep doing three per year. If the HOF corrects its course it may manage to keep up with us. ;-)
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2199409)
If we go with 231, that puts the HoM three players behind the Coop through the 2006 elections. In 2007 they'll elect 2-3, in 2008 they'll elect 1, probably, so we may catch up that year. In 2009 they'll elect 1-2, so we may pull ahead that year.

I don't mind staying with the status quo until we finally catch up, but then I would like to follow the HOF's lead then.
   61. DanG Posted: October 05, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#2199416)
I would like to follow the HOF's lead

You want to delay our annual election until January?
   62. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#2199428)
You want to delay our annual election until January?

I would like it to be held right after the Vets' committe election, actually.
   63. yest Posted: October 05, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#2199463)
John can you make a separate thread for discusions a bought what we should do when we catch up so we stop clutering up other threads (granted here's more apropite then Jim Fergosi)
   64. DanG Posted: October 05, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2199466)
IMO it would be better to preempt their elections, getting our take on the new eligibles out before theirs. Otherwise, our election can be interpreted as second-guessing, a reaction to their decisions.
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 07:53 PM (#2199473)
Otherwise, our election can be interpreted as second-guessing, a reaction to their decisions.

Well, the Hall of Merit has been doing a good job of second-guessing the HOF's picks for almost 90 "years" already. :-)

John can you make a separate thread for discusions a bought what we should do when we catch up so we stop clutering up other threads (granted here's more apropite then Jim Fergosi)

Good idea, yest. I'll set one up shortly.
   66. rawagman Posted: October 05, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#2199536)
Although I joined this party late, I have become rather attached to the idea.
While it makes perfect sense to catch up to the HOF, once we do, we should be freed from our bonds and open to do anything.
I would like to see 3 electees annually post break even, no matter how the BBWAA and VC do their voting.
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 05, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2199688)
IMO it would be better to preempt their elections, getting our take on the new eligibles out before theirs. Otherwise, our election can be interpreted as second-guessing, a reaction to their decisions.

I agree with you, DanG, on this one, but I do think that Sunny's tounge-in-cheek caution about pre-empting with guys like Dobie Moore or Bob Johnson is also reasonable. The reality is that some years we'll preempt them with guys on their ballots, and some years we won't (though their backlog will be ours of course). Regardless, it's usually better to go on record before the "experts" render their votes, there's just more to gain that way than by being reactive.

I would like to see 3 electees annually post break even, no matter how the BBWAA and VC do their voting.

Yes, but no. Everybody is saying that we should "keep on electing three a year," however, I want to suggest that this is really shorthand for "continue electing numbers based on percentages of the talent pool." What I mean is that three is the number because three is connected to the size of the pool of MLB players who ever played based on what eletion year we're in. If the leagus expands OR contracts again, we must then rejig the number of electees to match the size of the pool.
   68. sunnyday2 Posted: October 05, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#2199747)
Yes, we should go before they do. Let them second-guess us. And yes, it was tongue in cheek, sort of, to note that some years we will elect Micky Welch and they will all go, huh?, if they know. But actually, if we elect Mickey Welch and NOT Tim Raines or Rickey Henderson or whomever, then isn't that news, too? We have in any case passed judgment on the new HoF class. It would be more fun doing it before they do than doing it after they do.
   69. Chris Fluit Posted: October 06, 2006 at 01:54 AM (#2200051)
I agree with sunny- it's more fun to do it before than after. If we're trying to keep inductees proportional to the Hall of Fame we can always base our numbers on the previous year's inductees.
   70. Jeff M Posted: October 15, 2006 at 03:04 PM (#2212475)
How is it that Jones and Browning only make 1/3 of the ballots? Pierce, Boyer, Wynn and Redding were better that those two guys?

Also, eyeballing it, it appears Jones has the highest number of points per ballot on which he is included.
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2006 at 05:02 PM (#2212509)
>How is it that Jones and Browning only make 1/3 of the ballots?

Timeline.
   72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 15, 2006 at 05:43 PM (#2212521)
Timeline.
Questions about Browning's position and his defense.
Questions about Jones's blacklisting.

To return to a point made about Edd Roush: if you do now or intend to later extrapolate the 1981, 1994, and 1995 seasons (or the 1972 season for that matter), it's probably an internal inconsistency to not give credit to Jones for his blacklist time. The same is true for Tony Mullane's 1885 by the by. And, as mentioned in other threads, the same again goes for HR Baker's 1915 holdout year and for Edd Roush's 1922 and 1930.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

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

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5922 seconds
49 querie(s) executed