Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, December 11, 2006

1991 Results: (In This Order) Carew, Boyer, and Moore For the Hall of Merit!

In his first year of eligibility, hitting star Rod Carew was the top vote-getter for this “year’s” Hall of Merit election, earning an excellent 99% of all possible points.

After 17 previous times, Cardinal great Ken Boyer finally made it on the 18th with 35% of all possible points.

Taking the third spot by winning a competitive battle with a couple of the backloggers, standout NeL shortstop Dobie Moore was inducted with only 30% of the vote after 60 years on the ballot. That percentage is now the lowest ever recorded, shattering the record shared by Bobby Doerr and Clark Griffith of 34% from the early Seventies. Moore is now the 26th NeLer inducted by the electorate.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Nellie Fox, Jimmy Wynn, Quincey Trouppe (big leap back into the top-ten!), Edd Roush, Charlie Keller, Rollie Fingers (makes it into the top-ten his first time!), and Jake Beckley.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Rod Carew               1286   54  51  1  1  1                                 
 2    4  Ken Boyer                455   34      1  3  3  2  3  3  3  2  3  6  2  2     1
 3    7  Dobie Moore              387   26      6  1  2  2  2  2  2  2     1  2     1  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    6  Nellie Fox               385   26      1  4  5  1  2  4     2  2  2     1  1  1
 5    5  Jimmy Wynn               366   29      1  2  3     1  6  1  3  1  2  2  4  1  2
 6   11  Quincy Trouppe           357   25      2  3  3  2     1  6        3  2  1  2   
 7   10  Edd Roush                353   26      1  3  1  5  2  2     1  4     1  3  2  1
 8    9  Charlie Keller           343   22   1  3  3  2     4  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1
 9  n/e  Rollie Fingers           337   27      4  2  1  2  1     1  2     1  2  2  2  7
10   12  Jake Beckley             333   23      3  3  2  1  3     1  2  2  1     1  2  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11    8  Pete Browning            332   22      2  4  2  1  1  2  1  3  2  2     1     1
12   14  Cannonball Dick Redding  302   21      4     1  1  5  2     1  1  2  2     1  1
13   13  Charley Jones            291   17      4  3  2  2  1  1  1  1              1  1
14   15  Bucky Walters            275   20      3  1     3  1  1  2  1  2  1  2     1  2
15   17  Bob Johnson              267   19      1  1  2  4  1  1  1  3  1  1  2     1   
16   16  Hugh Duffy               244   17      1  1  2  1  1  5  2     2  1           1
17   18  Gavvy Cravath            237   20      1     4     1     2     2  2  4  1  1  2
18   19  George Van Haltren       215   14      2  2  1  2  1     1  1  1     2     1   
19   21  Alejandro Oms            191   16   1     1        1  2        3  2  3  1  2   
20   24  Burleigh Grimes          190   14      2     1  2     2  1  2           2  2   
21   22  Tommy Leach              184   15            4  2        1  2     1  1  2     2
22   20  Roger Bresnahan          179   13      2  1        3           3  1  1     2   
23  n/e  Rusty Staub              174   13      2        3     1  1  2        1     2  1
24   23  Orlando Cepeda           159   13         1  1        2  2  2     1  1  2  1   
25   27  Luis Tiant               149   14         2                    2  3  2  2  1  2
26   26  Lou Brock                134   10      2        1        3        1  1  1     1
27   25  Dizzy Dean               128    9         3     1        1        1     2  1   
28   29  Mickey Welch             125    9   1        2     2     1           2        1
29   30  Bobby Bonds              123   11               1  2  1  1  1  1           3  1
30   28  Norm Cash                118    9         1  1     2        1  1  1  1     1   
31   31  Larry Doyle              118    7      2     1  1  2                 1         
32   32  Ken Singleton            112   11         1     1           1  1  1  1  1     4
33   41  Bob Elliott              110   10               1     1  1  1  1  3     1     1
34   33  Vic Willis                95    8               1  1  1  1        2  1  1      
35   35  Tommy Bridges             93    7               1  1  1  1  2  1               
36   43  Elston Howard             85    9                        2  1  1     1  1  1  2
37   39  Ben Taylor                85    7         1  1              1  1     1  1     1
38   34  Reggie Smith              83    8                  1     1  2     1     1  1  1
39   46  John McGraw               81    5         2  1        1                       1
40   40  Pie Traynor               79    6      1        1        1  1           1  1   
41   44T Phil Rizzuto              78    5      1        1     2        1               
42   36T Carl Mays                 69    5               2  1           2               
43   38  Addie Joss                67    5         1        1     1           1  1      
44   48  Vern Stephens             66    6                  1     1     2     1     1   
45   44T Wally Schang              66    5      1              1     1     1        1   
46   47  Jimmy Ryan                65    6               1        1     1  1     1  1   
47   42  Chuck Klein               63    5         1  1                       1  1  1   
48   53  Bill Monroe               60    5         1                 2           1     1
49   50  Sal Bando                 56    5                        2  1  1           1   
50   36T Dave Bancroft             53    6                  1           1           3  1
51   49  Thurman Munson            52    5                     1        1  1  1  1      
52   55  Ed Williamson             49    4                  1  1     1           1      
53   54  Tony Oliva                49    3         1     1              1               
54   52  Frank Howard              47    5                              1  2     2      
55   64  Rabbit Maranville         39    4                           1     1  1  1      
56   56T Jim Kaat                  39    3            1     1                       1   
57   62  Sam Rice                  37    4                     1              1  1     1
58   51  Al Rosen                  37    3                        1  2                  
59   60T Frank Chance              35    3                     1  1              1      
60   60T Gene Tenace               33    3               1                    1  1      
61   59  Ed Cicotte                33    2            1  1                              
62   58  Bobby Veach               31    4                                 1     1  1  1
63   67T Urban Shocker             31    3                  1                 1     1   
64   85T Fred Dunlap               28    2            1                 1               
65   63  Dizzy Trout               27    2                  1        1                  
66   65T Lefty Gomez               26    2               1                 1            
67   56T Ernie Lombardi            25    2                        1  1                  
68T  65T Luis Aparicio             23    2                     1              1         
68T  67T Don Newcombe              23    2                        1        1            
68T  71  Jack Quinn                23    2            1                                1
71   70  George J. Burns           22    3                                       1  2   
72   69  Tony Mullane              22    2                     1                 1      
73   78  Bus Clarkson              20    3                                          2  1
74   73T Wilbur Cooper             16    1               1                              
75   79T Artie Wilson              15    1                  1                           
76  n/e  Al Oliver                 14    2                                          2   
77T  75T Fielder Jones             14    1                     1                        
77T  79T Sam Leever                14    1                     1                        
79   88T Jim Fregosi               13    2                                          1  1
80T  75T Dutch Leonard             13    1                        1                     
80T  75T Cecil Travis              13    1                        1                     
82T  85T Kiki Cuyler               11    1                              1               
82T  82T Hack Wilson               11    1                              1               
82T  82T Tony Lazzeri              11    1                              1               
85   79T Mickey Vernon             10    1                                 1            
86T n/e  Tommy Bond                 9    1                                    1         
86T  87  Herman Long                9    1                                    1         
86T  82T Virgil Trucks              9    1                                    1         
89T  88T George Kell                8    1                                       1      
89T  72  Bill Mazeroski             8    1                                       1      
89T  88T Bobby Murcer               8    1                                       1      
92T n/e  Wally Berger               6    1                                             1
92T n/e  Vada Pinson                6    1                                             1
92T  88T Sol White                  6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Sparky Lyle(73T).
Ballots Cast: 54

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 11, 2006 at 12:59 AM | 204 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:09 AM (#2258347)
Congratulations to Rod, Ken, and Dobie!

Moore actually snuck in ahead of Fox at the last second.

HOF-not-HOM through 1991
 
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 Dandridge
Ray
13 Dean
Dizzy
14 Duffy
Hugh
15 Evers
Johnny
16 Ferrell
Rick
17 Gomez
Lefty
18 Grimes
Burleigh
19 Hafey
Chick
20 Haines
Jesse
21 Hooper
Harry
22 Hoyt
Waite
23 Hunter
Catfish
24 Jackson
Travis
25 Johnson
Judy
26 Joss
Addie
27 Kell
George
28 Kelly
George
29 Klein
Chuck
30 Lazzeri
Tony
31 Lindstrom
Freddie
32 Lombardi
Ernie
33 Manush
Heinie
34 Maranville
Rabbit
35 Marquard
Rube
36 McCarthy
Tommy
37 McGraw
John 
38 Pennock
Herb
39 Rice
Sam
40 Roush
Edd
41 Schalk
Ray
42 Schoendienst
Red
43 Tinker
Joe
44 Traynor
Pie
45 Waner
Lloyd
46 Welch
Mickey
47 Wilson
Hack
48 Youngs
Ross
 
HOM
-not-HOF
 
1   Allen
Dick 
2   Ashburn
Richie
3   Barnes
Ross
4   Beckwith
John
5   Bennett
Charlie
6   Boyer
Ken
7   Brown
Ray
8   Brown
Willard
9   Bunning
Jim
10 Caruthers
Bob
11 Childs
Cupid
12 Dahlen
Bill
13 Davis
George
14 Doby
Larry
15 Ferrell
Wes
16 Foster
Willie 
17 Freehan
Bill
18 Glasscock
Jack
19 Gordon
Joe
20 Gore
George
21 Grant
Frank
22 Groh
Heinie
23 Hack
Stan
24 Hill
Pete
25 Hines
Paul
26 Jackson
Joe*
27 JohnsonHome Run
28 Mackey
Biz
29 Magee
Sherry
30 McPhee
Bid
31 McVey
Cal
32 Méndez
José
33 Minoso
Minnie
34 Moore
Dobie
35 Newhouser
Hal
36 Pearce
Dickey
37 Pierce
Billy
38 Pike
Lip
39 Richardson
Hardy
40 Rogan
Bullet Joe
41 Santo
Ron
42 Santop
Louis
43 Sheckard
Jimmy
44 Start
Joe
45 Stearnes
Turkey
46 Stovey
Harry
47 Suttles
Mule
48 Sutton
Ezra
49 Torre
Joe
50 Torriente
Cristobal
51 Wells
Willie
52 White
Deacon
53 Williams
Smokey Joe
54 Wilson
Jud
 
*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:15 AM (#2258353)
Well, I didn't believe it, and I was right. My tabulation had Dobie Moore 3rd. Apparently I missed a couple of ballots, because I am points short for most everybody, except I had Moore at 386. And I wasn't tracking Trouppe at all, so I didn't see him coming.

I have to say I don't get Ken Boyer. Now THAT'S a short career.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:34 AM (#2258363)
Well, that was a disaster.

From now on, I'm not posting the results at approximately 8 anymore. They'll be posted at a more leisurely rate from now on. This is just ridiculous.
   4. Chris Fluit Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:38 AM (#2258367)
Wow! So who is it: Nellie Fox or Dobie Moore? Both are listed as third, depending on where you look. I have to say that if it is Moore, I'm stunned. I never expected him to jump over both Fox and Jimmy Wynn.
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#2258368)
Holy ####. I was right?

I don't believe that, either!
   6. Juan V Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:41 AM (#2258369)
Recount! Recount! :-)

Trouppe makes a big jump! Yayyyyyy!
   7. Max Parkinson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:43 AM (#2258370)
I was about to reply to your comment after mine in the ballot thread, sunny. Congrats after many years of Moore support.

Then I see the note about the results in the sidebar - which are different than mine.

I was a little confused.

I needed to write like Plaschke.
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#2258373)
Wow! So who is it: Nellie Fox or Dobie Moore? Both are listed as third, depending on where you look. I have to say that if it is Moore, I'm stunned. I never expected him to jump over both Fox and Jimmy Wynn.

You and I both, Chris. I don't even have a plaque set up for Moore.
   9. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:46 AM (#2258374)
Wow, reminiscent of Fox's near-miss on his last try on the regular Hall of Fame ballot!

Which numbers were wrong - I was tabulating career pts, and don't want to start all over. Who gained and lost points?
   10. OCF Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#2258375)
OK, I think it's de-bugged now. Highest possible consensus score +5. Mean consensus score -9.4.

Mark S: -2
Howie Menckel: -2
Andrew M: -3
favre: -3
Rob Wood: -4
Esteban Rivera: -5
Jim Sp: -5
...
John Murphy: -8
...
SWW: -9
ronw: -9 (medians)
...
OCF: -12 (lower than I've been for a while)
...
Jeff M: -14
rawagman: -14
jimd: -14
rico vanian: -16
Joe Dimino: -16
EricC: -16
karlmagnus: -17
yest: -17
KJOK: -18
   11. Max Parkinson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:49 AM (#2258378)
Simply a function of voter change - 4 voters from last year, plus at least a couple who have voted in one of the past three didn't vote. Swings the decision. Let's hope that if any of the voters who missed are huge Fox fans that he'll get in sooner than later (like when Dimino screwed Joe Gordon over).

Considering my opinion of Fox's worthiness for enshrinement, I hope you all realise how much that statement means.
   12. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:53 AM (#2258380)
all-time 'votes points' thru 1991 - those still eligible in 1992 election are in CAPS. electees not in caps.
(this assumes only Moore's total was wrong earlier)

The king is dead, long live the king!
After leading the list since passing Hughie Jennings in 1965, George Van Haltren has relinquished the spot to Jake "Eagle Eye" Beckley. Duffy only cut GVH's edge from 699 to 670 pts, so GVH looks good for No. 2... CJones jumps 2 places to No. 13... Bresnahan and Leach remain in their decades-old near-dead heat.. Moore moves up to 21st, put recount spoils 'bid' to get to 11,000 this year... Roush becomes our 24th - and last? - 10,000-vote pt man... Boyer leaves with 5560, Fox with 5191).


TOP 25, ALL-TIME
BECKLEY 23845
VAN HALTREN 23727.5
DUFFY 23057.5
BROWNING 20335.5
Childs 18484
Griffith 17924
Waddell 17596
Jennings 16976
WELCH 16145
Sisler 13892

Pike 13399
REDDING 13151
CJONES 12831
Sewell 12769
Mendez 12555
Thompson 12349
RYAN 12087.5
BRESNAHAN 11944
TLEACH 11936
Bennett 11503

Moore 10904
Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
ROUSH 10052
Beckwith 9896

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Cravath 7771, Doyle 7771, Grimes 6969, Walters 6894, Monroe 6639, Trouppe 6072, Schang 5650, Williamson 5527, McGraw 5292, Oms 5230, Fox 5191, BJohnson 4881, Keller 4685, Willis 3816)

not quite
Joss 3755, Elliott 3227, Wynn 2889
(will have to check Cepeda and Dean..)
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#2258385)
It's also hard to believe that my support for Dobie Moore after all this time was actually, finally contributing to a + in the consensus score! It didn't used to work like that.

I still say that Dobie Moore was 10 years of Joe Cronin with better defense, or was basically the first 10 years of Ernie Banks. Yes, that's a short career, but if anybody died or became permanently disabled 10.5 years into their professional career and could still merit election--I mean, among the borderliners--a SS who hits .365 with a rocket for an arm would be the guy.
   14. jimd Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#2258387)
That percentage is now the lowest ever recorded, shattering the record shared by Bobby Doerr and Clark Griffith of 34% from the early Seventies.

He is also our first HOMer that appeared on less than 50% of the ballots cast.
He was on 26 of 54 ballots; Pike had the previous lowest percentage at 26 of 51.
   15. Chris Cobb Posted: December 12, 2006 at 02:57 AM (#2258390)
I have to say that if it is Moore, I'm stunned. I never expected him to jump over both Fox and Jimmy Wynn.

This is certainly the biggest surprise for me in a long time, but as Max points out, changes in the electorate make for unpredictable shifts in outcomes. I'd feel better about his election (which I definitely did not advocate) if it had been less unexpected: I don't think the later analysis of the Moore's statistical record was ever fully chewed over by the electorate as a whole, and if he had seemed to be in line for immediate election, that discussion might have happened.

Though his election is surely satisfying for his long-time supporters. I know _that_ feeling, though I don't share it at the moment.

I have to say I don't get Ken Boyer. Now THAT'S a short career.

As opposed to say, Dobie Moore's?
   16. OCF Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#2258392)
sunnyday2: -8. Right below John Murphy, a handful of places above median.
   17. Michael Bass Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#2258396)
OCF - Mind if I ask where I finished consensus wise in my return? I'm guessing middle-ish, with my high consensus top 3 (the 3 electees) balanced by support for a lot of guys with few admirers (Dunlap, Rizzuto, Maranville, Shocker, Bancroft, Monroe).

I'm sorta glad to see my return boosted Dobie over the top. I believe I voted for him every year he was eligible, except perhaps the mid 40s when the ballot got super crowded with the Cobb/Speaker/Williams/Lloyd/Collins/Torriente/Coveleski class clogging up the works.
   18. OCF Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:02 AM (#2258399)
Michael Bass: -11. Below median, above me.
   19. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:04 AM (#2258401)
I came in 2nd with No. 2 Boyer 8th; with No. 3 Moore, No. 5 Wynn, and No. 7 Roush off-ballot; with No. 9 Fingers at No. 2..
   20. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#2258408)
If some of our AWOL voters had voted, it's possible that Wynn would have taken it over Fox and Moore.

I should point out that I'm happy that Moore got in over Fox. He made it back on my ballot after being knocked off with all of those strong candidates becoming eligible the past couple of seasons.
   21. Chris Cobb Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:10 AM (#2258411)
If some of our AWOL voters had voted, it's possible that Wynn would have taken it over Fox and Moore.

That was the outcome I expected.

I am glad that Fingers did well, though, and Trouppe.
   22. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:12 AM (#2258413)
Go Trouppe!!!
   23. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:13 AM (#2258415)
As Peter King would say, from the Department of Things That May Only Interest Me:

Looking at the <strike>11</strike> 10 guys in my PHoM-not HoM and vice versa, I was a little surprised to realize that only 1 of my Personal choices is in the HoF (Beckley), and all 10 of the guys I haven't put in my PHoM are in the HoF.
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:15 AM (#2258416)
That was the outcome I expected.

Looks like I picked the wrong plaque to create. :-)
   25. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:18 AM (#2258422)
Reality:
Moore 387, Fox 385, Wynn 366, Trouppe 357, Roush 353, Keller 343, Fingers 337, Beckley 333, Browning 332, Redding 302, Jones 291

If I were never born (note the It's a Wonderful Life tiein):
Moore 387, Fox 368, Wynn 366, Trouppe 347, Roush 353, Keller 334, Fingers 314, Beckley 318, Browning 310, Redding 291, Jones 291

So Roush passes Trouppe, Beckley passes Fingers, Jones catches Redding.

Also, I flipflopped Browning and Fox this year by one place each after considering some of the anti-Fox stuff, knocking Fox out of the elect-me bonus pts (sorry to cost your guy an election, Nellie voters!).
   26. jimd Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#2258431)
Non-HOMers closest to being elected, by points:

02 1991 Fox
21 1991 Wynn
30 1991 Trouppe
34 1991 Roush
(40 1987 Fox)
44 1991 Keller
47 1931 VanHaltren

The top 5 are from this year's ballot, not counting Fox's second appearance.
Unless 1991 is the bottom of the current backlog (as 1931 was in many ways; it allowed about a decade of reevaluation and new voters before the Pike election), then it's probably just a matter of who gets elected before who, unless people are forecasting a shortage of HOMer slots for the current backlog.
   27. Mark Donelson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:26 AM (#2258498)
I don't think the later analysis of the Moore's statistical record was ever fully chewed over by the electorate as a whole

To be fair, I know that I, one of Moore's long-time best friends, demoted him when that later analysis appeared, and I'm pretty sure most of his other best friends did as well. (He'd subsequently crept back up as some of those newly above him got elected, in my case.) I don't think that the changes made to his MLEs passed without notice by any means.

I am glad that Fingers did well, though

Very slightly thanks to his seven (!) last-place votes, which I found sort of amusing.
   28. Chris Cobb Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#2258540)
Mark,

That's reassuring. Thanks!
   29. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:36 AM (#2258580)
I never did demote Dobie Moore. I guess my sense was that the NeL records are to some degree guesswork. I mean, we have X number of box scores out of Y games played. Now we have X + 8. So there is still missing data. And we know that when we translate raw NeL numbers into MLEs, peaks get shaved down somewhat. So there's that.

So generally what the numbers give us is a relative sense of how the NeLers rank among themselves, and beyond that we get a qualitative sense of who a player was. And who Dobie Moore was really didn't change for me. Like I said, Joe Cronin with a glove. The first ten years of Ernie Banks. Or, as Bill James writes:

"Short, barrel-chested man with long arms, hit .453 for Kansas City in 1924, with 139 hits in 79 games, leading Kansas City to a pennant and a World Series victory. Lifetime .365 hitter: probably the best 230-pound shortstop in baseball history."

I mean, in 1924, Babe Ruth went 46-121-.378 and Hornsby 25-94-.424. And then there was Dobie at .453. Discount that at .95 or .9 or .85 if you like, he's still probably the #3 position player in the game. And he's the only one of the 3 to win a pennant that year.

Or look at it this way. We are going to elect Charley Keller. He played 100 games 6 times, though if we work at it we can MLE that up to 8. How does 10 years of Ernie Banks compare to 8 years, even, of Charlie Keller? I think Banks would rate ahead of Keller even if you give Keller those 2 years. Well, like I said, Moore is the first 10 years of Ernie Banks. If Charley Keller has a snowball's chance--and he is on my ballot--then there is nuthin' wrong with Dobie Moore, HoM.
   30. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:41 AM (#2258587)
Same here Chris, I moved Dobie down a few spots after seeing the later data. He started to look more like Ernie Banks without the 1B years than the Black Hughie Jennings. Of course, I still believe the former a HOM career to a peak voter like myself.
   31. favre Posted: December 12, 2006 at 10:09 AM (#2258685)
Some voting results for Dobie Moore:

1975--9th place
1976--(the year Chris published his new MLEs) 9th
1977--10th
1978--16th
1979--12th
1980--13th
1981--14th
1982--14th
1983--15th
1984--11th
1985--10th
1986--12th
1987--9th
1988--6th
1989--7th
1990--7th
1991--3rd

Moore actually did lose ground in the 1976 election, after the new MLEs came out; it was a backlog election year, and two players (Kiner and Sewell) passed him in the voting. Obviously there was a steep drop in 1978; at that point, he would be out of the top ten for seven years (although very strong classes from 1980-83 probably helped with that). When he returned to the top ten, it took him another seven ballots to get elected.

This suggests to me that many voters took the new data seriously. Count me among those who also made voting adjustments. I had Moore #1 in 1976, but dropped him several ballot spots after that. Your data is simply too good to ignore, Chris--even if some us reached a different conclusion ;].

I'm just wondering: now that Dobie is elected, does sunnyday still have a reason to live?
   32. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: December 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM (#2258690)
Let me get this straight. A whopping 4 out of 54 people had Boyer in an elect-me spot and he gets in?

I have no right to complain, not being part of the project and all, but that just strikes me as weird. I know you pick how many people get inducted beforehand, but when 93% of your electorate doesn't think a player should get in, it just seems perverse to induct him. I mean say what you will about the BBWAA/HoF, but at least when a player gets in it's because a sizable majority want him there.
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 01:23 PM (#2258700)
>I'm just wondering: now that Dobie is elected, does sunnyday still have a reason to live?

Well, it will be different, let's just say that.

But after Carew and Moore, the rest of my ballot was Fingers, Fox, Doyle, Joss, Browning, Keller, Cepeda, Roush, Reggie2, Bond, Williamson, Cravath and Ellie Howard. Plenty of lost causes there.
   34. TomH Posted: December 12, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#2258703)
The reason only 4 people had Boyer in their top 2 was each have so many different people we want elected. I'll bet most in/out lines would be drawn BELOW #15. That's what happens after almost 100 years of voting.
   35. DavidFoss Posted: December 12, 2006 at 01:43 PM (#2258704)
I mean say what you will about the BBWAA/HoF, but at least when a player gets in it's because a sizable majority want him there.

We vote in both the "BBWAA guys" and the "VC guys" so your analogy is not valid. Boyer's been on the ballot for a while and has been in a queued-for-induction position for a few years -- if there were strong objections in the electorate to his candidacy, they would have been mounted. Plus because candidacies never expire (see Moore, Dobie) the backlog is much deeper than a BBWAA ballot is. AND... we can't put ten guys in an elect-me slot like the BBWAA can.

Inducting the borderline guys can be a thrilling experience, though. :-)
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 01:59 PM (#2258707)
We vote in both the "BBWAA guys" and the "VC guys" so your analogy is not valid.

Exactly, David. If we were working solely on a BBWAA quota, our project would take on a whole different look. But the Vets' Committee is just as relevant as the writers' - for us to make a valid comparison between the two institutions, we can't pretend that the Cooperstown "back door" guys don't exist. The BBWAA and Vets go hand-in-hand.
   37. DL from MN Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#2258769)
I also find the 7 last place votes for Fingers amusing. I'm sensing a lot of people want to vote for Fingers but can't justify it with data. They throw him a last place vote as a bone and he racks up 35 points.

OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Fingers at the top of the returnees next ballot.

I'm not sure where the disparaging of Ken Boyer came from. He was on more ballots than anyone except Carew. 34/54 is 62%, not 4%.

Fun for me, Quincy Trouppe took a jump up and Bob Johnson finished in the top 15.
   38. TomH Posted: December 12, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2258781)
well, getting Dobie off the ballot will boost my consensus. If y'all elect Fox without my help in the near future, I might be like Howie ... practically Trendy!
   39. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#2258789)
Boyer 115/139-32-28-27-23-21-21-13-1-(98)-(94)-(90)
Williamson 112/149-48*-30-26-16-11-7-1-0-(92)-(91)

Boyer 12 yrs of ?100 games, 9 of them ?100 OPS+. Williamson 11 yrs of ?100 adj games, 9 of them ? 100 OPS+ (the 148 is 184 with all 27 HR reduced to 2B hits).

Williamson an A glove, Boyer a B+.

Williamson led the league in games played (3X), BB (1X), 2B and HR (!X each). Of course, you may want to discount the 2B and HR titles but all of his Chicago teammates played in the same park. And he led the league in FA 5X. Boyer led the league in games played and RBI (1X each) and FA 2X.

This is not a knock on Boyer, but just to say I don't see how they're not pretty much equivalent.

Ah, a reason to live!
   40. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#2258796)
Yay Boyer! I had him number one in his first year, and was the only one who had him in the top 3 that year.
   41. rawagman Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:39 PM (#2258845)
sunny: re: Ed Williamson vs. Ken Boyer.
I'm not Boyer's biggest fan, but he is very near the top of my personal backlog and was my top ranked 3B last year.
I equate his defense as equal to Williamson's.
Williamson had a nice peak of 2-3 years but no prime to speak of. Even without reducing his big year OPS+, his career OPS+ trails Boyer's 116-113. He also had very poor ink for a player of his day. Finally, I believe it is Mark S. who is reluctant to extrapolate full 154/162 game season for seasons that far back. I try to take a middle road of not giving bonuses for short seasons while also not punishing - sort of taking what is and running through the BS dump.
ALl that taken into consideration, I have 10 other eligible 3B, plus Bus Clarkson (I have him as more 3B than SS) between Boyer and Williamson.
If Ed Williamson, why not Denny Lyons?
   42. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#2258861)
4 out of 54 people had Boyer in an elect-me spot and he gets in?

The term "elect-me spot" is a bit of a misnomer. It really means "elect-me-NOW" over all the other current candidates.

That being said, I think that Moore's election, in being named by less than half the voters, indicates a flaw in our system. When less than half the voters' opinions are being accurately measured, it's obvious that the results may not reflect the true consensus of the electorate. I'm not saying I'm certain that this has happened (yet), but that the possibility should've been avoided.

In an election like this, with the four runners-up being within 35 points of election, the will of the electorate could easily be subverted. As the HoM train pulls into the station, the in-out margin will be sliced ever thinner. Can we be sure that the vote will reflect the results of the group's analysis and conclusions?

This election, and others to come, could easily look very different using a 20 or 25-man ballot. In our test period of the 20-man ballot back in the 60's, I don't believe we had a really contentious election like this, so it didn't seem to have any effect.
   43. Chris Cobb Posted: December 12, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2258863)
I'm not sure where the disparaging of Ken Boyer came from. He was on more ballots than anyone except Carew. 34/54 is 62%, not 4%.

It came from not understanding the meaning of a rank-order voting system and therefore equating our "elect me" votes with votes that would actually have appeared on a BBWAA-style ballot.
   44. Al Peterson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:17 PM (#2258882)
That being said, I think that Moore's election, in being named by less than half the voters, indicates a flaw in our system.

Seems more of an indication that about half the voters are peak voters. Moore is a no-show with careerists. And I hope this isn't a poke at the Moore selection. Fox was named on the same number of ballots. 1991 was just a year where the splintered backlog came to the forefront. Leads to a lot of excitement.
   45. Mark Donelson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:22 PM (#2258892)
Fox was named on the same number of ballots.

Precisely. I mean, given our system, it's likely that someone was going to be elected who appeared on less than half the ballots. I think if we try 20 slots again, we'll just come to the same conclusion: it might make some slight difference in one election, but for the most part--and probably even in this case, as I seem to recall as many Moore sightings on people's "just-missed" lists as Fox sightings--it won't change anything.

And if 20, why not 25? Why not 30? Why not 50? Wouldn't tracking everyone's top 75 be more accurately measuring the feelings of the electorate?
   46. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#2258909)
Wouldn't tracking everyone's top 75 be more accurately measuring the feelings of the electorate?

Yes, that's right. However, I doubt that many here want to do that.

There is no perfect system. The aim is to improve what we started with. "Given our system" does not have to mean that our system is a given.

1991 was just a year where the splintered backlog came to the forefront.

See, but that's the big point to this project: getting it right at the in-out line. After the 2008 election, during our year's hiatus, we want to leave the right guys standing outside the door. I'll say it again: Can we be sure that the vote will reflect the results of the group's analysis and conclusions?
   47. Michael Bass Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2258940)
The flaw in the "4 out of 54" argument is this; as Dan pointed out, that's how many people wanted him in "right now this year", not how many people wanted him in period. For example, the 3 people who had Boyer 4th may have had Jake Beckley or Quincy Trouppe or Edd Roush or Pete Browning in their top 3. Those people believe those guys should have been elected long ago, therefore Boyer is only out of the elect me slots due to disagreement with the electorate. A better way to measure support for a candidate is to look at PHOM (for those who do it). Some, like me, had a full 19 PHOMers on (and off!) the ballot last year.

As for the expanded ballot, surely we've gotten that discussion out of our system, no? The marginal increase in accuracy is by this point vastly outweighed by the fact that we've been doing elections the same way for over ninety "years"; to change it in the last 15 would just be silly; the time to make a change was the last time we went through this, and it was by a wide margin declined by the electorate.
   48. TomH Posted: December 12, 2006 at 05:55 PM (#2258945)
Agree with all DanG said above.

I could propose 'tweaks' to our system, but they all add complications and I doubt we would get consensus.

Our system probably will make borderline electees out of extreme peak or career candidates (such as Moore, and Beckley if/when he gets in). If we were each then to vote on our bottom, say, 10% of the HoM, these guys would be the first to go, despite the fact that many voters have them up high; because the anti-careerists and anti-peakers would toss them overboard without batting an eye. That's what happened in the Survivor exercise 5 years ago: Brooks Robbie and Pete Rose made the initial cut of the top 100, but were then immediately dismissed by the voters who disdained their low peaks. It's the difference between voting people IN and voting them OUT.
For all of the Hall of Fame's faults, I have to admit that the 75% requirement is a good number.
   49. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:06 PM (#2258956)
I agree that "elect me spots" is a big misnomer. Most of us have PHoMers up top--for me it's down through about #10 on the ballot. If I had had Boyer (e.g., though I didn't) at #11 and as my 1991 PHoMer, then the fact that I didn't have him #2 or #3 would quite clearly and emphatically NOT mean that his election was against my will. Now, there's probably few enough who had him in exactly that position.

But the point is that the alternative is for us to elect nobody in a year like this. To say, OK, we set out to elect 3, but we elected "none of the above." Do we really want to do that?
   50. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:12 PM (#2258964)
If anything I think Boyer shows the will of the electorate quite well (even though I strongly disagree with his induction).

Other than Carew there was no other very strong candidate (according to the electorate).

So Boyer was our compromise choice, 63% of our voters thought he deserved a vote, far more than any other candidate. So while only 4 had him top 3, the other 31, or the majority of the electorate is what really got him elected. That's a good mark for our system, not a bad one.

As for Moore/Fox/Wynn, I don't really see the issue with a candidate being named on less than 50% of the ballots getting in. I mean only 4 candidates were named on 50% of ballots (Carew, Boyer, Wynn, Fingers) and I don't necessarily see it as an issue if someone that was named on a few fewer ballots, but ranked much higher by those that liked him got in.

One interesting stat to keep track of might be the number of 1st place only votes that it would take to get elected. This year a candidate with 17 1st place votes only would have beat Moore for 3rd place. It would have taken 17 2nd place votes too, or 18 3rd place votes to get a guy in.

I do agree that if the number gets too much lower, you could have a case where a relatively small block of voters could ramrod someone through. So it's something to watch out for, but I don't think it will necessarily be an issue.

I do think we've become way too peak centric though. There's really no justification for anything other than a marginal (10-15%) boost for big seasons, but for some reason people get fixated on a peak as being greatness, when longevity can be just as valuable and great. If it was that easy to last forever playing very well, more players would.
   51. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#2258966)
to change it in the last 15 would just be silly

"Oh, me silly, too!" - From my son's favorite movie.

The reason I grind this axe to a nub is that if we have an outcome like this in the 2008 election (and there's every reason to think we will) I will not feel good about the result. Especially knowing that it could've been fixed if tradition had given way to reform.
   52. Mark Donelson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2258971)
Can we be sure that the vote will reflect the results of the group's analysis and conclusions?

No. But that's the case no matter what we do.
   53. Mark Donelson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:21 PM (#2258975)
Especially knowing that it could've been fixed if tradition had given way to reform.

See, I don't feel we "know" this.
   54. Mark Donelson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#2258979)
To expand on that: What precisely is the true will of the electorate? What electorate do we mean? The one right now? The overall balance of the electorate through all the "years" of voting, which has changed quite a lot?

I don't think these questions can be answered in any completely satisfying way, and short of that, you're talking uncertainty. So yes, there's going to be some uncertainty about the final results. I've come to terms with that, and I don't think any reforms are going to change it--they'll just change what the uncertainty is about slightly.
   55. Mark Donelson Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#2258983)
(By the way, despite all I've just written, I'm actually not opposed to going to 20 with the ballots. I just don't think it'll make much difference.)
   56. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2259005)
Can we be sure that the vote will reflect the results of the group's analysis and conclusions?

No. But that's the case no matter what we do.

I must disagree. If you're demanding hard evidence and mathematical "proofs", then no, I guess there is little in this universe you can be "sure" about. When I say "sure" it contains a great deal of intuitive sense. It's feeling good about the process and sensing that our system gave us a result that matches the tenor of the discussions and balloting of 111 "years".

OTOH, if I look at the results and see minority candidates elected, well, is that really who "we" wanted? Couldn't his election have been the result of The System and not a product of our Delphi method? To me, it doesn't seem like a "consensus" if less then half of us are supporting a guy.

The disquieting result of the 1991 election will only become more common. Every ballot will matter; a couple voters not showing up will make all the difference. New voters or returnees can drop in and swing things to their guy. That glut of nine guys (#3 to #11) separated by 55 points in 1991 will grow closer and larger. As we near the end, our debate should narrow down to only the guys in that glut.

So, OK, "we" don't "know" that "this" can be "fixed". We can play the hand that's dealt and say, oh, well, that's our system. Am I the only one here trying to be vigilant? Perhaps increasing awareness of the potential pitfalls is all the fix that's needed.
   57. DL from MN Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#2259014)
> I do think we've become way too peak centric though.

I think the voters with Charlie Keller or Dobie Moore ahead of Rod Carew need to think hard about this. If my spreadsheet had come up with that answer I would have thrown out the system. I always ask, would I have traded Rod Carew for Dobie Moore with full knowledge of the future? The answer is definitely not.
   58. Chris Cobb Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#2259016)
I do think we've become way too peak centric though.

I agree that peak is being overemphasized at present. I think that the sophisticated career arguments, e.g. the perspective of pennants added, careful consideration of the meaningfulness of value above replacement level as well as value of above average, need to be reinjected vigorously into the discussion.
   59. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#2259022)
I wrote, our debate should narrow down to only the guys in that glut.

On second thought, we need to expand our debate to include the glut candidates. Most discussions now focus heavily on newbies and recent candidates.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2259023)
>I do think we've become way too peak centric though.

Well, as a practical matter, Keller is the next one on the horizon. Talk us down.

Though I think Wynn, Fingers and maybe Roush could be construed as peak candidates, too; at least, they rank more highly on peak than they do on career, I think.

I always go back to my basic sense about "greatness." Either you got it or you don't. You (a player) cannot become great by hangin' around. That makes Dobie Moore a great player in a specific place in time, albeit briefly. But even so, that is something you could never really say about Jake Beckley or Rusty Staub or GVH. From day 1 through retirement, you'd go to the ballpark and you'd say, he's very good.
   61. rawagman Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#2259043)
Perhaps a more pertinent question about the system would be to ask if the number of elect-me's per year were differently divided, would the final makeup of the HOM be any different.
We see this to a large degree between 91 and 92. Does anyone beleive that if 1991 was an elect 2 and 1992 was an elect 3, Moore (or Wynn or Fox depending on a missing voter or two) though not honoured in '91, would have made it in '92?
Think about that. In 1991, we would have elected Carew and Boyer. In 1992, it looks like Seaver, Rose (I don't think enough will veto him) and who? Moore? Grich? Perez? Fox? Wynn?
Therein, in that question, lies the rub.
   62. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#2259052)
Either you got it or you don't.

Except that's dangerously close to the BBWAA voter mentality of "I know one when I see him". A Staub or a Beckley probably had more "great" games than Moore in his career. Moore had more "great" games per season, so that's worth a small bump. But the others played twice as many seasons, adding value to their teams for years that Moore is a zero.

Like we say, "a pennant is a pennant", I also like to say "value is value". "Hanging-around time" is not worthless. At the same time, a big peakster who adds 3-4 more wins to his team than Beckley at his peak is not likely to put his team "over the top" in any year, but he could. To me, that adds some value, but is not a quantum leap.
   63. Gary A Posted: December 12, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2259055)
sunnyday2 wrote on Dobie Moore:
<quote>...as Bill James writes:

"Short, barrel-chested man with long arms, hit .453 for Kansas City in 1924, with 139 hits in 79 games, leading Kansas City to a pennant and a World Series victory. Lifetime .365 hitter: probably the best 230-pound shortstop in baseball history."

I mean, in 1924, Babe Ruth went 46-121-.378 and Hornsby 25-94-.424. And then there was Dobie at .453. Discount that at .95 or .9 or .85 if you like, he's still probably the #3 position player in the game. And he's the only one of the 3 to win a pennant that year.</quote>


The HOF (Clark/Lester) study finds Moore with a .352 average in 1924, with 123 hits in 87 games, and a .346 average for his NNL career. The study may not have all the games, but 1) it is computerized and 2) has a quality control (editing) process. It's not subject to the large clerical and/or arithmetical blunders that plagued earlier compilations. Whenever there's a major disagreement between the HOF study and Holway, the Macmillan, Riley, etc., go with the HOF.
   64. Chris Fluit Posted: December 12, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2259099)
One of the reasons why the top backloggers- and now even an inductee- appear on less than half of the ballots is the rule against discarding "lost causes." If we were to change our system to something akin to the BBWAA or the VC, we wouldn't necessarily see this phenomenon. The VC says, "Here are 25 guys, now vote for up to 10 of them." The BBWAA says, "Here are 30-35 guys (depending on the number of new candidates), now vote for up to 10 of them." The HoM doesn't operate that way. We say, "Here's everybody, now vote for 15 of them." The difference between the 25 of the VC or the 30-35 of the BBWAA and the "everybody" of the HoM is huge. Imagine what our ballots might look like if we changed the rules to say "Here's the top 45, now vote for 15 of them." Every single voter had somebody outside of the top 25. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that every single voter had somebody outside of the top 45. If we were suddenly restricted to only voting for 15 out of 45 candidates, I think we'd be practically guaranteed that every inductee would be on at least half the ballots.

But would that really reflect the "will of the electorate" more than the current system? Is it better to tell voters that they can no longer support the candidacies of Tony Oliva or Eddie Cicotte or Jack Quinn so that we can be guaranteed that everybody who gets elected is on at least half of the ballots? I wasn't a part of this project when it got started but I'm guessing that was part of the discussion. And the decision was made to have permanent candidacy.

Personally, I think this is a lot of hot air about nothing. So Dobie Moore appeared on 26 ballots instead of 27. Is that what all the fuss is about? One ballot? Dobie Moore still garnered more points than any other candidate (not including his fellow inductees). He wasn't on as many ballots as Wynn or Fingers, but Moore's supporters had a higher opinion of him than those of Wynn or Fingers. He had 6 second-place votes, 2 more than any other candidate (Fingers was next with 4) and 5 more than Boyer who finished ahead of him on the ballot.

Whoever was elected in that third ballot spot was going to be controversial- whether it was Fox or Wynn or Moore. They all have their detractors. But in this election, Moore had the most support and that's the will of the electorate.
   65. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 08:29 PM (#2259131)
But would that really reflect the "will of the electorate" more than the current system?

Well, yes. It's yesterdays news, so I'll try to avoid stirring up the thermals, but we should've had a mechanism for discarding candidates, according to the will of our electorate. Instead, we conceded to the "rights of the individual" and allowed permanent candidacy. Mistake.

And the point is not Moore's election in 1991; it's more about who is likely to be elevated to the HoM because they have strong appeal to a minority bloc of voters as the project winds down.
   66. Daryn Posted: December 12, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#2259182)
And the point is not Moore's election in 1991; it's more about who is likely to be elevated to the HoM because they have strong appeal to a minority bloc of voters as the project winds down.

In the end, the difference between our system and Dan or anyone else's version of the perfect system will be about 3 to 5 borderline candidates. These candidates will be at the top of our backlog from 2007 to 2017 and then it will be the next five on the outside looking in. The virtue of our system post-2007 is that we will not only be able to say "this is our Hall" we will also be able to say "and these are the next ten guys" and therefore honour them that way until some or all of them are elected too.

Much ado about nothing. There is no brightline difference between those in our Hall and those in the top 10 of the backlog, particularly as that backlog may/will be eaten up over time.
   67. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2259192)
There is no brightline difference between those in our Hall and those in the top 10 of the backlog

In actuality, that's true. However, the perception is much different. Having a plaque and not having one is a brightline difference. Being voted a HoMer and struggling to keep your place in the backlog is a brightline difference. Saying "this is our hall" versus "here's my PHoM, the truly deserving", is a brightline difference. The critical in-out line is what this project is all about: defining that brightline difference.
   68. Juan V Posted: December 12, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#2259223)
As long as we´re talking about this:

I keep thinking that there is too much marginal value to being in a ballot. Right now, our 15th and 16th best candidates (whomever they may be for each individual voter) are probably separated by the thinnest of margins, yet the first guy gets 6 points and the second gets zero (as opposed to a two point margin between 14th and 15th, and one point between 13th and 14th). Based on this, maybe going to 20 slots would be a good idea. I´d guess that, if this sistem were implemented for these election, maybe Dobie would´ve taken a back seat to a more "balanced" candidate (Fox? Wynn?).

I, for one, would keep permanent elegibility. If there were a mechanism to discard candidates, I would no longer vote for Lazzeri and Fregosi, and maybe Ryan as well. Currently, I think that the bottom half of each ballot are borderliners at best, and I think that being able (or not) to get past a certain voter's teddy bears is an useful mechanism for drawing the in/out line.

I feel a sense of "2007 is our deadline", and with good reason. But the backloggers that are left at the gate that year shouldn´t despair, as they´ll keep having chances, even if there´s more real time between them. Hell, we´ll probably elect four backloggers in our first two yearly elections.
   69. DanG Posted: December 12, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#2259241)
I keep thinking that there is too much marginal value to being in a ballot.

Yeah, I think that's a valid point. For spots 16 to 20, giving 5-4-3-2-1 points makes sense.

we´ll probably elect four backloggers in our first two yearly elections

I like that thought, too. Really, the HoM after the 2012 election should look a lot better than it will after the 2007 election. With a year to discuss, we stand a good chance of voting in the right guys.
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 12, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#2259244)
The bottom line is how we stack up to the HOF once we catch up to them. I'm 100% certain that our crew will be a big improvement over them, which was Joe's vision from the start.
   71. rawagman Posted: December 12, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#2259245)
I would support moving up to 20 guys. It makes further sense in that we are now being introduced to guys who played all, or at least a significant portion of their careers playing in substantially bigger leagues than many of their forebears.
   72. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2006 at 10:34 PM (#2259252)
Right now my crib sheet tells me we will elect 6 current backloggers by 1998. I haven't done any figgerin' after that but for the sake of argument, let's say another 6.

That means Fox, Wynn, Trouppe, Roush, Keller and Fingers by 1998.

And it means Beckley, Browning, Redding, C. Jones, Walters and Bob Johnson after that.

And Duffy, Cravath, GVH, Oms and Grimes are on the outside looking in, but with a shot.

And Leach, Bresnahan, Staub, Cepeda, Tiant, Brock, Dean, Welch, Bo. Bonds, Cash, Doyle, Elliott, McGraw, Traynor, Rizzuto, Joss, Klein, Bando, Bancroft, Munson, Gomez, Chance, Lombardi, Aparicio, Maranville, Laz and Maz and Jack Chesbro will never make it.

Well, I've got "never gonna make its" on whom I think we're blowing it, and so do you.

But if it comes down to Bob Johnson in and Cravath is out--Cravath, after all, is on more ballots than Indian Bob--or if Cravath gets in with 1 elect-me while Bresnahan and Dean with 3 each don't--does that mean this whole thing has been a waste of time?
   73. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 12, 2006 at 11:47 PM (#2259305)
You know, it's an interesting question. If they played at the same time, if they were both 24, would you trade Rod Carew for Dobie Moore?

Would you trade a rangy, cannon-armed SS who hit for average and power for a so-so fielding second baseman who hit for high average and had speed? Probably, right? Would you trade Nomar for Carew, knowing only who the player was at age 24?

So I don't really see voting Moore or especially Keller over Carew, myself. But would I win a trade where I get Moore? I think I might.
   74. jimd Posted: December 13, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#2259363)
Elections where one vote could've made a difference:
(margin of victory 24 points or less)

1901 Wright-Glasscock 21
1906 Spalding-Sutton 8.5
1913 McPhee-McVey 4
1916 Stovey-Kelley,Flick 2,16
1929 Thompson-Sheckard 13
1934 Speaker-Collins 14
1940 Pike-Sewell 13
1960 Jennings-Medwick 13
1961 Averill-Ruffing,Medwick 13,21
1966 Ruffing-Medwick 24
1968 Ashburn-Mackey 24
1972 Doerr-Meckey 11
1975 Mackey-Brown,Sisler,Gordon,Mendez 1,7,12,12
1976 Brown-Sisler 3
1985 Sewell-Pierce,Waddell 18,20
1986 Waddell-Kiner 16
1987 Minoso-Childs 5
1991 Moore-Fox,Wynn 2,21

1975 remains our closest election, in more than one way.

Note that, with the exception of our two latest victims Fox and Wynn, everybody else who has lost a close election has become a HOMer (though Sewell supporters weren't at all sure that that would hold true).
   75. Chris Fluit Posted: December 13, 2006 at 01:06 AM (#2259391)
Note that, with the exception of our two latest victims Fox and Wynn, everybody else who has lost a close election has become a HOMer (though Sewell supporters weren't at all sure that that would hold true).

That's not just true of close elections. With the exception of George Van Haltren in 1932 (poor George), the runner-up in every election has eventually been inducted.

side note: GVH finished 3rd in 1932 ahead of eventual inductees Clark Griffith (4th), Lip Pike (5th), Hughie Jennings (7th), Rube Waddell (8th), Cupid Childs (12th), Jose Mendez (16th) and now Dobie Moore who placed a distant 30th on his first ballot.
   76. Patrick W Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#2259607)
Perhaps a more pertinent question about the system would be to ask if the number of elect-me's per year were differently divided, would the final makeup of the HOM be any different.

Van Haltren would've been elected in '31 if that was an elect 2 year. I believe that is the only case where the HOM makeup would've varied from its' current configuration. (Of course, that entirely depends on what other year would've dropped from elect 2 to 1; maybe it'd have been a net-zero change with Caruther's election withheld for a year)
   77. jimd Posted: December 13, 2006 at 04:15 AM (#2259635)
Van Haltren would've been elected in '31 if that was an elect 2 year.

Rube Foster finished second that election, but GVH was only two points behind. If 2nd place points were then given "elect-me" status (with those 4 bonus points), George would have turned around that slim deficit and been elected by the same margin (he had one more 2nd-place than Rube).

I think your overall point is well-taken. If just one of our "catch-up" HOM slots was pushed back to 1931 (or earlier), or if 1932 was the elect-1 year, then GVH might be a HOMer today. In the latter case, Rube Foster would have continued in the backlog and most likely displaced another HOMer in a cascade effect down through the years. Predicting who loses their seat, other than Moore, would require forecasting "cool-off" candidates, those who like VanHaltren and Welch and Sewell and Redding have lost support over the years (and sometimes regained it).
   78. Northpaw Posted: December 13, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#2259639)
Somewhere, Al Lopez is smiling.
   79. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 05:45 AM (#2259698)
"You (a player) cannot become great by hangin' around."


It's all a matter of perspective - there's a strong case for stating that 'hanging around' (which is a loaded description to begin with) at a very high though not superstar level IS a form of greatness. And a more valuable form of greatness that having an extremely high value for just 4 or 5 years.
   80. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:33 AM (#2259730)
FWIW, as a non-voter but a big fan of this project who looks forward to reading threads like this every two weeks, I hope you guys leave things as they are. I like it that reasonable, thoughtful people with more knowledge and statistical analytical abilities than I disagree.

The fact that yest loves Pie Traynor despite his nearly universal relegation to the HOVG makes this project more interesting to me. The PHOMs and the 70+ candidates receiving votes is a form of honouring the Tom Yorks, Ed Williamsons and Lou Brocks of the world, even though none is likely to ever be emplaqued.

Also there have been "lost causes" that were eventually elected. Dickey Pearce, Jose Mendez, Rube Waddell and a few others not only took a long time to get elected, they hung around in the twenties and thirties (ranks) for "years" before gaining momentum. A system that discarded them would, IMHO, been worse than the one you have. In fact, when I get the time, I'd like to chart the rankings of those who took longer than say 10 elections to get in. You won't find a consistent rise in the rankings of all of them.

Lastly, if you guys decide to expand the intense debate to the top backloggers, I'll be the first to enjoy reading it.
   81. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:54 AM (#2259751)
I don't mean to rain on the Boyer parade, but I was thinking about this on the Grich thread . . . what's the difference between him and Robin Ventura?

Ventura's career was exactly as long (within 3 PA), Ventura's OPS+ was basically the same (115/116, but Ventura's was more OBP-centric).

Ventura has 6 GG's to Boyer's 5.

Ventura had 5 years between 126-132 OPS+ for a peak and was in the low 120s 2x; Boyer hit 143 once, 135 once and 130 twice, and had 3 years in the low 120s.

They are basically the same player, with a slightly higher peak for Boyer. So I expect all of you Boyer supporters to be hitched up on the Ventura bandwagon as well . . .
   82. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:56 AM (#2259753)
Glad you are enjoying it Ivan . . . it's nice to see the lurkers speak up!
   83. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:38 AM (#2259774)
They are basically the same player, with a slightly higher peak for Boyer. So I expect all of you Boyer supporters to be hitched up on the Ventura bandwagon as well

As you say Boyer had the slightly higher peak so I have him ahead of Ventura. But if he were on the ballot today he might make the bottom or just be off it.

As a Mets fan I hope he gets a lot of support.
   84. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2006 at 02:03 PM (#2259877)
I agree with AJM: if you adjust Ventura's offense for his time in the DH league, and his career for two shortened prime seasons as a result of the strike, he looks like a serious candidate.
   85. sunnyday2 Posted: December 13, 2006 at 02:27 PM (#2259891)
Not to mention Ventura is one of the great 3B gloves of all time, too. No, really.
   86. jingoist Posted: December 13, 2006 at 05:28 PM (#2260107)
Robin had a very nice career; he belongs in the HoVG at least.
But to me it would be an enormouse stretch to say he was one of the 250 all-time best players in baseball history, even considering time-line adjustments. Nice prime; no descernable peak.

That said I find Boyers election dubious as well, but I'd vote for him lomg before I'd vote for Ventura.
   87. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2260115)
I have the impression that the bar rose for post-1970 thirdbasemen. That was one of the reasons why I was not voting for Boyer, but I can certainly see how he stuck out more in 1955-65 than he would have compared to post-1970 guys.
   88. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2260187)
It's all a matter of perspective - there's a strong case for stating that 'hanging around' (which is a loaded description to begin with) at a very high though not superstar level IS a form of greatness. And a more valuable form of greatness that having an extremely high value for just 4 or 5 years.


Really? There is a strong case? If so, I'd love to hear it. I think the careerists are so convinced of the superiority of their position that no one has ever bothered to really argue the point from their side. I'm of the position that it's exponentially harder (more rare?) to produce each extra win over replacement, and that teams don't build for time-horizons longer than 5 years. I also think that longevity is significantly a matter of luck, and don't support penalizing an obviously great player (by a quantitative measurement) because his back went out on him (Keller, Rosen).

Now, I'll grant that longevity counts. If a player has 10 year prime above a HoM peak level (which I generally define as ~9 BP WARP), that it's as if he's had 2 or 3 HoM peaks-and those players immediately go to the top of the ballot. Hell, I voted for Carew, and I'll vote for Rose #1, basically because of that longevity rewarding principle.

But then we get to the backlog, and the question becomes, "do I pick the guy who was great for 5 years (Keller, with credit)" or "do I pick the guy who was very good for 10 years (Staub, say). And that's the argument I think the careerists haven't properly made; why pick the worse, but longer-lasting player? To me, it's like the old saw about, "the food was terrible, and the portions were small, too!". If a guy was never great, who cares how long he wasn't great for?

If there's a tone of frustration in this post, it's because I'm dismayed that the careerists, seeing their numbers decline among the electorate, are arguing to change the rules to improve the fortunes of their candidates despite diminishing support, and to decrease the chances of peak player receiving induction. Careerists will never vote for a peak player (becuase of their aggregate value-added systems), but peakers will vote for many career players because most long careers correlate to high peaks. Thus, the phenomenon of a few voters voting peak candidates in elect me spots, but many careerists keeping them off-ballot, is a natural development of the voting process. An attempt to jigger the system to counteract this pattern is just a gerrymander to force the election of more career players.
   89. DanG Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:34 PM (#2260189)
Most Years Eligible Until Election

82 Childs
71 Waddell
60 Griffith
60 Moore
54 Mendez
53 Jennings
47 Sewell
44 Sisler
43 Pike
34 Pearce
32 Caruthers
30 Rixey
28 Thompson
27 Mackey
27 Kiner

Moore actually returned from the dead, receiving zero votes in 1934 and 1935. As late as 1950 he finished 39th with 4.1%, before rising to election.
   90. DanG Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#2260194)
An attempt to jigger the system to counteract this pattern is just a gerrymander to force the election of more career players.

I don't see this at all. I could as easily argue that our system is flawed beyond reason because so many peak-y players have been elected.
   91. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#2260197)
I don't think careerists are declining; else, why would Fox be doing so well? (my problem with Fox is level, not length.) But let's not change the rules this late in the game; if we did so and got a Moore/Fox situation it would greatly damage the legitimacy of the result, which is the most important thing (doesn't matter if Fox gets in soon, would matter horribly if he does a Sewell/VanH and hangs around for decades.)
   92. DanG Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2260208)
a matter of luck, and don't support penalizing an obviously great player (by a quantitative measurement) because his back went out on him (Keller, Rosen).
So you're crediting guys with injury time? A player who's injured from the stress of the game deserves no extra credit - it's not a "penalty", it's failure to provide value for years he lacked the durability to play.
   93. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:20 PM (#2260264)
but peakers will vote for many career players because most long careers correlate to high peaks

Actually that correlation means that careerists will vote for the long-career, high-peakers.

At this point all the long-career high-peakers will tower over the backlog and be inducted with ease with strong support from 50+ voters.
   94. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:26 PM (#2260276)
The problem currently is that long career, moderate peak players get support from both factions and zoom in easily, whereas equally long and Meritorious careers without the moderate peaks wait around for 79 years. Really high peaks and long careers, I agree, get inducted instantly by everybody, but there's no evidence that moderate peaks and some valleys beats no peak and a plateau in terms of pennants produced.
   95. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#2260300)
An attempt to jigger the system to counteract this pattern is just a gerrymander to force the election of more career players.

This issue came up in the late-60s and we experimented with a possible system jigger for a while. The issue is not career vs. peak. The issue is candidates that receive a small number of very high votes. In this election, 17 #1 votes alone would get a player inducted. That's a bit extreme, but as the backlog continues to grow deeper, it will be possible to elect players with less support. It could happen just as easily with a career candidate as it could a peak candidate. Funny that it came up again this year. Moore was on fewer than half the ballots, but of the uninducted, only Wynn and Fingers were on more ballots.

The suggestion to go to deeper ballots is just a desire to get more of a sample of the electorates opinion. The idea was shot down before and I suspect it will get shot down again... but we're a very self-analytical group here and I like that fact that questions like these come up periodically.
   96. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2260397)
Really high peaks and long careers, I agree, get inducted instantly by everybody

Right, of course!

But look at the list that Dan presented, here I'll run it again:

Most Years Eligible Until Election

82 Childs
71 Waddell
60 Griffith
60 Moore
54 Mendez
53 Jennings
47 Sewell
44 Sisler
43 Pike
34 Pearce
32 Caruthers
30 Rixey
28 Thompson
27 Mackey
27 Kiner

Just about all of them a peak guy except for Mackey and Rixey (career guys) and Griffith (a prime guy, I guess...). Could some or any of these be true:
1) That perhaps we are indeed tilting toward peak?
2) That peak guys aren't shuffled immediately up the lists except by their biggest supporters?
3) That peak guys have considerable staying power and build support with time?
4) That career guys get elected relatively quickly or don't get elected at all?
5) That maybe there's just more peak-only guys out there than career-only guys? (Regardless of the implication that presents for making value-based judgments about each)
6) That even the peak voters don't all agree on who the best peak guys are at any given moment?
7) That only now, in the latter stages of things, are peak voters as a bloc forming a consensus because the pool of peak-only candidates is narrowing?

I don't know if any of these thoughts are true, I just rattled off some possibilities to see if any of them stick.
   97. sunnyday2 Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#2260411)
>If a guy was never great, who cares how long he wasn't great for?

Well said.

Of course, you can win pennants with HoVG talent. But we're not building a roster here, so there's a different standard. I mean, by all means give Carlos Lee $100 mil. Just don't put him in the HoM.
   98. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:38 PM (#2260429)
I'm not sure I'd agree with all of those judgements: I think Thompson and Sewell are more prime guys - they didn't have long careers, but it isn't a case of "They were unbelievable for 5 years". Childs might fall in that category as well, but maybe not. Pearce is such an unusual case that he's probably not relevant, but I thought of him as a career guy, if anything.

On a different subject: After all the fun we had Monday night, a thought occurred to me. Is there any interest in having "election night" IRC chats, at least in years where the elections are contested?
   99. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#2260433)
Who are the big low-peak long-career inductees? Carey & Bell come to mind. Bell was in the backlog for a while. Slaughter went first ballot.
   100. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#2260453)
I saw mackey as a career candidate and I think that Ashburn may be one as well.

And there are plenty of pitchers, guys like Rixey, Ruffing, and Wynn that have lower peaks and longer careers.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0384 seconds
49 querie(s) executed