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, February 11, 2007

1994 Results: The Hall of Merit Makes Way For Niekro, Simmons and Sutton!

In his second year of eligibility, legendary knuckleballer Phil Niekro shined among the candidates with a super 98% of all possible points for induction into the Hall of Merit.

First-year candidate and star catcher Ted Simmons scored an impressive 82% of all possible points to win the second spot for election.

Another newbie, Dodger great Don Sutton, nabbed the third spot for HoM immortality with 49% of all possible points.

95 candidates made it to at least one ballot, breaking the 1991 record by 1.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Quincy Trouppe, Jimmy Wynn, Charlie Keller, Nellie Fox, Edd Roush, Pete Browning and Rollie Fingers.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    4  Phil Niekro             1300   55  52  1     1              1                  
 2  n/e  Ted Simmons             1076   54     27  9  4  4  4  2  1        1        2   
 3  n/e  Don Sutton               647   38      6 10  3  5  3     3     3  1  1  2     1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    5  Quincy Trouppe           390   29         3  2  4  2  1  5  6        1  2  2  1
 5    7  Jimmy Wynn               369   33         1  3     4  2     4  4  1  5  2  3  4
 6    9  Charlie Keller           354   25   1  3  1  3  3  2  2     2     1     2  2  3
 7    6  Nellie Fox               345   25      2  2  3  1  3  1  2  2  2  1  2  2  1  1
 8    8  Edd Roush                324   24      1  1  3  3  5  2  1  1     1  1  1  1  3
 9   12  Pete Browning            305   22      2  3  3     1  2  1     2  1  4        3
10   10  Rollie Fingers           262   20      2  1  1  1  3  2  1  2     1        5  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   11  Cannonball Dick Redding  260   20      1  1  2  1  2  2  1  2  2  2     1  2  1
12   14  Bob Johnson              256   21         1  1  2  3  2     1  1  5  1  3     1
13   13  Jake Beckley             256   19   1  1  2  2  1        4     1     2  2     3
14   18  Charley Jones            253   16      1  5  1  1  1  1     1  2        3      
15   15  Bucky Walters            238   18         1     3  2  3     3  2  2  2         
16   16  Tony Perez               227   15      2  1  3     1  1  2  3  1              1
17   17  Hugh Duffy               222   15      1  1  1  3     3  3     1  2            
18   19  Gavvy Cravath            174   17            1  1  1     1  1     4  2  2  3  1
19   20  Alejandro Oms            174   16            2  1  1     1  1  1  2  1  3  2  1
20   21T George Van Haltren       162   12         1  1  2     2  2  1  1        1     1
21   21T Roger Bresnahan          161   12         2  1     1     1  2  2     2  1      
22   23  Tommy Leach              156   13               2     2  1  2  3  1     2      
23   31  Dizzy Dean               131   10      2     1     1        1        2  2  1   
24  n/e  Graig Nettles            130   12               1     1  3  1  2     1        3
25   25  Rusty Staub              130   10         1     1     2  1  1     3  1         
26   24  Burleigh Grimes          129   11      1           1  1     2  1  2     2     1
27   36  John McGraw              121    9            2  1  1  2        2              1
28   37  Mickey Welch             117    9      1        1  2  1        1  1        1  1
29   26  Luis Tiant               107   11         1     1                 1  2  2  1  3
30   33  Larry Doyle              106    7         1  2  1     2                       1
31   28  Norm Cash                105    9         1        1     2        1  1  2  1   
32   29  Lou Brock                103    9            2        1        2  1     2  1   
33   27  Orlando Cepeda           100    9                     1  1  3  2     1        1
34   35  Bob Elliott               94   10            1              1     1  2  3  1  1
35   46  Reggie Smith              91    8               1     2  1        1  1  1  1   
36   30  Ken Singleton             90    9            1     1        1        2  1  2  1
37   32  Bobby Bonds               90    8                  1     2     2  2        1   
38   38  Elston Howard             89    9                     2     1  1  1  1     1  2
39   39  Phil Rizzuto              89    7         1     1  1           2        1     1
40   41T Vic Willis                83    7               2  1        1        2        1
41  n/e  Dave Concepción           77    5      1     1     1        1     1            
42   34  Tommy Bridges             73    6                     2  1  1  1     1         
43   40  Sal Bando                 71    7               1              2  2        1  1
44   41T Carl Mays                 62    5                     2     1  2               
45   56  Dave Bancroft             61    7                        1        2  1     1  2
46   48T Pie Traynor               61    4   1                 1  1        1            
47   51  Ron Cey                   55    5                        2  1        1  1      
48   43  Ben Taylor                54    4         1              1     1        1      
49   44  Vern Stephens             50    5                           1  1  2        1   
50   50  Addie Joss                49    4            1           1        1  1         
51   61  Chuck Klein               45    3         1     1                          1   
52   52  Bill Monroe               42    4                  1           1  1           1
53T  53  Jimmy Ryan                41    4                     1        1        2      
53T  48T Ed Williamson             41    4               1                    2     1   
55   59T Tony Oliva                41    3            1  1                       1      
56T  62T Lefty Gomez               37    3               1           1        1         
56T  45  Wally Schang              37    3            1                 1     1         
58   57  Fred Dunlap               35    2         1              1                     
59  n/e  Bruce Sutter              34    3            1                 1              1
60   59T Frank Chance              33    3                     1  1                    1
61T  72  Sam Rice                  31    3                  1                 1     1   
61T  66T Al Rosen                  31    3                           1     1  1         
63   55  Jim Kaat                  30    2               1     1                        
64T  54  Ed Cicotte                29    3               1                          1  1
64T  66T Gene Tenace               29    3                  1                       2   
66   47  Thurman Munson            28    3                  1                       1  1
67   58  Frank Howard              26    3                                    2  1      
68T  65  Ernie Lombardi            22    2                           1     1            
68T  62T Dizzy Trout               22    2                        1           1         
70  n/e  Luke Easter               22    1         1                                    
71   74T Bus Clarkson              21    3                                       1  1  1
72T  66T Luis Aparicio             21    2                        1              1      
72T  69  Rabbit Maranville         21    2                        1              1      
74   76T Tony Mullane              20    2                     1                       1
75   70  Don Newcombe              17    2                                 1        1   
76   62T Urban Shocker             16    2                                    1     1   
77   73  Wilbur Cooper             15    1                  1                           
78   74T George J. Burns           14    2                                          2   
79   76T Fielder Jones             14    1                     1                        
80T  79T Artie Wilson              13    1                        1                     
80T  79T Tony Lazzeri              13    1                        1                     
80T  76T Sam Leever                13    1                        1                     
83  n/e  Hack Wilson               11    1                              1               
84T  81T Dutch Leonard             10    1                                 1            
84T  81T Cecil Travis              10    1                                 1            
86   85T Kiki Cuyler                9    1                                    1         
87   85T Mickey Vernon              8    1                                       1      
88T n/e  George Kell                7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Herman Long                7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Leroy Matlock              7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Bill Mazeroski             7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Virgil Trucks              7    1                                          1   
88T  85T Bobby Veach                7    1                                          1   
94T  84  Steve Garvey               6    1                                             1
94T n/e  Bill Madlock               6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Tommy Bond(81T), Jack Quinn(71).
Ballots Cast: 55
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 11, 2007 at 09:51 PM | 154 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:02 AM (#2296438)
Congratulations to Phil, Ted and Don!
   2. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:04 AM (#2296441)
HOF-not-HOM through 1994
 
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 Fingers
Rollie
18 Gomez
Lefty
19 Grimes
Burleigh
20 Hafey
Chick
21 Haines
Jesse
22 Hooper
Harry
23 Hoyt
Waite
24 Hunter
Catfish
25 Jackson
Travis
26 Johnson
Judy
27 Joss
Addie
28 Kell
George
29 Kelly
George
30 Klein
Chuck
31 Lazzeri
Tony
32 Lindstrom
Freddie
33 Lombardi
Ernie
34 Manush
Heinie
35 Maranville
Rabbit
36 Marquard
Rube
37 McCarthy
Tommy
38 McGraw
John 
39 Pennock
Herb
40 Rice
Sam
41 Rizzuto
Phil
42 Roush
Edd
43 Schalk
Ray
44 Schoendienst
Red
45 Tinker
Joe
46 Traynor
Pie
47 Waner
Lloyd
48 Welch
Mickey
49 Wilson
Hack
50 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 Grich
Bobby
23 Groh
Heinie
24 Hack
Stan
25 Hill
Pete
26 Hines
Paul
27 Jackson
Joe*
28 JohnsonHome Run
29 Mackey
Biz
30 Magee
Sherry
31 McPhee
Bid
32 McVey
Cal
33 Méndez
José
34 Minoso
Minnie
35 Moore
Dobie
36 Niekro
Phil
37 Pearce
Dickey
38 Pierce
Billy
39 Pike
Lip
40 Richardson
Hardy
41 Rogan
Bullet Joe
42 Rose
Pete*
43 SantoRon
44 Santop
Louis
45 Sheckard
Jimmy
46 Simmons
Ted
47 Start
Joe
48 Stearnes
Turkey
49 Stovey
Harry
50 Suttles
Mule
51 Sutton
Don
52 Sutton
Ezra
53 Torre
Joe
54 Torriente
Cristobal
55 Wells
Willie
56 White
Deacon
57 Williams
Smokey Joe
58 Wilson
Jud
 
*  not eligible for the HOF 
   3. Juan V Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2296457)
Yeah, overrated and all, but Sutton got into our Hall before the other one.
   4. OCF Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2296462)
Average consensus score: -2.9. Highest possible +13.

Carl G: +9
Howie Menckel: +6
Chris Cobb: +6
Esteban Rivera: +4
Andrew M: +4
andrew siegel: +4
DanG: +3
Mike Webber: +3
Devin McCullen: +3
Trevor P: +3
AJM: +3
...
OCF: 0
...
John Murphy: -2
...
Adam Schafer: -3 (median)
Dan R: -3
...
Rusty Priske: -7
rico vanian: -7
karlmagnus: -8
Al Peterson: -8
Mark Donelson: -9
KJOK: -9
Michael Bass: -10
rawagman: -10
jimd: -11
Jeff M: -12
yest: -27
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2296467)
John Murphy: -2

Slightly above-average even without Sutton. Not too bad.
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:56 AM (#2296489)
all-time 'votes points' thru 1994 - those still eligible in 1995 election are in CAPS. electees not in caps.
Redding moves within 2 pts of the top 10....CJones joins the top dozen.. Bresnahan and Leach climb together (don't they always?) to spots 16-17... Roush passes Moore, Rixey, and Caruthers for 21st... Cravath remains on path to claim the 25th and final spot before it's over, unless Fox somehow keeps up his support and yet still misses the HOM.

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
BECKLEY.... 24574
VAN HALTREN 24169.5
DUFFY...... 23664.5
BROWNING... 21175.5
Childs..... 18484
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
Jennings... 16976
WELCH...... 16437
Sisler..... 13892

REDDING.... 13890
CJONES..... 13498
Pike....... 13399
Sewell..... 12769
Mendez..... 12555
BRESNAHAN.. 12384
TLEACH..... 12372
Thompson... 12349
RYAN....... 12192.5
Bennett.... 11503

ROUSH...... 10922
Moore...... 10904
Rixey...... 10789
Caruthers.. 10704
Beckwith.... 9896

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Cravath 8313, Doyle 8048, Walters 7543, Grimes 7379, Trouppe 7025, Monroe 6749, Fox 6485, Schang 5781, Oms 5711, Williamson 5653, Keller 5595, BJohnson 5555, McGraw 5547, Willis 4043)

not quite
Joss 3894, JWynn 3824, Dean 3545, Elliott 3476
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: February 13, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2296544)
Lookit karl! Nowhere near the bottom!
   8. Mike Webber Posted: February 13, 2007 at 04:08 AM (#2296547)
Lookit karl! Nowhere near the bottom!


Karl is the same as ever, the rest of us are just getting crazier.
   9. Chris Cobb Posted: February 13, 2007 at 04:21 AM (#2296557)
It was a career candidate year, so the consensus moved in karl's direction.

Given that we are really getting short on peak candidates (as the voters have tended to be peakier of late), the high backlog is filling up with more career-oriented types. I wouldn't be surprised, therefore, to see karlmagnus closer to the center for a while than the really committed peak voters, at least until the balance of backlog candidates evens out a bit. Only the (fortunately) inimitable yest has managed to stay farther from the consensus than some of the extreme peak folks this time around.
   10. Paul Wendt Posted: February 13, 2007 at 05:01 AM (#2296602)
I was beginning to wonder whether I would ever see another one of these Results tables. Has it been only one extra week? :-)

With Charley Jones vacating the spot there is a notable gap above Cravath and Oms, suggesting to me fourteen viable incumbents through Duffy:
Quincy Trouppe, Nellie Fox, nine outfielder-1Bmen, and three pitchers
   11. rawagman Posted: February 13, 2007 at 09:13 AM (#2296689)
Wow, I am les consensus minded than karlmagnus. Mind you, that's a little misleading. I didn't give Simmons an elect-me, but he did waltz straight intp my PHOM. I just had others in my personal backlog that I like even more. Sutton, on the other hand, at least I can study him for a few more weeks. Or months. Whatever. :>)
   12. TomH Posted: February 13, 2007 at 01:36 PM (#2296712)
request: can someone post the old this-voter-is-best-of-of-that-voter table?
NOT who was best friend of Bob Elliott, but which voter was most like me (and most UNlike me?)
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: February 13, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2296714)
TomH, there's nobody like you! ;-)

Was yest most UNlike everybody?
   14. OCF Posted: February 13, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2296895)
Tom - it's a custom job, that I don't run every year. Not sure whether or not I'll have time in the next few days - I'll see.
   15. DL from MN Posted: February 13, 2007 at 07:40 PM (#2296926)
Big jumps up for McGraw, Welch and Reggie Smith. Cepeda and Singleton drop.
   16. OCF Posted: February 13, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2296942)
Big jumps up for McGraw, Welch and Reggie Smith. Cepeda and Singleton drop.

Noise. I wouldn't put too much stock in that unless the players in question are on the brink of induction.
   17. DL from MN Posted: February 13, 2007 at 08:10 PM (#2296954)
Looking at those on the brink for near-off ballot support.

Trouppe 6 weak supporters
Wynn 3
Keller 7
Fox 5
Roush 8

It doesn't look like Jimmy Wynn has the support to jump over Trouppe unless it's present in the non-voters. Things look pretty good for Edd Roush over the course of the next 3 ballots especially since most of his weak supporters like Wynn better. Once Wynn is elected he'll move onto ballots.
   18. TomH Posted: February 13, 2007 at 08:37 PM (#2296973)
Thanks OCF
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: February 13, 2007 at 10:09 PM (#2297053)
#17. But none of them are going to be going backward this year, are they? I mean, with Niekro, Simmons and Sutton going away, the average ballot is losing more than 2.5 players. With Schmidt, Evans and whatever coming on, I'd guess you have less than 2.5 newbies on the average ballot. And after that they'll be moving up, up and up.
   20. jimd Posted: February 14, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2297364)
suggesting to me fourteen viable incumbents through Duffy

We have 39 slots available 1995 thru 2007. The BBWAA elected 18 guys during this period. 2 of them, Sutter and Perez, have not gotten the warmest of receptions here. Assuming we rubberstamp the rest (including Puckett), then there are 23 slots available for the backlog and the "newlog" of incoming non-HOF selections. Some of those guys appear to have significant support (the Evanses, Trammell, and Blyleven). That puts the viable backlog down perhaps as far as nineteen (Tommy Leach). Every spot that goes instead to a more marginal or controversial "newlogger" such as Whitaker, Gossage, or McGwire takes a slot away from a backlogger.

It's going to be an interesting 9 months.

Quincy Trouppe, Nellie Fox, nine outfielder-1Bmen, and three pitchers

Looking at this from the point of "arm/bat/glove" balance. The existing HOM is about 56/71/65 compared to an "ideal" 58/67/67. The BBWAA selections have a strong "glove" bias (though they certainly could hit). I peg them as 2/5/9 (counting both Yount and Molitor as half-and-half). Adding in Blyleven et al, and the count is 59/77/76 compared to "ideal" 64/74/74; HOM is a little light on pitching but pretty balanced overall.

However, as Paul points out, the high backlog is heavy on the bats. A HOM with 30% pitching, and 35% each of bats and gloves yields a 69/81/81 distribution. Given the apparent shortage of new pitching candidates upcoming and the lack of popular old pitching candidates in the backlog, it would appear that the pitching will fall a bit short, but not by a statistically significant amount, with the backlog bats taking up the slack.
   21. OCF Posted: February 14, 2007 at 10:29 AM (#2297474)
For each voter, the closest, furthest other than yest, and furthest other voter, with a similarity measure on a 0-100 scale:

Adam Schafer: Carl G 64, ronw 27, yest 25
AJM: Thane of Bagarth 82, Jeff M 24, yest 22
Al Peterson: KJOK 64, Jeff M 24, yest 18
Andrew M: Carl G 79, Jeff M 35, yest 27
andrew siegel: Chris Cobb 79, Howie Menckel 37, yest 15
Brent: Mike Webber 67, karlmagnus 32, yest 19
Carl G: Howie Menckel 80, jimd 42, yest 25
Chris Cobb: Carl G 79, jimd 42, yest 18

This is going to be time consuming to list them all; jumping ahead:

OCF: Devin McCullen 68, Jeff M 22, yest 14
TomH: Trevor P 69, mulder & scully 31, yest 20
yest: rico vanian 55; KJOK, Michael Bass, Tiboreau each 9

rico vanian: SWW 71, mulder & scully 27
SWW: Don F 73, mulder & scully 27 (yest 30)

- more later
   22. TomH Posted: February 14, 2007 at 01:34 PM (#2297490)
u da man, OCF.

and I never knew Trevor was THAT insightful!
   23. DL from MN Posted: February 14, 2007 at 04:29 PM (#2297583)
I think a fairer distribution would be 33/33/33. I'm not sure why pitching should be underrepresented in the HoM. There is some evidence (roster sizes, value calculations) that pitching should be an even higher percentage, such as 36%. You're telling me our likely path is toward 27%. I think we need a course correction. I find it hard to fathom that we have a 12 man pitching staff now but only 25% of players worth putting in a Hall of Merit were pitchers.
   24. Juan V Posted: February 14, 2007 at 04:35 PM (#2297589)
Great stuff OCF!!!
   25. OCF Posted: February 14, 2007 at 04:38 PM (#2297595)
If anyone wants to see the whole 55 by 55 array behind post #21, send me an email (through my BTF profile) and I'll email the file back.

The single highest agreement is an 88.

Dan Rosenheck: 'zop 88, Brent 33, yest 18
'zop: Dan R 88, rawagman 31, yest 14
   26. rawagman Posted: February 14, 2007 at 10:07 PM (#2297876)
Just browsed through the Excel file, OCF. Thanks! It confirmed something I had long suspected - outside of yest and I beleive karlmagnus in most cases, I have the real lowest consensus (in an optimistic light - unique) voter here. I don't have anybody who is as diametrically in opposition to me of yestian proportions, but after yest, I have the lowest of the highest compatibility scores. Eric Chalek at 58 is my closest friend.
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 14, 2007 at 10:32 PM (#2297895)
I am your best friend, wags...but your not bestest friend. That is Sean Gilman, who is in the 70s. Since I know you all want to know who my best friends are...

BEST FRIENDS
Sean Gilman 73
Mulder & Scully 65
Mike Webber 61
Rick A 61
Andrew M. 60

MOST AVERAGEST BEST FRIENDS (47 is my average)
AJM 48
David Foss 48
Jeff M 46
jimd 46
Michael Bass 46

LEAST BEST BEST FRIENDS
Rob Wood 28
Patrick W 28
Rico Vanian 29
Jim Sp 33
Tom D 33
SWW 33

MY YESTEST FRIEND
Yest 17
   28. OCF Posted: February 14, 2007 at 10:41 PM (#2297902)
Unless you plan to suddenly see the light and start voting for Pie Traynor, Hack Wilson, and so on, yest is likely to stay your yestest friend.
   29. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 14, 2007 at 10:52 PM (#2297913)
He'll always be my yestest friend, no matter what. The funny thing is that Traynor and Wilson are not exactly miles away from my ballot at this time. Traynor is somewhere between Nettles and Evans and is potentially HOMable for me, while Wilson, is very close to the razor-thing line that Nettles is on, only at CF, of course. This is without accounting for the several NgL players in CF who are on on my board. So Wilson will slide three to five slots, but Traynor, with only Jud Wilson above, is likely to remain ballot-worthy for me.
   30. OCF Posted: February 15, 2007 at 01:20 AM (#2298032)
In roughly the same format as Eric's #27, only for me. My average is 51

BEST
Devin McCullen 68
Tom D 65
andrew siegel 65
Andrew M 65
Trevor P 65

AVERAGEST
Adam Schafer 51
Howie Menckel 51
favre 51
dan b 51
(I have 19 other voters between 47 and 55 - a lot of packing into the middle)

LEAST
rawagman 40
Rick A 40
Max Parkinson 38
Jim Sp 38
Mark Donelson 35
Jeff M 22
yest 14
(So yest is an outlier but Jeff M is also something of an outlier for me.)
   31. Sean Gilman Posted: February 15, 2007 at 01:22 AM (#2298034)
This thread is so much friendlier than the Rice thread . . . .
   32. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 15, 2007 at 01:36 AM (#2298040)
Somehow, Sean, when you said that, I got a much, much friendlier feeling about this thread. Can't explain why that might be....
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: February 15, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2298098)
Can anybody provide the 5 second summary of the Rice thread? What are they fightin' about?
   34. DavidFoss Posted: February 15, 2007 at 05:52 AM (#2298115)
Can anybody provide the 5 second summary of the Rice thread? What are they fightin' about?

It keeps changing. The most prolific poster keeps making bold statements with high hubris that aren't backed up very well, someone will point out the flaw in his statement by saying "A", but then the debate will completely shift gears and fixate on "A" (or how "A" is worded). More unbacked up bold statements follow and the cycle continues.

It went on for a very long time on how slow Ken Singleton was and how much he hurt the Orioles with his bad baserunning.

There's a certain level of smack talk, but it doesn't really appear that mean-spirited (or at least people are being more dismissive of each other rather than taking things too personally). It's intellectually frustrating to read though. I used to read usenet debates back in rec.sport.baseball's heyday several years ago. There was a very low signal to noise level there, but you could learn some cool stuff sifting through the junk and focusing on a few extremely knowledgeable posters. I'm not getting the same feeling reading that thread, though. Maybe others would disagree, though.
   35. Chris Fluit Posted: February 15, 2007 at 06:24 AM (#2298122)
I don't think I agree with David's assessment. A couple of "shut up if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute"s have seemed mean-spirited to me. But I've been more amused than anything else. Who would have guessed that the Jim Rice thread would be more controversial than Dick Allen or Pete Rose.
   36. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 15, 2007 at 06:29 AM (#2298126)
"The most prolific poster keeps making bold statements with high hubris that aren't backed up very well, someone will point out the flaw in his statement by saying "A", but then the debate will completely shift gears and fixate on "A" (or how "A" is worded). More unbacked up bold statements follow and the cycle continues."

That sounds like Kevin, is it? I bet it is.
   37. mulder & scully Posted: February 15, 2007 at 06:44 AM (#2298128)
It started a poster commenting about Jim Rice being the most feared hitter in baseball during the late 1970s. Poster A disagreed by using various statistics. Poster B backed up most feared. Debate ensued over how to determine "most feared" status. Focus momentarily shifted to IBB of which Rice had few. Debate over who gets IBBs: 8th place hitters vs. Bonds and Ted Williams; and that Fenway players don't get a lot them vs. 25% of league leaders in 50+ years played in Boston.
Poster A then started to use "modern" "advanced stats (WARP/RC)" to compare Rice to various compatriots. B responded with number of r, hr, and tb. A brought up context for Rice and Fenway and for comparison's sake, Singleton. B disregarded context, league and ballpark both, for absolute totals. A brought various players who were better using advanced metrics. B "but they weren't as feared." "their counting numbers aren't as good."
At some point, Rice is called "one of the most feared."
At some point, Rice and Singleton are compared for all around play and Singleton is found wanting by B, but all admit Brett and Schmidt were better from 1977-1980. While Fenway's hitting context is ignored by B, B does bring up the Green Monster in defense of Rice's defense.
Some discussion by B that Rice reached special numbers - 400 tb, 420 RC in 3 years, hr numbers, xbh numbers with A replying that several other players had similar totals in the same period and Rice had more PA than others.
Some discussion of MVP voting.
In the 200s, some posters begin to bring up various facts about context.
Mark Donelson (sp?) is called a d ick head by B for some reason.
Around 275, I make a comment that I want there to be a separate argument thread for non-HoM voters/posters to come and continue long-time flame wars so I won't waste 90 minutes reading a long thread with little actual information in it.
By the time I wake up, (1 yr. olds with the flu, fun times :) ) the thread is in the 350s and I didn't go back until just now.
Around the 400s, there is some interesting information about the radical difference in run scoring between Fenway in the late 70s vs. Memorial Stadium.

That's more than 5 seconds, but ...

Oh, and if anyone wants to know the Secret to the book The Secret, let me know.
   38. mulder & scully Posted: February 15, 2007 at 06:48 AM (#2298130)
Re: 36:
Shhhh...
   39. mulder & scully Posted: February 15, 2007 at 06:49 AM (#2298131)
Oh, I forgot, neither A nor B think Rice is a HoMer. They are just arguing about various topics - at least up through post 275.
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 15, 2007 at 03:15 PM (#2298187)
Debate ensued over how to determine "most feared" status.

What is is?

At some point in time I asked whether anyone was voting for Rice and had an argument for him. No one responded for a bout 50-100 posts, then our good friend Daryn bravely waded in. And that was the last time I saw anyone making a case for Rice instead of just arguing to argue.

Perhaps best if we never, ever talk about it again.... ; 0
   41. DanG Posted: February 15, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2298207)
The Rice thread takes on the classic debates:

- Which weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?

- Which makes you deader: an arrow shot into your heart or a nuclear bomb?

Are there more?
   42. DavidFoss Posted: February 15, 2007 at 04:16 PM (#2298225)
I don't think I agree with David's assessment. A couple of "shut up if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute"s have seemed mean-spirited to me. But I've been more amused than anything else.

Yeah, perhaps I've sifted through too many usenet flame wars. Certainly a few harsh insults in there that m&s mentioned that came from out in left field. If our regular discussion threads became like that, we'd definitely lose contributor participation.
   43. DavidFoss Posted: February 15, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2298233)
Are there more?

- Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?
   44. yest Posted: February 15, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2298291)
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, Catfish Hunter, Ray Dandridge
1988
Willie Stargell
1989
Johnny Bench, Carl Yastrzemski, Red Schoendienst
1990
Jim Palmer , Joe Morgan
1991
Rod Carew, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins , Tony Lazzeri
1992
Tom Seaver, Rollie Fingers, Hal Newhouser
1993
Reggie Jackson
1994
Steve Carlton, Leo Durocher , Phil Rizzuto
1995
Leon Day , Vic Willis , Richie Ashburn
1996
Jim Bunning, Bill Foster , Ned Hanlon
1997
Phil Niekro, Nellie Fox, Willie Wells
1998
Don Sutton, George Davis , Larry Doby , Joe Rogan
1999
Orlando Cepeda, Joe Williams
2000
Tony Perez, 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
   45. sunnyday2 Posted: February 15, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2298356)
Has this project now officially changed forever?
   46. mulder & scully Posted: February 15, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2298465)
Yes. Soon we will debate to-may-to or to-ma-to? Then, Mickey Mantle or Roger Maris, who was the worse actor? In March, maybe we can debate the "least feared" hitter, Mario Mendoza or Neifi Perez, using pure numbers, the expert opinion of George Brett vs. numerous Cub fans, or advanced metrics.
   47. Mark Donelson Posted: February 15, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2298599)
- Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?

That does not make sense! :)

No posts on that thread in a few hours...is it winding down?

Has this project now officially changed forever?

Maybe I'm fooling myself, but I think this particular incident may be sui generis. I suppose other borderline players from certain teams (mainly NY and Boston) could bring that out again--perhaps when Mattingly comes up?
   48. TomH Posted: February 15, 2007 at 11:57 PM (#2298614)
From OCF's matrix:

I found the average friend-of score for each voter, and then compared my friend-of score to their average. That way, it accounts for the fact that some pople are very hi- or low-consensus in general. Trevor is my closest voting comp by actual ballot, but he is often close to consensus. The voter who is relatively speaking closest to me is Rob Wood, while Rawagman is furthest away (gee, he seems like such a nice guy, too...)

I haven't run everyone yet, but for OCF, Tom D is your closest, while Jeff M is furthest away.

Yest: closest rico vanian, furthest andrew siegel
   49. rawagman Posted: February 16, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2298916)
Hey, that's the ticket. I'm a nice guy! Does anyone think that'll help other people vote like me?
A vote for Hugh Duffy, Ben Taylor and Lefty Gomez = a vote for being nice!
   50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 16, 2007 at 07:23 PM (#2299029)
They are just arguing about various topics - at least up through post 275.

Contrast the Rice thread with the really interesting discussion of Darrell Evans. Day and night, night and day.
   51. TomH Posted: February 16, 2007 at 08:29 PM (#2299061)
A vote for Hugh Duffy, Ben Taylor and Lefty Gomez = a vote for being nice!
but definitely NOT a vote intended to brown-nose TomH....
   52. Daryn Posted: February 17, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2299212)
rawagman is a nice guy and one of only two voters I have met in person, but he is my least similar voter. Go figure.
   53. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 19, 2007 at 04:10 AM (#2299822)
OK, here's a list I was interested to see. I wanted to know how many HOMers were born in various states. The chart below lists state and number of HOMers from the state. Occasionally there's a country instead of a state, countries are always listed using a three-letter code.

STATE  TOTAL
------------
al  10
ar   2
ca  12
ct   2
cub  3
dom  1
fl   3
ga   6
ia   6
id   1
il   5
in   5
ks   1
ky   3
la   4
ma   6
md   6
me   1
mi   6
mo   6
ms   1
nc   6
ne   4
nj   4
nm   1
ny  26
oh   9
ok   5
pue  1
pa  18
pan  1
ri   2
sc   2
tn   2
tx  12
va   3
wa   2
wi   2
wv   2 


39 states or countries are currently represented.

No real surprises here. NY and PA were known to be breeding grounds for baseball, particularly before 1930ish. AL owes its demographic primarily to NgL era players of color, while CA and TX are a little more mixed affair. I live in Maine, but the inconvenient truth is the only HOMer from Maine is Mr. Gore.
   54. Brent Posted: February 19, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2299829)
Did you miss Fergie Jenkins (Canada)?
   55. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 19, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2299953)
yes, he might have been mistakenly entered into CA.
   56. sunnyday2 Posted: February 21, 2007 at 06:57 PM (#2301199)
Per Doc's calculations of HoMers (or was that HoFers? anyway) by decade (that is team x seasons), who are the candidates from the most under-represented of decades, the '40s?

Trouppe
Keller
1/2 of Johnson, OK, a little less than 1/2
Elliott
2/3 of Rizzuto
A bit of Bridges, I think
Vern Stephens
Bits of Gomez, Lombardi, Clarkson, A. Wilson, Trucks
Luke Easter
Trout
Travis

Clearly there are voters who don't give war credit and they need it.
   57. DavidFoss Posted: February 21, 2007 at 07:35 PM (#2301226)
Where is that list from sunny? Chris F's list in the 1995 ballot discussion (post #13) doesn't make it look too bad. 16 guys... same as 1890s and 1910s and only off by 1-2 players from the 1880s, 1900's, 1920s and 1950s. Of course, these are all endpoint dependent, but the decade choices seemed reasonable.
   58. DL from MN Posted: February 21, 2007 at 07:38 PM (#2301229)
You left out Bucky Walters

If we had a mock-ballot containing only candidates who had 5 seasons played during the 1940's maybe we could come to a consensus on order of those candidates.

Here's mine

1) Bob Johnson
2) Tommy Bridges
3) Quincy Trouppe
4) Virgil Trucks
5) Bus Clarkson
6) Dutch Leonard
7) Bob Elliott
8) Charlie Keller
9) Dizzy Trout
10) Luke Easter
11) Hilton Smith
12) Bobo Newsom
13) Tommy Henrich
14) Chuck Klein
15) Bucky Walters

16-20) Vern Stephens, Mickey Vernon, Augie Galan, Dom Dimaggio, Johnny Pesky
21-23) Phil Rizzuto, Ernie Lombardi, Ray Dandridge
   59. TomH Posted: February 21, 2007 at 08:47 PM (#2301281)
wow, if Bucky is that far down a 1940s list, we need some happy reminders of Mr. Walters' case:

Won an MVP award. Then finished 3rd the next year. Reds won back-to-back pennants, first itme in 20 yrs and last time in 20 yrs.
prime run of ERA+: 168 152 127 123 93 146 140 131. The first 3 years he threw over 300 IPs. Yes, his defense helped.

A GREAT hitter for a pitcher. Lifetime OPS of 630.

Above-average fielder as well.

Compares favorably to other backlog pitchers by both win shares and WARP.

And, in his prime he often faced the best opponents. Dag Nabbit used to post something he called MOWP - Median Opponent Winning Percentage. It showed that Walters was often used against pennant rivals, so really his ERA and W-L records could have been better than they were. Unfortunately I don't see an active link for that data. But it builds his case beyond any other measure most of us use.

He is the Jimmy Wynn of pitchers (without the park effects damage clause), or possibly Ed Roush - lots of strengths that add up to a good case.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: February 21, 2007 at 09:10 PM (#2301298)
The break out of how many HoMers we've got per decade is from Doc and I think it was on the VC ballot thread. My list of who was '40s was off the top of my head with the above results as a crib sheet. Anyway, my '40s only ballot. And this is in flux, I am still tinkering a bit. Mostly, I can't decide if Easter should be #2 or #15. And the IF still make me sweat--Rizzuto, Pesky, Clarkson, Elliott, Stephens. Some really interesting head-to-head match-ups there: Rizzuto-Pesky, Pesky-Stephens, Pesky-Clarkson, Clarkson-Stephens, Elliott-Stephens. Rizzuto and Pesky may benefit from WWII credit more than almost anybody in the sense of being low borderline without it, but high borderline to PHoM with. And Easter and Estalella are two of the great discoveries (for me) of the HoM project (well, along with the early early guys like Pearce and Start). Between WWII and integration, this is one interesting period.

Right now I'm thinking Rizzuto makes it (PHoM) (Keller is already in) and Pesky just misses. That leaves Trouppe and Walters as the borderliners borderliners. But I'm not sure Easter doesn't leapfrog Trouppe someday, especially if Doc keeps working on me with those 377 WS he's projecting. Clarkson needs some work like that, and Estalella, a couple other diamonds in the rough if you aks me.

But based on DL's '40s ballot vs. mine (both from the same state no less), no wonder we aren't electing any of these guys.

1. Keller
2. Rizzuto
3. Trouppe
4. Walters
5. Pesky
6. Clarkson
7. Klein
8. Elliott
9. Stephens
10. Easter

11. Estalella

12. Bridges
13. Johnson
14. H. Smith
15. Lombardi

HM--Marvin Williams, Travis, Vernon, Trucks, Bill Byrd (is he '40s?), Artie Wilson (if he's '40s but I think he's '50s), ditto Ellis Kinder (ie. '50s?)
   61. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 21, 2007 at 10:52 PM (#2301366)
The break out of how many HoMers we've got per decade is from Doc and I think it was on the VC ballot

Hate to tell you, but it was HOFs not HOMs, within the context of discussion of whether the HOF should do a special comittee on the 19th C.
   62. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 21, 2007 at 11:41 PM (#2301390)
OK, here's the breakout of HOMers by decade, as well as by their percentage of team seasons. ALERT: this is not very scientific, I just gutted which guys went in which decades, and sometimes I split them. So this won'tbe totally accurate. Also, the 1900s-1910s NgLs aren't included because I don't have team season totals for them.

Essentially we've been drawing thus far on a pool of players that are 1870-1980. No strictly 1980s guy has been elected as yet. Through 1979, we're drawing on 2107 team seasons, and we have 184 HOMers in the sample. So about 8.7% of all team seasons. Here's the census data for each decade and how far over or under average they are.

DECADE     TM SEASONS HOMers  TM SEASONS  +/-
-----------------------------------------------------------
1871-1880      79      10.5        13%     +3.7
1881
-1890     151      16.5        11%     +3.4
1891
-1900     120      15.5        13%     +5.1
1901
-1910     160      12.5         8%     -1.4
1911
-1920     180      13           7%     -2.7
1921
-1930     274      21.5         8%     -2.3
1930
-1940     253      28          11%     +6.0
1941
-1950     276      15           5%     -9.0
1951
-1960     160      16.5        10%     +2.6
1961
-1970     206      21          10%     +3.1
1971
-1980     248      14           6%     -7.6 


OK, so by this rudimentary analysis, we're well over on the 19th C., a little under in the deadball era and the 1920s, well over in the 1930s, really under in the 1940s (as Sunny has noted), a little over in the 1950s and 1960s, and well under in the 1970s. Again some of this could be my own misapplication of decades, so take it as a general guideline, not a statement of fact.
   63. Chris Fluit Posted: February 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM (#2301402)
57. DavidFoss Posted: February 21, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2301226)
Where is that list from sunny? Chris F's list in the 1995 ballot discussion (post #13) doesn't make it look too bad. 16 guys... same as 1890s and 1910s and only off by 1-2 players from the 1880s, 1900's, 1920s and 1950s. Of course, these are all endpoint dependent, but the decade choices seemed reasonable.

The list that I posted is a very simple (possibly even simplistic) breakdown of HoMers per decade. Each HoMer is assigned to one decade, usually based on the center or peak of their career. Dr. Chaleeko's list is based on the number of HoMer seasons per decade (if I understand it correctly). That approach has its obvious strengths, ie. Carl Yastrzemski's career is given weight in both the '60s and the '70s instead of being solely listed as part of one decade or another. However, I think that it is also going to automatically make the 1940s appear to be undervalued. Many of the HoMers who are listed as 1940s inductees are missing 1, 2 or 3 seasons due to military service. For example, Ted Williams counts once towards the 1940s in the simple listing, just as a Hank Aaron counts once towards the 1960s. But in Dr. C's list, Hank Aaron counts as 10 seasons played towards the 1960s, while Ted Williams counts only as 7 seasons played towards the 1940s. Most HoM voters take that into account and give out some form of war credit. Indeed, war credit was likely crucial to the elections of Joe Gordon, Bobby Doerr and Willard Brown. So we come close when we list players per decade (16 instead of 18), but naturally fall short when we list number of seasons. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing the chart adjusted to include war credit. What would it look like if we counted Williams and DiMaggio as 10 seasons instead of 7, and so on? Would the 1940s still be the most underrepresented decade?
   64. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2007 at 12:04 AM (#2301409)
Thanks Dr. C!
   65. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2301424)
That approach has its obvious strengths, ie. Carl Yastrzemski's career is given weight in both the '60s and the '70s instead of being solely listed as part of one decade or another.

Actually, the impression I get is that he does the simple decade assignment just as you do with a few splits for close calls.

For year-by-year analysis, we'd have to looks at Howie's old master lists. I don't know if he maintains stuff like that anymore. But yeah, war credit does funny things. It would increase the "1940s credit" for some unexpectant cases (e.g. Lyons & Ruffing). It might even make Greenburg a "40s guy"... though I would again be nitpicking decade assignments, there.
   66. sunnyday2 Posted: February 22, 2007 at 02:12 AM (#2301469)
Either way, we're clearly short for the '40s. The obvious reason is careers were interrupted by the war. Players born ca. 1910-1925, on the day they were born, they were almost all of them destined to have less opportunity to make the HoF or HoM than players born every other time since the 1850s. Just as players born through about 1920ish, who on the day they were born happened to be black, were destined NOT to play in the MLs. For the latter category, we have recognized NeL play as a legitimate surrogate for the MLs and so they have had a fair opportunity for enshrinement in the HoM (we might quibble about the HoF even yet). For the former, we (the HoM) have not yet made much of an adjustment if we have adjusted at all.
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 22, 2007 at 02:17 AM (#2301471)
Actually, the impression I get is that he does the simple decade assignment just as you do with a few splits for close calls.

That's correct, DavidF, I'm doing the same thing, just adding a layer of sophistication to account for increased/decreased opportunity.

If things pan out, I'll try to put together a more comprehensive and "accurate" analysis of all this.
   68. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 22, 2007 at 02:19 AM (#2301472)
If things pan out, I'll try to put together a more comprehensive and "accurate" analysis of all this.

I meant to say

If things pan out this weekend, I'll try to put together a more comprehensive and "accurate" analysis of all this.
   69. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2007 at 02:55 AM (#2301478)
Ok, give me a few minutes...
   70. jimd Posted: February 22, 2007 at 03:37 AM (#2301495)
I question the methodology of the study, the basing of it on "team seasons".

DECADE     TM SEASONS HOMers  TM SEASONS  +/-
-----------------------------------------------------------
1941-1950     276      15           5%     -9.0
1951
-1960     160      16.5        10%     +2.6 


This says that we are short 9 HOMers from the 1940's, but have 2.6 extras in the 1950's? They have almost the same amount of HOMers!! And I would find it very difficult to come up with strong arguments for why the 1950's would have only 60% of the HOMers when compared to the 1940's. The study really needs to be based on player population pool or something else that varies much less by decade than the somewhat arbitrary "team seasons".
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2007 at 03:48 AM (#2301500)
roughly speaking (this is 10 G minimum), ignoring occasional one-year exceptions for brevity's sake:

1856-59 - 1
1860-66 - 2
1867-71 - 4-6-8-9-10
1872-78 - 12
1879-81 - 16-17-20
1882-85 - 20 to 23
1886-89 - 24 to 25
1890-92 - 30 to 33
1893----- 28
1894-03 - 22 to 25
1906-08 - 25 to 28
1909-17 - 28 to 30
1918-20 - 24 to 28
1921-23 - 30-34-36
1924-41 - 41 to 47 (mostly 41-43)
1942----- 37
1943-45 - 26-22-20
1946-48 - 32
1949-53 - 25 to 27
1954-63 - 30 to 33
1964-70 - 33 to 35
1971-74 - 29 to 32
1975-79 - 26-24-20-18-17
1978-82 - 16 to 18
1983-87 - 14-11-9-8-5

shorter version:
1882-89 - 20 to 25
1890-92 - 30 to 33
1894-03 - 22 to 25
1906-20 - 24 to 30
1921-23 - 30-34-36
1924-42 - 41 to 47
1943-45 - 26-22-20
1946-48 - 32
1949-53 - 25 to 27
1954-74 - 29 to 35

so basically HOMers numbering in the 20s from 1882 to 1920, with few exceptions.
then a quick bump up the "30s," then in the 40s from 1924-41.
WW II bumps the count back down to the 20s again, and mostly it stays there until the mid-1950s, which kicks off our only extended period of having 30-something HOMers every year.

as we've mentioned before, we have tended to elect a very similar amount of AL/NLers over time (the 1960s are outdoing that pace). The difference in numbers to a good extent mirrors how deep the Negro Leagues talent was at any given time.
   72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 22, 2007 at 04:06 AM (#2301508)
I would find it very difficult to come up with strong arguments for why the 1950's would have only 60% of the HOMers when compared to the 1940's.

The important thing is accounting for the opportunities among players in the NgLs and for some aspect of the duration of that opportunity. If we don't do that, then the 1920s-1930s appear way overstuffed and you end up drawing the very conclusion you have just drawn about the 1950s. With four leagues playing instead of two the question could be Why have we elected so few from the 1940s? But by looking it through team seasons, you at least begin to see how the NgLs are influencing the number of selections and the degree of representation.

I chose team seasons to be a generic representation of the player pool. I'm not sure why the population pool is much different than team seasons, which is just counting up how many teams were in a league each season, which is a reasonable representation of opportunity. The player pool itself is filled with issues too since there's often the 0/1 guys or the guys with 3 IP, who aren't really the kind of players we're trying to count. We're really trying to figure out the opportunities for starting players. Besides figuring out how many guys are in the league at any given moment is a true pain in the butt for a guy (me) without serious databasing skills.

If I have time this weekend, I'll find a way to better represent the "when" of players' career, which may improve things a bit.
   73. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2007 at 04:20 AM (#2301515)
going by "seasons as a regular"(1 IP per G or 25 G; or hitter playing in half his team's games. again ignoring occasional one-year exceptions):

Pitchers
1921-24 - 7 to 9
1925-32 - 11 to 12
1933-34 - 8 to 9
1935-42 - 6 to 7
1943-46 - 3 to 4
1947-57 - 6 to 8
1958-61 - 9
1962-70 - 9 to 11
1971-73 - 8

Outfielders
1918-23 - 8 to 9
1924-28 - 12 to 13
1929-42 - 9 to 11
1943-46 - 4 to 6
1947-53 - 9 to 10
1954-57 - 12
1958-64 - 10 to 11
1965-73 - 8 to 10

I'll add up infielders if I have time tomorrow.
   74. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2007 at 04:29 PM (#2301705)
Thanks Howie!

How about during the war? Does anyone have a list of HOM-ers who would have been active and regulars during the war. If we gave them war credit when we voted, then we should give them credit on these lists.

Greenberg, Feller, Mize, Dimaggio, Ruffing, Slaughter, Reese, Gordon, Doerr, Musial, Wynn, Dickey, Lyons, Spahn... gotta be some more. Of course, some of these guys were gone longer than others and at different times. Plus, its hard to deal with guys like Lyons and Spahn. With no war, I don't think Lyons plays at all in 1946... he likely came back just to see what he had left... and with no war, I don't know how early Spahn enters the rotation.

We certainly could use some more guys from 1946-49. That's the tricky integration period. Also, many guys who would have been rookies in the early 40s likely lost key developmental time due to the war.
   75. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2301767)
For fun, and because I have the data, here is the top WS performers from 1946-49:

172: TWilliams
155: Musial
100-109: Kiner, JDimaggio, Newhouser, Reese, Slaughter, Boudreau, Pesky, Henrich, Stephens
90-99: Doerr, Mize, DDimaggio, BElliott
80-89: Ennis, Brecheen, Feller, Appling, Sain, Stanky, JRobinson, Kell
70-79: Joost, Spahn, JGordon, Lemon, Vernon, Rizzuto, Holmes, Spencer, Hutchinson, Lopat, Valo, SGordon, WMarshall

(MLB only)
   76. sunnyday2 Posted: February 22, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2301825)
Top WS performers 1940s

The adjusted is either additional WS for years spent in the service, or a discount for weak competition in 1943-44-45, or both (e.g. Musial, Doerr, Appling and others have some of each). First listed according to number of raw WS credited in James' book of that name.

These are all decade numbers, not full careers.

1. Ted Williams--290 raw WS > 428 adj WS
2. Stan Musial--263 > 291
3. Lou Boudreau--255 < 247
4. Hal Newhouser--224 < 215
5. Bob Elliott--219 < 212
6. Dixie Walker--219 < 211
7. Joe DiMaggio--213 > 309
8. Bobby Doerr--209 > 228
9. Luke Appling 207 > 251
10. Vern Stephens 203 < 195

Then, by adjusted WS.

1. Ted Williams 428
2. Joe DiMaggio 309
3. Stan Musial 291
4. Johnny Mize 271
5. Bob Feller 268
6. Enos Slaughter 261
7. Luke Appling 251
8. Lou Boudreau 247
9. Joe Gordon 237
10. Pee Wee Reese 234

11. Charlie Keller 232
12. Dom DiMaggio 231
13. Tommy Henrich 229
14. Bobby Doerr 228
15. Johnny Pesky 217
16. Hal Newhouser 215
17. Bob Elliott 212
18. Dixie Walker 211
19. Eddie Joost 201

20. Vern Stephens 195

Isn't this a lot better indicator of how these guys rank than the first list? Apply all the usual caveats, of course, especially--would Feller really have had 4 years like 1940-41-46-47? Would Keller have started to break down? In his case (unlike Feller's) his numbers are not optimal, because they include the influence of 1947, his first break-down year (10 WS). Pesky is another hard case--his '42-'46 suggest one ballplayer, as early as '47-'48 we're seeing another.

But overall the second list is more fair. In the 1930s, 18 players earned 200 WS and in the 1950s it was 15. In the '40s it was just 11, but if you adjust you get 19, much more in line with normal expectations. So when I rank these players, I use the second list. And the bottom line is that guys like Boudreau and Doerr and Stephens are over-rated, while Mize, Slaughter, Reese and Pesky, among others, are under-rated.

And just apropos of the VC ballot, and this now is one case where I'm talking career numbers: Cecil Travis. If you just take his surrounding years of 22 and 34 WS before and 10 after, that's an average of 22. I give him 22 WS each year he's away, even partially away, for an additional 87 WS and a career total of 256. He's nowhere near the decade list, of course. And all things considered, even with war credit I can't get him anywhere near Pesky much less Rizutto, whose career numbers are 274 (Pesky) and 297 (Rizzuto). And Travis' great year is 34 but then his top 3 are just 34-22-22 with or without war credit. Pesky's are 34-28-25 without war credit and 34-29-29 with (or if that violates the "no hypothetical peak" rule, then call it 34-28-25 with more 25s during the war and he's still at 262, of course, now well within the Travis range. Rizzuto is 35-26-25 either way.

But anyway, the '40s are so terribly distorted I don't see any fair way to judge these guys without some special ops.
   77. Chris Fluit Posted: February 22, 2007 at 07:17 PM (#2301857)
Re. post #74:

Here's a quick list of missing seasons for HoM inductees (not including NeLers like Willard Brown)

3- Joe DiMaggio
3- Bob Feller
3- Hank Greenberg
3- Johnny Mize
3- Pee Wee Reese
3- Enos Slaughter
3- Arky Vaughan
3- Ted Williams

2- Luke Appling
2- Joe Gordon (maybe two and 1/4)
2- Red Ruffing

1- Bill Dickey (maybe, he missed two full seasons but he was only playing half-time before those seasons)
1- Bobby Doerr
1- Jimmie Foxx (maybe one and a half)
1- Stan Musial
   78. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2007 at 07:45 PM (#2301889)
Thanks.

Feller & Greenberg are at least 3.5.

Foxx retired. It was due to the war that he was called back out.
   79. Chris Fluit Posted: February 22, 2007 at 09:59 PM (#2301975)
Foxx retired. It was due to the war that he was called back out.

Thanks. I thought that was the case but I wasn't sure- hence the maybe.
   80. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 22, 2007 at 11:57 PM (#2302051)
also ted lyons and maybe early wynn?

among ngls, i think it's Brown, Jackie?, Doby, Irvin who end up servin'. I'm probably forgetting someone.
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 23, 2007 at 12:03 AM (#2302053)
Don't forget Julio Franco!

;-)
   82. jimd Posted: February 23, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2302078)
DECADE     TM SEASONS HOMers  TM SEASONS  +/-
-----------------------------------------------------------
1941-1950     276      15           5%     -9.0
1951
-1960     160      16.5        10%     +2.6 


Eric, I'm not sure what is the point of the study.

With this data, I don't think you can persuade many people here that the 40's are radically underrepresented while the 1950's are slightly over quota. We are not electing strictly proportional to "team seasons" (or at least, I'm not, maybe others are). The "team seasons" are simply a reflection of the business model at any given time, not the player pool.

I'm not sure why the population pool is much different than team seasons

Are you trying to say that the NgL's dried up in the 1950's due to a shortage of baseball players? And because of that the 1950's should have 40% of the HOM representation that the 1940's should have? Because it appears to me that that's where your argument is going to lead, but maybe I'm wrong.

I think that a good argument can be made that the 1940's and 1950's COMBINED are underrepresented, that the overall contraction caused by the decline of the NgL's should NOT result in a corresponding decline in the number of HOMers. It's just that the contraction in the number of teams caused a rise in overall quality making it more difficult for individuals to stand out or dominate during the 1950's, so that the same player that put up HOM stats in the expansion 1930s would appear to be only HOVG in the contraction 1950s. But the basis of that argument is "population pool", not "team seasons".
   83. Chris Cobb Posted: February 23, 2007 at 01:03 AM (#2302080)
Among Negro-League stars, Jackie Robinson definitely served, though he was out of the army in '45, for his only year in the Negro Leagues. Among 1940s NeL candidates receiving votes, Bus Clarkson was in military service 1943-45.
   84. jimd Posted: February 23, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2302089)
And because of that the 1950's should have 40% of the HOM representation that the 1940's should have?

Correction:

And because of that the 1950's should have 60% of the HOM representation that the 1940's should have?
   85. Howie Menckel Posted: February 23, 2007 at 01:42 AM (#2302097)
well, my HOMers 1940-49 (this is the 10-G version, with non-regulars or split-leaguers with asterisk or 2 for foreign play):

1940 (42)
NL - Hartnett*, Waner, Ott, Hubbell, Vaughan, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Mize, Slaughter, Reese
AL - ASimmons*, Lyons, Grove*, Foxx, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin, Dickey, Averill*, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser*
NeL - Mackey*, JWilson, CPBell**, Stearnes, Suttles, Wells**, Dihigo**, JGibson**, RBrown, Leonard, WBrown**, Campanella*, Irvin

1941 (41)
NL - Hartnett*, Waner, Ott, Hubbell, Vaughan, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial*
AL - Lyons, Grove*, Foxx, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin, Dickey, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser
NeL - Mackey,*, JWilson, CPBell**, Suttles, Wells**, Dihigo**, JGibson**, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, WBrown, Campanella*, Irvin

1942 (37)
NL - Waner, Ott, Hubbell, Vaughan, Foxx*, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial
AL - Lyons, Foxx*, Ruffing, Gehringer*, Cronin*, Dickey, Appling, DiMaggio, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn
NeL (11) - JWilson, CPBell, Wells, Dihigo**, JGibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, WBrown, Campanella, Doby

1943 (26)
NL - Waner, Ott, Hubbell*, Vaughan, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Musial
AL - ASimmons*, Cronin*, Dickey, Appling, Gordon, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn
NeL - JWilson, CPBell, Wells**, Dihigo**, JGibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, WBrown, Doby

1944 (19)
NL - Waner*, Ott, Fox*, Hack, Medwick, Musial
AL - Cronin*, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn
NeL - CPBell, Wells**, Dihigo**, JGibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella

1945 (20)
NL - Ott, Foxx, Hack, Medwick
AL - Ruffing*, Appling*, Greenberg, Feller*, Boudreau, Newhouser
NeL - JWilson*, CPBell, Wells*, Dihigo**, JGibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella, JRobinson

1946 (32)
NL - Ott*, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner
AL - Ruffing*, Dickey*, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn*, Lemon*
NeL - CPBell, Wells*, Dihigo**, JGibson, Paige, RBrown**, Leonard, WBrown, Campanella, Irvin, Doby*

1947 (32)
NL - Vaughan*, Greenberg, BiHerman*, Hack*, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider*
AL - Ruffing*, Appling, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby*, Berra*, WBrown*
NeL - Wells*, Paige, RBrown**, Leonard, WBrown*, Irvin, Doby*

1948 (32)
NL - Vaughan*, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider*, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts*
AL - Paige*, Appling, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce*
NeL - Wells*, RBrown**, Leonard, WBrown, Irvin

1949 (26)
NL - Mize*, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*
AL - Paige*, Appling, DiMaggio*, Feller, Mize*, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce

We don't get back to 32 HOMers - the 1946-48 total - til 1955.
   86. Juan V Posted: February 23, 2007 at 01:45 AM (#2302100)
Don't forget Julio Franco!

;-)


This is WW2, not WW1 :)
   87. sunnyday2 Posted: February 23, 2007 at 01:56 AM (#2302104)
>We don't get back to 32 HOMers - the 1946-48 total - til 1955

So essentially it's not really a '40s problem, it's the decade after WWII.
   88. Howie Menckel Posted: February 23, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2302111)
to continue
1950 - 26
1951 - 27
1952 - 25
1953 - 27
1954 - 28
1955 - 32
1956 - 33
1957 - 30
1958 - 30
1959 - 31
1960 - 31
1961 - 32
1962 - 33
1963 - 36
1964 - 35
1965 - 33
1966 - 34
1967 - 34
1968 - 34
1969 - 34
1970 - 34
1971 - 32
1972 - 32
1973 - 30
1974 - 30
then you start running into more and more of the "no-brainers not yet eligible" wall
   89. DavidFoss Posted: February 23, 2007 at 05:21 PM (#2302358)
Top MLB WS Players 1946-54 (HOM in Bold)
326 - Musial
264 - TWilliams
231 - Kiner
228 - JRobinson
219 - PWReese
206 - Berra
202 - Spahn
194 - Doby
191 - BLemon
182 - DSnider
181 - SGordon
180 - MVernon
180 - RRoberts
179 - Ennis
179 - Slaughter
178 - Rizzuto
172 - Schoendienst
169 - Kell
164 - Pafko
164 - Ashburn
160 - VStephens
159 - Pesky
159 - GHodges
159 - Yost
157 - DDimaggio
156 - Campanella
155 - JDimaggio
154 - BElliott
154 - ARosen
153 - Joost
152 - Furillo
150 - Dark
149 - Newhouser
149 - Fain
146 - Lopat
146 - Wynn
144 - BThomson
143 - Feller
143 - Sain
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: February 23, 2007 at 05:47 PM (#2302387)
Thanks David. My point has not been so much that Sid Gordon and Mickey Vernon and Del Ennis should be the next HoMers. It is that the dislocations of the era need to be taken into account in a more serious way. E.g. add in WWII credit and Rizzuto and Pesky and maybe D. DiMaggio really rise to the top of this list. And consider the dislocation of integration--no more NeLs but access to the MLs was subject to quotas--and guys like Newcombe (for sure) and maybe Easter, Clarkson and Marvin Williams move up.

And consider that Newcombe suffered from both phenomena of the day--military service and held back in the MiLs due to quotas or whatever.
   91. Chris Cobb Posted: February 23, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2302394)
On the list: Campanella should be bolded

On sunnyday2's response: E.g. add in WWII credit and Rizzuto and Pesky and maybe D. DiMaggio really rise to the top of this list.

Unless I am totally misunderstanding the list, WWII credit would not change anyone's place on this list, as it is showing only the WS players earned 1946-54, after WWII. Now, Korean War credit would move Williams up, and would almost certainly bring Newcombe onto this list.

The Hom cases for Rizzuto, Pesky, and D. Dimaggio (and Joe D. too, for that matter) depend upon play outside the years covered in the table, as well as on those years.
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: February 23, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2302419)
Yes, that is what I meant. The point being a shortage of players from 1945-55ish in the HoM, and further that the reason for that was their inability to pad their resumes 1942-1945 (along with Korea and the oddities of integration).
   93. DavidFoss Posted: February 23, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2302426)
Unless I am totally misunderstanding the list, WWII credit would not change anyone's place on this list, as it is showing only the WS players earned 1946-54, after WWII. Now, Korean War credit would move Williams up, and would almost certainly bring Newcombe onto this list.

Correct. Its just a 1946-54 list. That seems to be the location of the 'dip' in Howie's numbers. Extending earlier wouldn't be fair to guys who did and did not go to war. Voters will have their own mechanisms for extending credit through the war years for those that served.

I just have a handy way of creating TopWS per time period lists and figured I'd post something for the "dip" years and see if anything stood out. It did pick up Sid Gordon's nifty five year peak playing for the Giants while the Braves were winning and the Braves while the Giants were winning. But thats still only 20 WS/year over a nine-year gap... hardly an impressive prime for a corner outfielder.
   94. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 23, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2302430)
What MLB players wouldn't be HOMers without WW2 credit? I can only think of three or four possibilities:
Slaughter
Gordon
Doerr
Reese
(and Keller if he should be elected).

However, the cases of Slaughter and Gordon and Reese are more impacted by credit than Doerr (and Keller) since those guys missed more time.

Anyway, this can mean one of a fews things:
-nothing
-that we've identified the cases in which war credit is most appropriately used to make judgements about players
-that we've not used enough discretion/imagination in giving war credit so that only four guys have been helped by it.

The evidence isn't immediately clear in any direction, and perhaps the true result is some from all three.

It's possible that the way we're all going about giving war credit (if we give it) is itself causing some of the dislocation Sunny's talking about. It feels like the consensus says that averaging surrounding seasons is the best way to go, and that allowing peak-level credit is outre. And yet, logic suggests that some perhaps many of these players were gone for their peak seasons.

I do the surrounding seasons thing myself. It's easy, and it keeps things within the realm. But maybe there's better ways? For instance, maybe it's better to take Tango or Silver's aging studies and use them to either fill in the gaps or as part of an equation for determining missing seasons where their known career averages provide part of the weighting. (And yes, T. Petty fans, the weighting is the hardest part.)

After all what's the most likely or realistic thing we can do? To use surrounding seasons during peak years? Or to determine the most likely aging scenario from tens of thousands of individual seasons and then apply it to the player's known level of performance?
   95. DavidFoss Posted: February 23, 2007 at 07:07 PM (#2302435)
The point being a shortage of players from 1945-55ish in the HoM, and further that the reason for that was their inability to pad their resumes 1942-1945 (along with Korea and the oddities of integration).

It certainly was not an ideal time to be a developing baseball player. Its easy to speculate on the backlog of minor-league talent in 1946 that teams had to sift through. Not as much "very young" talent (<23) after the war (46-48) as their was before (40-42). Compare Williams, Reiser, Feller, Boudreau, Pesky, Musial to Ennis, Branca, Ashburn.

Plus the integation issues that have been mentioned before made it difficult for young black stars to integrate. Sal Maglie is an interesting case as well. This was the Hank Sauer era as well.

Charlie Keller and Pete Reiser all had some unfortunate injury problems. Rosen's injury would have helped the less-needy later 50s. I'm not sure what can be said about Rosen's late start.

The Korean years by Ford, Mays & Williams might boost Howies the 51-53 numbers a bit.
   96. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 24, 2007 at 07:19 PM (#2302806)
I remember seeing this when I looked at my at-bat tables - the AL just craters in 1951-52. Basically what happens is that Williams goes to Korea and a bunch of guys retire at the same time - DiMaggio, Doerr, Gordon, Appling, Boudreau. It could just be an effect of the AL's strength in the 1940s being in middle infielders, and those positions typically having shorter careers.

BTW, for people who are worried about electing too many 3Bmen from the 1970s, isn't there a similar issue with 2B/SS from the 1940s? We've already got Doerr, Gordon, Boudreau and Reese, plus the end of Appling, Arky Vaughan, Billy Herman and Jud Wilson's careers and the start of Jackie Robinson's. And Larry Doby was playing in the infield at Newark. But we're talking about Rizzuto and Stephens and Cecil Travis if he'd been healthy, and Bus Clarkson (though he also played 3rd), and Marvin Williams. It probably looks worse because they're bunched up in the AL for no particular reason.
   97. Howie Menckel Posted: February 24, 2007 at 07:52 PM (#2302814)
Re AL and NL, part-timers or two-leaguers with asterisk

AL, 1946-55
1946 (13) - Ruffing*, Dickey*, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn*, Lemon*
1947 (12.8) - Ruffing*, Appling, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby*, Berra*, WBrown*
1948 (14) - Paige*, Appling, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce*
1949 (14.1) - Paige*, Appling, DiMaggio*, Feller, Mize*, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce
1950 (15) - Appling*, DiMaggio, Feller, Mize, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce, Ford*
1951 (15) - Paige*, DiMaggio, Feller, Mize, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser*, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce, Mantle, Minoso
1952 (11) - Paige, Feller, Mize*, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce, Mantle, Minoso
1953 (13) - Paige, Feller, Mize*, TWilliams*, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce, Ford, Mantle, Minoso, Kaline*
1954 (13) - Feller*, TWilliams, Newhouser*, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Pierce, Ford, Mantle, Minoso, Kaline, Slaughter*
1955 (15) - Feller*, TWilliams, Wynn, Lemon, Kiner, Doby, Berra, Pierce, Ford, Mantle, Minoso, Slaughter, Bunning*, Killebrew*

1946 (9) - Ott*, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner
1947 (13) - Vaughan*, Greenberg, BiHerman*, Hack*, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider*
1948 (13) - Vaughan*, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider*, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts*
1949 (11.9) - Mize*, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*
1950 (11) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin
1951 (12) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin, Mays
1952 (14) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*, Mays*, Mathews, Wilhelm
1953 (14) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin, Mathews, Wilhelm, Banks*
1954 (15) - Reese, Musial, Kiner, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin, Mays, Mathews, Wilhelm, Banks, Aaron
1955 (17) - Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*, Mays, Mathews, Wilhelm, Banks, Aaron, Koufax*, Clemente, Boyer
   98. Howie Menckel Posted: February 24, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2302815)
oh, I also credited:

1946 (10) - CPBell, Wells*, Dihigo**, JGibson, Paige, RBrown**, Leonard, WBrown, Campanella, Irvin, Doby*
1947 (6.1) - Wells*, Paige, RBrown**, Leonard, WBrown*, Irvin, Doby*
1948 (5) - Wells*, RBrown**, Leonard, WBrown, Irvin
** for foreign play

Nothing for these guys after 1948, though.
   99. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 24, 2007 at 09:13 PM (#2302837)
BTW, for people who are worried about electing too many 3Bmen from the 1970s, isn't there a similar issue with 2B/SS from the 1940s?

Was 2B and SS combined to make one super position during that era? ;-)
   100. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 25, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2302929)
Yeah, because of the war, like the Steagles. ;-)

I don't know, I guess I was struck by the fact that just about everybody who played either position for the Yankees or Red Sox position is an inductee or candidate. But neither one is really overrepresented, it's the strength of both that's notable, especially compared to the 50s-70s.

And looking over my own positional lists, there's also Gehringer lingering into the 40s, and Willie Wells lasting through the war. Plus Monte Irvin was also playing infield positions at this point.

That said, there are other eras that are just about as populated - the early 1920s are pretty close, and the 1890s are probably proportanitely equal. The difference is that we've just about inducted all the candidates from those eras, while there are still middle infield candidates being promoted from this era. Hey, I've got Clarkson on my ballot, Rizzuto just off it, and Stephens in the low 20s. But if you're worried about positional balance - which is by no means required - I suspect Elliott, Keller and Walters (who are also somewhere between 15-35 for me) are better candidates. (Or Leonard, Bridges or Trucks if they're your pitcher choice, or Easter or Estalella, I guess.)

Catchers aren't really over or underrepresented, I just think Trouppe is significantly ahead of the rest of the candidates that I'm not really considering that in his case. (Although, looking at what I'm doing here, for all my yapping I may not be considering it at all.)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7792 seconds
49 querie(s) executed