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, April 16, 2007

1997 Results: Evans, Fox and Roush Are the Big Hall of Merit Winners in Our 100th Election!

In his first year of eligibility, star Red Sox right fielder Dwight Evans was the top point-getter with his 43% of all possible points.

Fielding great Nellie Fox earned 30% of all possible points in his 27th year of eligibility.

Last but not least, standout Cincinnati center fielder Edd Roush finally made it with his 61st try. His 29% of all possible points is the lowest ever, breaking Dobie Moore’s record of 30% set in 1991.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Jake Beckley (does he finally go in in ‘98?), Bucky Walters (big jump and first time in the top-ten!), Cannonball Dick Redding (good size jump, too!), Pete Browning, Rollie Fingers, Roger Bresnahan (first time in the top-ten in decades!) and Bob Johnson (first time in the top-ten!).

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Dwight Evans             521   34   4  6  1  2  3  1  1  2     3  4  2  3  1  1
 2    5  Nellie Fox               371   24   4  1  1  3  3  3     4              1  2  2
 3    4  Edd Roush                356   23   3  1  3  4     1        1  5  1  3  1      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    6  Jake Beckley             343   25   2  3        2  3  1  1  4  1  1  2  2  1  2
 5   12  Bucky Walters            328   21   1     5  5     2  1  3              1     3
 6   10  Cannonball Dick Redding  323   20   4  1  1  3  1     2  3  1  2        1     1
 7    7  Pete Browning            323   19   4  3  1  1  1  2  1     1  2  1     1  1   
 8    8  Rollie Fingers           313   21   3  2  1  1     2  2  3        2  2  1  1  1
 9   17  Roger Bresnahan          298   20   1  2  3     1  2  3  1  2     1     1  1  2
10   13  Bob Johnson              290   19   1     3  3  1  2  2  1  2  1  1  1  1      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   11  Charley Jones            287   18   2  4  1  1     2  1  1  1        1  2  2   
12   14  Gavvy Cravath            278   20   2     2        3  3  2  1  2  1  1     2  1
13   16  Hugh Duffy               276   19   1  3  1  2  2  1  1        1  2  1  1     3
14    9  Tony Perez               264   19   3  1     1     4  1  1  1        2  2  1  2
15   18  George Van Haltren       216   13   1  3  1     2  1     2     1     1  1      
16   20  Tommy Leach              214   14      1  2     2  3     2  2  1     1         
17   15  Alejandro Oms            208   15         2  3     1     1  4  1  1  1     1   
18   19  Graig Nettles            186   15         1     2     2  1  3  1  3        2   
19   32  Phil Rizzuto             181   13      2     2  1  1     1  1  1  2        2   
20   28  Reggie Smith             168   13         1  1  4           3        1     2  1
21   21  Burleigh Grimes          159   12      1  1  1  1     2        1  1  2  1     1
22   38  Ken Singleton            158   13   1  1  1                       5  1  2  2   
23T  37  Lou Brock                155   10   2     1           2  1  1  2  1            
23T  25  Mickey Welch             155   10   1     2     2           3     1  1         
25   23  Dizzy Dean               154    9   3     1           1  2     1     1         
26   26  John McGraw              153    9   1  2  1  1  2                             2
27   24  Luis Tiant               152   13         1     1  1  1  1  1  1  1  2     3   
28   29  Larry Doyle              152   11   1  1  1  1     1           1     2  1  2   
29   33  Vic Willis               148   11         2  1        1  1     4        2      
30T  35  Orlando Cepeda           146   11         1     2     3  2           1  1  1   
30T  22  Rusty Staub              146   11         2  1  1        1  2           4      
32   27  Norm Cash                144   10      1     1  2  2        1  2        1      
33   34  Bobby Bonds              140   12            1  2  1     2  1        2     2  1
34   31  Bob Elliott              133   11      1           1  1  2     1  3        2   
35   56  Bus Clarkson             128    8   2  2                       1  1        1  1
36   36  Dave Concepción          124    8      1  2  1           1  1           1  1   
37   30  Elston Howard            118   10         1  1  1     1  1              3     2
38   39  Tommy Bridges            116    7      1  1  1  1  1        1  1               
39   40  Dave Bancroft            109    9         1              2  3     1  1        1
40   48  Carl Mays                101    9            2     1  1     1              2  2
41   46  Ben Taylor                98    8      1        1     1        1  1  2        1
42   47  Chuck Klein               77    6      1  1                       2           2
43   42  Vern Stephens             76    6               1  1  1  1        1     1      
44T  51  Sal Bando                 73    6                  1  2        1  1  1         
44T  44  Tommy John                73    6      1              1           1  2  1      
46   45  Frank Howard              72    8                        1     1  2  1     1  2
47   43  Pie Traynor               72    6   1        1                       2     1  1
48   52  Buddy Bell                69    7                  1     1           3  1     1
49   41  Bill Monroe               67    6               1     1  1              3      
50   49  Wally Schang              66    5   1                 2                    2   
51   50  Addie Joss                62    4      1     1              1     1            
52   55  Ed Williamson             60    4      1              1     1  1               
53   53  Ron Cey                   54    5                     1     1  2              1
54   57  Ed Cicotte                51    4         1                    1  1     1      
55   62T Frank Chance              50    4               2              1           1   
56T  68  Jim Rice                  48    5                  1           1  1           2
56T  65  Thurman Munson            48    5            1                    1     1  1  1
58   58  Rick Reuschel             47    4      1                          1     1     1
59   78T Tony Oliva                47    3      1     1                             1   
60   80T Lefty Gomez               46    4               1  1                 1        1
61   64  Rabbit Maranville         45    4               1     1                 1  1   
62   70  Wilbur Cooper             43    3   1                          1        1      
63T  74T Don Newcombe              41    4                     1     1        1        1
63T  59  Urban Shocker             41    4                        1     1  1        1   
65   69  George J. Burns           38    4                           1     1  1     1   
66   66  Sam Rice                  38    3                  1        1  1               
67   67  Fred Dunlap               38    2   1                 1                        
68   60T Ernie Lombardi            36    3            1           1                    1
69   60T Jimmy Ryan                33    3                  1           1           1   
70   62T Jim Kaat                  31    3            1                          1     1
71   72T Luis Aparicio             28    2               1           1                  
72   54  Bruce Sutter              27    3                           1        1        1
73   83T Bobby Veach               24    3                                 1        2   
74T n/e  Dave Parker               24    2                     1           1            
74T  78T Gene Tenace               24    2                  1                 1         
76   80T Tony Mullane              23    2                     1              1         
77   83T Hack Wilson               19    2                           1              1   
78   71  Jack Quinn                17    1            1                                 
79T  85  Fielder Jones             16    1               1                              
79T  74T Al Rosen                  16    1               1                              
79T  76  Dizzy Trout               16    1               1                              
82   88  Al Oliver                 15    2                                       1  1   
83   86T Sam Leever                15    1                  1                           
84T  86T Tony Lazzeri              14    1                     1                        
84T  72T Leroy Matlock             14    1                     1                        
86  100  Toby Harrah               13    2                                          1  1
87   90T Mickey Vernon             11    1                              1               
88T  93T George Kell                9    1                                    1         
88T  96T Bill Mazeroski             9    1                                    1         
90T  96T Steve Garvey               8    1                                       1      
90T  95  Bill Madlock               8    1                                       1      
90T n/e  Johnny Pesky               8    1                                       1      
93T n/e  Cesar Cedeno               6    1                                             1
93T n/e  Billy Nash                 6    1                                             1
93T  96T Virgil Trucks              6    1                                             1
93T n/e  Sol White                  6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Artie Wilson(89), Kiki Cuyler(92), Luke Easter(77), Dutch Leonard(90T), 
Herman Long(80T), Dick Lundy(96T), Fred Lynn(93T).
Ballots Cast: 51

Thanks to OCF and Ron Wargo for their help verifying the ballot tally (as they have been doing for “years”)!

 

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 16, 2007 at 06:12 PM | 84 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:04 AM (#2336698)
Congratulations to Dwight, Nellie and Edd!

HOF-not-HOM through 1997
 
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 Day
Leon
14 Dean
Dizzy
15 Duffy
Hugh
16 Evers
Johnny
17 Ferrell
Rick
18 Fingers
Rollie
19 Gomez
Lefty
20 Grimes
Burleigh
21 Hafey
Chick
22 Haines
Jesse
23 Hooper
Harry
24 Hoyt
Waite
25 Hunter
Catfish
26 Jackson
Travis
27 Johnson
Judy
28 Joss
Addie
29 Kell
George
30 Kelly
George
31 Klein
Chuck
32 Lazzeri
Tony
33 Lindstrom
Freddie
34 Lombardi
Ernie
35 Manush
Heinie
36 Maranville
Rabbit
37 Marquard
Rube
38 McCarthy
Tommy
39 McGraw
John 
40 Pennock
Herb
41 Rice
Sam
42 Rizzuto
Phil
43 Schalk
Ray
44 Schoendienst
Red
45 Tinker
Joe
46 Traynor
Pie
47 Waner
Lloyd
48 Welch
Mickey
49 Willis
Vic
50 Wilson
Hack
51 Youngs
Ross
 
HOM
-not-HOF
 
1  Allen
Dick 
2  Barnes
Ross
3  Beckwith
John
4  Bennett
Charlie
5  Boyer
Ken
6  Brown
Ray
7  Brown
Willard
8  Caruthers
Bob
9  Childs
Cupid
10 Dahlen
Bill
11 Davis
George
12 Doby
Larry
13 Evans
Darrell
14 Evans
Dwight
15 Ferrell
Wes
16 Freehan
Bill
17 Glasscock
Jack
18 Gordon
Joe
19 Gore
George
20 Grant
Frank
21 Grich
Bobby
22 Groh
Heinie
23 Hack
Stan
24 Hernandez
Keith
25 Hill
Pete
26 Hines
Paul
27 Jackson
Joe*
28 JohnsonHome Run
29 Keller
Charlie
30 Mackey
Biz
31 Magee
Sherry
32 McPhee
Bid
33 McVey
Cal
34 Méndez
José
35 Minoso
Minnie
36 Moore
Dobie
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 Trouppe
Quincy
55 Torriente
Cristobal
56 White
Deacon
57 Williams
Smokey Joe
58 Wilson
Jud
59 Wynn
Jimmy
 
*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:11 AM (#2336706)
Muahahahahaha indeed.

>Jake Beckley (does he finally go in in ‘98?)

One backlogger probably will. But Walters and Redding are certainly coming up on the outside.
   3. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:15 AM (#2336711)
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I'm crushed
   4.   Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2336720)
what is the record for most different players receiving a first-place vote? I count 27 players getting a first round vote in 1997. That seems like a lot.
   5. Chris Cobb Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:29 AM (#2336726)
Well, my consensus score is going to take a serious hit this year.

What's up with Walters, Redding, and Bresnahan? It's not like there's any new data on Redding, and I don't remember there being a stirring new case for Walters or Bresnahan being made.

I'm puzzled by these results.

And I sympathize with Dan R.
   6. Mike Webber Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:39 AM (#2336735)
Hooray for Edd!!

With 1/5 of my ballot being elected, and only 1 player among the next 7 top returnees I promise to look hard at my ballot the next two weeks, something I haven't had time to really do since Christmas.

I'l even re-read the entire Bus Clarkson thread.
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:45 AM (#2336742)
I am more bothered with Dewey flying in there like he was Roberto Clemente or something. At least Fox ran the gauntlet.
   8. yest Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2336743)
does anyone else find it ironic that Fox made both Hall's in the same "year"
   9. Howie Menckel Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2336747)
all-time 'votes points' thru 1997 - those still eligible in 1998 election are in CAPS. electees are not in caps.

Leach climbs into the top 15.... Roush leaves the game in 20th, just reached the 12,000-pt mark... Fox leaves at 15th among active players with 7587... Elliott climbs into top 25 active with ?

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
BECKLEY.... 25562
VAN HALTREN 24773.5
DUFFY...... 24434.5
BROWNING... 22152.5
Childs..... 18484
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
Jennings... 16976
WELCH...... 16849
REDDING.... 14763

CJONES..... 14361
Sisler..... 13892
Pike....... 13399
BRESNAHAN.. 13097
TLEACH..... 12926
Sewell..... 12769
Mendez..... 12555
Thompson... 12349
RYAN....... 12297.5
Roush...... 12005

Bennett.... 11503
Moore...... 10904
Rixey...... 10789
Caruthers.. 10704
Beckwith.... 9896

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Cravath 9096, Doyle 8447, Walters 8423, Grimes 7842, Monroe 6946, Oms 6398, BJohnson 6388, McGraw 5985, Schang 5952, Williamson 5815, Willis 4415, Joss 4077, Dean 4000, Elliott 3849)

and I need a new "25th-most active points" guy.
Fingers?
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:52 AM (#2336748)
does anyone else find it ironic that Fox made both Hall's in the same "year"


Ironic? No.

Interesting? Yes.
   11. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: April 17, 2007 at 02:56 AM (#2336752)
What's up with Walters, Redding, and Bresnahan?

Well, I assume many of those who put Walters fifth this year didn't have him in an elect-me slot last year. And the trio who put him at 15th likely didn't have him on their ballots at all last year. In fact, he had the most 3rd place ballots & the most 15th place choices.

You're on your own with the other 2.
   12. Howie Menckel Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:00 AM (#2336756)
I put Bresnahan back on my ballot this year, and at 8th, after a thorough review of the full field. That's 2 slots right there.
I also moved Redding up a little, as his speculative case was better than a few definitive cases, I found.
And I put Walters back on the ballot at 15th, as he won a "bakeoff" with Grimes for a spot.

And we all know I AM................. Mister Consensus!
:)
   13. Chris Cobb Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:01 AM (#2336757)
I am more bothered with Dewey flying in there like he was Roberto Clemente or something. At least Fox ran the gauntlet.

The only weakness in Evans' case was his lack of peak, and, frankly, there just aren't any great peaks left, unless you don't consider playing time. Among the career candidates, Evans had a quite respectable peak, he had the best bat of anybody with comparable playing time, and he was a stellar defender for the first half of his career, there are no questions about the quality of his competition, and the comprehensive metrics are in agreement about him.

No other candidate had nearly so many positives that a substantial portion of the electorate are prepared to acknowledge.

Fox and Roush "ran the gauntlet" because they are both marginal candidates, among the ten or fifteen weakest that we will elect by 2007. If they are truly the best of the backlog (and Fox's case especially rests for many voters on factors that don't directly relate to value, I remain dubious), it's no surprise that Evans outdistanced them by a long ways.
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:14 AM (#2336760)
>Fox's case especially rests for many voters on factors that don't directly relate to value

Yeah, yeah, I know, a bunch of useless stats. My conscience is feeling terribly guilty right now.

If the proof of Evans' worth is that "a substantial portion of the electorate" was "prepared to acknowledge it," I guess maybe you could say the same thing about Nellie. Not that we aren't going to keep hearing otherwise for god knows how many more years.
   15. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:39 AM (#2336769)
Nah, I think Dan will let this go now. We can move on to...having the same argument about Willie Randolph for the next 3 weeks. :-)
   16. Michael Bass Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:50 AM (#2336772)
Wow, Walters, Redding, and Johnson are 3 of my ballot o' long shots, so maybe my consensus won't suck this year.

Though I didn't vote for 2 of the 3 electees, maybe not. On the other hand, I'm guessing with those numbers a lot of people didn't vote for 2 of the 3 electees this year, just the combos changed. :)

As for the Fox mini-controversy today, I thought (off the top of my memory at least) that he measured up pretty strongly in WARP and WS, and whatever the flaws of those two, they're hardly measures that "don't relate to value". I didn't vote for him, but will probably PHOM him in the next 2-3 years, and he gets no bonus points for best 2B or anything like that with me. On the other hand, I also vote for (and had ahead of Fox) Concepcion, Rizzuto, Maranville and Bancroft, so I'm not subject to the main argument against Fox.
   17. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:05 AM (#2336780)
I think I may need a prolonged grieving period. That said, Randolph is not remotely like Fox--how dare you smear him by mentioning him in the same breath!--and he will most definitely be on my ballot, although probably not in an elect-me spot.
   18. Michael Bass Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2336783)
This brings up an interesting thought I've had...

There are numerous cases where voters have argued a player into the HOM through advocacy of the player's case. Ranging from Keller to Pierce to numerous Negro League candidates (Rube Foster, Mendez, Moore), there are a ton of times that a player can thank a few people pushing his case for his eventual HOM election.

But has any candidate's election ever been *stopped* by people arguing against him? I'm not talking about the initial discussion threads (where especially some of the overrated Negro League candidates went from likely election to very few votes), but I mean candidates firmly at the top of the backlog who looked a sure bet for election, but dropped because of cases made against him by members of the electorate. The only example I can think of of a player who appeared primed for induction and since dropped entirely off the top of the backlog was GVH, and I don't think he counts for this example because as I remember it, he didn't drop off due to arguments made against him, he just lost a chunk of support during the long non-backlog period in the 30s/40s/50s.

I guess what I mean by all this: is it worth getting attached to the cause of denying a player entry to the HOM? Because unlike hitching your arguments to boosting a player, it doesn't seem to actually ever get results. Thus my "eh" attitude over the election of someone not in my top 100 this time around.
   19. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:27 AM (#2336786)
Well, Joe Sewell was primed to go in a lot earlier than he did, until the issue of the weakness of other 1920's shortstops was raised. Redding and Mendez were close to tied for a long while, but Dick got pushed back by the numbers from the Negro League project. Pete Browning's seen his fortunes rise and fall, although I don't know of any particular argument.

The other thing is that we've been moving through the backlog quicker than we've been getting new candidates. One thing I've found in doing my PHoM is that one year you have 2 guys battling back and forth and you have to pick one, and then the next year you find you've got to take the other guy anyway. With a candidate as close to election as Fox was, the odds were pretty strongly stacked in his favor.

Oh, and ask karl about people battling Jake Beckley. Just not in a thread that I need to read.
   20. Chris Cobb Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:45 AM (#2336792)
If the proof of Evans' worth is that "a substantial portion of the electorate" was "prepared to acknowledge it," I guess maybe you could say the same thing about Nellie. Not that we aren't going to keep hearing otherwise for god knows how many more years.

What I'm saying is that if you look at all the things that all the voters, taken together, are willing to give credit for, Evans obviously has more of those things than anybody else, so his easy election was entirely predictable and consistent with widely held conclusions about value in the electorate. Not everyone will agree, but it's pretty easy to see that the peak voters are the ones who will disagree with the rest of the electorate on this one. Since the peak voters have done very well at electing their guys, well, I don't see why a solid career/prime candidate should be begrudged.

If you look at Fox, you'll see that he appeals strongly to three groups within the electorate: win shares voters, positional balance voters, and non-comprehensive metrics voters. Voters who look at OWP, RCAP, BP's WARP, and Dan R.'s WAR are a lot less high on Fox, generally. There may be exceptions to both trends: I haven't analyzed every vote for Fox.

I tend to disagree most strongly with the ballots of non-comprehensive metric voters, especially when those voters don't seem to have a consistent system or tend to place a lot of weight on factors that are obviously heavily influenced by team, park, or league context or that have a highly indirect relationship to runs and wins. (For a consistent non-comprehensive metric system, see Karlmagnus's ballots. For careful use of decent non-comprehensive metric measures, see Howie Menckel's). It is my strong impression that without the enthusiastic support of that bloc of voters, Fox would not have been elected this year. I think we would have better results if that bloc of voters would be more attentive to the arguments in favor of statistical tools for measuring value developed in the last decade, and I find it regrettable when those voters are the difference in an election.

Fox is not, in my view, a terrible choice, and I can see the arguments based on win shares and positional balance for his election, though I think the counter-arguments carry sufficient weight that he was not quite on my ballot. He probably would have gotten there within the next decade. But the reasons why Fox was elected _now_ don't increase my confidence in the validity of our decisions.
   21. ronw Posted: April 17, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2336805)
Ruminations:

My favorite anti-player thread was favre's reasons for not voting for Bob Caruthers. It didn't work either.

Congratulations to Bus Clarkson and Dave Bancroft for crossing the 100 point barrier. Ben Taylor was two points shy.

I had Nellie Fox 15th on my ballot. I don't pay attention to black ink/gray ink. I like Win Shares, and I probably have some subconscious positional balance.

I think we were missing some Perez, Browning and Fingers supporters. I think rico missed posting (hopefully not over the Bill Buckner fiasco) and so did Dimino and Jeff M.
   22. OCF Posted: April 17, 2007 at 07:02 AM (#2336823)
Consensus scores were just ridiculous this year. The highest possible score was -4. The mean score was -20.4, breaking the 1996 record of -19.0 by a considerable margin.

Howie Menckel: -12
Esteban Rivera: -13
TomH: -15
DanG: -15
Rusty Priske: -15
favre: -16
Rob Wood: -16
Mark Shirk: -17
Daryn: -17
mulder & scully: -17
Mike Webber: -17
Sean Gilman: -17
...
Chris Cobb: -18
...
Juan V: -20 (median)
...
John Murphy: -21
...
OCF: -24 (I've been getting further and further out of touch)
KJOK: -24
Joe Dimino: -24
Michael Bass: -24
EricC: -26
TomD: -26
Mark Donelson: -26
rico vanian: -27
Eric Chalek: -28
yest: -29
jimd: -30
karlmagnus: -31 (even if we did come within an eyelash of electing Beckley)
   23. yest Posted: April 17, 2007 at 07:09 AM (#2336824)
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
Mike Schmidt, 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
Bruce Sutter, 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
   24. OCF Posted: April 17, 2007 at 07:44 AM (#2336833)
I think rico missed posting (hopefully not over the Bill Buckner fiasco) and so did Dimino and Jeff M.

rico and Joe did vote in this election. Jeff M. missed it, as did Tiboreau, Patrick W, Trevor P, Carl G, and James Newburg. The default assumption for who to blame would be the IRS>
   25. Paul Wendt Posted: April 17, 2007 at 08:12 AM (#2336837)
Charley Jones is a lost cause. He must have hit his own ceiling. O'erpassed by Walters, Bresnahan, and the Dick Redding revival.


8. yest Posted: April 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2336743)
does anyone else find it ironic that Fox made both Hall's in the same "year"


Someone expects you will discover whether Fox is the first.


Chris Cobb:
What I'm saying is that if you look at all the things that all the voters, taken together, are willing to give credit for, Evans obviously has more of those things than anybody else, so his easy election was entirely predictable and consistent with widely held conclusions about value in the electorate.

I agree, entirely predictable. Dewey didn't even suffer the sharp criticism aimed at Darrell. I am intrigued that Perez took a beating with the arrival of Evans, because they are easy to compare, Staub too.

Only Evans was named on half the ballots.


Congratulations to Bus Clarkson and Dave Bancroft for crossing the 100 point barrier.

This was not a good result for Bancroft. I expected some move up. DanR "honored" Bancroft and Rizzuto by naming them with Concepcion a few times, but Rizzuto advanced from 32 to 19! Bancroft from 40 to 39. No new support for Maranville either. (If jimd will vote for Lave Cross or Billy Nash he'll wrest the laurel wreath from charlemagne.)

Clarkson was such a midweek boom that he seems to be a bust in the event. And he is a bust, in falling short of El Chaleeko's ballot in the end. (On the other hand, he has some name recognition here, which he lacks everywhere else, if we may judge from the Committee on African American Baseball and John Holway.)



Well, Joe Sewell was primed to go in a lot earlier than he did, until the issue of the weakness of other 1920's shortstops was raised. Redding and Mendez were close to tied for a long while, but Dick got pushed back by the numbers from the Negro League project.

Sewell is the most notable case that I recall.
A few respected voters summarize the case against Browning in most uncompromising terms, quietly influential, maybe it can't be called a "campaign".
When I arrived in 1904 someone firmly called Ryan, Van Haltren, and Duffy iirc "mediocrities". Ryan's plummet was notable --he has half the lifetime votes of Van Haltren and Duffy-- but I don't recall any concerted or extended argument.
Addie Joss?
   26. karlmagnus Posted: April 17, 2007 at 10:49 AM (#2336850)
1998 doesn't look like Beckley's year; he has committed supporters at the top and is creeping back onto the bottom of some ballots, but not much in the middle. With several new plausible candidates, 2 of which even I shall have on my ballot (was 0 for 3 again this year, though Dwight was #16) Beckley will lose both "elect me" and bottom-ballot spots. My guess for election apart from Blyleven and Carter would be Redding.

having said that, and having got the '99 glut out of the way, there do look to be some holes early in the '00s. My job as a Beckley fanatic (the full term seems applicable here) will be to make sure he doesn't get lost before '02-03 when his next big chance appears. Three week ballot periods make this more difficult than it used to be.
   27. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 11:51 AM (#2336854)
I wouild agree that Sewell is the only guy I can remember whose fortunes seemed to actually turn on a backlash against, though in his case it only delayed his enshrinement. GVH would appear to be a candidate based just on his historical ranking in this project, but I don't remember a campaign against. Browning--clearly there is focused opposition but I don't remember him every being "primed" for election.

Supporters of certain players delayed the enshrinement of the object of their support--well, OK, one player--Wes Ferrell, by badgering the electorate a bit overly. I don't think Beckley fits into this category. Still, I would say the record shows that you can do a guy more harm by supporting him overly much than by bashing the hell out of him.

But in the end, I don't think either approach could be called successful. This electorate has heard it all and most voters know what they know.
   28. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 12:10 PM (#2336861)
Meanwhile, looking ahead, clearly we're going to elect more of the backlog--1 in '98 and maybe a half-dozen or so after Y2K.

Arms--Walters, Redding, Fingers probably in/nobody else even close (Grimes next)

I can see the case for all four. Redding and Fingers are on my ballot, Walters close, Grimes never, yet Grimes' appeal is obvious too. With Walters I have trouble pulling the trigger--I mean, nice peak, but short; okay prime; very short career despite being aided (or is it diminished) by playing during WWII. A tricky case--but surely there are better peaks (Lefty Gomez?) and better primes and better careers (Grimes). Can we find some Walters comps and then talk about whether they (the comps) aren't better?

Bats--Beckley, Browning, Johnson probably in/Jones, Cravath and Perez probably out

Browning and C. Jones have been on my ballot forever, Cravath has been on and off, Beckley and Johnson never. Yet I understand why Beckley will go in, and I understand why Jones won't. And I even understand if Browning falls short. What I don't understand is Johnson ranking ahead of Cravath. Well, that's not true. Cravath is a major test for the whole concept of MLEs other than for NeLers and WWII, and I would think from the voting over the years that there are those who don't give any MLE credit outside of those two obvious situations. Some more discussion of Cravath seems to me to be in order.

Among the more recent backlog, I agree that Doggie should probably be out, because Cepeda and F. Howard seem clearly to be better. They seem to me to be underrated here.

Gloves--Bresnahan right on the bubble and possibly aided by an odd electorate/nobody else even close (Leach next)

Here's a pretty good pair of comps if you ask me. Let's talk about whether Leach isn't better than Bresnahan. The SS glut that was discussed last "year" is still out there but none of them is close. I personally kinda like Phil Rizzuto, but I wonder if there are those who still don't even give WWII credit.

Hybrids--Duffy and GVH probably out.

I categorize CF as hybrids along with the occasional SS-3B type. We used to call it the CF glut, and I wonder if the many CF candidates didn't pretty much cancel each other out. Still, for peak voters you've got Duffy and for career voters you've got GVH--and neither one has enough of the other, so I'm in agreement that they are probably legitimate outies. But hey, how about Reggie Smith, who seems to me to be better than Jim Wynn.

Summary

Are these the right guys to elect?

Beckley
Walters
Redding
Fingers
Browning

Or are these bubble boys better?

Bresnahan
Johnson
C. Jones
Cravath
Duffy
Perez

Whereas I would say, take another look at:

Leach
Rizzuto
Reggie Smith
Cepeda
F. Howard
   29. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM (#2336869)
Eric Chalek: -28
yest: -29
jimd: -30
karlmagnus: -31 (even if we did come within an eyelash of electing Beckley)


OK, last week I went from "approaching" the yest/mangus nether reaches. Now I am part of them. Yowza.

1 evans
2 fox
4 beckley


A huge year for career candidates. Maybe the peak-centric leaning has begun to balance a bit?

After them, Roush Johnson, Redding are solidly prime/career.

Walters and Browning lean strongly peak.

Not sure about Bresnahan, maybe just prime.

Up ballot consideration of career-oriented and prime/career-oriented candidates was very high.
   30. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:01 PM (#2336876)
Paul Wendt, part of the Rizzuto spike is that I finished my AL WARP in time for this election, which got Scooter high on my ballot, and I know that 'zop at least uses my WARP in his voting so those are two new upper-ballot votes right there. I also did everything I could to encourage Fox voters to switch to any of Rizzuto/Bancroft/Concepción, with little success.
   31. andrew siegel Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:02 PM (#2336878)
OCF--

I'm usual near the top in consensus but seem to be drifting down. What was my score this time?
   32. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2336887)
Bill James' actual rankings, as opposed to his methods, are of course ancient history. And even his methods, including the timeline, the bullshit dump, etc. etc., are not widely imitated either. Be that as it may, here are the top players in his rankings who remain in our backlog.

14. Thurman Munson 206/26-25-24/111...of course it's not that hard (in terms of career totals) to rank at catcher

15-20. Elston Howard, Roger Bresnahan, Darrell Porter, Wally Schang

13. Tony Perez 349/33-32-31/144...are we missing the boat on Doggie? I don't think so, but...

17-20. Orlando Cepeda, Norm Cash

19. Tony Lazzeri 252/30-27-24/115

20. Larry Doyle

11. Sal Bando 283/36-31-29/143...it would appear at a glance that we're missing the boat on this one.

13-20. Nettles, Rosen, Traynor, Cey, Elliot, Bell, Leach. It would appear that we're missing the boat on this position.

13. Luis Aparicio 293/22-21-20/92...James caves to popular opinion. Us? Never.

15-20. Fregosi, Rizzuto (without war credit), Wills, Pesky (without war credit!?). A test of war credit for the HoM adn war credit is losing.

15. Lou Brock 348/31-30-30/134

19. Frank Howard 297/38-34-30/153...missing the boat here?

13. Wally Berger 241/36-33-31/152...why Berger (ranking this highly) and not F. Howard?

17-20. Fred Lynn, Vada Pinson, Hack Wilson, Hugh Duffy. Ah, the CF glut.

14. Dave Parker 327/37-33-31/150...missing the boat here?

15-20. Bobby Bonds, Bobby Murcer, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith...a lotta talent in RF.

25. Dizzy Dean 181/37-31-31/145...why the big peak boost for Diz vs. F. Howard, Parker...?

38-50. Carl Mays, Lon Warneke, Don Newcombe, Eddie Cicotte.

51-75. Tiant, Wi. Cooper, Sutter, Trucks, Grimes, Hunter, John, Kaat, Guidry, Gomez, Quisenberry, Walters, Shocker, Lolich.

Summary

1. Bando (11)
2. Dean (25)
3. Perez, Nettles, Aparicio, Berger (13)
7. Munson, Rosen, Parker (14)
10. E. Howard, Traynor, Fregosi, Brock, Bo. Bonds (15)

Conclusion: Let's all take a fresh look at 3B and see if we can't find a way to elect a backlogger at the hot corner. Leach (half a 3B) at #16, Nettles #18, McGraw #26 and Elliott #34 are the only guys with 10 ballots or 150 points. Bando trails Gene Tenace and Toby Harrah among others and has 0 votes.
   33. TomH Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:31 PM (#2336890)
We seemed to have established a pretty clear upper echelcon of the backlog - not much 79 total pts) separates #4 (Beckley) and #14 (Perez), but after that you get guys who made fewer than 1/3 of the ballots.

Whether we elect 4 backloggers or 8 over the next decade, it will likely be from among these 11, but I'd say all of them have a reasonable chance, and none of them are 'gimmes'.
   34. Guapo Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2336899)
But has any candidate's election ever been *stopped* by people arguing against him?

Mickey Welch.
   35. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:44 PM (#2336903)
Just for fun, here's the latest version of my PHoM-not-HoM and HoM-not-PHoM lineups. Biggest problem now is that neither team has a catcher, so for lack of a better option, I'll use the pitcher/part-time pitcher there. And since each team's got 10 players, we'll also go with a DH.

PHoM-not-HoM
1. Leach CF
2. Beckley 1B
3. Johnson LF
4. Cravath DH
5. Smith RF
6. Clarkson 3B
7. Van Haltren C
8. Monroe 2B
9. Rizzuto SS
P Redding

HoM-not-PHoM
1. Bell 3B
2. Carey CF
3. Thompson RF
4. Kiner DH
5. Jennings SS
6. Sisler 1B
7. Ashburn LF
8. Fox 2B
9. Griffith C
P Foster
   36. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:48 PM (#2336905)
Re. Mickey Welch. He had his supporters and some had him #1, but he was never ever close. He debuted at #17 and was in the 17-23 range for 12-15 years, never higher. Then, during the deep backlog elections of 1930-1931, when we elected Caruthers and Pearce, he was 12 and 13 and trailed some players like GVH and Ryan who have not been elected. Yes, it was pointed out that he was mostly an innings-eater but I don't think the nay-sayers literally prevented him from being elected. He was never on more than 15-16 ballots, I don't think.
   37. DL from MN Posted: April 17, 2007 at 01:49 PM (#2336906)
Walters isn't even the right pitcher from his era, Tommy Bridges is the guy we're overlooking.
   38. OCF Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:27 PM (#2336989)
Andrew Siegel: -22. Somewhere in between Murphy and me. Dan Rosenheck, DL from MN, rawagman, and 'zop are all in that neighborhood.
   39. TomH Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:39 PM (#2336997)
Bridges WAS a better pure pitcher than Walters.

But.

Big edge with the bat to Bucky. Small edge in fielding. Much bigger peak. Walters also was matched often against the Reds prime opponents, deflating his stats a bit. Lastly, Walters' 12 yr prime included more years in the 40s, as opposed to the early 30s of Bridges - we're certainly not short in honoring guys from 1930-34!

You can give some war credit to Bridges, but he WAS mid-to-late 30s the year he missed, and declnied quickly after 1945; how sure are we he was a fine hurler during late WWII?
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 17, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2337006)
Backloggin'

I'm looking at those results up there and asking myself this quesiton: Who will be the backlog in the near future? Let's look at the the 1998-2002 candidates

-1998: Carter and Blyleven should fly in; Steib could go in or could enter the backlog, Randolph seems likely to enter the backlog.

-1999: Brett and Yount seem likely to fly in; I suspect Fisk will join them; Ryan goes to the b'log; Murphy too.

-2000: Gossage could go in or could go backlog; Hough and Morris seem like backloggers (if that)

-2001: Winfield seems likely to go in; Whitaker, Puckett, and Parrish seem could go either way.

-2002: Ozzie, Trammell, and Dawson could all go either way.

So to me this means that in 1998 the backlog competes with Steib and Randolph for one slot.
In 1999 the backlog gets shut out.
In 2000 Ryan is an easy in, with the 1998 backlog (minus one) competing with Gossage and Murphy (from 1999) for two slots.
In 2001 the remnants of 2000 compete with Whitaker, Puckish, and Parrett for two slots. I personally think it's one slot because I think Whitaker will get ample support.
In 2002 the remnants of 2001 compete with Ozzie, Trammell, and Dawson. I don't know that all three will win election or that they won't, but I suspect at least one and likely two will win, so it'll be a one-slot race.

So I see five slots that the current backlog can compete for, but I also think that Steib, Randolph, Gossage, Murphy, Puckett, Dawson, and Parrish could be an extremely difficult group of candidates to compete with. Why?

-I've already made the Steib/Walters comparison, and it's flattering to Steib.
-The Fox/Randolph comparison also already has been made, and it seems flattering to Randolph in some ways.
-Gossage/Fingers is going to be extremely difficult to disentangle.
-Murphy has signifcant CF time and should be highly comparable to both CF and corner guys.
-Puckett is most comfy among borderline candidates and should slide into the CF discussion.
-Dawson has lots of CF, a very long career, and should compete directly with Perez.
-Parrish will compare very favorably up the catcher ladder, with Carter's career length and power, a peak that's not soft, and no games anywhere else than catcher. Bresnahan, Howard, and Munson need to be worried.

In other words, four-five slots, but not necessarily any guarantee of anyone emerging from the oldlog to gain election, particularly as time moves along. This will be fun!
   41. dan b Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:10 PM (#2337015)
I guess what I mean by all this: is it worth getting attached to the cause of denying a player entry to the HOM? Because unlike hitching your arguments to boosting a player, it doesn't seem to actually ever get results.

After failing to stop the Ross Barnes express and the Joe Start local, I would have to say no. Years ago an elderly gentleman told me that when reasonable attempts to change someone's mind have failed, he would say to them "God bless you as you go through life wrong."

That said, let me say one last time - if Jake Beckley was the best player on his team, that team would be doomed to lose 100 games. - Just say NO! to Beckley. ;)
   42. DL from MN Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2337020)
> if Jake Beckley was the best player on his team, that team would be doomed to lose 100 games

And you can't say that about Nellie Fox? Or 4/5 of the backlog?
   43. Chris Cobb Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2337027)
Persuading people _against_ a candidate will frequently run up against the challenge of persuading people against either their system for evaluating merit or their vision of what merit is. Many voters change their minds about these matters from time to time, but they usually do so on the basis of long-term trends in the makeup of their ballots and ongoing discussions. They are unlikey to change their system or their view of merit as a result of a single player's case.

Also, I think voters changed their systems more frequently earlier in the project when the systems were less settled and elaborate and when changing a system meant recalculating maybe 50 players rather than 300 players or more.

In this regard, I would like to incorporate Dan R.'s work into my system, but I would have to do it for all significant current candidates and the lower echelon of electees to discern fully the meaning of his numbers and how they are affected by era. I also would have to figure out a way to use them when they do not cover pitchers, non-major league players, and pre-1893 players. I don't have a way to do this yet.
   44. Mike Webber Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:40 PM (#2337040)
So I see five slots that the current backlog can compete for, but I also think that Steib, Randolph, Gossage, Murphy, Puckett, Dawson, and Parrish could be an extremely difficult group of candidates to compete with. Why?


Are Lou Brock and Dwight Evans comparable candidates?

I'm working through that in my mind, but do other want to blow it out of the water and save me time?
   45. DL from MN Posted: April 17, 2007 at 04:43 PM (#2337043)
Brock was a terrible defender, Evans was a terrific defender.
   46. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 17, 2007 at 05:11 PM (#2337060)
Lou Brock would have to be worth a lot of runs on the bases I think, and Evans, though not a stealer, apparently was not a zombie on the bases either. And then there's the glove. And then there's that Evans got on base more often, park and power aside. The gulf in OPS+ is large between them, and Brock can't really it in with his glove or legs, his career wasn't so much longer, and since he led off, some of the bulk difference is illusory anyway. They are certainly closer than say Brock and Ruth or Lou Brock and Greg Brock, but I think Evans is at the advantage.
   47. OCF Posted: April 17, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2337076)
I've been one of Brock's biggest boosters around here, and I don't think that OPS+ is the right way to look at Brock. But I did have Evans ahead of Brock on my ballot, even if only slightly ahead.
   48. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 17, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2337142)
> if Jake Beckley was the best player on his team, that team would be doomed to lose 100 games

And you can't say that about Nellie Fox? Or 4/5 of the backlog?


Hey from 1936-42, Bob Johnson was usually the best player on his team, and they only lost 100 games twice! (2 99s, 2 97s, and a 90 in 41 when Sam Chapman was the best player)
   49. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 17, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2337150)
Chris Cobb, I can email you with my work on pitchers, Negro Leaguers, and pre-1893 guys in time for the next election. I am extremely confident in my numbers for post-1893 MLB position players (particularly after the next revision, up in the next few days, which will include CS estimates) and much less confident for candidates outside that group, but I do *have* (unreliable) estimates that I will be happy to send you. The problems are:

1. With pitchers, I use a moving average of their batting average on balls in play ability *relative to their teammates*, so guys like McGinnity will definitely come out too low.

2. Since I haven't done every pitcher in MLB history (just the main candidates), I don't have separate standard deviation data for them. I just use the hitters' standard deviations, but it's entirely possible that pitchers and hitters might have nothing to do with each other or even move in opposite directions.

3. With Negro Leaguers, I'm of course reliant on MLE's which appear to be much more of an art than a science. In addition, they don't take account of standard deviations, and I suspect that the standard deviation in the Negro Leagues was far greater than in MLB even after adjusting for league quality (just take a look at the team data for Oscar Charleston's 1921).

4. Pre-1893 players are the most difficult since I find it impossible to do accurate run estimation for them. My approach is to just use Baseball Prospectus' BRAA and regressed FRAA, combined with the 1893 replacement levels and estimates of league standard deviations based on the 1893-2005 regression equation. This is of course a terribly flawed approach, since I've tested BP's EQR run estimator on pre-1893 teams and it is often off by more than 10% (just compare the UEQR to actual R totals for many early teams). But it's the best I can do. My actual view is that the game was so different in the 1870's and 80's, where fielding percentage was king (as in your company softball game), that it's actually quite difficult for us to know who the best players were. The tools we've developed for the 20th century are simply inaccurate going that far back. But it was Major League Baseball, and a pennant is a pennant, so I figure that wild-ass guesses are preferable to simply writing off the era altogether.

Mike Webber--not REMOTELY! Dewey was an outstanding fielder and one of the best hitters in his league for many years! Brock was barely ever even an All-Star caliber player...I have Evans nearly three times as valuable as Brock!
   50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 17, 2007 at 07:22 PM (#2337156)
3. With Negro Leaguers, I'm of course reliant on MLE's which appear to be much more of an art than a science.

You're telling me? (And Chris?) ; )

In addition, they don't take account of standard deviations, and I suspect that the standard deviation in the Negro Leagues was far greater than in MLB even after adjusting for league quality (just take a look at the team data for Oscar Charleston's 1921).

I think this is intuitively true, and, in fact, it's one of the things that I think we've said all along when we've said things like "the level of competition was extremely uneven within seasons."

But there's actually bigger fish than that to fry, and that's the integration era guys who played in 5-10 different leagues of wildly varying quality, classification, and affiliation. Brent and I have been exchanging emails lately, and he said to me something to the effect that we won't really know the true conversion rate for a league until some intrepid SABRmetrical soul plows into the minor league data and figures it out for every year, every league. Since digitized player and league data is really hard to find publically, I wouldn't doubt but that the process of doing so won't be started or completed for many years....

But anyway, it's another reason why everyone should take MLEs at face value and consider them to be the absolute correct gold-standard interpretation of NgL careers! : )
   51. DanG Posted: April 17, 2007 at 07:45 PM (#2337168)
Another trivial bit: Roush's 61 ballots for election is the third highest, after Childs and Waddell. When (if) Beckley makes it, he will establish a new record, the 1998 election being his 86th year eligible. Of course, Browning could exceed that, 1998 being his 100th election.

The top ten:
82 Childs
71 Waddell
61 Roush
60 Griffith
60 Moore
54 Mendez
53 Jennings
47 Sewell
44 Sisler
43 Pike

More deep trivia. This election was only the third time we elected two hall of famers who were both on the HoM ballot more than four years. It previously happened in 1929 with Wallace (10 years) and Thompson (28), in 1985 with Mendez (54) and Sewell (47) and now 1997 with Fox (27) and Roush (61). In four elections we elected two non hall of famers who were both on the ballot more than four years, 1930, 1987, 1991 and 1996.
   52. Chris Fluit Posted: April 18, 2007 at 12:23 AM (#2337490)
4. Pseudonym Posted: April 16, 2007 at 10:23 PM (#2336720)

<quote>what is the record for most different players receiving a first-place vote? I count 27 players getting a first round vote in 1997. That seems like a lot.</quote>

I'm only counting 26. The record is 28 set in 1968. 1961 and 1996 each had 27.
   53. Rick A. Posted: April 18, 2007 at 12:32 AM (#2337509)
Elliott climbs into top 25 active with ?

I have him with 3859


and I need a new "25th-most active points" guy.
Fingers?


Ben Taylor 3380

(Fingers isn't close yet - he has 2034)
   54. dan b Posted: April 18, 2007 at 01:23 AM (#2337635)
if Jake Beckley was the best player on his team, that team would be doomed to lose 100 games

And you can't say that about Nellie Fox? Or 4/5 of the backlog?


No, you can’t say that about Nellie Fox. In 1959 he was the best player on his team (by WS) and the Sox won the pennant. Bucky Walters was the best player on 2 pennant winners.
   55. Paul Wendt Posted: April 18, 2007 at 09:42 AM (#2337918)
sunnyday list of players Bill James rates very highly.
11. Sal Bando 283/36-31-29/143...it would appear at a glance that we're missing the boat on this one.

13-20. Nettles, Rosen, Traynor, Cey, Elliot, Bell, Leach. It would appear that we're missing the boat on this position.


It appears to me that Bill James made one id-i-o-syncratic judgment in ranking Sal Bando. He isn't a generally recognized sabrmetric find a la Groh, Hack, Santo.

Hey, look ahead a year or three to Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett.


DanR:
My actual view is that the game was so different in the 1870's and 80's, where fielding percentage was king (as in your company softball game), that it's actually quite difficult for us to know who the best players were.

Yes, after Ross Barnes and Fred Dunlap, say.

The tools we've developed for the 20th century are simply inaccurate going that far back. But it was Major League Baseball, and a pennant is a pennant, so I figure that wild-ass guesses are preferable to simply writing off the era altogether.

It may be that we have elected every 19er who can be judged meritorious with much confidence, and it may be same for the Negro Leagues. The routine major leaguers in the backlog are flawed. Those who are at the focus of league quality and MLE/extra credit debates have much higher upsides but they are shrouded in some uncertainty.
   56. karlmagnus Posted: April 18, 2007 at 12:14 PM (#2337937)
dan b I agree Fox was a bad example because of his annus mirabilis happening to coincide with a White Sox pennant. But Richie Ashburn was the best player on the '62 Mets. One HOM player doesn't make a good franchise all on his own; it's a silly test. Beckley was the best player on the 1899 Reds who went 83-67, for example, as well as on the 1900 Reds, so even against the most squeezed competition in history he was a dominant player for a very long time. His best seasons may have been 1890 and 1904 but not by much; there were several seasons in the 90s where he was the leading player on a competitive team.
   57. DL from MN Posted: April 18, 2007 at 01:59 PM (#2337979)
Steve Carlton - 1972. I agree it is a stupid test.
   58. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 18, 2007 at 02:59 PM (#2338015)
I don't know that it's clear we'll elect a backlogger in 1998. If Nellie Fox went in, I could certainly see Willie Randolph close to the #3 spot in the upcoming election. I've really looked hard yet, but I think he'll most likely be in the top half of my ballot at least.
   59. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 18, 2007 at 03:00 PM (#2338016)
That should say I haven't looked really hard yet.
   60. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 18, 2007 at 03:08 PM (#2338022)
I have Stieb rated very, very close to Billy Pierce. I know most recognize him as the best pitcher between Seaver and Clemens, or the best pitcher of the 80s (since Clemens only pitched for half the decade) so he's not 'underrated' in that sense, but I think he is underrated overall (as evidenced by his getting no Hall of Fame support whatsoever).
   61. dan b Posted: April 18, 2007 at 03:12 PM (#2338025)
The point has nothing to do with MVP caliber seasons by legitimate star players stuck on a bad team and everything to do with the fact that Beckley's career is so peakless that if there were no better players than Beckley on his team during any given season through out his career, his team would be a bad team.
   62. DL from MN Posted: April 18, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2338076)
Beckley's production was typically 6-8 WARP. You're not going to convince me that a team with 8 other 5 WARP position players and 5 pitchers with 5 WARP is bad. That's 70 wins above replacement!
   63. Chris Cobb Posted: April 18, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2338079)
<ii>The point has nothing to do with MVP caliber seasons by legitimate star players stuck on a bad team and everything to do with the fact that Beckley's career is so peakless that if there were no better players than Beckley on his team during any given season through out his career, his team would be a bad team.</i>

The point is, the above statement is false. Beckley was an above average player in many seasons, and an above average player does not make a team a bad team. A team of players of Beckley's quality in his better seasons would be good enough to win a pennant in many seasons.

Look, Beckley does not have a great peak.

However, the argument that he is peakless is wrong, and it is repeated again and again only because

a) win shares undervalues first base defense in Beckley's era and Beckley loses win shares because his teams had fewer decisions than league average in some of his better years

and

b) His level of play is steady enough that he doesn't have a period of his career that stands out as a peak.

He was not an average player for a long time, as win shares suggests: he was an above average player for a long time.

This is all ground that we have been over many times.

What I would like to say to try to advance the Beckley debate past the arid and redundant back-and-forth over his peak is this:

I am not a voter who dismisses peak value: it's an important part of my system, and that has meant that I have not been a strong supporter of Beckley at all times during our history. But I want to ask the peak voters, at what point would you acknowledge that having a player on your team whom you can count on for (to use win shares) 22-25 win shares for 12-15 years is better than, or as good as, having a player on your team who gives you 28 win shares for five or six years and 15 for five or seven more?

It seems to me that, new eligibles aside, we have elected all the good durability players with outstanding peaks. Now we are choosing between players whose peaks are thinned or shortened because of durability issues and players whose credentials are career credentials. At what point would you say that, hey, although I value peak, when I compare these two players, sure the one has the better peak, but really, it isn't all that special and neither is the career, but, hey, this other guy actually has a great career, playing well year after year? I think we would make better choices if the peak voters started thinking a little more about the value of career in addition to the value of a peak. I know that everybody does that to some extent and in different ways, but I don't think it's being done enough.

If you're looking to support players who were the sort of players to lead teams to championships, I'd say we have maybe a handful: Dizzy Dean, John McGraw, Frank Chance (when they were healthy), maybe Charlie Jones. Who else? We're now looking at players who were, at their best, the sort of players who would be valuable contributors on championship teams. I don't think that dismissing them from consideration is an effective approach to assessing their merits.
   64. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2338080)
If his teammates are Spike Shannon and Mike Grady and John Farrell and Jimmy Burke and Hoomer Smoot and Jack Taylor and Chappie McFarland, yes, it's a bad team (that's the '04 Cardinals).

If his teammates are Aparicio, Sherm Lollar, Jim Landis, Al Smith, Early Wynn, Bob Shaw, Billy Pierce, Turk Lown, Gerry Staley et al (1959 Pale Hose), then no, they're not that bad.
   65. DanG Posted: April 18, 2007 at 04:41 PM (#2338098)
Well, this is the eternal "Beckley Quandary": can a player earn his way to the HoM if he never hs a superstar (say, high 20's in win shares) season? To me, it's obvious that he can. It's the old peak/career debate.

Yes, it's true that in one of Jake's typical prime seasons it is unlikely that he would be the best player on a pennant winning team. If your merit-measuring system only adds value above ~25 wins shares in a season, Beckley does pretty badly. I submit that a system like that is employing an idiosyncratic definition of merit that utterly fails to account for actual value.

Maybe turn the question around: How likely is it for a team to win the pennant if they have a replacement level player in the lineup rather than Beckley in a typical prime year? I think that teams often lose out because they lack a star of Beckley's quality, employing a near replacement level player in the regular lineup instead.

IOW, a Beckley can often be the difference between a team winning and losing. I think this is basically where Pennants Added is coming from. Doesn't Beckley do pretty well in that stat?
   66. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 18, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2338140)
I've prefered to approach the question, using WS, this way: in baseball's history, how often does a guy with seasons characteristic of this player's career lead teams to a pennant. I use shorthand to answer:
1) Find his fifth-best season adjusted to whatever you want (so not his absolute peak, but not the tail of his prime)
2) Find the number of teams who have won pennants with a player with that number of WS (adjusted as you see fit)
3) Find the total number of pennants (you can include divisions if you want)
4) Do this for all meaningful candidates and compare.

Beckley's fifth best adjusted season is like 23 WS (off the top of my head here, correct me if wrong). Fewer than 7% of pennant winners have been led by a player with that total. I don't give Beckley much in the way of credit for this. At the other extreme, I give Al Rosen or Chino Smith, the same or less than Beckley. The guys who do really well are guys with long, productive primes. Darrell Evans doesn't do great, nor does Hack Wilson. Darrell's only a spot above Beckley, and like Rosen, Wilson is either right there or gets nada. Perez does as well as Beckley. Most good players do about that well because it's hard to have five MVP-type seasons, let alone five near-MVP (say 26+) WS seasons.

I personally think this is a more obejctive, more historically useful way to look at this question, since it defines terms and ameliorates some contextual issues. Plus the sample is more than one year or ten years, it's like 300+ total pennants (including divisions). But there are surely good objections to it, like any arbitrarily drawn system.
   67. TomH Posted: April 18, 2007 at 05:37 PM (#2338154)
how often does a guy with seasons characteristic of this player's career lead teams to a pennant
Fewer than 7% of pennant winners have been led by a player with that total.


Doc, please clarify: by 'led', do you mean no other player on that team had more WS? Including pitchers or not?
   68. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 18, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2338278)
Beckley's WS aren't in the high 20's. Even after adjusting to 162 games I still have his top five seasons as 25,24,24,23,23. So 'high 20's' is overrating him a bit. By WS, this peak is slightly worse than Mark Grace (27,25,25,23,23).

Of course, you can take that or leave it...
   69. Chris Cobb Posted: April 18, 2007 at 08:50 PM (#2338302)
Mark,

How are you doing the adjustment? Do you use a standard number per season, or do you use individual team decisions? (note that I used 22-25 WS in my example, btw.)

Eric,

I think the question you are asking is reasonable, but I am wondering whether, given the pool of players that we now have, the results are a meaningful measure of the player's value. I know you look at other things, but if you are generally finding different ways of identifying "best player" attributes (I _think_ that's a fair description of your system), will you be missing the kinds of value that are created in ways other than by being "best player"?

To put it another way, if player A is a little better than player B when measured in relation to a "best player" standard, does that preclude the possibility that player B is necessarily also below player A when measured in relation to a "made exceptional contributions to a team" standard? If B made a lot more exceptional contributions but was a weak "best player," while player A was a mediocre "best player" but made few exceptional contributions outside of being a mediocre "best player," will your system prefer B or A?

I would make the argument that B should receive preferment. I am curious as to whether you agree, and whether your system would agree.
   70. Chris Cobb Posted: April 18, 2007 at 08:54 PM (#2338308)
To put it another way, if player A is a little better than player B when measured in relation to a "best player" standard, does that preclude the possibility that player B is necessarily also below player A when measured in relation to a "made exceptional contributions to a team" standard?

Yuck. That was an excessively contorted and ultimately incoherent sentence.

To put it yet another (and I hope, more clear) way: If player A is a little better than player B when measured according to a "best player" standard, is it right to assume that player A would also be a little better than player B when measured according to a "made exceptional contributions to a team" standard? Does your system make such an assumption?
   71. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 18, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2338340)
Doc, please clarify: by 'led', do you mean no other player on that team had more WS? Including pitchers or not?

Sorry, that was an important point, and I forgot it: position players only.

Yuck. That was an excessively contorted and ultimately incoherent sentence.

Thank you for saying that. I was worrying about parsing it to respond!

If player A is a little better than player B when measured according to a "best player" standard, is it right to assume that player A would also be a little better than player B when measured according to a "made exceptional contributions to a team" standard? Does your system make such an assumption?

You've got it at the end. I'm not choosing to ask that question. [And yes, you characterized it correctly when you suggested that I attempt to use lots of ways to assess merit/bestness.] I picked an arbitrary cut-off, fifth-best year, so there are reasonable objections to be made, of course.

But fundamentally, from a HOM point of view, I find the question of being a team's leading player in its drive for the pennant more compelling that being it's second-best or a contributing player. But really I'm just after the question of whether this player's arbitrarily determined profile is historically consonant with winning pennants.

But to get back to your question, I do not make an explicit comparison for second best or contributing players, I simply assume that such value/merit is elsewhere captured by the uberstat or by my system for filtering that uberstat. I'm likely wrong about that. : ) And frankly, the HOM has taught me again and again that it's harder to overhaul systems on the fly than it is to come in later as a new voter with a brand new system!
   72. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2007 at 11:15 PM (#2338470)
>If player A is a little better than player B when measured according to a "best player" standard, is it right to assume that player A would also be a little better than player B when measured according to a "made exceptional contributions to a team" standard? Does your system make such an assumption?

Exactly the formulation that is needed in order to stop the MFing of the meaning of "MVP" that is killing the credibility of the MVP award. IOW, the best player is the MVP is the best player is the best at his positon is most valuable to his team is the best player.
   73. Paul Wendt Posted: April 19, 2007 at 12:32 AM (#2338656)
Dang
Maybe turn the question around: How likely is it for a team to win the pennant if they have a replacement level player in the lineup rather than Beckley in a typical prime year? I think that teams often lose out because they lack a star of Beckley's quality, employing a near replacement level player in the regular lineup instead.

Ironically, check out the Pittsburgh Pirates! During the Wagner years, from Duff Cooley in 1900 (OPS+ 33) to Wagner himself in 1917 (OPS+ 75), blech. Between Jake Beckley in the early 90s and George Grantham in the late 20s, blech. Not bad with Harry Davis and Willie Clark, both briefly, in the late 90s, before the team was good, then whoops! The occasional OPS+ 120 comes in a package that isn't very appealing, eg Kitty Bransfield 1901-1904: 109, 121, 87, 67.
   74. DanG Posted: April 19, 2007 at 01:31 PM (#2339164)
But fundamentally, from a HOM point of view, I find the question of being a team's leading player in its drive for the pennant more compelling that being it's second-best or a contributing player.

There is an obvious pitfall in focusing only on being "the best"; you may be ignoring, or at least discounting, performance that falls short of being "the best". Another way to frame this debate, the peak/career debate, is in black/gray ink. Can a player be meritorious if he is not "the best," if he doesn't often lead the league?

Consider a player, we'll call him Joe Morgan since that's his name. The peak guy can argue that he was not a great base stealer, since he never led the league, never was "the best". Looking at his career total of 689, the career guy says, Obviously he was a great base stealer. The thing is, he was second in the league seven times.

Or the peak guy may argue Morgan wasn't a good on-base guy, he only led the league once in times on base. The career guy says, He has a career total of 4422, obviously he was a great on base guy. The thing is, he was second in the league three times, and third or fourth in three more years.

When peak guys argue that they only look at performance above their Favorite Cutoff in assessing Hall-of-Merit-oriousness, they are often ignoring, or at least discounting, performance that has value to their team's pennant quest.
   75. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 19, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2339345)
There is an obvious pitfall in focusing only on being "the best"; you may be ignoring, or at least discounting, performance that falls short of being "the best". Another way to frame this debate, the peak/career debate, is in black/gray ink. Can a player be meritorious if he is not "the best," if he doesn't often lead the league?

1) I do want to know the best. That's what Halls are about. Who was the best? That's who we strive to include. So it's no secret that it's more compelling to look at it this way.

2) Again, it's only one way I look at things. With seven other approaches getting equal weight, high-level contribution is indeed rewarded. Here's an example. Because I use WS, I'm always dealing with the question of win contribution. Jake Beckley contributed 20+ WS on average to his teams, and when you total that up you get 350-400 WS. I use career WS in two of the other seven approaches, so all that secondary contribution is being assessed in part or whole when I look at whether his career total is comparable to enshrined players and whether his peak, prime, and career meet institutional standards. The leading-a-pennant-winner approach is one point of information designed to assess bestness. These other questions assess matters where sustained contributor-level performance is super important.

3) I won't argue about Favorite Cutoff as evil, except to say that it's inevitably a necessary one. You'll always face this kind of question, baseball or otherwise. When does someone stop being smart and start being average? At what hour after a natural disaster is a government responding too slowly? How many jokes until someone stops being funny and starts being tiresome? But ultimately you have a cutoff. When do you cease being below average and start being replacement? Well, DanR answers it by averaging the worst three regulars (IIUC)---that's his Favorite Cutoff. We all got 'em, they are virtually unavoidable. The question is whether a Favorite Cutoff is defendable. I gave my premise: That the fifth-best year is likely more indicative of prime-level performance than many points during a career, and it avoids re-rewarding absolute peak performance, while also giving career guys a chance to score where fizzling peaks don't. So Rosen does poorly, Beckley gets a point, and Mickey Mantle does well. Seems pretty fair to me, but I could be very wrong.
   76. DanG Posted: April 19, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2339375)
I do want to know the best. That's what Halls are about. Who was the best? That's who we strive to include. So it's no secret that it's more compelling to look at it this way.

But is this really applicable where you're dealing with a Hall of 234 players by 2008? To me, you're including lots of guys who, only narrowly, define "the best" in anything. There's a lot of "among the best" in that size Hall.

In any case, it's not really your system I have problems with; it seems to give fair consideration to both peak and career accomplishments. No, there are other voters who need to more seriously consider their systems' balance of peak/career.

As for Favorite Cutoff being inevitable, I would rather say that It all counts. Good performance counts a lot, bad performance much less.
   77. Paul Wendt Posted: April 21, 2007 at 06:54 PM (#2341517)
1898 Election Results
    Player       Pts Bal     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1.  D.White      657  29    13 10  2  2     1  1
2.  P.Hines      654  29    11 13  2     2  1
3.  G.Gore       553  29     1  1 10  6  3  3  3  1  1
4.  R.Barnes     476  28     3     2  6  6  1  2  5  1     1     1
------ elected 1898 ------
5.  C.Radbourn   427  28     1  1  3  3  3  3  3     1  8  1           1
6.  G.Wright     420  25        2  2  5  4  4  3  3        2
7.  E.Sutton     380  27           1  2  4  6  4  2  1  3  1  1  2
8.  H.Richardson 366  28           1  2  2  4  2  3  5  2  2  2  2  1
9.  A.Spalding   339  25        1  2  1  2  2  3  2  1  5  3  1  1  1
11. J.Start      297  24           2     1     4  6  1  2  3  2  1  1  1
12. P.Galvin     209  21           1  1        1     2  1  3  3     6  3
13. C.McVey      198  19        1        1     1  1     2  3  2  7     1
15. L.Pike       123  14.5                  1              2  3  3  4  1.5
31. D.Pearce       6   1                                               1
------ elected after 1898 ------


Deacon White beat Paul Hines by three points in one of the closest of
the first hundred annual elections. George Gore and Ross Barnes
joined them in the first class. White, Hines, and Gore were named on
all 29 ballots while Barnes, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, and
Ed Williamson garnered 28 listings.

In all the 29 voters named 33 players (including two merely in ties
for 15th, a practice soon deprecated). Following the class of four,
Radbourn and George Wright were placed for prompt election, and Ezra
Sutton, Hardy Richardson, Al Spalding, and Ed Williamson in the top
ten. All ten received more than 85% ballot listing ("support" for
short), followed by Joe Start, Jim Galvin, and Cal McVey down to 65%.

Lip Pike, Tip O'Neill, Charley Jones, Mickey Welch, and Fred Dunlap,
14th to 18th, were named by 35-50% of the voters and fifteen also-rans
garnered less than 25% support.

Where are they now? Twelve of the thirteen men with majority support
have been elected, all but Ed Williamson (10th, 28/29). Pike is in,
O'Neill has disappeared, Jones, Welch, and Dunlap still earn votes.

Among the also-rans, Dickey Pearce alone has been honored, gathering
support from a base of one 15th place vote. None of the others earns
votes today, although one supporter Tommy Bond lasted about 90 years.
Jim McCormick, Tom York, and Levi Meyerle were named recently when a
novice asked about remaining players from before 1893. They still
appear on the backlog rankings that some voters maintain, commonly
down to 50th place.

support from 29 voters in the first election, 1898
10. E.Williamson  328  28             1     1  2  1  4  8  2  3  3     1  2
14. T.O'Neill     132  13             1     1  1     2     1     2  2  3
16. C.Jones        96  11                               2     1  3  1  3  1
17. M.Welch        95  11.17                         1  1     1  1  3  2  1.17
18. F.Dunlap       87  10                                     2  5  1  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RK  Player        PTS Bal       1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
support from 51 voters in the hundredth election, 1997
11. Charley Jones 287  18       2  4  1  1     2  1  1  1        1  2  2   
23. Mickey Welch  155  10       1     2     2           3     1  1    
52. Ed Williamson  60   4          1              1     1  1         
67. Fred Dunlap    38   2       1                 1           
NM. Tip O'Neill     0   0

support for also rans in the first election, 1898 (less Dickey Pearce, elected)
19. J.McCormick    70   7.17                            2  2     1  1     1.17
20. D.Orr          49   6                                        2  3  1
21. A.Dalrymple    31   4                                  1           2  1
22. J.Whitney      24   2                            1     1
23. T.York         22   3                                           1  2
24. T.Bond         21   3.5                                               3.5
25. H.Wright       16   1.67                            1                  .67
26. J.Creighton    12   2                                                 2
27. L.Meyerle       7   1.17                                              1.17
28. B.Mathews       7   1                                              1
29. J.Clapp         6   1                                                 1
30. H.Nicol         6   1                                                 1
32. B.Sunday        4    .67                                               .67
33. C.Cummings      1    .17                                               .17
   78. Paul Wendt Posted: April 21, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2341520)
1898 Election Results
Player       Pts Bal     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1.  D
.White      657  29    13 10  2  2     1  1
2.  P
.Hines      654  29    11 13  2     2  1
3.  G
.Gore       553  29     1  1 10  6  3  3  3  1  1
4.  R
.Barnes     476  28     3     2  6  6  1  2  5  1     1     1
------ elected 1898 ------
5.  C.Radbourn   427  28     1  1  3  3  3  3  3     1  8  1           1
6.  G
.Wright     420  25        2  2  5  4  4  3  3        2
7.  E
.Sutton     380  27           1  2  4  6  4  2  1  3  1  1  2
8.  H
.Richardson 366  28           1  2  2  4  2  3  5  2  2  2  2  1
9.  A
.Spalding   339  25        1  2  1  2  2  3  2  1  5  3  1  1  1
11. J
.Start      297  24           2     1     4  6  1  2  3  2  1  1  1
12. P
.Galvin     209  21           1  1        1     2  1  3  3     6  3
13. C
.McVey      198  19        1        1     1  1     2  3  2  7     1
15. L
.Pike       123  14.5                  1              2  3  3  4  1.5
31. D
.Pearce       6   1                                               1
------ elected after 1898 ------ 


Deacon White beat Paul Hines by three points in one of the closest of
the first hundred annual elections. George Gore and Ross Barnes
joined them in the first class. White, Hines, and Gore were named on
all 29 ballots while Barnes, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, and
Ed Williamson garnered 28 listings.

In all the 29 voters named 33 players (including two merely in ties
for 15th, a practice soon deprecated). Following the class of four,
Radbourn and George Wright were placed for prompt election, and Ezra
Sutton, Hardy Richardson, Al Spalding, and Ed Williamson in the top
ten. All ten received more than 85% ballot listing ("support" for
short), followed by Joe Start, Jim Galvin, and Cal McVey down to 65%.

Lip Pike, Tip O'Neill, Charley Jones, Mickey Welch, and Fred Dunlap,
14th to 18th, were named by 35-50% of the voters and fifteen also-rans
garnered less than 25% support.

Where are they now? Twelve of the thirteen men with majority support
have been elected, all but Ed Williamson (10th, 28/29). Pike is in,
O'Neill has disappeared, Jones, Welch, and Dunlap still earn votes.

Among the also-rans, Dickey Pearce alone has been honored, gathering
support from a base of one 15th place vote. None of the others earns
votes today, although one supporter Tommy Bond lasted about 90 years.
Jim McCormick, Tom York, and Levi Meyerle were named recently when a
novice asked about remaining players from before 1893. They still
appear on the backlog rankings that some voters maintain, commonly
down to 50th place.

<b>support from 29 voters in the first election1898</b>
10. E.Williamson  328  28             1     1  2  1  4  8  2  3  3     1  2
14. T
.O'Neill     132  13             1     1  1     2     1     2  2  3
16. C.Jones        96  11                               2     1  3  1  3  1
17. M.Welch        95  11.17                         1  1     1  1  3  2  1.17
18. F.Dunlap       87  10                                     2  5  1  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RK  Player        PTS Bal       1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>support from 51 voters in the hundredth election, 1997</b>
11. Charley Jones 287  18       2  4  1  1     2  1  1  1        1  2  2   
23. Mickey Welch  155  10       1     2     2           3     1  1    
52. Ed Williamson  60   4          1              1     1  1         
67. Fred Dunlap    38   2       1                 1           
NM. Tip O'
Neill     0   0


support 
for also rans in the first election1898 (less Dickey Pearceelected)
19. J.McCormick    70   7.17                            2  2     1  1     1.17
20. D
.Orr          49   6                                        2  3  1
21. A
.Dalrymple    31   4                                  1           2  1
22. J
.Whitney      24   2                            1     1
23. T
.York         22   3                                           1  2
24. T
.Bond         21   3.5                                               3.5
25. H
.Wright       16   1.67                            1                  .67
26. J
.Creighton    12   2                                                 2
27. L
.Meyerle       7   1.17                                              1.17
28. B
.Mathews       7   1                                              1
29. J
.Clapp         6   1                                                 1
30. H
.Nicol         6   1                                                 1
32. B
.Sunday        4    .67                                               .67
33. C
.Cummings      1    .17                                               .17 
   79. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 21, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2341667)
Dr. Chaleeko, my cutoff (which is actually the worst 3/8 of regulars) is empirically driven--it's the number that best matches (overall) the Freely Available Talent level as determined by Nate Silver. At the positions where FAT differs from the worst 3/8 regulars (1B, SS, and OF), I correct for that. The only arbitrary cutoff assumption I make (and it is a big and unsupported one!) is that the relationship between the worst 3/8 regulars and the actual FAT level has remained constant over time. In fact, I suspect it hasn't (particularly in the 19th century).
   80. Paul Wendt Posted: April 21, 2007 at 09:45 PM (#2341717)
re #78-79, the message is

Happy 100th Birthday!
   81. sunnyday2 Posted: May 03, 2007 at 05:16 PM (#2353355)
bump
   82. Paul Wendt Posted: May 04, 2007 at 07:08 PM (#2354491)
bump?
a subtle campaign for Ed Williamson?
   83. Cblau Posted: May 05, 2007 at 01:51 AM (#2354836)
Maybe it's for Maury Wills.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0721 seconds
49 querie(s) executed