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, May 28, 2007

1999 Results: First-Time Candidates Brett, Yount and Fisk Are Now All-Time Hall of Merit Inductees!

In his first year of eligibility, Kansas City Royal great George Brett picked up an outstanding 99% of all possible points. Every voter placed him an elect-me spot.

Shortstop/center field MVP Robin Yount captured a terrific 91% of all possible points as a newbie this election.

Legendary backstop Carlton Fisk, another new candidate, also scored a more than impressive 91% of all possible points.

Though strikeout king Nolan Ryan missed this election in his ballot debut with his strong 73% of all possible points, he will certainly go in with a high point total in 2000.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Willie Randolph, Rollie Fingers, Cannonball Dick Redding, Bucky WaltersPete Browning and Dave Stieb (first time in the top-ten!).

Thanks to OCF and Ron Wargo for helping to make sure that the tally is correct.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  George Brett            1143   48  41  5  2                                    
 2  n/e  Robin Yount             1045   48   2 28 10  7        1                        
 3  n/e  Carlton Fisk            1042   48   4 13 24  7                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4  n/e  Nolan Ryan               845   47   1  2 10 28  1  1        4                  
 5    5  Willie Randolph          237   21               1     4  5  2  3     1  1  2  2
 6    8  Rollie Fingers           210   18            1  3  3     1  1  1  1  1  4  1  1
 7    4  Cannonball Dick Redding  205   17               5     2  1  2  1  1  2     3   
 8    7  Bucky Walters            199   16                  4  1  2  3  4  1  1         
 9    6  Pete Browning            193   15               4  2  2  1     3  1  1        1
10   15  Dave Stieb               191   16               2  2  3  2     1  2  2        2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   13  Charley Jones            186   14         1  2     2  2  1  2     1  2     1   
12   11  Hugh Duffy               185   16               1  3  1  3  1  1  1  2     2  1
13   10  Bob Johnson              184   16               1     4  4        1  3  2  1   
14    9  Roger Bresnahan          175   15               1  2  1  2     5  1  1  1  1   
15   14  Tony Perez               159   12            1  3     2  2     1  2  1         
16   12  Gavvy Cravath            154   15               2     1        3  1  3  4     1
17   16  Alejandro Oms            141   13               1  2  1  1  1     1  1  3  1  1
18   17  Tommy Leach              135   12                     4     3     1  2  1  1   
19   18  George Van Haltren       134   11               2  3  1        1  2           2
20   21  Mickey Welch             114   10               1  1  1  1  2        1  2  1   
21   23  Graig Nettles            103   11                  1        1  1  1  2  2  3   
22   28  Bus Clarkson             102    9               2  2              1  1  1  1  1
23   20  Burleigh Grimes           96    8               1  1  1  1  1  1        1  1   
24   30  Rusty Staub               94    9                  1  1     1  2  1     1  1  1
25   22  Lou Brock                 93    8               1  1  1        2  1     2      
26   27  Vic Willis                90    9                  2  1           2        2  2
27   34  Tommy Bridges             90    7               1  1  1  2        1  1         
28   26  Larry Doyle               89    7               2     2     1  1              1
29   24  Phil Rizzuto              88    9                  1     2     1     1  1  1  2
30   19  Ken Singleton             84    9               1  1     1              1  2  3
31   36  Luis Tiant                81    7               1     1  1  1     2           1
32   25  Norm Cash                 79    7                  1  1     1  1  2        1   
33   29  Reggie Smith              78    8                        1  3     1        1  2
34   37T Elston Howard             73    7                  1        2     2     1     1
35   41  Tommy John                72    7                  1        2  1        1  2   
36   35  Bob Elliott               71    8                  1              2  1  1  1  2
37   32  Dizzy Dean                70    6            1  1     1              1  1     1
38T  31  Bobby Bonds               69    7                        1  1  2        1  2   
38T n/e  Dale Murphy               69    7                        2        2  1     2   
40   33  John McGraw               69    5                  3     1     1               
41   37T Orlando Cepeda            62    6                        1  1  1  1  1     1   
42   40  Vern Stephens             57    6                        1     1  1     2  1   
43   39  Ben Taylor                51    6                  1           1           1  3
44  n/e  Frank Tanana              50    4               1     2                       1
45   48  Addie Joss                49    4               1     1        1        1      
46   44  Dave Bancroft             47    5                  1              1  1     1  1
47   42  Pie Traynor               44    3         1           1                 1      
48   51  Wally Schang              42    4               1              1     1        1
49   49  Dave Concepción           41    4                           2        1  1      
50   52  Ed Williamson             40    3               2                       1      
51   43  Carl Mays                 38    3                        2  1                  
52   57T Don Newcombe              36    4                                 1  2  1      
53T  45  Sal Bando                 35    4                        1           1     1  1
53T  57T Urban Shocker             35    4                              1  1     1     1
55   59  Wilbur Cooper             33    3            1                       1     1   
56   46  Chuck Klein               32    2               2                              
57   60T Rick Reuschel             31    3               1                    1        1
58T  60T Frank Chance              30    3                     1              1     1   
58T  50  Bill Monroe               30    3                           2                 1
60T  47  Jack Clark                29    3                           1  1              1
60T  64  Rabbit Maranville         29    3                           1     1        1   
62   56  Sam Rice                  28    3                           1           2      
63   54T Buddy Bell                27    3                                 1  1  1      
64   53  Frank Howard              24    3                                 1     1     1
65T  68  Luis Aparicio             24    2                        1     1               
65T  65  Fred Dunlap               24    2               1                       1      
65T  66  Ernie Lombardi            24    2                     1           1            
68   62  George J. Burns           23    3                                    1  1     1
69   85  Jim Kaat                  22    2                              2               
70T  69T Jimmy Ryan                21    2                              1  1            
70T  69T Leroy Matlock             21    2                           1        1         
70T  69T Al Rosen                  21    2                        1              1      
73T  54T Jim Rice                  20    2                        1                 1   
73T  76  Tony Mullane              20    2                                 2            
75   63  Thurman Munson            19    2                           1              1   
76   83T Dizzy Trout               18    2                           1                 1
77   75  Bruce Sutter              17    2                                    1  1      
78   74  Luke Easter               16    1               1                              
79T  79T Ed Cicotte                15    1                  1                           
79T  79T Tony Oliva                15    1                  1                           
79T  79T Jack Quinn                15    1                  1                           
82   82  Carlos Morán              14    1                     1                        
83T  67  Ron Cey                   13    2                                          1  1
83T  78  Dave Parker               13    2                                          1  1
85T  83T Brian Downing             13    1                        1                     
85T  73  Lefty Gomez               13    1                        1                     
87   87T Sam Leever                12    1                           1                  
88   89  Hack Wilson               10    1                                 1            
89T  87T Fielder Jones              9    1                                    1         
89T  90  Tony Lazzeri               9    1                                    1         
91T  91  George Kell                7    1                                          1   
91T n/e  Dutch Leonard              7    1                                          1   
93T n/e  Jim Fregosi                6    1                                             1
93T  92T Bill Madlock               6    1                                             1
93T  72  Bobby Veach                6    1                                             1
93T  92T Mickey Vernon              6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Wally Berger(94T), Cesar Cedeno(96), Bill Mazeroski(94T), Al Oliver(86), Gene Tenace(77).
Ballots Cast: 48

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2007 at 12:17 AM | 139 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: May 30, 2007 at 02:03 AM (#2383739)
Congrats to George, Robin and Carlton!

HOF-not-HOM through 1999

Meaning
all of the members of the HOF-not-HOM as of 1999not 2007.

1  Aparicio
Luis
2. Bancroft
Dave
3  Bender
Chief
4  Bottomley
Jim
5  Bresnahan
Roger
6  Brock
Lou
7  Cepeda
Orlando
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 Ryan
Nolan
44 Schalk
Ray
45 Schoendienst
Red
46 Tinker
Joe
47 Traynor
Pie
48 Waner
Lloyd
49 Welch
Mickey
50 Willis
Vic
51 Wilson
Hack
52 Youngs
Ross

HOM
-not-HOF

Meaning
all of the members of the HOM-not-HOF as of 1999not 2007.

1  Allen
Dick 
2  Barnes
Ross
3  Beckwith
John
4  Bennett
Charlie
5  Blyleven
Bert
6  Boyer
Ken
7  Brown
Ray
8  Brown
Willard
9  Carter
Gary
10 Caruthers
Bob
11 Childs
Cupid
12 Dahlen
Bill
13 Evans
Darrell
14 Evans
Dwight
15 Ferrell
Wes
16 Fisk
Carlton    
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 Hernandez
Keith
26 Hill
Pete
27 Hines
Paul
28 Jackson
Joe*
29 JohnsonHome Run
30 Keller
Charlie
30 Mackey
Biz
32 Magee
Sherry
33 McPhee
Bid
34 McVey
Cal
35 Méndez
José
36 Minoso
Minnie
37 Moore
Dobie
38 Pearce
Dickey
39 Pierce
Billy
40 Pike
Lip
41 Richardson
Hardy
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
Ezra
52 Torre
Joe
53 Trouppe
Quincy
54 Torriente
Cristobal
55 White
Deacon
56 Wilson
Jud
57 Wynn
Jimmy

*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. Daryn Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2383797)
And Carlton!
   3. OCF Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:15 AM (#2383800)
48 voters is a fairly low turnout. Max Parkinson and Mike Webber missed this election, in both cases for the first time in a considerable time. Others who have voted in the last few years but not this year: Trevor P., Dan Rosenheck, 'zop, and Jeff M.

The highest possible consensus score was +18 and the mean was +9.6. In general, consensus scores were high and packed closely together. Four candidates with strong majorities placing them in the top 4 will do that.

Mark Shirk: 15
Howie Menckel: 14
Esteban Rivera: 14
Tom H: 13
ronw: 13
John Murphy: 13
Got Melky: 13
Sean Gilman: 12
Jim Sp: 12
Rob Wood: 12
...
OCF: 11
...
Adam Schafer: 10 (median)
Andrew Siegel: 10 (median)
Chris Cobb: 10
...
KJOK: 10
...
Joe Dimino: 8
sunnyday2: 8
jimd: 8
Michael Bass: 8
Tiboreau: 7
Eric Chalek: 7
Patrick W: 7
EricC: 6
Mark Donelson: 6
rico vanian: 6
karlmagnus: 5
mulder & scully: 3
yest: -1
   4. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 30, 2007 at 03:23 AM (#2384059)
I had a bunch of work recently and since the results were a foregone conclusion, I decided to abstain. I'll definitely vote in '00.
   5. Chris Fluit Posted: May 30, 2007 at 05:05 AM (#2384138)
OCF, what was my consensus score this time around?
   6. OCF Posted: May 30, 2007 at 06:34 AM (#2384155)
I named the 10 highest consensus scores above. Chris Fluit was #11 (rounds to +11.)
   7. Chris Fluit Posted: May 30, 2007 at 06:47 AM (#2384159)
Thanks!
   8. Sean Gilman Posted: May 30, 2007 at 08:50 AM (#2384185)
Can't recall the last time my consensus score was that high.

Guess you all are finally seeing the light. ;)
   9. sunnyday2 Posted: May 30, 2007 at 10:40 AM (#2384194)
Glad to see my consensus score going back downward a little bit though I am surprised. Of course I had the newbies Ryan, Randolph and Stieb all lower than the consensus, the latter two off-ballot. I've got plenty of not-quite-so-newbies on-ballot: R. Smith, F. Howard, Cepeda, E. Howard, Fingers, and I'll be all over Gossage. Other than Gossage they're a different generation but post-expansion.
   10. Howie Menckel Posted: May 30, 2007 at 01:00 PM (#2384236)
(how do I find those all-time results without remembering my yahoo address/password?)


all-time 'votes points' thru 1999 - those still eligible in 2000 election are in CAPS. electees are not in caps.

seems odd not to be updating leader Beckley!... Bresnahan climbs to 13th.

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
Beckley.... 25856
VAN HALTREN 25076.5
DUFFY...... 24847.5
BROWNING... 22605.5
Childs..... 18484
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
WELCH...... 17095
Jennings... 16976
REDDING.... 15254

CJONES..... 14768
Sisler..... 13892
BRESNAHAN.. 13510
Pike....... 13399
TLEACH..... 13233
Sewell..... 12769
Mendez..... 12555
Thompson... 12349
RYAN....... 12343.5
Roush...... 12005

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

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Cravath 9471, Walters 8879, Doyle 8657, Grimes 8071, Monroe 7031, BJohnson 6807, Oms 6727, McGraw 6158, Schang 6047, Williamson 5907, Willis 4618, Joss 4184, Dean 4176, Elliott 4032, BTaylor 3520)
   11. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 30, 2007 at 01:46 PM (#2384267)
Golly, our consensus scores look like the leader board to the Buick Open after the cut, with the course cut to play super easy in true stadium-golf fashion.

Do they still call it the Buick?
   12. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:10 PM (#2384435)
I'm kind of surprised at the consensus that Brett > Yount > Fisk > Ryan. I'd have thought Brett's years at 1B/DH would count against him, while Fisk's 1000 year as a catcher would have helped, and Yount's career at premium defense positions would have helped too. I suppose they did help, but not enough. Anyway I like being proven wrong through objective analysis.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2384440)
I'd have thought Brett's years at 1B/DH would count against him, while Fisk's 1000 year as a catcher would have helped, and Yount's career at premium defense positions would have helped too.


We're on the same wavelength, Ivan.
   14. Juan V Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:16 PM (#2384442)
After appearing in the top 10 a while ago, has Tony Perez effectively been blocked, at least for now?
   15. Dizzypaco Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2384463)
I'm suprised that people are surprised at the consensus that Brett was better than Yount. Brett's offensive advantage over Yount was massive - there are lots of ways to show it. I'm sure most voters were well aware of Yount's defensive advantage, and believed that it was just not enough, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2384555)
Brett's offensive advantage over Yount was massive


True, but I think Youn'ts advantage in defense is pretty sizeable, too.

I had the top-three (actually, the top-four) very close, so it didn't really matter to me what the order was. I did have an idea that Brett's offense would win out, since that's the way it seems to work in any election.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: May 30, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2384582)
I didn't see Yount as particularly close to Brett. Brett is near-Inner Circle to me. I had Yount 2nd and Fisk 3rd, but I could see the argument that Fisk was better than Brett more easily than that Yount was better than Brett, if that makes sense.
   18. jimd Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:23 AM (#2385349)
Serious question. I see the term Inner Circle used often around here.

How big is your "Inner Circle"? (How many members?)

All are welcome to answer.
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: May 31, 2007 at 03:05 AM (#2385614)
At 3B the Inner Circle would be Schmidt, Brett, Mathews and maybe Baker.

At SS just for another eg. Wagner, Ripken and maybe Vaughan.

At 2B how about Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby, Jackie and Morgan.
   20. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: May 31, 2007 at 03:41 AM (#2385633)
How big is your "Inner Circle"? (How many members?)

All are welcome to answer.


Ha! That means I'm welcome to answer!

C - Josh Gibson, Katsuya Nomura
1B - Joe Start, Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Sadaharu Oh, Albert Pujols
2B - Eddie Collins, Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan
SS - Honus Wagner, John Henry Lloyd, Alex Rodriguez
3B - Shigeo Nagashima, Mike Schmidt
LF - Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds
CF - Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Oscar Charleston, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio
RF - Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson
P - Kid Nichols, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Smokey Joe Williams, Lefty Grove, Satchel Paige, Bob Feller, Warren Spahn, Tom Seaver, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez

So 41.
   21. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 31, 2007 at 04:26 AM (#2385665)
As one of the 2 who voted for Yount #1, I agree with Ivan and John.

Ivan - Jimmie Foxx isn't inner circle??? Neither is Mel Ott??? Or Rogers Hornsby? Or Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra? That's a seriously small circle!

Props on putting my personal baby in the inner circle though! Care to guess who that is? I'm sure many of the group will be able to . . .
   22. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 31, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2385666)
Also, I'm very happy to see Randolph and Fingers on the cusp of election.
   23. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2385697)
Props on putting my personal baby in the inner circle though! Care to guess who that is? I'm sure many of the group will be able to . . .

Wow! I've no idea. I didn't think anyone there was particularly controversial. If I had to take a wild guess maybe Start.
   24. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:25 AM (#2385706)
Ivan - Jimmie Foxx isn't inner circle??? Neither is Mel Ott??? Or Rogers Hornsby? Or Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra? That's a seriously small circle!

Well yes, I did keep it to very few. Foxx gets marked down for being worse than Gehrig, a contemporary. Ott for being in the NL which I thought was weaker in the 1930's. Hornsby for defense. Bench for being a dominant player for a relatively short period of time, admittedly in large part since he caught nearly every day. Berra for being worse than Mantle. All pre-integration guys get marked down a little. Being the best player of your day for a decade or something counts too. OK now I can't explain Frank Robinson and Aaron both making it.
   25. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:40 AM (#2385716)
Joe Start it was . . . definitely one of my early pets. Start and Ezra Sutton both.

I see what you are saying Ivan, but I definitely think it's possible for two extreme outliers to be born in the same era and play the same position - so I wouldn't mark down someone just because another inner-circle guy was playing there at the same time.

"OK now I can't explain Frank Robinson and Aaron both making it."


Or Clemens/Maddux/Pedro . . .
   26. Chris Cobb Posted: May 31, 2007 at 06:00 AM (#2385724)
Another view of the Inner Circle

P – Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Warren Spahn, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Tom Seaver, Joe Williams, Kid Nichols, Bob Feller, Satchel Paige, Gaylord Perry, Robin Roberts, Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson
C – Josh Gibson, Yogi Berra, Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk
1B – Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Roger Connor, Johnny Mize
2B – Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Nap Lajoie, Joe Morgan, Charlie Gehringer
3B – Mike Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, George Brett
SS – Honus Wagner, Pop Lloyd, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Arky Vaughan
LF – Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Carl Yastrzemski, Jim O’Rourke, Ed Delahanty
CF – Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Oscar Charleston, Joe Dimaggio, Turkey Stearnes
RF – Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson
UT – Pete Rose

This list of 55 covers only players eligible as of the 2000 election but later players who clearly belong in this group are

Cal Ripken, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Wade Boggs

I think the inner circle should be similar in size to the top quarter of the Hall of Merit. It should contain players who are strong no matter how you look at them: by peak, by prime, by career, by rates. In making a few judgment calls around the border (in the 50-60 range as created by my system), I favored players with well-rounded cases.
   27. TomH Posted: May 31, 2007 at 11:52 AM (#2385807)
"Inner Circle" I define by where there is some clear cut-off instead of infinitesimal differecnes. The folllowing are my top 40 of Jan 2000.

P – Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Warren Spahn, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Tom Seaver, Kid Nichols, Satchel Paige, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux
C – Josh Gibson, Yogi Berra, Johnny Bench
1B – Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Sadaharu Oh
2B – Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Nap Lajoie, Joe Morgan
3B – Mike Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, George Brett
SS – Honus Wagner, Pop Lloyd
LF – Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds
CF – Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Oscar Charleston, Joe Dimaggio
RF – Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson

Hmmm. Cobb's list minus 22 guys, plus Oh.
   28. karlmagnus Posted: May 31, 2007 at 12:13 PM (#2385816)
We could hold "inner circle" elections, taking HOM members in chronological groups of 20 and electing 5 from each group. Will fill in the time waiting for the damn calendar to zip by at 26 times normal speed, when it won't.
   29. sunnyday2 Posted: May 31, 2007 at 12:54 PM (#2385838)
I'm still hoping for the MVP Project which could continue at 26X.
   30. Howie Menckel Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2385853)
"Foxx gets marked down for being worse than Gehrig, a contemporary."

lol
   31. Dizzypaco Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:18 PM (#2385857)
My inner circle is very close to Tom's but a little smaller - I would exclude active players, Oh, Lloyd, and Ott. There's no one who I would add.
   32. TomH Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:20 PM (#2385861)
Mantle and Mays, contemps. Collins and Hornsby. Thumper and the Man. F Robby and Hank. Boot one of each pair. Ditto Maddux, that sorry contemp of the Rocket, and Alexander, not holding a candle to Walter.
   33. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:37 PM (#2385876)
Old version of salary estimator says...(inner circle cutoff $175M, Negro Leaguers and pitchers added subjectively, no pre-1893 players although some like Anson would be strong candidates, new numbers aren't too different)

C: Josh Gibson. Mike Piazza is close but no cigar with $165 and that's including a massive catcher bonus.
1B: Lou Gehrig $231M, Jimmie Foxx $190M
2B: Rogers Hornsby $302M, Eddie Collins $269M, Nap Lajoie $256M, Joe Morgan $241M, and yes I'm counting for the pre-1920 defensive spectrum
3B: Mike Schmidt $239M
SS: Honus Wagner $376M, Alex Rodríguez $197M (through 2006), Cal Ripken $196M, Arky Vaughan $188M, Pop Lloyd
LF: Ted Williams $437M, Barry Bonds $423M (through 2006), Stan Musial $282M, Rickey Henderson $217M, Ed Delahanty is juuuust short with $172 and given the circumstances of his death I'll include him.
CF: Ty Cobb $367M, Tris Speaker $310M, Willie Mays $310M, Mickey Mantle $267M, Joe DiMaggio $179M, Oscar Charleston
RF: Babe Ruth $446M (guessing for pitching value), Hank Aaron $261M, Mel Ott $204M, Frank Robinson $185M
P: Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Pete Alexander, Lefty Grove, Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver, Kid Nichols, Satchel Paige, Smokey Joe Williams
   34. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:05 PM (#2385921)
"Foxx gets marked down for being worse than Gehrig, a contemporary."

lol


I may to reconsider this. Good thing I'm not a HOM voter.
   35. DanG Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:19 PM (#2385938)
We could hold "inner circle" elections, taking HOM members in chronological groups of 20 and electing 5 from each group. Will fill in the time waiting for the damn calendar to zip by at 26 times normal speed, when it won't.

Which brings me back to my "stratify the HoM" idea. Last summer me and a few others had a discussion about this via email. In March I asked Joe and John if they wanted to start a thread about it; there the idea currently lies.

The first questions to be decided are:

Do we want to stratify the HoM?
If so, how long do we want that process to take? Elections weekly or biweekly?
Do we want to have rules to ensure old-timers are treated fairly?
How many players do we want to deal with in each election?

If we used one election to stratify 234 HoMers, we’d be very concerned that the pioneers and Negro leaguers would get shafted. If we use multiple elections this would still be a concern if we resifted every election. The only way to ensure fair (pennant is a pennant) placement for the old-timers is to consider them first, place them in the strata, and leave them there, no down-rankings.

This is not looking to replace the HoM elections. It’s saying that we have an elite group here and have an established Delphi method that produces great results, so why can’t we move towards answering the classic question of where do guys rank all-time?

One benefit I'd like to point out is that doing this prioritizes candidates for the Coop. The HoMers-not-HoFers would be grouped with their peers in quality.
   36. DL from MN Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2385939)
I think the MVP project is the only one proposed that would help me learn as much about baseball history as the HoM project. For this reason I'm in favor of it. The executive/manager project is a close second but ultimately less satisfying due to the higher subjectivity.
   37. Esteban Rivera Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2385976)
I'm with DL. The MVP/Cy Young/All-Star project would be better for two reasons.

First, we are still going to be electing people to the HOM, albeit yearly. It would be a great for these elections to have gone through the seasons and analyzed them more in-depth. In a way, it would be a "We've looked at the forest, now let's look at the trees and see if there is anything we may have missed" situation.

Second, and this is more my personal feeling, stratifying would be no fun. We would just rehash the same arguments that we have had about the borderliners, splitting hairs and being aggravated. If I'm going to be aggravated, I'd rather it be a be a new argument. ;)

We can stratify at any time. Why not see if we can expand our knowledge and understanding first?
   38. DanG Posted: May 31, 2007 at 03:12 PM (#2386014)
Esteban:

1) ...now let's look at the trees...

OK, but that's a really long project. The stratify project could take six months or less. (My proposal says 13 elections.)

2) ...the same arguments that we have had about the borderliners, splitting hairs...

To avoid this, the proposal is to stratify, put players in large groups, not to figure out a specific ranking.

3) Why not see if we can expand our knowledge and understanding first?

IMO, we have the requisite knowledge for a good stratification.
   39. DL from MN Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2386222)
I think the stratification is pretty much done. Look at the % of votes at election and you get a really good idea of which ones were strong and which were weak. I'd be surprised if the results of a stratification exercise were significantly different than the vote totals.
   40. DanG Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2386263)
I'd be surprised if the results of a stratification exercise were significantly different than the vote totals

Yes, I think you would be surprised! It should be obvious that there are periods of weaker ballots and periods of stronger ballots. For one illustration: there are 25 HoMers on the 1957 ballot, but only 8 HoMers on the 1931 ballot.

Sure the % of votes at election would probably have a positive correlation to actual quality - but it also would embody a good many mistaken rankings.
   41. Paul Wendt Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2386270)
How big is your "Inner Circle"? (How many members?)

If defined by size the "inner circle" would be 50.

There are more than 100 "no-brainers" for the Hall of Merit.
For example, White, Ewing, Hartnett, Cochrane, and Dickey are all no-brainers but I'm not sure that any of them is in the inner circle. And Campanella, Carter, and Fisk, I think. That's presuming Gibson, Berra, and Bench in the inner circle which seems to be the consensus above. And that's listing Kelly at another position.

Offhand I guess catcher is relatively well stocked with no-brainers but I wouldn't be surprised to find that 150 players seem to be no-brainers --after five years reading the produce of significant brain power.
   42. Paul Wendt Posted: May 31, 2007 at 06:14 PM (#2386322)
10. Howie Menckel Posted: May 30, 2007 at 09:00 AM (#2384236)
(how do I find those all-time results without remembering my yahoo address/password?)

The File at yahoogroups incorporates two rounds of corrections by David Foss.
During his vacation I have sent him notice of the 1918 and 1945 matters (which I reported in those two Results threads) and three more identities. FYI this reduces the number of players with some one-time support from 425 to 422 (through 1999).
Bill Foster ==> Willie Foster
Home Run Johnson ==> Grant Johnson
Dan Foutz ==> Dave Foutz

I will do some HOM statistical analysis in the next few weeks, during this cycle, which may turn up some more anomalies. Whether to report a correction or an open quesiton, I will use the results threads.

Howie,
You might register for Yahoo Groups anew, with a new identity.

You might give an email address to David Foss or to me. At yahoo.com you can create a new one that is effectively anonymous.

There is a website I have used to give big pdf files to a colleague. Using it without a subscription, I can upload something and it remains for seven days, available for download to anyone who knows the URL. I'm not sure whether David Foss is also doing some stat analysis or graph generation that may turn up more anomalies. Anyway, I am inclined to do this --consolidate any corrections and upload with DF's permission-- about a fortnight from now, in time for the next cycle.
   43. DavidFoss Posted: May 31, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2386379)
The File at yahoogroups incorporates two rounds of corrections by David Foss.
During his vacation I have sent him notice of the 1918 and 1945 matters (which I reported in those two Results threads) and three more identities. FYI this reduces the number of players with some one-time support from 425 to 422 (through 1999).
Bill Foster ==> Willie Foster
Home Run Johnson ==> Grant Johnson
Dan Foutz ==> Dave Foutz


A few minor clarifications:

-- There was also a fix where in 1970, George J. Burns was listed as George Burns. I fixed it to be George J. Burns. (Max Parkinson was the guy who gave GB his one vote that year and he had a history of supporting GJB before and after that year... so GJB gets the vote and not GHB I presume).

-- That's 421 players through 1998. Through 1999, I think its around 428 or so (data is at home).
   44. DavidFoss Posted: May 31, 2007 at 07:42 PM (#2386395)
Last but not least, I'd like to give a shout out to Rick A. who already had all of this data in an XLS file that he'd been compiling every two weeks for the past few years. I've used his data as the "answer key". So, I feel a bit funny when Paul tosses my name around. A big thanks to Rick.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 31, 2007 at 07:54 PM (#2386405)
Inner circle question.

HITTERS: In my system, hitters are ranked from 0-90 points. Anyone over 70 has mad credentials. At catcher, it's anyone over fifty. This includes all players ever, not just through 2000. I tend to see the ICHOMer as being a top-five all time at his position, assuming there's no major gap in credentials. Below are all guys above the 70 (50) point credential line, then followed by anyone rounding out the top five. NgLs are based on MLEs and so can be brought up or down based on subjective factors which are not included here. The gap between the mad credentialed players and the merely very excellent players is represented by the number of bars in between. One bar is just a small gap, many bars is a much bigger gap.

C: gibson, berra, bench |||| Piazza, t-Fisk and Campanella
1B: Gehrig, Brouthers || Connor, t-Leonard and Mize and Anson and Thomas
2B: collins, Morgan, hornsby, Lajoie |||| Biggio
3B: Schmidt ||| Mathews, t-Brett and Boggs, White
SS: wagner, lloyd ||| Vaughan, t-Ripken and Yount
RF: Ruth, aaron, ott ||||| Reggie, Waner, F-Robby
CF: mays, mantle, cobb, stearnes, Speaker, charleston |
LF: williams, Musial, bonds, henderson |||| Burkett

For pitchers, it's 80 points, and anyone over 60 is in this class:

SP: clemens, williams, young, johnson, alexander, maddux, spahn, nichols, grove, mathewson, seaver, roberts, niekro | carlton, big unit, perry, palmer, hubbell

That's 66, which is probably too many. Among them, I'm not convinced by Palmer and Stearnes, so I'd knock them off. If I'm narrowing to exactly five at position, I'm probably trimming off Campy, Mize, Thomas, Waner. That's down to 60, which is pretty close to 5 at each position, plus 17 pitchers based on 230-odd eventual electees viz the top quartile of all HOMers.

The omissions on my list that conern me are pitchers: Paige, Gibby, Pedro. Gibson just misses, there's funky kicks going down with Paige's career that drive down his MLEs, and my system sees Pedro as not having enough seasons to have racked up the kinds of strings of dominance that a guy with 3500-4000 innings and an impressive ERA+ has.

As always, arbitrary lines are not perfect....
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 31, 2007 at 08:30 PM (#2386456)
For me, to be an inner-circle HoMer, you need to have great peak, prime and career numbers.
   47. Paul Wendt Posted: May 31, 2007 at 09:23 PM (#2386502)
There was also a fix where in 1970, George J. Burns was listed as George Burns. I fixed it to be George J. Burns.

OK, I had privately changed that to George H., supposing yest without checking.

And thank you, Rick A.

--
Eric you have six RFs without commenting a tie
and you have a six-bar gap between Ott, et al, and Robinson, et al. That is enough to make you the leading EOFR.
   48. Howie Menckel Posted: May 31, 2007 at 11:49 PM (#2386647)
Re Ivan in Post 34,
My reply was too snarky without a :) to go with it as was intended.

Hope it didn't seem mean-spirited...
   49. Howie Menckel Posted: June 01, 2007 at 12:09 AM (#2386703)
woo, found my way into the Rick A/David Foss yahoogroup stuff. So for fun, an 'expanded' version off their labors, showing all of the major 'battle' candidates over the years.

all-time 'votes points' thru 1999 - those still eligible in 2000 election are in CAPS. electees are not in caps.

TOP 50, ALL-TIME
Beckley.... 25856
VAN HALTREN 25076.5
DUFFY...... 24847.5
BROWNING... 22605.5
Childs..... 18484
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
WELCH...... 17095
Jennings... 16976
REDDING.... 15254

CJONES..... 14768
Sisler..... 13892
BRESNAHAN.. 13510
Pike....... 13399
TLEACH..... 13233
Sewell..... 12769
Mendez..... 12555
Thompson... 12349
RYAN....... 12343.5
Roush...... 12005

Bennett.... 11503
Moore...... 10904
Rixey...... 10789
Caruthers.. 10704
Beckwith.... 9896
HStovey......9576
CRAVATH......9471
Mackey.......8930
WALTERS......8879
DOYLE........8657

Start........8378.5
McGinnity....8232
DPearce......8073
GRIMES.......8071
McVey........7985.5
FGrant.......7969.5
Kiner........7746
Suttles......7690
NFox.........7587
Trouppe......7494

WFerrell.....7259
BMONROE......7031
CBell........6968
BJOHNSON.....6807
OMS..........6724
Galvin.......6585
Keller.......6424
Sheckard.....6377
MCGRAW.......6158
Minoso.......6131

Others in active top 50
Schang 6047, Williamson 5907, Willis 4618, Joss 4184, Dean 4176, Elliott 4032, BTaylor 3514, FChance 3341, Bridges 3295, McCormick 3148, SRice 2936, CMays 2883, Traynor 2869, Cicotte 2837, Tiernan 2686, FJones 2512, Fingers 2498, Cepeda 2488, NCash 2487, Rizzuto 2310, Veach 2185, GJBurns 2017, Mullane 1961, Klein 1952, Dunlap 1873, Poles 1842, TPerez 1839, Brock 1826, Stephens 1813, Hooper 1792, Lombardi 1748, MGriffin 1726.5, EHoward 1685)

(next 5: Lundy 1535, Tiant 1421, BoBonds 1417, DTrout 1336, Bancroft 1314)
   50. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: June 01, 2007 at 12:11 AM (#2386714)
Re Ivan in Post 34,
My reply was too snarky without a :) to go with it as was intended.

Hope it didn't seem mean-spirited...


No problem Howie. My list was basically off the cuff. And I am an A's fan after all.
   51. Howie Menckel Posted: June 01, 2007 at 01:16 AM (#2386859)
I figured that, Ivan, and it was pretty good in that vein - hence the intended light-hearted lol on one throwaway line.
   52. jimd Posted: June 01, 2007 at 01:23 AM (#2386884)
TOP 50, ALL-TIME
Beckley.... 25856
VAN HALTREN 25076.5
DUFFY...... 24847.5


It looks like Van Haltren will catch Beckley in 5 to 6 elections.
More interesting is that Duffy may catch Van Haltren the same year.
Unless Duffy gets elected first...
Maybe Duffy will get elected that year and pass the "honor" to Van Haltren the next?
   53. jimd Posted: June 01, 2007 at 01:44 AM (#2386941)
Speaking of Van Haltren.

On some thread late last week there was a discussion of "age-based eligibility" instead of the 5-year rule. (Can't find it now due to the influx of new threads for 2000.)

I think the biggest difference it might have had on the HOM is that George would have been elected. The age-based requirement would have extended the "great candidate drought" by another election, as Baker and Jackson would have been delayed until the rest of their respective age cohorts become eligible. (Baker is with Ty and Smoky Joe; Jackson is later with Coveleski, Groh, and Rogan.)

As some of us remember, Van Haltren was next in line for election when the drought ended and it began raining legends. George would hardly have been a lock because Griffith, Pike, Beckley, and Jennings were all close behind, and there have been a number of elections where the next-in-line did not win, but GVH would have been the favorite.
   54. yest Posted: June 01, 2007 at 04:00 AM (#2387035)
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
Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount, Orlando Cepeda, Joe Williams
2000
Carlton Fisk, Tony Perez, Bid McPhee , Turkey Stearnes
2001
Bill Mazeroski , Hilton Smith
2003
Gary Carter
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
   55. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 01, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2387227)
Dr. Chaleeko--

You've made Jimmie Foxx angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. Also, how do you see such a large gap between Ott and Frank Robinson?
   56. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 01, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2387308)
Foxx is like the next guy down, so arbitrary end points are suggesting he's worse than he is.

I think the gap between Ott and F-Rob probably represents the higher concentration of talent in F-Rob's leagues at his position. Ott's positional competition wasn't as good as the combo of Aaron and Clemente (Waner and Cuyler or Herman?). Combined with the clustering of so much talent in the overall 1960 NL, my system underplays F-Rob compared to Ott. I therefore agree that the gap between them is somewhat likely exaggerated. If I were choosing between them for an All-Time Team, my choice would be rather more complicated than the results the system gives me. I comfort myself with the belief that all systems have quirky outputs; it may be a daydream.
   57. DavidFoss Posted: June 01, 2007 at 11:02 PM (#2387757)
The link to this file on the "Important Links" page is broken... it points to the 1998 results.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 01, 2007 at 11:05 PM (#2387762)
The link to this file on the "Important Links" page is broken... it points to the 1998 results.


That's strange. Sometimes I think we have a gremlin behind the scenes...
   59. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 02, 2007 at 12:29 AM (#2388050)
Dr. Chaleeko--but how can your system not have him in? Is he penalized severely for playing in the same league as Gehrig?
   60. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 02, 2007 at 12:54 PM (#2388767)
Yes, probably that same effect. (Actually Gehrig AND Ruth.) Whether that makes it severe is interpretation, but it's probably something that were I to rebuild the system I would want to figure out a way to ameliorate. At this point, eyeballing's helps me get a ballot together.
   61. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 02:27 AM (#2391221)
quoting from the forties, regarding a persistent theme in the "late 1990s":
Paul Wendt
10. Howie Menckel Posted: May 30, 2007 at 09:00 AM (#2384236)
> (how do I find those all-time results without remembering my yahoo address/password?)

The File at yahoogroups incorporates two rounds of corrections by David Foss. [. . .]
. . .

David Foss:
[. . .]-- That's 421 players through 1998. Through 1999, I think its around 428 or so (data is at home).
44. DavidFoss Posted: May 31, 2007 at 03:42 PM (#2386395)
Last but not least, I'd like to give a shout out to Rick A. who already had all of this data in an XLS file that he'd been compiling every two weeks for the past few years. I've used his data as the "answer key". So, I feel a bit funny when Paul tosses my name around. A big thanks to Rick.

Paul Wendt:
[. . .]And thank you, Rick A.

John,
What do you say to a thread for Election Data and Analysis?
   62. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 02:28 AM (#2391224)
or Election History
   63. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 03:46 AM (#2391649)
Not a lot of time but touching on the MVP vs. Stratification choice . . . I lean towards doing retroactive MVP, Cy Young, Rookie of the Year voting. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think it would do more to add to the 'body of knowledge' out there . . .
   64. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2007 at 04:10 PM (#2392052)
I agree with the Commissioner -- think that would be very interesting. Will we start with 1871? I'd quite like to start with 2007 and work backwards, so that by the time we hit the difficult ealy years our analysis has got really good. The 1871-1930 period is bound to be more interesting than 1931-2000. Also we can do a separate award for the NgL, and by the time we get to 1871 we may feel like trying to zip back though the 1860s.
   65. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2392062)
Will we start with 1871? I'd quite like to start with 2007 and work backwards, so that by the time we hit the difficult ealy years our analysis has got really good.

That is a good idea, much better than vice versa. If the group goes with it, promotion or lack of it will be important. The group is bound to turn over anyway but a new project that begins with 2007 might attract many new and different people (not necessarily good) if promoted.

Let me start on 2007: until last night, I was thinking Okajima for MVP
:-)

Also we can do a separate award for the NgL, and by the time we get to 1871 we may feel like trying to zip back though the 1860s.

For some particular NgL and pre-1871 seasons, there will be more data available intermittently, perhaps significantly more within a five-year horizon.
   66. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: June 04, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2392102)
Katsuya Nomura


Meh. While it's incredible that he was able to catch full-time for 25 years, he wasn't a particularly great hitter, except for hitting home runs that would be long fly ball outs in just about any US park. He was probably given more freebies over the course of his career than Mel Ott. Put him in a normal home park, even for pro yakyu, and his career OPS probably drops .150 points.
   67. DL from MN Posted: June 04, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2392137)
Best thing about an MVP project - no war credit.
   68. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2007 at 05:48 PM (#2392140)
Are you sure, DL? I was thinking of making the argument for Ted Williams in 1943, 1944 and 1945 based on interpolation between his 1942 and 1946 seasons :-)
   69. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2392145)
Also, what about Gavvy Cravath's Millers season of 1910? More seriously, back before 1880 it will be perfectly possible for MiL seasons to exceed any NL one, and indeed some of Lloyd or Gibson's NgL seasons may, too. These will be enjoyable philosophical arguments, more of which will occur as we go further back, which is why I vote for reverse order.
   70. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2392154)
Ah, perhaps you have in mind some MVP or Cy -type league awards plus one overall Player of the Year. Even so, the Cuban Winter League play across calendar years may generate argument.
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:06 PM (#2392163)
Best thing about an MVP project - no war credit.


I think war credit allotments have been a great thing for the HoM, though I admit the MVP project will be easier to work with without them.

Also, what about Gavvy Cravath's Millers season of 1910? More seriously, back before 1880 it will be perfectly possible for MiL seasons to exceed any NL one, and indeed some of Lloyd or Gibson's NgL seasons may, too. These will be enjoyable philosophical arguments, more of which will occur as we go further back, which is why I vote for reverse order.


Concerning MLEs and NgL seasons, I think some type of notation should be made for superior seasons. That would have nothing to do with top achievers for actual ML/NA seasons, of course.
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2392164)
Ah, perhaps you have in mind some MVP or Cy -type league awards plus one overall Player of the Year. Even so, the Cuban Winter League play across calendar years may generate argument.


Yes to both sentences, Paul.
   73. Chris Fluit Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2392178)
I'd be on-board for an MVP/Cy Young project.

I'd also be on-board for an executive's wing for the Hall of Merit.
   74. DL from MN Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:30 PM (#2392181)
I like naming an All-Star team for each league (AL, NL, Ngl, AA, etc) along with awards for top pitcher, overall player and rookie for each league. Then there should be an overall MVP award available to any of these players.
   75. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2392197)
I like naming an All-Star team for each league (AL, NL, Ngl, AA, etc) along with awards for top pitcher, overall player and rookie for each league. Then there should be an overall MVP award available to any of these players.

I like the idea of positional all-stars as well. There will be a question about pitchers and MVP's... especially in older eras when star pitchers logged more innings. Keeping position players separate is good sometimes and going for the overall MVP is good other times. Maybe we could list three names (top pitcher, top position player and then the MVP (one of the previous two)).
   76. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:07 PM (#2392203)
DavidFoss, you're making 2007 assumptions for 1880. What about Parisian Bob? probably neither the pitching nor position playing MVP, but IMHO a clear overall MVP in 1-2 of 1885-87. Babe in 1918 must have a similar claim.
   77. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:20 PM (#2392211)
Babe in 1918 must have a similar claim.


The question is which seasons wont be awarded to the Bambino. :-)
   78. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:23 PM (#2392215)
OK. Strike my "one of the previous two" comment then. I just think that since pitchers have their own award (Cy Young) then non-pitchers should have one as well. And then MVP should be the total... and yes for players with significant value both hitting and pitching could score better on the MVP list then the other two lists. Though I hope this distinction doesn't cause strange cases in modern eras where a pitcher wins an MVP without winning the CYA despite no offensive contribtions.

We'd also have to call it the MMP and set rules about how much the teams position in the standings should affect things (if at all). Too many MVP debates are over before they start because someone posits that no player who plays for a losing team can be eligible or that a players' team was *so* good they could have won without him. All for future planning threads.
   79. sunnyday2 Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:42 PM (#2392237)
I think that there is something to be said for symmetry--e.g. HoF <---> HoM

Similarly, Cy Young Award <---> Roger Clemens Award. (Just a suggestion, but you know, if we start in the present and go backwards...think about it.)

And MVP <---> Barry Bonds Award. (Oh, never mind.)

But I am serious, we really ought to stick to awards that are analogous to the real ones. Pitchers should be eligible for our MVP even though they have their own award.

I do differ with a couple comments above, however, including one of my own immediately above:

1. I would much rather go forward than backward. The olden days are gonna be hard either way. And I don't think we seriously want to risk tampering with the laws of thermodynamics (or whatever it is; you know, the arrow of time).

2. I do like the idea of a Player of the Year. IOW an AL MVP, an NL MVP, an AL Cy, an NL Cy, and a PoY who might well be none of the above--i.e. might be a NeLer. I am reluctant to pick NeL MVP and Cy winners due to the added level of complexity, but in those years where there is a NeLer who has an obviously great season, then by all means, throw him into the mix for the overall award. That makes 5 awards which, again, is about all the complexity my brain can handle.

I would also suggest that we vote just like the big guys do. The MVP (and PoY) ballots through 10, the Cy ballots through 5 (is it 5?). Oh and no RoY. And no all-star teams. Again, how much time can we really give at that depth? For me, not much.
   80. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2392239)
My votes would be for calling the awards Player of the Year, Pitcher of the Year and Rookie of the Year. A player's teammates shouldn't have anything to do with an individual award.
   81. Dizzypaco Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:45 PM (#2392240)
A few suggestions/requests:

First, I would suggest calling the MVP something other than MVP, as was done with the Hall of
Fame/Merit, to avoid the debate over what value means (which, IMO, is not an easily answered question). I agree that the rules should be laid out clearly in the beginning regarding what should be considered.

Second, I support keeping awards for leagues separate, which avoids the quality of play issue. It would also help me out quite a bit, in that I have always been a leading skeptic of MLE's in general, which have prevented me from participating in the HOM voting (although I have probably posted more than any other non-voter on general opinions). If the NgL, NL, and AL are voted on separately, it avoids the whole issue, as well as other similar issues. And if this is the case, I would love to be able to vote on the NL and AL awards (and equivalent for the 19th century) and abstain from voting in the NgL awards, if possible.

Finally, I like the idea of a best position player, best pitcher, and combined best. Its messy for the 19th century, but that's going to be the case no matter what.
   82. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2392245)
I would much prefer to go forward rather than backward. For one, it will be cool to see if X player will win his Yth Award or 3rd in a row etc.. That's not nearly as fun if you are going backwards.

I also agree with sunnyday that pitchers should be eligible for the MVP Award, just like in real life.

I don't like the idea of an MVP type and a PoY type. I think we are trying to identify who the best players were, and I wouldn't want to have to create one ballot that accounts for the standings and another that does not. I'd much prefer PoY to MVP - again teammates shouldn't have anything to do with individual awards, but I'd rather settle for just an MVP than have to do both.

Maybe we do it on a 3-week cycle, RoY one week, PitoY next, PlayoY next?
   83. DL from MN Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2392298)
Why would we keep the same voting system for the PoY when we don't for the HoF? I think coming up with a good voting system would be one of the points in our favor. I think a 10 vote descending value system with 1 elect-me bonus would work well. 12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2. People are going to look back for "top 10 PoY finishes" later so we should each get to vote for 10.

I like keeping things separate or the 1800s is going to have the same guy for PoY and Cy. I also like naming the best player in all baseball separately from the league awards and making everyone eligible. All-star voting could get cluttered but I think it would be useful information, maybe that's the next project.

I like going backward, then I can gradually learn backwards and it leaves a gap for more NgL and play-by-play data as it becomes available. It might color the RoY voting to know a guy wins 3 PoY awards later but I think we can deal with that.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:41 PM (#2392319)
Why would we keep the same voting system for the PoY when we don't for the HoF?


Good question, DL. Why?

As for going backwards or forwards, I'm indifferent.

I also agree with sunnyday that pitchers should be eligible for the MVP Award, just like in real life.


I agree, Joe. If anyone is bothered by the fact that a pitcher may win two awards, let's dole out a position award, too. :-)

First, I would suggest calling the MVP something other than MVP, as was done with the Hall of
Fame/Merit, to avoid the debate over what value means (which, IMO, is not an easily answered question). I agree that the rules should be laid out clearly in the beginning regarding what should be considered.


I agree, Diz. I don't feel like awarding team credit for a candidate, as happens with the MVP.

Second, I support keeping awards for leagues separate, which avoids the quality of play issue.


We definitely should have NL, AL, AA, etc. awards, but that doesn't mean that we can't crown Josh Gibson the best player for a specific year, period. That, to me, would be extremely fun.
   85. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:50 PM (#2392331)
I don't like the idea of an MVP type and a PoY type.

If the goal is to separate Position Player of the Year from the Player of the Year from the Pitcher of the Year, that may be a useful distinction to make. If the issue is instead to mirror the real awards, then maybe it's less useful. On the other hand, if we don't have a separation, then will hitters in the 19th and early 20th centuries win anything? (hyperbole, of course, but there may be many years where we wouldn't recognize a hitter for anything).

I'm not real hot for the RoY myself. Who cares? I think Manager of the Year would be more interesting to discuss than RoY, though I'm not saying it's important to do.
   86. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:51 PM (#2392332)
I LOVE reversing the arrow of time -- feel I'm getting younger, though ending up at about minus 90. Also, the elections will graduially get more complex and difficult, which will pull people into it -- the up-front effort in deciding between Jowe Start and Levi Myerle for the 1871MMP, or even worse Dickey Pearce and Jim Creighton for the 1861 will make a very small pool of voters, whrereas the other way we can get the biggest possible pool and pull them along -- the "fair to all eras" problem won't exist. Also "will Ty Cobb get his third" will work if it's 1912-1910-1909 just as well as 1909-1910-1912.
   87. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 04, 2007 at 09:00 PM (#2392339)
We could do something really weird instead. We could split it like this:

first) WW2-now
then) 1871 to WW2

or

first) now back to ww2
then) 1871 to WW2
   88. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2392354)
or even worse Dickey Pearce and Jim Creighton for the 1861 will make a very small pool of voters,


I think trying to figure out pre-NA guys is probably too problematic for us. I say forget about them, unfortunately.
   89. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: June 04, 2007 at 09:35 PM (#2392366)
"Katsuya Nomura"

Meh. While it's incredible that he was able to catch full-time for 25 years, he wasn't a particularly great hitter, except for hitting home runs that would be long fly ball outs in just about any US park. He was probably given more freebies over the course of his career than Mel Ott. Put him in a normal home park, even for pro yakyu, and his career OPS probably drops .150 points.


True, after I actually bothered to look it up I did reconsider putting him that high. But he's not really as far behind as your post makes it sound. Jim Albright did think he could have had 8-10 All-Star seasons in MLB. I'd have him behind Gibson, Bench, McVey, Berra, and White. But the all-star seasons and the ungodly number of total seasons puts him up there with Rodriguez, Carter, Dickey, Cochrane and the like as far as I can tell. But still I agree, not inner circle.
   90. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 09:39 PM (#2392372)
Early today I wrote
Ah, perhaps you have in mind some MVP or Cy -type league awards plus one overall Player of the Year.

For what it's worth, I did mean the distinction between league and overall awards, not the debate about value, teammates, standings, etc. One over-all-base-ball player defined for the year in contrast to whatever elections, none one or plural, are defined for whatever leagues, none one or plural(*). The point in reply to karlmagnus was that the constitution would permit him to vote for Gavy Cravath over Jack Coombs and Nap Lajoie in 1910.

John Murphy
>Ah, perhaps you have in mind some MVP or Cy -type league awards [perhaps plural for each league] plus one overall Player of the Year. Even so, the Cuban Winter League play across calendar years may generate argument.

Yes to both sentences, Paul.


It's clear that DL and JTM endorse player of the Year in that sense.

--
karlmagnus, later
the up-front effort in deciding between Jowe Start and Levi Myerle for the 1871MMP, or even worse Dickey Pearce and Jim Creighton for the 1861 will make a very small pool of voters, whrereas the other way we can get the biggest possible pool and pull them along

Yes, that is one reason to reverse the arrow, or run forward in successively earlier pieces per El Chaleeko.
Another is that available pre-1871 or pre-1882 or pre-1903 data will increase in real time, as will pre-Negro Leagues and (we hope) Negro Leagues data. For fifty years working backward, with the major leagues both dominant in the industry and covered by Retrosheet, there will be not be much progress. Will there?

-- the "fair to all eras" problem won't exist. Also "will Ty Cobb get his third" will work if it's 1912-1910-1909 just as well as 1909-1910-1912.

Yes and any inclination to give someone a career award a la John Wayne will be addressed for his rookie or preliminary minor/foreign league season. If he doesn't win in 1913, Gavy Cravath's last chance will be in 1910.
:-)
   91. AJMcCringleberry Posted: June 04, 2007 at 10:01 PM (#2392380)
I'd rather go forward. Right now we are talking about newer players and it'd be nice to go back and look at the older players again.

I like the idea of Position Player of the Year, Pitcher of the Year, and Player of the Year for each league. And count me among those who don't think team records should be considered. I also wouldn't mind doing all-star teams.
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: June 05, 2007 at 12:51 AM (#2392528)
I used the term MVP above but I am all for finding a different terminology. I certainly agree that just recognizing the best player(s) is what we want to do and whatever baggage the MVP has, let's jettison that. My point was to have two awards--call them Player and Pitcher, if you like, though I'm not dead set against a Position Player, Pitcher and then one of the two (or Bob Caruthers) getting the Player award.

One good thing about starting in the present and going backwards is we won't have to decide when to quit for 8 years (on a 3 week cycle). IOW we could just keep going until everybody drops out. And now the PoY for 1843...!

But seriously I would start in the beginning, but what year is that? I was a Dickey Pearce supporter but I do think 1871 is about as far as you can push it. Not sure we have adequate data previous to that. It could be fun to start earlier but frankly we would alienate some voters right out of the chute by debating anecdotes and picking a PoY for 1865.
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 05, 2007 at 01:48 AM (#2392603)
Concerning All-Star teams:

This would probably be kind of easy to figure. If you're already submitting a 10-man ballot for MVP, pitcher, and maybe position player, that's getting you at least half way to a full nine. So you just list out the remaining positions, one each, and we tally from there. Like this

PPoY
Cobb (CF)
Speaker (CF)
Sisler (1B)
Baker (3B)
Jackson (LF)
Veach (LF)
Milan (CF)
Chapman (SS)
Pratt (2B)
Peckinpaugh (SS)
----
All-Stars
Schalk (C)
Hooper (RF)

So now the All-Star team is

Schal(e)k (C)
Sisler (1B)
Pratt (2B)
Baker (3B)
Chapman (SS)
Hooper (RF)
Cobb (CF)
Jackson (LF)

We could do a run-off for ties as needed, or have some a tie-break system of some sort.
   94. jimd Posted: June 05, 2007 at 02:10 AM (#2392641)
Why would we keep the same voting system for the PoY when we don't for the HoF?

We modeled the HOM voting system on the MVP ballot because we thought it was an excellent voting system. I see no reason to tinker with that particular ballot. 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 is fine.

The Cy Young ballot lacks depth. Listing ten pitchers may be too many but three is too few. (It's definitely too many pre 1882.)

Having distinct Position Player of the Year and MMP awards means that no voter can privately say "Pitchers have their own award" and then ignore them for the MMP. I see no problem adding extra awards if we want to do that.
   95. DanG Posted: June 05, 2007 at 03:52 AM (#2392906)
Joe Dimino:
Not a lot of time but touching on the MVP vs. Stratification choice . . . I lean towards doing retroactive MVP, Cy Young, Rookie of the Year voting. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think it would do more to add to the 'body of knowledge' out there . . .
IMO, this isn't very exciting.

1) So much of it would be redundant. Or obvious. Yes, the HoM already has its frequent instances of no-brainers. But since we proceeded in a very different manner and with different criteria than the HOF, it was interesting.

2) Why waste time with separate voting for each award? If we just decided to rank the top X (15? 20? 25?) players each year, we would end up with answers to the questions Who was the best player in each league? Who was the best pitcher in each league? Who was the best at each position would be mostly answered, as well as the best rookie in most seasons.

3) This is a much more meaningful thing to know, since all players in MLB would be considered together. The key issue of differences in league quality in a given year would come into play. (We know Fred Dunlap was the UA's best player. Where did he rank in MLB in 1884? We would have an answer to that question.) Was Satchel Paige ever the best pitcher in baseball in any year? We would have to try and figure that out.

4) We would have a basis for meaningful Award Shares for players, based on their ranking among the leading players in MLB each year.

5) We don't have an AL HoM and an NL HoM. Or a pitchers HoM and hitters HoM. It makes sense to me that our annual awards should take the same approach and consider all players together. In this way, our player rankings for each season would ultimately inform our decisions on who should be in the HoM. If we discovered that Player X was among the top ten players in baseball five years, or among the top 30 players in ten years, it would make for a good argument for his election to the HoM. Right now we don't really have a consensus on questions like this. Separate league votes each year is much less useful for discoveries like this.

Sure, redoing MVP and CY and ROY would "add to the body of knowledge." Others have done this, it can be fun. I just think we can do better.
   96. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 05, 2007 at 04:22 AM (#2392973)
"I like keeping things separate or the 1800s is going to have the same guy for PoY and Cy. I also like naming the best player in all baseball separately from the league awards and making everyone eligible. All-star voting could get cluttered but I think it would be useful information, maybe that's the next project."


I strongly disagree - much of pitching back then was fielding. Even with those guys pitching a ton of innings they weren't worth any more than the best hitters. Sure Clarkson in 1889 was insane, but year in and year out I'd be very surprised if the pitchers always came out as the MVP, once a proper pitching/fielding split were accounted for.

If they were incredibly more valuable, for one, they would have been paid like it.
   97. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 05, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2392997)
I would like a system where we vote for one player per team that season, and one pitcher for every other team. So in an 8-team league our ballot would be 8 deep for PoY, 4 deep for Cy, etc..

For one it would allow us to account for more players on the list as the leagues grow.

I also like the Hall of Merit system - I think we could do the same thing, counting up from 6, and giving the 4 point bonus for a first place vote. Any thoughts?
   98. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 05, 2007 at 04:34 AM (#2393018)
"Why waste time with separate voting for each award? If we just decided to rank the top X (15? 20? 25?) players each year, we would end up with answers to the questions Who was the best player in each league? Who was the best pitcher in each league?"


Actually Dan, if you go back and look at MVP Award Voting, it isn't a great predictor of the Cy Young balloting in seasons where the Cy Young is not obvious. Some of that is on that projected other league Cy Young voting thread I started awhile back - I tried to use the MVP votes for a foundation, but it was tougher than I would have though, especially when comparing them for years where we have both Cy Young and MVP balloting.

It's even worse once relievers come into prominence. There are many cases of relievers getting much stronger MVP support than Cy Young support, for whatever reason.

But usually there aren't too many pitchers voted for, so the couple of guys that have a pitcher very high have a much higher weight in determining which pitcher ends up higher in the MVP voting than they do in the Cy Young voting. It's strange but true.
   99. AJMcCringleberry Posted: June 05, 2007 at 04:55 AM (#2393129)
If we just decided to rank the top X (15? 20? 25?) players each year, we would end up with answers to the questions Who was the best player in each league? Who was the best pitcher in each league?

Not necessarily. For MVP I would consider a pitcher's hitting, but I wouldn't consider it for Cy Young.
   100. sunnyday2 Posted: June 05, 2007 at 12:02 PM (#2393449)
Actually it had never occurred to me to do it that way, but I love Dan's idea (#95). Combining the leagues really does add a dimension that the real awards don't have. But I would throw the NeLers into the same box.
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
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.4703 seconds
49 querie(s) executed