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, July 09, 2007

2001 Results: Three W’s Make It Into the Hall of Merit: Winfield, Whitaker and Willie!

In his first year of eligibility, strong-armed slugger Dave Winfied sailed into the Hall of Merit with an impressive 95% of all possible points.

Star second baseman Lou Whitaker, another newbie, received strong support from the electorate with 77% of all possible points.

Last but not least, Yankee great Willie Randolph did the squeezing out this time (unlike in our last election when Fingers won by a nose over him) when he bested 19th century batsman Pete Browning (does he finally make it in 2002 after over 100 years of eligibility?) Willie received 28% of all possible points in his 4th year of eligibility.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Dave Stieb, Charley Jones, Cannonball Dick Redding, Roger Bresnahan, Bob Johnson and Hugh Duffy.

A record 101 candidates were named on a ballot this election, breaking the 1995-96 mark of 100.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Dave Winfield           1065   47  27 12  3  2  1        1  1                  
 2  n/e  Lou Whitaker             874   44   8 17  4  1  1  5  4  1        1  1     1   
 3    3T Willie Randolph          318   26         1  1  4  4  2  3     2        5  2  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    6  Pete Browning            316   20   1  3  3  1  1  1     3  3     1  2        1
 5    7  Dave Stieb               271   21         2  4  1        3  3  1     3  3     1
 6    8  Charley Jones            256   17   3     1  1  3     1  2  1  1  1  1  1  1   
 7    5  Cannonball Dick Redding  253   16      2  4     1  2  2        2     1  1     1
 8    9  Roger Bresnahan          252   19   1     1  2  3  1  1  2  1  2        2  1  2
 9   13  Bob Johnson              251   18         2     2  4  1  2  2  2  2  1         
10   12  Hugh Duffy               224   16   1     2  2     2  2  1        1  3  1     1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   11  Bucky Walters            220   15      1     3  2  2  2  2  1  1           1   
12  n/e  Kirby Puckett            205   16      1        4  1  2     1  1  2  2  1     1
13   14  Gavvy Cravath            204   16      1  2           2  1  2  2  2     2  2   
14   10  Tony Perez               196   14      1  2  2  1        2     2     2     1  1
15   15  Alejandro Oms            177   14   1     1  2           1  1  1  3  1  2     1
16   16  George Van Haltren       153   11         2  2  1           3           2  1   
17   17  Tommy Leach              152   11               3  3     2     3               
18   22  John McGraw              150    9   1  1  1  2     2                 1  1      
19   26  Luis Tiant               142   13      1        1     1  1  1  2     1     3  2
20   30  Tommy Bridges            138    9      1  1  1  1  2     1     1              1
21   18  Graig Nettles            132   13            1        1     3  2        3  1  2
22   29  Dizzy Dean               128    8   3        1        1           1     1  1   
23   21  Reggie Smith             125   11               1     4     1     1     3  1   
24   32  Bus Clarkson             125    8         2  2     1     1        1  1         
25T  23  Lou Brock                123    8      1  1  2        1        1  1  1         
25T  27T Mickey Welch             123    8      1  1  1     1  1     1  1     1         
27   20  Phil Rizzuto             120   10            1     3  1        1  2        1  1
28   33  Burleigh Grimes          118   10         1  1     2  1                 2  1  2
29   36T Orlando Cepeda           115   10            1  2        2     1     1     2  1
30   38  Dave Concepción          106    8         1     1        3  1     1        1   
31T  19  Ken Singleton            101    9         1  1        1           2     2     2
31T  24  Rusty Staub              101    9            1  1     1  1        2  1        2
33   27T Norm Cash                 99    8            2        1  1  2              2   
34   25  Larry Doyle               97    7         1     3     1                    1  1
35   34  Dale Murphy               95   10                  1     1  1  1     1  1  3  1
36   31  Vic Willis                91    8            1  1           2        3     1   
37   35  Bobby Bonds               89    9                  1  2        1     1     2  2
38   43  Ben Taylor                81    7      1                 1     1     2  2      
39   39  Bob Elliott               79    8                        1  2     1  1  2  1   
40   52  Pie Traynor               77    7         1           1        2           1  2
41   47  Dave Bancroft             76    6         1        1           1  2     1      
42   36T Elston Howard             69    7            1        1           1  1     1  2
43   49  Wally Schang              69    6         1           1        1     1     1  1
44T  41  Tommy John                66    5            1     1  1        1     1         
44T  48  Chuck Klein               66    5      1     1              1              2   
46   42  Carl Mays                 64    5               2  1              1        1   
47T  51  Bill Monroe               59    5               1     1     1     1        1   
47T  40  Vern Stephens             59    5               1           2  1        1      
49  n/e  Don Mattingly             53    5   1                          1              3
50   50  Sal Bando                 50    5                  1              1  2     1   
51  n/e  Lance Parrish             45    4                        1  1     2            
52   45T Addie Joss                45    3      1                 1           1         
53   45T Ed Williamson             44    3      1                    1        1         
54   70T Frank Chance              43    4               1              1  1           1
55   57  Wilbur Cooper             43    3         1              1              1      
56   64T George J. Burns           42    4                           1     3            
57   58  Lefty Gomez               42    3                  2        1                  
58   54  Buddy Bell                40    4                           2     1           1
59   44  Frank Tanana              38    3               1  1                       1   
60   75  Tony Oliva                38    2         1     1                              
61   56  Ernie Lombardi            37    3            1           1                 1   
62T  81  Thurman Munson            34    3                     1           2            
62T  59T Don Newcombe              34    3                  1              1  1         
64   53  Sam Rice                  33    3                     1        1        1      
65T  73  Tony Mullane              32    3                        1  1              1   
65T  82T Urban Shocker             32    3                     1     1                 1
67   68T Johnny Pesky              30    3                              1  1  1         
68   64T Rick Reuschel             30    2         1                             1      
69   63  Rabbit Maranville         29    3                        1        1           1
70   66  Jimmy Ryan                26    2                        2                     
71T  55  Jim Rice                  23    3                                 1        1  1
71T  80  Bobby Veach               23    3                                       2  1   
73T n/e  Jack Quinn                23    2            1                                1
73T  68T Bruce Sutter              23    2                           1  1               
75   67  Jack Clark                22    2                     1                 1      
76   62  Ed Cicotte                22    1         1                                    
77   61  Frank Howard              19    2                                 1  1         
78   74  Dave Parker               18    2                                    2         
79   87T Al Rosen                  17    2                              1              1
80   77T Luis Aparicio             17    1            1                                 
81   77T Carlos Morán              16    1               1                              
82   76  Ron Cey                   15    2                                    1        1
83   77T Brian Downing             15    1                  1                           
84T n/e  Bill Mazeroski            14    1                     1                        
84T  70T Dizzy Trout               14    1                     1                        
86   59T Jim Kaat                  12    1                           1                  
87T  72  Hack Wilson               11    1                              1               
87T  85T Tony Lazzeri              11    1                              1               
87T  82T Sam Leever                11    1                              1               
90T  85T Fielder Jones             10    1                                 1            
90T  82T Leroy Matlock             10    1                                 1            
92T  87T Fred Dunlap                9    1                                    1         
92T  87T Jack Morris                9    1                                    1         
94T n/e  Jim Fregosi                8    1                                       1      
94T  87T George Kell                8    1                                       1      
96T  91T Bill Madlock               7    1                                          1   
96T n/e  Levi Meyerle               7    1                                          1   
96T  91T Mickey Vernon              7    1                                          1   
99T n/e  Dick Lundy                 6    1                                             1
99T  93T Al Oliver                  6    1                                             1
99T n/e  Mike Tiernan               6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Charlie Hough(93T), Dutch Leonard(95T), Gene Tenace(95T).
Ballots Cast: 47

Thanks to OCF and Ron Wargo for double-checking the tally.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 09, 2007 at 12:56 AM | 124 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: July 10, 2007 at 02:04 AM (#2435269)
Congrats to Dave, Lou and Willie!

Looking forward to finding out why it's crazy to have Pete Browning on our ballots for the next few weeks. ;-)

HOF-not-HOM through 2001

Meaning
all of the members of the HOF-not-HOM as of 2001not 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 Gomez
Lefty
19 Grimes
Burleigh
20 Hafey
Chick
21 Haines
Jesse
22 Hooper
Harry
23 Hoyt
Waite
24 Hunter
Catfish
25 Jackson
Travis
26 Johnson
Judy
27 Joss
Addie
28 Kell
George
29 Kelly
George
30 Klein
Chuck
31 Lazzeri
Tony
32 Lindstrom
Freddie
33 Lombardi
Ernie
34 Manush
Heinie
35 Maranville
Rabbit
36 Marquard
Rube
37 Mazeroski
Bill
38 McCarthy
Tommy
39 McGraw
John 
40 Pennock
Herb
41 Perez
Tony
42 Puckett
Kirby  
43 Rice
Sam
44 Rizzuto
Phil
45 Schalk
Ray
46 Schoendienst
Red
47 Smith
Hilton
48 Tinker
Joe
49 Traynor
Pie
50 Waner
Lloyd
51 Welch
Mickey
52 Willis
Vic
53 Wilson
Hack
54 Youngs
Ross

HOM
-not-HOF

Meaning
all of the members of the HOM-not-HOF as of 2001not 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 Freehan
Bill
17 Glasscock
Jack
18 Gordon
Joe
19 Gore
George
20 Gossage
Rich
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
31 Mackey
Biz
32 Magee
Sherry
33 McVey
Cal
34 Méndez
José
35 Minoso
Minnie
36 Moore
Dobie
37 Pearce
Dickey
38 Pierce
Billy
39 Pike
Lip
40 Randolph
Willie
41 Richardson
Hardy
42 Rose
Pete*
43 SantoRon
44 Santop
Louis
45 Sheckard
Jimmy
46 Simmons
Ted
47 Start
Joe
48 Stovey
Harry
49 Suttles
Mule
50 Sutton
Ezra
51 Torre
Joe
52 Trouppe
Quincy
53 Torriente
Cristobal
54 Whitaker
Lou
55 White
Deacon
56 Wilson
Jud
57 Wynn
Jimmy

*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2435291)
I'm just curious, because Randolph moved up 2 spots on my ballot this year, from 15 to 13. (Which I'm not doubtful about - I put him in my PHoM this year). If he had tied with Browning, Pete would have won because of more elect-me votes, right? I'm willing to take the blame on this one.
   3. Chris Fluit Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:17 AM (#2435293)
Nope, Randolph would have won because he's on more ballots. I think that "elect-me" votes is the second tie-breaker.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:19 AM (#2435295)
Nope, Randolph would have won because he's on more ballots. I think that "elect-me" votes is the second tie-breaker.


Right, Chris.
   5. jimd Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2435296)
I thought that Head-to-Head was the first tie-breaker?
Or it was once the 1st TB and is now the 2nd tie-breaker? (behind #ballots)
The third tie-breaker is then most #1's?

Or am I all confused about this?
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:26 AM (#2435300)
congrats to Willie.
Condolences to Browning's great-great-great-great? grandchildren.
   7. Chris Fluit Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:27 AM (#2435302)
"In the event of two or more players tying with the same number of points, the players will be ranked according to the following tie-breakers: (i) the player who was more highly ranked on more voters’ individual ballots (votes will be weighed 3-2-1 if more than two are tied); (ii) if still tied, the player who was listed on more voters’ ballots; (iii) if still tied, the player who had the most 1st-place votes, (iv) if still tied, the player who had the most 2nd-place votes, etc."

Looks like jimd was right.
   8. DL from MN Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:32 AM (#2435306)
Stronger showing for Kirby than I expected. He's better than Hugh Duffy and should make the top 10. Browning 4th, Dunlap 92nd doesn't parse. Neither does Browning ahead of Charley Jones.
   9. jimd Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:34 AM (#2435309)
That's what the Constitution says (and it's probably right).

I just vaguely remember that we might have flip-flopped (i) and (ii), some time after the ballot counter spreadsheet came into use. It was easy to implement (ii) and put it in the counter; (i) is hard to do.

OTOH, maybe that was just unofficial, good enough for ties that don't really matter, but a real tie (one that decides who gets elected) goes to the Constitution.
   10. Chris Fluit Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2435318)
Right, Chris.


I like being right.
   11. Chris Fluit Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:43 AM (#2435319)
Stronger showing for Kirby than I expected.


And I thought Mattingly would do better.

Browning 4th, Dunlap 92nd doesn't parse. Neither does Browning ahead of Charley Jones.


I agree.
   12. Rick A. Posted: July 10, 2007 at 02:47 AM (#2435324)
Even though I have Browning high on my ballot, and Randolph isn't on my ballot, I have to say I'm glad Willie made it afer getting so close last year.

As a Yankee fan, I've always respected Willie's calm and patient demeanor in the midst of the turmoil of the Bronx Zoo. I've never really ranked my favorite Yankees aside from Mattingly who was my favorite, but Willie is easily in the top 5 of my all time favorite Yankees in my lifetime.
   13. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 10, 2007 at 03:57 AM (#2435374)
Man, I should have voted Browning where my system says to do so. He would have gotten in.
   14. OCF Posted: July 10, 2007 at 04:18 AM (#2435396)
Highest possible consensus score: +7
Average consensus score: -8.2

Howie Menckel: +1
Mark Shirk: -1
TomH: -1
Chris Fluit: -1
Jim Sp: -2
John Murphy: -2
Al Peterson: -3
ronw: -4
Thane of Bagarth: -4
Devin McCullen: -4
Sean Gilman: -4
Esteban Rivera: -4
fra paolo: -4
...
OCF: -5
...
Rick A: -7 (median)
...
Chris Cobb: -7
...
Joe Dimino: -10
...
EricC: -12
Daryn: -12
Dan R: -12
Adam Schafer: -13
Eric Chalek: -13
rawagman: -14
Max Parkinson: -14
mulder & scully: -15
karlmagnus: -16
rico vanian: -18
Mark Donelson: -19
yest: -29 (outlier again)
   15. yest Posted: July 10, 2007 at 05:08 PM (#2435744)
yest: -29 (whats the record for the lowest ?

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
Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett, 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
   16. Howie Menckel Posted: July 10, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2435774)
all-time 'votes points' thru 2001 - those still eligible in 2002 election are in CAPS. electees are not in caps.

TOP 50, ALL-TIME
Beckley.... 25856
VAN HALTREN 25410.5
DUFFY...... 25293.5
BROWNING... 23207.5
Childs..... 18484
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
WELCH...... 17341
Jennings... 16976
REDDING.... 15796

CJONES..... 15288
BRESNAHAN.. 14017
Sisler..... 13892
TLEACH..... 13548

Pike....... 13399
Sewell..... 12769
Mendez..... 12555
RYAN....... 12394.5
Thompson... 12349
Roush...... 12005

Bennett.... 11503
Moore...... 10904
Rixey...... 10789
Caruthers.. 10704
Beckwith.... 9896
CRAVATH......9872
HStovey......9576
WALTERS......9324
Mackey.......8930
DOYLE........8880

Start........8378.5
GRIMES.......8293

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

BJOHNSON.....7269
WFerrell.....7259
BMONROE......7144
OMS..........7086
CBell........6968
Galvin.......6585
MCGRAW.......6438
Keller.......6424
Sheckard.....6377
Schang.......6173 (knocks out Minoso)

Others in active top 50
Williamson 6014, Willis 4821, Dean 4423, Joss 4292, Elliott 4189, BTaylor 3665, Bridges 3546, FChance 3404, McCormick 3148x, CMays 3020, SRice 3011, Traynor 2996, Cicotte 2890, NCash 2709, Cepeda 2692, Tiernan 2686x, Rizzuto 2565, FJones 2533, TPerez 2273, Veach 2222, GJBurns 2085, Brock 2077, Klein 2077, Mullane 2011, Stephens 1949, Dunlap 1892, EHoward 1843, Poles 1842x, Lombardi 1820, Hooper 1792x, MGriffin 1726.5x, Tiant 1686
   17. ronw Posted: July 10, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2435811)
As of today, the HOM has agreement with 167 HOFers. Where are the discrepancies?

HOM not HOF (All-Time) - 46

Allen, Dick
Barnes, Ross
Beckwith, John
Bennett, Charlie
Blyleven, Bert
Boyer, Ken
Caruthers, Bob
Childs, Cupid
Dahlen, Bill
Evans, Darrell
Evans, Dwight
Ferrell, Wes
Freehan, Bill
Glasscock, Jack
Gordon, Joe
Gore, George
Gossage, Rich
Grich, Bobby
Groh, Heinie
Hack, Stan
Hernandez, Keith
Hines, Paul
Jackson, Joe
Johnson, Grant
Keller, Charlie
Magee, Sherry
McVey, Cal
Minoso, Minnie
Moore, Dobie
Pearce, Dickey
Pierce, Billy
Pike, Lip
Randolph, Willie
Richardson, Hardy
Rose, Pete
Santo, Ron
Sheckard, Jimmy
Simmons, Ted
Start, Joe
Stovey, Harry
Sutton, Ezra
Torre, Joe
Trouppe, Quincy
White, Deacon
Whitaker, Lou
Wynn, Jimmy

HOF not HOM (including those not yet eligible for the HOM) - 66 (58 eligible through 2001)

Aparicio, Luis
Bancroft, Dave
Bender, Chief
Boggs, Wade - eligible 2005
Bottomley, Jim
Bresnahan, Roger
Brock, Lou
Cepeda, Orlando
Chance, Frank
Chesbro, Jack
Combs, Earle
Cooper, Andy
Cuyler, Kiki
Dandridge, Ray
Day, Leon
Dean, Dizzy
Duffy, Hugh
Eckersley, Dennis - eligible 2004
Evers, Johnny
Ferrell, Rick
Gomez, Lefty
Grimes, Burleigh
Gwynn, Tony - eligible 2007
Hafey, Chick
Haines, Jesse
Hooper, Harry
Hoyt, Waite
Hunter, Catfish
Jackson, Travis
Johnson, Judy
Joss, Addie
Kell, George
Kelly, George
Klein, Chuck
Lazzeri, Tony
Lindstrom, Freddy
Lombardi, Ernie
Manush, Heinie
Maranville, Rabbit
Marquard, Rube
Mazeroski, Bill
McCarthy, Tommy
McGraw, John
Molitor, Paul - eligible 2004
Murray, Eddie - eligible 2003
Pennock, Herb
Perez, Tony
Puckett, Kirby
Rice, Sam
Ripken, Cal - eligible 2007
Rizzuto, Phil
Sandberg, Ryne - eligible 2003
Schalk, Ray
Schoendienst, Red
Smith, Hilton
Smith, Ozzie - eligible 2002
Sutter, Bruce
Taylor, Ben
Tinker, Joe
Traynor, Pie
Waner, Lloyd
Welch, Mickey
White, Sol
Willis, Vic
Wilson, Hack
Youngs, Ross
   18. Chris Fluit Posted: July 10, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2435845)
Comparing the two lists. 2 HOM/not HOF players are ineligible for the HOF: Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. 3 HOM/not HOF players still have a good chance at HOF induction. Gossage will likely be inducted in 2008. Blyleven continues to draw support and may be elected one day. Santo is one of the highest vote getters on the VC ballot and is less than 5 votes away from induction. 1 other HOM/not HOF player will likely be inducted into the HOF as a manager: Joe Torre. So that's 6 on our list that could come off of theirs.

Then, the HOF/not HOM list. The 8 players not yet eligible for the HOM will all be easily inducted- Boggs, Eckersley, Gwynn, Molitor, Murray, Ripken, Sandberg and Smith. 2 others are currently in the top ten list of returnees, while another was recently on the list and is now just outside of it: Duffy, Puckett and Perez. So, at least 8 and possibly 11 will come of their list as they're added to ours.
   19. Mark R. Garber Posted: July 10, 2007 at 06:32 PM (#2435864)
I saw Dave Winfield play baseball on my first journey into the United States from my home in Bremen. He could throw the ball very far.
   20. rawagman Posted: July 10, 2007 at 07:09 PM (#2435929)
Is it just me who feels that if we want to have the same overall number as the Coop, but we are including two of their ineligible players (Rose and Jackson) shouldn't we allow ourselves to induct two extra players to meet their true numbers? DOes anyone think Jackson or Rose would not be in the HOF were it not for arbitrary exclusions?
   21. DanG Posted: July 10, 2007 at 07:15 PM (#2435936)
Seeing how the backlog has shifted since the famous 1957 election, that includes 25 HoMers. The top 20 backlog of 2001 has six that were not eligible in 1957: Stieb--2, Puckett--9, Perez--11, Tiant--16, Nettles--18, R. Smith--20.

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

1--George Van Haltren--13
Cool Papa Bell
2--Hugh Duffy--7
3--Mickey Welch--22t
Cupid Childs
Bobby Doerr
Joe Sewell

4--Pete Browning--1
5--Bucky Walters--8
6--Cannonball Dick Redding--4
Dobie Moore
7--Alejandro Oms--12
José Méndez
8--Charley Jones--3
9--Tommy Leach--14
10-Gavy Cravath--10
11-Burleigh Grimes--25
Joe Gordon
Rube Waddell

12-Roger Bresnahan--5
13-Wally Schang--40
Edd Roush
14-Larry Doyle--31
15-Dizzy Dean--19
16-John McGraw--15
17-Bob Johnson--6
18-Ernie Lombardi--58
19-Chuck Klein--41t
20t-Tommy Bridges--17
20t-Bill Monroe--44t
Charlie Keller
   22. DanG Posted: July 10, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2435955)
What do you think of this theory?

The most accurate placement of a candidate occurs about five to twenty years after he becomes eligible.

A new candidate is subject to “Shiny New Toy” syndrome and other distortions. By his fifth year on the ballot we have a better handle on his placement. By then, good studies have been done, but it’s too early for him to have acquired “Favorite Pet” status.

On the other end, after twenty years or so, the memory of those good early studies has faded. Certainly for pre-1920 candidates, many voters have no knowledge of those studies; indeed, in many cases they’re no longer accessible due to the damage of the site changeover. In addition, at this late date many voters place a Browning or a Duffy based too much on the historic images of them, images that are based largely on counting stats and popular accounts. Another effect is the crowding caused by newer candidates, that washes out the image of more seasoned candidates.

I’ll stop there. Does anyone else see these phenomena at work in our collective analysis?
   23. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 10, 2007 at 08:10 PM (#2435997)
The most accurate placement of a candidate occurs about five to twenty years after he becomes eligible.

I would only change one word or two:

The most accurate placement of a backlog/borderline candidate occurs about five to twenty years after he becomes eligible.

Some frontloggers clear out quickly because much of the electorate "gets" them quickly, and of course the high-ranking candidates clear out very, very quickly. Which leaves the borderline stragglers whom we are herein discussing.
   24. DanG Posted: July 10, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2436016)
The most accurate placement of a backlog/borderline candidate occurs about five to twenty years after he becomes eligible.

OK, that sounds good. Then you agree that our current placements of these guys is not as accurate as it was a few decades ago.
   25. favre Posted: July 10, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2436020)
I’ve been voting since 1900, and this is only the fourth election I’ve missed (due primarily to travel, combined with general laziness at the beginning of the week). Here is what my ballot would have looked like:

1. Dave Winfield
2. Charley Jones
3. Vic Willis
4. Dave Stieb
5. Kirby Puckett
6. Lou Whitaker
7. Roger Bresnahan
8. Bus Clarkson
9. Dale Murphy
10. Tommy Leach
11. Gavvy Cravath
12. Ken Singleton
13. Larry Doyle
14. Bucky Walters
15. Tony Perez

I’m not under any delsusions that anyone has been anxiously wondering how I would have voted, and my ballot would not have affected the outcome, since neither Randolph nor Browning were on it (Randolph was #16). Still, if I had voted, Walters would have replaced Duffy in the top ten, and Kirby would be in an even closer battle with Hugh for a top ten spot in the next election. I suppose that’s worth mentioning.
   26. rawagman Posted: July 10, 2007 at 08:42 PM (#2436033)
apropos of favre posting his would-have-been ballot. It looks like, had we included the ballots of rusty and/or sunnyday2, Randolph still would have taken 3rd place by a hair.
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 10, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2436041)
Speaking of Sunny2, he's not been heard from since the posting of the infamous commentless ballot.
   28. favre Posted: July 10, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2436046)
BTW, I had no idea there had been another ballot controversy, and my lack of comments was not a response to it in any way. Had I voted, I would have provided commentary on my ballot.
   29. Sean Gilman Posted: July 10, 2007 at 11:08 PM (#2436132)
I’ll stop there. Does anyone else see these phenomena at work in our collective analysis?

No, I believe in perpetual eligibility.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:30 AM (#2436237)
In addition, at this late date many voters place a Browning or a Duffy based too much on the historic images of them, images that are based largely on counting stats and popular accounts.


Both of them are on my ballot for reasons other than the ones described above.

No, I believe in perpetual eligibility.


Same here.
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:39 AM (#2436460)
Looking ahead one moment.

John asked whether Browning might might make it this year. Well he's got one slot to work with, since it seems a foregone conclusion that the two SS will go 1-2. Dawson certainly has some chance of winning a slot too. And stranger things have happened in elections than to see a lead like Browning's diminish over Stieb (Browning being about 45-50 points ahead). If Browning came on to no one else's ballot, Stieb found some new support, and more voters cast ballots (favre for instance), who knows what happens. Or Browning could take the path that several recent old backlog top runners-up have taken in getting so close, then falling away again for a while. But if Browning fails in 2002, 2003 begins to look ominous too. Murray and Sandberg seem likely to be inducted, and again, it's a one-slot race where we continue to rage over Dawson and the potentially controversial Lee Smith comes up for bids (where is that pesky reliever in/out line, anyway?).

Anyway, Browning has run a very long gauntlet to get to the precipice of glory---it will be interesting to see if the gravity of the backlog reels him back in again.
   32. Howie Menckel Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:55 AM (#2436531)
I think of all these guys like crabs in a barrel - you see one almost make it to the top, and the other crabs always pull him back down.
But over time, a few of them do plop onto the deck.

Too bad Jesse Burkett was too good!
:)
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:59 AM (#2436553)
Too bad Jesse Burkett was too good!

But luckily Johnny Evers is still in the barrell.
   34. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:59 PM (#2437285)
No, I believe in perpetual eligibility.

Then you would also have to support the idea that those we "elect" would still be voted on in each election. IOW, if we can stop players' eligibility by supporting them greatly, why can't the opposite also be done and, likewise, eliminate players the group has non-supported greatly? Both acts are submitting to the groups' collective judgment.

Anyway, the intent of post #22 had nothing to do with perpetual eligibility. It is a followup to the list in #21. I'm submitting the following conundrum to the group: Contrary to popular belief, I believe it is likely that the consensus ranking of long-time candidates with their peers becomes less accurate over time.
   35. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:37 PM (#2437311)
if we can stop players' eligibility by supporting them greatly, why can't the opposite also be done and, likewise, eliminate players the group has non-supported greatly?

I think the answer to this one could be "Dickey Pearce." The notion that information changes over time, as does understanding, suggests that eliminating a player from consideration disallows the rare instance where the electorate requires time or new information/study to make a better decision.

On the other hand, the truth is that we've dismissed approximately 15,000 players already by simply never supporting them; there needn't be any kind of mechanism for ineligibility due to this reason alone.

Contrary to popular belief, I believe it is likely that the consensus ranking of long-time candidates with their peers becomes less accurate over time.

I'm not sure, I agree, Dan. Let's look at the 50-100 year backlog guys of recent vintage:
-Jake Beckley oozed borderlinerness, and he was appropriate elected very late in the project: the electorate got him right in as much as he was forced to run a longer gauntlet than superior players.

-Pete Browning has tons of issues, and he's been made to run a longer gauntlet, again, I see that as appropriate.

-Charley Jones, ditto.

-Edd Roush waited around about 50 years, and his case was also fairly borderline, but I thought above the line; I see nothing problematic about the consensus opinion here.

-George Van Duffy has waited an appropriately long time since those three are nearly indistinguishable, the big stats have disagreement on them, different studies show different opinions, and they each have a plusses and minuses. Again, I don't see how the consensus has them wrong relatively or absolutely.

-Mickey Welch isn't going in. As late as the 1930s-1940s raged about whether he should. Now we can stick a fork in him. I think the consensus has him right as well.

-Bob Johnson is another guy with 50 years where the consensus has him right: he's a borderline candidate, and so hasn't been elected.

-Dizzy Dean's been around for 55-60 years with his extreme peak case, and he's pulling in a 22 this year. Seems about right to me.

But what about mistake guys? Sam Thompson had about 20 years on the ballot and became the HOM's big sore thumb. Others (not me) say that Bill Terry was a mistake, he was a first ballot guy. I think Fingers is a mistake, and he was on the ballot about ten to twelve years. Ken Boyer is another I really disagree with, he was elected fairly quickly, within 20 years also. Dewey Evans may or may not be a mistake, but he was definitely borderline, and he was elected in his first year.

In general, I think you're right that for backlog guys, 25 years is somewhere around where the electorate gets their "true" HOM level about right. But I think the consensus stays pretty accurate after that. Anything can and has happened before the 25 year mark, but there's little to argue with when a 100-year-old borderliner gets in. It's just the nature of longtime borderline candidacies.
   36. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2437416)
RE: Limited Eligibility

I’ll hit this one more time, despite its mootness, because I see it as a serious flaw in our system.

I think the answer to this one could be "Dickey Pearce."

No, not nearly. No one has ever suggested we operate anything like the BBWAA and make guys “one and done”. My thinking has always been towards eliminating candidates who have complete, long-term rejection.

One idea I like is “40-40”. If a player finishes out of the top 40 in 40 elections, then he’s done. Simple, easy to track, absolutely zero chance of eliminating a viable candidate. Again, “complete, long-term rejection”.

By allowing these rejected candidates to continue we are allowing them to divert us from the primary task of coming to consensus on who the top candidates are.

One example. We have only a 15-man ballot. This is too small to reflect the electorate’s true feelings on very divisive candidates. Suppose we had a 100-man ballot. Based on 2001 voting, I’m guessing Pete Browning has support something like this:

7 Elect-me votes
6 Other top-ballot (4-8) votes
7 Other top 15 votes
5 Votes 16-25
5 Votes 26-40
5 Votes 41-55
5 Votes 56-70
4 Votes 71-85
3 Votes 86-100

Another candidate has support something like this:
2 Elect-me votes
3 Other top-ballot (4-8) votes
6 Other top 15 votes
11 Votes 16-25
11 Votes 26-40
7 Votes 41-55
4 Votes 56-70
3 Votes 71-85
0 Votes 86-100

This actually may not bear too close a resemblance to reality, but it was a fun exercise. The point is I think our system exaggerates the gap between these two players. If we eliminated completely rejected players from the ballot, the voting results would be able to better reflect the electorate’s opinion on their relative merits. The just-off-ballot votes for the second player add a lot more than for the first player. In a close election, this system can easily elect the wrong guy, a player generally less regarded by the electorate.

Retaining completely rejected players has other negative effects:
1. Wasted effort. Discussion and analysis that should go towards ranking the viable candidates is spent on Favorite Pets.
2. Over tolerance of idiosyncratic voters. It encourages contrarians and voters whose “systems” bear little relationship to actual value.
3. It admits to distrust of the electorate. We have no official mechanism to say that Happy Jack Chesbro has been deemed Not A HoMer by our sagacious assemblage. We’re never entirely sure that anybody isn’t a possible HoMer.
4. It makes us look silly. The nether regions of our voting tally have the same pointless names year after year.
   37. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2437430)
despite its mootness,

Wait. Come to think of it, we could enact candidate limitations at any time. Might be just the shot in the arm this project needs. I'll think about a smoothe way to institute it.
   38. Daryn Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:33 PM (#2437456)
Your 40/40 rule would probably only eliminate 20 or so candidates. I'm not sure how that helps much.

Even if it eliminated 45 votes (which it likely won't), that is only an average of one vote per voter.
   39. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:46 PM (#2437468)
Your 40/40 rule would probably only eliminate 20 or so candidates. I'm not sure how that helps much.

Even if it eliminated 45 votes (which it likely won't),

Giving it a quick look I came up with 29 players with 64 votes and 730 points. Together with the other benefits, it's clearly a positive direction to go.
   40. DL from MN Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2437484)
Going with a larger ballot is more mathematically correct than eliminating candidates.
   41. Chris Fluit Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2437487)
A list of players who were not in the top 40 in 2001 and have been on the ballot for more than 40 elections:

Dave Bancroft
George Burns
Frank Chance
Ed Cicotte
Wilbur Cooper
Fred Dunlap
Fielder Jones
Addie Joss
Lefty Gomez
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Sam Leever
Ernie Lombardi
Dick Lundy
Rabbit Maranville
Leroy Matlock
Carl Mays
Levi Meyerle
Bill Monroe
Carlos Moran
Tony Mullane
Jack Quinn
Johnny Pesky
Sam Rice
Al Rosen (eliminated after the 2001 election)
Jimmy Ryan
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Vern Stephens (eliminated after the 2000 election)
Mike Tiernan
Dizzy Trout
Bobby Veach
Ed Williamson
Hack Wilson

Scheduled to be eliminated after the 2002 election:
George Kell
Artie Wilson

A slightly less harsh version of 50/50 would keep:

Dave Bancroft
Chuck Klein
Ernie Lombardi (2002 would be be his last election unless he were to crack the top 50)
Johnny Pesky
Carl Mays
Bill Monroe
Al Rosen
Wally Schang
Vern Stephens
   42. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2437488)
Just did a little checking and add Carl Mays and Chuck Klein to the 40-40 list. That makes at least 31 players with 74 votes and 860 points. Also, don't think I'm advocating for a permanent "hard" ban. The "ballot committee" would be open to appeal for any dropped candidate for whom new information comes to light. Maybe a Bill Monroe, for one possibility.
   43. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2437491)
I'm sure we all have favorites on Chris' list above. But, just like any of our elections, the voters have rendered a verdict.
   44. Juan V Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2437493)
One of the things I like about the project is perpetual elegibility. According to #41, three players on my ballot would be eliminated, replaced by guys who I feel less deserving, and I wouldn't like it if this bumped one of those players to election.
   45. Juan V Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:03 PM (#2437494)
Going with a larger ballot is more mathematically correct than eliminating candidates.


I agree. At this point, the difference between our 15th and 16th men is probably infinitesimal, but one gets 6 points and the other gets zero. What happened with the 20-man ballot experiment?
   46. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:09 PM (#2437497)
Going with a larger ballot is more mathematically correct than eliminating candidates.

Don't you remember, DL? It was "proven" that a larger ballot would not improve the system.
   47. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2437502)
One of the things I like about the project is perpetual elegibility. According to #41, three players on my ballot would be eliminated, replaced by guys who I feel less deserving, and I wouldn't like it if this bumped one of those players to election.

Let's change this thought to one of allowing ALL players perpetual eligibility (changes underlined):

"One of the things I like about the project is perpetual elegibility. According to this past election, three players in the HoM would be eliminated, replaced by guys who I feel more deserving. I would really like it if this bumped one of those players to election."

If we had true perpetual eligibility we would "feel" happier because HoMers we felt undeserving could be bumped out. Obviously, not the way we want to go, right? IMO, allowing perpetual eligibility to players at the top of the consensus would be as silly as allowing perpetual eligibility to players at the bottom of the consensus. Yet, we do. So, the current system is not inconsistent in its treatment of candidates.
   48. Chris Fluit Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:47 PM (#2437530)
Pluses to eventual elimination:

Reduces the fractured nature of the backlog. We are continually setting new records for most players to receive votes in one election, player elected with the lowest number of votes, player elected with the lowest percentage of points, and so on. Eventual elimination would force the voters to discard certain candidates and concentrate on the more recent and more viable candidates.

Question: Is that really such a positive? Or in other words- is the increasing number of players who get votes, and the lower point totals for backlog inductees such a significant problem that we need to change the rules in order to address it?

Negatives to eventual elimination:

Creates a definitive "time-line" effect. By setting a cut-off- any cut-off- we are saying that recent borderline candidates are preferable to older borderline candidates. We are saying, in effect, that Jim Fregosi is a worthwhile candidate but Johnny Pesky is not.

Reduces the possibility of new research. For example, 2001 was Bus Clarkson's 40th election. Just a couple of months ago, our Negro League researchers came up with new information for Clarkson that resulted in a rather large increase. Because of that increase, Clarkson is now in the top 40 and will not be eliminated. But what if that research had been done in August instead of April? It would have been too late for Clarkson. In fact, unless similar research is done in the next two weeks for Artie Wilson, he would be eliminated. The players who stand to gain the most from extra research- Negro League players, Cuban/Caribbean players such as Carlos Moran, 19th Century players who may have played outside of the official major leagues- are the ones who are also most likely to be eliminated.

Addressing the negatives of perpetual candidacy:

Retaining completely rejected players has other negative effects:
1. <u>Wasted effort.</u> Discussion and analysis that should go towards ranking the viable candidates is spent on Favorite Pets.


How much discussion and analysis has actually gone into Favorite Pets? The big arguments have always been about guys at the top of the backlog- those in the top 10 or 25. This proposal wouldn't have eliminated the tedious discussions about Jake Beckley (and I say that as a Beckley supporter). They wouldn't eliminate the repeated discussions of Browning. Or of the big three 1890s outfielders as at least two of them would still be eligible. The guys who would be eliminated are not the guys who are taking up a lot of discussion space. When was the last time that the Chuck Klein or Hack Wilson threads saw a burst of activity? When was the last time we had a really heated discussion about Tony Mullane or Jack Quinn? We honestly aren't wasting that much time talking about these guys. The only time they come up in a discussion is when a newly eligible player is similar to one of the older ones. Concepcion's recent candidacy has got us talking about Bancroft, Maranville and Rizzuto again. But would we have done so without Concepcion? And isn't that a good thing- that a newer player is causing us to reevaluate some older players? I don't see that discussion as having been wasteful or useless in any way. If Concepcion's candidacy and the discussion it's engendered about Bancroft and Rizzuto have helped us understand those players better- and possibly even elect one of them- then I think that's a good thing.

2.<u> Over tolerance of idiosyncratic voters.</u> It encourages contrarians and voters whose “systems” bear little relationship to actual value.

Would eventual elimination keep our idiosyncratic voters in line? Would karlmagnus and yest suddenly submit ballots that don't continually bring down the consensus scale? I doubt it. karlmagnus and yest may have plenty of older candidates that they continue to vote for but they've expressed the same idiosyncratic tendencies for more recent candidates like Don Mattingly and Bill Madlock. After the next election, yest wouldn't be allowed to vote for George Kell anymore. But who says he'd vote for somebody high in the backlog instead? Maybe we'd be arguing about Bill Buckner or Kent Hrbek instead. I just don't see how this proposal would actually achieve this result.

3.<u> It admits to distrust of the electorate.</u> We have no official mechanism to say that Happy Jack Chesbro has been deemed Not A HoMer by our sagacious assemblage. We’re never entirely sure that anybody isn’t a possible HoMer.

I don't see why this is so important. Why do we have to have a definitive vote in which we say Jack Chesbro is officially deemed not worthy of the Hall of Merit? Isn't it enough that he receives no votes year after year?

Furthermore, there are valid reasons to distrust the electorate. Dobie Moore had at least one election in which he received 0 votes. Some time later, voters became convinced of his worthiness. Whether it was because of the excellence of his peak or credit for his time spent barnstorming or some other reason, we already have one candidate completely dismissed by the electorate who was later inducted into the Hall of Merit. Another elected candidate who could have been in danger of elimination was Edd Roush who spent quite a bit of time low in the backlog before making a charge.

Plus, the top 40 after 40 or top 50 or 50 rule could have been disastrous a number of elections ago. We've often remarked that the electorate may have been a bit too exuberant about candidates from the 1930s. Many of the 1930s candidates were becoming eligible just as the older candidates were hitting their 40th or 50th year of eligibility. That exuberance might have been twice as regrettable if a large number of candidates were removed from consideration at that time. Roger Bresnahan and Charley Jones are top ten candidates now. They would have been on the verge of elimination back then.

4.<u> It makes us look silly.</u> The nether regions of our voting tally have the same pointless names year after year.

That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. I'm not sure everyone would agree that having the same names at the bottom of the tally makes us look silly. And I'm not sure that having Jim Fregosi and Al Oliver at the bottom of the tally somehow makes us look better than having Fred Dunlap and Fielder Jones.
   49. Adam Schafer Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:48 PM (#2437535)
I am in total agreement with Juan V. I do not wish to have anyone bumped off of my ballot and replaced with someone I feel is inferior. That ruins the whole point of this project in my opinion. That would make me feel like I'm being forced against my will to vote for someone that I don't feel is one of the top 15 players of all time not currently in our Hall.
   50. Adam Schafer Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:49 PM (#2437539)
And why in the world would we make a major change to this project at this point. If we want a major change like that, let the current project run its course and then start over again with a new constitution, new rules, or whatever it is you think you want now.
   51. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:50 PM (#2437540)
One idea I like is “40-40”. If a player finishes out of the top 40 in 40 elections, then he’s done.

40 consecutive elections?

I like this idea. I also like the idea of a 20-man ballot. One of the issues with backlog candidates is that they appear on less than half the ballots so not everyone is weighing in. The electorate didn't want to change rules in midstream, though.
   52. Chris Fluit Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2437542)
43. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:01 PM (#2437491)
I'm sure we all have favorites on Chris' list above. But, just like any of our elections, the voters have rendered a verdict.


I noticed that I only have one player currently on my ballot from that list and it's somebody for whom I voted for the first time in 2001. Even though I'm arguing against it, it wouldn't change my ballot much at all.
   53. DL from MN Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:53 PM (#2437544)
The proofs are discussed in Geometry of Voting by Saari.
   54. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2437547)
the current system is not inconsistent in its treatment of candidates

That should say:

the current system is not consistent in its treatment of candidates.
   55. Juan V Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:57 PM (#2437549)
Even though I don't like the idea, I must acknowledge the positive effect of reducing barriers for entry, by lowering the workload of wannabe-voters.
   56. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:58 PM (#2437550)
I'm not a voter, but if I were I'd feel less enthusiastic about it if I weren't allowed to vote the players I felt most strongly about.
   57. Paul Wendt Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:01 PM (#2437556)
Offhand, I think the 5-20 year theory, at least its following elaboration regarding old candidates, is inspired by the recent surge of Pete Browning to the verge of election, maybe also Dick Redding.

after twenty years or so, the memory of those good early studies has faded. Certainly for pre-1920 candidates, many voters have no knowledge of those studies; indeed, in many cases they’re no longer accessible due to the damage of the site changeover. In addition, at this late date many voters place a Browning or a Duffy based too much on the historic images of them, images that are based largely on counting stats and popular accounts.

But within that 1957 backlog, Browning has climbed from 4 to 1 and Duffy has slipped from 6 to 2. (See below where I have provided within-group rankings in place of the DanG table above.) That's a wash. Welch has the same counting stats and fame going for him. He's the anomaly among 300-game winners whom the group otherwise elected quickly, but he has slipped from 3 to 16. Otherwise Bresnahan, McGraw, and Dean have the fame without the counting stats.

Stieb--2, Puckett--9, Perez--11, Tiant--16, Nettles--18, R. Smith--20.
1--George Van Haltren--10
2--Hugh Duffy--6
3--Mickey Welch--16t
4--Pete Browning--1
5--Bucky Walters--7
6--Cannonball Dick Redding--3
7--Alejandro Oms--9
8--Charley Jones--2
9--Tommy Leach--11
10-Gavy Cravath--8
11-Burleigh Grimes--19
12-Roger Bresnahan--4
13-Wally Schang--34
14-Larry Doyle--25
15-Dizzy Dean--14
16-John McGraw--12
17-Bob Johnson--5
18-Ernie Lombardi--52
19-Chuck Klein--35t
20t-Tommy Bridges--13
20t-Bill Monroe--38t

Welch with 300 wins is alone in the 1957 backlog with 3000 hits, games, or strikeouts; or 300 wins or homeruns. At that level, no one has counting stats.
There are five career candidates in this subgroup:
1--George Van Haltren--10
3--Mickey Welch--16t
7--Alejandro Oms--9
9--Tommy Leach--11
11-Burleigh Grimes--19
They do have something in common but that isn't the theory at hand. Anyway, the oh-so-slow election of Beckley is a counterexample.

It happens that George Van Haltren led the backlog in the famous election of 1932, the turning point of the longest dry spell where 1957 is the turning point of the longest time of plenty. Rube Waddell was far behind and more than 20 years retired, as Dobie Moore was far behind and more than 20 years in 1957. It's possible that a majority of voters has always preferred Van Haltren to Waddell and to Moore, for the point system does not measure majorities. If so, it is likely also true that a majority preferred Van Haltren to Pike and Jennings (fellow ballot veterans in 1932) or Childs and Sisler (veterans in 1957). Maybe that is "bad" but the problem isn't that the group has a bead on almost everyone 10-20 years after retirement, then gradually loses touch with that analysis.

The shiny new toy is also weak as a general theory. Look at the electoral careers of Joe Gordon and Bobby Doerr, two famous players of hallowed times, teammates of Joe and Ted, covered sabrmetrically more than once by Bill James. Yet they didn't get much support when they arrived here and they faced long-distance (not long-time) climbs to the top.
   58. Juan V Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:02 PM (#2437558)
Another issue, though this one is relatively minor and could be foreseen in any rules: What if there's a candidate who is consistently among the Top 40, but his 40th year turns out to be another 1934 and is squeezed out as a result?
   59. Paul Wendt Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2437560)
BTW there are about 20 intervening messages that I haven't read.
   60. Paul Wendt Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:08 PM (#2437564)
19!
This was the last message when I downloaded the thread and the last I will read now.
>>
Wait. Come to think of it, we could enact candidate limitations at any time. Might be just the shot in the arm this project needs. I'll think about a smoothe way to institute it.
<<

That's a hard sell, DanG. It's way tepid to be "the shot in the arm this project needs"!
   61. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2437574)
That's a hard sell, DanG. It's way tepid to be "the shot in the arm this project needs"!

Especially when so many seem immune to the slightest attempt at innoculation!
   62. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2437593)
First, let me state that any proposal, such as eliminating candidates who finish out of the top 40 for 40 elections, would be phased in gradually. It would also specify provisions for reinstatement. I also reject the notion that this constitute a major change to our procedures.

Picking up a few quotes form #48:

Furthermore, there are valid reasons to distrust the electorate.

Best line in the whole post. Thank you for saying it, Chris. Exactly why we need rules like 40-40 to guide them.
It makes us look silly.

That's an emotional argument, not a logical one.

No, I have a very logical desire to avoid the HoM looking ridiculous.
Would eventual elimination keep our idiosyncratic voters in line?

Of course not; that's not the intent. Only draconian measures could achieve that.
How much discussion and analysis has actually gone into Favorite Pets?

Merely their being listed on a ballot year after year is too much.
Negatives to eventual elimination:

Creates a definitive "time-line" effect. By setting a cut-off- any cut-off- we are saying that recent borderline candidates are preferable to older borderline candidates.
Reduces the possibility of new research.

We're not saying these at all. We're saying that 40 years is sufficient time for a player to build a case. Voters would be entirely free and encouraged to make cross-era comparisons. If an eliminated candidate was revived from the comparison, then a campaign for reinstatement is appropriate. So the possibility that 40 years is not enough time to guage a candidate is left open.
   63. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2437605)
Another possible, slightly more complicated, way to run an elimination system would be a point system. Something like this:

For every place below 40th in the vote tally, a player gets one Elimination Point (EP), up to a maximum of 30 per election. That is, players finishing lower than 70th would earn 30 EP. A player with zero votes gets 30 EP, also.

When a player reaches a specified level, say 600 EP, he is dropped from the ballot. (The precise level could be determined by consensus.)

If you wanted, you could also subtract EP if a player finishes higher than #40.

This is also along with the usual possibility for reinstatement, of course.
   64. Daryn Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:24 PM (#2437610)
Two things.

People are misunderstanding the 40/40 rule. To be eliminated, you have to be out of the top 40 for 40 consecutive years -- so someone who finishes in 42nd in their 40th year would only be knocked out if they had never finished in the top 40.

Second, the 40/40 rule would knock out fewer votes than people are quesstimating. If the 40/40 rule were in place, some of the guys who people are saying would be knocked out by it would actually survive because they would get more votes due to the elimination of other 40/40 casualties. The list in post 41 becomes a maximum benefit/toll of the 40/40 rule, not the actual benefit/toll.
   65. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:27 PM (#2437612)
Of course, we don't want to immediately drop 30 or 40 players from consideration. To gradually phase in an elimination system, we would cap the number of players that could be added to the ineligible list each election. A limit of five seems like a nice conservative number.
   66. rawagman Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2437614)
Dan - I think the discussion of this idea has already taken up much more time than any discussion of anyone's pet candidates.
Should such a "rule" be implemented, I would be forced to consider my continued participation in this project. As Juan V pointed out - perpetual eligibility is one of the most attractive elements of this project in my view.
   67. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:37 PM (#2437617)
People are misunderstanding the 40/40 rule. To be eliminated, you have to be out of the top 40 for 40 consecutive years

Actually, the "consecutive" years provision was added by David Foss. It was not my original intent. It could be done that way, but it would greatly minimize the effect of the rule.
some of the guys who people are saying would be knocked out by it would actually survive because they would get more votes due to the elimination of other 40/40 casualties.

Yes, to some degree. Eliminating completely rejected players will lead to a general upward flow of votes. It's true whether you say 40 consecutive or 40 total years. Voters' attention will naturally go towards players on the cusp of elimination, surely a good thing.

In any case, I much prefer the EP system proposed in #63.
   68. Sean Gilman Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2437624)
How about eliminating the discussions of radical changes to the HOM process that have been repeatedly rejected by the consensus for the last 5+ years?
   69. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2437627)
rawagman

Dan - I think the discussion of this idea has already taken up much more time than any discussion of anyone's pet candidates.

That's just my personal preference. The System has always had my interest more than player analysis. Since I created a lot of it I have feelings for it.
perpetual eligibility is one of the most attractive elements of this project in my view.

We discussed this some decades ago. This is not eliminating perpetual eligibility - reinstatment would always be possible. It's saying that, Yes, the electorate judges players correctly and some have been deemed by us as unworthy of further consideration, absent new information or analysis. It's saying that allowing continuing support for long-stagnant candidacies is not benefiting anyone, it's just pap for voters stuck to their Teddy Bears. (THe BBWAA has the same problem. I say if they ain't advancing, focus on someone else.) It's saying that a 15 man ballot can mistate the electorate's support between a divisive candidate and a consensus candidate. It's saying that if we remain opposed to expanding the ballot, a minor change, then we need to find another way to free up ballot spots.

I'm saying that this would reenergize the process. I personally would love to quit voting for Ryan and Schang, but that would be unconstitutional. I'm stuck voting for them unless I institute a rigged system contrary to my beliefs.

OK. I tried.
   70. Sean Gilman Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2437628)
Seriously Dan, if you want an HOM without perpetual eligibility, I think that would be an interesting project, and one I'd love to participate in AFTER the HOM itself catches up to the present.
   71. Juan V Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:12 PM (#2437635)
What was/is so wrong with expanding ballots?
   72. DanG Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2437641)
Seriously Dan, if you want an HOM without perpetual eligibility, I think that would be an interesting project.

Again. I've never intended to eliminate perpetual eligibility. It's the constant eligibility of completely rejected candidates that I would seek to rectify. Set them aside until someone comes up with a reason to reconsider them.
What was/is so wrong with expanding ballots?

Absolutely nothing, Juan.
   73. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:25 PM (#2437644)
OK. I tried.

Thanks for the discussion, though. I've always liked the fact that the HOM has always been self-analytical and aware that it isn't perfect. Many modern aspects of the HOM voting behavior were not foreseeable in the original "founders debates" about rules, eligibility, counting, etc. Its only natural that as the project catches up to real time that there be a lot of 'post-mortem-style' analysis -- and I'm going to enjoy those discussions.

I do believe its way too late to make significant electoral changes, though.
   74. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2437647)

>>What was/is so wrong with expanding ballots?
>Absolutely nothing, Juan.


I liked the larger ballots better but going from 15-20 didn't make a big enough difference in the trial years and the consensus opted for status quo. Inertia is a strong force to recon with for a project of this nature. A big enough change is the process would prompt people to call for a complete do-over.
   75. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2437649)
I am pretty sure that we found that a) changing the system midtream didnt' make that much sense, especially since b) the change was negligible.

And wouldnt' changing the system midstream help some candidates and hurt others?
   76. DL from MN Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:58 PM (#2437677)
When the large ballot experiment took place the consideration set was half this size and we weren't hitting record low consensus on electees yearly. I doubt it would help or hurt anyone except at the fringes where it would tend to reward players with larger weak support over those with strong narrow support. I tend to prefer the former because it helps smooth out any arguments that may happen because a bloc of voters was unusually represented in an low participation election. It better reflects the consensus of opinion.

Despite all that I agree you don't touch anything with 6 elections remaining and 100+ in the books. We already have a pretty large ballot.
   77. Rick A. Posted: July 12, 2007 at 12:45 AM (#2437825)
Tiernan 2686x

Tiernan got a vote this election. He has 2692 points
   78. jimd Posted: July 12, 2007 at 01:15 AM (#2437844)
If a player finishes out of the top 40 in 40 elections

I believe that Dan is proposing maintaining a counter here for each candidate. Finish out of the top-40 in an election and it gets incremented by one. When the counter hits 40, boom.

I do believe its way too late to make significant electoral changes, though.

Amen. Although 2009 is another story. (A year to talk things through too.)

I personally would love to quit voting for ...

I do agree with Dan that a "lost-cause" mechanism is needed.
OTOH, I disagree considerably about the details.

My proposal (which may be familiar to some here):
A "lost-cause" list is created (criteria to be determined).

Participation is voluntary. People can still vote for their lost causes if they prefer and those votes will be counted.

To participate, a voter indicates on their ballot that so-and-so is a "lost-cause", and that vote for that player is not counted in the general election.

The "lost-cause" committee tallies the support for "lost-causes" in each election, and if it satisfies some criterion (to be determined), the candidate is removed from the "lost-cause" list. Voter support (or lack of same) automatically determines who is on that list.
   79. Brent Posted: July 12, 2007 at 05:29 AM (#2438074)
I do think it's unfortunate that the last few backlog slots in the HoM will be filled by candidates who will appear on fewer than half the ballots. I agree, however, that it's too late to fix the problem now. Avoiding minority elections is the reason I supported the expanded ballot experiment back in the 1960s(?). Unfortunately, there weren't clear criteria for what the experiment was intended to show--apparently, a number of voters thought it would only be considered a success if it didn't affect the election outcomes, which led one to wonder what the point was. Also, it resulted in extra-wide election results threads, which we found aesthetically unpleasing.

I don't like minority elections, and I wish we'd gone to either an expanded ballot or a runoff. But I doubt it would make much difference in the final results.
   80. fra paolo Posted: July 12, 2007 at 10:14 AM (#2438131)
I think compromising the principle of "perpetual eligibility" would fatally undermine the whole ethos of the Hall of Merit project. However, I always felt the absence of a minimum threshold for election of points/preferences/ballots would work against the HoM's purpose. I also believe this view has been vindicated by elections of weak candidates.

In terms of fixing the problem, in theory voters could abandon "favourite sons" whom they believed stood no chance of election. The problem, though, was illustrated when I first took an active role in the project in the 1980s. My newbie ballot was more or less required to have a spread of candidates from across baseball history in order to establish my bona fides. While I didn't have a problem, at least one fellow in I remember was given a hard time for not including players from the distant past. This has the effect of perpetuating candidacies that effectively have been dismissed by a majority of the electorate. Perhaps a greater degree of tolerance for ballots not including a broad cross-section of baseball history is what is really required.

Personally, I don't think it's too late to tinker with the voting system. But that's really the first question to decide before we go any further with specific proposals.
   81. DanG Posted: July 12, 2007 at 12:52 PM (#2438174)
Personally, I don't think it's too late to tinker with the voting system.

Ah, but it is. As Tevye famously said, “Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on the roof!”
Please remain in the box.
   82. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 12, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2438205)
fra paolo, I don't think the electorate demands era balance on ballots. It simply demands that voters be fair to all eras. For example, if a voter said in the introduction to his ballot that he thinks the group has not taken sufficient account of the weaker quality of play caused by segregation, notes the "bulge" in HoM membership during the peak of the Negro Leagues, and says that he thinks the presence of Gibson, Stearnes etc. would have pulled up the league average and lowered Bob Johnson's OPS+ by 15 points, and therefore doesn't have Johnson (or any of his unelected contemporaries) on ballot, I don't think the electorate would have any problem. It's when voters post ballots without era balance that seem to result from a simple lack of consideration of players from all eras, as opposed to the careful consideration and ultimate rejection of players from certain eras, that people start to squeal.
   83. karlmagnus Posted: July 12, 2007 at 03:14 PM (#2438291)
Since Chris Fluit's elimination list in 41 includes 6 players on my ballot and 2 more in 16-20, I would strongly oppose it. I would argue that part of the problem is having voters who came along halfway or more through the project, and haven't considered the earlier candidates properly. Joss and Lombardi, in particular, I think will look like silly omissions if someone looks at the HOM list in 2030.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 12, 2007 at 03:39 PM (#2438323)
fra paolo, I don't think the electorate demands era balance on ballots. It simply demands that voters be fair to all eras. For example, if a voter said in the introduction to his ballot that he thinks the group has not taken sufficient account of the weaker quality of play caused by segregation, notes the "bulge" in HoM membership during the peak of the Negro Leagues, and says that he thinks the presence of Gibson, Stearnes etc. would have pulled up the league average and lowered Bob Johnson's OPS+ by 15 points, and therefore doesn't have Johnson (or any of his unelected contemporaries) on ballot, I don't think the electorate would have any problem. It's when voters post ballots without era balance that seem to result from a simple lack of consideration of players from all eras, as opposed to the careful consideration and ultimate rejection of players from certain eras, that people start to squeal.


Nice summary, Dan.
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 12, 2007 at 03:50 PM (#2438338)
I do think it's unfortunate that the last few backlog slots in the HoM will be filled by candidates who will appear on fewer than half the ballots. I agree, however, that it's too late to fix the problem now.


The simple solution is a special runoff election if we can't get three players on half the submitted ballots. We wouldn't even have to submit new ballots, since I could figure it out on my worksheet by reviewing everybody's ballots. That way, we can say that we had majority votes for each post-change inductee, so we wont look silly compared to the institution in Cooperstown that rejects players such as Whitaker, Santo, Blyleven, Simmons, Torre, etc (yes, I'm being sarcastic), while still allowing every voter to still pick the top-fifteen candidates they feel belong on their ballots.
   86. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2438353)
John,

Wouldn't taking the ballots and not revoting as a runoff just produce the same result we have? It still would only express about 33% of the electorate's view on the candidate.
   87. DanG Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2438356)
The simple solution is a special runoff election if we can't get three players on half the submitted ballots. We wouldn't even have to submit new ballots, since I could figure it out on my worksheet by reviewing everybody's ballots. That way, we can say that we had majority votes for each post-change inductee,

Forgive my dimness, but I'm not understanding. Can you please give a concrete example of this system and clarify the benefits of this proposal?
   88. thok Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2438403)
This discussion is stupid on retroactively adjusting the voting process is stupid. If you dislike the phenomenon, there's an obvious solution which is to run the project again with a SMALLER Hall of Merit. At this point you're complaining about trying to find something like the 200th best player in baseball; of course there's going to be less agreement on it then who is the best player in baseball history, as there are many, many more reasonable candidates for being the 200th best player then for best player.

If you're really complaining about the fractured ballot, you should take a moment to think about the relative size of the HOM.

(As a side note, you guys are going to have fun with the elect 4 in 2011. That might be something worth discussing now.)
   89. Paul Wendt Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2438410)
There are plenty of ways to look silly. I think it would be silly to make any change before the 2008 cycle, when some reexamination should be undertaken any way for a variety of reasons, foremost being how to recruit new and maintain or recover old voters.

After reading only #85-87.
Wouldn't taking the ballots and not revoting as a runoff just produce the same result we have? It still would only express about 33% of the electorate's view on the candidate.

The winning candidate(s) would usually but not always be the same. You can easily find an example on the back of an envelope. (Come to my place and look at some of my envelopes.) *Even if number one and number two are unanimous* the virtual runoff may produce a different number three.
   90. Paul Wendt Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2438418)
One idea I like is “40-40”. If a player finishes out of the top 40 in 40 elections, then he’s done. Simple, easy to track, absolutely zero chance of eliminating a viable candidate. Again, “complete, long-term rejection”.

For what it's worth, DanG, I too understood this to mean 40 consecutive elections. Someone who has ranked below #40 for the last 40 years would be eliminated.
   91. DanG Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:46 PM (#2438433)
it would be silly to make any change before the 2008 cycle

I pride myself on being ahead of the curve, in this case about five months. As "Weird Al" Yankovic famously said, “Dare to be stupid!"
   92. DanG Posted: July 12, 2007 at 04:50 PM (#2438446)
I too understood this to mean 40 consecutive elections.

I can see where someone might assume that. Of course, if I meant to say "consecutive" I would have written that.

Oh, and speaking of silly, another way to look silly is if we ever elect one of the players in #41.
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2007 at 05:46 PM (#2438497)
Oh, and speaking of silly, another way to look silly is if we ever elect one of the players in #41.

Dan, I think you could be hyperbolizing here. There's good reasons why some of these guys could yet be electable. Actually there's at least three good reasons why in order of likelihood or importance:
1) We get more information about NgLers.
2) Increased PBP data going backwards in time bolsters our understandings of defense, changing our perceptions of their defense.
3) Increased PBP data going badkwards in time bolsters our understandings of baserunning, bunting, ROE, and the relative value of other offensive events in different periods, changing our perceptions of their offensive contribution.

The players in the list who fit in these categories are
1) NgL info guys
Dick Lundy
Leroy Matlock
Artie Wilson

2) PBP defense guys
Dave Bancroft
Rabbit Maranville
Bill Monroe
Carlos Moran
Vern Stephens

3) PBP offense guys
George Burns
Frank Chance
Fred Dunlap (also potentially category 2)
Fielder Jones
Jimmy Ryan
Wally Schang (potentially also category 2)
Mike Tiernan
Bobby Veach
Ed Williamson (also category 2, probably)
Levi Meyerle (I don't believe he's a real candidate with any amount of info, his career is too short, but for consistency...)


That leaves this bunch, and, what do you know, I support I one of them!
Wilbur Cooper
Ed Cicotte
Addie Joss
Lefty Gomez
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Sam Leever
Ernie Lombardi
Carl Mays
Tony Mullane
Jack Quinn
Johnny Pesky
Sam Rice
Al Rosen (eliminated after the 2001 election)
Urban Shocker
Dizzy Trout
Hack Wilson
George Kell

So there's 18 guys whose cases could be affected by more information. So electing one of them now may or may not be silly, but to say that ever electing one of them would be silly seems like stretch to me.
   94. Paul Wendt Posted: July 12, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2438510)
89. Paul Wendt Posted: July 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM (#2438410)
There are plenty of ways to look silly.


Maybe I should have left it at this. Point is, lots of people include some knowledgeable students of baseball will say this project is silly. Don't be concerned about seeming silly in some particular way.

Kevin or Eric reported some hostility to sabrmetric analysis of Negro Leagues players. Some of the people who have toiled for hours to compile the data used here --and used in a way whose effect turns out to be honoring more "Negro Leaguers" than anyone else honors-- will think spending time on MLE is silly.

Maybe Bill James will write or revise a big fat book with some cracks about unemployed guys who have a website where they have put Dickey Pearce, Dobie Moore, and Charlie Keller in the 250 greatest players.
   95. jimd Posted: July 12, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2438563)
The simple solution is a special runoff election ... I could figure it out on my worksheet by reviewing everybody's ballots

To make this work at the level of a majority vote, ballots would have to be supplemented with an ordered ranking of all the top-N candidates that did not make the voter's 15-deep main ballot. If for example you didn't vote for Jones, Browning, Redding, and Bresnahan, you would have to order them on your ballot so the needed runoff data was present. This would also require a pre-election screening of new candidates (prehaps based on a preliminary ballots) to determine which ones needed to be included in this list.
   96. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2438616)
if we instituted the run-off election for n candidates below x% of the vote, I think that vote should occur after the general election is completed. Since a once-yearl election cycle will allow plenty of room for an extra round of voting, I don't think it's a big deal, myself.

Here's my proposed mechanism. For this examle, we'll assume a 3-man election:
1) Normal balloting for all 3 slots.
2) Before results are made known, the talliers figure out whether any candidate has won election with more than 50% of ballots.
3) Subtract winners from step 2 from the total election slots. This is number of slots open in run-off.
4) Talliers (or coordinator) compose a ballot consisting of top n run-off candidates and inform the electorate of how many slots the players are vying for.
5) Run-off election determines the winner in the usual way (ranked ballot with bonuses for elect-me slots). No write-ins. The only eligible voters are those who cast a ballot in that year's general election. Winning candidate simply scores the most points.
6) Talliers determine winners, and full election results are reported by Coordinator in the usual manner but now include a run-off subsection below.

Other considerations:
1) I don't know whether comments are necessary for a run-off or not, we might want to discuss that.
2) Determining n important. Here's a couple ideas:
-Top ten vote getters who meet criterion (below 50% of ballots)
-Top vote getters within a certain percentage of the top fellow on the run-off ballot
-Top vote getters within a certain percentage of the top fellow on the run-off ballot, capped at ten.
3)Duration of run-off cycle. I doubt it's all that important, but I'd stick with a one-week cycle for run-offs too. Just in case.
4) Ten seems like a good, round number, but fewer works better than more. To achieve some level of majority/consensus, it's better to have fewer than more choices.
   97. rawagman Posted: July 12, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2438638)
I like Eric's ideas.
   98. TomH Posted: July 12, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2438660)
now if we could only convince my country to use run-off voting in REAL elections, ya know like for Presidents or other mundane issues.....
   99. jimd Posted: July 12, 2007 at 10:00 PM (#2438747)
Personally, I'm against a runoff. Most points wins.
   100. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 12, 2007 at 10:24 PM (#2438774)
Wouldn't taking the ballots and not revoting as a runoff just produce the same result we have? It still would only express about 33% of the electorate's view on the candidate.


The runoff would cut off the the candidates who didn't receive a predetermined percentage of the ballots in that election (10%?)

Will it change the results? In most cases no (it would probably change induction years for certain candidates, that's all), but that wasn't the purpose of my suggestion. My purpose was to be able to proclaim to everyone on the outside that we had majority support for each inductee (no retro-retroactive elections, mind you). Not that I personally care about 28% of possible point tallies for an inductee, mind you, because our ballot results are not supposed to be compared to your normal HOF ballot results.

Personally, I like the HoM as it is and would personally oppose any limits to which candidates I can place on my ballot for our "annual" elections.
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
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0460 seconds
49 querie(s) executed