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, January 02, 2006

2006 BTF Hall of Fame Ballot

IMPORTANT: Please read:

This election should follow BBWAA rules, not Hall of Merit rules. However, we hope to see only players that each voter feels belong on their ballots - if you don’t feel he really is a HOFer, then please refrain from posting that player’s name. Leaving 1st-year candidates off your ballot is also frowned upon. IOW, we would like to see an absence of some of the silliness that permeates Hall of Fame voting by the writers.

The election will end next Monday (8 PM EST).

Here are some of the rules by the BBWAA that pertain to our electorate:

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

  A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
  B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).
  C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
  D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
  E. Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

4. Method of Election

  A. BBWAA Screening Committee — A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.
  B. Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.+
  C. Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.


5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

The eligible candiates are: Rick Aguilera*, Albert Belle*, Bert Blyleven, Will Clark*, Dave Concepcion, Andre Dawson, Gary DiSarcina*, Alex Fernandez*, Gary Gaetti*, Steve Garvey, Dwight Gooden*, Rich Gossage, Ozzie Guillen*, Orel Hershiser*, Gregg Jeffries*, Tommy John, Doug Jones*, Don Mattingly, Willie McGee, Hal Morris*, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Alan Trammell, Walt Weiss*, and John Wetteland*.

+Write-ins are allowed, but wont be included with the official tally.

*1st-year candidates.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 02, 2006 at 02:16 PM | 207 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 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Sean Gilman Posted: January 03, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#1804860)
1. Bert Blyleven

2. Rich Gossage

3. Will Clark

4. Alan Trammell

5. Bruce Sutter

6. Jim Rice

7. Dale Murphy

8. Albert Belle

9. Andre Dawson

10. Dave Parker
   102. Jim Sp Posted: January 03, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1804880)
Bert Blyleven
Dave Concepcion
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Orel Hershiser
Tommy John
Jim Rice
Alan Trammell

Blyleven, Gossage, and Trammell are clearly in, the others are on the border.
   103. CraigK Posted: January 03, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#1804930)
Re. #71--hey, Craig,

Tabulating and poublishing vote totals while voting is still underway is highly discouraged. Might encourage strategic voting.



With that said, our tallies don't match, so I'm not sure who is right now.


####.

Sorry; didn't know; won't happen again; still, I see Blyleven/Gossage/Trammell going in with no one else even close.

And I did it at 2:30 AM, so I might have missed a few.

Don't worry; it won't happen again.
   104. yest Posted: January 03, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#1804934)
But it would be allowed to note that regular HoM voters are voting for 7.4 players on average versus 4.5 for non-HoM voters. A difference of historical perspective??

that was one of the reasons for my requist
   105. DCA Posted: January 03, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#1804955)
Do I have to be a HOM voter to participate? If not,

Blyleven
Trammell
Clark
Belle
Gossage
Dawson
Murphy
Rice
Parker
Wetteland
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 03, 2006 at 11:51 PM (#1805113)
Do I have to be a HOM voter to participate?

Nope. Welcome aboard!
   107. Kelly in SD Posted: January 04, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#1805157)
In no particular order, my ballot among HOF eligibles, based on the current HOF, would be:

Will Clark
Albert Belle
Dale Murphy
Bert Blyleven
Bruce Sutter
Goose Gossage
Alan Trammell

Write-Ins:
Bobby Grich
Dewey Evans
Dan Quisenberry

Top 25 players (2 or 3 players at a position significantly better than many in the HOF at the position) not in the HOF who should be regardless of era, in no particular order:

c - Bill Freehan
c - Biz Mackey
c - Quincy Troupe
1b - Dick Allen
1b - Will Clark
2b - Bobby Grich
2b - Joe Gordon
2b - Cupid Childs
3b - Jud Wilson
3b - Ron Santo
3b - Deacon White
ss - Bill Dahlen
ss - Alan Trammell
lf - Charley Jones
lf - Harry Stovey
lf - Charlie Keller
cf - Paul Hines
cf - Jimmy Wynn
cf - Cristobel Torriente
rf - Alejandro Ohms
p - Bert Blyleven
p - Bob Caruthers
p - Dan Quisenberry
p - Bruce Sutter
p - Goose Gossage
   108. EricC Posted: January 04, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#1805211)
I vote for players if they are above the in/out line defined by the total number of players in the HoF, so my ballot is more inclusive than the typical BBWAA ballot. Blyleven and Trammell are fully qualified by HoF standards and should have been elected already. I have Gossage 2nd among the pitchers, though I don't really know how to compare starters and relievers. Tommy John is Blyleven light. The other batters on my ballot all have obvious flaws in their cases. Mattingly comes above my in/out line, but in 11th place. In alphabetical order, preceded by rank among batters and pitchers:

B7. Albert Belle
P1. Bert Blyleven
B2. Will Clark
B4. Dave Concepcion
B3. Andre Dawson
P2. Goose Gossage
P3. Tommy John
B5. Dale Murphy
B6. Dave Parker
B1. Alan Trammell
   109. caspian88 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 01:47 AM (#1805234)
Well, since one doesn't have to be in the HOM:

Clark
Mattingly
Blyleven
Concepcion
Belle
Gossage
Murphy
Sutter
Trammell
Smith
   110. karlmagnus Posted: January 04, 2006 at 02:50 AM (#1805271)
Incidentally, it's wonderful to have all you non-HOM voters participating here, and I for one would love to have you start voting in the HOM as well, with one teensy weensy proviso, that you begin by providing a 1,000 word essay on the Life and Times of Jake Beckley :-)
   111.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 04, 2006 at 04:20 AM (#1805305)
How does one join the HoM?

Anyway, here is my "ballot":

Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell

I'm not a fan of relievers in the hall, to be honest. Will Clark is very close but just misses IMO. Everyone else is Eh.
   112. yest Posted: January 04, 2006 at 06:57 AM (#1805365)
How does one join the HoM?

just put your ballot on the ballot discusion page and then vote making sure to put Sisler first :")
   113. OCF Posted: January 04, 2006 at 08:13 AM (#1805402)
I'm not planning on voting on this one. I just can't get my mind out of HoM mode - which makes my reaction to all of these candidates is, "But we're not ready for him yet." I don't want to talk abuot Rice, Clark, and Murphy until we've settled with Cash and Singleton. We haven't even really started talking about relief pitchers. And so on.

I'm not tallying these votes, either, or studying the electorate.

But for something I will be tallying, check out the "... get to know each other" thread.
   114. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2006 at 12:00 PM (#1805444)
"How does one join the HoM?"

Read as much of the archives, especially the recent ballot discussions as you can. Read up as much on the parts of history that may be gaps in your knowledge (we don't want a new person to start voting until he's familiar with George Van Haltren, Jake Beckley and Jimmy Ryan, for example).

Ask some questions on the ballot discussion thread or the 'personal' thread of candidates you aren't sure of. Then, post a ballot on the discussion thread the week before the election and ask for some feedback on it, in terms of inconsistencies (which might be a sign that you missed someone), etc..

We would love to add new voters, but we also want them to be voters that will give a fair shake to the old guys, we don't want people voting who are only waiting until the guys they remember are eligible.

************

My ballot, explanation on the discussion thread.

No brainers (alphabetically):

Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage
Alan Trammell

Yesses

Bruce Sutter
Tommy John
Dave Parker
Dale Murphy
Andre Dawson
Albert Belle
Will Clark
   115. rawagman Posted: January 04, 2006 at 12:26 PM (#1805448)
Gossage,
Blyleven,
Sutter,
Clark,
Dawson,
Rice,
Murphy

Not sure about Trammell at this point.
I'm interested in joining the HOM
   116. sunnyday2 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 01:09 PM (#1805456)
Now 7.8 players per ballot among 25 HoM regulars, versus 4.6 for 58 ballot from non-HoM voters. 40 percent of HoMies voted for the limit of 10 players, versus 7 percent of non-HoMies. I would call that a statistically significant difference! In fact, amazing!

It would be fun to bring some new voters into the mix but Joe's point in #114 is essential:

>We would love to add new voters, but we also want them to be voters that will give a fair shake to the old guys, we don't want people voting who are only waiting until the guys they remember are eligible.

And I would second karl's and yest's points. Figuratively speaking, yes, new voters need to vote for Beckley and Sisler, which is to say, they better know who they are and what they did and why one might vote for them or why not.
   117. sunnyday2 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 01:11 PM (#1805457)
In fact, here's a suggestion for those of you who might want to join up.

Go to the 1967 results page and scan the list of players who got votes in our last election. Hopefully you have some idea who the vast majority of them are and why you might vote for them or not, and you're willing to research the rest.

As yest suggests, put together a sample ballot for 1968. And I would hope that there would be some players from before WWII on there! If so, then you are probably ready to go.
   118. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: January 04, 2006 at 03:27 PM (#1805606)
Bert Blyleven
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Alan Trammell
Goose Gossage
   119. DCA Posted: January 04, 2006 at 05:30 PM (#1805773)
Read as much of the archives, especially the recent ballot discussions as you can. Read up as much on the parts of history that may be gaps in your knowledge (we don't want a new person to start voting until he's familiar with George Van Haltren, Jake Beckley and Jimmy Ryan, for example).

Well I'm already there, as a lurker. I've read probably every ballot thread, though I stopped reading the dicussions around 1905 or so. I wasn't able to be a regular participant at the beginning, and I've become too intimidated by the backlog to jump in since I got another desk jockey job. But maybe soon.
   120. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 04, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#1805896)
DCA,

Don't let all the big talk fool you! If you're a lurker who's been following the ballot threads, then you've got a really good basis to hit the ground running.

I struggled through 20 years of voting until I figured the system out that works for me (that is, makes me feel comfortable about my votes). Most everyone on board has rejigged at least once or twice as we learn about the players and see how others evaluate them.

Anyway, my piece of advice for anyone who wants to vote is to make a top-twenty list at all defensive positions and a top-60 list for pitchers. That'll be enough to get you going!
   121. Daryn Posted: January 04, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#1805948)
An even easier way of getting started is to rank order the 81 candidates who received votes last year. Then slot people in each year as they come. You can ignore those who have been elected -- whatever system you follow you'll determine that we have already made at least a dozen "mistakes". If you ask some of our voters, it is closer to three dozen.
   122. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 04, 2006 at 07:24 PM (#1805987)
Daryn,

You think the number is that high?

I look at it like this:
There's guys who belong (basically 1-18 at each position)
Tolerable borderliners (19-25)
Errors (the rest)

I see only Sam Thompson as an error at this juncture. A few fall into my Tolerable borderliners area, but that's OK---that area exists because I'm only human (born to make mistakes) and I could be wrong or have different tastes from the group.
   123. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 04, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#1806002)
I don't see any real mistakes at all. Yes, some that have been elected weren't high on my ballot, but I could see a legitimate reason for selcting them if you're a peak or career voter. IMO, there's no player that has been elected that I have really gone "what the?" IOW, the "mistakes" are close enough to the borderline that I'm satisfied with the project's progression.
   124. DanG Posted: January 04, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#1806164)
This dovetails into something I discovered recently. In a nutshell, it's that you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to trolling the bottom for candidates.

Beginning in 1993 we will elect three guys every year. (For the previous decade it's 2.5 per year.) But, we have never yet elected 15 new candidates from a five year period.

Looking at every five year period in our 70 elections, the highest number of newbies elected is 14, done four times:
1899-1903
1932-1936
1943-1947
1950-1954

That's it. In our most candidate-rich periods we are electing less than three per year. In the 50-year span 1899-1948 we have, to date, elected 83 who debuted in those years or 1.66 newbies elected per year. In our entire history 1899-1967 we have elected 115 newbies in those 69 years, or 1.67 per year.

It says to me that, assuming we do not elect modern players in vastly greater numbers than candidates up to now, we will continue digging and digging into the backlog of current candidates. I haven't tried to make projections to the end of the project, or anything like that, but I would think there are easily ten more HoMers among the 1967 backlog.
   125. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#1806192)
Thanks guys, for the 'help' on what we'd be looking for from new members. I was trying to get the point across without being a jerk about it, and you guys really helped clarify what I was going for.

************

Regarding Dan's point in #124 - we were 'conservative' when setting up the system, the thinking was better to have a few guys wait, then to elect too many too early. So I would hope we are electing backlog candidates pretty much up to the end.

Going forward (after 2007), I think we should cap it at 3 per year, until such time as that seems to be too few. Because we were conservative (meaning we erred towards more electees later), using the same system going forward would mean we'd elect too many.
   126. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#1806206)
When we're done, would the counters be able to give us results, from just HoMer members (including Paul Wendt and DCA, non-voters who lurk often and/or comment) and from non HoMers? I'd like to see the contrast . . .
   127. Chris Cobb Posted: January 04, 2006 at 09:16 PM (#1806215)
I would think there are easily ten more HoMers among the 1967 backlog.

Ten is a quite conservative estimate: we'll have elected eight more from the current backlog by 1980, I think.

Fifteen from this backlog is highly likely, and twenty is possible, assuming that we elect post-1940 players in about the same proportion relative to the number of major-league teams as will hold for pre-1940 players.
   128. Daryn Posted: January 04, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#1806233)
Daryn,

You think the number is that high?


What I mean is that if you are a career voter (as I am), there are going to be about 12 guys elected who you would not have in your top 25 all time at a position -- Hughie Jennings wouldn't make my top 100 ss. Similarly, for peak voters, the soon to be elected Beckley wouldn't make their top 100. I think, without having run the numbers, that there are about a dozen of those types on each side. There certainly will be by 1980.

Philosophically, I agree with John that there haven't been any mistakes -- my view of this project is that there can't be any mistakes -- if we elected them then we got it right. But in terms of comparing my theoretically personal Hall with our Hall, there will be a discrepancy of at least a couple dozen by the time we are through. Whether you characterize those as "mistakes" I guess is another matter.
   129. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 04, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#1806248)
Joe,

Your point about possibly capping the number of electees at three after 2007 got me to thinking about three other possible angles to take at that point.

1) We can got to a strictly HOF-style yes/no ballot with a 75% threshold to exactly mimic their elections (since, presumably, we'll have already realigned the Hall correctly in the HOM).

2) We can cap at a lower number then have periodic catch-up elections to match the HOFs' numbers.

3) We can vote after the HOF results are announced and elect exactly as many as they do in the same year.

Depends of course on what our goal will be going forward.
   130. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 04, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1806288)
We are getting way off topic here but...

I like capping at three (or two then three, whatever can be decided) rather than trying to follow the HOF. That way if the HOF starts to get too big relative to its past precedent or too small relative to its past precedent we aren't beholden to it.

And for as much as I could never bring myself to support Jake Beckley I would even admit that he is one of the top 100 qb of all-time. I mean Dick Stuart, Dave Kingman, George Kelly, and Lu Blue have really good arguments for being in the top 100 all-time. Beckley is better than any of them. Jennings should be a top 100 at SS for anyone, though maybe not top 50.
   131. sunnyday2 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 10:15 PM (#1806344)
>whatever system you follow you'll determine that we have already made at least a dozen "mistakes". If you ask some of our voters, it is closer to three dozen.

I took Daryn to mean that the discrepancies between the HoM and some of the PHoMs are of the magnitude of 12-36 players. 36 seems a bit high but yest might want to comment on that. Mine is only about 14 and I have never ever been high on the consensus scores and occasionally pretty low.

Then Daryn said that there have in any other sense not been any mistakes, so I think my initial understanding was what he meant.

But the real point is that if any of our choices look like mistakes today, the likelihood is they will look less like mistakes later on as our "standards" are invariably lowered. That is what was always meant to happen.
   132. Daryn Posted: January 04, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#1806353)
Jennings should be a top 100 at SS for anyone, though maybe not top 50.

You are right -- I was clearly exaggerating. I looked again at his career figures. If you only used career figures as a voting guideline, he still might crack the top 50 ss of all-time. Probably would, as his OPS+ is exceptionally good. Obviously, if you only use peak or weigh peak and career equally, he'd easily make your top 25 ss.
   133. Daryn Posted: January 04, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#1806359)
Yest's current ballot has 34 players on it that are in his pHoM.
   134. yest Posted: January 04, 2006 at 10:27 PM (#1806362)
But in terms of comparing my theoretically personal Hall with our Hall, there will be a discrepancy of at least a couple dozen by the time we are through. Whether you characterize those as "mistakes" I guess is another matter.

i'm already at 33 (a number that will proboly decrese signifntly when then the hall of Fame anonses their Negro leauge stats) though there only a few (Frank Grant being the biggest closley followed by Ezra Sutton) who I would clasify as mistakes
   135. yest Posted: January 04, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#1806381)
i'm already at 33
typo alert
i'm already at 32
   136. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 05, 2006 at 09:39 AM (#1807409)
1) We can got to a strictly HOF-style yes/no ballot with a 75% threshold to exactly mimic their elections (since, presumably, we'll have already realigned the Hall correctly in the HOM).

Over my dead body. That's the main reason the Hall of Fame is so screwed up in the first place.

2) We can cap at a lower number then have periodic catch-up elections to match the HOFs' numbers.

3) We can vote after the HOF results are announced and elect exactly as many as they do in the same year.


Once we catch up, we don't care what the Hall of Fame does going forward. If they want to lower or raise their standards, that's on them. We care about the historical standard that was established through 2001 or so. I think it's a mistake that Cooperstown has become a much tougher ticket the last few years - I wouldn't want to replicate that with the Hall of Merit. I think the players we elect will be a good barometer for who should be going into Cooperstown, and should help with determining if they are electing too few or too many.

The only thing I could see changing it is if they induct a bunch of Negro Leaguers this year, but even then, there are several mistake Negro Leaguers already in - but it would throw our overall numbers off a bit, and in a way that is different than the BBWAA just tightening up all of the sudden, since several of the Negro Leaguers they elect will be very deserving.
   137. TomH Posted: January 05, 2006 at 12:59 PM (#1807441)
I don't keep a PHOM, but for someone who has done his share of arguin, I think our 'mistakes' have been almost non-existent.

A large knowlegabe electorate who take time to research and listen to others has come together to make some great decisions. Maybe I'm just too 'consensus', but no one we've Merited to date would rank lower than #35 on my ballot next election.

Huzzah for everybody....
   138. Dr. Death Posted: January 05, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#1807622)
Belle
Blyleven
Dawson
Gossage
Morris
Rice
Smith
Sutter
Trammell
   139. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 05, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#1807737)
Nice to see that Jack Kervorkian can surf the World Wide Web while in prison. :-)
   140. DL from MN Posted: January 05, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#1807780)
Long-time lurker. I've been reading HOM ballots since the 30s. I'll probably contribute to the discussions before I venture a ballot.

Here's my HOF ballot

Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell
Andre Dawson

I'm still undecided on Will Clark. There are just too many good 1B from this era.

Has anyone run any numbers on Dwight Gooden v. Bruce Sutter? Doc's 84-87 has to have tremendous value. I don't see Sutter as much better than Doc so I can't support either for any Hall.
   141. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: January 05, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#1808455)
I'll follow the fold and vote for 10. It's not a small hall, and if I were in BBWAA, I wouldn't want to take the chance that someone I wasn't sure about might disappear forever from the ballot.

Blyleven
Clark
Dawson
Gossage
John
Mattingly
Rice
Smith
Sutter
Trammell
   142. ronw Posted: January 06, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#1808582)
OK, here's 10, since I'm a BBWWA voter this week:

Bert Blyleven
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Don Mattingly
Dave Parker
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell

And a plug (but not a vote) for John Wetteland, since he went to the same Santa Rosa, California high school I did, albeit a bit earlier than me.
   143. Howie Menckel Posted: January 06, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#1808619)
I guess I hadn't moved my ballot discussion vote over here....

Blyleven
Trammell
Gossage
   144. Andrew Edwards Posted: January 06, 2006 at 05:17 AM (#1808794)
Blyleven
Trammell
   145. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: January 06, 2006 at 05:59 AM (#1808837)
Albert Belle
Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
   146. Gadfly Posted: January 07, 2006 at 06:50 AM (#1810153)
Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Alan Trammell
Albert Belle
Jim Rice
Tommy John

Write-Ins:
Bobby Grich
Dwight Evans

If my ballot had to go to 10, I would probably hold my nose and throw in Bruce Sutter or Lee Smith or Dan Quisenberry; but Gossage is really the only releiver who floats my boat. If I held my nose and drank a quart of gin, Peter Edward might even be here but not before Shoeless Joe.
   147. yeager Posted: January 07, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#1810465)
Rich Gossage
Bert Blyleven
Will Clark
Jim Rice
Alan Trammell
   148. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 08, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#1811502)
In the past few years, when I did sample HoF ballots, I always tried to fill it up, for the general reason that I think they're inducting too few players. But, damn, this is a thin ballot! So, I'm voting for 9, with a write-in in place of someone who used to be a regular.

Kind of in order, but don't hold me to it:

1. Bert Blyleven. There's simply no excuse for leaving him out.

2. Goose Gossage. A dominant relief pitcher, far ahead of Sutter and Smith.

3. Alan Trammell. Overlooked and very unfairly so.

4. Tommy John. Based on the criteria that the Hall of Fame's established, he's worthy of inclusion (so was Jim Kaat)

5. Will Clark. A very good candidate, and I really hope he makes the cutoff. If he's still on the ballot when certain controversial figures show up, it could be interesting.

6/7/8. Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson. All very good players, none would be a bad selection, but not guys I get excited over. Jim Rice is pretty close to them, but I do think they're all just ahead.

9. Albert Belle. I'm more of a career voter, but his peak is impressive enough to get him on here.

10. Dave Stieb. I used to put Jack Morris on my ballot, because I felt there should be at least one starting pitcher whose career was centered in the 1980s. But when Stieb was on the ballot, I had to conclude that he was better than Morris, so he gets the spot instead.

Even though I didn't vote for Sutter, I sort of hope he gets in, because I do like to see the Hall honor players, getting him out of the way might help Gossage, and I could be underrating him anyway.
   149. Fog City Blues Posted: January 09, 2006 at 04:12 AM (#1812076)
Blyleven
Clark
Gossage
Sutter
Trammell
   150. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:02 PM (#1812284)
I count 96 ballots up to this point. Remember: no ballots will be counted after 8 PM EST tonight.
   151. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#1812308)
Hey, Devin,

Re Dave Stieb: You go! I couldn't agree more about his HOF/HOM worthiness.
   152. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:57 PM (#1812351)
That's the main reason the Hall of Fame is so screwed up in the first place.

I'd like to see more justification of this statement, criticizing the 75 percent HoF ballot. The main reason I didn't join the HoM project was because I felt it departed too far from the HoF balloting system to make the exercise an enjoyable "if I had a BBWAA ballot" game.

I don't think the HoF is 'screwed up' by the BBWAA choices, particularly, although I wouldn't like to say I think the BBWAA has elected the perfect Hall.
   153. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:02 PM (#1812357)
Here's my HoF ballot:

[this space is intentionally blank]

I don't think any of them are hall-worthy.
   154. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#1812377)
The main reason I didn't join the HoM project was because I felt it departed too far from the HoF balloting system to make the exercise an enjoyable "if I had a BBWAA ballot" game.

One of the purposes for doing that, fra paolo, was so that we would have the same amount of players as the HOF had in 2003 in order to be a better comparitive project.
   155. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#1812378)
I don't think any of them are hall-worthy.

Boy, you're tough.
   156. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 09, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#1812483)
Yeah, it looks like fra paola is a true small hall guys, which would mean that he sees weaknesses in the HOM.

If we did a 75% ballot system, then we would have a very small hall. WE are also trying to redo the Veterans Committee picks so we would either ahve to lower to say 50% or something or do another ballot system. I must say that I really like out system as opposed to the BBWAA, if only because there are no politics involved.
   157. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2006 at 05:57 PM (#1812651)
Boy, you're tough.

In one of the Blyleven threads I demonstrated I don't hold with the grade inflation those young whippersnappers in the BBWAA seem to have embraced.
   158. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2006 at 06:05 PM (#1812662)
there are no politics involved

I don't understand what politics would be involved in a bunch of Primates voting using the BBWAA system. All ballots have a degree of politics, but the voters in the HoM have the advantage of being performance-analysis-literate, and less likely to colour their opinions with the experience of trying to get a quote from some of these guys.
   159. sunnyday2 Posted: January 09, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1812712)
fra,

My personal HoF is a small hall, too, but in the real world Cooperstown is not a small hall. It is too late to vote for a small hall through a pseudo-BBWAA ballot. You can't get there from here.
   160. jingoist Posted: January 09, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#1812714)
Here's my vote:

1. Rik Albert - Most BBWAA voters hold his failure to win 300 and relatively low won/lost % against him unfairly. Blyleven isn't a marginal pick; he would be a better selection than a dozen+ pitchers already in the HoF. Owned the best curve ball thrown over a 15 year period; 60 shutouts; # 6 all time in strikeouts. NO BRAINER!
2. Gossage - in his peak he was the most dominant "out" pitcher extant.
3. Alan Trammel - the sabre community has caused guys like me to better appreciate his skill sets and excellant level of play over a 20 year career. I'd rate him in the top 15 all-time shortstops.

I wouldn't cry foul if Belle, Clark, Dawson, Parker or Rice were selected.

As I'm a smaller hall versus a larger hall guy I like a sustained career with a significant peak, but, if Kiner can get in then Belle deserves to be there as well.
The other 4 guys were very very good for a long time.
Like Dewey Evans they belong in the hall of the very very good.
   161. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#1812793)
While I contemplated voting, I compiled some relief pitcher data from TB3 and BBE2005, which I have now posted in the HallofMerit egroup Files.
Relief Pitcher career data, Pete Palmer 1993 & 2005

Description (revised):
Relief Pitcher career data, Pete Palmer 1993 & 2005. Scope of this selection thru 1992 (subset of Palmer's "all those who made notable contributions"): mlb debut < 1940, >= 800 relief innings, or >= 50 adjusted relief runs. Scope thru 2004: top 50 innings, top 50 adjusted runs, top 49 "RNK" rating, or 200 saves. (plus a few non-qualifiers)

The file includes 173 relief pitcher records: 151 from the TB1993 "Relief Pitching Register" (about half of the total, evidently including non-qualifiers Aker, Assenmacher, Drago, Farrell, Regan); 19 more from one of the three BBE2005 leader boards; and Beck, Mesa, Urbina with 200 saves.

Twenty of the leaders in adjusted relief runs (Top 50 thru 2004) retired before 1992, so that both editions cover their full careers. For the 20, this table shows the changes in adjusted runs between editions.

R1992 R2004 ratio finale
245   252   1.03  1972  Wilhelm Hoyt
147   147   1.00  1990  Quisenberry Dan
142   139   0.98  1989  Tekulve Kent
121   115   0.95  1989  Stanley Bob
120   129   1.08  1985  Fingers Rollie
118   121   1.03  1982  Lyle Sparky
117   110   0.94  1988  Sutter Bruce
115   110   0.96  1980  Hiller John
113   113   1.00  1984  McGraw Tug
108   105   0.97  1975  McDaniel Lindy
103   103   1.00  1981  Marshall Mike
99    93    0.94  1957  Kinder Ellis
97    98    1.01  1978  Carroll Clay
96    97    1.01  1987  Lavelle Gary
93    90    0.97  1988  Garber Gene
87    85    0.98  1984  Burgmeier Tom
85    86    1.01  1974  McMahon Don
84    84    1.00  1989  Hernandez Willie
84    88    1.05  1973  Perranoski Ron
83    85    1.02  1968  Miller Stu
   162. Andrew M Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#1812815)
In no real order:

Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell
Clark
Belle
L. Smith
   163. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#1812853)
--
Nine more players active in 1992 would qualify for the Top 50 thru 2004 based on their careers thru 1992. One of them, career saves leader Jeff Reardon, barely played after 1992 and is now credited with fewer runs (was 88, now 84), by some unknown combination of negative scores in 1993-1994 and revision in the measure.

--
With the variable-length names in the right-hand column, the table is readable despite the "pre-tag" problem.

--
By the way, the file relief.csv includes in the first field career Win Shares for everyone with fewer than 1500 starting pitcher innings. (Using the Win Shares book, that seemed to take as much time as all the transcribing.)

--
I have written to Pete Palmer about a probable error in the data for Murry Dickson. He may have been better than John Murphy.
Murry Dickson is the latest of the
   164. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#1812986)
I have written to Pete Palmer about a probable error in the data for Murry Dickson. He may have been better than John Murphy.

I have absolutely no doubt about that, Paul. ;-)
   165. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#1812991)
Murry Dickson, 1939-1959, is the last of the "debut < 1940" qualifiers.

Feel free to move #61-64 to the relief pitcher thread.

Beside Gossage, who certainly should be in the Hall of Fame, I would vote for Sutter, Smith, Tekulve, and Quisenberry on the grounds that all should be on the ballot together --as if 5% write-in rate would restore them.
   166. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2006 at 10:19 PM (#1813202)
It is too late to vote for a small hall through a pseudo-BBWAA ballot. You can't get there from here.

I'm afraid I miss the point. If I vote for a third party that expresses my views best, or cast a blank ballot, then I'm unlikely to have an impact on the election, but I've voted my conscience.

Since any election ought to be the sum total of the votes by conscience of the electors, and since my vote has the same weight as anyone elses, under a BBWAA ballot, I still have an impact with a ballot. In fact, moreso with a BBWAA ballot, because my one blank vote still counts as one of the 75 percent that a winning candidate needs to get. My blank vote in most political elections for office wouldn't count at all, because there isn't a threshold like that.

It doesn't matter what the Hall is, because if others join me in casting a blank ballot, it makes it harder for the mistakes of the past to be repeated.
   167. Daryn Posted: January 09, 2006 at 10:33 PM (#1813224)
But fra, does it make sense to you, that if you are successful in your hypothetical, a whole bunch of players who retire after 2005 and are better players (in your view) than half of the Hall members are excluded from the Hall just because you would have preferred that the Hall only had 100 members?
   168. Ken Fischer Posted: January 09, 2006 at 11:03 PM (#1813268)
1.Bert Blyleven
2.Jim Rice
3.Bruce Sutter
4.Andre Dawson
5.Rich Gossage
6.Tommy John
7.Jack Morris
8.Dale Murphy
9.Lee Smith
10.Alan Trammell
   169. fra paolo Posted: January 09, 2006 at 11:34 PM (#1813319)
that if you are successful in your hypothetical,

I'm not in the BBWAA, so the point is moot. I'm just casting a ballot in a Primer vote, and the dilemma is whether to vote in what I believe is right, or whether to vote for something I don't believe in. What would you do?
   170. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#1813359)
I'm just casting a ballot in a Primer vote, and the dilemma is whether to vote in what I believe is right, or whether to vote for something I don't believe in. What would you do?

If you honestly don't believe the candidates are worthy of induction, then you shouldn't add them to your ballot. I totally disagree with this, of course, but your small-hall vision for the Hall is totally acceptable, AFAIAC.

Personally, I like the idea of selecting the top 1% of all major league players who have ever played the game (being fair to all eras).
   171. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: January 09, 2006 at 11:58 PM (#1813365)
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell
Will Clark
   172. OCF Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:52 AM (#1813459)
John or Joe: it's time to activate the 1968 Ballot Discussion thread, isn't it?
   173. Tiboreau Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#1813462)
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Goose Gossage
Will Clark
   174. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:01 AM (#1813473)
The election is now over. Results will be posted shortly.
   175. sunnyday2 Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:02 AM (#1813476)
>it makes it harder for the mistakes of the past to be repeated.

If you mean (by mistakes of the past) if you mean mistakes of commission...I don't see how mistakes of omission balance the equation.
   176. fra paolo Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#1813510)
I don't see how mistakes of omission balance the equation.

It depends on how they are omission. A key argument in terms of Blyleven's candidacy was based on the fact that his career stats were in the mid-range of the standard in the Hall. if you are calculating a statistical standard to justify entry, you can always keep to that standard once set. You are not omitting anyone you wouldn't have voted for in the first place.

I'm not arguing that voters ought to raise the standard to omit deserving cases, but rather that we should develop our own, personal standard for what makes a HoFer, and not that established by a bunch of people, not all of whom voted for the "right" reasons.

The statistically minded will no doubt adjust their original notions to reflect the trend, believing that some kind of objective standard has been democratically determined.
   177. DanG Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:34 AM (#1813741)
This discussion can lead to nothing but frustration. Due to the fact that we have agreed to follow the Coop's seat-of-the-pants, perpetually-jury-rigged procedures in this exercise, we are strapped by the severe limitations of their "system".

Despite seventy years of existence, they have as yet failed to specify what the standard is for a hall of fame player. That leaves us no choice but to study who has been elected and try to discern the standard de facto. Having done this, I can say with great confidence that there are at least ten players on the current BBWAA ballot who "deserve" to be enshrined.

So, for anyone in this exercise to insist upon imposing a personal, arbitrary higher standard does not serve the best interests of this project and, IMHO, is simply being contrary; it does not further the discussion of who deserves to be in the HOF.
   178. fra paolo Posted: January 10, 2006 at 11:40 AM (#1813998)
Despite seventy years of existence, they have as yet failed to specify what the standard is for a hall of fame player. That leaves us no choice but to study who has been elected and try to discern the standard de facto. …So, for anyone in this exercise to insist upon imposing a personal, arbitrary higher standard does not serve the best interests of this project and, IMHO, is simply being contrary; it does not further the discussion of who deserves to be in the HOF.


The second part of this quote, after the ellipsis, is either foolish intellectual arrogance or an attempt to dare small Hall-ers to join the HoM. Since I try to be charitable, I'll regard it as the second. Believe it or not, DanG, I've actually had a look at a few HoM threads over the years. I was reading them when the project was getting off to a halting start, with irregular promises of action followed by long periods of inactivity. I have noted that the latest election would have produced only one successful candidate using the BBWAA 75 percent threshold. However, I'd suggest you go look at some of the early year ballots, and see just how many would have gotten elected then. It's a myth put about by the big Hall advocates that the 75 percent yes/no system excludes people unfairly. It is an elegant system that allows electors to vote against someone as well as voting for others.

The fact is, we all know that the wider the pool of players to choose from, the more votes will scatter, as they did in the 1967 HoM ballot. In order to avoid this effect, the HoMer project imposes its arbitrary result quota, which has the effect of excluding the deserving in the year they should be elected, in order to ensure 'no man gets left behind' in later years. I don't see how that's any less 'jury-rigged' than Cooperstown.

The first part of this quote presumes that all elections to the HoF have produced a perfect result. Bill James, in the original Historical Abstract, put question marks against a few names, so I'm not doing anything unSabermetric here. Since we know that there have been questionable decisions, not necessarily by the BBWAA, that have had an impact on the de facto standard, any intelligent person would recognize that the de facto standard has problems. In fact this 'standard' varies from year to year, so to even pretend a single standard exists is to practice an unhealthy degree of self-deception.
   179. sunnyday2 Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:45 PM (#1814029)
>So, for anyone in this exercise to insist upon imposing a personal, arbitrary higher standard does not serve the best interests of this project and, IMHO, is simply being contrary

>>The second part of this quote, after the ellipsis, is either foolish intellectual arrogance or an attempt to dare small Hall-ers to join the HoM.

All of this is in re. our HoF ballot which is purely an aside to the HoM project. For the HoM, it is impossible to argue for a different standard because we are going to elect 220 players no matter what.

Secondly, I would say that DanG's statement was neither foolish intellectual arrogance nor an attempt to dare small Hall-ers to join the HoM!

The irony in all of this is that there have been two contradictory threads of thought going on here. 1) Will the HoM gain new voters as a result of this exercise and if so will they be voters who know and love the modern era ballplayer and aren't sufficiently committed to considering the old timers and NeLers? and 2) many of these same voters are committed to imposing a higher standard than what Cooperstown has implemented over the years. The irony is that while these sound contradictory, they are in fact compatible states of mind.
   180. DanG Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:28 AM (#1815576)
Reminding myself before I start:

This discussion can lead to nothing but frustration.

Marc is right that when I said "this project" I was referring to this little aside, not to the HoM.

The first part of this quote presumes that all elections to the HoF have produced a perfect result.

Again, a misunderstanding. Obviously, we don't look to Freddie Lindstrom and Lloyd Waner and many others as defining the HOF de facto standards, as they are proof of the less-than-perfect results of their process.

an attempt to dare small Hall-ers to join the HoM

Why would this make any difference? Everyone has to rank 15 players.

I don't see how that's any less 'jury-rigged' than Cooperstown.

Because the rules for the HoM are rational and proactive, as opposed to the HOF's rules, which were casually rendered and modified reactively.

It is an elegant system

LOL!
   181. sunnyday2 Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:51 PM (#1815706)
Interesting aside to the BBWAA vote. The HoF announcement yesterday noted that there are now 500+ voters, the most in history, as if this was some sort of good thing. But surely the knowledge level on average is going down as the raw numbers of voters is going up.

And secondly, and this is just my little observation. we tend to complain about whether the BBWAA voters really are knowledgeable and whether they've really looked at the player stats before they vote. I think there is one statistic that probably trumps everything else and that is simply their BBWAA HoF voting history. All other stats begin to pale after while and it becomes nothing more than a horse race.
   182. fra paolo Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:58 PM (#1815708)
Because the rules for the HoM are rational and proactive, as opposed to the HOF's rules, which were casually rendered and modified reactively.

So that makes the HoM rules less jury-rigged than most laws and constitutions in the world? Tell it to the Marines.

Everyone has to rank 15 players.

Not by my reading of your constitution. And I think the HoM rules haven't really been tested, because you've self-selected the electorate. What if, for example, one only wanted to vote for six candidates, but didn't think any of them warranted a first-place vote? I think the jury would be out rigging to fix that one.

LOL!

No doubt because you've thrashed all this out among yourselves, you no longer see the need to discuss these alleged shortcomings of the BBWAA ballot. But I've yet to get any response that advances my understanding of the dislike of them beyond the fact that they are stupid or laughable. That's not what I'd call rational or proactive.

All in all, I think this whole episode has been a very poor advertisement for the Hall of Merit. Too much intolerance of differing viewpoints.
   183. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:25 PM (#1815818)
All in all, I think this whole episode has been a very poor advertisement for the Hall of Merit. Too much intolerance of differing viewpoints.

Since you are ignorant of the project's objective, that's not very fair to say.

The Hall of Merit was set up to be a comparitive to the HOF by picking the right (in our opinion) 200+ players up to 2003. To achieve this, we needed to set it up in a way that we will have the same amount as the HOF had in that year. Using the HOF's model would not achieve this.
   184. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:32 PM (#1815828)
And I think the HoM rules haven't really been tested, because you've self-selected the electorate.

Voters should simply vote for the 15 best eligible players, ranking them from 1 to 15.

Since I am one of the arbiters for the HoM, this rule is strictly enforced.

As for sef-selecting the electorate, anybody can join the project, as long as they follow our rules. We even have voters who are anti-sabermetrical. How is that "self-selecting?"
   185. fra paolo Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:40 PM (#1815846)
Using the HOF's model would not achieve this.

It would not guarantee it. Which is not the same thing. I missed a lot of the early debates about the HoM, so when I came along and thought about joining (before it had actually started balloting or even posted the 1871 threads), I felt that too much had been prejudged beforehand.

It is pointless to debate issues that have already been decided in a project such as this, and I am guilty of that. But reopening closed issues is the foundation of the HoM , no?

Maybe I've not been fair. I'm a little angry about the way some HoM leaders/posters regard people who don't agree with them, which is what I think is a poor advertisement to outsiders. (These comments are not confined to this thread, BTW.)
   186. fra paolo Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#1815865)
How is that "self-selecting?

You exclude people who want to vote 'none of the above'.

The HoM is designed for people who think that approximately 200 ballplayers are fame-worthy, because that's how many are in Cooperstown. But it automatically excludes those who think that might be too many or might not be enough.

That's a big issue, bigger than some of the league performance levels you adjust for.
   187. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:59 PM (#1815875)
The HoM is designed for people who think that approximately 200 ballplayers are fame-worthy

This is 100% incorrect, fra paolo. Some of the electorate believe in a small-Hall like yourself, while others would expand the numbers. What the electorate does agree upon is that, to be truly comparable to the HOF's non-defined standards, we needed to set up the HoM so that we would have the same number of electees as the HOF had at the beginning of this century, without the Kellys, McCarthys, Haines, etc.
   188. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 11, 2006 at 03:02 PM (#1815879)
Which is why many of us keep pHOMs.
   189. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#1815900)
But reopening closed issues is the foundation of the HoM , no?

Yes, it is, fra paolo.

I'm a little angry about the way some HoM leaders/posters regard people who don't agree with them, which is what I think is a poor advertisement to outsiders.

Well, we're not a monolithic group, so we have differences of opinion just like any group.

I do agree with them that the HOF does have more inclusive standards than you have (that's why the Vet's Committee was set up), but I did accept your ballot as totally creditable.
   190. sunnyday2 Posted: January 11, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#1816038)
>Maybe I've not been fair. I'm a little angry about the way some HoM leaders/posters regard people who don't agree with them, which is what I think is a poor advertisement to outsiders. (These comments are not confined to this thread, BTW.)

It sounds to me like you're angry that we're not gonna change the HoM method to suit you. I mean, there's only about 60 of us and we've only been doing this for 3 years. Why wouldn't we want to scrap everything and start over for one voter? We're just a bunch of arrogant bastards, no question about it.
   191. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:28 PM (#1816173)
Let's be fair to fra paolo, Marc. He disagrees with the aims and methods of the HoM. That's his right and privilege.

BTW, we could allow all (15-man ballots) or nothing-at-all (no players listed) ballots if we wanted to (I'm not recommending this, BTW). All it would do, however, is depress the percentage of votes earned for each enshrinee.
   192. OCF Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:46 PM (#1816214)
I'm one of the dozen or so HoM regulars who declined to participate in this exercise. In part I gave my reasons in #113, above. I couldn't adjust to the pseudo-BBWAA ballot not so much because of its voting structure but because it doesn't have perpetual eligibility.

Perpetual eligibility lies at the heart of the HoM system, along with the quota. If you have no quota, and a yes/no ballot, one can argue that the effective standard for admission is the worst member already elected. OK, no one is happy with that, because no one wants a HoF with over 1000 members. Joe likes the effective standard of the "worst one already elected who wasn't a mistake." That's fair, but problematical, because then we start arguing about who was or wasn't a mistake. Bill Terry? Kirby Puckett? Frank Chance?

Perpetual eligibility with a threshold but no quota would lead to a logjam: so many worthy candidates on the ballot that they split the vote and no one reaches the threshold. The BBWAA has fallen into this trap more than once, and that's when some of the worst excesses of the VC burst forth.

Perpetual eligibility with a quota forces a very interesting change - instead of the standard being the the worst player already elected, it becomes the best player not yet elected. Do you want to argue about Dale Murphy? How would you compare him to Hugh Duffy or Jimmy Ryan? Or, for that matter, Edd Roush? Albert Belle becomes eligible, but we haven't yet elected Ralph Kiner. All right, Belle versus Kiner? Jim Rice? How does he stack up versus Bob Johnson? Of course the downside is comparing across that much time - Hugh Duffy was not really playing the same game as Dale Murphy.

I couldn't make the HoF ballot work for me because the list of "not yet elected" in my mind is the HoM list, and at that, the 1967 HoM list.
   193. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 06:10 PM (#1816283)
Nice post, OCF, especially in regard to perpetual eligibility. Of all of our rules, that may be my favorite.
   194. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#1816305)
Perpetual eligibility with a quota forces a very interesting change - instead of the standard being the the worst player already elected, it becomes the best player not yet elected.

That sentence was also choice.
   195. fra paolo Posted: January 11, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#1816336)
Why wouldn't we want to scrap everything and start over for one voter?

Perhaps if you were a more attentive reader you'd have discovered that in fact I considered joining at the start, but chose not to. At no time have I called on the HoM to change anything.

The reasons why I stayed out seemed apposite to a specific topic being discussed in this thread.

If you don't want to read comments on your methods, don't run the project on a public bulletin board.
   196. Evan Posted: January 11, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#1816344)
The important thing to remember about the HOM (which can be viewed as a credit or a detriment, I suppose) - is that someone can neither vote someone in or out. They are asked to rank the players available, and that's it. The weight of the consensus then determines whether or not that adds up to merit induction.

You can't just vote for six players, because you aren't really voting for ANY players, just saying who you think is the best of the available choices. Of course, a ballot with 6 viable candidates plus the Neifi Perezes of the world would probably serve that purpose, if it could be defended as being a legitimate ballot.

If you don't believe in the principle of the HOM voting structure, that's a different issue entirely.
   197. fra paolo Posted: January 11, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#1816367)
Perpetual eligibility lies at the heart of the HoM system, along with the quota.

This is the key sentence of a very informative post.

I think the question posed by the BBWAA ballot, is one that the HoM ballot does not. HoM ballot asks, "who is the best player not in the hall?", but does not pose the corollary question "does this player deserve to be in the hall?". The quota has already determined the answer to the corollary, by saying that "the best n players not in will be elected this year".

And this is all tied up with the overall quota for the size of the HoM, which has be set by the votes of the BBWAA and the Veterans' Committee. So you are basically saying that these poor judges of baseball talent were right about the number of Hall-worthy people, but wrong about who they are.

And I wasn't comfortable with that.

Can we leave it at that?
   198. karlmagnus Posted: January 11, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#1816423)
In a sense the number of people in a HOM/HOF is by definition arbitrary. There is no number -- say 152 -- at which the top 152 players, selected by baseball geniuses, would be Hall-worthy and the 153rd clearly not. The problem with the HOF is not its 220 or whatever members, but that at least 20-30 of those members are not among the top 500 ballplayers, while others (Parisian Bob, maybe Dahlen and Santo) who are clearly among the top 100 aren't in.

At least the HOM shouldn't have any of those anomalies, although because of timelining and quality fluctuations, it's likely that the best non_HOM player will still be (say) the 175th best ballplayer ever, and the worst HOM ballplayer will be the 300th best. A theoretically perfect electorate might narrow that 175-300 gap, but it could never eliminate it.
   199. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 07:11 PM (#1816446)
In a sense the number of people in a HOM/HOF is by definition arbitrary.

Not in a sense, karlmagnus, but absolutely. There is no such thing as an objective in/out line. It's totally subjective (which I think you would agree).

The key thing is, whether you have ten people in your Hall or ten thousand, that you have consistent standards. I'm confident enough to say that the HoM does, while the HOF does not.
   200. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 07:24 PM (#1816472)
So you are basically saying that these poor judges of baseball talent were right about the number of Hall-worthy people, but wrong about who they are.

Again, this is incorrect in regard to the personal opinions of our voters. Sunnyday2, whom you know from this thread :-), is a small-Hall guy. But if we are going to compare ourselves to the HOF, then we have to use their de facto standards and not pretend that the Vet's Committee is not a part of Cooperstown, when it is as powerful as the BBWAA.

As for the "poor judges of baseball" statement, if you feel that we're off base in selecting certain players to the HoM, you're welcome to post contrary information to sway the electorate to vote accordingly, whether or not you are a member. The only thing we ask is that you have evidence to back up your case.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7637 seconds
43 querie(s) executed