Gentlemen-

I write to inform you of a possibly great miscarriage of justice. We must reconsider Dom DiMaggio's candidacy.

DiMaggio did not receive a single vote last year. However, in BP’s WARP1, he compares favorably to other borderline CF candidates.

DiMaggio deserves war credit. He missed his age 26-28 season due to the war, thus missing his presumptive peak. In 1942 (age 25) the year before he departed, he earned 11 WARP1; in 1946, upon his return, he earned 9.4 WARP1. I credit DiMaggio with 9 WARP1 for each of his 3 missed seasons; given that he missed his 3 presumptive peak seasons, this is a conservative credit and consistent with the credit given to other war-credit candidates like Charlie Keller by the majority of the electorate.

I am also giving DiMaggio 4 WARP1 credit for his 1939 PCL season, where he was the PCL MVP. This is also a conservative credit and, as you shall see, not essential for his candidacy.

Based upon the above credit, these are the BP WARP1 numbers for Dom DiMaggio, with his “borderline” CF competition given for comparison. Credit given where noted.

Dom Dimaggio
3 year peak 29.4
5 year prime 47.4
Career (inc. war+ PCL) 105.6

Kirby Puckett
3 year peak 27.3
5 year prime 40.9
Career 76.6

Andre Dawson
3 year peak (10 WARP in '81) 28.9
5 year prime 44.6
Career (inc. 1981 credit) 103.1

Reggie Smith
3 year peak 26.7
5 year prime 41.3
Career (5 WARP Ja. Cdt.) 104.1

Hugh Duffy
3 year peak 29.1
5 year prime 46.3
Career 93.7

DiMaggio compares favorably to all candidates based upon peak, prime and career.

Why the change? As I mentioned yesterday, BP increased the standard deviation of outfield defense in its most recent iteration of WARP1. However, this “bump” should not preclude a careful reconsideration of DiMaggio’s candidacy. DiMaggio’s WARP values hinge upon impressive defensive stats (20+FRAA per season at his peak), but these stats are supported by DiMaggio’s reputation; he was universally regarded as the premier defensive centerfielder of his era. Secondly, even if we decide that DiMaggio’s BP WARP1’s are too generous, DiMaggio’s present ranking in the backlog (no votes) compared to his presumptive ranking based upon a literal interpretation of the WARP1 #’s (top 10, if not top 5) demands that, at least, we give him the attention that he never received.

I dunno, I thought BP's FRAA stdevs were already too high. More discussion and consideration is never a bad thing, though.

"These comments sound like [Bridges] led the league, which he never did."

He led _his_ league.

League Leaders in IP (post-season included) 1934-36

Pitcher Lg IP
Bridges AL 879.3
SchRowe AL 829.3
Ferrell AL 804.3
BNewsom AL 789
Ruffing AL 763.3
LeGomez AL 731.7

DizDean NL 978
Hubbell NL 935.7
VLMungo NL 841.3
Drrnger NL 820
Warneke NL 810

League Leaders in strikeouts 1934-36

Pitcher Lg K
Bridges AL 510
SchRowe AL 430
LeGomez AL 410
NNewsom AL 378
Ruffing AL 344
Ferrell AL 283

DizDean NL 597
VLMungo NL 565
Hubbell NL 401
Warneke NL 381
Drrnger NL 363

It appears (from Retrosheet) they stuck to their normal rotation down the stretch in 1934 and 1935. I did find an instance where Bridges pitched consecutive days (9/7/34-9/8/34) due to back-to-back doubleheaders. The guy was listed as 5'10" 155lbs. I'd have to imagine that he'd have been converted to a reliever in the modern era.

I dunno, I thought BP's FRAA stdevs were already too high. More discussion and consideration is never a bad thing, though.

I'm aware that people feel this way. But keep in mind that even if you knock off half a win from DiMaggio in each of his 5 best seasons, he's still competitive with the high OF backlog.

'zop, I gave DiMaggio war credit, but still have him in the backlog, outside my top 15. I can see his case, but I still don't love him. Open to being convinced though.

The guy was listed as 5'10" 155lbs. I'd have to imagine that he'd have been converted to a reliever in the modern era.

Except that in the modern era, he'd probably be 6' or 6' 1" and 175-180, right?

DL from MN--but that's not fair! Many of those other guys didn't get the opportunity to throw those extra postseason innings! If they had, their IP totals would be higher as well...

'zop, sorry, but I just don't see it. There's no doubt that Dom was a superlative fielder, but the stdev BP WARP is using is just insane. Furthermore, DiMaggio was able to accumulate massive seasonal PA totals due to playing for great offenses in a hitters' park, which leads BP WARP to overstate his peak dramatically due to its 1899 Cleveland Spiders replacement level. Crediting Dom at his 41-42-46-47 average for war credit, I get him at $133 million, while the current in/out line for position players is in the mid-150's. I love "discovering" new candidates, but I'm afraid Dom DiMaggio doesn't cut it.

He doesn't need the postseason work to stay on top of those leaderboards. There are all _sorts_ of things that aren't fair in the history of baseball. I try to give credit for post-season work equivalent to regular season innings. I admit this is really difficult to do on a consistent basis so there are probably some errors in my ballot.

The new BP WARP, while giving OF defensive points, seems to have compensated by docking SS. Pesky and Travis and others have taken a hit.

Yawn.

I emailed Clay Davenport to ask him what was going on, and he wrote that there was a bug in the new FRAA that's throwing things off which will be fixed tomorrow.
He said the new WARP is adjusted to increase the stdev of FRAA among members of the same team, and after tomorrow it will do that without creating the spurious results.

Huh. Could someone shout out a heads up when the pages are fully updated?

People may chuckle when I list this on my ballot each year:

"Overall, I think there is too much emphasis on WARP3 and WS, which are intriguing tools but which are not yet sufficiently mature."

But this tempest is a perfect example.
"pay no attention to what's behind the curtain! vote for the names I spit out!"

"Overall, I think there is too much emphasis on WARP3 and WS, which are intriguing tools but which are not yet sufficiently mature."

They definitely shouldn't be followed blindly, at the very least.

All these changes to FRAA make me wary of using DERA, which is based on FRAA, as well...I'm going to see if I can get complete team DRA scores, that would be much more reliable.

I don't understand? Are people like Clay supposed to just stand pat? If it was good enough before and he thinks it's better now (after the bugs are worked out), why would you trust it less?

I don't understand the complaints at all - other than the bug issue.

I mean every 'system' is a best guess. I have no problem relying on systems that are continually being improved - other than having to re-enter data manually - though I'm getting help on that front.

All these changes to FRAA make me wary of using DERA, which is based on FRAA,

I actually thought it was sort of the opposite.

I thought team defensive efficiency (essentially NRA-DERA) was the foundation, and then FRAA were divided among the fielders from there, sort of how Win Shares does it.

I could be wrong, but that was my impression. It also jives with the statement that:

He said the new WARP is adjusted to increase the stdev of FRAA among members of the same team,

. . . right? I'd be surprised if the difference between NRA/DRA changes much (based on this change) other changes could impact it though.

To me there's maybe 3 issues.

1. Well, yes, it is an issue to keep going back and getting new data, new data, new data. I don't have the time. I mean, how many times would I have had new data on Ed Williamson? 10? 15? I don't have the time.

2. Trust. Why did the numbers change? How did we end up with the numbers we had before, and before that, and before that? The ones we have now? We don't know why they are what they are, nor why they change. I guess I mean, do I trust the system as a whole? I mean, I'm really glad it's getting better, but how do I know that it's worth a damn in a more global sense? I don't.

3. Trust. Even if I trust the system as a whole, do I trust the numbers I've got now? They've changed so many times, and I know that the numbers I used to ballot players in the olden days (before I gave up on WARP) are now considered to be bad numbers, out of date. And we elected guys with them. Well, a year from now today's numbers will be no damn good. Why should I be using them? I figure I should wait for the next generation of numbers...no, the next...no, the next...no, the ones after that. Oh, the hell with it. I'll just come back and pick them up in my next life.

1) So you're happy that win shares doesn't properly divide credit between pitchers and defense, especially for early pitchers? You wouldn't welcome a more precise measurement?

2) The key to this is keeping the methodology open. I see that as the fundamental issue with WARP - there's a black box in there.

3) Make the best choice you have with the data you have at hand and have a process to correct errors in the future. We can only correct errors of omission, not commission in our process. I'm not going to get too overly worked up if we honor the 300th best player of all-time instead of the 226th as long as we're still in the upper 1-2% and we don't reach down to the 500th best player. If we miss the 150th best due to bad/incomplete data we will make it up later.

Make the best choice you have with the data you have at hand and have a process to correct errors in the future. We can only correct errors of omission, not commission in our process. I'm not going to get too overly worked up if we honor the 300th best player of all-time instead of the 226th as long as we're still in the upper 1-2% and we don't reach down to the 500th best player. If we miss the 150th best due to bad/incomplete data we will make it up later.

What would have happened if none of the voters had access to advanced statistics, beyond, say, OPS+? So lets say that you have access to BA, OBP, SP, OPS, OPS+, and all the basic stats, but not to win shares, WARP, etc. Lets say for defense you have access to range factor, and the general reputation of the players. Finally, each person is free to interpret this information, and use logic and common sense, but without using the advanced stats.

How many of the inductees would be different? Would there be a risk of selecting the 500th best player without the advanced stats? I'm guessing the list of HOM inductees would look very similar to the people actually elected.

How many of the inductees would be different? Would there be a risk of selecting the 500th best player without the advanced stats? I'm guessing the list of HOM inductees would look very similar to the people actually elected.

Well, given that the HoM agrees with the HoF in a majority (is it 75%?) of cases, it seems unlikely that we would have picked a radically different group using no "advanced" statistics.

It is in the remaining 25% of cases, where we differ from the HoF, that advanced stats are most likely to make a difference. And it's those cases that really matter to the project.

I don't think it's possible to judge how we would have voted differently if we had no access to "advanced" stats, since even when we use "basic" stats like OPS+ and ERA+, we asses them in light of the more advanced ones, using them in a more sophisticated way than we might if they were the best stats we have available to us.

I think the players we have picked using "advanced" stats that we might well have missed out on otherwise are those whose merit lies in a combination of values from different parts of the bame. Wes Ferrell, for example, might have had a harder time if we could not have quantified the contribution of his hitting to his pitching success. The arguments in favor of Keith Hernandez would have rested on much less firm footing without metrics that could quantify his fielding value in terms of runs saved. It would have been harder for us _not_ to elect Frank Howard.

The case could also be made in the other direction: that we have been too old-fashioned, that players whom the advanced metrics show as HoM-worthy have been neglected because of overreliance on traditional stats of questionable value. Rick Reuschel might be a HoMer by now if we were more "advanced."

Overall, the advanced metrics have made the project much _easier_. Without them, we would have had to devote a huge amount of effort and debate to fielding analysis, and that has freed us to address other concerns. Imperfect as the advanced metrics are on fielding, they are a huge advance over the basic stats.

"Would there be a risk of selecting the 500th best player without the advanced stats?"

Yest has some examples in his PHoM (no offense meant).

I don't understand? Are people like Clay supposed to just stand pat? If it was good enough before and he thinks it's better now (after the bugs are worked out), why would you trust it less?

Tweaking algorithms to improve them is a good thing. I don't have a problem with that.

My main problem is that they are not open about what they are doing. Often they don't even notify us when changes are made. The good thing about Win Shares is that its open source so all of its warts are out there to be seen and discussed. I understand BP's desire to keep the details secret, but it also keeps us in the dark and guessing as to what is going on. Also, since even the results are not really "published" but can just be viewed on their website, then we don't really have access to older version of their algorithm. It could be that most of these tweaks are extremely minor, but we have no way of analyzing the magnitude of the change... who is helped and hurt and most by each algorithm tweak, etc.

Joe Dimino--you would sure think that if the only thing changing is the *allocation* of FRAA credit *among* a team's fielders, then the DERA-NRA gap shouldn't change at all. In fact, however, it has changed substantially. I have a spreadsheet with the "old" DERA, and it's often off by double digits from the new one.

Yes, the issue is the black box-ness. When I updated my WARP, I a) apologized to voters who use it for the inconvenience and b) made perfectly clear everything that had changed in the new version, allowing for people to decide whether it was worth using the "upgraded" numbers or not. I don't plan to re-do my hitters' WARP numbers again until I'm ready to have a "fully integrated" system, where (like BP's, except better and transparently) pitchers and position players are calculated together.

How many of the inductees would be different? Would there be a risk of selecting the 500th best player without the advanced stats? I'm guessing the list of HOM inductees would look very similar to the people actually elected.

One of the things I've learned from the HOM project is that (in my opinion) the HOF electors actually did a very credible job selecting inductees, considering the tools that were available to them.

One of the things I've learned from the HOM project is that (in my opinion) the HOF electors actually did a very credible job selecting inductees, considering the tools that were available to them.

Agreed on the BBWAA guys. They did a very good job with the majority of their inductees.

But the results of the Vets and Old Timers committees range from mixed to awful. Even with the old-school stats, it's pretty clear they made big errors on a pretty high percentage of guys. Much higher than the BBWAA. Obviously the Frischian selections are the absolutely bottom of this barrel. I will grant that the idea of rewarding fame versus performance has waxed and waned over time, and seeing this as part of the process is potentially explanatory for certain selections, but still....

It is in the remaining 25% of cases, where we differ from the HoF, that advanced stats are most likely to make a difference. And it's those cases that really matter to the project.

Except that you would know not to elect guys like Lloyd Waner and George Kelly even without WARP or WS or whatever. You would know that Bobby Grich and Bert Blyleven were underrated. And this is true for most of the discrepencies between the HOF and HOM. I don't think its 25% of the cases. Its more like 5%, if that.

I know I am in the minority here, but I believe the advanced stats do more harm than good in many cases, because people over-rely on them, despite the fact that none of them are perfect. 99% of what you need to know about a player can be determined without that stuff. Partially, its because I don't defensive statistics are nearly as precise as others give them credit for. You can come up with a number of runs a player saved on defense, but it doesn't mean the number is accurate. Voters just take it on faith that the advanced defensive statistics work.

I think voters definitely take uberstat defense that doesn't jive with reputation with a grain of salt...just check out the discussion of Darrell Evans.

The BBWAA made plenty of mistakes. It's just that their mistakes were usually omission. I mean the Vets Committee gave us guys like Goose Goslin, Enos Slaughter and Bid McPhee right? Not to mention BBWAA mistakes like Dizzy Dean and Tony Perez.

IMO, errors of omission are nearly as bad as the types of errors the VC made. The VC cleaned up plenty of BBWAA mistakes - if those weren't there, the VC wouldn't have been needed.

Much of the Prospectus fielding calcs were published on one of the books. 2002 I think?

Joe Dimino--you would sure think that if the only thing changing is the *allocation* of FRAA credit *among* a team's fielders, then the DERA-NRA gap shouldn't change at all. In fact, however, it has changed substantially. I have a spreadsheet with the "old" DERA, and it's often off by double digits from the new one.

Is that the 'bug' that needs fixing?

Even if they were, certainly none of the 8 zillion updates since then have been accounted for!

Perhaps it is. I'll check back in a few days and see.

mistakes like Dizzy Dean

Dean was obviously a peak pick, so while I don't support his candidacy, I understand his induction into the HOF.

There are 10 BBWAA selections that have not yet made the HOM. They are:

Pennock, Traynor, Dean, and Maranville from the elections circa 1950 (but no Vaughan).

Aparicio, Brock, and Hunter from the mid-1980's (but no Santo).

Perez, Puckett, and Sutter of recent vintage (but no Gossage or Blyleven, etc.)

Our judgement is that these are "mistakes", though some are larger that others.
(Perez and Puckett are solidly in the current backlog consideration set. Others receive some votes.)

Well, since the Coop inducted its big class of NeL players, there's not a big difference between the HoF and HoM membership lists on that subject any more, and war credit and minor-league credit have been decisive in only a couple of cases. Fair treatment of nineteenth-century stars is indeed a big factor, but so is sabermetric analysis in general and what I would call "a consistent standard," which we have seriously attempted to maintain and the Coop has not.

For reference, here's how I would group the players we have inducted and the Hall of Fame has not, according to the reasons for the difference. Obviously, some players may fall into more than one category, and the line between "sabermetric differences" and "a consistent standard" is particularly blurry. In the "consistent standard" category I have placed player who, in my judgment, show well enough by traditional stats to earn election, if the HoF voters cared to be consistent, or even to look at the statistics at all. In the "sabermetrics" category, I put the players whose case is greatly strengthened by an examination of advanced metrics.

War Credit: Gordon, Joe; Keller, Charlie;

Minor League Time: no examples

Pre-1900 Baseball Barnes, Ross; Bennett, Charlie; Browning, Pete; Caruthers, Bob; Childs, Cupid; Dahlen, Bill; Glasscock, Jack; Gore, George; Hines, Paul; Jones, Charley; McVey, Cal; Pearce, Dickey; Pike, Lip; Richardson, Hardy; Start, Joe; Stovey, Harry; Sutton, Ezra; White, Deacon

Negro-League Baseball: Johnson, Home Run; Minoso, Minnie; Moore, Dobie; Oms, Alejandro

“Character Issues” Allen, Dick; Beckwith, John; Jackson, Joe; Rose, Pete

Sabermetrics: Blyleven, Bert; Dawson, Andre; Evans, Darrell; Evans, Dwight; Ferrell, Wes; Grich, Bobby; Groh, Heinie; Hernandez, Keith; Nettles, Graig; Pierce, Billy; Randolph, Willie; Sheckard, Jimmy; Stieb, Dave; Wynn, Jimmy

A Consistent Standard: Boyer, Ken; Clark, Will; Freehan, Bill; Gossage, Rich; Hack, Stan; Magee, Sherry; Santo, Ron; Simmons, Ted; Torre, Joe; Trammell, Alan; Whitaker, Lou


We disagree, when one looks at who we have included, mostly on 19th-century players and post-1970 players. In the latter case, sabermetrics plays a significant role in our disagreements, though it is not the only factor.

Considered from the perspective of "front-log"/"back-log" (where a front-logger is someone who received 50% or more of the #1 votes, or would have if not for the presence of another front-logger on the same ballot; i.e, these are the guys that a majority of us agreed were better than our favorite backloggers when they hit the ballot.)

There are currently 110 HOMerit front-loggers. The BBWAA elected 73 of them to the HOFame. 11 were Negro League selections. 16 others went in via the Veteran's Committee, though 14 of those were HOMerit eligible by 1928, i.e. well before the HOFame was founded (5 were never eligible for BBWAA election, 5 were more 19thC than 20thC, and the other 4 - Clarke, Crawford, Plank, Baker - got lost in the early voting crush).

The last 10 remain outside the HOFame. 3 are 19thC guys (White, Hines, Dahlen). 3 are currently VC eligible (Santo, Grich, and in Rose's case, VC ineligible). The other 4 are still in the BBWAA time-frame; Gossage, Blyleven, and Trammell are on the ballot; Whitaker is a victim of the 5% rule.

So basically, we're trading Pennock, Traynor, Dean, Maranville, Aparicio, Brock, Hunter, Perez, Puckett and Sutter for White, Hines, Dahlen, Santo, Grich, Rose, Gossage, Blyleven, Trammell and Whitaker.

Breaking it down by position:
At SS, we'd take Dahlen and Trammell ahead of Aparicio and Maranville
At 3B, we'd take Santo over Traynor (good calls on the three infielders)
At SP and RP, we'd take Blyleven instead of Hunter and Gossage instead of Sutter (two more good calls)
In the OF, we'd rather have Hines and Rose than Puckett and Brock (though the HOF would probably agree with us on the latter if Rose was eligible)
We'd rather have a good defensive C/3B in White than a poor defensive 3B/1B in Perez
And we'd rather have solid middle infielders like Grich and Whitaker than peak pitchers like Pennock and Dean

My own slight qualm with this project was that while I agree with shadowing the HOF in terms of number of honorees, I 've always thought that players banned from Cooperstown should not be counted against our final number. My reasoning is that if Joe Jackson and Pete Rose were not banned by the HOF, they would also be inducted and it would not come at the expense of the "2 worst HOFers". So in this case we cannot really lay claim to be comparing our best to their selections.
I propose that after the next election, we do a one off election of two backloggers to give ourselves themost accurate comparison of our way of thinking to the amalgamate way of thinking for the BBWAA and VC/NLC over the years.

I propose that after the next election, we do a one off election of two backloggers to give ourselves themost accurate comparison of our way of thinking to the amalgamate way of thinking for the BBWAA and VC/NLC over the years

I 100% agree that we should be in constant "comparitive mode" with the HOF, Ryan. If not, I'm not really interested.

I used to say that the BBWAA has done a pretty good job, but I realize now that that is wrong. There are 2 periods where the errors of omission are very very serious.

1. My understanding is that in 1936 the BBWAA held 2 elections, 1 for 19C and 1 for 20C players. Due to the 75 percent rule and the huge backlogs that they started out with, they were unable to elect anybody for the 19C. That gave rise to the VC (or, initially, the Centennial Commission and then the Old-Timers Committee, later the VC).

The top vote-getters in '36 for the 19C were Anson, Ewing, Keeler, C. Young, Delahanty, McGraw, H. Long, Radbourne, K. Kelly and Rusie. We could quibble but if somehow/some methodology had enabled those 10 to get elected, we might have been spared the disastrous VC.

There were other oversights like Goslin, Clarke, Plank, Baker and Crawford. Wahoo Sam is almost an unforgivable slight. But frankly, I could live with those 5 on the outside looking in if a "small hall" philosophy was carried out in a consistent way. But it was their failure to elect anybody from the 19C that set the HoF on the course toward disaster.

2. Then of course the treatment of post-expansion players represents another failure of epic proportions. Of course, saying that presumes that there is no "small hall." If OTOH the BBWAA had done its job in the '30s, elected some 19C players but otherwise established some sort of "small hall" standard, then what? Would we still see their treatment of post-expansion players as unfair?

And what of the sins of commission mentioned above--Pennock, Maranville, Aparicio, just to name the more egregious; some of the others listed above as mistakes, I can live with, I have Dean and Puckett in my PHoM, for example. What of that? Well, like missing on Goslin, Clarke, et al (all but Crawford), I could live with that. If there were 8-10 borderline type players with whom I disagreed, I would still agree that there was a standard and I could live with the standard. And BTW, if Crawford and maybe a couple of the others on that list had never been selected by the VC, then it is likely that the BBWAA itself might have created a loophole, but also might have kept it small. Maybe Crawford, Clarke, Plane and Goslin sneak through the loophole, maybe Baker doesn't. Or if none of them do, it's still preferable to what we've got now.

So if that were the case, if a more or less consistent "small hall" had been established, if the total number of HoFers was the BBWAA selections plus 10-12 19C guys, then what? Well, to me, Santo and Grich still clearly belong, but the rest of the so-called oversights seem less egregious. Well, ok, maybe Trammell. Maybe Blyleven. But with a small hall, then my sensibilities are a lot less offended by the treatment of Whitaker and Will Clark and Gossage et al.

IOW take the BBWAA selections + Crawford and Plank (say) and + Grich and Santo and Trammell and Blyleven. Then, yes, you've got some arguments you can have--Maranville and Aparicio versus Whitaker, Baker versus Traynor, and so on. But we probably wouldn't have to have a HoM if the BBWAA had elected those 19C guys in 1936.

1. My understanding is that in 1936 the BBWAA held 2 elections, 1 for 19C and 1 for 20C players.

That's my understanding also. IIRC, voters for the 19thC election were the most senior guys, guys who had covered some baseball pre-1900 (analogous today to the guys who covered baseball pre-1970). Only Anson and Ewing got over 50% of the vote (say, Musial and Berra); most of the other guys were from the 1890's.

I don't believe they sent out printed ballots, just a request for up to 10 names, so they had to use their own memories, personal reference materials, and discussions with their peers (assuming they still traveled much). It's not clear how many remembered that Anson was great once, not just that old guy playing an acceptable 1B. Remembering Ross Barnes was somewhat akin to remembering Joe Gordon.

I don't think it's that surprising that nobody got 75%. It's too bad they chucked the system as a failure instead of giving it a 2nd chance the next year when people may have treated it more seriously after the success of the general BBWAA election for the 20thC guys.

I also remember reading some time that there was confusion about eligibility for the "straddle" guys. Some regular BBWAA guys didn't vote for Young, considering him 19thC and the same for the 19thC voters considering him 20thC. It wasn't the most thought-out and organized of elections.

I propose that after the next election, we do a one off election of two backloggers

I don't think we need to do this, Ryan, since our total is already a bit short of the HOF's number.

Currently, my count has 233 players in the HOF: 198 MLB players, 29 NeL players, 3 players that the HOF calls managers (Foster, Griffith, McGraw) and 3 players that the HOF calls pioneers (G.Wright, Spalding, Cummings). Through the 2007 election, the HoM will have 231. Adding Jackson and Rose to the HOF total gives them 235, so we're four behind them, in effect.

In 2008, the HoM will elect three. The HOF will maybe elect one. That leaves us two behind them.

Unless the revamped VC starts electing players, the HoM will soon pass the HOF total, far surpassing them before very long.

Well - once we catch up, we can always realign our annual allowance of newly elected members. Let's say we are two behind after the the 2008 elections. We can simply react to their expected trends and set our desired number of new electees each year based on our expected wiggle room.

So if the HOF decides to stop electing players for a few years we stop too? I think 3 per year is appropriate from now on.

So if the HOF decides to stop electing players for a few years we stop too?

If we want to follow our original mission, yes.

I would say to split the annual votes into two areas - first vote would take place around January, where we decide on how many to elect. we would presumably base this our our expectations of how many will be voted in by the hall itself, taking into consideration if there are any extra votes happening that year, and if we overshoot, we would have to vote less the next year and if we undershoot, we can either elect the top x runner up(s) or hold an extra election to catch them.

I think it would be appropriate to hold elections even in the HoF doesn't elect anyone. If we are near-unanimous about a player in their first year eligible and the HoF vote doesn't get more than 5% that would be a stark contrast.

Honestly I can't see any reason not to elect at least 1 player every year despite what the HoF does. There are 1-3 players worth inducting newly eligible every year from now until eternity.

Yeah, we would probably have to get 100 players ahead of them, maybe 200, maybe 300, before we would elect players worse than some of theirs.

Two competing ideas here:

-Stay current with the HOF after 2008.
-After 2008, the HOF be damned, we're free to do what we want.

I'm ambivalent myself. I used to be very much in the second camp. I figured, hey, we fulfilled our mission with 2008, now it's our thing.

But I think that's dangerous ground.

If we just go off and elect 3 a year, then we're telling the HOF how many it should elect, rather than who it should elect.

And I think our mission has always been the latter, not the former.

So now I've changed my mind, and I think we should make an effort to elect near-to or exactly as many as the HOF does.

Definitely agree that we should stick to HoF size.

This should be on the Once We Catch Up thread.

Why shouldn't we tell Cooperstown how many players to elect? They need the help.

Take 2007, e.g. Say they elect Ripken and Gwynn. Under Plan B, that means we elect Ripken and Gwynn. What if we think McGwire should be elected? It is silly for us to say, no, Cooperstown is right, McGwire shouldn't go in, because only 2 should go in. This is exactly where Cooperstown needs a reality check. I don't mean on McGwire per se, I mean we can't really tell them who if they tell us how many. Like the man said, if they elect nobody, then we can't tell them who.

Why shouldn't we tell Cooperstown how many players to elect? They need the help.

Consistency, my dear hobgoblin! I think our mission is stated clearly: we are an alternative to the BBHOF in Cooperstown. We purposefully constructed this institution to be a mirror to the Hall, not a wrecking ball. After 100 years of elections, I don't think changing course makes sense. After all, one could argue just as easily that we should elect one or two a year because the HOF is too big.

So I think we should match the HOF in size, or very close to it.

Here are two reasonable plans I came up with to do so. (I think Rose/Jackson needs to be settled, but for the moment, let's ignore that issue.) They both assume that we vote before the HOF does.

PLAN 1) The Keeping-It-Close Plan

Beginning in 2009, we continue to elect three candidates a year until such time as the HOM's total membership surpasses the HOF's. Then we determine the number of electees this way each year:

a) At least one, even if the HOF elects no one.

b) Any others based on an average of the previous five BBWAA elections minus 1.

c) If the VC votes, we average their last three and add that to (b)

d) If there is a special commission (like the NgLers), we catch up with them they next year by simply adding the appropriate number to the ballot (minus 1).

e) A check-valve procedure, whereby every three years, if we exceed the HOF by 3 or more, we reduce to elect-1 years until we are within three again. Or if we are under, we add 1 electee per year until we are within three once more.

PROS: Using the average is predictive and we don't have to be a total slave each year to the HOF's exact number of winners. We can catch up or slow down as needed.

CONS: We won't match exactly. If there's a bunch of NBs in one year (a la 2008 without the steroids allegations), we may not be electing all of them, which means we may end up with differing results on big-shot candidates.

PLAN 2) The Wait-and-See Plan
Beginning after the 2008 election, we elect three a year until we are exactly even with the HOF (which may mean we need a two-electee or one-electee year in there), and then we slightly revise our vote-tallying procedures. We always assume at least an elect-one year.

a) Before the BBWAA election, each voter casts their ballot as normal.

b) Then we wait for the BBWAAA results to come in. The number of electees they come up with determines if there will be more than one slot or not. The tally committee reports the results based on the number of HOF electees, weighting votes appropriately.

c) If the VC will vote in this year, we revisit the original results, removing the original winners and then elect from there as many as the Vets do.

d) Special Commissions with lots of electees, well, we'll have to catch up the next year.

e) If there's any overage due to our automatic one-a-year, we simply subtract from the next year's number of electees as needed.

PROS: Matches HOF exactly.

CONS: We have to wait around for the results. Sometimes through Februrary if the VC votes. Seems like the tallying could get a bit complicated.


3) The Big-Shots Plan.
Beginning after the 2008 election, we elect three a year until we are exactly even with the HOF (which may mean we need a two-electee or one-electee year in there).

a) We elect at least one every year.

b) In our voting, we elect any player who receives a (super)majority of possible voting points in an elect-three setup (exact % to be determined)

c) Then we wait and see what the BBWAA does. If they elect more than we did, we pick from our list until we match their total.

d) If the VC will vote in this year, we revisit the original results, removing the original winners and then elect from there as many as the Vets do.

e) Special comissions dealt with in subsequent elections.

f) If there's any overage due to our automatic one-a-year, we simply subtract from the next year's number of electees as needed.

PROS: We keep up with the big-shot candidates and we match the HOF exactly unless we disagree with their assessment of NB guys (which is what will happen with T. Raines).

CONS: The tallying could be a bit complicated.

Obviously, these are three roughly drawn plans, but they could be a basis for staying close to the right number.

We might want to take Plan 1 and combine it with the big-shot candidate aspect of plan three to provide a more flexible and rewarding model.

>So I think we should match the HOF in size, or very close to it.

I don't disagree with this.

But what is being said is that we should match them exactly. That, my friend, is a hobgoblin.

Yeah, being within three in either direction is reasonable to my mind.

That's 1% or so of difference in any given year.

So bobbing and weaving to avoid being more than three away strikes me as a good idea, too.

To hijack the 2007 ballot discussion into a discuss of the 2007 ballot....

anyone see any comparisons between McGwire and Belle? similar, but one with a better peak/prime/career?
not as similar as one would think?

Re: #240-
Jackson was eligible for the HOF for over 50 years before being banned. He wasn't elected because the voters didn't want someone like him in the HOF.

It's vital for us to keep to our system of determining electees consistent because that is the only way we can keep our standards consistent, and it is only if our standards are consistent that our selections offer a meaningful critique of Cooperstown by being fair to all eras.

We initially set the level of electees to match Cooperstown so that we could offer a view of who the _right_ 230ish players were for the Hall. That doesn't mean that the Cooperstown number is the proper number for any baseball Hall of Fame, but it was the right number to work with because it makes our Hall a critique not of the Coop's size but of the quality of the Coop's selections, given its size. To get the right set of players, we established a schedule of elections that distributed election slots through baseball history in a manner proportionate to the number of teams, so that we would be in the best position to be fair to all eras. Now that a meaningful Hall of Merit standard has been established by this approach, the only way for us to maintain that standard consistently is to retain the design for the number of inductees.

In working historically up to the present, we have said, essentially, "So, Cooperstown, given the number of players you have honored, this is the set of players you should be honoring."

In future, we can say, "So, Cooperstown, given what should be the standard for a Hall of Fame that has inducted 230 players over 138 years of professional baseball history, these are the players you should be inducting to maintain that standard, as you make new inductions in future."

If we tie ourselves to the boom and bust cycles of Cooperstown, we can no longer maintain that standard, and we lose the chief feature that makes our selections better, and we essentially throw over our mission to be fair to all eras.

The idea that we should continue to match the Coop in numbers is superficially appealing as a way of clearly maintaining our identity as an alternative to Cooperstown, but it would be disastrous to that mission.

Given that one of the biggest problems with the HoF is the weird new double standard it is applying to post-expansion players, I think it would be a big mistake to try and stick to their numbers. If they stick to their standards and we stick to their numbers, we will lack room to honor the next generation of guys like Will Clark, Trammell, Gossage, and Whitaker.

Indeed. Given the backlog candidates we've elected recently by narrow margins, it would feel very odd to suddenly slam the door on the backlog. Look at who's on the 2010 list for instance - once we've taking care of Alomar and Larkin, what does that say about Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez and where they fit into Andrew's last sentence about ".. the next generation of guys like Will Clark ... "?

You know, every time Cobb writes something I think he's right. He's right this time, too I think. Forget all that stuff I wrote above. Read his post.

Heh. I guess I ought to write more about my preferred candidates, then . . . but I do appreciate the compliment!

Yeah, being within three in either direction is reasonable to my mind.

That's 1% or so of difference in any given year.

That's fine by me. I'm not that anal. :-)

I'll be honest. If we just go to electing 3 every year regardless of what the Coop is doing, I'm not really going to be interested in the project anymore. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't participate still, but my heart wouldn't be in it nearly as much. Of course, I have been slowly burning out regarding the HoM for years now, anyway. Our time is relatively boring compared to the 19th century or NeL players.

As for slamming the door on the backlog, we all know that it's just a matter of time that we get a deluge of inductees from the Veterans Committee. You can bank on it.

I'll cross-post this to the After 2008 thread....

Rather than thinking grandiosly about what we're going to do after 2008, I have a humble, little proposal that I think will serve a good purpose.

THE HALL OF MERIT CENTENNIAL REPORT
The Hall of Merit Centennial Report (HOMCR)will be issued after the 2008 elections. It will be a capstone report of our first 100 years, and it will evaluate our performance against our stated mission.

I imagine the HOMCR to be concise and relatively brief. Its audience would be folks who come to our project late or who simply don't want to dive into 1000s of threads of discussion to figure out where we are.

Here's some components I had considered in the rough order I'd think they'd be presented in the report:
-Very brief preamble of how we got here, our mission, and how our election rules differ from the HOF's.
-The full HOM roster through 2008 and perhaps a year-by-year listing as well.
-HOM-not-HOF lists through 2008.
-Concise summary and analysis of how our selections differ with the HOM.
-HOM membership demographics (era, position, etc): evaluated for fairness to era/position and against HOF demographics
-Brief summaries of the key points of ongoing discussion and innovation in the HOM (peak/career, hitting/fielding, 19th C. issues, NgL and MLE, War Credit, DanR's WARP, RSI, the role of uberstats, etc....)
-Individual voter reflections about the HOM and its processes (limited to 250 words a person for those who wish to contribute something).
-The future of the HOM: the importance of maintaining our standards vs. exactly mirroring the HOF (once we've decided on a course of action for future elections).
-Acknowledgements and bibliography, where we thank everyone who has supported us along the way, including voters, lurkers, inspirations, and outside-project folks who have given us information, then offer a list of key resources (books, websites, articles, etc...) that have come up time and again in the HOM, presented by topic (General, NgL, statistical/analytical, HOF, biographical, etc....)

The report would be made available at the HOM's main page and serve as our defining statement about the project's initial phase.

Again, I envision something short, punchy, and digestible...not a book or a dissertation.

And, yes, if we do this, I'll volunteer to head this up.

Cone vs Stieb - is that as close as it seems at first glance?
no direct voting head-to-heads, but Stieb is a HOMer who needed some time.

Is Cone as good? better? not quite?

John, what interests you is what interests you, but I confess to being puzzled at how tying our number of electees to the Coop's makes what we do any less or more interesting.

As for slamming the door on the backlog, we all know that it's just a matter of time that we get a deluge of inductees from the Veterans Committee. You can bank on it.

I agree, but won't we do a better job if we stick to our own methods, since the numbers will probably even out over time?

The only way I can see sticking with the Coop's numbers being done in a way that maintains consistent standards is if we unelect players every time the Coop elects fewer than three candidates in a given year. That way we would be raising the standards for earlier players at the same time that we are raising them for new eligibles. When the Coop opened up the floodgates later, those players might be re-elected.

That would generate interest, but I fear it would lead to ugly discussions.

Better one - Cone vs Saberhagen.
I don't see how Sabes is better, by head-to-head in best years, or career (except in Cone's irrelevant years hurting him a bit more. Make them worthless, I say).

Cone had more bigtime years (8 of 124 ERA+ or better, to 5 for Sabes), and I like him a lot in years 6-8. Giving some credit for some Sabes non-qualifier years is fair, maybe it evens it up.

But Saberhagen may get a LOT more votes this year, and I just don't see it.

Better yet: Cone and Saberhagen vs. Hershiser. I guess you could say I have an Orel fixation.

John, what interests you is what interests you, but I confess to being puzzled at how tying our number of electees to the Coop's makes what we do any less or more interesting.

I didn't state that it wouldn't be interesting, Chris, only that I wouldn't be interested in it. IOW, I find space travel very interesting, but I'm not really interested in doing it. :-)

The only way I can see sticking with the Coop's numbers being done in a way that maintains consistent standards is if we unelect players every time the Coop elects fewer than three candidates in a given year. That way we would be raising the standards for earlier players at the same time that we are raising them for new eligibles. When the Coop opened up the floodgates later, those players might be re-elected.

That would generate interest, but I fear it would lead to ugly discussions.

AFAIAC, that would be an abomination. That would be multiple times worse, IMO.

I agree with Chris Cobb that trying to match the Coop's numbers would be inconsistent with our more important goal of maintaining a consistent stamdard for induction. However, I think there's one change that we can consider if the Coop continues to effectively shut off elections by the Veterans Committee. We could switch to electing on a 3-2-3-2 schedule. For recent (post-expansion) decades we've been averaging about 23 to 25 electees per decade, with about 5 to 7 spots going to players from the backlog. By switching to an average of 2.5 electees per year, elections from the backlog would become relatively rare, implying that the established HoM standards wouldn't be watered down by further marginal backlog electees.

However, if we went further than that (say to 2 electees per year), the effect would be to set a higher standard for modern players, which I think should be avoided at all cost.

I like the suggestion, Brent. It would still give us an opportunity to correct the errors of omission but the flow from the backlog would slow to a trickle.

AFAIAC, that would be an abomination.

Its not that bad. <berra>When you get hurt, and miss work, they pay you cash, which is just as good as real money!</berra>

For recent (post-expansion) decades we've been averaging about 23 to 25 electees per decade, with about 5 to 7 spots going to players from the backlog.

We're usually self-policing when it comes to era balance. When it comes to borderliners are we favoring the old teddy bears and neglecting the post-expansion guys? Our schedule allotted for more inductees when there are more teams. Are the 60s and 70s underrepresented?

As I break down the new candidates for the next few elections I see it this way:

2008 - One electee, one backlog
2009 - One electee, one backlog
2010 - Two electees, 1 frontlog, 2 backlog
2011 - Two electees, 2 frontlog
2012 - Still guesswork but Randy Johnson would be the only sure electee and he might delay his candidacy to 2014 or later, Tim Salmon and Julio Franco would be backlog guys
2013 - Clemens, Biggio plus Sosa? Glavine? Luis Gonzalez?

If we stay at only 2 a season, nobody's getting in from the backlog after 2010. We're assuming 2 behind as of 2009 and the Vet's committee is GOING to elect someone by then. I think we're safe with 2, 3, 2, 3 schedule and possibly a make-up election in a "vote 2" year. If we get ahead of the HoF we drop to electing 2 until they catch up.

But we still haven't addressed my original question - do we count Rose and Jackson as part of our makeup of their number, or are they outside the fold?

I vote no, they are outside, they aren't eligible for the HoF and they would be elected if eligible.

I vote no, they are outside, they aren't eligible for the HoF and they would be elected if eligible.

Agreed. I also wouldn't count McGraw as a HOF player until he gets elected by us, anymore than I'd count Huggins or Comiskey or any other HOF manager/pioneer/exec.

If we stay at only 2 a season, nobody's getting in from the backlog after 2010. We're assuming 2 behind as of 2009 and the Vet's committee is GOING to elect someone by then. I think we're safe with 2, 3, 2, 3 schedule and possibly a make-up election in a "vote 2" year. If we get ahead of the HoF we drop to electing 2 until they catch up.

I could handle that.

Agreed. In fact, I almost think we should elect two extra to cover Rose and Jackson. We can't be directly comparable after 2008 without them.

Indeed. After the 2008 election, I would advocate that we hold a special election so that our number of electees exactly equals the HOF's without Rose and Jackson (so the HOF minus [HOM minus Rose/Jackson]). That's the only way we are directly comparable, as our mission suggests we should be.

Then we can decide from there what to do.

Some more Cecil Travis info for 'dzop:

"Travis entered the Army in the winter of 1941-42, and spent most of World War II in the States, playing on military baseball teams. Sent to Europe in late 1944 while serving in the 76th Infantry Division, he suffered a bad case of frostbite during the Battle of the Bulge, necessitating an operation to prevent amputation of his feet. Travis received a Bronze Star for his military service." - Wiki

Is there any statistical evidence (similar to Dobie Moore) of Travis' baseball play in the military?

There's no way we can match the exact Cooperstown inductee count every year and we certainly hit our goal of making the HOM the same size as the HOF within a percent or two. Arguing over the categorization of guys like Rose, JJackson, McGraw, Spalding, GWright, Griffith, etc and considering special elections to make the count match exactly is far too pedantic.

I vote stay the course and keep things at 3 a year. We need to keep inducting expansion era players at the same rate we inducted pre-expansion guys. Tightening up now just because Coop has tightened up re-creates the double standard that Coop has created. We should be able to do our policing to make sure that borderline expansion guys are treated as fairly as borderline pre-expansion guys. The inductions of Nettles, Randolph, Dawson, DwEvans, and Hernandez over the distant backlog shows we can be do this. As has been mentioned, its almost expected the Coop will "correct" itself at some point anyways after it notices the historical double standard. These corrections have happened before and are often the largest sources of their mistakes.

What DavidFoss said.

There are currently 56 in Murphy's HOF-not-HOM list, 55 if we drop McGraw.
There are currently 54 in Murphy's HOM-not-HOF list, 52 if we drop the two exiles.

So we are currently 3 behind in size. We all add one of those in 2007, with a good chance of adding 2 more in 2008. This will even out the sizes unless the BBWAA elects more than one this winter, or we elect McGraw.

Even if we thought it was a good idea, most likely there will be no need for a special election.

We all add one
typo
We will add one

I have been swamped the past week and haven't completed my analysis yet of Cone and Fernandez who look like potential ballot candidates under my system. They are not likely to get elected this year, and I should be able to post a finished ballot Monday, but just in case the unforeseen happens, this ballot is acceptable to me should I be unable to post one on the ballot thread Monday.

Ballot for 2007

Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

I am a peak/prime/career voter. Prime tends to dominate the ballot as Career has had an easier time of it in HOM elections, and short Peaks don't get too far in my system. Important parts of my peak and prime assessment are both the quantity and quality of a player's "All-Star" selections. These are the seasons where the player is able to make a positive contribution to a typical "playoff contender" (top 25% of participating teams). I use both WARP and Win Shares, though I emphasize the former because of its demonstrated overall yearly positional balance throughout baseball history.

I am reexamining my ballot carefully annually as we go deep into the backlog.

1) C. RIPKEN -- ! Prime 1982-96. Best player in 1983, WARP adds 1984 and 1991, candidate in 1984 and 1991 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1991; WARP adds 1988. Other star seasons include 1982, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996.

2) T. GWYNN -- More inconsistent prime than I remembered, moving above and below the WARP All-star line. Could lose the #2 slot. Also his huge 1997 WS season appears to be a park-effect overadjustment. Usually the two systems do not have anywhere near such a large difference of opinion: 39 WS vs 7.4 WARP1. Prime 1984-97. Best player by WS in 1997. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1984 and 1989; WS adds 1986 and 1997; WARP adds 1987 and 1989. Other star seasons include 1988, 1991, 1994, 1995. Honorable mention in 1985, 1992, 1993, 1998, 1999.

3) B. WALTERS -- Best of the backlog. Prime 1939-44. Best player in 1939; candidate in 1940 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1939, 1941, 1944; WS adds 1940. Other star seasons include 1936 and 1942.

4) B. SABERHAGEN -- Made my PHOM in 2005. High peak candidate, with a career too. Prime 1985-94. Best player candidate in 1989 by WARP. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1985, 1987, 1989; WS adds 1994. Other star seasons include 1988. Honorable mention in 1991.

5) M. MCGWIRE -- Definitely HOM-worthy; playing time issues prevent full leveraging of his batting rates into All-Star appearances. 1st team appearances is also low but that position is stacked during this era. Prime 1987-2000. Best player candidate in 1998 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (1B) in 1998. Other star seasons include 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999. HM in 1991 and 2000.

6) K. PUCKETT -- Made my PHOM in 2003. Prime 1985-1995. Best player candidate in 1988 and 1992 by WARP. 1st-team MLB All-Star (CF) in 1986 and 1988 by WS; 1992 by WARP. Other star seasons include 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994. HM in 1985, 1993, and 1995.

7) F. TANANA -- Made my PHOM in 2004. More good seasons than Gossage. Poster-child for pitcher abuse. Still has the peak and also has the career. Prime 1974-77. Best player candidate in 1976 and 1977 by WARP. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1976; WARP adds 1975, 1977. Other star seasons include 1974, 1984. Honorable mention in 1987.

8) K. SINGLETON -- Better peak than Bonds; not quite as much prime as Wynn. Prime 1973-81. Best player candidate 1977, WS adds 1979. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1975 and 1977. Other star seasons include 1973, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981; also 1976 in LF.

9) L. TIANT -- Nice blend of peak, prime, and career. Win Shares does not like him. Tended to alternate good years (even) and off years (odd). Prime 1966-1978. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1968, 1974; WS adds 1976. Other star seasons include 1972 and 1973. Honorable Mention in 1966 and 1978.

10) D. CONCEPCION -- His best 7 seasons are very close to Ozzie's best 7, though Ozzie is clearly superior in peak, shoulder seasons, and career value. Prime 1974-82. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) in 1974; WARP adds 1976 and 1979; WS adds 1978 and 1981. Other star seasons include 1982. HM in 1975 and 1977.

11) J. KAAT -- Belongs. 14 HOM "bats" were born 1893-1903 (Sisler, Heilmann, Ruth, Torriente, Charleston, Terry, Goslin, Suttles, Stearnes, Averill, Simmons, Waner, Bell, Gehrig); don't tell me that 10 pitchers born 1938-48 are too many.Prime 1961-1975. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1962; WS adds 1966. Other star seasons include 1974 and 1975. HM in 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971.

12) F. JONES -- Still an all-star player when he walked away. I still think he rates ahead of Ashburn, but it's close. Prime 1900-08. 1st-team MLB All-Star (CF) in 1908; WARP adds 1902 and 1907. Other star seasons include 1900, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906.

13) F. DUNLAP -- Great two-way player; bypassed for some reason. Amibidextrous, too. Reportedly could catch and throw equally well with either hand. Useful in this era before modern fielding gloves forced a player to choose one hand for each. Prime 1880-86. Best Player candidate 1880-81 (WARP). 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) in 1880, 1881; WARP adds 1882, 1883, and 1885. 1884 in the UA is hard to evaluate but may also be #1. Other star seasons include 1886.

14) D. DEAN -- High peak candidate. Prime 1932-36. Candidate for best player in MLB baseball, 1934. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) 1934, 1935, 1936; WARP adds 1932. Other star seasons include 1933.

15) B. BONDS -- Very nice prime; marginal on career. Those who go to extreme either way will miss him. Prime 1969-77. Best player candidate 1970 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1970; WARP adds 1971 and 1973. Other star seasons include 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978. HM in 1979.

16) P. TRAYNOR -- Back after another reevaluation. Prime 1923-33. 1st-team MLB All-Star (3B) in 1923, 1925, 1927, 1931; WS adds 1929, 1932, 1933. Other star seasons include 1926. HM in 1928 and 1930.

17) R. CEY -- Important component of the late 70's Dodgers. Prime 1973-1981. 1st-team MLB All-Star (3B) in 1978 by WARP. Other star seasons include 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1980, and 1981. HM in 1973 and 1977.

18) B. MAZEROSKI -- Prime 1957-66. 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) 1960 and 1964; WARP adds 1958. Other star seasons include 1962, 1963, 1966. HM in 1957, 1961, 1965.

19) D. BANCROFT -- Boost due to DanR's replacement level work. Prime 1916-22. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) 1920 and 1921; WS adds 1922. Other star seasons include 1916, 1917, 1918, 1925, 1926.

20) T. PEREZ -- Better 3B than expected. Important component of the Reds prior to the arrival of Joe Morgan. Prime 1967-1975. Best player candidate 1970 by Win Shares. 1st-team MLB All-Star (3B) in 1970; WS adds 1973 at 1B. Other star seasons include 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971 (3B), and 1972 at 1B. HM in 1974, 1975, 1977 (1B).

Just missing the cut are:
21-23) Frank Viola, Dick Redding, Don Mattingly,
24-26) Jim McCormick, Norm Cash, Rabbit Maranville,
27-29) Ron Guidry, Lance Parrish, Jim Whitney,
30-32) Mark Langston, Thurman Munson, Elston Howard,
33-35) George Foster, Albert Belle, Bobby Veach,
36-38) Vic Willis, Dizzy Trout, Brett Butler,
39-41) Bob Johnson, Urban Shocker, Herman Long,
42-44) George Burns, Dale Murphy, Ned Williamson,
45-47) Bob Elliott, Denny Lyons, Hugh Duffy,
48-50) Vida Blue, George VanHaltren, Silver King,

Both Reggie Smith and John McGraw have severe in-season playing time issues that prevent them from leveraging their high rates into the high impact seasons that score well in my system.

Re post 275, I have some numbers in post 54 if that helps

Chris Fluit also posted some numbers in post 34.

From 1987 to 2006 we elected 58 players, of which 42 became eligible since 1987 and 16 were backloggers who were already eligible in 1987. That suggests that moving to a 3-2-3-2 pattern of elections would cut the number of backloggers elected from about 8 per decade to about 3 or 4. Although I, like most voters, have a few favorite backloggers, I don't have a burning desire to see more backloggers elected. I think cutting back modestly on the number of electees so that backlog elections would become relatively rare (as they were from about 1934 to 1948) would be a positive step.

make that "...(as they were from about 1934 to 1958)"

WARP is back up - it does appear as if the pitchers are completely unchanged regarding DERA and NRA comparisons.

Either they backed out the changes, or as I guessed in post #232, the pitcher numbers being out of whack was one of the bugs that was fixed.

I checked against Jim Palmer, and his NRA's and DERA's are unchanged from the 'old' numbers.

Regarding size - I very strongly believe we stick to our schedule - no matter what the Hall of Fame does.

We were true to the Hall of Fame through 2003 when we started. That was the plan.

That the Hall of Fame as has gotten tougher to get into is not our problem or concern.

If anything, we need to show them that to keep pace with history, they should be inducting more players compared to their recent pace. We should not 'slow down' with them. Nor should we speed up if they get crazy and have another Frankie Frisch type run.

I've tried along the way on most things to go out of my way to give way to the group if an overwhelming majority thinks one way.

I was too passive by not requiring war credit - I think we could have done for those players what we did for Negro Leaguers if that would have been mandated.

That being said, I don't want to make the same mistake again - on this one I feel strongly enough that barring major unforeseen circumstances, we should plan on sticking to our schedule. I'm not really open to following the Hall of Fame going forward.

I do agree that we should add two inductees to cover for Rose/Jackson if we didn't.

Has someone added up exactly where we stood as of 2003, compared to the Hall of Fame? It probably wouldn't hurt to double check that the math was correct. I thought I accounted for Rose/Jackson in the initial schedule, maybe I didn't though.

I don't have the time to check both groups right now.

I'll be honest. If we just go to electing 3 every year regardless of what the Coop is doing, I'm not really going to be interested in the project anymore. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't participate still, but my heart wouldn't be in it nearly as much. Of course, I have been slowly burning out regarding the HoM for years now, anyway. Our time is relatively boring compared to the 19th century or NeL players.

I'm sorry you feel that way John, in terms of that causing you to lose interest. I hope my explanation in #291 helps to change your thinking on it.

As far as the burn out - I don't say it enough, but obviously, mere thanks aren't enough to cover it. You've been the glue that held this whole project together and I'm very glad you were willing to step up and do so much of the day-to-day work. This project would not have worked without your efforts.

The other thing - and if this wasn't clear in #291 - if we start electing like the Coop - our Hall loses it's meaning. All of the sudden we also get tougher for modern guys, which makes zero sense and is completely against our initial mission. We're no longer historically comparable.

It's perfectly logical to start by matching the totals - but note - we didn't match year by year. We purposely changed the schedule to be fair to all eras.

But once we did that, we can't adjust our schedule going forward, because we'll no longer be fair to all eras. Instead will be penalizing the modern guys, just like starting in 1935 likely would have penalized the 19th Century guys.

Regarding the 3-2-3-2 idea - We already cut back. The actual as calculated schedule should have 4 players every 4th season by now. We scaled that back to 3 and threw a few of those electees back to previous elections. I see no need for further cutbacks going forward.

I don't really think electing the occasional backlogger waters down our group any further. We've been electing the occasional backlogger throughout this project. There is no need to stop now that we've 'caught up'.

We were purposely designed as an inclusive Hall. Adding the occasional backlogger is the fun part of the project IMO. Everyone knows Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn were great players. The fun/hard part is honoring the guys on the edge.

Eric C - I love the Centennial Report idea, and appreciate your willingness to head it up. Great idea.

"So if the HOF decides to stop electing players for a few years we stop too?"

If we want to follow our original mission, yes.

I disagree that that was the original mission.

The mission was to match the Hall of Fame through 2003. Doing so would establish a standard. Going forward, we'd follow that standard.

That was the idea. I'm sure I've mentioned this before over the years, though I don't have time to search the archive for it.

I agree 110 % with #295. I think Joe said earlier, or maybe it was John, that the omission of great post-expansion players is every bit as egregious a problem with the HoF as the obviously terrible mistakes of the past. We've weighed in on the latter, we need to weigh in on the former as well.

Yeah, I'd think we'd continue to elect 3 - to fail to do so is to deliberately follow a dumb pattern.
As noted, we didn't follow the exact PACE of Hall of Fame totals, just the aggregate number.

I can see it both ways, but I think it's fine to have come to 2007 with a matching (or virtually matching) number, and then to pick a sensible elect-me number that allows us to keep representing all eras fairly as we go forward.
Remember, that too is a founding principle.

I have been convinced that the validity of the project is not tied with continuing on their pace but in getting to a point of equivalency and then going our oen way using that pont as our basis for future endeavours as opposed to contuining to follow them as our point for future endeavours.
Being that the case, after the 2008 elections (both ours and theirs), we should do a full count, and if, as it seems, we are off by a few (less than 5), I think we should run a final backlog clear election to make our numbers match.

And then - when 2009 rolls around the Hall of Merit is an independant institution.

I actually think we should change our voting system once we "catch up" from an "elect X" model to the actual Hall of Fame's model. I am convinced by the argument that we have established a standard and we should maintain it. If we stick with electing the same number of players every year, the flow of retirements will move our standard--if too few great players retire, we'll wind up lowering it, and if too many retire, we'll wind up raising it. By contrast, if we switched to the actual Hall's approach at this point--do X% of voters think this guy meets our standard? with no floor or ceiling for the number of electees--we'll be able to maintain this level ad infinitum.