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

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

2009 Ballot Discussion

2009 (November 3, 2008)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
535 178.1 1979 Rickey Henderson-LF
294 96.5 1988 Mark Grace-1B
245 92.0 1987 Jay Bell-SS
241 91.0 1987 Matt Williams-3B
251 63.5 1986 Andres Galarraga-1B*
189 87.3 1990 Kevin Appier-P*
206 63.4 1988 Ron Gant-LF
199 63.8 1990 Greg Vaughn-LF
200 59.8 1991 Mo Vaughn-1B
151 65.8 1991 Mike Bordick-SS
140 61.9 1982 Jesse Orosco-RP
129 49.8 1990 John Burkett-P
109 53.6 1991 Charles Nagy-P
113 50.7 1986 Dan Plesac-RP
115 46.0 1992 Denny Neagle-P
125 37.4 1991 Orlando Merced-RF/1B
038 15.4 1991 Kazuhiro Sasaki-RP

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:23 PM | 486 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 > 
   1. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:28 PM (#2635894)
When does the Hall of Fame mail the ballots? I assume we should have our 2009 election completed by that day.

Rickey plus two from the backlog.
   2. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:32 PM (#2635908)
Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath, Luis Tiant, Phil Rizzuto, Hugh Duffy, David Cone and Ken Singleton are the top eligible returnees. All were named on 15 or more ballots.
   3. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:40 PM (#2635929)
This may have been addressed dozens of times in the past, so forgive me: Are all future elections intended to be "elect 3"? If not, how do you decide how many are to be elected? Since the HOM has matched the HOF in number of inductees, why not keep that standard? Elect as many players each year as the HOF does.

Of course, you are conducting your future elections before the HOF does, so you can't be sure how many they will elect. I guess you could go with 3 as a default, and then adjust it based on how many the HOF actually elected the year before. If you elect 3 in 2009 and the HOF actually elects 5, then in 2010 you elect 5. If the HOF elects only 1 in 2010, then in 2011 you have an elect-1. Keep trying to track the total inductees as close as possible, even if your adjustments need to lag a year behind.
   4. DanG Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:44 PM (#2635935)
When does the Hall of Fame mail the ballots?

Late November, I believe. Around the time they publicly announce the ballot.

The proposed schedule in post #156 of the Once We Catch-Up thread has the results announced on November 10, 2008. If we do a runoff it will be a week or two later.
   5. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:46 PM (#2635937)
I'm strongly against a runoff - I think the system has worked fine for 111 years . . .
   6. mulder & scully Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:52 PM (#2635951)
To echo the chicken, will we adjust future ballots to keep HOF and HOM numbers consistent? Or just elect 3 each time? We have a little while to decide.

I'm generally against a runoff, but I do need to reread the thread to refresh the details.

Rickey would be an easy number 1 on my ballot. And by next November, I should have fully integrated DanR's WARP into my system.
   7. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 09:53 PM (#2635952)
We no longer care about matching the Hall of Fame.

If they aren't electing 3 per year at this point, they are changing the standard they've previously established - we aren't going to tighten up now because the current group has decided to be unfair to modern players.

We'll be electing 3 per year for the foreseeable future.
   8. Daryn Posted: December 05, 2007 at 10:15 PM (#2635986)
Why is Sasaki on the eligibles list?
   9. DanG Posted: December 05, 2007 at 10:22 PM (#2635995)
We'll be electing 3 per year for the foreseeable future.

Just one caveat to this. We have never averaged three newly-eligibles elected over any long span in history. Our maximum newly-eligibles elected in any 7-year period is 20 (three different spans in the 40s and 50s). For any 10-year period it's 28 (1946-55). For any 22-year period it's 60 (1932-53). Even a span as short as five years, there is only one time we have more than 3 per year (17 total 1932-36). In the past 22 years (1987-2008) the count stands at 47 elected who were newbies in that span.

So electing 3 per year means we will continue to mine the backlog/frontlog. IOW, we can still be "fair to modern players" at a rate slightly under 3 per year, if we want to stay somewhat close to the Hall's number.
   10. DanG Posted: December 05, 2007 at 10:23 PM (#2635999)
Why is Sasaki on the eligibles list?

See recent posts in the Japanses baseball thread.
   11. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 05, 2007 at 10:26 PM (#2636006)
Rickey plus two from the backlog.


No love for Jesse Orosco? How many other guys led the league in the same category stat for 6 consecutive years?
   12. KJOK Posted: December 05, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2636013)
Will Henderson be on the HOF ballot for 2009?
   13. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2636014)
I'm pretty confident that Sasaki is not going to rate anywhere near as well as Lee Smith. My ballot is going to be Rickey Henderson + 2008 returnees. It looks like Ben Taylor and Vic Willis will sneak onto the bottom because we actually elected 3 people off my ballot last year.

DanR's data is really favorable to Kevin Appier. He's probably my 2nd favorite new candidate.
   14. Juan V Posted: December 05, 2007 at 11:04 PM (#2636068)
Well, I guess that sticking to electing three per year keeps the HOMer percentage constant, right?
   15. mulder & scully Posted: December 06, 2007 at 12:00 AM (#2636133)
DL, what data from DanR do you have about pitchers? Is it based on his methodology comments or has he posted some spreadsheets?
Thanks.
   16. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 06, 2007 at 12:52 AM (#2636193)
I have *very preliminary* numbers for starting pitchers, mulder & scully, which I'd be happy to send you. I have not posted them publicly or spoken much about them yet because there are two big challenges I am still working out: doing my own defensive support adjustments, and figuring out how to account for changing career length norms over time.

For now, I'm dependent on BP's fielding adjustments, which I have begun to doubt in certain cases (in particular I think the fielders on teams like the 1904 Giants are getting credit that should be going to the pitchers). I have a *much* more sophisticated set of data from DRA, but the problem is that they are not yet park-adjusted, so they are really an adjustment for fielding plus a part of the park effect (effect on hits on balls in play) but not other parts (home runs, affect on things like runner advancement, etc.). So figuring out how to avoid double-counting parts of the park effect is a real challenge.

Then on the career length issue, I find that short-career deadball pitchers like Waddell and McGinnity get crunched by translating single season innings totals using IP leaders without making any adjustment for career length, while conversely, long careers like Tommy John's do a bit too well. Figuring out how to get around this conundrum without falling victim to making improper adjustments in response to mere star gluts and droughts has also been phenomenally difficult.

Nonetheless, let me know if you'd like to see them. My numbers show Appier has having a very nice 8-year prime, with 7 All-Star type seasons and two Cy Young type seasons, but not much outside of them. On career value he's no better than Dwight Gooden or Chuck Finley. And as I said, a short career in the 1990's is a bit different than a short career in the 1900's. I won't be voting for Appier, that's for sure. Appier, like Bridges, is a candidate that DL from MN will like more than I do because he uses pitching wins above *average* as part of his ranking system, whereas I do not. That makes him friendlier to lower-IP, higher-ERA+ candidates than I am.

Speaking of which, DL from MN, it might be worth mentioning that by using PWAA, you're actually comparing starting pitchers to an *above* average baseline, since of course the aggregate ERA for starters is higher than the aggregate ERA for relievers.
   17. DavidFoss Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2636202)
So electing 3 per year means we will continue to mine the backlog/frontlog. IOW, we can still be "fair to modern players" at a rate slightly under 3 per year, if we want to stay somewhat close to the Hall's number.

I thought we used league-size to scale the elect-me slots per year. We were scheduled to have our first elect-four year in 2011 if I'm not mistaken. Sticking with elect-threes is actually conservative. :-)

This has been discussed before, but I'll echo my opinion here. The HOF has ways of 'correcting itself' when it stays conservative for too long. I think we have to keep our schedule consistent and let them do the feasts and famines.
   18. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:05 AM (#2636209)
Wow, is this an instant replay or what? 2008 Rock +2. 2009 Rickey +2.

And I'm with John. Elect 3. If the HoF should continue to refuse to induct modern players that's their problem. We especially don't want to be beholden to their numbers if their numbers should happen to be zero.
   19. ronw Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2636219)
Rickey's voting for Rickey.
   20. OCF Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2636231)
On some previous thread, I posted my offensive numbers for "Rickey I" and "Rickey II," with the break between the two careers at the moment of the midseason trade that sent him from the Yankees back to the A's.

The way I aggregate the RCAA numbers I use, Rickey I is a pretty close offensive value match for Frank Howard or a war-credit-added version of Charlie Keller. Joe Medwick is another pretty good match. Others in the same value neigborhood include Goose Goslin and Zack Wheat, but they have lower peaks (and longer careers - at least, longer than Rickey I). Of course, Rickey may well have been the best defensive player of this bunch, and the only one with any significant time in CF. Certainly the defensive comparison to Howard ...

So on the whole, I think Rickey I would belong in the HoM, fairly easily.

Rickey II is a weaker candidate - a lower peak, despite the MVP season, a lot of scraggly stuff at the back end, evenentually coming down to drawing walks being about the only thing he could do. Still, Rickey II isn't a bad match for Darryl Strawberry, or Chuck Klein, or Albert Belle, or Rocky Colavito. He's got a peak advantage over Jose Cruz. Give some weight to that MVP year, and I even like him ahead of Bob Johnson. So it's not clear that Rickey II would belong in the HoM, but he's got a case that isn't that easily dismissed.

Of course, Rickey I + Rickey II, and considering the vote we just gave to Raines ... are we looking at unanimity? I've got him ahead of Sam Crawford and behind Frank Robinson. That's a pretty good neigborhood to be in. Hey, it might not even be that hard to persuade the BBWAA.
   21. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:29 AM (#2636244)
If they aren't electing 3 per year at this point, they are changing the standard they've previously established - we aren't going to tighten up now because the current group has decided to be unfair to modern players.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.
   22. DavidFoss Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2636259)
It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

You got the right idea, but the details are off. The number of electees per year is discussed here

Four in 1898; two each year from 1899-1905. After that . . .

1: 1906-11, 1913-14, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1923, 1931, 1961

2: 1912, 1915, 1917, 1919, 1921-22, 1924-30, 1932-57, 1959-60, 1962-71, 1973-79, 1981-84, 1986, 1988, 1992

3: 1958, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1989-91, 1993-2010, 2012-15, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2038, 2040

4: 2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036-37, 2039, 2041
   23. DavidFoss Posted: December 06, 2007 at 01:54 AM (#2636262)
So, three-a-years were rare until the 80s and weren't regular until 1993. Two-a-year was not regular until the 1920s.
   24. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 06, 2007 at 02:04 AM (#2636271)
I have Rickey comfortably in the inner circle, right ahead of Frank Robinson and behind Mel Ott.
   25. OCF Posted: December 06, 2007 at 02:34 AM (#2636298)
It's possible the difference between #20 and #24 is more the ranking of Robinson than that of Henderson. In numbers that don't mean anything by themselves, for me: Aaron 448, Ott 383, Robinson 356, Henderson 304, Reggie Jackson 263. And if Bonds had retired after the 1999 season, he'd be at 354.
   26. OCF Posted: December 06, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2636393)
Bill James invented the notion of "secondary average" in an article in one of his Abstracts in which he was primarily talking about Rickey Henderson. The numerator of this expression is 3*HR+2*3B+2B+BB+SB; that's secondary bases. For a day or two in 2003, Rickey Henderson was the all-time leader in career secondary bases, after he passed Babe Ruth and before he was overtaken by Barry Bonds. Bonds, Henderson, and Ruth are the only players with 5000 career secondary bases. There about about a half-dozen or so with 4000. (And, if I remember correctly, Joe Morgan has 3999.)
   27. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 06, 2007 at 10:26 AM (#2636531)
Rickey's voting for Rickey

Are players allowed to vote for themselves under the Constitution? How would anyone know?
   28. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 06, 2007 at 03:17 PM (#2636628)

Are players allowed to vote for themselves under the Constitution? How would anyone know?


2008 Ballut
1-Chuck Finley- won of games grat pichers from 90's
2-Tim Samon- shud have bin all-star
3-Troy Pircivel- big-time closer you cud count on
4-Mike Sosia- grat cacher for dogers in 80's
...
   29. Rusty Priske Posted: December 06, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2636804)
Prelim :)

PHoM: Rickey Henderson, Mark Grace, Hal Newhouser

A little surprised by Grace. I am going to look closer to see if / where I have overvalued him.

1. Rickey Handerson
2. Tommy Leach
3. Reggie Smith
4. Tony Perez
5. Mickey Welch
6. Lou Brock
7. George van Haltren
8. Hugh Duffy
9. Ken Singleton
10. Rusty Staub
11. Norm Cash
12. Bob Johnson
13. Vic Willis
14. Dale Murphy
15. Kirby Puckett

16-20. Redding, Bonds, Grace, Streeter, Monroe
21-25. Grimes, Mullane, Cepeda, Strong, Gleason
26-30. Greene, Robinson, Souell, John, Ware
   30. DL from MN Posted: December 06, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2636878)
"you're actually comparing starting pitchers to an *above* average baseline"

Even better
   31. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 06, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2637074)
At LF I have Bonds, Musial, and Williams ahead of Rickey.
   32. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2637075)
Rusty,

I vaguely remember an old NgL pitcher named Sam (?) Streeter...? And is it Ted (?) Strong? Was he a NgL pitcher, too? Then, who are Greene, Robinson, Souell and Ware?

And I'll give ya this. Mark Grace will be ahead of them on my ballot, too.
   33. DanG Posted: December 06, 2007 at 08:49 PM (#2637245)
And I'm with John. Elect 3. If the HoF should continue to refuse to induct modern players that's their problem. We especially don't want to be beholden to their numbers if their numbers should happen to be zero.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

OK, but this all misses my poorly-made point in #9. Electing 3 or 4 or 12 per year does nothing to ensure fairness to modern players. In practice, what it has meant in recent election is that we scoop more of the dregs of the backlog. In the past 14 elections we elected 10 players who hung around the ballot more than 25 years: Lundy, Oms, Browning, Bresnahan, Jones, Beckley, Roush, Fox, Keller and Trouppe.

Thus, the actual effect of electing three per year has been to be "fair" to the backlog. Are we doing this at the expense of the modern guys? Are we repeating the BBWAA errors of omission (on a lesser scale)?
   34. DanG Posted: December 06, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2637261)
I should have concluded by saying this.

If we used an alternating 3-2 election schedule, i.e., 2.5 per year, we would still be more than keeping up with all the deserving modern players, based on our recent election history and looking at the next four years of new candidates. We should probably elect 2 in 2009, 3 in 2010, 2 in 2011 and 3 in 2012.

As a side benefit, it keeps us more in line with the Hall's total, assuming no big dump-in by them.
   35. DanG Posted: December 06, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2637272)
Last 20 Years, Number of New Candidates From Each Year Who Are in the HoM

1989 - 4
1990 - 2
1991 - 2
1992 - 3
1993 - 3
1994 - 3
1995 - 2
1996 - 1
1997 - 1
1998 - 4
1999 - 4
2000 - 1
2001 - 2
2002 - 3
2003 - 2
2004 - 2
2005 - 2
2006 - 1
2007 - 3
2008 - 1
Total - 46
   36. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2637383)
Thus, the actual effect of electing three per year has been to be "fair" to the backlog. Are we doing this at the expense of the modern guys? Are we repeating the BBWAA errors of omission (on a lesser scale)?


I appreciate Dan's concern. But.

The fallacy in this is that it sort of presumes that the HoM project and the HoM will end/cease to exist as of 2009-2010-2011-2012-or some time in the more or less foreseeable future. It is possible, certainly, that as of 2012 we will have more HoMers from the '20s and/or '30s and/or '60s than from the '80s and/or '90s. And if that is the end of it, then we don't have balance.

But theoretically (and probably, I would agree, only theoretically) as the project continues into the more distant future, it is likely IMO that that balance would be redressed. Let's just say for the sake of argument that we elect the next tier of the backlog that Joe listed above

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath, Luis Tiant, Phil Rizzuto, Hugh Duffy, David Cone and Ken Singleton


• There's a couple 19C (though, I would note that both are from the '90s and there's nobody from the '70s or '80s),
• three dead-ball (one NgL),
• two from the Golden Age,
• one from the truly under-represented WWII and integration eras,
• two-and-a-half men from the early expansion era (Reggie2, Tiant and half of Singleton), and
• two-and-a-half men from the latter expansion era (Kirby, Cone and the other half of Singleton).

Now, it's true, I'd have to analyze the deeper backlog in order to really make my point stick. But even this distribution, while not closing the gap in raw numbers between, say, the 1890s and the 1990s, would as a percentage do that, and in raw numbers would begin to redress our over-enthusiasm for the Golden Age--i.e. 3 players from 1920-1950 versus 5 from 1965-1999--if only slightly.

Okay, on second thought, let's go further--into a second baker's dozen of backloggers, making a total of 26. No way would we elect all these guys, and even if we did, not before 2025. But just for the sake of argument, now we're talking about:

17 12 Tony Perez 182 11 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 19 Bus Clarkson 177 13 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
19 39 Dizzy Dean 172 11 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
20 31 Vic Willis 169 10 2 2 4 1 1
21 22 Tommy Bridges 161 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
22 23 Dave Concepción 157 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
23 28 Don Newcombe 150 14 2 3 1 2 2 3 1
24 24 Burleigh Grimes 150 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
25 18 George Van Haltren 147 9 1 1 1 4 1 1
26 33 Lou Brock 142 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
27 27 Mickey Welch 141 10 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
28 32 Dale Murphy 135 12 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
29 29 Rick Reuschel


Now we've got (including the first baker's dozen):

• Four 19C, three from the '90s and just one from before
• Four-and-a-half dead-ballers (one NgLer and half of Grimes)
• Four from the Golden Age, three of them from the under-represented category of pitchers BTW
• Three from the WWII and integration eras, one and a half of them from the under-represented post-NgL era/pre-full integration era for blacks
• Six from the early expansion era, including half of Reuschal (insert comment here)
• Four from the late expansion era, including the other 250 pounds of Reuschel

Now ten guys 1965-1999 versus four 1865-1899. Ten guys 1965-1999 versus eight guys 1920-1960.

So it's a start. And you all know that there would be violent arguments and civil disobedience and air strikes and the whole deal in opposition to the idea of electing more guys from the Golden Age. So we would theoretically be pushing toward balance, though even theoretically none of us would ever live to see the balance that we wanted. Only Frankie Frisch could live that dream.
   37. DanG Posted: December 06, 2007 at 10:26 PM (#2637406)
Well, look at the past 20 years. If we should somehow elect everyone you mention that debuted 1989-2008 (I count 8 guys) that still brings the total to 54, or 2.7 per year. This matches our historic maximum for any 20-year span (1934-53 and 1939-58).

So, we've still never averaged 3 per year from any long-term span and seem unlikely to do so for a very long time. Continuing to elect three per year will gradually lower the floor of the HoM.
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2007 at 11:09 PM (#2637455)
will gradually lower the floor of the HoM.


Well, at least we're doing it in a systematic way, one player at a time, rather than reaching down 50 slots and then trying not to fill in. If over the next 3-4-5 years we elect

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding,


I don't see how that lowers the floor beyond what you'd need a calipers to measure. Personally for me not a one of them actually lowers the floor, until we un-elect Ken Boyer, anyway,
   39. KJOK Posted: December 07, 2007 at 06:49 AM (#2637697)

Will Henderson be on the HOF ballot for 2009?


Decided to answer my own question:


From the Hall of Fame site:

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, John Burkett, David Cone, Mike Bordick, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Denny Neagle, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams
   40. Rusty Priske Posted: December 07, 2007 at 02:50 PM (#2637870)
I vaguely remember an old NgL pitcher named Sam (?) Streeter...? And is it Ted (?) Strong? Was he a NgL pitcher, too? Then, who are Greene, Robinson, Souell and Ware?


Sam Streeter - NgL pitcher from 1919 to 1936. He ended with a ~record of 117-75, 12th all-time.
Ted Strong - NgL player who appeared in the East-West All-Star Game at three different positions. He led the Kansas City Monarchs to four consecutive pennants (39-42). He also played for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Joe Greene - NgL All-star catcher from 39 to 47. He was a regular catcher for Satchel Paige for part of that time. He was also a decorated WWII vet.
Neil Robinson - NgL Outfielder from 38 to 48. He played in 8 all-star games, compiling a .476 batting average and an .810 slugging percentage, second only to Buck Leonard.
Herb 'Baldy' Souell - Longtime 3B for the Kansas City Monarchs. He played with Hilton Smith, Buck O'Neil, Ted Strong etc.
Archie Ware - Longtime 1B for the Cleveland Buckeyes along with Quincy Trouppe. Also played for Panama in the Carribean World Series.
   41. DL from MN Posted: December 07, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2637946)
I'd love to see a systematic accounting of approx how many Negro League players were as good as the equivalent MLB replacement level each year.
   42. DanG Posted: December 07, 2007 at 04:31 PM (#2637956)
I don't see how that lowers the floor beyond what you'd need a calipers to measure. Personally for me not a one of them actually lowers the floor, until we un-elect Ken Boyer, anyway,

Marc, your approach is based on the assumption that the HoM is rife with errors. That, over time, we'll gradually "get it right" as regards any particular era.

I prefer to think that, right now, we've elected the best 234 players to be had; that we're not rife with errors, that the right guys have been elected. That the worst players from this era are of the same quality as the worst players from any era. I think this is closer to the truth.

Right now we have 46 who debuted in the past 20 years, 2.3 per year. To raise that number, to continue to usher in backloggers, means lowering the floor of HoM quality of player. Are we sure that's the direction we should be going?
   43. DanG Posted: December 07, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2637961)
Now that we've approximated the HOF's number of members, are we sure that's the direction we should be going? Or is it better to aim to maintain our current minimum standard and try to elect only as many players in upcoming elections as meet that standard? Certainly, in the next four elections, three per year will continue to lower our standard.

I don't know if that's good/bad, right/wrong. I'm just sayin'.
   44. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2637978)
Certainly, in the next four elections, three per year will continue to lower our standard.

Since we have 11 months to discuss this, then I might ask what happened to all the new candidates? If we inducted two-a-year in the 40s and 50s, and now there are almost twice as many teams as there were then and yet now we 'only' induct three a year... well how come that isn't working out for us?

Is there a flukey glut of old guys still active in 2007 who'd been hanging on for milestones that will flood the ballot in five years? Are we underrating borderline 80s and 90s guys? I thought we had been inducting our share of post-expansion guys. Does the 'math' imply that we need to be inducting more? How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?
   45. rawagman Posted: December 07, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2637979)
Rusty - you seem to have a much higher opinion of those players than anyone. In fact, you seem to be the only member of the electorate who has any opinion of them at all? Give us more. Advocate for them. Try to make us have our own opinions, too. Seriously. You have all year to tackle it.
   46. DanG Posted: December 07, 2007 at 05:16 PM (#2638009)
How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?

Here's the whole chart, excerpted in #35, of HoMers coming on the ballot each year. The third column is 10-year total.

1898 15
1899 7
1900 2
1901 1
1902 3
1903 2 20 (1899-1908)
1904 1 15
1905 1 13
1906 0 14
1907 2 12
1908 1 11 (1904-1913)
1909 2 13
1910 0 14
1911 2 17
1912 1 17
1913 1 16
1914 3 15
1915 2 17
1916 3 17
1917 2 19
1918 0 22 (1914-1923)
1919 1 19
1920 2 18
1921 2 16
1922 3 15
1923 4 16
1924 0 15
1925 1 13
1926 1 11
1927 1 11
1928 1 10 (1924-1933)
1929 0 17
1930 0 17
1931 0 19
1932 3 19
1933 3 18
1934 7 21
1935 1 24
1936 3 27
1937 1 25
1938 0 27
1939 3 23
1940 3 22
1941 3 23
1942 1 25
1943 5 28 (1939-1948)
1944 3 27
1945 0 27
1946 4 25
1947 3 27
1948 3 27
1949 2 26
1950 3 28 (1946-1955)
1951 1 26
1952 3 27
1953 5 26
1954 2 26
1955 2 24
1956 2 24
1957 4 24
1958 2 20
1959 2 20
1960 1 20
1961 1 19
1962 3 15
1963 1 14 (1959-1968)
1964 2 15
1965 2 17
1966 1 18
1967 0 17
1968 1 17
1969 3 17
1970 3 17
1971 2 16
1972 2 18
1973 1 19
1974 2 17
1975 2 17
1976 0 17
1977 2 19
1978 2 22 (1974-1983)
1979 1 20
1980 3 18
1981 2 19
1982 4 17
1983 4 16
1984 0 19
1985 0 18
1986 1 18
1987 0 17
1988 1 16
1989 4 19
1990 2 21
1991 2 21
1992 3 22
1993 3 25
1994 3 25
1995 2 24
1996 1 24
1997 1 24
1998 4 23
1999 4 22
2000 1 22
2001 2 22
2002 3 24
2003 2 21 (1999-2008)
2004 2
2005 2
2006 1
2007 3
2008 1
   47. Howie Menckel Posted: December 07, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2638016)
or to look at it another way:
2008

HOMers per year, minimum 10 G per player to qualify, or equivalent
(NeL in parentheses refers to any non-MLB-credited seasons for non-white players)

1850s - 0/0/0/0/0/0/1/1/1/1.......................................... avg 0.4
1860s - 2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8...........................................avg 3.5
1870s - 9/10/12/12/13/13/13/12/13/17............................ avg 12.4
1880s - 18/20/22/22/24/25/26/25/27/27...........................avg 23.6 (with 0.4 NeL)
1890s - 31/33/32/29/24/25/24/23/23/24...........................avg 26.8 (with 1.5 NeL)
1900s - 23/27/27/25/27/28/27/28/29/29...........................avg 27.0 (with 3.5 NeL)
1910s - 30/29/28/31/30/30/34/28/26/28...........................avg 29.4 (with 7.4 NeL)
1920s - 30/33/37/39/44/47/50/49/49/46...........................avg 42.4 (with 16.2 NeL)
1930s - 44/46/47/45/42/41/41/42/39/41...........................avg 42.8 (with 14.6 NeL)
1940s - 44/43/39/28/20/22/34/34/34/28...........................avg 32.6 (with 9.4 NeL)
1950s - 28/29/26/28/29/33/34/31/31/32...........................avg 30.1
1960s - 32/33/34/35/35/35/35/35/37/38.......................... avg 35.0
1970s - 40/39/42/42/43/43/42/41/39/38...........................avg 41.1
1980s - 40/41/43/41/40/38/38/34/31/27...........................avg 37.2


I'll be refining this over the course of the year; probably you'll see moves of a tenth here and a tenth there..
   48. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2007 at 05:33 PM (#2638035)
What were the details of the 'number of inductees per year' calculation? I saw that it roughly tracked the number of MLB teams (with perhaps a five-year lag), but I am unfamiliar with how it was calculated exactly.

Was there an intention to deliberately create a backlog that catches up near the end? That would be the scenario that would imply that we slow down a bit. Certainly a 19th century backlog was around for a while.
   49. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2638062)
Thanks for the histograms, guys.

Howie, do you have a list of HOM-ers who lost time due to war? Some guys are easy (DiMaggio, Mize, Reese, Williams), but I suppose it can get complicated with the very young (Spahn) or the very old (Lyons). Even more complicated, there's also odd cases like debateably late starts (Kiner?, JRobinson?) and even possibly who got career extended by the war (I think Foxx wasn't in the service in 1943 and likely would have stayed retired if not for the war). I guess I like the list as is, but I'm wondering if there is some other number that could be parenthetically listed.
   50. DL from MN Posted: December 07, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2638102)
I think treating the Negro Leagues as a de-facto expansion explains our numbers. We treated the leagues as expanded in the 20s and 30s and shrunk them in the 40s and 50s. Our numbers have gone up with subsequent MLB expansions, and the 1980s aren't done yet.
   51. Patrick W Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2638136)
464 players were worthy enough to gather at least 1/6 of a 15th place vote on our collective ballots throughout the project. Which means that over half of all players to receive a vote were elected to the HOM. That seems stunning to me, although maybe it shouldn't.

Legend
Bal  
Highest Ranked 15 players not elected to HOM (i.ethe "all-time" consensus ballot)
Rk   Average Score Rank 
TRk  
Total Score Rank 
Year 
First Year Eligible
Player  
Name of Player
Average 
Average Score (Pctof Max Ballot Support Received)
Count   Noof Ballots Player appears on
Total   
Total Score (AvgScore x NoEligible Years)

<
u>Bal Rk   TRk   Year   Player   Average Count Total</u>
  
1   162   1917   C.Young   100.0%   1   100.0
  2   163   1923   H
.Wagner  100.0%   1   100.0
  3   164   1933   W
.Johnson 100.0%   1   100.0
  4   165   1942   B
.Ruth 100.0%   1   100.0
  5   166   1944   L
.Gehrig  100.0%   1   100.0
  6   167   1947   L
.Grove   100.0%   1   100.0
  7   168   1957   J
.DiMaggio   100.0%   1   100.0
  8   169   1966   T
.Williams   100.0%   1   100.0
  9   170   1969   S
.Musial  100.0%   1   100.0
 10   171   1974   M
.Mantle  100.0%   1   100.0
 11   172   1979   W
.Mays 100.0%   1   100.0
 12   173   1982   H
.Aaron   100.0%   1   100.0
 13   174   1995   M
.Schmidt 100.0%   1   100.0
 14   175   2005   W
.Boggs   100.0%   1   100.0
 15   176   2007   C
.Ripken Jr.  99.8%   1 99.8
 16   177   1902   D
.Brouthers   99.7%   1 99.7
 17   178   1951   J
.Foxx  99.5%   1 99.5
 18   179   1971   W
.Spahn 99.5%   1 99.5
 19   180   1992   T
.Seaver   99.4%   1 99.4
 20   181   1936   P
.Alexander   99.4%   1 99.4
 21   182   1952   J
.Gibson   99.4%   1 99.4
 22   183   1990   J
.Morgan   99.4%   1 99.4
 23   185   1934   T
.Cobb  99.3%   1 99.3
 24   186   1991   R
.Carew 99.2%   1 99.2
 25   187   1999   G
.Brett 99.2%   1 99.2
 26   188   1943   O
.Charleston  99.2%   1 99.2
 27   189   1911   K
.Nichols  98.9%   1 98.9
 28   190   1922   N
.Lajoie   98.8%   1 98.8
 29   191   1981   B
.Gibson   98.7%   1 98.7
 30   192   1954   A
.Vaughan  98.4%   1 98.4
 31   193   1909   E
.Delahanty   98.4%   1 98.4
 32   194   1989   J
.Bench 98.3%   1 98.3
 33   196   1963   R
.Campanella  98.3%   1 98.3
 34   197   1948   C
.Gehringer   97.9%   1 97.9
 35   198   1962   B
.Feller   97.9%   1 97.9
 36   200   2008   T
.Raines   97.7%   1 97.7
 37   201   2003   E
.Murray   97.5%   1 97.5
 38   202   1998   G
.Carter   97.2%   1 97.2
 39   203   1946   T
.Stearnes 96.9%   1 96.9
 40   204   1959   S
.Paige 96.6%   1 96.6
 41   205   1922   C
.Mathewson   96.5%   1 96.5
 42   206   1986   W
.McCovey  96.3%   1 96.3
 43   207   1942   R
.Hornsby  95.8%   1 95.8
 44   208   1982   F
.Robinson 95.8%   1 95.8
 45   209   1915   G
.Davis 95.7%   1 95.7
 46   210   1949   C
.Hubbell  95.7%   1 95.7
 47   211   1974   E
.Mathews  95.4%   1 95.4
 48   212   1952   M
.Ott   95.3%   1 95.3
 49   213   1950   P
.Waner 95.3%   1 95.3
 50   214   1989   C
.Yastrzemski 95.1%   1 95.1
 51   215   1959   J
.Mize  94.8%   1 94.8
 52   216   2007   T
.Gwynn 94.7%   1 94.7
 53   217   1977   E
.Banks 94.7%   1 94.7
 54   218   1972   R
.Roberts  94.7%   1 94.7
 55   219   1970   D
.Snider   94.6%   1 94.6
 56   220   1969   Y
.Berra 94.5%   1 94.5
 57   221   2001   D
.Winfield 94.4%   1 94.4
 58   222   1898   D
.White 94.4%   1 94.4
 59   223   2004   P
.Molitor  94.4%   1 94.4
 60   224   1898   P
.Hines 94.0%   1 94.0
 61   225   1962   J
.Robinson 94.0%   1 94.0
 62   226   1899   J
.O'Rourke 94.0%   1 94.0
 63   227   1946   A.Simmons  93.7%   1 93.7
 64   228   1998   B.Blyleven 93.4%   1 93.4
 65   229   1903   R.Connor   93.2%   1 93.2
 66   230   1978   R.Clemente 93.1%   1 93.1
 67   231   1947   G.Hartnett 92.1%   1 92.1
 68   232   1932   L.Santop   92.0%   1 92.0
 69   233   1980   A.Kaline   91.9%   1 91.9
 70   234   1993   S.Carlton  91.9%   1 91.9
 71   235   1956   L.Appling  91.7%   1 91.7
 72   238   1999   R.Yount 90.7%   1 90.7
 73   239   1999   C.Fisk  90.5%   1 90.5
 74   118   1993   P.Niekro   90.3%   2   180.7
 75   241   2003   R.Sandberg 90.3%   1 90.3
 76   243   1955   B.Leonard  90.3%   1 90.3
 77   244   1900   J.Clarkson 90.0%   1 90.0
 78   246   1993   R.Jackson  89.7%   1 89.7
 79   247   1990   J.Palmer   89.5%   1 89.5
 80   119   1934   E.Collins  89.4%   2   178.7
 81   120   1923   S.Crawford 89.3%   2   178.6
 82   248   1907   B.Hamilton 89.1%   1 89.1
 83   249   1953   H.Greenberg   89.1%   1 89.1
 84   250   1915   B.Dahlen   88.9%   1 88.9
 85   254   1943   M.Cochrane 88.3%   1 88.3
 86   255   1980   R.Santo 87.7%   1 87.7
 87   256   1981   H.Killebrew   87.7%   1 87.7
 88   260   1989   G.Perry 86.2%   1 86.2
 89   261   2002   A.Trammell 86.0%   1 86.0
 90   262   2007   M.McGwire  85.9%   1 85.9
 91   125   1911   J.Burkett  85.4%   2   170.8
 92   263   1903   C.Anson 85.2%   1 85.2
 93   264   1917   F.Clarke   85.2%   1 85.2
 94   265   2002   O.Smith 84.9%   1 84.9
 95   126   1999   N.Ryan  84.8%   2   169.6
 96   127   1934   P.Lloyd 84.3%   2   168.7
 97   266   1988   W.Stargell 84.3%   1 84.3
 98   267   1899   K.Kelly 84.0%   1 84.0
 99   269   1955   R.Brown 83.5%   1 83.5
   100   270   1950   M.Dihigo   82.9%   1 82.9 
   52. Patrick W Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2638138)
<u>Bal Rk   TRk   Year   Player   Average Count Total</u>
   
101   271   1928   F.Baker 82.6%   1 82.6
   102   129   1952   B
.Dickey   82.4%   2   164.7
   103   273   1934   T
.Speaker  82.0%   1 82.0
   104   274   1994   T
.Simmons  81.5%   1 81.5
   105   130   1950   J
.Cronin   81.5%   2   163.0
   106   131   1943   F
.Frisch   81.5%   2   162.9
   107 97   1934   J
.Williams(II)81.3%   3   244.0
   108   132   1936   H
.Heilmann 80.1%   2   160.2
   109   275   1940   J
.Rogan 79.9%   1 79.9
   110   276   1898   G
.Gore  79.5%   1 79.5
   111   277   1973   W
.Ford  79.1%   1 79.1
   112   133   1992   P
.Rose  78.6%   2   157.3
   113   278   1960   H
.Newhouser   78.6%   1 78.6
   114   279   2001   L
.Whitaker 77.5%   1 77.5
   115   280   2004   D
.Eckersley   77.0%   1 77.0
   116   281   1933   Z
.Wheat 76.9%   1 76.9
   117   136   1923   E
.Plank 75.8%   2   151.5
   118   283   2006   W
.Clark 75.5%   1 75.5
   119   284   1978   H
.Wilhelm  75.5%   1 75.5
   120   137   1953   W
.Wells 75.0%   2   149.9
   121   138   1989   F
.Jenkins  74.9%   2   149.8
   122   285   2000   R
.Gossage  74.7%   1 74.7
   123   286   1902   B
.Ewing 74.7%   1 74.7
   124   287   1920   E
.Walsh 74.5%   1 74.5
   125   140   1944   G
.Goslin   73.7%   2   147.4
   126   288   1900   J
.Ward  73.5%   1 73.5
   127 80   1901   J
.Glasscock   73.2%   4   292.7
   128   103   1899   T
.Keefe 70.7%   3   212.0
   129 83   1934   C
.Torriente   70.5%   4   282.1
   130   292   1964   P
.Reese 69.8%   1 69.8
   131   293   1904   A
.Rusie 69.8%   1 69.8
   132   294   1983   D
.Allen 68.9%   1 68.9
   133   295   1898   R
.Barnes   68.4%   1 68.4
   134 87   1898   G
.Wright   68.4%   4   273.5
   135   296   1980   J
.Marichal 68.3%   1 68.3
   136   144   1947   J
.Wilson   68.0%   2   136.0
   137   146   1983   B
.Robinson 65.6%   2   131.1
   138   298   1992   B
.Grich 65.2%   1 65.2
   139 50   1905   B
.McPhee   64.9%   9   584.2
   140   111   1916   E
.Flick 63.5%   3   190.4
   141 94   1916   W
.Keeler   62.9%   4   251.7
   142 55   1898   C
.Radbourn 62.9%   8   503.1
   143   300   1965   L
.Doby  62.1%   1 62.1
   144   147   1948   T
.Lyons 61.7%   2   123.4
   145   301   1965   E
.Slaughter   60.7%   1 60.7
   146 72   1914   J
.Kelley   60.4%   6   362.2
   147   303   1927   P
.Hill  60.0%   1 60.0
   148   150   1982   B
.Williams 59.6%   2   119.3
   149 41   1898   E
.Sutton   58.9%  11   647.9
   150 42   1946   M
.Suttles  58.0%  11   638.4
   151 28   1898   J
.Start 57.5%  15   862.9
   152   124   1943   W
.Foster   57.2%   3   171.5
   153 99   1922   M
.Brown 57.1%   4   228.3
   154 62   1914   J
.Collins  56.4%   8   451.0
   155 63   1898   H
.Richardson  56.3%   8   450.2
   156   154   1925   S
.Magee 55.6%   2   111.1
   157   155   1983   J
.Torre 55.3%   2   110.7
   158 86   1921   G
.Johnson  55.0%   5   275.0
   159   305   1975   D
.Drysdale 54.9%   1 54.9
   160   306   1972   S
.Koufax   54.3%   1 54.3
   161   157   1926   J
.Jackson  54.3%   2   108.6
   162 22   1899   H
.Stovey   53.9%  18   970.3
   163 58   1898   A
.Spalding 53.4%   9   480.4
   164 39   1898   P
.Galvin   51.7%  13   672.6
   165   159   1962   M
.Irvin 51.4%   2   102.9
   166 54   1920   B
.Wallace  50.8%  10   507.8
   167   160   1942   D
.Vance 50.5%   2   101.0
   168   311   1996   K
.Hernandez   49.8%   1 49.8
   169 35   1914   J
.McGinnity   49.1%  15   736.0
   170   313   1994   D
.Sutton   49.0%   1 49.0
   171 17   1899   C
.Bennett  48.9%  23  1124.8
   172 30   1898   C
.McVey 47.7%  17   811.5
   173   314   1939   R
.Faber 46.3%   1 46.3
   174 85   1933   H
.Groh  46.3%   6   277.7
   175 51   1919   J
.Sheckard 46.1%  12   553.6
   176 29   1940   J
.Beckwith 45.5%  18   818.6
   177 88   1953   B
.Herman   45.0%   6   269.8
   178   245   1969   E
.Wynn  44.9%   2 89.9
   179   315   1942   B
.Terry 44.9%   1 44.9
   180   252   1957   L
.Boudreau 44.2%   2 88.5
   181   101   1934   S
.Coveleski   43.7%   5   218.4
   182   318   1995   Da
.Evans   43.6%   1 43.6
   183   319   1997   Dw
.Evans   42.6%   1 42.6
   184 16   1902   S
.Thompson 41.2%  28  1152.6
   185 36   1909   F
.Grant 40.7%  18   732.2
   186   320   1968   R
.Ashburn  38.1%   1 38.1
   187   321   1977   J
.Bunning  37.7%   1 37.7
   188   117   1935   M
.Carey 36.2%   5   181.0
   189   141   1964   B
.Lemon 36.0%   4   144.0
   190 56   1954   J
.Medwick  35.3%  14   494.9
   191   105   1953   S
.Hack  34.8%   6   208.7
   192   143   1982   B
.Freehan  34.1%   4   136.3
   193 60   1953   R
.Ruffing  33.5%  14   469.5
   194 21   1899   B
.Caruthers   31.4%  32  1006.2
   195 26   1939   E
.Rixey 30.1%  30   902.4
   196 45   1944   W
.Ferrell  29.1%  21   610.5
   197 32   1949   B
.Mackey   28.3%  27   764.9
   198 14   1898   L
.Pike  27.7%  43  1192.5
   199 65   1946   E
.Averill  27.6%  16   442.3
   200 57   1970   M
.Minoso   27.4%  18   493.3
   201  9   1908   H
.Jennings 27.4%  53  1451.7
   202 15   1936   G
.Sisler   26.4%  44  1159.6
   203 93   1923   R
.Foster   25.5%  10   255.1
   204 73   1983   J
.Wynn  25.4%  14   355.5
   205  7   1912   C
.Griffith 25.2%  60  1513.9
   206  3   1913   J
.Beckley  25.0%  86  2149.0
   207   195   1998   W
.Randolph 24.6%   4 98.3
   208 67   1975   K
.Boyer 24.0%  17   407.9
   209 61   1958   W
.Brown 23.9%  19   453.8
   210 43   1961   R
.Kiner 23.5%  27   635.2
   211 66   1970   B
.Pierce   23.2%  18   417.3
   212 49   1948   C
.P.Bell   23.0%  26   597.2
   213   237   2005   B
.Saberhagen  22.7%   4 90.7
   214   100   1991   R
.Fingers  22.5%  10   225.5
 1 215  2   1909   G
.VanHaltren  22.4100  2244.4
 2 216  1   1907   H
.Duffy 22.4102  2281.1
   217 19   1939   J
.Sewell   22.3%  47  1047.3
   218 48   1971   N
.Fox   22.2%  27   599.4
   219   259   2002   A
.Dawson   21.7%   4 86.7
   220   158   1998   D
.Stieb 21.6%   5   108.2
   221 37   1898   D
.Pearce   21.4%  34   726.6
   222  8   1916   R
.Waddell  20.6%  71  1460.9
   223 75   1957   B
.Doerr 20.5%  16   328.2
 3 224 10   1937   D
.Redding  19.9%  72  1435.1
   225  4   1899   P
.Browning 19.7107  2102.8
 4 226   135   2001   K
.Puckett  19.5%   8   156.0
   227 68   1956   J
.Gordon   19.3%  21   405.2
   228 20   1932   J
.Méndez   19.0%  54  1026.8
   229  5   1907   C
.Childs   19.0%  82  1556.9
 5 230 77   1992   T
.Perez 18.4%  17   313.6
 6 231 25   1954   B
.Walters  16.5%  55   907.5
   232 46   1958   Q
.Trouppe  15.9%  38   603.4
   233 23   1937   E
.Roush 15.9%  61   967.3
 7 234   330   2007   D
.Cone  15.1%   2 30.2
   235 27   1932   D
.Moore 14.9%  58   894.1
   236 13   1921   R
.Bresnahan   14.7%  84  1230.7
 8 237 12   1921   T
.Leach 14.1%  88  1238.0
 9 238  6   1898   M
.Welch 13.9111  1548.3
   239   121   1994   G
.Nettles  13.7%  13   177.6
   240 53   1957   C
.Keller   12.7%  40   509.8
10 241 34   1951   B
.Johnson  12.7%  58   738.1
   242 11   1898   C
.Jones 12.5106  1321.5
11 243 95   1988   R
.Smith 11.9%  21   250.4
12 244 96   1988   L
.Tiant 11.7%  21   245.0
13 245 24   1926   G
.Cravath  11.3%  83   935.2
14 246 33   1940   B
.Grimes   11.0%  69   758.0
15 247 18   1909   J
.Ryan  10.9%  96  1092.9
   248   328   2006   A
.Belle 10.7%   3 32.2
   249   108   1990   K
.Singleton   10.5%  19   199.1
   250 38   1940   A
.Oms   10.3%  51   688.1
   251   116   1991   R
.Staub 10.1%  18   181.8
   252 98   1985   L
.Brock  9.9%  24   238.4
   253 84   1980   N
.Cash   9.6%  29   278.0
   254 31   1926   L
.Doyle  9.5%  83   791.8
   255 89   1980   O
.Cepeda 9.3%  29   269.3
   256   236   1999   D
.Murphy 9.1%  10 91.2
   257   145   1994   D
.Concepción   9.0%  15   134.9
   258   113   1987   B
.Bonds  8.6%  22   189.1
   259 69   1959   B
.Elliott   8.1%  50   402.5
   260 52   1937   W
.Schang 7.7%  72   552.0
   261   161   1995   T
.John   7.2%  14   100.5
   262 44   1920   B
.Monroe 7.1%  89   629.1
   263 64   1946   D
.Dean   7.1%  63   445.0
   264 76   1962   P
.Rizzuto   6.7%  47   315.0
   265 40   1909   J
.McGraw 6.5100   653.7
   266 71   1949   T
.Bridges   6.3%  60   376.0
   267   104   1974   E
.Howard 6.0%  35   209.9
   268   324   2003   L
.Smith  5.9%   6 35.2
   269 47   1898   E
.Williamson   5.4109   600.5
   270   297   1996   R
.Reuschel  5.1%  13 66.6
   271 59   1916   V
.Willis 5.1%  93   473.2
   272 74   1934   B
.Taylor 4.6%  75   346.0
   273   184   1987   S
.Bando  4.5%  22 99.3
   274   316   1999   F
.Tanana 4.4%  10 43.9
   275 82   1942   P
.Traynor   4.2%  68   285.3
   276 70   1916   A
.Joss   4.1%  90   384.1
   277   109   1961   V
.Stephens  4.1%  48   194.5
   278   329   2001   D
.Mattingly 4.0%   8 31.9
   279 81   1935   C
.Mays   3.9%  74   290.2
   280 90   1940   S
.Rice   3.8%  69   260.0
   281   123   1962   B
.Clarkson  3.7%  39   174.8
   282   251   1985   T
.Munson 3.7%  24 88.7
   283   312   1995   B
.Bell   3.5%  14 49.3
   284   333   2001   L
.Parrish   3.5%   8 27.9
   285   106   1949   C
.Klein  3.4%  60   204.3
   286 79   1917   F
.Chance 3.3%  83   305.6
   287   122   1953   E
.Lombardi  3.1%  56   176.1
   288 92   1926   E
.Cicotte   3.1%  83   255.4
   289   242   1979   F
.Howard 3.0%  30 90.3
   290   115   1943   D
.Lundy  2.8%  35   184.9
   291 78   1898   J
.McCormick 2.8%  52   310.0
   292 91   1905   M
.Tiernan   2.5%  33   258.5
   293   322   1994   B
.Sutter 2.4%  15 36.7
   294   112   1931   B
.Veach  2.4%  72   190.1
   295   114   1931   G
.Burns  2.4%  68   188.6
   296   299   1982   T
.Oliva  2.4%  27 64.1
   297   149   1958   D
.Trout  2.4%  51   120.4
   298   377   2006   D
.Gooden 2.3%   3  7.0
   299   327   1995   J
.Rice   2.3%  14 32.2
   300   102   1914   F
.Jones  2.3%  92   218.0 
   53. Patrick W Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2638139)
<u>Bal Rk   TRk   Year   Player   Average Count Total</u>
   
301   323   1993   R.Cey 2.3%  15 36.2
   302   317   1989   J
.Kaat   2.2%  20 43.7
   303   134   1936   D
.Bancroft  2.2%  47   157.2
   304   346   1998   J
.Clark  2.1%  11 22.8
   305   302   1979   L
.Aparicio  2.0%  30 60.6
   306   258   1966   D
.Newcombe  2.0%  28 86.7
   307   107   1900   T
.Mullane   1.9%  85   202.9
   308   139   1929   S
.Poles  1.9%  35   148.6
   309   153   1948   L
.Gomez  1.8%  59   111.5
   310   142   1931   H
.Hooper 1.8%  20   142.3
   311   148   1939   R
.Maranville   1.7%  56   122.3
   312   110   1898   F
.Dunlap 1.7%  97   190.9
   313   272   1959   D
.Leonard   1.6%  45 82.1
   314   282   1962   A
.Rosen  1.6%  38 76.8
   315   128   1904   M
.Griffin   1.6%  29   165.3
   316   151   1933   U
.Shocker   1.6%  46   119.2
   317   152   1932   W
.Cooper 1.5%  65   115.8
   318   351   1997   D
.Parker 1.5%  12 17.8
   319   416   2008   C
.Finley 1.4%   1  1.4
   320   291   1959   L
.Easter 1.4%  30 70.4
   321   357   1998   B
.Downing   1.3%  11 14.3
   322   344   1989   G
.Tenace 1.2%  17 23.8
   323   405   2007   J
.Canseco   1.2%   2  2.4
   324   156   1913   L
.Cross  1.1%  33   109.9
   325   347   1989   B
.Campaneris   1.1%   6 21.9
   326   290   1940   H
.Wilson 1.0%  66 71.2
   327   310   1960   J
.Pesky  1.0%  26 50.0
   328   240   1909   H
.Long   0.9%  52 90.4
   329   199   1898   T
.Bond   0.9%  72 97.9
   330   411   2007   H
.Baines 0.9%   1  1.7
   331   308   1948   L
.Matlock   0.9%  29 52.8
   332   304   1939   J
.Quinn  0.8%  35 58.1
   333   253   1898   J
.Whitney   0.8%  31 88.4
   334   257   1898   T
.O'Neill   0.8%  21 87.6
   335   376   2000   J.Morris 0.8%   9  7.0
   336   289   1916   S.Leever 0.8%  78 71.3
   337   268   1898   H.Wright 0.8%  29 83.6
   338   326   1963   A.Wilson 0.7%  34 33.5
   339   307   1927   E.Konetchy  0.7%  20 54.3
   340   342   1969   G.Hodges 0.6%  17 24.3
   341   349   1978   B.Mazeroski 0.6%  18 18.7
   342   369   1991   A.Oliver 0.6%  13 10.3
   343   339   1964   V.Trucks 0.6%  32 25.3
   344   334   1958   D.DiMaggio  0.5%  28 27.8
   345   384   2000   C.Hough  0.5%   8  4.8
   346   372   1993   B.Madlock   0.5%  14  8.3
   347   348   1965   M.Vernon 0.5%  29 21.3
   348   364   1984   J.Fregosi   0.5%  17 11.8
   349   331   1945   T.Lazzeri   0.5%  27 29.7
   350   404   2003   B.Butler 0.5%   4  2.7
   351   309   1898   T.York   0.5%  39 50.1
   352   433   2007   T.Fernandez 0.4%   1  0.9
   353   336   1944   K.Cuyler 0.4%  18 26.5
   354   338   1946   W.Berger 0.4%  24 25.4
   355   335   1940   D.Luque  0.4%  25 27.6
   356   421   2006   O.Hershiser 0.4%   2  1.2
   357   437   2007   P.O'
Neill   0.4%   1  0.8
   358   355   1968   R
.Schoendienst 0.4%  13 15.5
   359   325   1917   S
.White  0.4%  23 34.1
   360   345   1942   B
.Arlett 0.3%  21 22.9
   361   352   1959   B
.Newsom 0.3%  11 16.2
   362   340   1928   D
.Bush   0.3%  23 25.2
   363   361   1963   G
.Kell   0.3%  22 13.9
   364   332   1898   L
.Meyerle   0.3%  31 28.3
   365   337   1904   J
.Clements  0.2%   9 26.0
   366   353   1933   R
.Schalk 0.2%  12 15.7
   367   350   1930   D
.Pratt  0.2%  10 18.5
   368   341   1904   B
.Nash   0.2%  17 24.6
   369   391   1981   V
.Pinson 0.2%   6  3.9
   370   343   1903   S
.King   0.2%  24 24.2
   371   375   1961   T
.Vargas 0.2%   6  7.1
   372   378   1972   B
.Friend 0.2%   8  7.0
   373   371   1953   C
.Travis 0.2%  10  8.3
   374   432   2004   D
.Martinez  0.2%   2  0.9
   375   359   1921   J
.Tinker 0.2%  17 14.1
   376   401   1993   S
.Garvey 0.2%   5  2.9
   377   363   1929   B
.Petway 0.2%   7 12.2
   378   354   1905   B
.Fowler 0.2%   5 15.7
   379   356   1910   D
.Farrell   0.2%  12 14.4
   380   396   1988   S
.Lyle   0.2%   3  3.3
   381   358   1901   B
.Hutchison 0.1%  14 14.2
   382   360   1901   D
.Foutz  0.1%   8 14.0
   383   365   1912   D
.McGuire   0.1%   5 11.7
   384   370   1932   R
.Youngs 0.1%  11  8.8
   385   367   1922   C
.Morán  0.1%  10 11.2
   386   397   1973   C
.Simmons   0.1%   5  3.2
   387   362   1898   B
.Mathews   0.1%  16 12.6
   388   408   1992   T
.Harrah 0.1%   3  2.1
   389   379   1945   H
.Manush 0.1%   9  6.3
   390   462   1994   J
.Cruz   0.1%   1  0.5
   391   366   1898   D
.Orr 0.1%   7 11.2
   392   368   1903   D
.Lyons  0.1%  10 10.6
   393   428   1988   B
.Murcer 0.1%   2  1.1
   394   373   1933   J
.Fournier  0.1%   8  7.9
   395   374   1917   R
.Thomas 0.1%   8  7.7
   396   458   1992   G
.Foster 0.1%   1  0.5
   397   422   1982   W
.Davis  0.1%   1  1.2
   398   392   1947   B
.Myer   0.1%   6  3.7
   399   394   1949   L
.Warneke   0.1%   4  3.5
   400   461   2002   T
.Wallach   0.1%   1  0.5
   401   387   1930   J
.Donaldson 0.1%   4  4.5
   402   381   1916   C
.Seymour   0.1%   7  5.4
   403   412   1972   H
.Kuenn  0.1%   3  1.6
   404   385   1923   J
.Evers  0.1%   6  4.8
   405   382   1916   D
.Phillippe 0.1%   7  5.2
   406   398   1944   W
.Hoyt   0.1%   4  3.2
   407   431   1992   C
.Cedeno 0.1%   2  1.0
   408   386   1918   J
.Williams (I0.1%   7  4.6
   409   403   1949   D
.Bartell   0.1%   5  2.8
   410   383   1909   C
.Zimmer 0.1%   3  4.9
   411   380   1907   E
.Smith  0.1%   7  5.5
   412   442   1996   F
.Lynn   0.1%   1  0.7
   413   407   1954   H
.Smith  0.0%   4  2.1
   414   388   1898   A
.Dalrymple 0.0%   1  4.5
   415   389   1901   A
.Latham 0.0%   1  4.3
   416   390   1902   G
.Stovey 0.0%   3  4.2
   417   400   1930   J
.Daubert   0.0%   5  3.0
   418   399   1926   R
.Chapman   0.0%   5  3.0
   419   419   1965   M
.Dickson   0.0%   2  1.3
   420   393   1904   B
.Joyce  0.0%   3  3.6
   421   409   1943   J
.Johnson   0.0%   2  2.0
   422   460   1996   D
.Quisenberry  0.0%   1  0.5
   423   414   1953   B
.Byrd   0.0%   3  1.6
   424   395   1898   J
.Creighton 0.0%   3  3.5
   425   402   1917   H
.Davis  0.0%   4  2.8
   426   429   1961   J
.Sain   0.0%   2  1.1
   427   406   1905   J
.Stivetts  0.0%   2  2.4
   428   415   1935   B
.DeMoss 0.0%   1  1.5
   429   424   1950   G
.Scales 0.0%   2  1.1
   430   450   1974   L
.Jackson   0.0%   1  0.6
   431   426   1951   B
.Estalella 0.0%   2  1.1
   432   417   1936   O
.Marcelle  0.0%   2  1.4
   433   410   1908   D
.Hoy 0.0%   1  2.0
   434   427   1946   N
.Allen  0.0%   1  1.1
   435   413   1905   E
.McKean 0.0%   1  1.6
   436   438   1951   H
.Clift  0.0%   1  0.8
   437   425   1927   H
.Vaughn 0.0%   2  1.1
   438   420   1915   J
.Chesbro   0.0%   1  1.3
   439   423   1916   G
.Beaumont  0.0%   2  1.2
   440   444   1956   T
.Henrich   0.0%   1  0.6
   441   454   1959   B
.Wright 0.0%   1  0.5
   442   418   1899   H
.Larkin 0.0%   1  1.3
   443   453   1958   S
.Jethroe   0.0%   1  0.5
   444   457   1953   M
.Harder 0.0%   1  0.5
   445   439   1934   J
.Thomas 0.0%   1  0.7
   446   430   1907   N
.Cuppy  0.0%   1  1.0
   447   456   1951   P
.Derringer 0.0%   1  0.5
   448   436   1912   N
.Hahn   0.0%   1  0.8
   449   434   1898   H
.Nichol 0.0%   1  0.9
   450   435   1898   J
.Clapp  0.0%   1  0.9
   451   441   1913   K
.Gleason   0.0%   1  0.7
   452   443   1914   J
.Tannehill 0.0%   1  0.7
   453   459   1938   E
.Rommel 0.0%   1  0.5
   454   440   1901   O
.Burns  0.0%   1  0.7
   455   452   1918   J
.Powell 0.0%   1  0.6
   456   447   1912   K
.Selbach   0.0%   1  0.6
   457   451   1917   T
.Hartsel   0.0%   1  0.6
   458   448   1906   G
Weyhing  0.0%   1  0.6
   459   446   1903   P
.Werden 0.0%   1  0.6
   460   445   1902   T
.McCarthy  0.0%   1  0.6
   461   449   1898   B
.Sunday 0.0%   1  0.6
   462   455   1898   C
.Buffinton 0.0%   1  0.5
   463   463   1899   C
.Welch  0.0%   1  0.4
   464   464   1898   C
.Cummings  0.0%   1  0.1 
   54. Patrick W Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2638142)
All that time formatting in notepad goes for 'naught. oh well.
   55. Patrick W Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:10 PM (#2638148)
Congrats to M.Welch, the only player to receive a vote in every election. E.Williamson missed out due to lack of votes in '52-'53. C.Jones had the ill-fortune of getting elected.
   56. sunnyday2 Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:28 PM (#2638166)
It is surprising that half of the players who have gotten votes have been elected. It seems that we're more splintered than that on the backlog but of course there in consistency in the backlog over time if not within the year.

Is Dick Redding the highest rated backlogger now by this measure? Did I miss a name higher up?
   57. sunnyday2 Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:30 PM (#2638169)
Oh, and Oms is the lowest rated HoMer?
   58. DL from MN Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:40 PM (#2638185)
Van Haltren and Duffy are the top 2 non-HoM in the chart, Redding is 3rd. The lowest elected HoM is Dick Lundy. I think everyone above 1% is in my consideration set.
   59. Howie Menckel Posted: December 07, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2638203)
non-segregated player averages per year, per decade:

1850s - 0.4
1860s - 3.5
1870s - 12.4
1880s - 23.2
1890s - 25.3
1900s - 23.5
1910s - 22.0
1920s - 26.2
1930s - 28.2
1940s - 23.2
1950s - 30.1
1960s - 35.0
1970s - 41.1
1980s - 37.2

You could probably add in close to a full point in the 1910s for WW I, up to say 22.8.
And if you add oh, 3.5 for WW II in the 1940s, that bumps it to 26.7.

At that point, the sense of Negro Leaguers as "3rd major league" really comes into focus - whether people wanted us to vote that way or not, it's what happened.
Or so it seems.
   60. DL from MN Posted: December 07, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2638215)
I don't want to see anymore ballot comments about the "underrepresented 1890s".
   61. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2007 at 08:55 PM (#2638280)
I don't want to see anymore ballot comments about the "underrepresented 1890s".

Still a little bit of a dip from 1894-1900 but nothing I'd worry about -- especially considering the single league and syndicate issues.

1890-92 was always very high as there was a large overlap between older 70s-80s-AA stars and youngsters of the next generation. It was the sharp drop after 1892 that people perceived as a problem fifty-odd discussions ago. The inductions of Jennings, Griffith, Childs (anyone else 'recently'?) fixed whatever people were complaining about in my opinion.
   62. Chris Cobb Posted: December 07, 2007 at 10:44 PM (#2638404)
At that point, the sense of Negro Leaguers as "3rd major league" really comes into focus - whether people wanted us to vote that way or not, it's what happened.

For my own accounting purposes, I counted the development of black baseball as expanding the majors to 18 teams during the 1910s and to 20 teams from 1920 on. My sense was that we should have roughly even numbers of HoMers per decade from 1920 through 1969, with the next rise coming with the expansion to 24 teams. I'm comfortable with some trough in the aftermath of WWII, but I think we've taken a few too many from the 1920-42 and a few too few from 1946 to 1969.

The problem is, it's hard to pick out the top players whose dominance is diminished by improved competition.

I'm coming round on Newcombe's case (and I can see the case for Elston Howard, although I haven't bought it yet), but who are the other top candidates from this era that have been overlooked? Are there any candidates for the missing players besides the African-Americans whose careers were disrupted by the Korean War and by the halting pace of integration? Or are they the entirety of "the lost generation"?

Our numbers for the 1950s are low, but the bottom HoMers from that decade are already among the apparently weakest players ever inducted: Nellie Fox, Billy Pierce, Bob Lemon, Minnie Minoso, and, leading into the 1960s, Ken Boyer.

I have not seen a competition argument attempted, much less made plausible, that would justify looking at the players below the Minoso/Lemon/Pierce/Fox level as serious candidates during the 1950s: these, I guess, are players like Schoendienst, Hodges, Vernon. Who else? I guess Rizzuto would cover the 1940s and the early 1950s, and Pesky would also fill in the late 1940s. Jim Fregosi for the 1960s? Jim Kaat?

These are serious, not rhetorical questions. I think it is probable that we have underrepresented this era, but I am at a loss to advocate for players who have been overlooked.

(Tangential point, but I think Howie's excellent decade-by-decade averages smooth out the most egregious spike in our selections. The ten year average 1924-33 is 46.7.)
   63. Chris Cobb Posted: December 07, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2638410)
P.S. I didn't mean to imply that Rizzuto and Pesky are in the same category as Schoendienst and Hodges. Both the 1940s stars are obviously much better, quite serious candidates. My concern is that we have to go outside the current serious candidates to find enough players to fill in the 1950s hole. Maybe that means it shouldn't be filled, or maybe it means we are not contextualizing the 1950s numbers correctly yet.
   64. DL from MN Posted: December 07, 2007 at 11:16 PM (#2638432)
Bob Elliott is another name I can come up with for the 40s. Bus Clarkson is a possibility. Tiant fills in some of the 60s. Norm Cash is in my PHoM.
   65. Howie Menckel Posted: December 07, 2007 at 11:54 PM (#2638451)
Yes, Chris, I nearly pointed out 1924-33 myself, but figured it might just jump out at a glance without even a need to highlight it.

Part of it is just that amazing Cobb-Speaker-Collins-etc crew that just wouldn't quit til the late 1920s.

Meanwhile, 1934-42 is being matched by 1970-77.
1980-84 also is off to a booming start, with a couple of candidates not even eligible yet.

Bob Elliott!! The man who keeps me out of the top consensus slot some years with my mid-ballot vote for him...
   66. sunnyday2 Posted: December 08, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2638488)
Not meant to be a thoughtful list, just a list, for the '50s.

Gil Hodges
Eddie Yost
Al Dark
Al Rosen
Gil McDougald

Red Schoendienst
Bobby Avila
Jackie Jensen
Ted Kluszewki
Gene Woodling

OK these are the top 10 from Bill James WS list for the decade. Not a great way to construct a consideration set.

1960s

Norm Cash
Frank Howard
Vada Pinson
Orlando Cepeda
Maury Wills

Johnny Callison
Curt Flood
Felipe Alou
Bob Allison
Jim Fregosi

These lists of course suffer from selective endpoints. But among these lists I would suggest the following as under-rateds, worth another look.

Hodges--9 consecutive 20 WS seasons
Yost--the walkin' man, I thought we loved the BB around here
Rosen--nice little peak
Avila--hey, look at those non-ML seasons! And there's that 5 year peak and the MVP-worthy year in '54
Schoendienst--well, he is in the HoF but I like Avila better

Cepeda, F. Howard, Cash
Pinson
Fregosi

But of course it's really the '50s that are under-represented. E. Howard and Newk are the Big Two, of course, Clarkson rings some people's chimes. But in addition, why not Yost and Avila?
   67. jimd Posted: December 08, 2007 at 12:41 AM (#2638489)
I think it is probable that we have underrepresented this era [the '50's], but I am at a loss to advocate for players who have been overlooked.

Using Win Shares this effect might be estimated by examining what would happen if two expansion teams had been added. If one assumes they would win 65G each (80% of average), then the other teams would have their win totals inflated by about 5% each (from 81W to 85W). Note that this 5% "expansion bonus" is separate from the 5% bonus 50's players should already be receiving for schedule length adjustment (from 154G to 162G) when comparing to post 1960 players. This makes 300 WS in the 50's equivalent to 331 WS in the 60's.

Dan R. could possibly explore what effects the 60's expansion had on replacement levels and extrapolate those effects back to the 50's in his system.
   68. jimd Posted: December 08, 2007 at 12:43 AM (#2638491)
This makes 300 WS in the 50's equivalent to 331 WS in the 60's.

Those 300 WS are unadjusted straight-from-the-book WS.
   69. Rusty Priske Posted: December 08, 2007 at 08:15 AM (#2638745)
Rusty - you seem to have a much higher opinion of those players than anyone. In fact, you seem to be the only member of the electorate who has any opinion of them at all? Give us more. Advocate for them. Try to make us have our own opinions, too. Seriously. You have all year to tackle it.


I know what you are saying, but keep in mind that I am NOT stumping for their election. There are a bunch of guys I have ranked ahead of them. In fact, all those names were taken from my 16-30 group, meaning that while I like them, they are not making my ballot.

Now if you wanted to join in to a "Elect GVH" campaign, I'm all for that.
   70. sunnyday2 Posted: December 08, 2007 at 02:21 PM (#2638813)
Marc, your approach is based on the assumption that the HoM is rife with errors. That, over time, we'll gradually "get it right" as regards any particular era.


DanG, well, of course, in terms of consensus we have elected "the best" 234 players. The 235th player--well, the 236th after Rickey--will be as a matter of consensus a guy whom we have previously rejected in favor of #234, #233, etc. etc.

Though one certainly could argue otherwise in the case of Dick Lundy--I mean, that he is NOT the 233rd best player at all but more likely one of the top 200, maybe top 150, but that we had missed him the first time through. And there will be some other players like him. If the consensus comes to believe that Don Newcombe deserves NgL, MiL and mil credit, all of them, for example, and if he were elected,then he would probably by the time thereof NOT be viewed as the weakest choice.

But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. As a matter of consensus, yes, each new choice out of the backlog will be "weaker" than the one before it.

But I would bet that every one of us has 10-15-20 players rated ahead of our lowest rated HoMer. In my case, that would be Ken Boyer maybe. So there's another way to look at consensus. There is a consensus, IOW, that says that there are better players out there than the ones we've already elected. It just doesn't agree as to who it is.

And there's yet another perspective and that is that even as a matter of consensus, and even if indeed we lower the standard each time we pick another backlogger, I think the consensus will be that we are lowering the standard only infinitesimally each time and so, as a practical matter, it would be hair-splitting to say that it was lowered at all.
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: December 08, 2007 at 02:26 PM (#2638815)
And Dan, your own numbers suggest that maybe we should look "around" 1908, 1928 and 1963 for some more candidates whom we might have overlooked. Howie's number suggest that we may have overlooked some players from the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

To say as much is not quite to say that we are "rife with errors." That would be too strong. But have we fairly evaluated every single player? Probably not.
   72. DanG Posted: December 08, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2638983)
To say as much is not quite to say that we are "rife with errors." That would be too strong. But have we fairly evaluated every single player? Probably not.

Ah. You fought through the hyperbole.
   73. Patrick W Posted: December 09, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2639440)
I have uploaded my Hall of Merit Election History spreadsheet to the Yahoo! Group Files. I think it's a handy file for looking back, and maybe a helpful tool for looking ahead.

For instance, in the 111 years we've been doing this, only 12 times - involving only 4 individuals - have players received a score of 40% or greater and NOT eventually been elected to the HOM. I would like to take some time over the next year to examine Duffy, VanHaltren, Williamson and Ryan and make sure we are satisfied as a group with our collective change of heart on their worthiness.

For your reference, use or ignore as you please. Email me if you have any questions, comments, corrections or concerns. Thanks,
   74. sunnyday2 Posted: December 09, 2007 at 07:16 PM (#2639461)
Of course these 4 got their 40 percent waaaaay back in the day when there wasn't much of a backlog. I don't know if that really represents a "change of heart." I also wonder when 40 percent for 1890s guys became 30 percent became 20 percent, etc. IOW there's probably some guy with 30 percent from the 1920s or 20 percent from the 1950s who hasn't been elected who we should also be thinking about. Do you have that data handy? 30 percenters and 20 percenters not elected and when they got their highest pcts?
   75. Patrick W Posted: December 09, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2639474)
The raw data is in there for everybody, so this information could easily be attained. However, it would involve some time compiling so I'm not gonna volunteer.

483 times, we gave somebody 40% or more points - roughly 4.5 per election. Just to pick a year at random, in 1962 there were 3 players who received over 40%, 3 additional players over 30%, and 6 more over 20%. Had to draw the line somewhere Marc...

Look at just about any election year, and the names that pop out are Redding, Duffy and VH - the highest vote-getters who are unhighlighted, yet surrounded by other highlighted players (i.e. future electees).
   76. DanG Posted: December 09, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2639475)
I don't know if that really represents a "change of heart."

NO, I think "change of heart" is close, maybe "reconclusion" or "downward assessment" would be better. Not so much on the fact their current pct is lower, but on the fact they've been passed by, in some cases, more than 20 players, many of whom were rated as lesser players for decades.
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: December 09, 2007 at 07:48 PM (#2639489)
I ssupect many/most of us do not recall how to access the yahoo files...
   78. Patrick W Posted: December 09, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2639538)
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/HallofMerit/

Link to Yahoo! Groups HallofMerit
   79. Juan V Posted: December 09, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2639544)
2009 (November 3, 2008)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
535 178.1 1979 Rickey Henderson-LF
294 96.5 1988 Mark Grace-1B
245 92.0 1987 Jay Bell-SS
241 91.0 1987 Matt Williams-3B
251 63.5 1986 Andres Galarraga-1B*
189 87.3 1990 Kevin Appier-P*
206 63.4 1988 Ron Gant-LF
199 63.8 1990 Greg Vaughn-LF
200 59.8 1991 Mo Vaughn-1B
151 65.8 1991 Mike Bordick-SS
140 61.9 1982 Jesse Orosco-RP
129 49.8 1990 John Burkett-P
109 53.6 1991 Charles Nagy-P
113 50.7 1986 Dan Plesac-RP
115 46.0 1992 Denny Neagle-P
125 37.4 1991 Orlando Merced-RF/1B
038 15.4 1991 Kazuhiro Sasaki-RP


and Mike Crudale
   80. dan b Posted: December 10, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2639745)
Patrick - Nice work on the HoM History spreadsheet. Thanks.
   81. Brent Posted: December 10, 2007 at 05:48 AM (#2639788)
I compared my top 100 with Patrick's list and found 16 players who've never received an HoM vote. Here they are, grouped by decade:

1900s – Julián Castillo, Johnny Kling
1910s
1920s – George Uhle, Nip Winters
1930s
1940s
1950s – Johnny Antonelli (Korean Ward credit), Bobby Avila (Mex Lg credit), Jim Gilliam (Negro Lg & minor lg credit)
1960s – Rocky Colavito, Maury Wills
1970s – Vida Blue, Catfish Hunter, Mike Marshall, Amos Otis, Roy White, Wilbur Wood
1980s – Pedro Guerrero
1990s

These are all pretty good players. I was most surprised to see Avila on the list--he's been discussed a lot here but apparently never actually made it to anyone's ballot.
   82. DL from MN Posted: December 10, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2639968)
Funny that Jimmy Ryan and Hugh Duffy had a ton of votes and Colavito didn't get any, I see them as about the same value.
   83. DavidFoss Posted: December 10, 2007 at 05:33 PM (#2640091)
Patrick - Nice work on the HoM History spreadsheet. Thanks.

Indeed. Not just your ordinary HOM History spreadsheet. That's got everything!
   84. Chris Fluit Posted: December 11, 2007 at 02:45 AM (#2640884)
As always, this chart is open to criticisms of selective endpoints and over-simplification. But it seemed pertinent to the current discussion:

By Decade:

1860s - 1 (Pearce) (SS)

1870s – 9 (Anson, Barnes, McVey, Pike, Spalding, Start, Sutton, White, Wright) (P, C, 1B-2, 2B, 3B-2, SS, CF)

1880s – 19 (Bennett, Brouthers, Browning, Caruthers, Clarkson, Connor, Ewing, Galvin, Glasscock, Gore, Hines, C Jones, Keefe, Kelly, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Richardson, Stovey, Ward) (P-5, C-2, 1B-2, 2B, SS-2, LF-3, CF-3, RF)
{Candidates –Welch, Williamson}

1890s - 17 (Beckley, Burkett, Childs, Dahlen, Davis, Delahanty, Grant, Griffith, Hamilton, Jennings, Keeler, Kelley, McPhee, Nichols, Rusie, Thompson, Young) (P-4, 1B, 2B-3, SS-3, LF-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates –Duffy, Van Haltren, McGraw}

1900s - 18 (Bresnahan, M Brown, Clarke, J Collins, Crawford, Flick, R Foster, Hill, G Johnson, Lajoie, Mathewson, McGinnity, Plank, Sheckard, Waddell, Wagner, Wallace, Walsh) (P-6, C, 2B, 3B, SS-3, LF-2, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates – Leach, Willis, Joss, Monroe}

1910s - 17 (Alexander, Baker, Carey, Cobb, E Collins, Groh, J Jackson, W Johnson, Lloyd, Magee, Mendez, Roush, Santop, Speaker, Torriente, Wheat, Williams) (P-4, C, 2B, 3B-2, SS, LF-2, CF-5, RF)
{Candidates –Redding, Cravath, Doyle, Taylor}

1920s - 20 (Beckwith, Charleston, Coveleski, Faber, W Foster, Frisch, Goslin, Heilmann, Hornsby, Lundy, Mackey, Moore, Oms, Rixey, Rogan, Ruth, Sewell, Sisler, Vance, Wilson) (P-6, C, 1B, 2B-2, 3B-2, SS-3, LF, CF-2, RF-2)
{Candidates – Grimes, Mays, Bancroft, Schang, Traynor}

1930s - 29 (Averill, Bell, R Brown, Cochrane, Cronin, Dickey, Dihigo, Ferrell, Foxx, Gehrig, Gehringer, J Gibson, Greenberg, Grove, Hartnett, Herman, Hubbell, Lyons, Medwick, Ott, Paige, Ruffing, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Terry, Vaughan, Waner, Wells) (P-8, C-4, 1B-5, 2B-2, SS-3, LF-2, CF-3, RF-2)
{Candidates – B Johnson, Dean, Bridges, Klein}

1940s – 18 (Appling, Boudreau, W Brown, DiMaggio, Doerr, Feller, Gordon, Hack, Irvin, Keller, Leonard, Mize, Musial, Newhouser, Reese, Slaughter, Trouppe, TWilliams) (P-2, C, 1B-2, 2B-2, 3B, SS-3, LF-3, CF-3, RF)
{Candidates – Walters, Rizzuto, Clarkson, Elliott, Stephens}.

1950s – 18 (Ashburn, Banks, Berra, Campanella, Doby, Ford, Fox, Kiner, Lemon, Mantle, Mathews, Minoso, Pierce, Roberts, J Robinson, Snider, Spahn, E Wynn) (P-6, C-2, 2B-2, 3B, SS, LF-2, CF-4)
{Candidates- Newcombe}

1960s – 21 (Aaron, Allen, Boyer, Bunning, Clemente, Drysdale, Freehan, B Gibson, Kaline, Killebrew, Koufax, Marichal, Mays, McCovey, B Robinson, F Robinson, Santo, Torre, Wilhelm, B Williams, Yastrzemski) (P-5, RP, C-2, 1B-3, 3B-3, LF-2, CF, RF-4)
{Candidates – Brock, Cash, Cepeda, E Howard, F Howard}

1970s – 23 (Bench, Blyleven, Carew, Carlton, Da Evans, Fingers, Fisk, Grich, RJackson, Jenkins, Morgan, Nettles, Niekro, Palmer, Perry, Rose, Ryan, Seaver, Schmidt, Simmons, Stargell, Sutton, J Wynn) (P-9, RP, C-3, 1B-2, 2B-3, 3B-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates- RSmith, Perez, Tiant, Singleton, Concepcion, John, Staub, Reuschel, Bonds, Tanana, Bando}

1980s- 21 (Boggs, Brett, Carter, Dawson, Eckersley, Dw Evans, Gossage, Hernandez, Molitor, Murray, Raines, Randolph, Ripken, Saberhagen, Sandberg, O Smith, Stieb, Trammell, Whitaker, Winfield, Yount) (P-2, RP-2, C, 1B-2, 2B-3, 3B-3, SS-4, LF, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates- Puckett, Murphy, L. Smith, Mattingly)

1990s- 3 (W Clark, Gwynn, McGwire) (1B-2, RF)
{Candidates- Cone, Belle}
   85. Chris Fluit Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:20 AM (#2640912)
From DavidFoss' earlier post:
Is there a flukey glut of old guys still active in 2007 who'd been hanging on for milestones that will flood the ballot in five years?


Yes- Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Glavine, there is a surplus of players playing well into their forties. There's also a bunch of guys in their late thirties who could retire at any time like Schilling, Smoltz and Mussina.

Also, there is a strong group of new candidates coming up in 2010 and beyond. The 2009 election will be Rickey and a pair of backloggers. But in 2010, '11 and '12, we have Alomar, Larkin, McGriff, Martinez, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Brown, Walker and Bernie Williams (though not all of them are shoo-ins). And 2013 could be looking at Clemens, Biggio and Bonds (though it's possible Clemens or Bonds could be back next year). It's entirely possible that we won't elect any backlog players for a while after 2009 even with 3-a-year elections.


Are we underrating borderline 80s and 90s guys? I thought we had been inducting our share of post-expansion guys. Does the 'math' imply that we need to be inducting more? How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?


We are inducting more post-expansion than pre-expansion players. Ignoring the '30s glut, we elected roughly 17-18 players per decade pre-expansion. Post-expansion, we've been averaging 22 (21 in the '60s, 23 in the '70s, and Rickey will be #22 for the '80s). So we have increased our numbers of inductees per decade by about 4.5. I don't know if 4.5 is the right number for the increase. I do believe that there should be an increase as there are more players. At the same time, I also believe that we shouldn't simply double the number of players just because the league doubled the number of teams. Whether 4.5 is too high or too low, I'll leave to others to argue.

However, we will be going up pretty drastically from 22 for the 1990s. Here's a preliminary '90s list: 23 (Alomar, Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, K Brown, W Clark, Clemens, Glavine, Griffey, Gwynn, R Johnson, Larkin, Maddux, P Martinez, McGwire, Mussina, Palmeiro, Piazza, I Rodriguez, Sheffield, Smoltz, Sosa, Thomas) (P-8, C-2, 1B-2 /1B-5, 2B-2, SS, LF, CF, RF/ RF-3). So the '90s will pass by the '60s-80s without any difficulty. Then you add any number of these guys: Cone, Belle, McGriff, E Martinez, Ventura, Walker, Olerud, B Williams. So the '90s are looking at a minimum of 23, but more likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.

Personally, I don't think that's too many.

But I do mention it because I think it has some bearing on the discussion about the number of electees.

If we reduce the number of electees from 30 per decade to 25 per decade, we're basically saying that we're closing the door on the backlog. Oh, some backlogger may sneak in here or there based on the timing of new eligible players. But for all intents and purposes, we would be done with them. Looking further ahead, we're looking at about 25 players for the decade of the '00s as well.

The way I see it, there are three scenarios:

One, continue with the current schedule: three inductees per year. That gives us 30 inductees per decade. This would have the advantage of insuring an open door for modern players, and we could expect about 25 new players to be inducted per decade. This would also leave some room for backlog inductions, at approximately 5 per decade (of voting, not of history).

Two, reduce the current schedule: alternating two and three inductees per year. That gives us 25 inductees per decade. This would have the advantage of ostensibly being as fair to modern players as to earlier players. But it could also insure that new candidates go through a rigorous competition against each other for induction. We would still be able to elect about 25 new players per decade if we so chose. However, this scenario would theoretically close the door to the backlog.

Three, reduce the current schedule while remaining responsive to Hall of Fame inductions:
Here's what I'm thinking. We reduce the current schedule to alternating elections with two or three inductees. However, we keep the option open of expanding elect-two years back to elect-three years if the Hall of Fame elects candidates from their backlog.

Here's what the 2/3 scenario would look like:
2009: 3
2010: 2
2011: 3
2012: 2
2013: 3
2014: 2
2015: 3
2016: 2
2017: 3
2018: 2

Hypothetically, that would be:
2009: Henderson (+ 2 backlog)
2010: Alomar, Larkin
2011: Palmeiro, Bagwell, Brown
2012: (2 of McGriff, Martinez, Walker and Williams)
2013: Biggio (+ active players who might retire like Clemens and Bonds, or holdovers from 2012 frontloggers)

But what if the Hall of Fame actually elects some players? What if Goose Gossage goes in this year (as I think he will)? What if Santo finally gets the VC nod in 2009? We've already elected those guys. What if Jim Rice finally makes it in on the writers vote? Or Gil Hodges? We could have flexibility built in. Basically, whenever the HoF elects a player from their backlog, we shift the next elect-2 ballot to an elect-3. If they go whole hog and elect 5 players at once, we don't have to follow suit in an identical fashion. Rather, we shift the next 5 elect-2 ballots to elect-3.

Here are some hypothetical situations:

2008: Hall of Fame elects Goose Gossage

Hall of Merit schedule:
2009: 3
2010: 3 (shifted up to account for HoF addition of Gossage)
2011: 3
2012: 2

2008: BBWAA elects Goose Gossage and 2009: VC elects Ron Santo

Hall of Merit schedule:
2009: 3
2010: 3
2011: 3
2012: 3 (shifted up to account for HoF addition of Santo)
2013: 3
2014: 2

2008: BBWAA elects Gossage and Rice, and 2009: VC elects Santo, Hodges and Kaat

(I don't see it happening, but if it did, we would simply shift back to elect-3 ballots for the foreseeable future)

Anyway, that's my two cents (and a little more)
   86. OCF Posted: December 11, 2007 at 07:35 PM (#2641533)
burniswright:

You do bring up an interesting point about Frank Grant and the impact of information not previously considered. I think that's going to be a long conversation, and not an easy one. For one thing, the moment you bring up the specter of "unelecting" someone, then we're going to have people who want to talk about Sam Thompson and Ken Boyer and who knows who else. I think that for the moment, I'd like to keep that conversation simmering on the back burner, although we'll see how everyone else approaches it.

I have a more immediate question for you. You do seem to be someone who has a lot to bring to our dicsussions, so I'd like to hear your answer to this. Among all of the blackball, Latin American, and early-integration players that we have not elected, would you be able to identify and perhaps rank-order a top five or top 10? When we talk about and cast votes for Dick Redding, Bus Clarkson, Bill Monroe, Carlos Moran, Elmer Smith, and Luke Easter, are we even talking about the right people? And what about Don Newcombe and Elston Howard, anyway? Or Dolf Luque?
   87. DL from MN Posted: December 11, 2007 at 09:43 PM (#2641665)
If we ever had a situation where we wanted to un-elect someone it should require a unanimous or near-unanimous (1 against) vote because we had people elected with <30%. I don't think we should remove anyone we have elected unless the data shows they are clearly worse than the top 4-5% of baseball players. I don't think we have that situation with anyone we have elected.
   88. DanG Posted: December 11, 2007 at 09:51 PM (#2641682)
An alternative way to do a project like the HoM is to give everyone perpetual eligibility, even those players "elected". To track these electees' gradual fall from grace would be most informative. Instead, we chose to use a "HOF" type format, removing players' eligibility upon election. But we could have just as easily decided to walk through time, adding in the new eligibles each year and resifting all players.
   89. burniswright Posted: December 12, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2641872)
"I have a more immediate question for you. You do seem to be someone who has a lot to bring to our dicsussions, so I'd like to hear your answer to this. Among all of the blackball, Latin American, and early-integration players that we have not elected, would you be able to identify and perhaps rank-order a top five or top 10? When we talk about and cast votes for Dick Redding, Bus Clarkson, Bill Monroe, Carlos Moran, Elmer Smith, and Luke Easter, are we even talking about the right people? And what about Don Newcombe and Elston Howard, anyway? Or Dolf Luque?"

OCF: I'll be happy to take on that assignment for you--I just need a good chunk of time in which to read and study what you've already done. I am so new to this site that I haven't even made a list yet of the NeL's who are in and who are out, much less the reasons why people think they should be in or out. For instance, Sunnyday2 just asked me to evaluate the Dobie Moore thread. Again, I will be glad to do that; it's just that there are 227 posts in the Moore thread, and for reasons that are hard to justify, given how much I love doing this stuff, I still work a day job.

In general terms, I would identify two problem areas. The first is the one I outlined in posts 58 and 59 on the Bill Monroe thread: the ever-changing landscape of available information and available analytical tools for everyone outside the mainstream of the 20th-century bigs, and how that will necessarily keep evaluations in a state of flux. I really think those two posts should be moved to this thread, even if everyone concerned recoils in horror at the thought of revisiting Ken Boyer (or whomever), as you point out in post 86, above. I don't know how to move posts, so if someone could do that for me, we'll see just how much recoiling in horror there really is.

The second problem, which has been discussed with a great deal of passion already on your NeL HOM page, is the extremely tricky juxtaposition of NeL stats and MLB stats for guys in the 1940s and 1950s. It would be nice if there was at least one important guy whose career was equally divided between the two. There isn't. The closest you can come is Monte Irvin, and in his case there's no question that he had a more important career in the NeL's than the majors.

For most, they're either on the Minoso/Mays/Newcombe side of the line, in which the NeL career really didn't give you a sense of what they were going to be able to do, or the Satch Paige side, in which the reverse is true.

For an extra wonderful migraine, you have all the Clarkson/Marquez stories about NeL stars who bombed out at the MLB level, at which point you have to start to bring in some cultural context.

All that said, I will certainly give your assignment my best effort--it's just not going to happen until the Xmas/New Year's madness is past.
   90. OCF Posted: December 12, 2007 at 01:57 AM (#2641888)
Thank you. Whatever you do, we'll be appreciative.
   91. sunnyday2 Posted: December 12, 2007 at 06:17 AM (#2642183)
58. burniswright Posted: December 11, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2641103)
One more thought about sunnyday2's' "We elected Frank Grant but I'd be hard pressed to tell you why", from post 53.

I'm all of about a week old on this site, so forgive any incorrect assumptions I may be making. But it looks like what you're trying to do here is elect people to the HOM based on honest efforts at doing real research and collecting hard facts, as opposed to some of the worst aspects of the old-boy network that has operated all too long at the HOF.

And from that, I further assume that if you had the power to remove, say, Jesse Haines from the HOF (along with a couple of dozen other people), you would do so; after all, he's mainly there because he was a pal of Frankie Frisch. That's not a good enough reason.

Well, among the many things I don't know about your site is whether your rules permit reconsideration of previous HOM votes. If they don't, they should. Here's why:

Everything you're doing is based on the principle of additive knowledge: the emergence of new data, newly-interpreted data, the design and subsequent refinement of analytical tools, the recognition and processing of differing opinions, and so forth. I think that's incredibly admirable, especially in comparison to how things are done at the HOF. In fact, I just wrote an e-mail to Gary A. praising the work on the NeL HOM page to the skies; if you read it, you'd all give yourselves a raise.

So if the process of evaluation is ongoing as new evidence comes to light, why should the results of the voting at a certain point in that process be sealed for all eternity? At the HOF they have this little problem called "It all takes place in bricks and mortar." I mean, the guys are there with their wives and children, the plaques are up on the wall, visitors have paid outrageous amounts of money to trek to Cooperstown (which ain't all that convenient to get to), and so on.

Well, the internet has changed the rules of the game in a lot of respects; why not this one?

In the Negro Leagues realm, and in the earlier 19th-century realms, there are sabermetric tools that just don't work as well as they do in modern baseball, and Frank Grant is in both of them. Scant and unreliable data is an obvious problem for the NeL's, and both cultural differences and rule changes will make certain kinds of analyses more difficult.

An obvious example would be the gap between Ross Barnes' year in 1876 and in all subsequent years being the result of disallowing the fair-foul hit. And any number of pitchers don't have coherent career curves because they could get guys out at 50 feet, but not at 60.

All of this argues for as much back-story input as possible--and never just from one guy, be it me or anyone else. For anybody who's interested, Monte Irvin's all-time all-star blackball selections are listed in the December issue of the SABR Negro Leagues Committee newsletter. Monte is a reasonably thoughtful guy, but some of his picks are beyond bizarre. It's a cautionary tale about what can happen if you rely too heavily on one person's opinion. If you want me to post them, write to me and tell me where it would be appropriate to do that.

But what all this is getting to is that the painstaking aspect of figuring this stuff out in a careful and collective way is exactly what makes this site great. I've now read the entire John Beckwith thread. And the fact that it's 372 posts long is a huge positive, not a negative, as perhaps some of you may have felt at the time. It says to me that you'll do whatever is necessary to get the job done right.

It's in this spirit that I suggest that you allow for the possibility of reconsidering HOM election results, as both new arguments and new data come to light. And just to be clear, this is not some sort of negative rant about Frank Grant; it's an honest suggestion about how to make sure that the HOM selections always represent the ongoing and cumulative best thinking about each candidate.
59. burniswright Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:05 AM (#2641112)
P.S.: I forgot to add my favorite legal precedent for the above position: it's the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Sometimes most everyone seems to agree about what the law of the land ought to be, and then, upon further review (as we say in the NFL), they change their minds. It happens.
   92. DL from MN Posted: December 12, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2642430)
"I will certainly give your assignment my best effort--it's just not going to happen until the Xmas/New Year's madness is past."

Take your time, we don't vote again for another year...
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM (#2643028)
Wading into this thread after a week posted...

I'm strongly against a runoff - I think the system has worked fine for 111 years . . .


I think the runoff would be more cosmetic than anything, but I wish we had done it in 1898, IMO. It's easier to convince others outside of group of our selections when the inductees have a majority of the votes, rather than just a plurality.
   94. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 12:40 AM (#2643043)
We no longer care about matching the Hall of Fame.


I'd still like to see a periodic (5 years? 10?) review of the number of inductees per year just in case we get "carried away" too much. The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO.
   95. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 12:42 AM (#2643045)
I have Rickey comfortably in the inner circle,


Does anybody not have him there?
   96. sunnyday2 Posted: December 13, 2007 at 12:50 AM (#2643051)
The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO.

Chris Cobb said it better, but: For 111 years we've compared our choices versus their choices. From here on out, we'll be comparing electing worthy players versus keeping eminently and obviously worthy players out.
   97. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2643057)
If we ever had a situation where we wanted to un-elect someone it should require a unanimous or near-unanimous (1 against) vote because we had people elected with <30%. I don't think we should remove anyone we have elected unless the data shows they are clearly worse than the top 4-5% of baseball players. I don't think we have that situation with anyone we have elected.


I agree, DL. In fact, I'm surprisingly not against it in theory, which I would have been years ago. Of course, if we had ceremonies and real plaques like the HOF has, I wouldn't even contemplate it.
   98. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2643058)
Chris Cobb said it better, but: For 111 years we've compared our choices versus their choices. From here on out, we'll be comparing electing worthy players versus keeping eminently and obviously worthy players out.


I don't think they are mutually exclusive goals, Marc.
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: December 13, 2007 at 01:28 AM (#2643087)
I doubt any evidence will come to light that makes Frank Grant a terrible pick.
He hit well at Buffalo compared to white contemporaries.

At worst, he makes a budding baseball historian say, "Hey, who IS this guy?"

That is NOT why we elected him, of course. But just as murkiness can creat doubters, it also makes it tough to compose solid evidence against him.

I only had him 5th or 6th, I think, the year he was elected, but I have no gripe with the pick.
   100. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 01:45 AM (#2643102)
I only had him 5th or 6th, I think, the year he was elected, but I have no gripe with the pick.


I had him roughly in the same spot, Howie, and also agree that Grant wasn't a bad pick.
Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1116 seconds
49 querie(s) executed