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 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   101. jimd Posted: December 13, 2007 at 03:47 AM (#2643197)
bump
   102. jimd Posted: December 13, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2643227)
DanG:
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.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy:
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.


A completely different election system (building sky-castles here):

Instead of weighted ballots or runoffs, ballots would consist simply of votes-to-elect (VTE). The number of VTE per ballot is initially determined by the HOM schedule. To be elected, a candidate must get VTE from more than 50% of the voters. If an election spot goes unfilled, it is rolled into the next election, adding another ballot slot to that next election.

Example: in 1898, White and Hines and Gore went over the 50% mark. Barnes did not. Barnes and his election spot get rolled into the 1899 election. 1899 started as an elect-2, but is now an elect-3.

How does this relate to DanG's comment? Change the terminology and call Barnes a "provisional" or "interim" electee. Until he gets over 50%, he remains in the candidate pool, and could even lose his "interim" status if he was to finish 4th in 1899, to continue from that example.

This ballot has some advantages over the current HOM ballot. It is self-expanding; the ballot grows as the backlog gets deeper, and the interim candidates at the bottom are continually compared with that backlog. Candidates have to be able to attract voters willing to give them VTE which prevents elections based on "wishy-washy" low ballot support (such as Faber and Nettles) but also have to attract a broad base (over 50%) to shed the "interim" status.

Of course, it's too late to do this now. But we were very focused on the MVP style weighted ballot when the HOM was getting started. No proposal such as this was made at the time, and it may not have gained much support then either (and it might not now either).
   103. djrelays Posted: December 13, 2007 at 06:43 PM (#2644025)
Johnny Murphy (#94) wrote: "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"

sunnyday2 (#96) wrote: "The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO."


The Mitchell Report is due in about an hour-and-a-half. I have a feeling this is likely to have real repercussions for the Hall of Fame.

Pretend I'm a BBWAA voter. Here's my line of thought:
"I still have 14 years to decide about Mark McGwire. There's no need to rush to judgment on him or anyone else who is or might become tainted. I can always vote for them at the 11th hour. In the meantime, I get to see what the fallout of the Mitchell Report is. This may only be the start of more skeletons falling out of the closet as players backpedal and perhaps name more names.

"It could be that MLB passes a rule that anyone who retires while under a doping suspension (whether the result of a failed test or a non-analytical failure) is considered permanently suspended and ineligible for HoF consideration. I wouldn't want to have voted in one person, only to find that later players with the same type of doping history are now ineligible.

"In sum, wait until we see the fallout, which could still take years."

This is mere conjecture of course, although I know there are some baseball writers who are thinking along the lines of waiting for the fallout. What this means is that the BBWAA elections could slow to a trickle in the near future. Monitoring their growth closely will be imperative if you want the HoM to remain fairly equal.

The odd thing is that we might actually see future classes with more veterans than moderns being inducted. The writers might also think they (collectively or individually) want to see at least one person going in each year, which might lead to electing Blyleven, Gossage, Dawson and Trammell.
   104. Jim Sp Posted: December 13, 2007 at 07:09 PM (#2644091)
Appier looks interesting to me, Joe D didn't you also mention him somewhere as ranking surprisingly high?

Peak from 1990-1997: 1354K/556BB, 103-74 W/L, peak ERA+ of 165 and 179 in 1992-3, with a career ERA+ of 121.

It would be worthwhile to look more closely at the defense backing him and his run support.

The Royals offense was subpar starting in 1992 looking quickly at the OPS+ numbers on baseball-reference.

He was very consistent until his injury, which is described very suspiciously at baseballlibrary.com:

A freak fall off the front porch at his sister's baby shower injured ligaments close to Appier's pitching shoulder. After surgery, Appier made four spring training starts, but pain in his shoulder persisted. Another round of surgery shelved him for most of the 1998 season.

Is that what really happened?
   105. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2007 at 07:24 PM (#2644122)
This is mere conjecture of course, although I know there are some baseball writers who are thinking along the lines of waiting for the fallout. What this means is that the BBWAA elections could slow to a trickle in the near future. Monitoring their growth closely will be imperative if you want the HoM to remain fairly equal.

The odd thing is that we might actually see future classes with more veterans than moderns being inducted. The writers might also think they (collectively or individually) want to see at least one person going in each year, which might lead to electing Blyleven, Gossage, Dawson and Trammell.


I think you're probably right, djrelays. Unfortunately, I see many other players from before the Steroid Era entering the Hall who wouldn't have made it if not for the current scandal.
   106. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2007 at 07:46 PM (#2644202)
This report is wreaking havoc on the "five year waiting period" idea. Normally, the writers have a while to digest events and place them into context. Not so for any retired people that are named.
   107. sunnyday2 Posted: December 13, 2007 at 10:34 PM (#2644662)
All's I know is Chuck Knoblauch is never gonna make it now.

###### up beyond all recognition.
   108. DL from MN Posted: December 14, 2007 at 03:48 PM (#2645500)
I doubt the Mitchell investigation goes back far enough in time to assess veterans fairly.
   109. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2645560)
Why would you bring up fairness?
   110. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2007 at 10:02 PM (#2645923)
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?"


Right, and the Hall of Fame committee, with even more evidence that we had, also elected him. This is a non-issue, IMO.
   111. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2007 at 10:06 PM (#2645929)
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.


The comparative aspect with the Hall of Fame was for the project's design.

We should no longer be concerned with that - now we should be concerned with maintaining our own standards, and only worried that historical fairness to all eras is kept in place.

The only way I would think we should consider reducing the number of electees is if baseball contracts. If the Hall of Fame decides to stop electing people, that's not our problem.
   112. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2007 at 10:08 PM (#2645933)
Oh, and welcome aboard burniswright, glad to have you here, thanks for taking the time to check it out.
   113. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2007 at 05:56 AM (#2647110)
In 5 minutes we will have gone a whole day without a single post to the HoM. When was the last time that happened? Too bad.
   114. burniswright Posted: December 16, 2007 at 08:51 AM (#2647164)
Abandon ye not hope, sunny--I'm reading the Dobie Moore thread right now, per your request.
   115. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2007 at 05:54 PM (#2647286)
excerpts from Woody Paige's column today in Denver:

Paige: Help Woody cast his Hall votes
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post

I'm sitting here, looking out the window and pondering the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot.

I need your help.

Over the years and in the past week I've received hundreds of letters, calls and e-mails, requesting that I vote for certain players to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Some messages have swayed me. I'm more impressed with Bert Blyleven after hearing from a lot of his supporters.

So, send me an e-mail or letter with your choices (up to 10) and why they should be honored at Cooperstown. I'll consider your opinions before I fax my ballot to the Baseball Writers' Association of America on Dec. 31.

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_7733237

FYI, he's going for Raines, Gossage and Blyleven - but some of the other choices and motivations may cause you to bang your head on the computer table. Still, he's saying he'll listen to reason.

It does almost make me wonder if we should be voting for up to 10 of the eligible players on the actual Hall of Fame ballot, with 75 pct needed to get in. But then we do run into the "would WE suddenly we weighing character, integrity," etc?
   116. Paul Wendt Posted: December 16, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2647312)
It does almost make me wonder if we should be voting for up to 10 of the eligible players on the actual Hall of Fame ballot, with 75 pct needed to get in.

You mean a different election system for HOM beginning in 2009, I suppose.

Otherwise, do you imply a causal relation between election system and the criteria voters actually use?

On the other hand, I'm sure it's true that the stipulated ceiling 10 influences some voters who do not hit the ceiling. How?
- Paige is a columnist and his work is designed to generate interest. This column does so, maybe an extreme example. Although his nine selections are subject to change, stopping short of the ceiling is part of the appeal to readers. You don't need to talk him out of voting for someone who was nice to him or someone who was a class act. If the ceiling were 9, I believe Paige's column would approve only eight.
- Some writers must think of themselves as good conservative guardians of the Hall. Consider such a one (male) who now votes for six. If the ceiling were 5, he would probably vote for no more than four. By definition the ceiling is permissive. Reining in the apparent norm is one thing the conservative wants to accomplish.
   117. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2647362)
I wonder if you (one) could concoct a statistical model, to wit: If HoF voters (BBWAA) vote for an average of 5 players per ballot, X players will be elected. If they vote for 6, X+ will be elected. if they vote for 7, X++ will be elected. And so on. One would have to figure out how to model the distribution of votes, of course, that would be the essence of the task, and how would one do that? Well, by correlating numbers like HoF Monitor and HoF Standards, maybe? You'd have to figure out how many players would get *any votes at all* (above some nominal such as 5%?).

Bottom line, what impact does the number of votes per ballot have as distinguished from the other variables inherent in the player's actual record?
   118. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2647384)
The only way I would think we should consider reducing the number of electees is if baseball contracts. If the Hall of Fame decides to stop electing people, that's not our problem.


But the HOF is never going stop electing people, Joe. If they go into famine mode, they'll have to go into feast mode at some point. Now, they might wind up voting in Hobie Landrith and Clint Hartung because they never used steroids :-), but the MLB/Clark Foundation is not going to allow the HOF to end inducting players for too long.
   119. Paul Wendt Posted: December 16, 2007 at 11:12 PM (#2647472)
Marc,
We do not have any data for different ceilings on votes per BBWAA ballot.
- At "best" this will be a probability model directly informed by the data at some points. For example, we might take the data from a year with two nearly unanimous newly eligible candidates such as Ripken and Gwynn, ignore votes for Ripken and Gwynn, and treat it as one observation with ceiling 8 votes per ballot (and no very strong candidate, if that is one of our variables). That is way out on a limb.
- What about a probability model that is not directly tested against or calibrated by any data? (presumably informed by our general observations and by revealing columns from some writers such as Paige) Yes, that is possible. I have a few elements of a model vaguely in mind and I'm sure that others such as Dan Greenia have that too. Beside voter behaviors and preferences both the ceiling number of votes per ballot (10) and the threshold share of ballots per candidate (0.75) may be parameters.
   120. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 18, 2007 at 12:04 AM (#2648340)
Here's another article on the Hall of Merit, from the San Antonio Express-News: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/dking/stories/MYSA121107.KingP2.en.36f2263.html
   121. OCF Posted: December 18, 2007 at 01:17 AM (#2648375)
That's a nice plug. Thanks to that writer.

The only things I'd mention: First, Dan isn't actually a "founder," not that the distinction matters all that much. Second, he gave only the HoF/not HoM list. I think the flip side list, HoM/not HoF, is in many ways more interesting.
   122. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 18, 2007 at 03:03 AM (#2648418)
I never said I was in my own piece, just to clarify.
   123. sunnyday2 Posted: December 18, 2007 at 03:20 AM (#2648431)
Of course, we think the HoM not HoF list is more interesting. I suppose if you think the world revolves around Cooperstown, you'd see it the other way. He does link the plaque room so interested parties can find out who's HoM not HoF, too.

My only complaint would be that this guy writes his column about stuff he reads in the NYTimes?
   124. DanG Posted: December 18, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2648452)
I wonder if you (one) could concoct a statistical model, to wit: If HoF voters (BBWAA) vote for an average of 5 players per ballot, X players will be elected. If they vote for 6, X+ will be elected. if they vote for 7, X++ will be elected. And so on. One would have to figure out how to model the distribution of votes, of course, that would be the essence of the task, and how would one do that? Well, by correlating numbers like HoF Monitor and HoF Standards, maybe? You'd have to figure out how many players would get *any votes at all* (above some nominal such as 5%?).

It must be almost 7-8 years now, since I first played around with a couple models along those lines. I don't think I have it anymore; it was nothing too scientific, in any case.

Basically, I took the actual BBWAA voting and based a model on that. I was trying to estimate how much the support for players would increase if voters were required to vote for a certain minimum. I was seeking a minimum that would be likely to push guys like Carter and Rice over the top, but would not ultimately lead to massive numbers of underserving elections.
   125. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 18, 2007 at 05:14 PM (#2648790)
Pretty cool article, although I agree that I'd rather him list the guys that we think are worthy than those we think aren't. We can change the former, not the latter.

Thanks again for getting us out there Dan.
   126. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2007 at 05:14 PM (#2648792)
That's a nice plug. Thanks to that writer.


Indeed. Thanks also again to Dan for inspiring this writer to type it.

BTW, there is an error in the article: Bill Foster is a proud member of the HoM, so shouldn't be included in the HOF/not HoM list.
   127. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 18, 2007 at 06:35 PM (#2648890)
Thanks John - I passed that along to him.
   128. jimd Posted: December 18, 2007 at 08:36 PM (#2649047)
BTW, there is an error in the article: Bill Foster is a proud member of the HoM, so shouldn't be included in the HOF/not HoM list.

Bruce Sutter should be included in his stead.
   129. burniswright Posted: December 19, 2007 at 02:22 AM (#2649453)
I just re-read Chris Fluit's inventory in post 84. For the 1960s, a decade I actually know something about, I would put Brock and Cepeda pretty far above the Howard brothers and Norm Cash among the candidates. You guys DO know that Cash illegally altered his bats by inserting finish nails in order to achieve his outrageous 1961 peak season, right? Of course you do.

On the Bill James list, quoted by sunnyday2 in post 66, I think Maury Wills (definitely), as well as Curt Flood and Vada Pinson, deserve a look-see. In addition to statistical data, is "influence on the game of baseball" a criterion for election to the HOM? If it is, then Wills and Flood HAVE to go in.
   130. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 19, 2007 at 02:29 AM (#2649464)
If I'm not mistaken, Cash altered his bat throughout his career. None of Wills, Flood, or Pinson got any significant support from the electorate. Influence on the game is not a criterion.
   131. sunnyday2 Posted: December 19, 2007 at 02:59 AM (#2649491)
And what influence did Maury Wills have that Luis Aparicio didn't have first?
   132. Paul Wendt Posted: December 19, 2007 at 12:11 PM (#2649702)
Ah, the man who is old enough to know something about the fifties.

Jackie Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, Lou Brock, and Rickey Henderson were all credited with bringing back the running game. (For a moment, Billy got more credit than Rickey but Billy didn't last.)
   133. DavidFoss Posted: December 19, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2649828)
Jackie Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, Lou Brock, and Rickey Henderson were all credited with bringing back the running game. (For a moment, Billy got more credit than Rickey but Billy didn't last.)

And George Case is credited with wondering why everyone thought the running game went away. :-)
   134. rawagman Posted: December 19, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2649853)
I actually wrote to Paige the other day to plug Trammell as his tenth and I was mildly surprised that he responded. On the other hand, he refused to click on links to the HOM, so I cut and pasted some relevant info back to him.

Also, an interesting article by Mr. King. I would have added to his piece that while we deemed those men as not worthy of this rarified tribute, so were deemed less worthy than others.
To wit, Hugh Duffy didn't make our immortal selection, but he has some support. Tommy McCarthy, has none, nor will he ever get any.
   135. DavidFoss Posted: December 19, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2649854)
is "influence on the game of baseball" a criterion for election to the HOM?

I would say no. The constitution says we are only supposed to take into effect 'on-field' accomplishments. Character and personality are only supposed to come into play when they directly affect the outcome of games. Different voters have different interpretations of that, but that's one of the biggest differences between the HOM and the HOF -- fewer hand-waving arguments about intangibles.

So, the only way Flood gets in is if we create a separate category for that type of contribution. Then he can go in with Marvin Miller.

As for Cash, every voter here knows about the bats. Some voters care, but some most certainly don't. Whitey Ford & Gaylord Perry threw spitballs. HOM-ers Coveleski & Faber were allowed to throw spitballs which no doubt gave them an edge against non-HOM contemporaries who were not. Superballs came flying out of HOM-er Graig Nettles' bat one game. The 1951 Giants stole signs, etc, etc. It varies from voter to voter as to what side of the line Cash's offense goes.
   136. burniswright Posted: December 20, 2007 at 08:55 AM (#2650490)
"Superballs came flying out of HOM-er Graig Nettles' bat one game."

OK, never heard that one before; may we assume the bat was broken at the time?

Maybe we need (or at least I need) an entire thread on comparative cheating and its influence on performance. If Cash in fact "altered his bat throughout his career," how did he manage to hit .243 the following year (1962)? He must be a strong contender for least effective cheater ever--a strangely good/bad category.
   137. DL from MN Posted: December 20, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2650580)
The whole league went up in 1961 and down in 1962, Cash just went higher and lower than most.
   138. DavidFoss Posted: December 20, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2650614)
Maybe we need (or at least I need) an entire thread on comparative cheating and its influence on performance.

We have a thread on cheating and how it should affect our voting.

Link
   139. DavidFoss Posted: December 20, 2007 at 06:27 PM (#2650785)
We have a thread on cheating and how it should affect our voting.


I perhaps used too strong language there. There is certainly disagreement as to how it should affect our voting. :-) I don't think any hard rules mandate how cheating should affect our voting. Cash had a career year in 1961. League scoring context was up. It was an expansion year (see also Jim Gentile). Indeed many voters do discount his 1961 season, but he still ends up being a half-decent candidate.
   140. rawagman Posted: December 20, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2650944)
Are we going to run a mock BBWAA ballot this year? If so, shouldn't it be soon?
   141. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2650961)
Are we going to run a mock BBWAA ballot this year? If so, shouldn't it be soon?


A discussion thread will be up Sunday, Ryan.
   142. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2007 at 12:04 AM (#2651185)
Basically, we are not concerned with 'cheating'. If the player got away with it and his team won games for it, well, then he gets credit. On field performance is the only criteria, after the first year a player is on the ballot.
   143. burniswright Posted: December 21, 2007 at 09:35 AM (#2651435)
David Foss: thanks for the link (I'm still finding my way around this site). I've now read the entire thread. It contains thoughtful arguments on many sides of the issue, and leaves the usual newspaper columnist rant about PEDs looking pretty lame by comparison.
   144. DanG Posted: August 07, 2008 at 07:25 PM (#2894425)
Top o'the backlog to ye.
Leading non-HoMers for the past five elections
Election 2004/05/06/07/08
Reggie
Smith.8..2..1..1..1
Bucky Walters.4
..3..2..3..2
Tommy
Leach..9..9.10..4..3
John
McGraw.10.16..5.11..4
Dick Redding
..3..4..3..2..5
Kirby Puckett.1
..5..7..6..6
Bob
Johnson..2..1..4..5..7
Gavy Cravath
..7..6..8..7..8
Luis
.. Tiant.11.10.12..9..9
Phil Rizzuto.12.11
..9.10.10

Hugh
.. Duffy..5..8.11.12.11
David
.. Cone..-..-..-.15.12
K
Singleton.15.12.15.16.13
Tony
.. Perez..6..7..6..8.14
Bus Clarkson.16.14.14.14.15
Dizzy
.. Dean.13.15.20.34.16
G VanHaltren.14.13.13.13.22
Tom
Bridges.19.17.16.17.18
Vic
.. Willis.20.22.22.26.17
D Concepcion.21.20.17.18.19 

Reggie seems poised to join Rickey in the HoM. Or is this all out the window after the long layoff? Will we see a radical reordering of the queue?
   145. Paul Wendt Posted: August 07, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2894508)
not out the window. Beside the return of voters who shared in generating that list, it will be a point of reference for newcomers.
I expect significant re-ordering, not radical.

Based on who is now participating in special projects I expect a minus for Tommy Leach --the outstanding long career candidate among the top ten incumbents-- and some plus for Walters and McGraw.

Reggie Smith is in strong position because he is an intermediate candidate in several ways and it appears that two incumbents will be elected with Rickey.

On the other hand, prominent careerists such as RobW and DanG may return for the annual election.
   146. sunnyday2 Posted: August 08, 2008 at 01:38 AM (#2894757)
When is this election BTW.
   147. karlmagnus Posted: August 08, 2008 at 03:03 PM (#2895038)
I certainly plan to return for the annual election. I haven't participated in the rankings of position players because my system such as it is wasn't set up to make fine discriminations between obviously qualified HOM players. 2009 will see its return.
   148. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 08, 2008 at 04:08 PM (#2895116)
We definitely want our election to conclude around the time the BBWAA members get their ballots. Just on the off-chance we may influence the discussion.

Along with the newcomers, I also think we should reference players on the BBWAA ballot (and Veterans Committee ballot) that we've elected. Again, just in case.
   149. DanG Posted: August 11, 2008 at 07:22 PM (#2898557)
Kazuhiro Sasaki-RP

Career record linked above

Combined JL and MLB totals below

382 career saves
2.68 ERA
   150. DanG Posted: October 01, 2008 at 02:51 PM (#2962372)
When is this election BTW.

From "Once We Catch-Up", #156:

New Voter Registration/Final Discussion thread posted: 2nd Monday in October (8th-14th). This will be October 13, 2008.
Ballot thread posted: two weeks later (October 22nd-28th). This will be October 27, 2008.
Results posted: two weeks later (November 5th-11th). This will be November 10th, 2008.
   151. DanG Posted: October 13, 2008 at 06:30 PM (#2980582)
Players Passing Away 10/1/07 to 9/30/08

HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

96 1953 Don Gutteridge-2B/3B
93 ---- Buzzie Bavasi-GM
91 1958 Tommy Holmes-RF/CF
90 1965 Mickey Vernon-1B
89 ---- Bob Howsam-GM
87 1967 Gerry Staley-RP
86 ---- John McHale-GM
82 ---- Jerome Holtzman-Sportswriter
79 1967 Chuck Stobbs-P
79 1972 Joe Nuxhall-P
79 ---- Ed Vargo-Umpire
78 1972 Bob Purkey-P
75 1973 Johnny Podres-P
72 1976 Don Cardwell-P
68 ---- Skip Caray-Broadcaster
66 1981 Ed Brinkman-SS
62 1988 Bobby Murcer-CF
   152. stax Posted: October 13, 2008 at 08:05 PM (#2980629)
DanG: I just saw your post 150. I have just voted in the RF ballot thread for the first time, should I signup in this forthcoming "New Voter Registration" thread?
   153. Paul Wendt Posted: October 13, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2980649)
Stax, I understand that is the usual Discussion thread ("Final"?). New voters register by posting preliminary ballots with comments and by drawing attention to themselves --although as you know a new username is enough to draw the attention of some, at least the ballot and vote-counters.

Or will there be somewhat more formal registration for the annual elections?
   154. karlmagnus Posted: October 13, 2008 at 09:04 PM (#2980698)
Just reawakened from year-long slumber. This is fun, though my preliminary trawl says it's Rickey plus a bunch of not-close types. Will Reggie Smith go in as a Red Sox? -- would be fun.
   155. Mark Donelson Posted: October 13, 2008 at 09:32 PM (#2980778)
For Sasaki, are we giving him credit for these purposes for this Japan stats? I thought I remembered a discussion where it was decided that wasn't going to happen for the Japanese players? Am I recalling this wrong?
   156. Chris Cobb Posted: October 13, 2008 at 09:43 PM (#2980795)
My understanding is that players who played in Japan as well as in the U.S. should be credited for that play, if they were playing well enough to have had a job in the majors.

Players whose career was entirely in Japan (or elsewhere in the Far East) are not eligible.

So far, we haven't done a whole lot with MLEs for Japanese play because all of the cases we have looked at have been for near-to-end-of-career play by folks with major-league careers--Willie Davis, Reggie Smith, et al. With players whose careers started in Japan and who reached the American majors after a a substantial Japanese career, credit for play in Japan becomes a more significant matter.
   157. OCF Posted: October 13, 2008 at 11:28 PM (#2980951)
Sasaki is in kind of a gray zone there, because 2/3 of his IP and probably at least that fraction of his value come from NPB, not MLB. And as for eligibility: he last pitched in MLB in 2003, but he had 22 reasonably effective innings for Yokohama in 2004 and 6 ineffective innings in 2005.

Now Sasaki is simply not a serious candidate. We're probably willing to go for Mariano Rivera at about 1000 IP career and some might argue for Trevor Hoffmann, also at about 1000 IP, but < 700 IP, 2/3 of it in Japan, and not at a Rivera level of effectiveness - that's not a candidate.

=====

Now, for the task at hand. I just read through this thread, and I see almost no discussion of non-Rickey first-time candidates. I see Rusty naming Mark Grace to his PHoM, and putting him just off his ballot, in the 16-20 range. And there's some passing "what about Jesse Orosco" question.

Does anyone want to step up and make a case for any of them? Grace? Orosco? Appier? Bell? Williams? Either Vaughn? Or do they all get buried immediately?
   158. Chris Cobb Posted: October 14, 2008 at 12:25 AM (#2981054)
The only one of these, as I see it, who has anything like a potential case is Appier. He'll probably make my top 40-50, but he's not close to making my ballot.

Jay Bell and Matt Williams are probably in the 75-100 range, with Grace a bit below that.
   159. OCF Posted: October 14, 2008 at 12:43 AM (#2981070)
Hmm... I don't seem to have done Appier's RA+ equivalent record. That goes on the "to do" list.

Matt Williams is probably the 3B on the all-time all-Williams team, which is pretty formidable, what with that outfield. But the all-Johnson team has a better pitching staff. Matt Williams also lost a about as much from the 1994 strike as anyone in terms of his reputation, since he might have hit 60 HR. Of course, he might not even have led his own team in HR had the season continued - the LF on that team was also going to collect quite a few.
   160. DanG Posted: October 14, 2008 at 04:21 AM (#2981317)
DanG: I just saw your post 150. I have just voted in the RF ballot thread for the first time, should I signup in this forthcoming "New Voter Registration" thread?

It's not my call. Post #150 is a suggested timeline for the annual elections. It has never been much commented on by Joe Dimino or John Murphy, who run the HoM. October 13 has now passed and it's anyone's guess what the plan is for the 2009 election or if there will be a more formal registration procedure.
   161. Mark Donelson Posted: October 14, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#2981582)
I'm liking Appier's peak/prime a lot right off the bat--he has a chance at my ballot. I need to investigate further, though--this may be a case of initial excitement followed by further investigation dropping him down significantly (what I call Frank Viola Syndrome).

No one else has even close to enough peak, though. Mark Grace ends up looking very Garvey-esque, Williams rather Cey-like, and Orosco...oh, let's say Face-ish. None of that is enough to get near my ballot.
   162. OCF Posted: October 14, 2008 at 07:31 PM (#2981714)
One comment about peer group: Appier was born in 1967 and started his major league career in 1989. That means he is younger than Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, and Brown and not all that much older than Martinez or Mussina. Not that that is necessarily a deal-breaker, but it's just something to keep in mind.
   163. Mark Donelson Posted: October 14, 2008 at 08:33 PM (#2981777)
Are we going to get player threads for the leading new eligibles? (Henderson, Appier, and Grace would seem to deserve them for starters, given the comments on this thread, and possibly a few others?)
   164. DanG Posted: October 14, 2008 at 08:37 PM (#2981781)
Appier's pitching cohort from his prime, ERA+>119, IP>1250, 1990-2002
Cnt Player            ERA+  W   L   WHIP   IP   From  To
+----+-----------------+----+---+---+-----+------+----+----+
    
1 Pedro Martinez     172 152  63 1.011 1892.1 1992 2002 
    2 Greg Maddux        159 228 114 1.066 3076.1 1990 2002 
    3 Randy Johnson      151 214  93 1.158 2821.2 1990 2002 
    4 Roger Clemens      143 198 106 1.200 2782.1 1990 2002 
    5 Kevin Brown        130 169 112 1.207 2620.2 1990 2002 
    6 Curt Schilling     130 155 104 1.114 2394.2 1990 2002 
    7 Tom Glavine        130 219 114 1.287 2913   1990 2002 
    8 Mike Mussina       128 182 102 1.166 2454   1991 2002 
    9 Kevin Appier       126 160 123 1.277 2458   1990 2002 
   10 John Smoltz        124 149 100 1.172 2281.2 1990 2002 
   11 David Cone         124 154 106 1.265 2307.2 1990 2001 
   12 Dennis Martinez    122  92  70 1.193 1514.2 1990 1998 
   13 Jimmy Key          121 112  68 1.262 1476.2 1990 1998 
   14 Al Leiter          120 123  95 1.337 1781   1990 2002 
   165. Bleed the Freak Posted: October 15, 2008 at 01:23 AM (#2982190)
Hello, My name is Ryan Marchand. I’ve been a lurker under the pseudo names Swing on This and Bleed the Freak. I appreciate the hard work the electorate has done to make the best Hall of Merit possible. There are no glaring mistakes or omissions at the Hall of Merit, which has made me proud to observe the HOM’s body of work over the years, compared with the spotty record that the HOF sports.

As a first time voter, I would say that I attempt to look at the sum of a player’s career, weighing peak, prime, and career. Systems that I analyze heavily for my rankings include WARP 1/Dan Rosenheck WAR, Joe Dimino’s PA for pitchers, and the MLE projections configured by Chris Cobb and Eric Chalek. In addition, Win Shares and contemporary opinion for Negro League players and defenders abilities pre-retrosheet era are worth considering.

I believe that War Credit should be awarded to players who demonstrate MLB quality skills on the book ends of a war. I am pleased that the electorate found Charlie Keller and Joe Gordon worthy of inclusion and hope that Don Newcombe will make it someday.

I do not believe in blacklist credit. While the Black Sox were not found guilty in the court of law, you can read Eliot Asinof’s spectacular Eight Men Out to realize these men cheated and were dealt a just punishment.

I recently constructed a personal Hall of Merit and found that I would have elected about 15 different players than the electorate has over the years, so everyone who is on this ballot would place in my pHOM.

On to the voting…

1. Rickey Henderson – Alongside his inner-circle greatness,

Rickey wasn’t afraid to be boastful: “Lou Brock was the symbol of great base stealing. But today, I'm the greatest of all time. Thank you.”

Rickey is an illeist too. Late in his career, Rickey was playing for the San Diego Padres, and had this passage to share with general manager Kevin Towers, “"Kevin, this is Rickey. Calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball."

2. Rick Reuschel – A truly outstanding 1977 season, with all-star caliber years from 1973-1980, and an additional four seasons of solid filler seasons. Excellent PA numbers. What if he would have had a Jim Palmer type of defense behind him? Instead, he had some stone gloves and is largely unrecognized for his greatness.

3. Reggie Smith – He put up an MVP type of season in 1977, with outstanding seasons in 1969, 1974, and 1978, and all-star type seasons in 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, and 1980, and an additional three solid filler seasons. Possibly more durable than he receives credit for, missing less than 20 games in 7 seasons. Highly productive when healthy. Japan credit pushes him above Cone.

4. David Cone - Cy Young season in 1994 (deserved) and close to it in 1993. All-star type of years in 1988, 1990-91, and 1997-99, and a few solid filler years. Outstanding, five time World Series champion performer. While there is a dearth of qualified pitching candidates from the 1990s, I don’t see Don Sutton or Red Ruffing on the outside of the HOM.

5. Bert Campaneris – a player greatly benefited by lightly documented value, namely, his baserunning ability and glove defense. In a season of dominating pitchers, Campaneris and his 4 HR’s were nearly an MVP caliber season in 1968, and his 1970 (20 HR’s!) and 1973 seasons where outstanding as well. Additional all-star seasons in 1971-72, 1974, and 1976-77. Solid filler in four other seasons. Quite valuable in a time when Jackie and Enzo Hernandez dotted the diamond.

6. Tommy Leach – best player remaining of the aughts, although more documented history on Bill Monroe could change my viewpoint. 1902, 1907-08, and 1914 were outstanding, top 5 MVP type of seasons. 1901, 1903-05, and 1913 were all-star type seasons and he adds a few filler seasons. I wonder how he felt playing alongside the greatest SS.

7. John McGraw – what a peak. Another season or two at his peak, and he’s easily #2 on the ballot. Hurt by the conditions of the rough 1890’s baseball where he may have been more durable during a different time era. On-base skills especially valuable in the small ball time frame he played in. 1898 and 1899 legitimate MVP seasons, with five additional all-star years, and a filler season.

8. Phil Rizzuto – this guy will make or break the HOM based upon the electorate’s war credit theory. It appears he was suffering from sickness, which dampened his 1946 numbers, but his 1941 and 1942 seasons were excellent prior to the war, and that is more likely what his 1943-45 seasons would appear to be. Giving war credit is easier for me if a player has good durability in the remainder of his career, as Rizzuto has. One MVP season, 2 other excellent seasons, with 4 more all-star seasons (7 after war-credit). 1950’s AL inferior to NL, drops him below McGraw.

9. David Concepcion – excellent base running skills, stratospheric defense peak during Big Red Machine’s three pennant run. 3 seasons worthy of Top 5-10 MVP - 1974, 1976, 1979. Five additional all-star type seasons: 1975, 1977-78, 1981-82. Adds a few more filler seasons. An even better playoff performer than in the regular season.

10. Don Newcombe – tough guy to place. He feels like the best available from the 1940’s-1950’s era that is lagging in electees, and the electorate is a bit light on pitching in general. Deserves credit for 1952/53 Korea conflict and came in guns blazing in 1949 as a Brooklyn rookie, so 1948 is a year he likely deserves some credit for. Nearly Cy Young type season in 1956, all-star seasons in 49-51, 59, and projected in 53-54, and a couple filler seasons. May have received more opportunities late in his career if he played in a different time era.

11. Urban Shocker – Don’t forget an all-star type season for Urban in 1918. He put a Cy Young Award type performance in 1921, and an excellent 1922. 1920 and 1923-26 are all-star caliber years, and he throws in a couple filler seasons. He comes up quite impressively in the PA system.

12. Dave Bancroft – poor basestealing skills and lack of in-season durability is what knocks Bancroft below Concepcion. Only 5 seasons where he misses less than 20 games. Three excellent seasons though (1920-22), six additional all-star type seasons (1915-18, 1923, 1925-26), and a couple filler seasons. A rare reasonable HOF selection by the Frankie Frisch committee. It’s too bad that the likes of Campaneris, Rizzuto, Concepcion, and Bancroft have been overlooked as glove men, and replaced by men like Nellie Fox and Cupid Childs.

I find the next three extremely challenging to place with great certainty, but by the data and reputations that we have, these men feel as though they belong in the HOM:

13. Gavvy Cravath – How exactly would this guy have faired in a modern HR environment, getting the chance to start in MLB at 22-24. A monstrous NL bat from 1913-1917 at ages of 31-36, with 5 consecutive all-star seasons, and a MVP type year in 1915. I’m not sure how much credit he deserves prior to turning 31, but he places here for the time being.

14. Elston Howard – What if he was born 15 years later? Looks to be underused by Yankees. Given full playing time at age 32, blossoms into a consistent all-star for four seasons, with an excellent 1964 behind the dish. Enters MLB at age 26. MLE credit from ages 24-25?

15. Ben Taylor – the last spot was up for grabs, and Taylor wins out for now. He appears to be a Mark Grace/Keith Hernandez type of hitter, with a glove that matches or exceed Hernandez. If he was more Grace like in the hitting department, he is not ballot worthy. But if he’s close to Hernandez, his glove might make him HOM worthy. New MLE’s would be beneficial on him if information has come to light? Was more additional data made available after the HOF elected him in 2006?

Players who are close to ballot and are deserving of scrutiny:

From the Top 10 returnees

1910s – Dick Redding. He might be more worthy than Taylor, but the evidence hasn’t convinced me. Excellent peak in his 20’s, but his shoulder seasons just appear to be too weak. I’d take Doc Gooden at the moment over Redding.

1930s – Bob Johnson. HOMer based upon WARP, Hall of Very Good if you like Win Shares, Indian Bob falls in the middle for me. He’s not too far off ballot, but a fully integrated major league would make his all-star type prime seasons look fairly ordinary.

From the Deeper Backlog:

1870s - Davy Force

1880s – Fred Dunlap, Jim McCormick, and Tony Mullane

1890s – Jimmy Ryan

1900s – Bill Monroe

1910s – Rabbit Maranville

1920s – Buzz Arlett, Burleigh Grimes, Dolf Luque, and Jack Quinn

1930s – Tommy Bridges and Leroy Matlock

1940s – Bus Clarkson, Johnny Pesky, Virgil Trucks, and Hilton Smith

1960s – Norm Cash and Jim Fregosi

1970s – Bobby Bonds, Ron Cey, Toby Harrah, Tommy John, Thurman Munson, Gene Tenace, and Luis Tiant

1980s – Buddy Bell, Brett Butler, Doc Gooden, Dale Murphy, and Lee Smith

1990s – Kevin Appier and Dennis Martinez

Top 10 Returnees Not in Top 40:

Kirby Puckett – felt like a HOMer as a child, status inflated by the media. Was a fast player in his younger years, but lacked the serious HR/2B power that he would develop later in his career when his speed and arm began to fade. The comparisons to Cesar Cedeno are just.

Bucky Walters – Jim Palmer lite for the 1930s & 40s. A good pitcher made excellent by some of the greatest defenses every assembled (Bill McKechnie LOVED gloves). I would choose Virgil Trucks before Walters for war-era hurlers from the pros.

Five guys off ballot that I could use more knowledge about and who may merit more extensive discussion:

Bill Monroe
Buzz Arlett
Dolf Luque
Leroy Matlock
Hilton Smith
   166. Howie Menckel Posted: October 15, 2008 at 01:37 AM (#2982238)
Welcome, Ryan...
   167. Chris Cobb Posted: October 15, 2008 at 01:57 AM (#2982295)
Welcome, Ryan!

Your ballot looks very well-considered. The decade-by-decade break-out of the upper backlog is interesting. If we ever get that deep into the backlog, it looks like the 1970s and 1980s will need more attention.
   168. Blackadder Posted: October 15, 2008 at 02:20 AM (#2982370)
Given the onslaught of highly qualified ballplayers in the next few elections, I don't know how much of that backlog you guys will be able to address after this year. I guess 2006 will be a bit of an off-year, but there are so many highly qualified people in 2004 and 2005 that I wonder if more than one person from the current backlog will be able to make it in after this year, at least for the foreseeable future.
   169. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 15, 2008 at 04:32 AM (#2982589)
Bleed the Freak: Welcome aboard. Your ballot looks like that of a grizzled HoM veteran, with picks like Reuschel and the backlog glove-first shortstops that show you've taken the time to familiarize yourself in depth with the latest research done by group members. I look forward to your future contributions to the project.

Thanks for mentioning Luque. My request for seasonal Cuban League MLE's for him has fallen on deaf ears...
   170. Juan V Posted: October 15, 2008 at 04:48 AM (#2982600)
Given the onslaught of highly qualified ballplayers in the next few elections, I don't know how much of that backlog you guys will be able to address after this year. I guess 2006 will be a bit of an off-year, but there are so many highly qualified people in 2004 and 2005 that I wonder if more than one person from the current backlog will be able to make it in after this year, at least for the foreseeable future.


Yes, but we have mined the backlog plenty since '96 or so. 2012 looks pretty weak right now, with maybe only Bernie Williams and perhaps Tim Salmon capable of making ballots. But we might be electing three from the "new backlog" that year.

Somewhat related, 2013 at least rivals 1934 for greatest class ever, right?
   171. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2008 at 03:57 PM (#2982827)
Okay, so if I understand, we will be voting October 27 - November 3???? I am out of town that whole period.

Not to mention, after a hiatus of (how long?), I am highly doubtful that I would be choosing to stick with my last ballot as it relates to the backlog. Dunno where I'm gonna get the time.

And, we will be electing 3????

I didn't keep my '07 and '08 ballots. I will have to look them up on the HoM. But for now here was my 2006 ballot with comments.

1. Dizzy Dean--yeah, I'm a peak voter, and I decided that ERA+ was over-rated. Didn't vote for Diz until 1987 (14th) and then 2002 on. It's not a line of thinking I was committed to for very long, so who knows whether I would stick with it??? I don't.

2. Ed Williamson--always liked Ed, he will be highly rated yet.

3. Elston Howard--with a bonus for that period of time when blacks had a shot to play in the MLs, but not a fair shot. It's easy to see that Josh Gibson deserves MLE credit, but what about the guys from the '50s? Hey, they got a shot! Yeah, right, a shot that was very heavily constrained by quotas and other artifacts of racism. See also Don Newcombe.

4. Don Newcombe--like I said.

5. Will Clark--elected.

6. Albert Belle--the Charley Keller of the expansion era, and I mean to say, Just as good as Keller.

7. Dick Lundy--elected.

8. Larry Doyle--always liked Larry.

9. Tommy Bond--always liked Tommy. Even by the standards of his day, he so far out-paced the other pitchers as to give his teams a substantial advantage, and that's what HoMers do.

10. Johnny Pesky--takes some imagination and some war credit, but if you do that he was better than Rizutto.

11. Al Rosen--see Dizzy Dean. Only made my ballot for the first time in 2005.

12. Bucky Walters--made my ballot for the first time in 2006.

13. Kirby Puckett--always liked Kirby.

14. Hugh Duffy--made my ballot in 1930-31 and 2004ff.

14. Addie Joss--always liked Addie.

15. Phil Rizzuto--a long time supporter of Rizzuto, I love a good glove at the SS position.

Looking back I see now that I decided in 2002 and 2003 that I was a peak voter, dammit, and I would follow that logic more rigorously in the past. As a result, Dick Redding, Reggie Smith, Thurmon Munson, Vern Stephens, Don Mattingly and Chuck Klein dropped off my ballot. Not that those aren't pretty idiosyncratic choices right there--but more prime cuts than pure peak choices. So I really don't know what my philosophy will be. I think it's fair to say that I've stuck to a peak/prime philosophy on the positional votes--Mantle #1, e.g. I guess my biggest differences with the consensus, which are very substantial (lowest or second lowest consensus score a couple of times--3B? in LF? CF? I forget exactly where), is that I don't pay a lot of attention to corner defense. Contrary to rumor I'm not strictly a WS voter, but WS is in my mix along with OPS+, which also doesn't factor in a lot of defense. And apropos of Larry Doyle, 2B is a "corner" position through about 1920-1930 when the current defensive spectrum comes about. Ed Williamson, IOW, is not strictly a "corner," his glove is a very large part of his evaluation.

If I get to vote at all, I think there will be some changes. Ricky is obviously #1, however, but my timeline isn't nearly steep enough to help anybody else.
   172. Juan V Posted: October 15, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#2983084)
I'm still not done with my pitcher re-evaluation, but I wanted to ask about Babe Adams, who surprised me a lot. It looks like he had two peak-heavy HoVG careers rolled into one. Am I missing something?
   173. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 15, 2008 at 08:55 PM (#2983089)
I am hoping to take part in this HoM election, who is eligible to be elected? Is this only players that are not in the HoM, or are we voting on the players who are HOF eligible this year? Please fill me in, and thank you.
   174. Juan V Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:05 PM (#2983095)
Welcome!

It's players who are not in the HOM. Check out the backlog from last year's election for starters.
   175. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:13 PM (#2983104)
Ok thanks, that helps. One last question, do I vote on this thread, or will an official ballot thread be made. Sorry for all the questions, and thanks a lot, this is an awesome site!
   176. OCF Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:14 PM (#2983107)
This is an election for the Hall of Merit, and eligibles include everyone in baseball history who is not already in the HoM and who has been retired for at least five years. (Excluding token appearances.) Players who played their entire careers in Japan or other East Asian countries are not eligible, but players whose careers lay within the various Negro Leagues and summer and winter leagues in Cuba, Mexico, and other Latin American countries are eligible.

The names at the top of this thread are the most prominent among those who are newly eligible for this election. Then if you go to the HoM home page, you'll see a link to our 2008 election results. Click on that, and you'll see the names of more than 100 players who received some support either in 2008 or 2007. The top three names - Raines, Lundy, and Saberhagen - are elected to the HoM and hence no longer eligible to receive votes. If a name you're interested in supporting does not appear among those 100, that means one of two things: either that candidate is already in the HoM, or his case is so obscure that not one of ~50 voters put him in their top 15. So if there's someone who should have received some support who's not among the 100 (someone like McGwire, Santo, Grich, Trammell, Whitaker, Dahlen, and so forth) it probably means that he has already been elected. To be sure, you can look for his name in the Plaque Room (another link on the front HoM page.)
   177. Juan V Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:19 PM (#2983113)
There will be a ballot thread posted at the end of the month (or so Post #150 says). However, you should post a preliminary ballot in here before then.
   178. OCF Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:33 PM (#2983123)
Juan: Babe Adams does look at first glance like a serious candidate. My RA+ PythPat equivalent record for him is 201-132, which is clearly ahead of Stieb's 190-131 and nearly the same as Newhouser's 202-131. Two things knock Adams down: he was a pre-1920 pitcher, which made IP easier to rack up, and he seems to have been backed by unusually good defenses, so some portion of the credit for that RA+ goes to the defense rather than him. But I never attempted a quantitative estimate of how much Adams benefitted from his defenses.

The early Pirates had quite a collection of HoVG pitchers: Adams, Phillippe, Tannehill, Leever. (Well, Leever does have a supporter around here - perhaps you've noticed that?)
   179. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:45 PM (#2983132)
Ok, I'm not positive I understand what to do, but it looks to me like I rank my top 15 not in the HoM, so here goes.

1. Kirby Puckett- not a long career, but a heck of a prime. Was a 5 tool player for years.

2. Dizzy Dean- heck of a pitcher, may have been a better broadcaster.

3. John McGraw- greatest manager ever was also an OBP machine.

4. Bucky Walters- Deserved the CYA in 1939 and 1940, most underrated pitcher ever.

5. Reggie Smith- Most underrated player in baseball history.

6. Alberte Belle- you guys rank him lower than I do, but I love his prime. Only 50 double 50 homer season in history.

7. Luis Tiant- 1968 was his best year, but had several other great years.

8. Lou Brock- What 3000 hits and 900 steals don't get you in the HoM?

9. Phil Rizzuto- A proven winner, MVP, and terrific fielder.

10. Gaavy Cravath- Sure he hit a ton of homers at home, but he could still play.

11. Dale Murphy- for a 5 year period, he was the best in baseball

12. Burleigh Grimes- 5 times won over 20 games

13. Bobby Bonds- Better arm than his son, great power speed combo.

14. Addie Joss-Great peak, too bad he got sick. Best WHIP in history.

15. Indian Bob Johnson- Great arm, good power, keen batting eye.

That's my ballot, and I'm sticking to it
   180. Juan V Posted: October 15, 2008 at 09:57 PM (#2983135)
RedSoxBaller: You have to include this year's eligibles.... or you really think all of those are better than Rickey?

OCF: Thanks for the breakdown. I am pretty confident on how I'm adjusting IP. However, I'm still experimenting on ways to combine NRA and DERA to produce my pitching rankings, it could be that the method I'm using right now (which may or may not be the one I end up using) just happens to be quite favorable to him.
   181. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 15, 2008 at 10:06 PM (#2983143)
ok, well the only one from the eligibles I include is Rickey, and he is no.1
   182. OCF Posted: October 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM (#2983152)
Once comment on Joss: he allowed a higher-than-average proportion of unearned runs. As such, he doesn't look nearly as impressive by RA+ as he does by ERA+. I have Joss at an equivalent record of 161-98, and Lefty Gomez at an equivalent record of 169-109. And Gomez had a best single season that Joss doesn't approach. I can't think any particular reasons why Joss and not Gomez. Oh, and my equivalent record for Dean is 136-82. Can't think of a particularly good reason for Dean and not Gomez, either.
   183. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2008 at 10:37 PM (#2983167)
O, you really should tell us how many more UER than average. This "charge" made the rounds for many years until we finally saw the numbers, and he was just barely incrementally higher than others of his day. Many others were within 1-2-5 points. Then, considering he has a lower ERA, he still comes out better, as I recall.

So this info is not irrelevant but misleading.
   184. OCF Posted: October 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM (#2983198)
Joss's overall equivalent record is what you would get for an RA+ of 128, as opposed to his career ERA+ of 142. The UER/ER distinction probably accounts for less than half of that; the rest is the diminished value of raw RA+ in lower-scoring times. Another example: Waddell's equivalent record would match an RA+ of 124, as opposed to his career ERA+ of 135. Or how about Chesbro: equivalent to RA+ of 114, ERA+ 110. Or Dean: equivalent to RA+ 129, ERA+ 130.

A list of the top of the ones I have in the "equivalent to RA+" stat, leaving out the relief pitchers and the pitchers active in 2008 (Pedro was at 154 before this year):

Grove: 143
Clemens: 138
(Nichols: 138) - before defense adjustment; adjusted down to 130.
W. Johnson: 136
Alexander: 133
Walsh: 133
Young: 132
(M. Brown: 132) - before defense adjustment; adjusted down to 121
Koufax: 131
Mathewson: 129
Hubbell: 129
Dean: 129
Wood: 129
Joss: 128
Seaver: 128
Ford: 127
Gibson: 127

Joss still ranks high, but not as high as when ranked by ERA+. Oh, and Gomez is at 125 (ERA+ 125).
   185. OCF Posted: October 15, 2008 at 11:47 PM (#2983204)
Oh, and RedSoxBaller: my very complicated thoughts on Lou Brock can be found here.
   186. Chris Cobb Posted: October 16, 2008 at 12:14 AM (#2983218)
Welcome, RedSoxBaller!

Two notes in response to your ballot.

First, re your comment on McGraw:

3. John McGraw- greatest manager ever was also an OBP machine.

I don't know if you are counting McGraw's managing as a point in his favor for the HoM, but the Hall of Merit's Constitution specifically requires voters to evaluate players based on their on-the-field accomplishments only, so if you are counting his managing, you would need to re-evaluate based on playing merits only.

Second, I notice that you only have one player whose case really depends upon his fielding on your ballot: Phil Rizzuto. How are you taking fielding value into account? If Rizzuto, why not Concepcion or Campaneris?
   187. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM (#2983220)
I placed McGraw based only on playing accomplishments. I'm a huge OBP fan. Rizzuto is admitly a mistake, after further analysis, I remove Rizzuto from my ballot, and place instead Lefty Gomez. Oh, and I have also placed Rickey Henderson at No.1 in my ballot after Juan V informed me that the 2009 players are HoM eligible. Thanks for looking out for me!
   188. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM (#2983228)
I'm reposting my updated ballot, after I did some more research sorry for any confusion.

1. Rickey Henderson
2. Kirby Puckett
3. Bucky Walters
4. John McGraw
5. Lefty Gomez
6. Albert Belle
7. Reggie Smith
8. Luis Tiant
9. Lou Brock
10. Dizzy Dean
11. Gaavy Cravath
12. Dale Murphy-
13. Burleigh Grimes
14. Bobby Bonds
15. Addie Joss
   189. sunnyday2 Posted: October 16, 2008 at 01:05 AM (#2983273)
PS. Quick back of envelope calculations.

Joss UERA 0.93 total RA 2.82

Waddell 1.07
McGinnity 1.10
Matty 0.92
Chesbro 1.07
Walsh 0.83 2.65
Bender 0.84
M Brown 0.90 2.96
Reulbach 0.75
V Willis 1.02
Overall 0.82

Everybody else including Matty (3.05) > 3.00 total RA
   190. stax Posted: October 16, 2008 at 02:08 AM (#2983331)
Prelim ballot:

1. Rickey Henderson - No doubt, inner-circle'r.
2. Tony Perez - I'm actually surprised he's not in yet. Yes he's a first baseman so you want a higher standard of offense, but still quite good both offensively and defensively.
3. Dizzy Dean - I'm normally not a peak fan, but wow. Hard to fault a guy for a career shortened by two freak injuries (throw to the head in a double play as a PINCH RUNNING pitcher, line drive up the middle) so not really an 'injury prone' nature. Amazing pitcher, would be a no-doubter his first year if not for freak injuries entirely out of his control.
4. Kirby Puckett - I was originally amazed he wasn't elected, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. A little while ago I asked "Where will Bernie Williams fall?" on another forum and used Puckett as a surprisingly good comparison
5. Reggie Smith - Makes for a nice past candidate for a somewhat weak year.
6. Gavvy Cravath - Sort of another Dizzy Dean, in so much as he was limited by rather silly forces, in his case age rather than random injuries. League-leading doubles power in the minors, came into the majors at 27 with crazy good OPS+ for his whole career (barring his 2nd, very short year in 1909).
7. Dave Concepción - Weak bat, nice glove. Not much to say other than Joe Morgan would probably jump for joy given the number of times he's said he wished Dave was in the HoF.
8. Bert Campaneris - I love his defense, but that's just not a pretty bat. The one thing I find amazing is his potentially greatest offensive year came in an infamously pitcher-dominated year, 1968.
9. Lee Smith - Just about the borderline for relievers, IMO.
10. Tommy Leach - Slightly above average bat with some really great years, plus a nice glove even deep into his career.
11. Bobby Bonds - Nice, easy to read modern-era power. Some amazing early years, most obviously 1969, 1971, 1973. Though never hitting a .400 OBP once and a not-that-much above league average OBP (.353 to a lgERA of .330) despite very good power. If Bobby Bonds had his son's eye, he would have been some kind of player (though, I suppose, anyone would be with that understanding of the strike zone).
12. Lou Brock - Obviously infamous for his stolen bases, but not surprisingly that 75% success rate left him generating little actual value through them for his teams. I think OCF's point in post #3 of Brock's thread is a good one, if leadoff hitters are a special beast then Brock probably deserves a bonus for his success at that role (which I've not given him). But if every batter's goal is the same, Brock belongs (I think) about where I have him as a mostly ballot-filler candidate. Also, gotta say a .340 career OBP does not make for too amazing a leadoff hitter (not nice to be giving away a good number of outs when your team is giving you the most chances to do so).
13. Albert Belle - Man, this ballot has some sad stories. Dizzy Dean and getting hit by balls, Gavvy and not being given a shot til age 27, and Bell and arthritis. Belle's shorter career (especially for a modern player) is clearly more 'his fault' (since it's something about his own body), but still hard not to vote for a guy with a .714 slugging year and some amazing general offensive production.
14. David Cone - I make no bones about him getting in, really. He was a very good pitcher, infamous for a crazy toolbox ability to throw almost any pitch.
15. Dick Redding - I just don't think there's enough career there to seriously consider him.
   191. bjhanke Posted: October 16, 2008 at 09:20 AM (#2983601)
Hi. This is Brock Hanke, whom some of you will recall from the HoM positional balloting. Am I eligible to do this, too? If so, how is it done? Who is eligible right now, and how many of them am I supposed to vote for, and does it matter whether I list them in order or not? Sorry that I don't know this, but I've never done it before. Thanks.
   192. bjhanke Posted: October 16, 2008 at 12:49 PM (#2983639)
Please ignore the above post. My eyes had glazed over from reading too many posts before I got to OCF's #176, which answered my question. Thanks, "O" - Brock
   193. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 16, 2008 at 01:37 PM (#2983668)
Hey Chris Cobb, way to cost Rizzuto a vote. Thanks, a$$munch. ;)

stax--could you please be a bit clearer about exactly what process you're using to generate your ordinal rankings? Your descriptions give virtually no account of what has caused you to put player A ahead of player B.

Like, I think Tony Pérez is a joke of a candidate, not anywhere close to the HoM standard. Your defense of him is that he was "quite good offensively and defensively." OK, so are all major leaguers. What makes Pérez *more* Meritorious in your mind than, say, Reggie Smith, who you put 3 slots below him? Smith's career OPS+ was fif-teen points higher, 137 to 122. In terms of defensive value, their time in CF and 3B cancel out, but then Smith had the whole rest of his career as a corner OF, while Pérez had his as a 1B. So in terms of value above positional average, it's not remotely close (if someone could post RCAP here that would be helpful). The only thing Pérez has on Smith is career length--but even if you use a low replacement level, there are far better long-career candidates than Pérez. Do any of these points even matter to you? Your ballot justifications make it impossible for me to know. If you'd been voting for "decades," I could flip back to prior ballots to see how you approached things in the past, but as a new voter, I think you need to be a bit more comprehensive.

Quick comments on some of your picks:

1. Whoa, are you giving Dean credit for seasons he didn't play because he was hurt? Well THAT sure opens up a can o'worms...where are your votes for Herb Score or Ray Chapman or Tony Conigliaro or Ray Fosse or Cecil Travis?
2. I imagine you're giving Cravath credit for his minor league performance (as many voters do)--it would be good to know how much and for what seasons.
3. If you are looking for "ballot filler" candidates, there are about a zillion far superior to Lou Brock!
4. I mean, the .714 was in a high-offense strike year.
5. If you don't think Redding has enough career to be seriously considered, what, exactly, is he doing on your ballot?
   194. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 16, 2008 at 03:01 PM (#2983739)
Reupdating my ballot, rechecked Dean's stats, he was a lot less impressive than I remembered....

1. Rickey Henderson
2. Kirby Puckett
3. Bucky Walters
4. John McGraw
5. Lefty Gomez
6. Albert Belle
7. Reggie Smith
8. Luis Tiant
9. Lou Brock
10. Addie Joss
11. Indian Bob Johnson
12. Dale Murphy-
13. Burleigh Grimes
14. Bobby Bonds
15. Gaavy Cravath
   195. stax Posted: October 16, 2008 at 06:20 PM (#2983958)
DanR: That was a very prelim ballot, thanks for the comments. I will say I don't like the not-quite-a-requirement-but-sort-of-one 15-person on a ballot rule. I honestly don't see anyone outside of Rickey who is clearly worthy of election.

On Smith vs. Perez, you're right. Perez was nearly the last guy I looked at, and I think I just placed him high because his numbers look quite nice (I will say I think of myself as a career voter, so I appreciate the amount of value he built over 23 years). Smith will move higher though, I'll update my ballot here. I don't know why I have him so low, those are some impressive years even late in his career.

On Dizzy Dean, no I'm not giving credit for non-played season. I'm simply saying that although I prefer career value I'm not going to actively PUNISH Dean for a short career. Not punishing isn't giving credit.

On Gavvy Cravath I look at all of it, but 1906, 1907, and 1909-1911 are clearly the biggest years. Take posts #121 and #129 in his thread for Dr. Chaleeko's WS calculation (his totals in #129 don't even have 1906 in them). All those minor league win shares give him an MLE'd total up near the bottom end of our HoM OFs.

On Lou Brock, I have to disagree. I think he makes a pretty solid low-end of the ballot candidate, which is where I put him. I'd be interested, how many baserunning wins does your system give him?

On Albert Belle's .714, yes it was in a strike season but it was #2 in the league (second to Hall of Fame/Merit Frank Thomas amidst his dual-MVP peak) and his .690 next year (which led the league) only further cements that number. lgSLG in 94 was .432 to his .714, that's still pretty crazy.

On Redding, he is really just a ballot filler. Give me someone else you prefer and I'll probably stick him there. In fact, I'll start by at least putting Lefty Gomez there. Nearly double the career at a pretty darn good rate (125 OPS+ ain't too shabby).

Updated prelim ballot:

1. Rickey Henderson
2. Reggie Smith
3. Kirby Puckett
4. Tony Perez
5. Gavvy Cravath
6. Dave Concepción
7. Bert Campaneris
8. Lee Smith
9. Dizzy Dean
10. Tommy Leach
11. Bobby Bonds
12. Albert Belle
13. Lou Brock
14. David Cone
15. Lefty Gomez

The thing I'm most embarressed about is the Reggie Smith placement, I really don't know how I ended up at that one.
   196. Mark Donelson Posted: October 16, 2008 at 06:42 PM (#2983990)
I will say I don't like the not-quite-a-requirement-but-sort-of-one 15-person on a ballot rule.

Actually, that IS a requirement.
   197. DanG Posted: October 16, 2008 at 07:58 PM (#2984055)
Another look at Appier's cohort. Lowest OPS+ allowed 1990-2002, IP>1770.

Cnt Player            OPS+  GS  QS   IP   From  To
+----+-----------------+----+---+---+------+----+----+
    
1 Pedro Martinez      53 259 183 1892.1 1992 2002 
    2 Greg Maddux         62 434 314 3076.1 1990 2002 
    3 Randy Johnson       65 394 282 2821.2 1990 2002 
    4 Roger Clemens       69 399 264 2782.1 1990 2002 
    5 Curt Schilling      73 309 213 2394.2 1990 2002 
    6 John Smoltz         74 320 198 2281.2 1990 2002 
    7 Kevin Brown         77 376 254 2620.2 1990 2002 
    8 Mike Mussina        77 355 225 2454   1991 2002 
    9 Kevin Appier        80 372 231 2458   1990 2002 
   10 David Cone          80 341 208 2307.2 1990 2001 
   11 Tom Glavine         81 433 287 2913   1990 2002 
   12 Al Leiter           84 273 167 1781   1990 2002 
   13 Jamie Moyer         87 293 164 1956.1 1990 2002 
   14 David Wells         89 354 194 2433.2 1990 2002 
   15 Chuck Finley        90 404 230 2666.1 1990 2002 
   198. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 16, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#2984086)
Is anyone going to comment on my prelim ballot, or is it so terrible that no one cares?
   199. Juan V Posted: October 16, 2008 at 09:10 PM (#2984103)
Well, any more comments on how are you rating players would be nice.

DanG: Nice chart. Appier or Cone (or neither or both) should be the question to ask when inducting the 90's guys. Glavine has a career length advantage over them (not to mention OPS+ allowed might underrate him).
   200. Delorians Posted: October 16, 2008 at 09:22 PM (#2984119)
As a longtime lurker and non-voter, I feel like I should mention something. Most of the people who participate in the HOM voting put great care into how they construct their ballot; although their systems differ, I believe they each have a specific method to how they construct their ballots, and they make sure that all potentially worthy players are considered before they rank their top 15 and publish it on this thread. There is a reason that, although I love baseball and am interested in baseball history, I don't participate in these elections - I don't feel that I have the time (or diligence, or proper system) to analyze the performance of the top eligible players and produce a ballot that I would have reasonable confidence in. I'm writing just to make sure that the newcomers are putting enough thought into producing their ballot, and are aware of the vote tallying process. For example, it matters who you put 15th on your ballot, it isn't just filler, sometimes votes at the bottom make a difference in a close election. Also, a question about placement of a candidate on your ballot doesn't necessarily mean you should remove him and replace him with someone else, just explain why you think he is more worthy than others. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from participating, I just want to make sure that all of the newcomers are giving serious enough consideration to their method of ranking players for the entire ballot.
Page 2 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
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7088 seconds
49 querie(s) executed