2010 Results: Stars of the ‘90s Larkin, Alomar and Martinez Shine the Brightest at the HoM Today!
Star Reds shortstop Barry Larkin was the standout performer in the latest Hall of Merit election with his 94% of all possible points in his first year of eligibility.
All-time great second baseman Roberto Alomar was also impressive with his 84% as a newbie himself.
Last but not least, Seattle Mariners legend Edgar Martinez became the first full-time DH ever elected to the HoM. The first-time candidate earned 37% of all possible points.
Rounding out the top-ten are: David Cone, Phil Rizzuto, Gavvy Cravath, Hugh Duffy (back in the top-ten!), Bucky Walters, Luis Tiant and Rick Reuschel (first time in the top-ten!).
Thanks to OCF for his help with this election’s tally!
See all of you again here next year!
RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 n/e Barry Larkin 938 40 26 13 1
2 n/e Roberto Alomar 849 41 11 16 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
3 n/e Edgar Martinez 371 26 1 1 3 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 5 David Cone 316 22 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1
5 4 Phil Rizzuto 220 16 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2
6 6 Gavvy Cravath 219 19 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 2
7 14 Hugh Duffy 208 15 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1
8 8 Bucky Walters 200 16 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
9 9 Luis Tiant 198 15 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2
10 13 Rick Reuschel 187 13 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 7 Tommy Leach 185 14 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2
12 10 Cannonball Dick Redding 185 13 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2
13 n/e Fred McGriff 174 14 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1
14 15 Don Newcombe 172 14 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
15 16 Dave Concepción 163 13 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
16 11 Kirby Puckett 145 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 20 Vic Willis 142 11 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 12 Bob Johnson 140 12 1 2 2 1 1 3 2
19 22 Bobby Bonds 132 11 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2
20 23 Burleigh Grimes 124 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
21 17 Tony Perez 120 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
22 18 Dizzy Dean 113 9 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
23 30 Tommy Bridges 104 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24 21 Johnny Pesky 97 9 1 1 1 1 3 2
25 26 Bus Clarkson 95 7 2 1 3 1
26T 27T Ken Singleton 90 8 1 2 1 2 1 1
26T 24 Mickey Welch 90 8 3 1 1 1 1
28 27T Bill Monroe 85 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
29 29 Albert Belle 80 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
30 25 Dale Murphy 80 7 1 1 2 1 1 1
31 34 Ed Williamson 77 5 1 1 1 1 1
32 35 Bert Campaneris 75 4 2 1 1
33 32 Ben Taylor 74 6 1 1 2 1 1
34 33 Bob Elliott 73 6 1 2 2 1
35 38 Norm Cash 71 6 2 1 1 1 1
36 42 Fred Dunlap 69 6 1 1 1 1 2
37 19 George Van Haltren 65 5 1 1 2 1
38T 31 Elston Howard 62 6 1 1 1 1 2
38T 40 Rusty Staub 62 6 1 2 1 1 1
40 39 Tommy John 62 5 1 1 1 1 1
41 46 Sal Bando 62 4 1 1 1 1
42 81 Buddy Bell 57 5 1 1 1 1 1
43 48 Larry Doyle 56 4 2 1 1
44 37 Pie Traynor 55 5 1 1 1 1 1
45 79 Kevin Appier 48 4 1 2 1
46T 49T Addie Joss 48 3 1 1 1
46T 44 Frank Tanana 48 3 1 1 1
48T 36 Lou Brock 46 4 1 1 2
48T 43 Urban Shocker 46 4 1 1 1 1
50 41 Lee Smith 43 3 1 1 1
51 45 Vern Stephens 41 4 1 1 1 1
52 52 Babe Adams 40 2 1 1
53 51 Ed Cicotte 38 2 1 1
54T 55 Don Mattingly 37 3 1 1 1
54T 77 Al Rosen 37 3 1 2
56 47 Carl Mays 36 3 1 1 1
57 83 Tony Mullane 35 3 1 1 1
58 53 Chuck Klein 32 3 1 1 1
59 82 Frank Chance 32 2 1 1
60T 62T Ernie Lombardi 31 3 1 1 1
60T 54 Sam Rice 31 3 1 1 1
62 59 Jack Quinn 31 2 1 1
63 57 Dave Bancroft 30 3 1 1 1
64 56 Leroy Matlock 30 2 1 1
65 49T Wally Schang 29 2 1 1
66 87T Hilton Smith 25 2 1 1
67 60T Rabbit Maranville 23 3 2 1
68T -- Luke Easter 23 2 1 1
68T 62T Dizzy Trout 23 2 1 1
70T -- Orel Hershiser 22 2 1 1
70T 64T Jim Kaat 22 2 2
70T 73 Thurman Munson 22 2 1 1
70T 58 Jimmy Ryan 22 2 1 1
74T 69T Orlando Cepeda 21 2 1 1
74T 66T Bruce Sutter 21 2 1 1
76 66T Sam Leever 20 2 1 1
77T -- Cesar Cedeno 19 2 1 1
77T 71T Dwight Gooden 19 2 1 1
79 71T Dave Parker 18 2 1 1
80T 69T George J. Burns 17 2 1 1
80T 60T Jim Rice 17 2 1 1
82T 80 Chuck Finley 16 1 1
82T 74T Tony Oliva 16 1 1
84 74T Tommy Bond 13 2 1 1
85 78 Hack Wilson 13 1 1
86 -- Jim McCormick 12 1 1
87 64T Lefty Gomez 11 1 1
88T 85T Fielder Jones 10 1 1
88T 91T George Kell 10 1 1
88T 85T Deacon Phillipe 10 1 1
91T 95T Bill Madlock 9 1 1
91T -- Nap Rucker 9 1 1
93T 84 Ron Cey 8 1 1
93T 87T Elmer Smith 8 1 1
93T 87T Jack Fournier 8 1 1
93T 91T Jack Morris 8 1 1
93T 97T Al Oliver 8 1 1
93T -- Will White 8 1 1
99T 66T Wilbur Cooper 7 1 1
99T 91T Frank Howard 7 1 1
99T n/e Robin Ventura 7 1 1
102T -- Jose Cruz 6 1 1
102T 97T Charlie Hough 6 1 1
102T 95T Tony Lazzeri 6 1 1
102T 99 Billy Nash 6 1 1
Dropped Out: Bobby Veach (74T), Lance Parrish (87T), Dom DiMaggio (91T).
Ballots Cast: 41
BTW, if you are a twitterer or facebookerer or myspacerer, please spread the word a bit about the election results.
You can use this short URL: http://bit.ly/6KhOXT
I’m sending this out, which fits under the 140 character Twitter limit with a couple of characters to spare:
Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez elected to the Hall of Merit! Cone, Rizzuto, Cravath top runners up: http://bit.ly/6KhOXT
Thanks!
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.
That is what I meant, I just said it wrong . . . :-)
Just to clarify, when I say 'significantly', I really just mean, 'at all' better. Meaning there is no noticeable (signficant) difference in value. I think they are essentially tied.
Kevin Brown is NOWHERE near my ballot. It looks like my 'elect-me' positions go to Raffy, Bags, and Tommy Leach. My PHoM looks like the first two plus Edgar Martinez.
Anything really good on Larry Walker will soon be lost here. I suggest that you lobby the Secretary-General to post the Larry Walker thread first, presumably on grounds that it is more important than the Bagwell, Palmeiro, and Brown threads.
On Phil Rizzuto and other shortstops rated by Total Zone TZ, or by TZ+iDP (sum of range and doubleplay components), see "Phil Rizzuto".
Everyone,
Refer to the 2010 discussion thread posted last January, or the leading player threads posted Jan to Mar, and see that several participants were active during the winter, few during the spring and summer. What will happen next year?
47. Joe Dimino Posted: November 30, 2009 at 11:12 PM (#3399824)
I still haven't done the Brown/Cone comparison. But I agree it will be Bagwell/Raffy and one of the other two.
Unless Dan and I (and a few others) can successfully spread the gospel on Rizzuto. I'm going to try.
The problem is that his case does not jump out at you. ...
Again, Dan was able to get the group focused on guys like Nettles and McGraw. Focused enough to elect them anyway.
I think a well presented stating of the case for Rizzuto would certainly help. It could add him to a few ballots where he's borderline, and move him up a few that he's already on.
Joe,
All this is true. Practically there is a case to be made during the next hundred weeks and then perhaps to be made again. The next fifty weeks will govern rank order in the backlog for 2012.
Is it possible to maintain the institution so that you have an audience during much of the fifty and the hundred weeks? and also to maintain high voter participation? I doubt that. It seems to me that high turnout means dusting off a lot of last year's ballots.
Good luck with it. I'm around and I now have most of a final ballot and most of a PHOM myself (see the discussion thread). Send me the modified Rosenheck database (I'll write from gmail in a minute). I have done a lot on the historical playing time during the last week, while doing only a relative little on choneWAR and fall 2009 Davenstats. Soon I'll send out some more of the graphical analysis.
There are some other things to get off the virtual desktop, too.
You are very correct on the idea that expecting to maintain this level of discussion for 100 weeks is pushing the realms of reality . . .
I'll post a Walker thread a little later today. Sounds like a Kevin Brown thread might be in order too :-)
Others in that range:
Heinie Groh .9604, Zack Wheat .9624, Max Carey .9666, Paul Molitor .9715, Dave Winfield .9754. Elmer Flick .9775, Duke Snider .9825.
And a little below:
Brooks Robinson .9521, Johnny Bench .9499 (no catching bonus), Dick Allen .9499, Jimmy Sheckard .9475, Home Run Baker .9459, Jimmy Collins .9452, Graig Nettles .9311, Robby Alomar .9296, Willie Stargell .9265.
BTW, I noticed that I did not give WWII credit for players already in the HoM, only for candidates. So I'll have to add that at some point.
Both (Rizzuto and Walker) very easily meet our standards.
Here's how I have Scooter's WAR, btw:
1941 - 4.8
1942 - 6.5
1943 - 5.2
1944 - 5.4
1945 - 5.6
1946 - 1.4
1947 - 5.9
1948 - 1.9
1949 - 3.9
1950 - 8.5
1951 - 4.5
1952 - 5.0
1953 - 3.6
1954 - 0.0 (-0.1, but I zero out sub replacement)
1955 - 0.6
1956 - 0.0
Notice that he hits that PA number without even being given a boost for 1946 despite his malaria. I'll have to go back and check, but I believe, looking at those numbers, that 1946 even negatively impacts the 1943-45 projections.
Give him a boost for 1946 and minor league credit for 1940, and we're talking about a player around 1.03 or so, which puts him between Al Simmons (1.0223) and Ernie Banks (1.0413).
These are exceedingly wise words from Chris Cobb.
I was trying to make the case for fielding value in my Bill Mazeroski argument a couple of years ago. I accumulated all available fielding data covering his and Nellie Fox's career, and I'm fairly confident that I can tell you where fielding value hurts and how it is meritworthy. Rizzuto was my 16th man this time round, and frequently featured on my ballot on earlier occasions.
I encountered the same problem arguing for Munson. People said Freehan was a better-fielding catcher. But what's more important for a catcher - fielding percentage or passed balls? If you look at passed balls and caught stealings, there's not much to choose. (IIRC - perhaps someone should double-check the Munson thread.)
The problem is that there is no consensus as to how valuable fielding even might be. The general view of the electorate is summarised as, 'fielding has value, but the metrics cannot show us what it is, therefore let it be discounted, except if the guy hits around league average'. These may be fightin' words, but we're basically occupying the same territory as the Gold Glove awards - a fielder with poor range who hits is regarded as vastly more meritorious than a good fielder who hits league-average for his position.
You can also argue that pitchers suffer from a similar problem - except it's a mirror image. We argue that pitchers are helped (Walters) or hurt (Reuschel) by fielding, and it seems to influence voting a bit more, quite contrary to the opinions about hitters. (Although it's worth noting that Walters still outpolls Reuschel, suggesting the fielding enigma is somewhat discounted for pitchers, too.)
'We don't need no stinking fielding, unless you're a pitcher' - which is kind of true, but doesn't really help us. I'm not arguing that the electorate is wrong, rather that it's lazy. It may well be right, but it doesn't want to do the work to find out.
Bagwell 1.2462
Palmeiro 1.0107
Walker 0.9592
Olerud 0.7484
Mondesi 0.4933
BrBoone 0.4559
Grissom 0.4161
Tino 0.3963
Surhoff 0.3842
Baerga 0.3370
Offerman 0.2577
I will be wading into the Brown thread before I put together a ballot, though. I am always willing to be proven wrong.
Right now I've got (from memory) Walker at about 63 WAR and Palmeiro at 67? Does that sound right?
I had Edgar as a clear #3 on my list for this year. But his placement compared to people already in in the HoM here was as a "borderline-in" or low average candidate, certainly not a no-brainer. The model I came up with was designed to approximate the consensus around who was already in around here where I could in order to rate the guys coming along over the next years. Looks like it worked, for what that is worth. I had a typo in my spreadsheet that put McGriff a bit lower than I'd like if I had to do it over again, but #13 instead of #15 sounds about right. It's not like I had him secretly 2nd or something and he was an undiscovered gem, but rather he has an interesting case to me now instead of a boring one. Belle looked more interesting on reflection also. Neither looks like they have a clear sailing case to get in. Edgar did even though it wasn't a smooth obvious case. The "Bill Terry" assessment looks pretty accurate from where those two came out in my rankings. Both look solid, but not exciting depending on what perspective you want to look at them with.
And finally: who left off Larkin?
The listing of consensus scores should imply the answer to this question.
As for your consensus score, which implies that you agree with us more closely than any of us veterans agree with our collective selves: history suggests that you'll probably get over that.
Picking nits.
Yes, denominator 984.
By standard rounding you are right, 95, 86, 38%.
If we trunctate then 95, 86, 37%.
240 is a very nice number. 64 pitchers seemed likely for a while and would have generated a nice fraction, reducing all the way to 4/15 pitcher share. Instead we have 63/240 = 21/80.
243 divides nicely into thirds, again and again. Anticipating another year at 63 pitchers (Bagwell, Palmeiro, and Walker in 2011!) then 63/243 = 7/27, just under 26%.
I don't know if that would happen here, but it's not the real story of Esquire. That mag, like everything else that was popular during WWII, including comic books (which is where I found this info), had that creep because the government was rationing paper. You got your paper allotment by the publication by the month. So the magazine owners started to put out their "monthly" mags every 3 weeks, or even 2 weeks, to sell more copies by getting more paper. You can still see this in comic books that go back into the 1940s. They are all dated ahead. I've also been told that, after the war and its rationing were over, the reason the mags kept the early dates was to keep the mags on the retail shelf longer. A mag with a December cover date is likely to be returned once December is over. If it is actually released in October, you get 3 months of shelf life instead of one. - Brock
With the 2010 election, the Hall of Merit has elected 240 players. At the same time, Dawson brings the HOF official player count to 232 (203 MLB, 29 NeL). Despite these counts, the HoM still has not caught up to the HOF’s number; we are still more exclusive.
Once you account for the HoMers that the HOF does not count as “players”, our number drops below theirs. Start with the banned players: HoMers Pete Rose and Joe Jackson would certainly be in the HOF if there were no “character clause”. A couple others are classified by the HOF as “managers”: John McGraw and Rube Foster. Add Joe Torre to that list, whom the HOF has rejected for his playing but is a shoo-in for election as a manager. Then we have three HoMers whom the HOF lists in the “executives/pioneers” category: George Wright, Al Spalding and Clark Griffith. Along these same lines, we see four players in the HoM who did not play ten years in MLB from 1876-on, implying the HOF would classify them as “pioneers” if they were elected: Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Cal McVey and Ross Barnes. (None of those four appeared on the lists of 200 candidates for the four VC elections from 2003-09.)
That’s 12 HoMers whom the HOF does not classify/consider as players. Thus, an apples-to-apples comparison shows the HOF player total of 232 as still being more than our adjusted total here of 228.
If I`m not mistaken, the date on a magazine is the `expiration` date; that is, the date when newstands pull that issue for the new one. So the `December` Esquire is really for the month of November, ending in December. This is in contrast to newspapers, which list the date of publication.
We have Award dates, real and virtual.
Regarding both the real-time awards, such as HOM election the last couple years or HOF election, and the virtual-time awards such as Hall of Merit election 1898 to 2008(2007?), I try always to specify the annual cycle for yyyy, not in yyyy. "The Halls of Fame and Merit elected Rickey Henderson for 2009", not "in 2009". The Historical Overview Committee nominated Will White for 2003; alternatively, "for election in the 2003 cycle", but not "in 2003".
Jon Miller won the 2010 Frick Award. He won the Frick Award for 2010 or during the 2010 cycle. These datings fit whether the selection was announced during 2010 (as it was this month) or during 2009 (as in some previous years).
Publication dates are like Award dates.
As a further note, the reason the HOF exceeds the HoM is entirely due to their 2006 Black Ball fire drill when they herded 12 Negro league players into the HOF. Through 2005, the HoM's adjusted total of 214 topped the HOF's official total of 212. Since then, they've elected 20 players (7 BBWAA, 1 VC, 12 NeL) while we've elected 14 from their player consideration set (plus John McGraw).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main