Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, November 30, 2009

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!

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 30, 2009 at 09:44 PM | 140 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 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:17 PM (#3400290)
OCF, I agree--and I think Biggio was pretty clearly superior as well, while Bonds and Bagwell were comparably good. But a lot of players had great seasons that year. But Walker isn't a Gooden-style case based on one sublime MVP year. Very much like Larkin, it's an extremely high extended prime, where tremendous baserunning and defensive value more than compensates for a lack of in-season durability. Over an 11-year stretch, Walker had nine All-Star caliber years, four seasons worth of substantial MVP support ('92, '94, '97, '01), and two good enough to win an MVP in a typical year ('97 and '01). I should note that I am very, very confident in my baserunning and defensive numbers for the post-1987 period, for reasons elaborated on my WARP thread (and not nearly so confident for all of baseball history before that).
   102. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:19 PM (#3400295)
Chris Cobb, #96, fair point.
   103. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:20 PM (#3400297)
A key clarification to a common misunderstanding, Joe Dimino: my WARP do not use the worst regulars as replacement level. They use Nate Silver's Freely Available Talent (FAT) level (average production of players over age 27 making less than twice the league minimum salary) at each position as the "base" replacement level. The worst-regulars average is exclusively used to track the evolution of the defensive spectrum over the game's history--


That is what I meant, I just said it wrong . . . :-)
   104. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:22 PM (#3400304)
Bob Johnson sits very high in the backlog. Edgar doesn't have to be significantly better, just a little better.


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.
   105. Rusty Priske Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:38 PM (#3400324)
I had better not get too attached to my relaitvely high similarity score after looking at who people consider high on the next ballot.

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.
   106. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:45 PM (#3400328)
Rusty...would you care to elaborate? Are you docking him 30 wins for his scowl or something? 3250 IP at a 127 ERA+, with peak seasons of 233@216, 257@164, 230@169, 211@169, 237@150, and 252@143, with great peripherals...what more do you want?
   107. Paul Wendt Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:46 PM (#3400331)
DanR,
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.
   108. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3400336)
I've been getting into the Brown argument on the "mainland" in this thread.
   109. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:11 PM (#3400362)
snapper - I started my list with anyone who appeared on 2 ballots. Then I expanded the next year to anyone mentioned on anyone else's ballot anywhere.
   110. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:36 PM (#3400395)
Paul, I can't send the Rosenheck DB via email because it's too big, even zipped. But I'm pretty sure I'll be able to post it for download at the HoM website, once I hear back from Shock.

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 :-)
   111. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:47 PM (#3400404)
Interesting BTW. I just looked up Walker's PA in my Rosenheck DB, he's at .9592 - Rizzuto at .9598 (with WWII, but not minor league credit).

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).
   112. fra paolo Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:54 PM (#3400412)
The HoM, as an aggregate of all the voters' systems, has been historically just a little bit more friendly to pure hitting candidates ... because the magnitude of fielding value remains harder to quantify than batting value, so a certain portion of the electorate has always kind of written it off ... No amount of additional vetting of Edgar Martinez is going to alter that bias. If you want the next Edgar Martinez to get in line behind Phil Rizzuto, you'll have to make the case for fielding value.

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.
   113. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:56 PM (#3400417)
And real quick on the other 2010 new hitters, using PA based on DanR's WARP:

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
   114. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3400423)
DanR's salary estimator does have Walker ahead of Palmeiro 105-92 (millions). That's where we depart, I think the salary estimator severely overvalues peak performance.
   115. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 09:09 PM (#3400436)
Joe Dimino, I think you are looking at the original sheet, not the post-1987 one (in the same zip archive) that has vastly improved defense and baserunning numbers (and, as a result, has Walker with more raw career value than Palmeiro, albeit by a hair).
   116. Rusty Priske Posted: December 01, 2009 at 09:15 PM (#3400449)
My anti-Brown argument comes in that I am a career voter and while his career was long I don't see it, in total, being worth a spot.

I will be wading into the Brown thread before I put together a ballot, though. I am always willing to be proven wrong.
   117. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 09:26 PM (#3400475)
I'll double check Dan . . . when was it last updated?
   118. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 09:37 PM (#3400495)
It's been over a year now, I think. The relevant file is entitled Rosenheck WARP Results v2.1 1987-2005.csv. It's available at www.tangotiger.net/rosenheck.
   119. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 09:38 PM (#3400499)
I thought I put that in, but I could be wrong.

Right now I've got (from memory) Walker at about 63 WAR and Palmeiro at 67? Does that sound right?
   120. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 02, 2009 at 12:48 AM (#3400660)
Walker 67 Palmeiro 66 with the updated figures. That includes 14 wins of baserunning and defense for Walker--a figure that of course is backed up by his stellar reputation in both areas.
   121. mystikx20 Posted: December 02, 2009 at 01:51 AM (#3400715)
I definitely agree that rating pitchers is far trickier. Merely establishing a baseline as to what a "HoM level" career should look like is a lot harder because pitchers vary in their style and abilities (control and quick outs versus strikeouts, pitcher's parks versus bandboxes), the pitching usage and statistics have shifted throughout baseball history far more easily and less predictably than core offensive numbers and their prime careers and peaks tend to be shorter and harder to evaluate relative to their position. Once you get past a no-brainer pitcher (Maddux, Clemens, Pedro upcoming at some point, along with Kevin Brown who should do pretty well here), it's an impenetrable mess of various statistics to parse through and give some or no weight toward. And all this is before making the more general assumptions about how to evaluate peak/prime versus total career value. I'll probably be doing a lot more work on balancing my pitchers list considering the top 4 next year may be a fixed given if only to give another pitcher a fair shot at being #2 or #3 in 2012. Cone may compare somewhat favorably with Brown, but I don't think we should assume he's the only pitcher in the backlog who deserves a hard and long look.

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?
   122. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 02, 2009 at 01:57 AM (#3400721)
I think it's pretty clear from the vote totals that few people saw Edgar as a no-brainer, as were Larkin and Alomar--15 people left him off the ballot entirely, and only 5 voters had him in elect-me slots. It's only because the backlog is weak and divided that he got in comfortably.
   123. OCF Posted: December 02, 2009 at 02:28 AM (#3400748)
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.
   124. mystikx20 Posted: December 02, 2009 at 06:25 AM (#3400894)
I didn't imagine it would be a continued trick. It looks sort of like trying to win an NCAA pool every year, only in a pool that actually has people who know something about tempo adjustment and defensive efficiency to add to the luck factor. Without any money at the end of it.
   125. bjhanke Posted: December 02, 2009 at 04:23 PM (#3401088)
Post 113 expresses just about what I think comparing Bagwell to Palmeiro. I have Jeff high up on the very preliminary ballot for next year; I'm not at all certain that Raffy will make it at all. Larry Walker might, after I try to make the massive ballpark adjustments and try to find some good way to estimate his defense. Both can hurt my head. But, then, I'll probably have 2 or 3 1800s pitchers in there, so my consensus score will look much like this year's. At least have time to try to compare the 1800s guys to Phillippe and Leever. Brown is probably better than any of them. Well, maybe McCormick.
   126. Jeff K. Posted: December 02, 2009 at 04:30 PM (#3401098)
If you want to avoid the kind of creep that means my December Esquire shows up in October, I might suggest waiting to post the plaques until it's past January 1.
   127. Jeff K. Posted: December 02, 2009 at 04:33 PM (#3401102)
Also, someone may have asked, but why do you round up Larkin's vote total (938 = 94%) but not Alomar (849 = 84%)?

Picking nits.
   128. DL from MN Posted: December 02, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3401148)
Is anyone latching onto these results elsewhere or have we utterly failed get any notice again?
   129. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 02, 2009 at 06:39 PM (#3401238)
Actually Larkin should be 95% (938/984) and Alomar 86% (869/984) and Edgar 38% (371/984). Am I missing something? Did John have the denominator wrong or do I? 41*24=984, right?
   130. Jeff K. Posted: December 02, 2009 at 07:10 PM (#3401284)
Oh, I assumed it was out of 1000, given the roundings I saw.
   131. Paul Wendt Posted: December 02, 2009 at 08:08 PM (#3401366)
Joe,
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%.
   132. bjhanke Posted: December 03, 2009 at 04:03 AM (#3401759)
Jeff K says, "If you want to avoid the kind of creep that means my December Esquire shows up in October, I might suggest waiting to post the plaques until it's past January 1."

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
   133. DanG Posted: February 22, 2010 at 08:46 PM (#3465372)
RE: Player Count, Hall of Merit vs. Hall of Fame – We’re still catching up.

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.
   134. Yardape Posted: February 23, 2010 at 05:24 AM (#3465707)
A mag with a December cover date is likely to be returned once December is over.


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.
   135. Chris Fluit Posted: February 25, 2010 at 04:32 PM (#3467969)
Thanks for the count, Dan.
   136. Paul Wendt Posted: February 25, 2010 at 08:36 PM (#3468265)
Publication dates printed on the covers of newspapers, magazines, and book (or book bindings) may be lies or misprints, but they are nonetheless publication dates. Conflict with a publication date printed inside would routinely be resolved in favor of the inside publication date, I suppose, but whoever cites or catalogs would reasonably look for other evidence and include a note that describe the conflict and resolves it, if possible. Mismatch with known or supposed dates of production and distribution, ie the marketing lie, would be nothing to investigate for a catalog or citation, whose purpose is to help identify and find, and that's where publication dates live.

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.
   137. DanG Posted: February 25, 2010 at 09:57 PM (#3468353)
Thanks for the count, Dan.
You're welcome.

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).
   138. sunnyday2 Posted: March 02, 2010 at 01:10 AM (#3470608)
What's Next has finally fallen off the Hot Topics in case anyone didn't notice.
   139. Paul Wendt Posted: March 02, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3470940)
the rate of fall means that nothing is Hot.
   140. sunnyday2 Posted: March 08, 2010 at 12:54 PM (#3474714)
Bingo.
   141. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 04, 2010 at 03:27 PM (#3683755)
Bump
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.6964 seconds
49 querie(s) executed