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, March 03, 2008

Election Results: Group 3 Favorites are 19th Century Studs Dahlen, White and Hines!

Underrated turn-of the-last-century shortstop Bill Dahlen achieved a terrific 95% of all possible points, while outstanding 19th-century catcher/thirdbaseman Deacon White followed him closely with an almost equally impressive 94%.

NA and NL star Paul Hines also impressed with 89%.

Excellent fielding shortstop Jack Glasscock nabbed 75%.

RK Player             1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Points  
 1 Bill Dahlen       15  4  2        1           1                                   461
 2 Deacon White       7 13  2                             1                          454
 3 Paul Hines            3 14  5        1                                            431
 4 Jack Glasscock           1 11  2  2        1  2  3  1                             363
 5 George Gore                 3  5  2  2  3  2  1  2  2     1                       331
 6 Joe Start             1  2     1  3  3  5     2  1     1     1  1        1     1  299
 7 Ezra Sutton              1  1  2  3  3  3  2  1  1     2     1  2           1     294
 8 Heinie Groh                 1  1  3  2  2  2  2  1     2  3  2     1        1     265
 9 Hardy Richardson               2  2  1  2     1  2  3  2  3  3  1           1     244
10 Bob Caruthers      1           3     3        1  1  2  1     3  2  1  2  3        224
11 Charlie Bennett                      1  1  3  2  3  3  3  2  1  2  1           1  223
12 Sherry Magee          1              1     4  4  1     2  1  2  1  2  2  2        216
13 Stan Hack                   1  2  2     3  2        1  1  1     1  1  3  2  3     214
14 Joe Gordon            1           1  4  1  3                 2     4  4  2     1  206
15 Jimmy Sheckard                 1  2        1  1  1  2  2  4     3  1  1  1  2  1  190
16 Charlie Keller           1  1  2     1  1  1  1  1        1     1  2  1  3  4  2  183
17 Harry Stovey                   1           1  2  2  2     2  3  1  1  2  2  2  2  164
18 Cupid Childs                   1                 1  5  3  1  1     2  4  3  1  1  158
19 Wes Ferrell                       1     1     1  1  1  3  1  1  5  2  1     2  3  156
20 Charley Jones                        1  1  1     2        1  1  2  2  1  3  4  4  126
21 Pete Browning                     1           1     1     2  2  1  3  2  1  2  7  111


Ballots Cast: 23

As always, thanks go to OCF and Ron for helping me with the tally! It was a monster pain in the butt this time.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 03, 2008 at 02:42 AM | 34 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 03, 2008 at 04:07 AM (#2704453)
Nice to see the 19th century guys didn't get rolled over by the 20th century players.
   2. Howie Menckel Posted: March 03, 2008 at 04:22 AM (#2704460)
Not an overly scienftific pecking order, particularly if you like one group a lot more or less than the others, but......


Pct of possible pts, 1st 3 group elections (which group, rank among group):

Dahlen............95.0 (III, 1st)
White..............94.0 (III, 2nd)
Blyleven......... 93.9 (I, 1st)
Raines............92.9 (I, 2nd)
Grich..............90.2 (II, 1st)
Hines.............89.2 (III, 3rd)
Santo.............88.1 (II, 2nd)

McGwire.........79.0 (I, 3rd)
DAllen............77.8 (II, 3rd)
TSimmons......75.6 (II, 4th)
Glasscock......75.2 (III, 4th)
Trammell........74.7 (I, 4th)

Gore...............68.5 (III, 5th)
Start...............61.9 (III, 6th)
ESutton..........60.9 (III, 7th)
Whitaker.........60.9 (I, 5th)

WClark...........55.3 (I, 6th)
Groh...............54.9 (III, 8th)
DarEvans........54.2 (II, 5th)
Torre...............50.8 (II, 6th)
Richardson......50.5 (III, 9th)

Caruthers........46.4 (III, 10th)
Bennett...........46.2 (III, 11th)
Magee.............44.7 (III, 12th)
Hack...............44.3 (III, 13th)
Minoso............44.2 (II, 7th)
Gordon............42.7 (III, 14th)
Freehan...........40.8 (II, 8th)
KHernandez.....40.7 (I, 7th)

DwiEvans.........39.4 (I, 8th)
Sheckard.........39.3 (III, 15th)
Keller...............37.9 (III, 16th)
BPierce............36.9 (II, 9th)
HStovey...........34.0 (III, 17th)
Stieb................33.3 (I, 9th)
JWynn.............33.1 (II, 10th)
Saberhagen......33.1 (I, 10th)
Childs..............32.7 (III, 18th)
WFerrell..........32.2 (III, 19th)
Nettles.............31.4 (II, 11th)

Boyer..............26.9 (II, 12th)
Dawson...........26.3 (I, 11th)
CJones............26.1 (III, 20th)
Browning..........23.0 (III, 21st)
Randolph.........21.5 (I, 12th)
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 03, 2008 at 04:28 AM (#2704466)
BTW, I apologize for the mess that is the results. The grouping of 21 totally destroyed Evan Reich's ballot counter, so I had to use the one that I created years ago. While that worked out okay, the "pre" tags wouldn't line the results up properly for some reason. Therefore, I removed them.
   4. Paul Wendt Posted: March 03, 2008 at 06:13 AM (#2704501)
Excuse for me not completing a ballot. I hope that most of you learned a little and some learned a lot from what I was able to pull together and type out in this irritating space.

Probably the greater practical obstacle for me is the written explanations. But it is "wild" (we said in my day) to deliberate on the rankings, Caruthers or Magee, Magee or Gordon? Indifferent defense? Can it be so indifferent that I put him below Groh, Gordon, and Caruthers? MVP? Was Gordon really an MVP?

I disagree with the consensus by ranking Sutton and Bennett 4-5 slots lower; and by ranking Stovey, certainly Gordon, probably Magee, and barely possibly Caruthers 3-5 slots higher. Plus or minus 2 is the tolerance range that does not count as disagreement.

The results include no tie and only a single one-point difference. I would have provided some breathing space for Caruthers at #10 and possibly created three other ties +/-1 by boosting Magee, Gordon, and Ferrell. I prefer to consider them ties and imagine that JTM's years-old ballot counter happened to list Bennett, Hack, and Childs first.

--
Three weeks ago I pencilled Hardy Richardson in at #15-17 and supposed the group would concur, while Gordon and Childs would contend for 2B honors in the middle of the ballot. That changed. I also pencilled Jack Glasscock in at #4 and suspected I would be his best friend. In the event, fourth is the consensus while I have bumped Joe Start ahead of him.
   5. OCF Posted: March 03, 2008 at 06:17 AM (#2704502)
Consensus scores for this:

62 Devin McCullen
62 TomH
61 Dan R
60 ronw
60 Esteban Rivera
60 Rob Wood
60 OCF
59 Chris Cobb
59 Howie Menckel
59 Sean Gilman
58 sunnyday2
58 Joe Dimino -- median
58 andrew siegel
58 Tiboreau
55 AJM
[53: mean]
52 mulder & scully
51 jimd
50 Rick A
49 Rusty Priske
47 EricC
37 John Murphy
(26 Tom D's disallowed ballot)
25 karlmagnus
19 dan b
   6. Paul Wendt Posted: March 03, 2008 at 06:38 AM (#2704504)
The biggest surprise for me in the results is their decisive quality from 4 to 10, with 20-point gaps at every step but one. Glasscock at #4 is 139 points ahead of #10, more than 6 per ballot.
In part, that decisiveness shows up as eight candidates above 50%, thirteen below.

Good night.
   7. OCF Posted: March 03, 2008 at 06:45 AM (#2704506)
Standard deviations in vote position, candidate by candidate. (And as Paul is noted, it would be normal for this to be low at both ends and high in the middle.) I would add that I'd also expect this to lower at the top end than the bottom end, as top-end candidates should stand out more than bottom-enders, who are close both to each other and to comparable non-HOM players.

Dahlen 2.05
White 2.36
Hines 0.99
Glasscock 2.99
Gore 2.89
Start 4.81
Sutton 4.30
Groh 4.16
Richardson 3.88
Caruthers 5.32
Bennett 3.20
Magee 4.32
Hack 5.64
Gordon 5.50
Sheckard 4.42
Keller 6.16
Stovey 4.25
Childs 3.77
Ferrell 4.02
Jones 4.37
Browning 3.94
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: March 03, 2008 at 03:16 PM (#2704606)
Howie, great list. If Cooperstown got all of group 1 and most of group 2 (Howie's clusters), I think we could say that all would be forgiven.

As to Group 3, I'd say the 20C guys got dinged a bit, not a lot, but a bit.

I think the rank ordering of the 19C guys is actually very good. Maybe Childs is a tad low but just a tad.

The rank ordering of the 20C guys is another story. For some reason, I have a hard time with that. I like Heinie Groh but is he really the best? To me, he and Gordon are pretty comparable, and Gordon would clearly rate ahead of Hack. But Magee and Sheckard are pretty interchangeable and came out that way. Keller is too low for a peak/prime voter. And one cannot but wonder where Ferrell lands if Dick Thompson is still with us and weighs in.
   9. Chris Fluit Posted: March 03, 2008 at 06:54 PM (#2704893)
I'm surprised at the big gap between Hines and Gore (100 pts). They're so similar, I would have thought they'd have been bunched closer together.
   10. Paul Wendt Posted: March 03, 2008 at 07:46 PM (#2704967)
Hines played so much longer in the majors, younger and older
13/14 to 10/11 full seasons equivalent games at CF
Giving Hines zero credit for 1872, its 17+ to 11+ full seasons at all positions

Gore is in the range where some say his career was "short" and a few say too short. None(?) of the latter here but the same considerations cost him a several rungs on some ladders.

--
The rank ordering of the 20C guys is another story. For some reason, I have a hard time with that.

There was a lot of disagreement about the youngsters. Keller, Hack, and Gordon lead in standard deviation. That doesn't prove any disagreement in ranking the 20th century subset. It does suggest to me that that trio may be the clearest subset. Note to Cooperstown: adjust the demarcation of old-time and modern jurisdictions.
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 03, 2008 at 08:10 PM (#2705002)
There was a lot of disagreement about the youngsters. Keller, Hack, and Gordon lead in standard deviation.


I don't understand Gordon and Hack in the same vicinity of Magee and Sheckard, since the first two are both higher up on their respective positional lists than the other two are. Keller was greater than both of them, too.
   12. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 03, 2008 at 08:33 PM (#2705037)
Sunnyday, yes, Groh is really the best. His combination of offense and defense was Santo-esque, and he did it in an era when 3B *really* didn't hit. Guys like Fred Thomas or Ollie O'Mara could hold down jobs there for a full year with OPS+'s around 50. I have his rank in his league from 1915-21 as 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 6, 9. That's just flat-out dominance. Gordon was a damn fine player, but not like *that*.

John Murphy, I have Magee and Sheckard way above Gordon and Hack. What does positional ranking have to do with it? Are Mike Schmidt or Johnny Bench on your list of top 8 position players of all time? Where is it written that talent must have been equally distributed across positions over all of MLB history?
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 03, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2705043)
John Murphy, I have Magee and Sheckard way above Gordon and Hack. What does positional ranking have to do with it? Are Mike Schmidt or Johnny Bench on your list of top 8 position players of all time? Where is it written that talent must have been equally distributed across positions over all of MLB history?


Over 125 years, I would say that the talent has been distributed fairly equally, Dan.

As to Schmidt and Bench, I have Mike around my top-ten, while Josh Gibson is the catcher that you should have mentioned. :-)
   14. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 03, 2008 at 08:50 PM (#2705053)
Schmidt in the top 10, really?? Just among MLB position players, I have Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Wagner, Cobb, Mays, Speaker, Musial, Hornsby, Aaron, Collins, Mantle, Lajoie, Gehrig, Morgan, and then Schmidt...you'd really put him smack in the middle of that group?

Touché on Gibson. But I would say that over baseball history, the best/most valuable players have been overrepresented in the outfield and middle infield, and underrepresented at corner infield and catcher, by a substantial margin.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 03, 2008 at 09:08 PM (#2705071)
Schmidt in the top 10, really??


I typed the word "around," Dan. I don't have my own personal list set up. But I can't see him far away from the top-ten at the very least.

But the top players of all-time are an irrelvant concern anyway, since none of the players from any of the groups voted on could be classified as the best at their positions. I have no doubt that the degrees of difference between all positions in player value is minimal once you get beyond the super-studs.

Just among MLB position players, I have Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Wagner, Cobb, Mays, Speaker, Musial, Hornsby, Aaron, Collins, Mantle, Lajoie, Gehrig, Morgan, and then Schmidt...you'd really put him smack in the middle of that group?


Taking into account the varying attrition rates for each of those positions? Sure, why not?
   16. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 04, 2008 at 12:45 AM (#2705236)
Is the attrition rate particularly high at 3B? If so, I'm not aware of it, nor do I see any intrinsic reason why that should be the case (as it is at catcher).
   17. Paul Wendt Posted: March 04, 2008 at 03:41 AM (#2705311)
I like Heinie Groh but is he really the best? To me, he and Gordon are pretty comparable, and Gordon would clearly rate ahead of Hack.

Groh and Hack played through WWI and WWII and put up MVP seasons in 1918 and 1945. Some will give Groh a small minus or two (quality discount or short schedule) and some will give Hack a big minus (quality discount). The evaluation of Gordon is even more precarious. When you look at a season like Gordon's 1946 in the record, with only a slight inclination to be generous, you see someone who lost three prime seasons not two. Or he lost two prime season and five points off his career hitting OPS+.

Compare Pesky and Slaughter. In 1942 and 1946, Pesky finished 3-4 in MVP voting and Slaughter finished 3-2. With a slight inclination to be generous, you see someone who lost three seasons as one of the best players in the league. For Pesky and Slaughter it may not be critical at the HOM/HOF level. Perhaps Pesky falls short even if the favorable view is common and Slaughter makes it even if that view is rare.

For Gordon it may be decisive --may have been in writer votes and committee deliberations.
I think it must be one reason why he is here 7th, there 17th in balloting this week.
   18. TomH Posted: March 04, 2008 at 02:12 PM (#2705445)
re: DanR and Gradnmna's exchange, I have Schmidt above Hornsby, Speaker, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan and Gehrig, putting him exactly 10th among MLB position players. Tougher in Schmitty's day to put up gaudy OPS+/OWP numbers than pre-1955 and 1990-current.
   19. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 04, 2008 at 03:14 PM (#2705482)
TomH, needless to say, I factor standard deviations into my ranking! What is your methodology for accounting for the difficulty of "putting up gaudy OPS+/OWP numbers" across different eras? Methinks you may be overestimating the magnitude of the effect--it's never more than 10% in the 20th century, and that's only in the most extreme seasons. Unless you have a separate timeline factor above and beyond a standard deviation adjustment.

I can certainly see Schmidt above Morgan and Gehrig, as I have them roughly tied, and with a ton of stretching I suppose you could get him past Lajoie, Collins, and even Hornsby as well if you're a career voter. But Speaker? No F'ing way. Over a 20-year career, Tris Speaker posted a 158 OPS+ *and* was probably the best defensive center fielder ever. Speaker's name deserves at least to be mentioned in a greatest-player-ever discussion, at least if his statistical twin Mays is always included, while Schmidt is nowhere close to that. This is before accounting for segregation, quality of play etc.
   20. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 04, 2008 at 03:35 PM (#2705499)
And it's worth clarifying that I have the regression-projected standard deviation for Speaker's leagues at 2.93 wins per 162 games, and for Schmidt's at 2.82 wins per 162 games. That's equivalent to a single point of OPS+, nothing more. Speaker happened to play in the same leagues as Cobb, Collins, and Ruth, but take a look over at the Senior Circuit and the average OPS+ champ from 1910-19 had a 163--substantially lower than the 170 average in the 1976-85 NL. The deadball era was *not* easy for position players to dominate in the same way that the 1890's or 1925-40 AL was.
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: March 04, 2008 at 04:20 PM (#2705574)
I have Schmidt at #13, so #10T is eminently reasonable. I have Hornsby one slot ahead but Lajoie, Collins, Morgan and Gehrig indeed trail.

1.-10. Ruth, T. Williams, Cobb, Wagner, Mays, W. Johnson, Aaron, Speaker, C. Young, Musial and Mantle (tie)
12.-20. Hornsby, Schmidt, Lajoie, E. Collins, Alexander, Gehrig, Mathewson, DiMaggio, Grove

Morgan is #21.

This is a purely numerical system. I would make some qualitative adjustments based on a qualitative sense of what Dan calls standard deviations. I mean, I have a qualitative sense that it was harder for Joe Morgan to rack up points in my system that it was for Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, et al. And I think I underrate Wagner.

Oh, this does not include any active players and Bonds and Clemens, among others, are not quite inactive yet by my definition.
   22. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 04, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#2705614)
What's the thinking on Aaron over Speaker? Yes, Hammerin' Hank had a longer career with the same rate offense, but you're talking about the difference between a good defensive RF and the best fielding CF evar. Plus Speaker had a much higher peak. Timeline?

And how on earth do you get DiMaggio that high? Over Ott, Rickey, Ripken, and Frank Robinson? With full war credit, he'd be at 2,100-2,200 games, while Ott and Frank are 5-600 above that with the same rate offense. DiMaggio was a good fielder, but not on the same planet as Speaker. (Then again, who was?)
   23. DL from MN Posted: March 04, 2008 at 07:07 PM (#2705880)
As long as we're posting top 20s

Gibson, Ruth, Wagner, Johnson, Williams, Cobb, Young, Mays, Speaker, Collins
Musial, Alexander, Hornsby, Aaron, Joe Williams, Lajoie, Pop Lloyd, Schmidt, Mantle, Morgan
   24. sunnyday2 Posted: March 04, 2008 at 10:25 PM (#2706155)
DiMaggio was a good fielder, but not on the same planet as Speaker


And he's 11 slots behind.

And I'm a peak voter.

I don't timeline, but there was a lot more competition for black ink and MVP votes and etc. in Aaron's time than Speaker's.

It goes without saying my list was MLB only.
   25. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 04, 2008 at 10:29 PM (#2706160)
No, what I meant was that DiMaggio would have to have been as good a fielder as Speaker to overcome the advantages Ott and Frank Robinson have on him in career length, after counting for war credit.
   26. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 02:11 AM (#2719039)
This group is kind of unwieldy so I have split the group into two for the HTH matrices.
Group 3a is the 1870's/1880's guys (12 of them). Group 3b is the other 9 guys (Childs and later).

23 DW PH JG GG JS ES HR BC CB HS CJ PB 
DW 
-- 20 22 22 23 23 22 22 23 22 23 23  245
PH 03 
-- 22 22 20 22 23 22 23 23 23 23  226
JG 01 01 
-- 14 16 17 21 21 23 21 21 22  178
GG 01 01 09 
-- 14 14 16 18 22 22 21 21  159
JS 00 03 07 09 
-- 14 15 14 18 19 20 21  140
ES 00 01 06 09 09 
-- 13 15 16 20 20 21  130
HR 01 00 02 07 08 10 
-- 13 14 17 18 19  109
BC 01 01 02 05 09 08 10 
-- 09 13 17 19  094
CB 00 00 00 01 05 07 09 14 
-- 14 19 18  087
HS 01 00 02 01 04 03 06 10 09 
-- 13 17  066
CJ 00 00 02 02 03 03 05 06 04 10 
-- 14  049
PB 00 00 01 02 02 02 04 04 05 06 09 
--  035 


Example: DW (White) defeats PH (Hines) 20-3.

Note: Row total + 1 pt/ballot (23) equals election subtotal.
(If we had done a group 3a election.)

Define "close" to be [ballots/2 + 1 binomial standard deviation]
In this case that is 12-11, 13-10, which also happens to be all HTH battles less than 60%.

These are:
12-11: none
13-10: Sutton-Richardson, Richardson-Caruthers, Caruthers-Stovey, Stovey-Jones

The ! point indicates a "backwards" result, where the HTH victory goes against the cumulative standings. There is one of those, again with a catcher (Bennett this time). In this case, it's not that close either, Bennett over Caruthers 14-9.

There is only one non-adjacent (with respect to the final standings) matchup and it's Caruthers-Stovey.
   27. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 02:13 AM (#2719040)
Group 3b (Childs and later)

23 BD HG SM SH JG JS CK CC WF
BD 
-- 23 23 22 22 23 22 23 23  181
HG 00 
-- 14 12 16 17 16 16 19  110
SM 00 09 
-- 12 12 13 14 17 15  092
SH 01 11 11 
-- 11 11 13 15 11  084
JG 01 07 11 12 
-- 10 15 16 11  083
JS 00 06 10 12 13 
-- 12 13 12  078
CK 01 07 09 10 08 11 
-- 11 13  070
CC 00 07 06 08 07 10 12 
-- 13  063
WF 00 04 08 12 12 11 10 10 
--  067 


Example: BD (Dahlen) defeats HG (Groh) 23-0.

Note: Row total + 1 pt/ballot (23) equals election subtotal.
(If we had done a group 3b election.)

Define "close" to be [ballots/2 + 1 binomial standard deviation]
In this case that is 12-11, 13-10, which also happens to be all HTH battles less than 60%.

These are:
12-11: Groh-Hack, Magee-Hack, Magee-Gordon, Gordon-Hack!, Sheckard-Hack!,
Ferrell-Hack!, Sheckard-Keller, Sheckard-Ferrell, Childs-Keller!
13-10: Magee-Sheckard, Hack-Keller, Sheckard-Gordon!, Ferrell-Gordon!,
Sheckard-Childs, Keller-Ferrell, Childs-Ferrell

The ! point indicates a "backwards" result, where the HTH victory goes against the cumulative standings. There are six of those.

There are many non-adjacent (with respect to the final standings) matchups.
The bottom 7 come fairly close to a complete clique, Magee being a bit above, and Childs a bit below. Sheckard is close to all of the other six (Magee, Hack, Gordon, Keller, Childs, Ferrell). Basically, after Dahlen and Groh, it's nearly a toss-up with no clear pecking order.

Ferrell scores better than Childs within this group, but Childs does better in the comparisons with the guys from group 3a, overtaking him in the overall standings.
   28. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 02:16 AM (#2719042)
I can't find my notes with the Group 3a vs Group 3b final results.
I'll enter them tomorrow.
   29. Paul Wendt Posted: March 25, 2008 at 05:11 PM (#2719856)
Here is the ~1940 subgroup, which centers chronologically on Hack, listed in the same order as above.

S.Hack. -- 11 13 11 = 35
Gordon 12 -- 15 11 = 38
Keller.. 10 08 -- 13 = 31
Ferrell. 12 12 10 -- = 34

This provides a sharper focus on the reversals for three of them appear here. The other three involve these players with Sheckard and Childs. There are none within the complementary subset, 1890s-1910s or Sheckard and leaguemates.

Note that these four players seem to be in a four-way tie except for the Gordon-Keller preference which isn't even almost close.
   30. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM (#2720205)
Group 3a vs Group 3b
23 BD HG SM SH JG JS CK CC WF
DW 08 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23  186 245 White
PH 03 22 22 23 22 22 22 23 23  182 226 Hines
JG 00 20 18 19 19 21 20 22 23  162 178 Glasscock
GG 01 14 20 17 18 19 16 22 22  149 159 Gore
JS 02 13 20 13 16 18 17 20 17  136 140 Start
ES 00 15 20 16 16 18 18 18 20  141 130 Sutton
HR 01 09 13 13 13 14 14 17 18  112 109 Richardson
BC 01 08 12 12 14 14 14 16 16  107 094 Caruthers
CB 00 10 12 12 13 18 14 17 17  113 087 Bennett
HS 01 06 05 08 09 07 13 12 14  075 066 Stovey
CJ 01 03 05 07 07 08 07 07 09  054 049 Jones
PB 01 02 06 07 07 06 09 07 08  053 035 Browning 


Example: DW (White) got 8 votes over BD (Dahlen) out of 23

Or if you prefer:
23 DW PH JG GG JS ES HR BC CB HS CJ PB 
BD 15 20 23 22 21 23 22 22 23 22 22 22  257 181 Dahlen
HG 01 01 03 09 10 08 14 15 13 17 20 21  132 110 Groh
SM 01 01 05 03 03 03 10 11 11 18 18 17  101 092 Magee
SH 01 00 04 06 10 07 10 11 11 15 16 16  107 084 Hack
JG 01 01 04 05 07 07 10 09 10 14 16 16  100 083 Gordon
JS 01 01 02 04 05 05 09 09 05 16 15 17  089 078 Sheckard
CK 01 01 03 07 06 05 09 09 09 10 16 14  090 070 Keller
CC 00 00 01 01 03 05 06 07 06 11 16 16  072 063 Childs
WF 00 00 00 01 06 03 05 07 06 09 14 15  066 067 Ferrell 


Example: BD (Dahlen) got 15 votes over DW (White) out of 23
The above two tables are equivalent but are from the opposite perspective.

Note: Row total + 1 pt/ballot (23) equals election subtotal.
Here, row total for a candidate means total from his subgroup plus total from intergroup


Define "close" to be [ballots/2 + 1 binomial standard deviation]
In this case that is 12-11, 13-10, which also happens to be all HTH battles less than 60%.

These are:
12-11: Caruthers-Magee, Caruthers-Gordon, Bennett-Magee, Bennett-Hack, Stovey-Childs
13-10: Start-Groh, Start-Hack, Groh-Bennett, Richardson-Magee,
Richardson-Hack, Richardson-Gordon, Bennett-Gordon, Stovey-Keller!

The ! point indicates a "backwards" result, where the HTH victory goes against the cumulative standings. There is one of those; Keller has a decent point total lead over Stovey (19) despite losing HTH.

It would appear that Richardson-Caruthers-Bennett are not far above the big clique mentioned above. Hack is "close" to 6 of the 7 candidates directly above him, as well as Keller behind him, and is upset by three of those behind him (Gordon, Sheckard, Ferrell).

The ordering of Group 3 appears to be not as well defined when compared to the other groups. This appears to be mostly due to the internal (lack of) ordering within Group 3b.
   31. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 26, 2008 at 02:36 PM (#2916336)
Does anyone have the 'itemized' results for this election? I was on a business trip when these results were posted, and I must have missed it or I would have reformatted it, etc.. Please let me know as soon as you can, probably best to send the spreadsheet to me via email or post it to the Yahoo group.
   32. OCF Posted: August 26, 2008 at 06:25 PM (#2916606)
How about this? 23 voters, 21 candidates:

Player 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Points  
Dahlen  15  4  2  0  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  461
White 
.  7 13  2  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  454
Hines 
.  0  3 14  5  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  431
Glsscock 0  0  1 11  2  2  0  0  1  2  3  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  363
Gore 
. . 0  0  0  3  5  2  2  3  2  1  2  2  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  331
Start 
.  0  1  2  0  1  3  3  5  0  2  1  0  1  0  1  1  0  0  1  0  1  299
Sutton 
0  0  1  1  2  3  3  3  2  1  1  0  2  0  1  2  0  0  0  1  0  294
Groh 
. . 0  0  0  1  1  3  2  2  2  2  1  0  2  3  2  0  1  0  0  1  0  265
Rchrdson 0  0  0  0  2  2  1  2  0  1  2  3  2  3  3  1  0  0  0  1  0  244
Carthrs  1  0  0  0  3  0  3  0  0  1  1  2  1  0  3  2  1  2  3  0  0  224
Bennet 
0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  3  2  3  3  3  2  1  2  1  0  0  0  1  223
Magee 
.  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  0  4  4  1  0  2  1  2  1  2  2  2  0  0  216
Hack 
. . 0  0  0  1  2  2  0  3  2  0  0  1  1  1  0  1  1  3  2  3  0  214
Gordon 
0  1  0  0  0  1  4  1  3  0  0  0  0  0  2  0  4  4  2  0  1  206
Sheckard 0  0  0  0  1  2  0  0  1  1  1  2  2  4  0  3  1  1  1  2  1  190
Keller 
0  0  1  1  2  0  1  1  1  1  1  0  0  1  0  1  2  1  3  4  2  183
Stovey 
0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  1  2  2  2  0  2  3  1  1  2  2  2  2  164
Childs 
0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  1  5  3  1  1  0  2  4  3  1  1  158
Ferrell  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1  1  3  1  1  5  2  1  0  2  3  156
Jones 
.  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  0  2  0  0  1  1  2  2  1  3  4  4  126
Browning 0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  2  2  1  3  2  1  2  7  111 
   33. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 26, 2008 at 09:48 PM (#2916832)
Thanks OCF - updated on the main thread now too.
   34. Paul Wendt Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:47 PM (#3237712)
This ranking of HOM members with major league careers ending before 1942 is strictly inconsistent with the rankings by fielding position at two points.

Here Harry Stovey ranks 17, Charley Jones 20. The later Ranking of Left Fielders shows Jones at rank 19 ahead of Joe Medwick, Stovey, and Ralph Kiner. A substantial minority of voters put Jones in the middle of the leftfielders and only a couple put Stovey there.

Here Ezra Sutton ranks 7, Heinie Groh 8. The later Ranking of Third Basemen shows Groh leading a four-pack at rank 10, ahead of Jimmy Collins, Sutton, and Brooks Robinson.

The very strong showing by Jack Glasscock, a decisive fourth, is difficult to reconcile with all the rankings by fielding position. It may be plausible to rank 18 or 19 shortstops, down to Glasscock or Ward, with the top 11 or 12 players at first, second, or third. But that does not seem to be a common judgment here, judging by this earlier series. For example, the ranking for HOM members still under BBWAA jurisdiction shows 2B #14 Lou Whitaker reasonably close to SS #15 Alan Trammell. Yet 2B #15 Hardy Richardson (or #16 Joe Gordon) is not in the same infield with SS #18 Glasscock in this pre-1943 ranking.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5857 seconds
51 querie(s) executed