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 24, 2008

Election Results: Most Impressive from Group 4? Rose, Johnson and Barnes!

All-time hit leader Pete Rose was easily judged as the cream of the crop among this group with a sterling 97% of all possible points.

Legendary Negro League shortstop Home Run Johnson earned an impressive 80%, while National Association star Ross Barnes had 78%.

RK   LY  Player            PTS    Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14   15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Pete Rose         222     19  16  2        1                                
 2  n/e  Home Run Johnson  183     19   1  6  3  7  1           1                    
 3  n/e  Ross Barnes       178     19      3  9  3  2  1     1                       
 4  n/e  Joe Jackson       160     19   2  5  2  2  2     3  1     1     1           
 5  n/e  Cal McVey         140     19      1  3  3  2  3  5        1  1              
 6  n/e  John Beckwith     136     19      2  1  2  4  1  5  1  3                    
 7  n/e  Dickie Pearce     108     19            1  3  7     2  2  2     2           
 8  n/e  Dobie Moore        84     19         1  1  1  2  2  1  2  3  3  3           
 9  n/e  Quincey Trouppe    76     19               2  2  2  1  3  2  4  3           
10  n/e  Lip Pike           75     19               1  2     3  4  5  3  1           
11  n/e  Dick Lundy         72     19                  1  1  7  2  3  2  3           
12  n/e  Alejandro Oms      48     19                     1  2  2  2  6  6           
Ballots Cast: 19

Thanks to OCF and Ron Wargo for all of their help with the tally!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 24, 2008 at 11:28 PM | 29 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 25, 2008 at 12:02 AM (#2718972)
Well, that's that for now.
   2. Howie Menckel Posted: March 25, 2008 at 12:21 AM (#2718984)
Not an overly scientific pecking order, particularly if you like one group a lot more or less than the others, but I think this sets a good stage for a "general election" which can gather a larger section of the longtime electorate than any of these primaries.


Pct of possible pts, all group elections (which group, rank among group):

Rose...............97.4 (IV, 1st)
Dahlen............95.0 (III, 1st)
DeaWhite........94.0 (III, 2nd)
Blyleven......... 93.9 (I, 1st)
Raines............92.9 (I, 2nd)
Grich..............90.2 (II, 1st)
PHines...........89.2 (III, 3rd)
Santo.............88.1 (II, 2nd)

HRJohnson....80.3(IV, 2nd)
McGwire.........79.0 (I, 3rd)
RBarnes.........78.1 (IV, 3rd)
DiAllen............77.8 (II, 3rd)
TSimmons......75.6 (II, 4th)
Glasscock......75.2 (III, 4th)
Trammell........74.7 (I, 4th)

JJackson.......70.2 (IV, 4th)
Gore...............68.5 (III, 5th)
Start...............61.9 (III, 6th)
McVey...........61.4 (IV, 5th)
ESutton..........60.9 (III, 7th)
Whitaker.........60.9 (I, 5th)
Beckwith.......59.6 (IV, 6th)

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

DPearce..........47.4 (IV, 7th)
BCaruthers.......46.4 (III, 10th)
CBennett..........46.2 (III, 11th)
SMagee...........44.7 (III, 12th)
Hack...............44.3 (III, 13th)
Minoso............44.2 (II, 7th)
JGordon...........42.7 (III, 14th)
Freehan...........40.8 (II, 8th)
KHernandez.....40.7 (I, 7th)

DwiEvans.........39.4 (I, 8th)
Sheckard.........39.3 (III, 15th)
CKeller.............37.9 (III, 16th)
BPierce............36.9 (II, 9th)
Moore.............36.8 (IV, 8th)
HStovey...........34.0 (III, 17th)
Stieb................33.3 (I, 9th)
Trouppe..........33.3 (IV, 9th)
JWynn.............33.1 (II, 10th)
Saberhagen......33.1 (I, 10th)
Pike................33.8 (IV, 10th)
Childs..............32.7 (III, 18th)
WFerrell..........32.2 (III, 19th)
Lundy..............31.6 (IV, 11th)
Nettles.............31.4 (II, 11th)

KBoyer............26.9 (II, 12th)
Dawson...........26.3 (I, 11th)
ChaJones........26.1 (III, 20th)
Browning..........23.0 (III, 21st)
Randolph.........21.5 (I, 12th)
Oms................21.1 (IV, 12th)
   3. OCF Posted: March 25, 2008 at 12:25 AM (#2718988)
Consensus scores:

Rob Wood: 73
Esteban Rivera: 73
jimd: 72
TomH: 72
John Murphy: 70
Rick A: 70
Howie Menckel: 70
OCF: 67
ronw: 67

Devin McCullen: 66 (Median. Mean was 63.)

andrew siegel: 65
Rusty Priske: 63
Tiboreau: 63
sunnyday2: 62
Chris Cobb: 60
Joe Dimino: 57
Sean Gilman: 53
DL from MN: 42
karlmagnus: 38

Here are the standard deviations of placement by candidate; this would be expected to be lowest at the the top and bottom and highest in the middle. Higher standard deviation means more disagreement about that particular candidate.

Rose: 0.921
Johnson: 1.692
Barnes: 1.459
Jackson: 3.066
McVey: 2.299
Beckwith: 2.159
Pearce: 2.341
Moore: 2.740
Trouppe:2.340
Pike: 1.820
Lundy: 1.734
Oms: 1.534
   4. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 01:23 AM (#2719019)
Head-to-head results matrix:
19 PR GJ RB JJ CM JB DP DM QT LP DL AO 
PR 
-- 18 18 17 18 19 18 19 19 19 19 19  203
GJ 01 
-- 11 12 14 15 18 19 18 19 19 18  164
RB 01 08 
-- 10 17 14 18 17 18 19 18 19  159
JJ 02 07 09 
-- 12 13 14 16 17 16 17 18  141
CM 01 05 02 07 
-- 10 16 14 15 16 17 18  121
JB 00 04 05 06 09 
-- 11 15 17 15 17 18  117
DP 01 01 01 05 03 08 
-- 11 14 15 14 16  089
DM 00 00 02 03 05 04 08 
-- 09 12 10 12  065
QT 00 01 01 02 04 02 05 10 
-- 08 09 15  057
LP 00 00 00 03 03 04 04 07 11 
-- 10 14  056
DL 00 00 01 02 02 02 05 09 10 09 
-- 13  053
AO 00 01 00 01 01 01 03 07 04 05 06 
--  029 


Example: PR (Rose) defeats GJ (Johnson) 18-1.

Note: Row total + 1 pt/ballot (19) equals election total.

Define "close" to be [ballots/2 + 1 binomial standard deviation]
In this case that is 10-9, 11-8, which also happens to be all HTH battles less than 60%.

These are:
10-9: Barnes-Jackson, McVey-Beckwith, Trouppe-Moore!, Moore-Lundy, Lundy-Trouppe!, Pike-Lundy
11-8: Johnson-Barnes, Beckwith-Pearce, Pearce-Moore, Pike-Trouppe!

The ! point indicates a "backwards" result, where the HTH victory goes against the cumulative standings. There are three of those, all involving Trouppe. There are 2 triangles, where X (Pike/Lundy) upsets Trouppe who upsets Moore, who defeats X (Pike/Lundy).

The only non-adjacent (with respect to the final standings) matchups involve Lundy. The group Moore-Trouppe-Pike-Lundy form nearly a complete clique (only Moore-Pike is missing), showing that these 4 are pretty close in our collective ranking.
   5. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 01:28 AM (#2719021)
Not very often (if ever) have I been near the top of the consensus scores.
   6. Dan The Mediocre Posted: March 25, 2008 at 02:52 PM (#2719723)
Trouppe-Moore!, Moore-Lundy, Lundy-Trouppe!,


That's an odd result.
   7. Paul Wendt Posted: March 25, 2008 at 04:33 PM (#2719825)
The only non-adjacent (with respect to the final standings) matchups involve Lundy. The group Moore-Trouppe-Pike-Lundy form nearly a complete clique (only Moore-Pike is missing),

What is the relation that makes a pair present or missing?
   8. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 04:44 PM (#2719833)
What is the relation that makes a pair present or missing?

A pair is present if the HTH election was "close", "close" defined as above.
All combinations of those 4 (Moore-Trouppe-Pike-Lundy) were "close" elections, except Moore-Pike, which at 12-7 was almost "close".
   9. jimd Posted: March 25, 2008 at 04:53 PM (#2719837)
10-9: Trouppe-Moore!, Moore-Lundy, Lundy-Trouppe!

That's an odd result.

Our HTH voting preferences are not always transitive.

Check out: 12-7 Moore-Pike, 11-8 Pike-Trouppe!, 10-9 Trouppe-Moore!

or in Group 1:
25-8 Hernandez-Stieb, 17-16 Stieb-Evans!, 18-15 Evans-Hernandez!
   10. Paul Wendt Posted: March 25, 2008 at 06:07 PM (#2719903)
Thanks. The corresponding note on Group 1 does make clear that the note on "backward" results is a digression from "close" ones. Backward does tend to be close, of course, but it's possible to have a big subset with all pairs close (a clique), without a single pair backward.

What are the most striking results from a baseball perspective?

1. Group 4. This is a very strong showing by Grant Johnson. With the skimpiest playing record he is the only blackball player among the leaders. Supposing that Pete Rose is a commonly ranked number one overall and that some people rank him "off the map", Johnson may be number two in some opinions and he must be a contender for high overall rank.

2. Group 2. Bobby Grich beats Ron Santo soundly. Among those who follow Hall of Fame membership avidly and participate in the debate elsewhere, Santo is probably the most commonly named eligible major league omission (that is, beside Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, perhaps Buck O'Neill). So Grich is news.

3. Group 2. Bill Freehan ranks comfortably eighth, ahead of Pierce, Wynn, Nettles, and Boyer. That is not the most visible quartet in the Foyer but all of them are mentioned in Hall of Fame debate a lot more than Freehan. Wynn and Boyer have been sabrmetric favorites, or specifically favorites of readers of Bill James. In a sense, the easy election and middling standing of Bill Freehan is probably the biggest surprise to me.

--biggest surprise in a sense. Some of the blackball players were new to me and one of them was shut out in his debut (zero votes or Alejandro Oms). On the other hand Hall of Fame members Ran Dandridge, Judy Johnson, and Leon Day finished with zero votes(?). I didn't have the background to anticipate any of that, so probably not the background to call it a surprise.

4. Dickey Pearce. If not Freehan then Pearce is the biggest surprise, although his showing in Group 4 was no surprise this fortnight.
   11. jimd Posted: March 26, 2008 at 06:11 PM (#2720926)
So. What next?

I've heard mentions of treating these elections as if they were primaries, or straw ballots for organizing our thoughts.

Do people really want to put together a combined 57 name ballot for all 4 groups?
(Do the talliers want to tally it?)

Or if our goal is to determine the best HOMers missing from the HOF, is it sufficient to now integrate the top finishers from each election?

I think a usual criterion for inclusion into the final ballot might be a 2/3rds (or better) finish in Howie's list. It includes the top 4 from each group. The ballot might look like:

Pct of possible pts, all group elections (which group, rank among group):

Rose...............97.4 (IV, 1st)
Dahlen............95.0 (III, 1st)
DeaWhite........94.0 (III, 2nd)
Blyleven......... 93.9 (I, 1st)
Raines............92.9 (I, 2nd)
Grich..............90.2 (II, 1st)
PHines...........89.2 (III, 3rd)
Santo.............88.1 (II, 2nd)

HRJohnson....80.3(IV, 2nd)
McGwire.........79.0 (I, 3rd)
RBarnes.........78.1 (IV, 3rd)
DiAllen............77.8 (II, 3rd)
TSimmons......75.6 (II, 4th)
Glasscock......75.2 (III, 4th)
Trammell........74.7 (I, 4th)

JJackson.......70.2 (IV, 4th)
Gore...............68.5 (III, 5th)


17 names which is a good sized ballot for our contemplation.
(the ballot counter can handle it, which is also a plus).

Other thoughts about this, or another answer to "What next?"
   12. Dan The Mediocre Posted: March 26, 2008 at 06:14 PM (#2720931)
10-9: Trouppe-Moore!, Moore-Lundy, Lundy-Trouppe!

That's an odd result.

Our HTH voting preferences are not always transitive.

Check out: 12-7 Moore-Pike, 11-8 Pike-Trouppe!, 10-9 Trouppe-Moore!

or in Group 1:
25-8 Hernandez-Stieb, 17-16 Stieb-Evans!, 18-15 Evans-Hernandez!


I understand the math behind those, but they are results that you'd almost have to try to get.

To have two groups like that is highly unusual, especially with the gap in the Hernandez-Stieb pairing.
   13. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: March 26, 2008 at 06:43 PM (#2720961)
I think using Home Run Johnson's middle name could lead to unconscious bias in favor of him. "Home Johnson" would be more objective.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 26, 2008 at 07:33 PM (#2721034)
Do people really want to put together a combined 57 name ballot for all 4 groups?
(Do the talliers want to tally it?)


No on both counts, Jim.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 26, 2008 at 07:46 PM (#2721053)
BTW, this has to be the most insane sponsorship at B-R.com

Frankie Crosetti
   16. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: March 26, 2008 at 07:50 PM (#2721058)
Murph,

You implying that Crosetti was no gentleman?
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 26, 2008 at 07:59 PM (#2721070)
You implying that Crosetti was no gentleman?


:-)
   18. Paul Wendt Posted: March 26, 2008 at 11:18 PM (#2721263)
The sponsor of Bill Joyce puts him second to Bill Lange.

Of course, some sponsorial statements are odd in utterly different ways.

Many of Hall of Merit members are available (no sponsor) for only $10.
   19. Howie Menckel Posted: March 27, 2008 at 01:18 AM (#2721335)
I thought it was likely that we would now have everybody pick a top 15 out of the 57, as opposed to the usual yearly format of top 15 out of 100 or so guys with votes - plus you could pick a 'wild card' or two beyond that if you wanted of course.

No need to prevent someone from taking a 28th- or 38th-ranked guy in his top 15, I don't believe.

It's just that the previous results can make the process more manageable for those ongoing voters who couldn't handle the size of a group or its antiquity.
By all means look at all 57 closely, if possible.
If not, at least be sure to fully consider the top 15 or so, and as many others as you can.

In some ways, this should be easier than a typical 'year' ballot, granting that it's tough when so many good ones are on at once. But it's a smaller universe of 57 overall.
   20. Paul Wendt Posted: March 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM (#2722273)
It's just that the previous results can make the process more manageable for those ongoing voters who couldn't handle the size of a group or its antiquity.
By all means look at all 57 closely, if possible.


Manageable unless you find in your heart one of those triangles and you cannot resolve it.
Joe Gordon > Charlie Keller
Charlier Keller > Ross Barnes
Ross Barnes > Joe Gordon
   21. Howie Menckel Posted: March 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM (#2722277)
Well, didn't we have that sort of conundrum with every previous election?
   22. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: May 02, 2009 at 11:02 PM (#3161830)
Gore was elected on his first try, but Glasscock ranks ahead of him and it took three years to elect him. Was there a paradigm shift between then and now? I ask because SABR's 19th Century Committee is doing a vote on some overlooked HOF candidates next month and I'm looking to make an informed decision.
   23. Howie Menckel Posted: May 02, 2009 at 11:19 PM (#3161879)
Good question and welcome.

Gore ranked 3rd of four inaugural electees in the "1898" voting.

Glasscock debuted in the 1901 voting, and we only elected 2 that year - holdovers Keefe and George Wright, with Glasscock placing 3rd (Old Hoss Radbourn was 4th).

In 1902, immortals Dan Brouthers and Buck Ewing arrived to claim the 2 spots, and again Glasscock was 3rd.

Same thing in 1903, with Cap Anson and Roger Connor the newbie elect-me-slot stealers and Glasscock the maid of honor once more.

In 1904, Glasscock placed first, with newbie Amos Rusie 2nd.
   24. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: May 05, 2009 at 08:14 PM (#3165498)
Thanks, Howie. I'll return back to this probably at some points over the next month; that is, if Murphy doesn't mind me reopening some old wounds. I'm also interested in off the field stuff and am tempted to rank White over Dahlen (although I'll have to read more about the Deacon's contribution to developing the catcher position), but I value onfield performance as well. I read a post somewhere in the Browning and Stovey thread about how some rank 19th Century offense by runs scored adjusted for lineup. What are the ways folks value defense from that era?
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 05, 2009 at 11:40 PM (#3165861)
Thanks, Howie. I'll return back to this probably at some points over the next month; that is, if Murphy doesn't mind me reopening some old wounds.


I have no problems with that, Jon.

I'm also interested in off the field stuff and am tempted to rank White over Dahlen (although I'll have to read more about the Deacon's contribution to developing the catcher position), but I value onfield performance as well.


I like White over Dahlen myself.
   26. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: May 06, 2009 at 12:28 AM (#3166014)
I didn't think you world, but I never know what controversy I may accidentally back into around here ;). Better safe than sorry.
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 06, 2009 at 01:37 AM (#3166326)
You're always welcome here, Jon. :-)
   28. Paul Wendt Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:07 PM (#3237733)
This ranking of HOM members who are not eligible in Cooperstown is strictly inconsistent with the rankings by fielding position at one point.

Here Lip Pike ranks 10, Alejandro Oms 12, and Oms trails badly. The later Ranking of Center Fielders shows Oms at 20 and Pike at 23, amid a closely contested bottom third of CFs (ranks 18 to 26).

The showing by Grant Johnson, ahead of Ross Barnes and Joe Jackson, is consistent with opinion that the shortstop position is a strong one in the middle ranks. By fielding position Johnson, Barnes, and Jackson rank 13, 11, and 13, but the superior shortstops including Johnson seems to run down to #15 Trammell or even #19 Ward; Barnes and Jackson are the last of decisively superior groups in the 2B and RF rankings.

The very strong showings by Grant Johnson here and Jack Glasscock in the pre-1943 group are consistent, but the implied judgment in favor of mid-ranking HOM shortstops misfits the two series of rankings at other points.
   29. Paul Wendt Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:14 PM (#3237742)
Notes on the new Edit feature.

After leaving loading another page and returning here, I still enjoy the edit option just above, for my most recent post. I no longer have the option for my preceding post, 11:47 to "Election Results: Group 3".

After posting this note, I have the edit option for both articles in this thread.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4576 seconds
49 querie(s) executed