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

Saturday, September 13, 2003

Number of Electees by Year

Here is the election schedule:

Four in 1898; two each year from 1899-1905. After that . . .

1: 1906-11, 1913-14, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1923, 1931, 1961

2: 1912, 1915, 1917, 1919, 1921-22, 1924-30, 1932-57, 1959-60, 1962-71, 1973-79, 1981-84, 1986, 1988, 1992

3: 1958, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1989-91, 1993-2010, 2012-15, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2038, 2040

4: 2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036-37, 2039, 2041

At that point (2041), I’ll be 69 years old, and I’ll probably retire and let someone else take over :-)

The system was tweaked in 1908, if we had started this way from the beginning, we would have elected one from 1892-1911 except for the years 1902, 1905, 1908, 1910, where we would have elected two.

This gives us 213 electees through 2001. Please let me know if I missed anyone, but by my count that matches the actual Hall of Fame.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 13, 2003 at 04:07 PM | 186 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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Marc Posted: September 16, 2003 at 01:19 AM (#517579)
2 + 2, 1-man elections don't have the suspense that a 2 has. (Of course a 3 has more yet, but a 2 + 2 has more total than a 3 + 1.
   2. MattB Posted: September 16, 2003 at 01:30 AM (#517580)
But won't a 3 and 1 give you more pennants due to the higher peak on the "3" year? :-)
   3. Rob Wood Posted: September 16, 2003 at 02:07 AM (#517581)
I too would prefer the 2+2 over the 3+1 scheme. And we can still say that our system is based upon the number of teams per season.
   4. DanG Posted: January 19, 2005 at 03:02 PM (#1088280)
This is a good time to raise this issue again. In the New Eligibles thread, Marc wrote:

Then in 1958 we elect 3 (count 'em) for the first time, and you know who is eligible in 1958? Nobody.

The posts above here discuss changing the election schedule as published at the top. The elect-3 in 1958 and the elect-1 in 1961 stick out like sore thumbs. If there is any consensus, it is that we smoothe out the schedule and make it all elect-2 years from 1932 to 1971.

To me, the fact that in 1958 "nobody" comes on the ballot makes it all the easier to change the schedule.
   5. TomH Posted: January 19, 2005 at 03:10 PM (#1088288)
That makes way too much sense, Dan and Andrew and everybody. Let's do it.
   6. Chris Cobb Posted: January 19, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1088306)
I'll chime in for 2 and 2 as well.
   7. karlmagnus Posted: January 19, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1088336)
Hear, hear. But the elect 3 and elect 4 years are still too far away -- are we going to have to wait till 2011 to elect Beckley?
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 19, 2005 at 03:42 PM (#1088341)
Put me down for 2 and 2, guys.
   9. Michael Bass Posted: January 19, 2005 at 05:02 PM (#1088490)
Definately count me in for 2 and 2, the way it is now puts too much possibility of an odd election.
   10. DavidFoss Posted: January 19, 2005 at 05:06 PM (#1088495)
Thought experiment:

Who does this affect?

-- The 1958 backlog could potentially lose an electee.

-- The 1959-61 candidates get an extra shot an induction.

The goal with the blip was to acknowlege that the 3-league pre-integration era needed a bit more representation than the post-integration/pre-expansion era. The effect is miniscule and it most likely won't matter, but it's there in the math.

Seeing Paige/Dandridge/Day/Easter on the 59-60 eligibility lists says to me that integration was not a clear cut "contraction" which removes most of any "logical" reason people would have against this switch in my opinion.

My guess is that it won't matter anyways, that if we follow this extra slot through the 58-61 gap it will end up being moot.

I vote for 2+2.
   11. PhillyBooster Posted: January 19, 2005 at 05:24 PM (#1088520)
Anyone for 6 in 1958, and -2 in 1961?
   12. Daryn Posted: January 19, 2005 at 06:00 PM (#1088574)
A negative 2 election would be great. We could actually do that every 50 years to correct our perceived mistakes. It would be an interesting ballot.
   13. Ardo Posted: January 19, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1088649)
Daryn is spot-on. Sam Thompson and Red Faber ought to pack their bags...
   14. Kelly in SD Posted: January 19, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1088720)
2+2 works for me.

And its Bobby Wallace and Red Faber.
   15. Kelly in SD Posted: January 19, 2005 at 07:02 PM (#1088722)
Punctuation Police:

And it's Bobby Wallace and Red Faber.
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: January 19, 2005 at 11:52 PM (#1089422)
Mistake Police:

And it's Pud Galvin and Red Faber.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: January 19, 2005 at 11:54 PM (#1089426)
Oh, and P.S. I think it actually WILL make a difference. I mean, do you think the #3 candidate in 1958 and the #2 candidate in 1961 will be the same guy?
   18. Michael Bass Posted: January 20, 2005 at 12:15 AM (#1089451)
Yeah, I agree with Marc, I just lean toward the side of getting more people under consideration for the spot.

And Joe McGinnity and....well....there isn't a second one I'm violently opposed to. Sherry Magee, maybe. Or Max Carey.
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 20, 2005 at 12:28 AM (#1089464)
I could add a couple of names here, but they are all borderline. Besides, a fan of one of the names would get back at me and list someone I championed. :-)

In all seriousness, if we ever really thought about removing players from the HOM, that would be when I removed myself from the project. There are no terrible choices in the HOM and I honestly don't think anyone could argue the opposite effectively.
   20. sunnyday2 Posted: January 20, 2005 at 12:34 AM (#1089470)
I wasn't speaking in opposition to 2+2, just saying I think it will make a difference.
   21. Tiboreau Posted: January 20, 2005 at 12:53 AM (#1089481)
Besides, a fan of one of the names would get back at me and list someone I championed. :-)

Dickey Pearce and . . .
   22. DavidFoss Posted: January 20, 2005 at 01:11 AM (#1089499)
Oh, and P.S. I think it actually WILL make a difference. I mean, do you think the #3 candidate in 1958 and the #2 candidate in 1961 will be the same guy?

True... though #3 in 1958 might get inducted before 1961 pushing the 'slot' along.

1959 is Paige/Mize/Dandridge/Elliott/
1960 is Newhouser/Day

Paige & Mize are easy. I don't know about Dandridge. Newhouser is going to have some questions. It doesn't look like these guys will bury the #3-1958 guy.

Of course, that the elect-me bonuses have been pivotal in some of the closer elections. I don't know... just thinking out loud here.
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 20, 2005 at 01:16 AM (#1089504)
Dickey Pearce and . . .

I didn't even mention a name and I still get grief! :-)
   24. Patrick W Posted: January 20, 2005 at 01:17 AM (#1089505)
Just for the record, I favor keeping the schedule 3+1, because there was a rationale behind setting it up. Changing it because it doesn't look pretty seems kinda silly.
   25. robc Posted: January 20, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1089510)
I, like Patrick, am in favor of keeping the 3+1 because thats the way the math worked out. However, considering subtle adjustments to the math make it 2+2 and the factors were kind of arbitrary anyway means that I dont care. I think the 3+1 would be kinda cool and interesting though. 1961 as the "last 1 election year" is something to look forward to.

Pike and Spalding. I would also leave at that point, but I have no trouble naming them.
   26. Tiboreau Posted: January 20, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1089511)
I didn't even mention a name and I still get grief! :-)

Sorry John, I couldn't resist ;-)

Seriously, I completely agree with you concerning the removing players. I've recently begun my PHoM, and while I find some of the selections to be interesting (Dickey Pearce is not one of these BTW), all are viable candidates deserving recognition.

Besides, if we really did 6 & -2, what would the odds be that #5 & #6 end up being #-1 & #-2?

It is entertaining to see the different perspectives, though!
   27. robc Posted: January 20, 2005 at 01:27 AM (#1089513)
I forgot Rube Foster. Pike and Spalding get to fight it out for the 2nd elimination spot. I guess Lip wins (or is that loses).
   28. jimd Posted: January 20, 2005 at 02:25 AM (#1089586)
When the HOM is finished in 2006 or so, we could have an election to determine the two weakest electees. Same ballot format and counting methods. It'd be interesting to see if there was any consensus, or if the electorate was as fragmented about that as it is for any deep backlog election.
   29. yest Posted: January 20, 2005 at 02:38 AM (#1089600)
I vote to make it 2 and 2 I'm looking foward to are first 3 man election but I dread the 1 man election more.

Frank Grant who is by far the worst HoMer and Ezra Sutton. of course we should stick with are mistakes like that other hall does.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 20, 2005 at 02:41 AM (#1089602)
When the HOM is finished in 2006 or so, we could have an election to determine the two weakest electees. Same ballot format and counting methods. It'd be interesting to see if there was any consensus, or if the electorate was as fragmented about that as it is for any deep backlog election.

I would sit that one out, Jim. I have no interest in going over all those discussions again.
   31. ronw Posted: January 20, 2005 at 03:13 AM (#1089659)
I vote on keeping 3 and 1. I think its more important not to forget the backlog, than it is to support shiny new toys right away.

I would probably participate in a "weakest HOMer" election, not to take them out, but just because its fun. Judging from this post, it will happen anyway.

To date, I have Thompson and Faber as my lowest.
   32. Howie Menckel Posted: January 20, 2005 at 03:55 AM (#1089710)
The "remove two HOMers" is just a gag - which should make Vance and Thompson very happy!
   33. DanG Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:15 AM (#1089734)
I don't quite understand the violent opposition to the idea of recall elections. Looking at Bill Terry, for instance. Nearly every ranking I find has Sisler rated higher. If their eligibility years were switched, might we have elected Sisler? OK, before a dozen posts showing me Hell No, or less friendly words, try to see my point: Terry's election at this point was entirely due to timing. I can easily see a Duffy-like fate for him if he had not snuck in in 1942.

Periodic recall elections would be an opportunity to correct for these accidents of timing. Unlike that hall in Cooperstown, we would not be stuck with HoMers who looked ridiculous, given new statistical and historical discoveries. It would be yet another way our structure would avoid the mistakes of that other hall.

And it's not like we're throwing them on the trash heap. Recalled players could be put right back in our next regular election, although I doubt that would happen.

Not that I'm pushing for the idea, really. Just trying to point out that I think it has merit.
   34. karlmagnus Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:32 AM (#1089761)
Rube Foster and Vance. I hate the idea; it would lead to all kinds of unpleasant bickering, and is completely unhistorical (because you couldn't do it for the HOF.) Much more fun, when we've finished, to adopt my idea of running the years in reverse order and see who we elect then!
   35. jimd Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:34 AM (#1089768)
I don't quite understand the violent opposition to the idea of recall elections.

Basically, I'm opposed to recalls. What was done was done.

I'd have to think about it more but I might support the idea of a "redo". It would be different from a recall in that only the candidates that were eligible when the election was first done would be eligible for the "redo". (For example, recall Ross Barnes, and his competition would be the non-elected candidates from 1898.) I'd have to think about it a lot more though.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:37 AM (#1089776)
I don't quite understand the violent opposition to the idea of recall elections.

What violent opposition? I have said that I wouldn't participate with the project anymore, but I didn't attack anybody here for thinking differently.

Unlike that hall in Cooperstown, we would not be stuck with HoMers who looked ridiculous, given new statistical and historical discoveries. It would be yet another way our structure would avoid the mistakes of that other hall.

Except none of our "mistakes" our remotely close to being Highpockets Kelly, Rube Marquard or Jesse Haines. They all have something to point to with pride.
   37. Chris Cobb Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:45 AM (#1089796)
Insofar as the HoM project is designed to recreate a historical process of induction, recall elections are incompatible with it. It wouldn't recreate the set of comparisons that led to each player's election in the first place, and I see no reason to believe that a recall election would lead to a more valid assessment than did the original vote. It would be making a different kind of measurement.

Lord knows it's hard enough to try to be fair and consistent according to our one historical standard; I can't see us doing better by adding a second standard.

I disagree with the electorate on certain choices, but I have no reason to believe that the electorate as a whole would see it as desirable to unmake those choices. If I couldn't persuade the electorate not to elect Player X the first time, why should I expect to succeed a second time? Will the electorate utter a collective D'Oh and vote differently this time? I am doubtful. We all think we can identify the worst players there, but we don't agree at all on who they are.

Imagine pooling together the 20 or so HoMers who have been elected by narrow margins in backlog years and ranking them in order from worst to best, head to head. If we think that the margin of victory is narrow in an individual backlog year, it would be _much_ narrower in a recall election, and thus it seems to me that such a result would be the more questionable. I shudder to think of such an election.

The only way that the outcome might be more definitive is if the composition of the electorate has changed sufficiently that its standards have changed (and I don't see why electorate B's judgment is to be taken as more valid than electorate A's), or if new data or new analysis significantly and convincingly revises our view of a player, which is certainly possible. If a great deal of better data and better analysis became available for the 19th century, for instance, that would be a reason to begin HoM version 2, not to add recall elections to this HoM.
   38. Chris Cobb Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:51 AM (#1089806)
I'd have to think about it more but I might support the idea of a "redo".

jimd, we're thinking along the same lines, but I don't think the redo can be isolated to a single election. Consider that if you redo 1898, that then changes the set of players eligible for 1899, and so on down the line.

The only way a single redo could be accomplished without redoing the whole thing is if a player's value changed so radically that he moved from being a HoMer to being out of consideration all together. That seems _highly_ unlikely. I agree with Karlmagnus completely that even our "worst" choices are players that have very strong credentials. That's why I think a recall election would be a complete nightmare.
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 20, 2005 at 03:53 PM (#1090375)
The only way a single redo could be accomplished without redoing the whole thing is if a player's value changed so radically that he moved from being a HoMer to being out of consideration all together. That seems _highly_ unlikely. I agree with Karlmagnus completely that even our "worst" choices are players that have very strong credentials. That's why I think a recall election would be a complete nightmare.

Besides, I doubt Joe would go along with it. That would put the kebosh on it right there.
   40. PhillyBooster Posted: January 20, 2005 at 05:02 PM (#1090501)
Man. Nothing like a little joke to get the comments up from 15 to 43!

The good news is that of the dozen or so people who commented with their "worst 2", fourteen different names have been mentioned, so there's no "consensus screw up". A recall election would be even more likely to get the "wrong guy" out than we are likely to elect the "wrong guy" in the first place (say, removing Bill Terry by getting a bunch of "10th worst" votes in the recall election, just like he got in.)

Also, of the 14 names mentioned, none of them are Bob Caruthers! And I thought he was the most controversial pick I ever supported!
   41. PhillyBooster Posted: January 20, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1090507)
Oh, but while we're playing:

Bobby Wallace and Jimmy Sheckard.
   42. karlmagnus Posted: January 20, 2005 at 05:14 PM (#1090533)
Caruthers on the 1899 Cleveland Spiders would singlehandedly win the pennant against the other 14 names mentioned ! :-))
   43. DavidFoss Posted: January 20, 2005 at 05:26 PM (#1090567)
Wallace
Sheckard
Thompson
Pearce
Pike
Caruthers
RFoster

Its the 1928 backlog! :-)

The real-time nature of the voting has been part of the fun of this project. It helps remove some of the effects of timelining and lets all era be represented. Several people have commented that their PHOM-not-HOM guys are slipping of their balots and not always due to reevaluations its often due to newer candidates from more recent eras.

Sure, interesting things can happen if we didn't have large "candidate gaps" or if Bill Terry had benched himself a year later, but I don't think we could fix any of that without being accused of 'rigging' the elections.
   44. Brent Posted: January 20, 2005 at 05:30 PM (#1090579)
I vote for 2 and 2.

And even though Faber and Pike weren't on my ballot in the years in which they were elected, I don't view either of them as a "mistake," just a difference of opinion.
   45. jimd Posted: January 20, 2005 at 07:15 PM (#1090816)
Looks like everybody elected between 1926 and 1932 has been nominated for recall (except the 1st ballot guys).
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: January 20, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1091195)
I agree that what makes this project fun, among other things but principally among those other things, is the real time thing. We are not just picking 220 names. So therefore there are no mistakes.
   47. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 10, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1191612)
So have we officially gone to 2+2 instead of 3+1?
   48. andrew siegel Posted: June 15, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1405923)
Bump. How many in 1958?
   49. karlmagnus Posted: June 15, 2005 at 03:54 PM (#1406055)
I think the Commissioner needs to issue an edict, which hopefully will say 2+2, the logical solution. Needs to be done now, as we're getting close.
   50. sunnyday2 Posted: June 15, 2005 at 04:03 PM (#1406097)
3 + 1 would be more interesting!

Assuming Wells, Suttles and Beckwith go in in order, the following cluster(s) will be scuffling for those backlog selections in 1958 (1 or 2), 1960 (2) and 1961 (1 or 2). Either way we would elect 8 those years and, I'm guessing, 5 from the following backlog.

Billy Herman
Red Ruffing
Stan Hack
Earl Averill
Eppa Rixey
Wes Ferrell
Hughie Jennings
Biz Mackey
   51. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2005 at 05:44 PM (#1406476)
The 3+1 acknowledges a mini-contraction taking place with the end of the NeL and before expansion, but re-reading my post #14 above shows that there are a few NeL candidates who become eligible in the interim.

I voted for 2-2 above, but could go either way. I agree that we need Joe to weigh in on this one.
   52. TomH Posted: June 15, 2005 at 06:15 PM (#1406569)
Permit me to officially declare that I will fully support either decision by the dignitaries of this fine institution......
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 16, 2005 at 01:50 AM (#1407818)
Permit me to officially declare that I will fully support either decision by the dignitaries of this fine institution......

I honestly don't care either way, so I'll let the Commish make the final decision.
   54. sunnyday2 Posted: June 16, 2005 at 03:10 AM (#1408157)
John, can you ask him to decide sooner than later, then?

I certainly can go either way. It's not like carrying a slot for a decade or more....
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 16, 2005 at 01:54 PM (#1408787)
John, can you ask him to decide sooner than later, then?

No problem, Marc. When I "speak" to him later, I'll mention it.
   56. Jim Sp Posted: June 16, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1409352)
I'd prefer 2+2.
   57. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 18, 2005 at 12:30 AM (#1412848)
Sorry, guys, on vacation, first I've checked in in a few days . . . I think we should stick with 3+1.

That's what the system said. While I am the type of "I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night" lawyer (I'm not really a lawyer) that sees the rules a guide that can be overruled when compelling logic says they are wrong, I see no such compelling logic here.

Really, I think our system is probably too backloaded as it is. We'll see how it turns out, but I'm pretty sure that once we 'catch up' two years from now, we'll probably be saying/thinking that we should not continue to elect candidates at the 3-4 per year pace that is set now, 3-per year would probably be sufficient. Which would obviously mean that our system was too back-loaded (if the logic there is only obvious to me, I'll explain later, but kind of busy now . . . )

Not a big deal, but I think we should stick with what the system says . . . changing it just because it seems 'cleaner/neater?' to go with 2+2 instead of 3+1 doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.
   58. sunnyday2 Posted: June 18, 2005 at 08:26 PM (#1414199)
I'm fine either way. 3 + 1 is probably more interesting. I figure:

1954--Vaughan and Wells
1955--Leonard and (R. Brown or Suttles)
1956--Appling and (Suttles or R. Brown)
1957--DiMaggio (ya think?) and (Boudreau or Beckwith)
1958--(Beckwith or Boudreau) and (2 among Herman, Ruffing, Hack unless 2 or more are "shiny new toys" and Averill, Rixey and/or Ferrell can move up)

1959--Mize and Paige
1960--2 from among those mentioned but not elected above in 1958 or Leon Day)
1961--Kiner

Who thinks if we did 2 + 2 we would elect the same guy at the #2 spot in '61 as will finish #3 in '58? Not me. Too many variables, too many candidates. But that's fine with me, and more interesting. The suspense is terrible! I hope it will last!
   59. karlmagnus Posted: June 18, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1414247)
OK, as a 2+2 supporter I'm happy with the Commissioner's Decision. It makes the third 1958 seat a kind of "rotten borough" which as a supporter of the pre-1832 British franchise I can go for :-))
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: June 18, 2005 at 10:11 PM (#1414498)
karl, it's still 8 picks '58-'61. The 3rd pick in '58 or the 2nd pick '61 would be equally rotten--or notten.

And neither half as rotten as the 4th pick in 2041!
   61. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 06, 2010 at 03:26 AM (#3703651)
Huh, don't know if this was discussed elsewhere, but apparently this was supposed to be an Elect-4 year. Although on the ballot discussion thread it's listed as an elect-3, and I wouldn't want to change it at this point. I don't know how Joe figured this stuff way back when, but if we should start sticking elect-4 years in, we need to figure out when.

Of course, 2013 would be a safer choice, since the new class that year is ridiculous.
   62. OCF Posted: December 06, 2010 at 05:29 AM (#3703682)
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed elsewhere, although I don't think I could point to the right threads.

The original schedule was tied to the size of the HoF at the time the project began. That's a guide that we can't use going forward. In more recent years, the HoF had inducted a substantial one-time class of Negro Leaguers (although not all of them were players), but has also slowed down the election of anyone else to substantially fewer than three per year. One reason the HoF rate has dropped is that the Veterans Committee window has been very nearly closed down. Whether there will ever be a reaction against all of this to give a sudden increase in the number elected to the HoF - that lies in the realm of speculation, and we'd be hard pressed to plan for it.

Should we make any effort to track the HoF? Should we just keep the rate at 3 a year for a long time to come? Should we increase to 4 or a 3/4 alternation of some sort? These are not questions with obvious answers.

If we stay at 3 per year, we have an opportunity for a backlogger or two in 2012, but the next several years after that are slammed to capacity by the classes of 2013 and 2014.
   63. Howie Menckel Posted: December 06, 2010 at 06:58 AM (#3703717)
I do think that the massive (and mostly deserved) Negro Leagues add a couple of yrs back would have diminished our need to "keep up."

Plus our choices have been getting a bit weak of late - so few popular holdovers left that even an uninspiring newcomer gets in. I don't object to that, but I wouldn't expand the number per year, either...
   64. Alex King Posted: December 06, 2010 at 08:13 AM (#3703734)
The HoF rate will also be affected by the HoF's treatment of steroid users, as otherwise deserving players such as Bonds and Clemens are excluded because of steroids. As a result, we may not even want to tie HoM selections to HoF selections; as seen by the HOF's treatment of McGwire, the HOF and the HOM treat "steroids players" differently.
   65. rawagman Posted: December 06, 2010 at 01:29 PM (#3703767)
We definitely should NOT tie our numbers to their from here on out, especially as their trend has been to become more negative. If we are not electing, even when the choices are not obvious, we lose the opportunity to adequately debate the merits of the candidates, as well as to consider new ways of thinking on old candidates.
   66. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 06, 2010 at 02:00 PM (#3703773)
Of course we should tie to the HoF. If we don't, then the value of saying someone is HOM-not-HoF is completely lost, and that's an incredibly powerful shorthand. (one that says, "this guy is as good as someone in the HoF should be".)

Once we move away from tracking the HoF, we get in subjective judgments as to what an appropriate Hall size should be, which is a bad thing and a reason why y'all tracked the HoF in the beginning.

I think if you look past your emotional response to the HoF's bizarre voting w/r/t the VC, you'll realize that a decision to untrack from the HoF will eviscerate the HoM.
   67. fra paolo Posted: December 06, 2010 at 07:20 PM (#3704044)
you'll realize that a decision to untrack from the HoF will eviscerate the HoM

As I understand it, we are tied to the rate by which HoFers were being elected in 2002. Now, you might ask 'Why 2002? Why not 1960? Or 1975? Or 1939?' And I agree that you would be asking a good question.

But the principle underlying the project is that the Hall of Fame at 2002 was the ideal size, as long as it continued to grow at that rate.
   68. rawagman Posted: December 06, 2010 at 07:45 PM (#3704085)
Of course we should tie to the HoF. If we don't, then the value of saying someone is HOM-not-HoF is completely lost, and that's an incredibly powerful shorthand. (one that says, "this guy is as good as someone in the HoF should be".)

Even if our numbers are larger than theirs, that statement would still ring true, as HOF merit standards should see player X inducted, but HOF voting patterns and rules are not enabling it to come to fruition.
   69. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 06, 2010 at 07:58 PM (#3704099)
<But the principle underlying the project is that the Hall of Fame at 2002 was the ideal size, as long as it continued to grow at that rate.

No, that's not right. The principle underlying the project was that <u> matching the size of the HOF</u> was the ideal size.

It would be a curious coincidence if the size of the HoF in 2002 happened to be the precisely ideal size for a Hall of Fame, don't you think?
   70. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: December 06, 2010 at 08:08 PM (#3704114)
I agree that the HOM should have continued to match the size of the HOF.
   71. DanG Posted: December 06, 2010 at 08:08 PM (#3704117)
As I understand it, we are tied to the rate by which HoFers were being elected in 2002. Now, you might ask 'Why 2002?
Not the rate, but the raw number. You'll have to ask Joe Dimino for the exact calculations, but the number of HoMers elected per year was mainly based on the pool of available players at the time. There was some backloading involved, IIRC, but the election schedule was calibrated so that the number of HOFers in 2002 matched the number of HoMers, because that was the most recent election at the time the HoM was established.

In the "Once We Catch Up" thread, the first page of that thread has much discussion of the number of electees, leading to the decision to maintain three per year indefinitely. That decision superceded the schedule at the top of this thread.

To know where the HoM number currently stands vs the HOF, see post #133 and #137 in the 2010 results thread. The HOF now has four more players than the HoM does.
   72. fra paolo Posted: December 06, 2010 at 08:54 PM (#3704176)
No, that's not right. The principle underlying the project was that <u> matching the size of the HOF</u> was the ideal size.

That's not how I interpret <a href = "http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/once_we_catch_up_the_hall_of_merit_after_2007/P0/#2200389">this post</a>, 13 by Joe. He constructed a numerical relationship between the number of HoFers and the number of teams over baseball history, and proposed an election schedule out of that, as DanG describes in post 71 on this page. So while the 2002 HoF served as the basis for the HoM size, the subsequent growth of the HoM is intended to match the rate of growth up to that point. Further on in that thread, in post 433, Joe implies his belief that the HoF will resume its previous rate of growth, so we have nothing to worry about.

The implication in saying the HoM 'matches the size of the HoF', as you do, is that the HoM election schedule needs to be recalibrated every so often. Which is what I believed until about three weeks ago. However, if you go to the 'Something Better' article/thread, the point Joe made in the previously mentioned post 13 also appears somewhere in there.

It would be a curious coincidence if the size of the HoF in 2002 happened to be the precisely ideal size for a Hall of Fame, don't you think?

Which is why I said it is a good question to raise. But it's just the coincidence of when the HoM started, and makes no further judgement on the 'correct' size of the HoF.
   73. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 07, 2010 at 01:10 AM (#3704446)
I just moved yesterday, so I'm going to be brief for now, I've only skimmed the comments. Still getting my bearings here . . .

I will need to go find the calculations that were used to figure the number of electees per season.

They were purposely backloaded, meaning I was conservative on how much 'team credit' to allow early where it was grey. Grey meaning things like Negro Leagues, Federal League, American Association, etc..

I also built in a 'lag' because just because we expand to 30 teams today doesn't mean the players impacted by that have retired. I believe I used a 12-year lag, with 5 years tacked on since players aren't eligible until after they retire.

Those assumptions could be re-checked, but I would still want to calibrate the numbers to equal the Hall of Fame as of 2001, since that's when this took off.

More importantly, that's also the year they radically changed the Veteran's Committee for the worse. So it's not just a random year.

Actually, I would say we could conceivably recalibrate to include those elected through 2001, plus the additional Negro Leaguers selected in 2006. That seems most reasonable to me.

If it turns out we should have elected 4 this year we can add that player to next year's election, so that no favoritism (or negativity) is shown to whoever should have been elected this year.

We do need to have a discussion on this. In my opinion, it will boil down to:

1) Did we backload the elections (we did)
2) If so, by how much (not sure)
3) What does the schedule look like once remove the backloading, and recalibrating to 1935-2001.

Then adjust future elections to get back on track. If we find we are off by more than one electee, we only alter by one per year, until we are on track.

So let's say we decide we are 3 short. We don't elect 6 for 2012. We elect 4 in 2012, 2013, and 2014. If we are -2 we elect 2 in 2012 and 2013.

Does that make sense. Sound reasonable?
   74. Howie Menckel Posted: December 07, 2010 at 03:39 AM (#3704541)
Makes sense to me..
   75. bjhanke Posted: May 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM (#3833229)
I don't think you can do anything that makes more sense, given the underlying assumptions. There are people on this thread that do not agree with the underlying assumptions, but that's a different question. I, personally, like the underlying assumptions. I'm also aware that I'm posting on May 20, 2011, to a thread whose last previous post was in December of 2010. But the issue may well heat up in the coming months, as the election looms. - Brock
   76. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 30, 2011 at 03:07 AM (#4025532)
OK, resurrecting this . . .

The first thing we need to decide is how many teams to credit each season.

This includes crediting the Negro Leaguers. The easy way to do it, would be to ignore the Negro Leagues, and just add the total number elected to the Hall of Fame to whatever we come up with for the white major leagues.

This seems reasonable - individual voters could then decide their own mix - this is just to get us to matching the Hall of Fame for totals.

The next thing we need to account for is the lag time. Anyone have any data on the average career length in years (throw away seasons with token appearances) for a typical Hall of Famer?

We could take half of this number, add five and use that for our lag. This basically assumes that a typical player on one of the teams we credit is that far away from Hall of Fame eligibility.

Then we need to match this to the actual Hall of Fame, through 2001. This would require making determinations of who from the Hall of Fame counts as a player and who counts as a manager or contributor.

Another consideration on this front, is how to credit the seasons from say 1985-1996 when accounting for matching 2001. Not every player eligible who was eventually elected from those years was elected by 2001 (or maybe they were). So we might have to partially account for those seasons in our matching count.

The best way to account for this might be to average the typical Hall of Famer through 2001 in terms of years from retirement to election, and use that to guide us.

I'll post my idea for the number of teams to count from each season later tonight or tomorrow after the site maintenance.
   77. rawagman Posted: December 30, 2011 at 04:39 AM (#4025581)
I don't mind a one-off backlog vote in mid-season, but don't think we should back-check our way there if ballots were not originally constructed on that basis.
   78. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 30, 2011 at 04:46 AM (#4025583)
I agree but for different reasons.

Strategic voting is quite clearly uncomstitutional. So the argument that someone would have voted different in an elect four year holds no sway with me at all. No one's ballot should have been any different either way.
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 30, 2011 at 08:24 PM (#4025904)
Strategic voting is quite clearly uncomstitutional. So the argument that someone would have voted different in an elect four year holds no sway with me at all. No one's ballot should have been any different either way.


Exactly, Joe. It's not even a debatable point.
   80. rawagman Posted: December 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM (#4025995)
It's not so much strategic voting I am referring to, although I could see how my comment reads that way. It's more in how the number of electees can affect pre-voting research as well as electioneering. I would hope all of our actual ballots have enough integrity to not change ordering based on the number of electees, but knowing the backlog strength can affect preparation, even if only subtly.
   81. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 04:27 AM (#4026105)
No issue rawagman, but I still think those impacts are minimal. If anything this was a 4-man election, and we picked three, so things like research, electioneering etc, would have theoretically been maximized already.

Moving onto the assumptions for the calculations, I'm working on coming up with Hall of Merit equivalent (removing token appearances, etc.) career start-end dates for everyone in the Hall of Fame. I'm almost done with the Negro Leaguers.

I probably won't be able to get back to this until Sunday afternoon at the earliest, but more likely Monday. How is this for a start?

HoF     Player        Start    End
2006    Jud Wilson     1922    1938
2006    C
Torriente   1912    1928
2006    Ben Taylor     1910    1929
2006    Mule Suttles   1923    1941
2006    Louis Santop   1909    1926
2006    Jose Mendez    1908    1926
2006    Biz Mackey     1920    1941
2006    Pete Hill      1903    1921
2006    Frank Grant    1887    1903
2006    Andy Cooper    1920    1938
2006    Willard Brown  1935    1951
2006    Ray Brown      1931    1949
2001    Hilton Smith   1936    1948
2000    T
Stearnes    1923    1940
1999    Joe Williams   1910    1932
1998    Bullet Rogan   1915    1934
1997    Willie Wells   1926    1946
1996    Bill Foster    1923    1937
1995    Leon Day       1935    1949
1987    Ray Dandridge  1933    1949
1977    Pop Lloyd      1907    1928
1977    Martin Dihigo        
1976    Oscar Charleston         
1975    Judy Johnson         
1974    Cool Papa Bell         
1973    Monte Irvin         
1972    Buck Leonard         
1972    Josh Gibson         
1971    Satchel Paige 
   82. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 04:31 AM (#4026107)
Feel free to fill in the blanks if you'd like . . . would save me some time.

Basically I'll be taking the Hall of Fame roster through 2001, plus all of the Negro Leaguers, and figuring things like average career length, years from eligibility to election, etc., and using those in our assumptions for configuring the lag time and other things.
   83. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 04:41 AM (#4026113)
Regarding expansion, I am planning to phase it in for modern times over 5 years, 20% per year. So 1961 would count as 16.4 teams, by 1966 we are counting the full 20.

For the earlier expansions, I will probably make individual decisions. Like the 1899-1900-1901 12-8-16 will take some figuring. The AA never really caught up to the NL in terms of quality, and it existed for a decade. The UA is a complete non-entity. Etc.

Any objections, let me know.
   84. DL from MN Posted: December 31, 2011 at 04:56 AM (#4026117)
I would suggest using a 3 year moving average. I'd also treat the Negro Leagues as 1/2 of a league expansion. We have disproportionately elected players from that era so treating it as an expansion makes sense. Add 4 teams?
   85. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:18 AM (#4026124)
Not sure I understand how a three-year moving average would apply ...

For the Negro Leagues, I was going back track it to make sure we added 29 total players over the appropriate timeframe. Effectively if a voter felt we should only have 25, he'd get a few more non-negro leaguers. If he felt we should have 35, a few non-negro leaguers would be cut, in terms of that voters personal choices.

We would just assume that overall 29 was a reasonable number. Is that reasonable?
   86. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:26 AM (#4026126)
And those 29 would be dropped in where you'd expect based on average career length and retirement years of those elected.

From there it'd be pretty easy to reverse engineer it and see how man effective teams we gave them credit for.

I do believe the late 30s was the true golden age. The Negro Leagues were in full swing, and the majors hadn't expanded in nearly 40 years. War hadn't yet depleted the next generation of young players (including those we never ended up hearing of because they died).

Team for team, the quality of play in the majors in the lae 30's and early 40's wasn't matched until the mid 80's when expansion finally washed out.
   87. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:28 AM (#4026127)
Not that that is terribly relevant. But when people say we elected too many from that era, despite some back loading in terms of the 'true' distribution, that's my first thought.
   88. Howie Menckel Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:33 AM (#4026128)
Rizzuto has two possible endpoints:

- election into the HOM due to accidental annual electee numbers, and then forgotten

- not elected, and therefore probably a top 15 guy for many years and "discovered" by future HOM voters who otherwise were too young to know about his credentials in many cases.

I accept either fate for him......
   89. DL from MN Posted: December 31, 2011 at 02:16 PM (#4026168)
3 year moving average for the "number of teams". I'm still not understanding the formula you are using.

SUM 1871-2011 ( (# of teams) * (players/team) & (???) ) = Number of total HoM slots
   90. Rob_Wood Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:32 PM (#4026246)
Here is what I have found for the remaining Negro League Hall of Famers in Joe's list above:

Name Start End

Martin Dihigo 1923-1946
Oscar Charleston 1916-1937
Judy Johnson 1921-1938
Cool Papa Bell 1922-1946
Monte Irvin 1939-1956 (in WWII service 1943-45)
Buck Leonard 1933-1953
Josh Gibson 1930-1946
Satchel Paige 1926-1953

Of course, identifying the first and last years of these careers (excluding token appearances) is not easy. But I think the above figures are faithful to what we are trying to accomplish.
   91. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 05:39 PM (#4026249)
Thanks Rob . . . much appreciated.

DL . . . example . . .

Let's say in the end we find 800 team seasons and 200 Hall of Famers.

That would mean every time we tick off 4 team seasons we would elect another HoMer.

If those 800 team seasons entirely consisted of an 8 team league playing 100 seasons, it would be pretty simple. Every year we would elect two players.

Of course you have to throw an offset in, to account for the fact that players aren't elected in the year they play. That's why I'm looking to get start end dates for all of the Hall of Famers, so we can find what the typcial career length is, which help us figure out the appropriate offset.
   92. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 06:36 PM (#4026275)
In case it wasn't clear, the 'lag' is basically when the team seasons start counting. So do we start counting 1901 in 1910 or 1920 or somewhere in-between?

First time through we did it very arbitrarily. This time, I'll find the average length of a Hall of Fame career, divide by two and add 5, with the idea being that this is when the average Hall of Famer playing in year X would have been eligible.

We add up all of the team seasons through 2001, divide by the number of Hall of Famers, and that determines how many team seasons per electee.
   93. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 06:38 PM (#4026276)
Rob, do you agree with the dates I found for the others in post 81? I basically went with what we used for MLEs on their threads, and tried to match that with the year we had them first eligible for the Hall of Merit also.
   94. DL from MN Posted: December 31, 2011 at 07:24 PM (#4026297)
How is a team season determined? Did 2011 have 30 team seasons? This is where I would suggest a 3 year moving average, especially if you want to have a lag. The number of Hall of Merit ballplayers doesn't go up and down as quickly as the number of teams does at some points in history. I'd also count Negro League teams as 1/2.

One other variable - are you adjusting for roster size? Earlier teams had smaller rosters.

We could also use this methodology to determine which eras are over and underrepresented.
   95. Rob_Wood Posted: December 31, 2011 at 07:58 PM (#4026316)
Joe, here are the Negro Hall of Fame "major league equivalent" career spans that I would modify from your original list:

Hilton Smith 1932-1948
Joe Williams 1906-1932
Ray Dandridge 1933-1953
Pop Lloyd 1907-1930

Let me/us know if you need anything else. Have you already compiled the career spans of all the "regular" Hall of Famers?
   96. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2011 at 09:49 PM (#4026375)
Thanks Rob! For the regular HoFers I've compiled from 1986-2001 electees so far, that's it. And heading out for New Year's now.

DL, yes, 2011 had 30 team seasons.

My idea of phasing in expansion 20% per year is in effect I 5-year moving average I guess, right?

No, not adjusting for roster size. That doesn't matter, right? Bench players aren't HoFers.

I'm shaky on using Negro League teams. Way too much flux, and what to count as a team is even trickier than the NA.

I was just going to see what the number would be if we back tracked to just adding 29 Negro Leaguers, like the actual Hall of Fame has. My guess that will give us a reasonable number as what would effectively be added there.
   97. DL from MN Posted: December 31, 2011 at 11:50 PM (#4026416)
My idea of phasing in expansion 20% per year is in effect I 5-year moving average I guess, right?


Sort of. If you phased it in 2 years ahead of time 20% at a time then it would be a 5 year moving average.

Bench players aren't HoFers.


Most additional roster slots have gone to pitchers. Relievers are in the Hall of Merit.

For the Negro Leagues it is more difficult but we have a fairly good handle on it.
   98. Rob_Wood Posted: January 01, 2012 at 06:52 AM (#4026533)
Here is my list of the career spans of regular Hall of Famers (elected in or before 2001).
I have trimmed token seasons at the start and end of careers in order to best represent
the useful roster spots that Hall of Famers take up. I have used a slightly expanded definition
of token beyond what we have used for HOM eligibility.

I have noted token seasons by T, seasons missed due to military service by M, and other
missing seasons by X. In some Negro League cases I have ascribed "major league equivalent"
seasons as noted below.

Hank Aaron 1954-1976
Grover Alexander 1911-1930
Cap Anson 1871-1897
Luis Aparicio 1956-1973
Luke Appling 1930-1950 (M44)
Richie Ashburn 1948-1962
Earl Averill 1929-1940 (T41)
Frank Baker 1909-1922 (T08)
Dave Bancroft 1915-1929 (T30)
Ernie Banks 1954-1971 (T53)
Jake Beckley 1888-1907
Johnny Bench 1968-1983 (T67)
Chief Bender 1903-1917 (T25)
Yogi Berra 1947-1963 (T46, 65)
Jim Bottomley 1922-1937
Lou Boudreau 1939-1951 (T38, 52)
Roger Bresnahan 1901-1915 (T97, 00)
George Brett 1974-1993 (T73)
Lou Brock 1962-1979 (T61)
Dan Brouthers 1879-1896 (T04)
Mordecai Brown 1903-1916
Jim Bunning 1955-1971
Jesse Burkett 1890-1905
Roy Campanella 1941-1957 (NgLg 41-46)
Rod Carew 1967-1985
Max Carey 1911-1928 (T10, 29)
Steve Carlton 1966-1987 (T65, 88)
Orlando Cepeda 1958-1974
Frank Chance 1898-1911 (T12-14)
Jack Chesbro 1899-1909
Fred Clarke 1894-1911 (T13-15)
John Clarkson 1884-1894 (T82)
Roberto Clemente 1955-1972
Ty Cobb 1905-1928
Mickey Cochrane 1925-1937
Eddie Collins 1906-1929 (T30)
Jimmy Collins 1895-1908
Earle Combs 1924-1935
Roger Connor 1880-1897
Stan Coveleski 1916-1928 (T12)
Sam Crawford 1899-1917
Joe Cronin 1926-1944 (T45)
Kiki Cuyler 1924-1938 (T21-23)
George Davis 1890-1909
Dizzy Dean 1932-1940 (T30, 41, 47)
Ed Delahanty 1888-1903
Bill Dickey 1928-1946 (M44-45)
Joe DiMaggio 1936-1951 (M43-45)
Larry Doby 1946-1959 (NgLg 46)
Bobby Doerr 1937-1951
Don Drysdale 1956-1969
Hugh Duffy 1888-1901 (T04-06)
Johnny Evers 1902-1917 (T22, 29)
Buck Ewing 1881-1896 (T80, 97)
Red Faber 1914-1933
Bob Feller 1936-1956 (M42-44)
Rick Ferrell 1929-1947 (X46)
Rollie Fingers 1969-1985 (T68)
Carlton Fisk 1972-1992 (T69, 71, 93)
Elmer Flick 1898-1910
Whitey Ford 1950-1967 (M51-52)
Nellie Fox 1949-1965 (T47-48)
Jimmie Foxx 1925-1945 (X43)
Frankie Frisch 1919-1937
Pud Galvin 1879-1892 (T75)
Lou Gehrig 1925-1938 (T23-24, 39)
Charlie Gehringer 1924-1942
Bob Gibson 1959-1975
Lefty Gomez 1930-1942 (T43)
Goose Goslin 1922-1938 (T21)
Hank Greenberg 1933-1947 (T30, M42-44)
Burleigh Grimes 1916-1934
Lefty Grove 1922-1941 (Minors 22-24)
Chick Hafey 1924-1937 (X36)
Jesse Haines 1920-1937 (T18)
Billy Hamilton 1888-1901
Gabby Hartnett 1922-1941
Harry Heilmann 1914-1930 (X15, T32)
Billy Herman 1931-1946 (M44-45, T47)
Harry Hooper 1909-1925
Rogers Hornsby 1915-1934 (T35-37)
Waite Hoyt 1919-1937 (T18, 38)
Carl Hubbell 1928-1943
Catfish Hunter 1965-1979
Reggie Jackson 1967-1987
Travis Jackson 1923-1936 (T22)
Fergie Jenkins 1966-1983 (T65)
Hughie Jennings 1891-1902 (T03, 07, 09, 12, 18)
Walter Johnson 1907-1927
Addie Joss 1902-1910
Al Kaline 1953-1974
Tim Keefe 1880-1893
Willie Keeler 1892-1909 (T10)
George Kell 1944-1957 (T43)
Joe Kelley 1891-1908 (X07)
George Kelly 1916-1932 (T15, X31)
King Kelly 1878-1893
Harmon Killebrew 1955-1975 (T54)
Ralph Kiner 1945-1955 (M45)
Chuck Klein 1928-1941 (T42-44)
Sandy Koufax 1955-1966
Nap Lajoie 1896-1916
Tony Lazzeri 1926-1939
Bob Lemon 1946-1957 (T58)
Fred Lindstrom 1924-1936
Ernie Lombardi 1931-1947
Ted Lyons 1923-1942 (T46)
Mickey Mantle 1951-1968
Heinie Manush 1923-1938 (T39)
Rabbit Maranville 1912-1933 (T35)
Juan Marichal 1960-1974 (T75)
Rube Marquard 1909-1925 (T08)
Eddie Mathews 1952-1967
Christy Mathewson 1900-1916
Willie Mays 1951-1973 (M53)
Bill Mazeroski 1956-1972
Tommy McCarthy 1884-1896
Willie McCovey 1959-1980
Joe McGinnity 1899-1908
Bid McPhee 1882-1899
Ducky Medwick 1932-1948
Johnny Mize 1936-1953 (M43-45)
Joe Morgan 1965-1984 (T63-64)
Stan Musial 1941-1963 (M45)
Hal Newhouser 1940-1954 (T39, 55)
Kid Nichols 1890-1905 (X02-03, T06)
Phil Niekro 1965-1987 (T64)
Jim O'Rourke 1872-1893 (T04)
Mel Ott 1926-1946 (T47)
Jim Palmer 1965-1984 (X68)
Herb Pennock 1912-1934
Tony Perez 1965-1986 (T64)
Gaylord Perry 1963-1983 (T62)
Eddie Plank 1901-1917
Kirby Puckett 1984-1995
Charles Radbourn 1881-1891
Pee Wee Reese 1940-1958 (M43-45)
Sam Rice 1916-1934 (T15)
Eppa Rixey 1912-1933 (M18)
Phil Rizzuto 1941-1956 (M43-45)
Robin Roberts 1948-1966
Brooks Robinson 1956-1977 (T55)
Frank Robinson 1956-1976
Jackie Robinson 1943-1956 M43-44)
Edd Roush 1914-1931 (T13, X30)
Red Ruffing 1924-1947 (M43-44)
Amos Rusie 1889-1898 (T01)
Babe Ruth 1914-1935
Nolan Ryan 1968-1993 (T66)
Ray Schalk 1912-1926 (T27-29)
Mike Schmidt 1973-1989 (T72)
Red Schoendienst 1945-1962 (T63)
Tom Seaver 1967-1986
Joe Sewell 1920-1933
Al Simmons 1924-1943 (X42, T44)
George Sisler 1915-1930 (X23)
Enos Slaughter 1938-1959 (M43-45)
Duke Snider 1947-1964
Warren Spahn 1946-1965 (T42)
Tris Speaker 1907-1928
Willie Stargell 1963-1982 (T62)
Don Sutton 1966-1988
Bill Terry 1924-1936 (T23)
Sam Thompson 1885-1896 (T97-98, 06)
Joe Tinker 1902-1915 (T16)
Pie Traynor 1920-1935 (T37)
Dazzy Vance 1922-1935 (T15, 18)
Arky Vaughan 1932-1948 (X44-46)
Rube Waddell 1899-1909 (T97, 10)
Honus Wagner 1897-1917
Bobby Wallace 1895-1914 (T94, 15-18)
Ed Walsh 1904-1913 (T14-17)
Lloyd Waner 1927-1942 (T44-45)
Paul Waner 1926-1944 (T45)
John M Ward 1878-1894
Mickey Welch 1880-1891 (T92)
Zack Wheat 1909-1927
Hoyt Wilhelm 1952-1972
Billy Williams 1961-1976 (T59-60)
Ted Williams 1939-1960 (M43-45)
Vic Willis 1898-1910
Hack Wilson 1924-1934 (T23)
Dave Winfield 1973-1995
Early Wynn 1941-1963 (T39)
Carl Yastrzemski 1961-1983
Cy Young 1890-1911
Ross Youngs 1918-1926 (T17)
Robin Yount 1974-1993

Let me know if you have any questions or if I missed anybody.
   99. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4027599)
Thanks Rob! I'll get working on this today and toss some preliminary numbers out as soon as I can.

I am only going to focus on where we are through 2001. Once we agree with what the assumptions are, I'll run the calculations.

I would definitely appreciate it if those involved in the discussion don't jump ahead to see what would happen from 2002-2012 and beyond based on the assumptions.

I'd like to keep it 'pure' and only once we've agree to everything look beyond 2001 (aside from the 2006 Negro Leaguers). I don't what 'future impact' to cloud our discussion. Does that make sense?
   100. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4027635)
OK, for figuring the 'gap' between end of career and election, I'm going to tweak the guys who were part of the initial backlog to what seems reasonable. Cap Anson would not have waited 41 years for election, as an example.

Another thought has hit me . . . should I be using HoMers and typical HoM lags or HoFers and their lags for all of this?

BTW, average career length (end year minus start year) of the non-Negro League HoFers through 2001 was 16.2 years, not counting token appearances.

For the Negro Leaguers in the Hall of Fame it's 18.8, which makes me think maybe we are being a touch generous with what we consider MLE. Or maybe the HoF just has a slightly tougher standard for them? Probably a little bit of both.
Page 1 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
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6664 seconds
49 querie(s) executed