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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4027677)
As far as # of Negro League teams I'd use roughly this number

Before 1890 - Union Assoc and Player's League will give you plenty of team seasons.
1891 - 2 teams
1900 AL expansion will bump up team seasons from 12 to 16 so don't bother having more than 2 NGL equivalents
1910 - Chicago American Giants formed - 3 teams
1920 - NNL formed - 4 teams
1923 - ECL formed - 5 teams
1928 - ECL disbands but ANL plays - 5 teams
1929 - ANL defunct - 4 teams
1932 - NNL collapses - 3 teams (represents NSL and Monarchs)
1933 - new NNL formed, East-West ASG held - 4 teams
1936 - NAL is created - 6 teams
1942 - Negro League World Series revived - 8 teams
1945 - Robinson signs - 7 teams
1946 - Campanella, Newcombe sign - 6 teams
1948 - Last season for NGL World Series, Paige signed - 5 teams
1949 - NNL folded, teams absorbed into NAL - 4 teams
1951 - NAL shrinks - 2 teams
1952 - 150 players integrated, Aaron plays for the Clowns - 1 team
1953 - Zero teams

If you're using a 3 year moving average then you get:

0 teams in 1889, .66 in 1890, 1.33 in 1891, 2 in 1892

You can figure out the rest. It's a total of 232 team seasons or about 7-1/2 years of today's baseball over the course of 60 years.
   102. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4027726)
Thanks DL. Those numbers are counting the Negro Leagues as half leagues, right?

I'm going to backtrack the 29 players that are in the Hall of Fame and see what that would roughly come to also.

Either way we end up doing it, this will give us a good idea of how to proportion them also . . .

Before 1890 I am NOT planning on counting the Union Association at all. Still working through how to count the AA, Player's League, etc..

I much prefer a 'smoothed' approach at that time to a herky jerky approach.

The quality of play did not decline in the 1890s, despite the contraction to 12 teams, for example. So we'll need to work through some of those things. We are 'generally' basing this on team seasons, but not exactly. We are moderating it with common sense as well.
   103. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4027747)
Those numbers are counting the Negro Leagues as half leagues, right?


Correct.

The absolute earliest I would add a team is 1885 when the Cuban Giants started barnstorming. Maybe only 1/2 of a team to start. That would add 3-6 team seasons for a total of 235-238. If there is a number between 232 and 238 that makes the overall math easy going forward I would use that number.
   104. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4027766)
We inducted exactly one Negro Leaguer whose career ended before 1921 (Frank Grant, whose career ended in 1903), and we didn't induct him until 1926. So I agree that counting the early Negro Leagues pretty lightly is appropriate.
   105. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4027778)
Whoops, I forgot Home Run Johnson, whose (effective) career ended in 1913 in my post above.
   106. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4027860)
OK, I've got some random numbers . . .

First, we elect players a lot faster than the HoF does. Our median (non-Negro League) HoMer waited 5 years for election to the Hall of Merit. The median Hall of Fame election time for those same players is 13 years. Average wait was 11.85 years for HoM, 22.5 for HoF. I didn't go back and remove the backlog Hall of Famers like Cy Young who waited 25 years for HoF election, so that skews the results quite a bit I'd imagine.

Evidence that we were too conservative early . . . there is a -.35 correlation with retirement year and gap between election, meaning if you retired younger earlier, you would have a longer wait.

I know what you are thinking, remove the early backlog guys and that would clear some of it up. Nope. Starting with players elected in 1906, the correlation shoots to -.44.

And this isn't because we cleared the backlog later and were electing all no brainers from say 1990-2001.

The gaps of the most recent (as of 2001 electees): 8, 5, 5, 14, 5, 6, 5, 6, 5, 90, 5, 5 5, 30, 5, 43, 64, 18 (then you have a bunch of 5s and 6s).

Median election time for the 28 Negro Leaguers we elected through 2001: 6.5, average time 14.7 years. So we were a little more cautious with them, but I think overall this shows we did a pretty good job with them.



   107. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4027867)
if you retired younger, you would have a longer wait.


If you retire younger you appeal less to career value voters.
   108. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4027877)
More random stuff - average career length of non-Negro League HoMers - 16.5 years (not counting token seasons on either end). For Negro Leaguers 18.9 years.

The trend is going up - career end year correlates with career length at .33. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that careers are getting longer as medical advances and money are both a lot better than they used to be.



   109. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4027879)
if you retired younger, you would have a longer wait.


If you retire younger you appeal less to career value voters.


Not retired 'younger'. Retired 'earlier'. Meaning your career ended in 1923 vs. 1973. Sorry for the confusion.
   110. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4027901)
OK, some ideas for how to count teams . . .

The base number (not dealing with Negro League teams just yet).

1871-1875: 6
1876-1881: 8
1882-1900: 14
1901-1960: 16
1961: 18
1962: 20
1969: 24
1977: 26
1992: 28
1998: 30

Each of those gaps will be phased in over a 5 year period.

So while we jump to 8 for 1876, it will actually be:

1876: 6.4
1877: 6.8
1878: 7.2
1879: 7.6
1880: 8.0

I just didn't want to clutter the list above. This is sort of like DL's suggestion of a moving average, but I don't see why we'd start to phase in an expansion before it's even happened.

Then starting with 1882 we get:

1882: 9.2
1883: 10.4
1884: 11.6
1885: 12.8
1886: 14.0

The Players league is just a blip on the screen. I don't even think it should be accounted for.

By 1892-99 the NL was sitting on 12 teams, but that league was also very strong due to the contraction of the AA - it's not like all of those players disappeared. The fact that we are back to 16 teams within 9 years is solid evidence that there was plenty of talent around.

I don't really see a reason to drop back the number of teams, it's not as if play declined or there were fewer great players. I'm much more comfortable with averaging 1882-1900 than saying the game was better from 1882-1891 than 1892-1900, when we know it wasn't.

1901 the AL comes along and we are pretty much back where we were in 1889 with 16 teams. This gets phased in:

1901: 14.4
1902: 14.8
1903: 15.2
1904: 15.6
1905: 16.0

Now remember, we aren't accounting for the Negro Leagues here yet. I think it's pretty conservative to say the ML game didn't improve from 1905 to 1960, but I don't really see any alternative. So we stick at 16 teams until the Angels and Twins come along.

1961: 16.4
1962: 17.2
1963: 18.0
1964: 18.8
1965: 19.6
1966: 20.0

Followed by the next big expansion:

1969: 20.8
1970: 21.6
1971: 22.4
1972: 23.2
1973: 24.0

Then the Jays and Mariners:

1977: 24.4
1978: 24.8
1979: 25.2
1980: 25.6
1981: 26.0

The Marlins and Rockies:

1993: 26.4
1994: 26.8
1995: 27.2
1996: 27.6
1997: 28.0

And finally the Diamondbacks and Devil Rays.

1998: 28.4
1999: 28.8
2000: 29.2
2001: 29.6
2002: 30.0

Does this make sense? I assume there may be some disagreement about my suggestions for how to treat the early years, but the idea is to smooth things out, be logical, and be fair to all eras.
   111. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4027906)
So we stick at 16 teams until the Angels and Twins come along.


The Twins relocated but they're an original franchise. I think you mean the Senators.
   112. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4027922)
I don't see why we'd start to phase in an expansion before it's even happened.


Because generally the quality of play improvement will precede the expansion. If you're totaling up seasons then spreading it over 5 years doesn't matter. It's still the same total of team seasons in the end.
   113. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4027927)
Through 2001, the Hall of Fame elected 189 players from this pool (non-Negro Leagues).

Add to this 29 Negro Leaguers elected, and our target should be 218 total HoMers through 2001.

Now we need to discuss the 'lag'. Should we using a moving average, based on career lengths of HoMers elected? Or should we just average all of history?

If we average all HoMers elected 1898-2001, we get 16.46 years for career length. The harmonic mean reduces the impact of the high end outliers and is 15.4 years. The harmonic mean of the gap between career end and election is 6.6 years.

This would give us a gap of 7.7+6.6 = 14.3 years for the lag time for when team seasons should start counting towards elections.

But I do think we should work in a moving average of career length for the first half of the lag calc. It's pretty obvious from the start

1992-2001: 18.2
1991-2000: 17.9
1990-1999: 17.7
1989-1998: 17.6
1988-1997: 17.1

That's as far as I've gone so far, but it's definitely looking like a trend we need to account for, or we'll end up with too many electees.


   114. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4027928)
The Twins relocated but they're an original franchise. I think you mean the Senators.


I realize this, but it sounded weird saying the Senators came along in 1960. I know the Twins were the old franchise, but they were the new city. I guess I could have said Angels and "New" Senators or something . . .
   115. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4027932)
Because generally the quality of play improvement will precede the expansion. If you're totaling up seasons then spreading it over 5 years doesn't matter. It's still the same total of team seasons in the end.


You are right that it doesn't matter, but I don't really agree with this.

I think if you build it they will come. Meaning you expand and then players appear. More demand generates more good players.

Most expansions are generated by economics, not because there are all of these great players that we don't have any room for. Right?
   116. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4027948)
I just realized I should be adding one when referring to average career length.

1945-1955 is an 11-year career, not a 10-year career.

But I think for our averages, using 10 is correct. The mid-season in a 1945-1955 career is 1950, and 1955-1945, divided by 2 puts us at the correct number also, 1950.

Sorry if this is confusing. I'm still wrapping my head around it.

On the other hand, I should be adding one to the gap between career end and election year. Hank Aaron's last season was 1976, and he was elected in 1982. So for purposes of what election year that team seasons should be effective we should be adding 7.77 and not 6.6.

Make sense?
   117. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4027949)
I'd rather see the NL drop back down to 12 in 1891 but let the NGL teams keep it at 14. If we put 1 NGL team starting in 1888 (Frank Grant banned from International League) until 1891 when 2 appear then we end up with an even number of team seasons through year 2001: 2546. If you do a 3 year trailing average you get 2522 team seasons through 2001. 5 year trailing average is 2498. By doing a 5 year trailing average you're underestimating the total number of team seasons by about 2%.
   118. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4027959)
DL - I'm still trying to keep the Negro League teams out for now. I want to make sure we are on a reasonable track otherwise first.

We have 28 NGL electees through 2001, the HoF had 29 (including the 2006 election) . . . so I think just leaving that part of the equation on the back-burner for now will make it easier.
   119. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4027962)
I'm starting to think a 15 year moving average for the career length lag will be better . . . that's around the average career length, and there's less noise in the early going . . .
   120. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4027985)
Adding in the Negro Leagues gives us this:

1871-1875 6
1876-1881 8
1882-1887 14
1888-1890 15 (could smooth this back to 14 from 1882-1900)
1891-1900 14
1901-1909 18
1910-1919 19
1920-1922 20
1923-1928 21
1929-1931 20
1932-1932 19 (could smooth this out to 20 from 1910-1935)
1933-1935 20
1936-1941 22
1942-1944 24
1945-1945 23
1946-1947 22
1948-1948 21
1949-1949 20
1950-1950 19
1951-1951 18
1952-1952 17
1953-1960 16 (coincides with post-WWII talent gap)
1961-1968 20
1969-1976 24
1977-1991 26
1992-1997 28
1998-2012 30

This list is also good justification for using 10 as the ballot length for MMP voting from 1871-1968. I could justify going to an 11 person ballot from 1936-1941. Even though there were more NGL teams during WWII the talent drain due to the war means keeping ballot length at 10 makes sense from 1942-1948.
   121. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4028000)
OK, 15 year moving average of career length of electees. After thinking about it more, an avearge as opposed to a harmonic mean is appropriate here. The harmonic mean is still appropriate for the end of career to election portion of the lag.

15 years ending in:

2001: 18.1
2000: 17.9
1999: 17.4
1998: 17.2
1997: 16.6
1996: 16.8
1995: 17.1
1994: 17.0
1993: 16.8
1992: 16.5
1991: 16.5
1990: 16.5
1989: 16.2
1988: 15.9
1987: 16.0
1986: 15.9
1985: 16.0
1984: 16.5
1983: 16.6
1982: 17.1
1981: 16.6
1980: 16.9
1979: 17.0
1978: 16.6
1977: 16.4
1976: 16.4
1975: 16.4
1974: 16.3
1973: 16.3
1972: 16.0
1971: 16.2
1970: 16.3
1969: 16.0
1968: 15.7
1967: 15.6
1966: 16.0
1965: 15.7
1964: 15.7
1963: 16.0
1962: 16.1
1961: 16.4
1960: 16.6
1959: 17.0
1958: 16.9
1957: 17.1
1956: 16.7
1955: 16.9
1954: 16.7
1953: 16.8
1952: 16.5
1951: 16.3
1950: 16.2
1949: 16.4
1948: 16.9
1947: 17.0
1946: 16.8
1945: 17.0
1944: 16.5
1943: 16.5
1942: 16.2
1941: 16.4
1940: 15.9
1939: 16.0
1938: 15.9
1937: 16.5
1936: 16.6
1935: 16.3
1934: 15.6
1933: 15.2
1932: 14.7
1931: 15.0
1930: 14.7
1929: 15.3
1928: 15.1
1927: 15.6
1926: 16.1
1925: 16.1
1924: 16.1
1923: 16.0
1922: 15.9
1921: 15.6
1920: 15.3
1919: 15.3
1918: 14.8
1917: 15.6
1916: 15.3
1915: 15.1
1914: 14.6
1913: 15.1
1912: 15.3
   122. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4028016)
Plotting that on a graph, it's pretty volatile with a slight trend upwards that becomes a sharp trend upwards around 1999.
   123. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4028021)
Actually, zooming in on the important area of the graph, it looks like there's a huge (from around 15.25 to around 16.5) jump that takes place in the early 1930s. That holds (nearly every year between 15.5 and 17.1) until around 1997. Then there is an early 30s like jump up another year to around 17.5 from 1998-2001. Whether this will hold is yet to be seen, but it is interesting.
   124. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4028024)
What's the line of best fit on 121? Can you plot the original data on a control chart?
   125. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4028041)
A trend line smooths this from 15.8 in 1912 to 16.6 in 2001. I don't think I like that very much.

We could just go with a 16.5 year average career length for the lag calculation throughout the project. but that doesn't seem right to me either.

That chart really is kind of all over the place. But the line going off the page from 1998-2001 is definitely something to keep an eye on I guess . . .

I wish I could show you guys this somehow . . . is there any way to do that?

   126. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4028046)
Let me plot each data point, not just the 15-year moving average, maybe something will show up there . . . I'll plot it against retirement (as opposed to election) year also. Something should jump out at us somewhere.
   127. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4028057)
Interesting . . . the scatter plot based on retirement year shows it all over the place. Not a perfectly even splattering of data points, but a very slight trend upwards.

The trend line shows 1876 retirement being a 15.9 year career length, 1995 retirement at 16.9. It's a trend, but it's a very slow one.
   128. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4028075)
I think the trend line you just described is the correct one to use.
   129. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4028078)
Kind of think sticking with baselines of 16.5 and 7.75 makes sense right?

So our team season lag will be 8.25 + 7.75 = 16 years. Basically teams will start counting towards election 16 years after they play.

8.25 of that lag is half of the average Hall of Merit career.

7.75 is the harmonic mean of election year - final season played for the average Hall of Merit career.

Does that seem reasonable? Am I missing anything? We would of course reserve the right to modify this should something crazy happen with either of these trends somewhere in the future.
   130. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4028083)
DL, do you see merit (no pun intended) in running with that trendline as opposed to a simple 16.5?

I'm open to using either methodology.

If we do use the trendline, I'll go back and rerun it based on 'middle' season of the career, not retirement year. Should have done that in the first place, just wasn't thinking. It will be very similar I'm sure, but then it will be applied to the correct team season year.
   131. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4028101)
OK, running the regression on center season of career, we get 1866 at 16.0, 1986 at 17.0.

So we can use 1/2 of that as the career length lag.

Also, we elected 9 players who played before 1871 and one who played as far back as 1856.

We probably should account for this very slightly in our team-season calculation. I think this can be back-tracked relatively easy. It doesn't sound like much, but there were basically 44 "Hall of Merit" player seasons that took place pre-NA.

There were 3038 non-NGL Hall of Merit player seasons total. So the pre-NA time should come to about 1.45% of the total non-NGL seasons we come up with.

1856-1861: 1 player
1862-1865: 2
1866: 3
1867: 4
1868: 6
1869: 8
1870: 9

So I think it's reasonable to use those in our final numbers. Stretching the trendline back to 1856 shows a 15.9 year lag on that season.

   132. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4028114)
Based on all the data presented I would use a "team season lag" of 16 years for all years.
   133. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4028129)
There were 3038 non-NGL Hall of Merit player seasons total.


Divide that by 16 year career length and you get 190 players. Is that correct?
   134. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4028160)
Actually 184 (still not counting the 28 NGLs). So that works about to 16.5. Which makes sense since the trend goes from 16-17.

BTW according to my data, we were 6 behind the HoF in 2001, after accounting for NGLs.

HoF - 189 + 29 NGLs
HoM - 184 + 28 NGLs

I'll post my list to make sure we aren't missing anyone or double counting. I went based on the baseball-reference.com list which designates if they are in as player or something else.

Apologies for how long these are, I realize they are tough to read.

Both:
HoF HoM Player 
1982 1982 Hank Aaron
1938 1936 Pete Alexander
1939 1903 Cap Anson
1964 1956 Luke Appling
1995 1968 Richie Ashburn
1975 1961 Earl Averill
1955 1928 Frank Baker
1977 1977 Ernie Banks
1971 1998 Jake Beckley
1989 1989 Johnny Bench
1972 1969 Yogi Berra
1970 1958 Lou Boudreau
1999 1999 George Brett
1945 1902 Dan Brouthers
1949 1925 Mordecai Brown
1996 1977 Jim Bunning
1946 1912 Jesse Burkett
1969 1963 Roy Campanella
1991 1991 Rod Carew
1961 1939 Max Carey
1994 1993 Steve Carlton
1945 1917 Fred Clarke
1963 1900 John Clarkson
1973 1978 Roberto Clemente
1936 1934 Ty Cobb
1947 1943 Mickey Cochrane
1939 1935 Eddie Collins
1945 1921 Jimmy Collins
1976 1903 Roger Connor
1969 1938 Stan Coveleski
1957 1924 Sam Crawford
1956 1951 Joe Cronin
1998 1915 George Davis
1945 1909 Ed Delahanty
1954 1953 Bill Dickey
1955 1957 Joe DiMaggio
1998 1965 Larry Doby
1986 1972 Bobby Doerr
1984 1975 Don Drysdale
1939 1902 Buck Ewing
1964 1939 Red Faber
1962 1962 Bob Feller
1992 2000 Rollie Fingers
2000 1999 Carlton Fisk
1963 1918 Elmer Flick
1974 1973 Whitey Ford
1997 1997 Nellie Fox
1951 1951 Jimmie Foxx
1947 1944 Frankie Frisch
1965 1910 Pud Galvin
1939 1944 Lou Gehrig
1949 1948 Charlie Gehringer
1981 1981 Bob Gibson
1968 1945 Goose Goslin
1956 1953 Hank Greenberg
1946 1971 Clark Griffith
1947 1947 Lefty Grove
1961 1907 Billy Hamilton
1955 1947 Gabby Hartnett
1952 1937 Harry Heilmann
1975 1958 Billy Herman
1942 1941 Rogers Hornsby
1947 1949 Carl Hubbell
1993 1993 Reggie Jackson
1991 1990 Fergie Jenkins
1945 1960 Hughie Jennings
1936 1933 Walter Johnson
1980 1980 Al Kaline
1964 1901 Tim Keefe
1939 1919 Willie Keeler
1971 1919 Joe Kelley
1945 1899 King Kelly
1984 1981 Harmon Killebrew
1975 1987 Ralph Kiner
1972 1972 Sandy Koufax
1937 1922 Nap Lajoie
1976 1967 Bob Lemon
1955 1949 Ted Lyons
1974 1974 Mickey Mantle
1983 1980 Juan Marichal
1978 1974 Eddie Mathews
1936 1922 Christy Mathewson
1979 1979 Willie Mays
1986 1986 Willie McCovey
1946 1928 Joe McGinnity
2000 1913 Bid McPhee
1968 1967 Joe Medwick
1981 1959 Johnny Mize
1990 1990 Joe Morgan
1969 1969 Stan Musial
1992 1960 Hal Newhouser
1949 1911 Kid Nichols
1997 1994 Phil Niekro
1945 1899 Jim O
'Rourke
1951 1952 Mel Ott
1990 1990 Jim Palmer
1991 1989 Gaylord Perry
1946 1924 Eddie Plank
1939 1905 Charley Radbourn
1984 1964 Pee Wee Reese
1963 1968 Eppa Rixey
1976 1972 Robin Roberts
1983 1984 Brooks Robinson
1982 1982 Frank Robinson
1962 1962 Jackie Robinson
1962 1997 Edd Roush
1967 1966 Red Ruffing
1977 1904 Amos Rusie
1936 1941 Babe Ruth
1999 2000 Nolan Ryan
1995 1995 Mike Schmidt
1992 1992 Tom Seaver
1977 1985 Joe Sewell
1953 1946 Al Simmons
1939 1979 George Sisler
1985 1965 Enos Slaughter
1980 1970 Duke Snider
1973 1971 Warren Spahn
1937 1934 Tris Speaker
1988 1988 Willie Stargell
1998 1994 Don Sutton
1954 1942 Bill Terry
1974 1929 Sam Thompson
1955 1942 Dazzy Vance
1985 1954 Arky Vaughan
1946 1986 Rube Waddell
1936 1923 Honus Wagner
1953 1929 Bobby Wallace
1946 1920 Ed Walsh
1952 1950 Paul Waner
1964 1900 Monte Ward
1959 1933 Zack Wheat
1985 1978 Hoyt Wilhelm
1987 1983 Billy Williams
1966 1966 Ted Williams
2001 2001 Dave Winfield
1972 1970 Early Wynn
1989 1989 Carl Yastrzemski
1937 1917 Cy Young
1999 1999 Robin Yount 


HoM only

HoM Player 
1983 Dick Allen
1898 Ross Barnes
1921 Charlie Bennett
1998 Bert Blyleven
1991 Ken Boyer
1998 Gary Carter
1930 Bob Caruthers
1988 Cupid Childs
1915 Bill Dahlen
1997 Dwight Evans
1995 Darrell Evans
1964 Wes Ferrell
1985 Bill Freehan
1904 Jack Glasscock
1976 Joe Gordon
1898 George Gore
2000 Goose Gossage
1992 Bobby Grich
1938 Heinie Groh
1958 Stan Hack
1996 Keith Hernandez
1898 Paul Hines
1927 Joe Jackson
1996 Charlie Keller
1926 Sherry Magee
1914 Cal McVey
1987 Minnie Minoso
1931 Dickey Pearce
1987 Billy Pierce
1940 Lip Pike
2001 Willie Randolph
1905 Hardy Richardson
1993 Pete Rose
1980 Ron Santo
1930 Jimmy Sheckard
1906 Al Spalding
1912 Joe Start
1916 Harry Stovey
1908 Ezra Sutton
1984 Joe Torre
2001 Lou Whitaker
1898 Deacon White
1901 George Wright
1996 Jimmy Wynn 



HoF Player 
1984 Luis Aparicio
1971 Dave Bancroft
1953 Chief Bender
1974 Jim Bottomley
1945 Roger Bresnahan
1985 Lou Brock
1999 Orlando Cepeda
1946 Frank Chance
1946 Jack Chesbro
1970 Earle Combs
1968 Kiki Cuyler
1953 Dizzy Dean
1945 Hugh Duffy
1946 Johnny Evers
1984 Rick Ferrell
1972 Lefty Gomez
1964 Burleigh Grimes
1971 Chick Hafey
1970 Jesse Haines
1971 Harry Hooper
1969 Waite Hoyt
1987 Catfish Hunter
1982 Travis Jackson
1978 Addie Joss
1983 George Kell
1973 George Kelly
1980 Chuck Klein
1991 Tony Lazzeri
1976 Freddie Lindstrom
1986 Ernie Lombardi
1964 Heinie Manush
1954 Rabbit Maranville
1971 Rube Marquard
2001 Bill Mazeroski
1946 Tommy McCarthy
1948 Herb Pennock
2000 Tony Perez
2001 Kirby Puckett
1963 Sam Rice
1994 Phil Rizzuto
1955 Ray Schalk
1989 Red Schoendienst
1946 Joe Tinker
1948 Pie Traynor
1967 Lloyd Waner
1973 Mickey Welch
1995 Vic Willis
1979 Hack Wilson
1972 Ross Youngs 
   135. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4028164)
Negro Leaguers

Both:

HoF  HoM  Player  
1974  1973  Cool Papa Bell
2006  1976  Willard Brown
2006  1955  Ray Brown
1976  1943  Oscar Charleston
1977  1950  Martin Dihigo
1996  1945  Bill Foster
1972  1952  Josh Gibson
2006  1926  Frank Grant
2006  1927  Pete Hill
1973  1963  Monte Irvin
1972  1955  Buck Leonard
1977  1935  Pop Lloyd
2006  1975  Biz Mackey
2006  1985  Jose Mendez
1971  1959  Satchel Paige
1998  1940  Bullet Rogan
2006  1932  Louis Santop
2000  1946  Turkey Stearnes
2006  1956  Mule Suttles
2006  1937  Cristobal Torriente
1997  1954  Willie Wells
1999  1936  Joe Williams
2006  1948  Jud Wilson 


Only Hall of Merit

HoM  Player
1957 John Beckwith
1932 Rube Foster
1925 Grant Johnson
1991 Dobie Moore
1995 Quincy Trouppe 


Only Hall of Fame
HoF  Player
2006 Andy Cooper
1987 Ray Dandridge
1995 Leon Day
1975 Judy Johnson
2001 Hilton Smith
2006 Ben Taylor 
   136. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4028184)
Just remember those lists are only through 2001, except for the additional NGLs elected in 2006.
   137. Rob_Wood Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4028187)
Thanks for doing all this. One question on the last post(s). This is as of after the 2001 HOF and HOM elections, right? And for Negro Leaguers it includes the 2006 HOF selections?
   138. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4028202)
Correct. We are also including the 2006 HoF NGL elections.

The reason for this is that:

1) They nearly match our selections

2) The Hall of Fame should have wrapped that up (save the handful of true borderline backloggers) long before 2001, like we did.

3) Not fair to the non-NGL backloggers to lose spots because the HoF took forever to get to the NGLers. If we would have known those were coming in 2001, that would have impacted our 'matching' philosophy at the time; which was to match the HoF up until they decided to change the rules so the Veteran's Committee could barely elect anyone.
   139. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4028209)
Inducting 1 HoM player per 10 team seasons fits with currently electing 3/year with 30 teams. It also adds up to 290 slots available through 2012 and we've inducted 246. Throw in the 16 year lag and that drops the number by 16*30*/10=48 for a number of 242 slots. That is also equal to 189 MLB slots through 2001 assuming a 16 year lag. That's exactly what the HoF inducted. It gives 24 slots for Negro League players using my assumptions on player seasons. If my assumptions are low by 40 NgL team seasons in 60 years then we're right on target for NgL players and MLB players as of 2001. It gives us 246 slots by 2012 and 246 players inducted.

There's our formula: (Player seasons from 1871 to Current Year-16) / 10.

If we keep inducting 3/year there is no need to correct anything. It matches our current total and the Hall of Fame slots as of 2001.
   140. Howie Menckel Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4028252)

Bresnahan also became a HOMer in 2004, according to his page....

   141. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4028274)
Thought about this a little more on the ride home from work. If you divide by 16 instead of 10 you get a nice "small hall" line.

No reason to change the number of players inducted unless MLB expands. No reason to track to the Hall of Fame anymore. No reason to have a special election.
   142. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4028318)
DL, that's close, but I'm not trying to 'match' it to fit what we've done.

I want to come up with the correct theoretical numbers and see where that leaves us.

Later tonight or tomorrow I'll run through all of the numbers with the correct lags, slowly increasing over time. It's kind of a pain to easily do in excel.

I don't want to back of the envelope it. I want to get it right. I am not convinced 3 per year is some magic number. And if we skew low, compared to where we should be, we go against our charter of being fair to all eras and it will start to add up over time.
   143. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4028322)
Bresnahan also became a HOMer in 2004, according to his page....


Right Howie, those lists only apply through 2001.
   144. DL from MN Posted: January 03, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4028340)
I thought the idea was to match the HoF in 2001 and use that as the correct number to that point in time. Player seasons / 10 matches that number if you throw in the 16 year lag, which happens to match the career length.
   145. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4028586)
It is - to match the HoF in 2001 + NGLs.

Here's a question though - I think we should be using 6 years as the lag time related to eligibility not 7.75 (the harmonic mean of the average election wait for HoMers).

As we said before, the 6 comes from a player who retires in 1976 being eligible for the 1982 election. After stewing on this some more, I think this should be used for the lag, not the average election time. The lag is to decide when those seasons become 'eligible'.

Does that make sense?

So we'd have a moving lag range of half of 15.9 (for 1856) through 17.2 (for 2011) plus 6 as the lag factor.

Make sense?

So the lag for 1856 would be 7.9 + 6 = 13.9 seasons. By 2011 the lag is 8.6 + 6 = 14.6 seasons.
   146. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4028621)
Why half of a career? The number could just as easily be justified as the 10 season minimum for eligibility plus the 6 year self-imposed waiting period. That's when it makes sense to count a team season - when the players who were rookies that year are first eligible for consideration. That would mean a player who started in 1871 (and you can't really start competing for a pennant any earlier) would be eligible in 1888 (not 1887) because that is when enough team seasons would be compiled for a voting slot to open up.
   147. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4028622)
Might be a lot of work for marginal benefit. Could just go with a 14.25 year lag throughout?
   148. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4028624)
Why half of a career?


Half a career because among the Hall of Fame seasons in any given season, some are from players with 16 years left and others are from players with 1 year left.
   149. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4028625)
That's when it makes sense to count a team season - when the players who were rookies that year are first eligible for consideration.


I disagree there - most of those rookies won't be eligible for consideration then - and those that are, the ones with 10 year careers, aren't usually very good candidates.

That's why we went through all of the trouble to figure out what the average Hall of Merit/Fame career length is.
   150. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4028629)
Give me a chance to work up the numbers, I think they'll make sense by then.

If anyone is looking for something "fun" to do and would like to verify that my lists above are correct - mainly that I've slotted people into the 'player/contributor' bins appropriately, that would be greatly appreciated.
   151. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4028632)
Could just go with a 14.25 year lag throughout?


Or round it to 14 years
   152. Rob_Wood Posted: January 04, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4028866)
Clark Griffith was inducted into the HOF as an Executive.
   153. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4028937)
Thanks Rob.

B-R lists him as a player. His Hall of Fame plaque speaks mostly of his playing, including his over 200 career victories. His Hall of Fame web page lists his batting stats, LOL.

Why do you say he was inducted as an executive - was he on a special ballot for executives or something like that?
   154. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4029007)
Check this 1946 Hall of Fame election link . . . Clark Griffith looks like he's lumped in with all of the other players.
   155. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4029012)
Looking at that list and who is on it, all of guys nominated made it in eventually.

Also, this detailed description of the 1946 elections seems to show Griffith as being lumped in with the rest of the players.
   156. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4029014)
Here's another from the Hall of Fame website, titled the 1946 Induction Ceremony and it lists Griffith in with "dominating pitchers in Jack Chesbro, Clark Griffith, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell, and Ed Walsh."

The previous link talked about how the 1946 committee specifically went back and looked at pitchers from the pre-1910 era.
   157. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4029015)
Citing all of that, do we think it's fair to include Griffith in with the players unless some other 'evidence' emerges?
   158. Rob_Wood Posted: January 04, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4029024)
Maybe it is best to consider Griffith a combo selection (player, manager, owner). Anyway, the Baseball Hall of Fame page on Griffith says he was selected as an "Executive".

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/members/searchable-data?lname=griffith&cat=All&negro=All&pos=All&team;=&state=All&class;[value][year]=&class;[value][month]=0&class;[value][day]=0&class;[value][hour]=0&class;[value][minute]=0&class;[value][second]=0

No big deal either way I guess.
   159. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4029068)
Yeah maybe Rob. Since we did end up electing McGraw too, maybe we just combine them as one player and one executive for "HoF" purposes.

OK here we go on the Negro Leaguers and their team season accounting . . .

Our total number of eligible, lagged, team seasons through 2001 to 1913.3. Don't ask me how I got there just yet, I'll explain a little bit later. Just go with that assumption for now.

There were 189 non-NGL Hall of Fame players elected through that time.

This amounts to 10.1234 (not making that up, cool decimal) team seasons per HoMer.

There are 29 Negro Leaguers in the Hall of Fame for our purposes.

This would mean that we would need to add 293.6 team seasons to the total number of team seasons.

This works out to more than DL's estimate of 232, but it's not outrageously off and seems entirely reasonable.

How to distribute those teams by season. Well really, there are three possible methods.

First - proportion based on NGL HoMer season through 2001 (long chart alert):

18871
1888
1
1889
1
1890
1
1891
1
1892
1
1893
1
1894
1
1895
2
1896
2
1897
2
1898
2
1899
2
1900
2
1901
2
1902
3
1903
4
1904
3
1905
3
1906
4
1907
5
1908
6
1909
7
1910
7
1911
7
1912
8
1913
8
1914
7
1915
8
1916
10
1917
11
1918
11
1919
11
1920
12
1921
12
1922
13
1923
17
1924
17
1925
17
1926
19
1927
15
1928
15
1929
13
1930
15
1931
16
1932
16
1933
16
1934
16
1935
16
1936
15
1937
15
1938
13
1939
13
1940
13
1941
12
1942
10
1943
10
1944
10
1945
10
1946
10
1947
6
1948
6
1949
6
1950
4
1951
4
1952
3
1953
3
1954
2
1955
1
1956


That totals to 557 player seasons. Take 293.6/557 and you get .53 teams seasons per HoMer season . . . or:

18870.53
1888
0.53
1889
0.53
1890
0.53
1891
0.53
1892
0.53
1893
0.53
1894
0.53
1895
1.05
1896
1.05
1897
1.05
1898
1.05
1899
1.05
1900
1.05
1901
1.05
1902
1.58
1903
2.11
1904
1.58
1905
1.58
1906
2.11
1907
2.64
1908
3.16
1909
3.69
1910
3.69
1911
3.69
1912
4.22
1913
4.22
1914
3.69
1915
4.22
1916
5.27
1917
5.80
1918
5.80
1919
5.80
1920
6.32
1921
6.32
1922
6.85
1923
8.96
1924
8.96
1925
8.96
1926
10.01
1927
7.91
1928
7.91
1929
6.85
1930
7.91
1931
8.43
1932
8.43
1933
8.43
1934
8.43
1935
8.43
1936
7.91
1937
7.91
1938
6.85
1939
6.85
1940
6.85
1941
6.32
1942
5.27
1943
5.27
1944
5.27
1945
5.27
1946
5.27
1947
3.16
1948
3.16
1949
3.16
1950
2.11
1951
2.11
1952
1.58
1953
1.58
1954
1.05
1955
0.53
1956
0.53 


Method two would be to regress that slightly so we don't get the big peak on 1926. Basically I'd run a regression from 1887-1925 and from 1926-1956 and use that to smooth it out a bit.

This differs pretty significantly from DL's suggested distribution (I've prorated his proportions to get to our 293.6 total), or method 3:

18870.00
1888
0.00
1889
0.00
1890
0.00
1891
2.53
1892
2.53
1893
2.53
1894
2.53
1895
2.53
1896
2.53
1897
2.53
1898
2.53
1899
2.53
1900
2.53
1901
2.53
1902
2.53
1903
2.53
1904
2.53
1905
2.53
1906
2.53
1907
2.53
1908
2.53
1909
2.53
1910
3.80
1911
3.80
1912
3.80
1913
3.80
1914
3.80
1915
3.80
1916
3.80
1917
3.80
1918
3.80
1919
3.80
1920
5.06
1921
5.06
1922
5.06
1923
6.33
1924
6.33
1925
6.33
1926
6.33
1927
6.33
1928
6.33
1929
5.06
1930
5.06
1931
5.06
1932
3.80
1933
5.06
1934
5.06
1935
5.06
1936
7.59
1937
7.59
1938
7.59
1939
7.59
1940
7.59
1941
7.59
1942
10.12
1943
10.12
1944
10.12
1945
8.86
1946
7.59
1947
7.59
1948
6.33
1949
5.06
1950
5.06
1951
2.53
1952
1.27
1953
0.00
1954
0.00
1955
0.00
1956
0.00 


His is centered much more on the early 40s than the mid 20s.

I suppose we could go with a 4th method, averaging the two approaches.

18870.26
1888
0.26
1889
0.26
1890
0.26
1891
1.53
1892
1.53
1893
1.53
1894
1.53
1895
1.79
1896
1.79
1897
1.79
1898
1.79
1899
1.79
1900
1.79
1901
1.79
1902
2.06
1903
2.32
1904
2.06
1905
2.06
1906
2.32
1907
2.58
1908
2.85
1909
3.11
1910
3.74
1911
3.74
1912
4.01
1913
4.01
1914
3.74
1915
4.01
1916
4.53
1917
4.80
1918
4.80
1919
4.80
1920
5.69
1921
5.69
1922
5.96
1923
7.64
1924
7.64
1925
7.64
1926
8.17
1927
7.12
1928
7.12
1929
5.96
1930
6.48
1931
6.75
1932
6.11
1933
6.75
1934
6.75
1935
6.75
1936
7.75
1937
7.75
1938
7.22
1939
7.22
1940
7.22
1941
6.96
1942
7.70
1943
7.70
1944
7.70
1945
7.06
1946
6.43
1947
5.38
1948
4.74
1949
4.11
1950
3.59
1951
2.32
1952
1.42
1953
0.79
1954
0.53
1955
0.26
1956
0.26 


This shows a peak in the mid-20s, followed by another peak in the late 30s and early 40s.

I'm not a NGL expert by any stretch, so I think I favor the last approach. Definitely open to being convinced otherwise on this. But we did elect a bunch of HoMers centered on the mid-1920s, and I assume we did that for a reason.

We are getting close. Once we've got this figured out, I'll present the entire thing. It's pretty interesting. I still haven't gone past 2001 to see if we are ahead or behind through our 2012 election. Want to nail the methodology down first.
   160. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4029071)
I did just think of one additional way to do it.

Use my methodology, but chop off the first and last 2 seasons of each player's career. This would smooth out the overlap of career ends and beginnings, might make it take a slightly different shape, not as focused on the mid-1920s.
   161. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4029148)
The peak you see in the 1920s makes sense. I conservatively only added 1 team for the Eastern Colored League. There were 6-7 teams in that league from 1923-1928. It would add 2 more team seasons per year (total of 7) if we treat it as a full league. That's 10 additional team seasons right there. The odd thing is seeing the peak happen for player seasons in the gap between leagues. It looks like the talent level was still there for 6 teams even though the economic conditions weren't. That gets me up around 250-260 team seasons.

Your number is close enough to 10 team seasons / HoM slot that I wouldn't budge. The actions of the Hall of Fame making the VC much more difficult starting in 2001 indicates that they were trying to correct for an overshoot. Even if you keep that number it means we elect one additional guy every 10 years.

Edit - one _fewer_ guy every 10 years. Not one additional. Messes up my VC theory.
   162. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4029164)
How is this . . . took two years off of the front and three off back of each HoM career.

18870.00
1888
0.00
1889
0.70
1890
0.70
1891
0.70
1892
0.70
1893
0.70
1894
0.70
1895
0.70
1896
0.70
1897
1.41
1898
1.41
1899
1.41
1900
1.41
1901
0.70
1902
0.70
1903
0.70
1904
1.41
1905
2.11
1906
2.11
1907
2.11
1908
2.82
1909
3.52
1910
4.22
1911
4.22
1912
4.22
1913
4.22
1914
4.93
1915
4.93
1916
4.93
1917
5.63
1918
7.04
1919
7.04
1920
7.04
1921
7.04
1922
7.74
1923
7.74
1924
6.34
1925
9.15
1926
7.74
1927
7.74
1928
9.15
1929
9.15
1930
8.45
1931
8.45
1932
9.15
1933
9.15
1934
9.15
1935
8.45
1936
7.74
1937
8.45
1938
7.74
1939
6.34
1940
6.34
1941
7.04
1942
7.04
1943
7.04
1944
4.22
1945
4.22
1946
4.22
1947
2.82
1948
2.82
1949
2.11
1950
2.11
1951
1.41
1952
0.70
1953
0.70
1954
0.00
1955
0.00
1956
0.00 
   163. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4029166)
Sorry DL, hadn't seen your comment when I posted mine.

So of these, which do you think is the most appropriate way to distribute the NGL teams . . . I could tweak and run some other ways if you have ideas also. I'm not too hung up on the 293.6 or 250 or 232 teams right now - I'm more concerned about getting the relative distribution correct.
   164. DL from MN Posted: January 05, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4029283)
Add the ECL teams, then average/smooth it out.
   165. DanG Posted: January 07, 2012 at 01:10 AM (#4031004)
This is an update of a post I made two years ago.

RE: Player Count, Hall of Merit vs. Hall of Fame – We’re still catching up.

With the 2012 election, the Hall of Merit has elected 246 players. At the same time, Larkin's election will bring the HOF official player count to 236 (207 MLB, 29 NeL). Despite these counts, the HoM still has not caught up to the HOF’s number; we are still more exclusive.

Once you account for the HoMers that the HOF does not count as “players”, our number drops below theirs. Start with the banned players: HoMers Pete Rose and Joe Jackson would certainly be in the HOF if there were no “character clause”. A couple others are classified by the HOF as “managers”: John McGraw and Rube Foster. Add Joe Torre to that list, whom the HOF has rejected for his playing but is a shoo-in for election as a manager. Then we have three HoMers whom the HOF lists in the “executives/pioneers” category: George Wright, Al Spalding and Clark Griffith. Along these same lines, we see four players in the HoM who did not play ten years in MLB from 1876-on, implying the HOF would classify them as “pioneers” if they were elected: Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Cal McVey and Ross Barnes. (None of those four appeared on the lists of 200 candidates for the four VC elections from 2003-09.)

That’s 12 HoMers who are not in the HOF consideration set of players. Thus, an apples-to-apples comparison shows the HOF player total of 236 as still being more than our adjusted total here of 234.
   166. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4032083)
Dan, that's a good point - we definitely need to account for all of the oddities you mention . . .

I'll give my thoughts one-by-one:

Pete Rose: Definitely should count on the Hall of Fame list
Joe Jackson: ditto

John McGraw: I don't think we should count him. His skill set is such that I don't think he'd be in the Hall of Fame as a player. I mean if Denny Lyons isn't in, I doubt McGraw gets in as player.

EDIT: Just looked up McGraw's placement on the 1936 Veteran's Committee ballot - he actually showed up pretty impressively, between Ed Delahanty and Hoss Radbourn in 7th place. Herman Long, who finished 9th, is the only player among the top 15 that isn't in the Hall of Fame. I'd say let's count him as Hall of Fame.

Rube Foster: I don't know enough about him. Reading his plaque it talks about him as a player. Maybe count McGraw/Foster as one Hall of Famer?

Joe Torre: I think the Hall of Fame pretty clearly rejected him as a player. As of 2001, he was off the BBWAA ballot (peaking at 22%) and wasn't yet eligible for the Veterans Committee - he's out.

George Wright: His plaque makes it pretty clear he was elected as a player, no matter how they've classified him now.

Al Spalding: Seems like he would not have been elected for just his playing, based on reading his plaque.

Clark Griffith: We discussed him earlier, but he almost definitely would have been elected as a player, based on his performance in player based votes. And the evidence doesn't exactly show that he wasn't elected as a player anyway.

So I would say add 5 to any Hall of Fame list that doesn't include the players mentioned above:

Rose
Jackson
EDIT: McGraw
Foster (?)
Wright
Griffith

As far as Pearce, Pike, McVey and Barnes go - they are simply 'misses' by the Hall of Fame, in terms of comparing to the Hall of Merit. They are part of what the Hall of Merit was designed to 'fix'.

Is this reasonable?

EDIT: Still open to thoughts on Foster - do we think he would have been elected without his career as an executive/manager?
   167. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4032099)
Including the information above, I'm seeing 194 traditional Hall of Famers through 2001, plus 29 or 30 NGL's, depending on how we count Rube Foster.

Am I missing anyone further?

Here's how I've counted anyone 'controversial':

Candy Cummings - Pioneer

Rube Foster - ??? leaning counting him as a player.

Joe Jackson - Player

Tommy McCarthy - Player

John McGraw - Player

Pete Rose - Player

Al Spalding - Executive - note, he only received 4 of 78 votes in that 1937 election. Granted, several eventual Hall of Famers received fewer, including Monte Ward, Billy Hamilton and Dan Brouthers. But he was also behind guys like Bill Lange and Jerry Denny. Any thoughts?

George Wright - Player
   168. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4032179)
Evidence that we were too conservative early . . . there is a -.35 correlation with retirement year and gap between election, meaning if you retired younger earlier, you would have a longer wait.

I know what you are thinking, remove the early backlog guys and that would clear some of it up. Nope. Starting with players elected in 1906, the correlation shoots to -.44.


Uh... there's an enormous sampling bias in this. It's possible for John McGraw to have gotten into the HOM over 100 years after his retirement as a player, because he retired over 100 years ago; it is as yet impossible for this to have happened to Kevin Appier (or whoever your choice is for moderate backlogger who retired recently, and could theoretically be inducted into the HOM at some point within the next 100 years).
   169. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4032209)
Good point Eric - how do you suppose I should try to test for that.

Either way, even if that's not the way to go about showing it, there was definitely a bias towards backloading the elections. We actively discussed it.
   170. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4032229)
Good point Eric - how do you suppose I should try to test for that.

Either way, even if that's not the way to go about showing it, there was definitely a bias towards backloading the elections. We actively discussed it.


I'm not sure how you would adjust for it - maybe look at median wait time, putting the players in buckets by decade of retirement? It might not completely resolve the issue, but it would help.

Regardless, backloading the elections to some extent seems like a sensible thing to have done.
   171. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4032461)
open to thoughts on Foster - do we think he would have been elected without his career as an executive/manager?


He may not have been elected in 1981 but he would have made it by the time the last group made it.
   172. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4032464)
Thanks DL . . . Eric, I'll take a look if I get a chance. I really kind of stumbled onto that and saw it as evidence, wasn't really actively looking for it or trying to prove anything.
   173. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4033275)
So I think the only question mark left at this point is whether or not to count Spalding as a player.

I'm kind of leaning more towards counting him as a player. His 252-65 record would have eventually got him in as a player. Sure he was behind a few obscure players in the that 1936 vote, but he was also ahead of some no-brainers and most of those guys are in. His plaque does mention his playing prominently, though not exclusively.

Any thoughts one way or the other?
   174. Rob_Wood Posted: January 10, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4033333)
I am very comfortable with Spalding considered a HOF player.
   175. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4033471)
OK, so going forward, I'm going to consider 195 Major League Hall of Famers and 30 Negro League Hall of Famers through 2001. If anyone has an issue with this, or a question as to who is in each bucket, please speak up ASAP. Thanks!
   176. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4033548)
Combining Hall of Merit NGL player seasons with DL's estimated distribution, then regressing to smooth things out . . . we get gradual improvement from 1889-1922, a spike from 1923-28 with a dropoff in 1929, then gradual improvement through a second peak in 1943 with a final decline therafter.

Does that actually describe Negro League quality accurately? If not, how would you describe it, in terms of improvement, peaks, declines, etc.? I've got the underlying data set, it's just a question of how to regress showing a curve the moves realistically.
   177. Alex King Posted: January 11, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4034418)
That sounds like a reasonable approach. One worry is that in using the HOM election data, the quality curve is biased against players the HOM has been biased against--sunnyday's been a pretty forceful advocate for integration-era black players (the "Lost Generation") and there does seem to be a dip in the 1940s and 1950s.

I looked at the election results to see if the current top candidates are biased towards one era or another (suggesting that era may be underrepresented in the HOM): Redding (1910s) is 6th, Newcombe (1940s/1950s) is 11th, Taylor (1910s/1920s) is 14th, Hilton Smith (1940s) is 17th, Bus Clarkson (1940s/1950s) is 19th, Bill Monroe (1900s/1910s) is 29th, Elston Howard (1940s/1950s) is 47th, Carlos Moran (1900s/1910s) is 51st, Luke Easter (1940s/1950s) is 76th, Ray Dandridge (1930s/1940s) is 84th. Leroy Matlock (1930s) has also received votes recently. These guys heavily cluster around the 1910s and the 1940s, suggesting that both eras are "underrated" slightly by just using HOM results. Maybe we should count these guys as partial electees in some way (perhaps incorporating votes received)?
   178. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4034532)
We could do something like that Alex.

Do you have career dates for those guys. I'm looking for realistic MLE type career dates. If you have them all and could easily post them that would save a lot of time for me having to look them up and make judgements.

One thing to note though . . . that won't change the number of 'slots' we allocate - that's fixed at the 30 the Hall of Fame has. All this will do is determine what years we allocate those slots to.

Maybe we count the players in the Hall of Merit at 100% and the players who received votes at 80%?

Actually, ideally, since we aren't really rushed - does anyone have our Hall of Merit consensus MLE's accumulated somewhere all in one place, for all of the HoMers, Hall of Famers and those still receiving votes? Would actually be great to use WAR or Win Shares as opposed to 'seasons' when accounting for playing time. I don't think I have the time to go searching for all of them though.

Spreadsheet - if it exists would be fine, my email address through the site works fine. I wouldn't expect anyone to post them all here - although I might at some point make a thread for them.
   179. Alex King Posted: January 11, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4034574)
MLE career lengths (excluding major league careers):

Redding 1911-1927
Newcombe 1946-1948
Taylor 1910-1929
Smith 1935-1948
Clarkson 1938-1956
Monroe 1899-1914
Howard 1948-1950
Moran 1899-1913
Easter: unclear where his career starts, I've seen 1941-1949, 1939-1949 and 1937-1949
Dandridge 1934-1952
Matlock 1929-1942

I have a spreadsheet of current candidates only (so that covers those receiving votes as well as HOF/not HOM). I'll clean it up a little, pick out the relevant players, then I can send it over some time later tonight.
   180. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4034581)
Good stuff, thanks Alex!
   181. Alex King Posted: January 11, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4034724)
OK I wasn't sure how to send it as an attachment so I decided to post it to Google Docs. I wouldn't stand behind the WAR numbers as gospel: I made a number of assumptions, such as arbitrarily setting fielding numbers and using the shortcut wOBA = (1.8*OBP + SLG)/3 approximation. If anyone's interested I can also post the full ugly spreadsheet with all the calculations and approximations.
   182. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4034760)
Excellent discussion.

Joe, the totals look reasonable.

Agreed on classifications of players and that candy cummings is a pioneer, while the others can be viewed as players.

It is a shame that the pre national league players have been ignored, but yes, the hall of merit has eased those slighted.

If anyone, including alex, can post negro league mle war totals to the hall of merit yahoo group, that would be awesome.

I apolgize for the inactivity, missplaced, hopefully didn't lose my revised rankings incorporating dra defensive values.
   183. Alex King Posted: January 12, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4034799)
Bleed, you can use the Google Docs link posted in 181 for some WAR estimates. There are other players that I would consider good candidates who I should probably add to the Google Doc at some point, pending some discussion of those players.
   184. Howie Menckel Posted: January 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM (#4034819)

I just want to speak for the HOM voters who find this stuff over their heads, but who greatly respect the attention to detail. It matters.

Joe has had that attribute from Day One....

   185. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 20, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4041582)
Thanks Howie, that's nice to hear.

I haven't forgotten about this guys . . . this was a travel week and as an added bonus, I'm snowed in in Seattle, I won't get home until midnight Saturday heading into Sunday . . . and I haven't seen (or from my wife's perspective, "helped with") the baby since Sunday night . . . so figure it will be some time Monday/Tuesday before I get a chance to dive back in.
   186. DL from MN Posted: March 15, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4081436)
Joe - did you reach any conclusions from all this data? If so, can you summarize them?
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1482 seconds
68 querie(s) executed