around the bend

But with Rose and Jackson you are not asking that question because the answer is self-evident. Of course Rose and Jackson are the two best players not inducted (again, unless you hold Jackson's short career against him),

I can see a case for leaving Rose off under this grounds, but I think you could be wrong about Jackson. Plenty will hold his career length against him, causing him to fall below some of the other top players.

If you want to leave Rose off, do a run-off with Rose & the #1 winner. (But if you do that, do it at the same time a normal weekly election goes on. No need to gum up the process for an entire week given that a match race run-off shouldn't take as much time/thought as a typical election.

test

It is important to figure out what the "true" modern standard for the hall is, throwing out the obviously fallacious old VC members. Assess where that line falls in our HoM-not-Hof list. Then advocate for the players who are above it.

That can estimated.

Number elected by BBWAA by decade:
1998-2007: 18
1988-1997: 14
1978-1987: 17
1968-1977: 15
1958-1967: 5 (elections every other year during most of this period)
1948-1957: 18
1938-1947: 10 (WWII disrupted elections during this period)
1936-1937: 8

If we ignore pre-1968 data due to the constant tinkering with the election schedule, we come up with an average of 16 new BBWAA HOFers per decade. The HOF fully covers roughly 11 decades now (1880-1990), plus straggles before and after. This yields a HOF of about 176 members or about 75% as large as the one today. That implies there are about 55 excess members to both halls, when compared to the de facto BBWAA standard.

Which means that most of the HOM backlog electees (55/75 or nearly 75%) should be the basis for the HOVG (and perhaps including some of the weaker midlog selections). They were elected to replace the HOF's "mistakes", and are below the "true modern standard".

This post doesn't really have a point . . . not that a post needs one at btf.

Looking at the list, here's me dividing the 58 into eras:

Nineteenth Century 18: Barnes, Bennett, Browning, Caruthers, Childs, Dahlen, Glasscock, Gore, Hines, Jones, McVey, Pearce, Pike, Richardson, Start, Stovey, Sutton, White.

Deadball 4: Groh, Jackson, Magee, Sheckard.

Pre-Integration 4: Ferrell, Gordon, Hack, Keller.

Pre-First Labor Strike (1972) 8: Allen, Boyer, Freehan, Minoso, Pierce, Santo, Torre, Wynn.

Modern Times 18: Blyleven, Clark, Dawson, Da Evans, Dw Evans, Gossage, Grich, Hernandez, McGwire, Nettles, Raines, Randolph, Rose, Saberhagen, Simmons, Stieb, Trammell, Whitaker.

Negro Leaguers: Beckwith, Johnson, Lundy, Moore, Oms, Troupe. From what I know, all of them except Johnson would go in the Pre-Ing group, with Johnson rounding out the Deadball bunch.

The modern times guys will go in over time as the BBWAA & VC put more in - for example, barring a disaster Gossage will go in next month.

Have no point - just wanted to era-'em up.

If you make the cut-off 1893 instead of 1900 for deadballers, how many of that first group switch? Childs, Dahlen . . and that's it, right?

HOM-not-HOF on the current BBWAA ballot:
1a) Raines Blyleven McGwire Trammell Gossage // Dawson

HOM-not-HOF excluded from the current BBWAA ballot by the 5% rule:
1b) Whitaker / TSimmons Clark Hernandez DaEvans
DwEvans / Randolph Stieb Nettles Saberhagen

HOM-not-HOF in the "modern" veterans group (post-1943)
2) Santo Grich / Allen Torre /
Freehan Pierce Minoso Boyer JWynn

HOM-not-HOF in the "modern" veterans group (post-1943)
plus those whose BBWAA eligibility will soon expire
2+) Santo Grich / TSimmons Allen Torre DaEvans /
Freehan Pierce Minoso Boyer JWynn Nettles

HOM-not-HOF in the "classic" veterans group (pre-1943)
3) White Hines Dahlen / Gore Groh /
Glasscock Richardson ESutton Start Stovey
Bennett Magee Sheckard Caruthers Hack
Ferrell Gordon Childs Keller CJones Browning

HOM-not-HOF in the "other" group (ineligible due
to lack of 10 years MLB service or for other reasons)
4) Rose / JJackson Barnes / McVey GJohnson
Pearce Pike Beckwith Moore Trouppe Oms Lundy

The slashes? (/) The first marks the border between "frontlog" and "midlog", the second between "midlog" and "backlog". Front-loggers got more than 50% of the #1's (or would have if not for the presence of another "front-logger" on the ballot, eg Ruth vs Hornsby). Midloggers didn't get 50% but also didn't mingle with the real backloggers (more formal def'n courtesy of Paul Wendt).

Front-loggers would be those we strongly endorsed in the HOM elections, and are the ones we are highly likely to endorse again in any ranking exercis. Mid-loggers got less support, sometimes much less; I would expect the best of them to be ranked above the best of the backloggers, but the lowest ones (e.g. Groh or Dwight Evans) did not dominate a weak backlog on their ballots and so might not fare as well in a comprehensive ranking.

I think grouping them acc. to the HoF voting procedures, as jimd has it here, is the way to go. I realize it was proposed and discussed previously but I thought it deserved some emphasis, as jimd obviously did as well.

I wouldn't say Rose and Jackson are 'of course' the two best - there are some 19th Century guys that could be considered better than Jackson and possibly even Rose (if you are a peak voter).

So you don't rank Joe Start or Ezra Sutton above Pete Rose?

I suppose that any of White, Dahlen, and Blyleven (all with long careers) would get several votes head on with Rose.
"Several" is approximately 2.33 times "a few"

frontlog (12) plus midlog (11)
by peak decade
bold - currently eligible (5)
<u>underscore</u> - frontlog

2000
- - <u>McGwire</u>
1990
- - <u>Raines, Trammell, Whitaker</u>, Hernandez, EvansDw, ClarkW
1980
- - <u>Blyleven, Gossage, Rose, Grich</u>, Simmons, EvansDa
1970
- - <u>Santo</u>, Torre, Allen
1960

1950

1940

1930

1920
- - <u>_J</u>ackson, Groh
1910

1900
- - <u>Dahlen</u>
1890
- - Gore
1880
- - <u>White, Hines</u>, Barnes
1870

backlog (35)
by peak decade
bold - current eligible (1)
UPPERCASE - behind color line (6)

2000
- -
1990
- - Dawson, Randolph, Stieb, Saberhagen
1980
- - Nettles
1970
- - Boyer, Wynn, Freehan
1960
- - Pierce, Minoso
1950
- - Gordon, Keller
1940
- - TROUPPE, Ferrell, Hack
1930
- - OMS, LUNDY, BECKWITH
1920
- - MOORE, Magee
1910
- - JOHNSON, Sheckard
1900
- - Childs
1890
- - Glasscock, Richardson, Stovey, Bennett, Browning, Caruthers
1880
- - Pike, McVey, Sutton, Jones
1870
- - Pearce, Start

Those allocations by decade lean early rather than late. I looked up only Randolph and Hernandez. Hack, Gordon, and Keller were all in their prime together before the war and having looked up Hack it now seems that they belong in the 1940s together.

DagN (not to be confused with DanG)
If you make the cut-off 1893 instead of 1900 for deadballers, how many of that first group switch? Childs, Dahlen . . and that's it, right?

Yes. Dahlen is a close call at 1900 (but 1901 is traditional and defines the SABR "deadball era").

There will be 57 or 58 players to rank, depending on whether or not Tim Raines is elected to the Hall of Fame.

Ah, that's why I couldn't match 57 -- 55 plus Jackson and Rose.
Raines doesn't show up in my data but I guess he will show up next month
:-(

Have we more or less decided to implement Joe's proposed schedule in #52 with the players grouped per jimd in #106? Or did we decide to lump the <5 percent club in with either the BBWAA list or the post-'43 VC list? Or what?

I like the 1B - (Simmons and Evans), 2+, 3, 4 groupings. I'm good with the schedule.

Now, wading into this thread after a week posted (though it will take me a few days to absorb all of the posts :-)...

Have you guys found someone to handle the elections yet? If you haven't, I'm thinking (just thinking...I may still regain my senses ;-) about lending a hand, if needed. Besides ballot and election results threads, what else would be needed from the moderator?

One other thing: elections would have to end on Sunday nights if I was in charge. That would have to be mandatory. Monday was a killer for me.

- I think any change of days is fine
- I think there is no reason we can't wait a half-day or more, if need be
- Any other stress-easer should be considered

The heavy lifting is over; no reason to make 2008 a painful one..

I appreciate that, Howie.

I think the original rationale of Monday as the last election day was to allow some people to finish their ballots the last weekend, and post them (at work?) the next day.

You're correct, Jim, but that still doesn't help my situation.

Now, if we moved the start date of each election to Sundays also, the procrastinators :-) could work on their ballots that weekend and submit their ballots that first Monday way before the election's end.

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming. :-)

John, whenever you're the person stepping up to lead, it's your call as to what's gonna work for you. IOW, set up a schedule that fits with your life, making whatever accomodations to requests that you're able to. Then clearly communicate it; the procrastinators can't carp if they have only themselves to blame for missing a vote.

An option: The schedule in #52 has polls opening on Monday and closing on Monday. If Sunday-Sunday works better for you, do it that way. If you want to try and accomodate people who vote from work, think about doing a Friday-Saturday schedule, where the poll is open for 8 days.

And any way it gets handled, there is NO requirement for people to wait until the last day/minute.

sigh.

I agree. If John is willing to continue to administer this thing, and if John can't do a Monday close, then Sunday it is. It's not as if that precludes finalizing ballots on a weekend if you need to.

I agree. If John is willing to continue to administer this thing, and if John can't do a Monday close, then Sunday it is.

Seconded.

Any against?

Jim Rice is on my short list. As far as teh method, a weekly breakdown by era would work.

John I just set Monday up there to keep with what was already in place, any changes can be made.

I can also do some of the lifting at this point - it's been awhile since I posted an election results thread - how much is automated these days, and how much is manual?

I can also do some of the lifting at this point - it's been awhile since I posted an election results thread - how much is automated these days, and how much is manual?

Thanks Joe, but if we can do it on Sundays, I don't see a problem. Basically (please correct me if I'm wrong), I would just be setting up ballot and ballot discussion threads, as well as election results threads and tallying up the ballots. There are no plaques or plaque rooms to maintain, so it shouldn't be comparable to the normal HoM election process in terms of workload.

Cool, as always thanks for your willingness to take the time John.

Just a quick heads up, I will be out of town with limited interwebby access from this Friday through New Year's Eve. I should be able to check my email a few times a day through my phone, but I don't get a great signal at my mom's place . . .

Sounds great, can we get a discussion thread up for the 1B grouping (minus Simmons and Evans)? Right now is the time to influence the voters, they're sending in ballots now.

Current rankings:

Group 1
1) Bert Blyleven
2) Tim Raines
3) Alan Trammell
4) Lou Whitaker
5) Dwight Evans
6) Mark McGwire
7) Goose Gossage
8) Bret Saberhagen
9) Will Clark
10) Keith Hernandez
11) Dave Stieb
12) Willie Randolph
13) Andre Dawson

Group 2
1) Bobby Grich
2) Ron Santo
3) Joe Torre
4) Darrell Evans
5) Billy Pierce
6) Ted Simmons
7) Graig Nettles
8) Bill Freehan
9) Dick Allen
10) Minnie Minoso
11) Ken Boyer
12) Jim Wynn

I'm going to need to see discussion before ranking groups 3 and 4 as they largely consist of players I haven't fully evaluated. I do know I'd head them up with Dahlen and Rose.

For Group 1, I agree with DL on top 2, bottom 2, and top half/bottom half:

1) Bert Blyleven
2) Tim Raines
3) Mark McGwire
4) Rich Gossage
5) Dwight Evans
6) Lou Whitaker
7) Alan Trammell
8) Will Clark
9) Keith Hernandez
10) Bret Saberhagen
11) Dave Stieb
12) Willie Randolph
13) Andre Dawson

For Group 2, I agree with DL on top 2, then there's much less correspondence:

1) Bobby Grich
2) Ron Santo
3) Ted Simmons
4) Dick Allen
5) Darrell Evans
6) Graig Nettles
7) Joe Torre
8) Minnie Minoso
9) Bill Freehan
10) Jimmy Wynn
11) Billy Pierce
12) Ken Boyer

Group 1 is much stronger than Group 2, overall, though the top pair on each list are (or will be in the case of Raines) huge, painful, glaring omissions from the Hall of Fame.

Group 1 is much stronger than Group 2, overall, though the top pair on each list are (or will be in the case of Raines) huge, painful, glaring omissions from the Hall of Fame.

I agree twice.

If I were influential with the writers in significant numbers, I wouldn't consider spending any of it on Blyleven, Raines, McGwire or Gossage (or Dawson) yet, not when they may be elected without my help. I might say "Psst, Dale Murphy was greater than Jim Rice."

Nor would I spend any on Pete Rose and Joe Jackson. Given that kind of influence I would try to use it in other ways.

They don't have enough third basemen and I think Santo is one tier above Groh, Hack, Boyer. I would be happy to "single" him out as Grich's running mate whether it be for the 20th century or for "my dad's fanhood"

Even without those who are still on the BBWAA ballot, I could easily get through the top ten without touching a 1900s-1950s debut. Probably top twenty if I include the BBWAA eligible.

Oops, "my dad's fanhood" is the actual scope of the new young veteran's committee, roughly 1940s-1970s

Referring to my own #110, I see that I agree precisely with the group in the following sense:

Rose & Jackson - frontlog elections to the Hall of Merit. I wouldn't spend that kind of influence on Rose and Jackson for the HOF.

White, Hines, Dahlen, Santo, Grich - the other frontlog elections to the Hall of Merit who are not honored in Cooperstown. In slightly non-chronological order (White, Dahlen, Grich, Hines, Santo) those would be my own top five. I'm not tempted to elevate anyone from the group's midlog elections, maybe Johnson from the backlog.

--
Speaking of harboring one's influence: asked to recommend as many as ten 19th century players in the early 1990s, a Blue Ribbon Committee chaired by SABR founder Bob Davids chose to recommend only six (and only one contributor, William Hulbert). McPhee, Davis, Dahlen, Glasscock, Browning, Stovey --listed by position and from memory

Group 1 (gaps indicate where I think there are gaps in quality)

1) Blyleven

2) Raines
3) Hernandez (I rate him more highly than does the group)
4) Whitaker
5) Trammell
6) McGwire
7) Stieb (I rate him more highly than does the group)
8) WClark

9) Saberhagen
10) Gossage (I'm in the minority here and on closers in general)

11) Randolph
12) Evans

13) Dawson (not PHOM)

****************

Group 2 (gaps indicate where I think there are gaps in quality)

1) Grich
2) Santo
3) TSimmons (maybe I should re-evaluate my catcher's bonus?)

4) Torre (I also rate him more highly than does the group)
5) Allen

6) Boyer
7) Evans
8) JWynn

9) Pierce
10) Freehan
11) Minoso

12) Nettles (not PHOM)

I'm not understanding Nettles as way below Boyer.

Player WAR BWAA BRWAA FWAA (below average seasons removed)
Boyer 52.5 23.3 -0.5 12
Nettles 60.8 18.7 -0.3 14.9

Nettles is -4.6 in batting, even in baserunning but ahead 2.9 in fielding. However, the replacement level difference adds 6.6 wins in favor of Nettles.

I can see Boyer ahead of Nettles if you have reasons for preferring a different replacement level. I can't see a substantial difference between them though. We're talking 1.7 wins vs. an average player. Is this a peak argument?

Rose & Jackson - frontlog elections to the Hall of Merit.

Joe Jackson was not a frontlog selection. He got 35% of the #1's in his election (during the "drought"; it wasn't the deepest of backlogs). Comparable to Will Clark at 37%. However Clark did receive a majority of the votes-to-elect in 2006, Jackson did not in 1927 (24 of 49 possible).

I'm not understanding Nettles as way below Boyer. ... Is this a peak argument?

Partially. Also a prime argument. My system sees Nettles as having mainly his career to recommend him. He doesn't quite have a HOM quality peak or prime. Boyer is on the other side of my in/out line for those attributes. I see Nettles as having a better career total, but if that was the most important thing to me, I'd be advocating Maranville much more strongly. I think what hurts Nettles most in my system is the league quality adjustment. Boyer was in the stronger league, Nettles was not.

Another point in Boyer's favor (it's not part of my system now but I might attempt to adjust for it once I figure out how) is that Boyer (and Pierce and Minoso) were playing in the contracted 1950's. This mutes their stats relative to both average and replacement level because those benchmarks were higher than they would have been if there had been 20-24 teams, as there were later (60's/70's) or earlier (1930's including NeL adjustment).

Boyer (and Pierce and Minoso) were playing in the contracted 1950's

Regular HoMies know not to take this at face value. The rest of you, buyer beware. Boyer played half in the '50s, half in the expansion '60s including his putative peak (MVP).

Love Chris' ballot. Boyer and Pierce are where they belong.

I'll split the difference.
His batting peak is 1959-1961, the three seasons preceding expansion:
all three of his OWP .700 seasons; three of four with OPS+ 130.
As a batter he fell off a cliff after the 1964 MVP season.

Reminder:

1/14-1/20 - discuss Group 1 (BBWAA)
1/21-1/28 - vote Group 1

1/28-2/3 - discuss Group 2 (Modern VC)
2/4-2/11 - vote Group 2

2/11-2/17 - discuss Group 3 (Pre WWII VC)
2/18-2/25 - vote Group 3

2/25-3/2 - discuss Group 4 (Currently left out)
3/3-3/10 - vote Group 4

Given possibly-Grandma's schedule, the voting should end on 1/27, 2/10, 2/24 and 3/9, shouldn't it? In other words, DL from MN's schedule, but everything a day earlier.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having all 4 discussion threads up now. I'll need more time to properly evaluate groups 3 and 4 because I joined the party a little late.

Oh, and Gossage is no longer in group 1. Even though it might be interesting to keep him in the discussion I say we keep him off the ballot.

Thanks for the reminder DL. I will post the discussion thread this weekend.

I would think we should shift Gossage to his new group.

We can definitely have the balloting end on whatever day is easiest for John (or whoever will be tallying).

I've been on the road a bunch the last few weeks. I finally returned for good Tuesday, so I'll be around more now.

not sure where this belongs, but I'm lifting this from a BTF thread.

this was Dick Thompson, the gentleman who memorably weighed in on some Lefty Grove/Wes Ferrell commentary on Hall of Merit threads. I dropped his age because there is some confusion about it.

R.I.P.


"Richard J. Thompson of Dartmouth died unexpectedly Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2008, at St. Luke's Hospital.
He was the husband of Barbara L. (Joseph) Thompson; and son of the late Leon F. and Marjorie (Paulding) Thompson. He was born in Brockton, was raised in Middleboro, residing in Whitman and Bridgewater for 22 years and in Dartmouth for 1 1/2 years.
Mr. Thompson was a registered nurse at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Brockton for 32 years. He was a U.S. Navy veteran of the Vietnam War attaining the rank of E-4. He was the recipient of the National Defense Service Medal.
A baseball historian, researcher and published author, he wrote several articles on baseball history and authored "The Ferrell Brothers Of Baseball", which was published in 2005 by McFarland & Co. He was a member of the Society for American Baseball Research.
He was an avid runner and golfer and was a member of Lebaron Hills Country Club and the Country Club of New Bedford. Vacationing with his wife, fishing with his grandson and celebrating July 2nd birthdays, which he shared with his nephew, were some of the many things he enjoyed. Survivors include his wife of 23 years, Barbara L. (Joseph) Thompson of Dartmouth [etc]........"

Richard J. Thompson of Dartmouth died unexpectedly Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2008,

Thank you, Howie. This is shocking to me (although I'm out of the loop). Dick seems so young for his age --at the semiannual Southern New England SABR meetings, present tense although I've missed the last three since entering grad school 1-1/2 years ago.

Our paths never crossed at Boston Public Library microforms, but I frequently and occasionally overlapped with two regulars who frequently overlapped with him --four middle-age men with unusual schedules or none.

I don't know if he was young for his age but his age was young...I saw 52.

Sunnyday, in reading the bio, the age looks incorrect. That's why I dropped it.

Wow, that's sad news about Dick Thompson. I was looking forward to seeing the results of his research on Negro League pitcher Cannonball Bill Jackman.

Thinking of Thompson leads me to ask about another prolific minor league researcher, Carlos Bauer, who compiled statistics for the PCL and other minor leagues. His Web site, Minor League Researcher, was once very active, but it's been silent for the last 18 months. Does anyone know if Bauer is ok?

I don't know and I'm practically out of the loop for two years that end this summer (I hope).
Visit sabr.org, select "Research", and write to the Minor Leagues Cmte chair. Rookie Chair Kevin McCann was a minor league baseball website author himself. (If you aren't a member now, Brent, then join. But you don't need to join whether a prominent researcher/author is deceased.) It's on my list to get a copy of the SABR Guide to MiLB Research (title?) that Bauer updated about the time he opened the website.

What exactly is the methodology here again? First we rank the groups, then...

First we rank within the groups....;-)

Right, that's what I meant. And what's the next step?

...and was so unmercifully shredded for it that he never posted on BTF again after that.

That's crap, Kevin. He had been talking about leaving before that incident. As for the incident at hand, he certainly wasn't beat up by our group unfairly.

I admired the man for his work and his tenacity and he left us way too early, but Dick did not accept differences of opinion very well. When he accused Chris Jaffe of plagiarism for having the temerity to use Retrosheet for his analysis, he went way over the line.

For those interested, the brouhaha started at post #134 if you want to figure out who was right or wrong here.

FWIW, I stand by everything that I posted.