User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3136 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Tuesday, April 15, 20031898 Results - Deacon White, Paul Hines, George Gore and Ross Barnes Elected to the Hall of MeritThe Class of 1898 is . . . Deacon White, Paul Hines, George Gore and Ross Barnes. All are alive in January 1898 and expected to be in at the induction ceremony this August. The Hall of Merit game between the Cleveland Spiders and Louisville Colonels should be entertaining as well. Louisville has a 24 OF-2B named Wagner that looks like he might turn out okay and Cleveland features Cy Young, who won his 200th game last year. Here is the full balloting, let’s hope the formatting comes out well smallest text on your browser will help . . . Player Pts Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. D.White 657 29 13 10 2 2 1 1 2. P.Hines 654 29 11 13 2 2 1 3. G.Gore 553 29 1 1 10 6 3 3 3 1 1 4. R.Barnes 476 28 3 2 6 6 1 2 5 1 1 1 5. C.Radbourn 427 28 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 8 1 1 6. G.Wright 420 25 2 2 5 4 4 3 3 2 7. E.Sutton 380 27 1 2 4 6 4 2 1 3 1 1 2 8. H.Richardson 366 28 1 2 2 4 2 3 5 2 2 2 2 1 9. A.Spalding 339 25 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 5 3 1 1 1 10. E.Williamson 328 28 1 1 2 1 4 8 2 3 3 1 2 11. J.Start 297 24 2 1 4 6 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 12. P.Galvin 209 21 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 6 3 13. C.McVey 198 19 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 7 1 14. T.O'Neill 132 13 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 15. L.Pike 123 14.5 1 2 3 3 4 1.5 16. C.Jones 96 11 2 1 3 1 3 1 17. M.Welch 95 11.17 1 1 1 1 3 2 1.17 18. F.Dunlap 87 10 2 5 1 2 19. J.McCormick 70 7.17 2 2 1 1 1.17 20. D.Orr 49 6 2 3 1 21. A.Dalrymple 31 4 1 2 1 22. J.Whitney 24 2 1 1 23. T.York 22 3 1 2 24. T.Bond 21 3.5 3.5 25. H.Wright 16 1.67 1 .67 26. J.Creighton 12 2 2 27. L.Meyerle 7 1.17 1.17 28. B.Mathews 7 1 1 29. J.Clapp 6 1 1 30. H.Nichol 6 1 1 31. D.Pearce 6 1 1 32. B.Sunday 4 .67 .67 33. C.Cummings 1 .17 .17 JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: April 15, 2003 at 02:18 AM | 43 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(28 - 10:54pm, Dec 03) Last: cardsfanboy 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (170 - 7:45pm, Dec 03) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (16 - 6:06pm, Dec 01) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.3136 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. MattB Posted: April 15, 2003 at 02:43 AM (#511977)Good work us (even though only 2 of my Top 4 made it).
Let's do it again.
Were you including Hines' NA numbers?
I agree (even though only one of my top four made it), too. All four deserve it.
Ya know, Louisville had their own ace at that time, Bert Cunningham. They were a team on the rise, with Wagner and a young Fred Clarke. Sounds like a good game.
http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=7887156&ad=1
Congrats to the First Four !
So, in that vein . . .
Among the 29 names listed above (i.e., excluding the Top 4, who are now beyond debate), name the one person you think was most severely overvalued by the electorate and the one person you think was most severely undervalued.
My "most undervalued" in Joe Start, who, the more I look at, the more I think could be closer to a real HOMer than I had been thinking before my last ballot. I will be moving him up.
The "most overvalued" I think was Radbourn, which is odd because I actually had him in my Top 4 last time. But with new pitchers coming on the the ballot, I have to start comparing him to more of his peers. Radbourn should not be in my Top 5 for the next ballot.
Under--Al Spalding among the contenders, Cal McVey among those who (alas) do not appear to be contenders.
Having peeked ahead at the upcoming eligibles (all the way to 1920) I see us electing another 7 players who were eligible on this ballot. Based on '98 those would be:Radbourn, Wright, Sutton, Richardson, Williamson, Spalding and Start. I'd choose McVey and Pike over Sutton and Start. Compare Pike to Start, everybody.
1. Jim O'Rourke (-)
2. Hardy Richardson (3*)
3. Charlie Bennett (-)
4. Pud Galvin (4*)
5. King Kelly (-)
6. Harry Stovey (-)
7. George Wright (5)
8. Ezra Sutton (6)
9. Old Hoss Radbourn (10)
10. Fred Dunlap (12)
11. Pete Browning (-)
12. Ned Williamson (11)
13. Tom York (14)
14. Tim Keefe (-)
15. Tip O'Neill (9)
Sound like a good idea? Or am I just solving a problem that doesn't exist?
Hope everything is all right.
Cool!
Does anyone have the current schedule of how many players we will be selecting in each future year? The only schedule i could find had 1906 as our starting point."
From Joe on March 26:
"Switch to an 1898 start. Elect 4 that year. Elect 2 per year until 1905. At this point we've eliminated our backlog. Then we adjust the number of electees so we are never off by more than +/- .5 total HoMers from what we should have.
That gives elections of:
1 in 1906-08, 1910-12, 1914, 1917, 1920, 1924, 1927, 1930, 1933, 1936, 1939, 1942, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1955, 1958, 1966.
2 in 1909, 1913, 1915-16, 1918-19, 1921-23, 1925-26, 1928-29, 1931-32, 1934-35, 1937-38, 1940-41, 1943-44, 1946-48, 1950-51, 1953-54, 1956-57, 1959-65, 1967-70, 1972-74, 1976-77, 1979, 1981, 1983
3 in 1971, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984-95, 1997-99, 2001-03, 2005-07.
4 in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008."
I realize we were given the directive to not hold the fair/foul hit thing against Barnes, but since we never saw the game played with the rules he was able to take advantage of, I would suggest this directive was misguided. We know from the writings of the Esteemed Henry Chadwick that the fair/foul hit rule was viewed as a ?problem? and the rules of the game were tinkered with for several seasons before they eliminated the ?problem? in 1877. Imagine how different the game would be today if the solution the Esteemed One advocated had been adopted ? Henry?s plan was to add a tenth player ? a right shortstop ? to close the gaps that were created by attempts to defend against the fair/foul hit. So just where were these gaps Henry was concerned about? I can visualize the corners playing in and guarding the lines. Was the second baseman playing close enough to first base to take the throw? What if there was a runner on first? Where was the shortstop? Would teams on occasion bring in an outfielder to play as the fifth infielder that Henry wanted to add? How much foul ground was there to cover and how far a field was Barnes able to direct the ball? Was he able to reach second on a fair/foul hit for a double? No wonder a player with the special ability to execute a fair/foul hit could lead the league both in hits and extra base hits ? the defense was spread too thin. No wonder observers of the game at the time viewed the rule as a problem that needed correction.
Let me offer a wildly hypothetical illustration from the early days of basketball. Suppose the game was played by short, white guys that couldn?t jump. Since nobody could even touch the rim, there were no rules against goal tending, there was no lane or 3-second rule, and there was a center jump after every basket. Well suppose the Boston Celtics signed Clumsy Oaf, a 6?10? kid out of Slippery Rock Normal School. Oaf couldn?t dribble, couldn?t catch a hard thrown pass, and couldn?t throw one without first taking a few steps. But Oaf had his special skills. He could camp out under the basket and catch the lob passes thrown near the basket and drop the ball in, he could stand under the defensive basket and swat away any attempts the opponent made to score, and he was able to control most of the center jumps. Of course, observers of the day recognized that Oaf?s ?skills? were a problem; the game was broken and needed to be fixed. It took a few years, but by the time they restored balance to the game, Oaf had easily led the league every year in both scoring and blocked shots while leading the Celtics to a few championships. After the rules were changed, Oaf soon found himself moving back to Slippery Rock to teach arithmetic. And 125 years later some well-intentioned basketball fans looked at the stats from an era when the game they love was played in a way they had never seen and chose to honor Oaf as the most dominant player of his time. Of course, if they could have had the benefit of videotape, they would have agreed with the contemporary observers and rejoiced that the game had been repaired.
IMHO we, that is ?you guys? ;-) just elected Oaf.
Except "Oaf" Barnes was an exceptional defensive second baseman and baserunner who had excellent power (which would not be effected by the fair/foul rule).
Barnes suffered an illness which effected his strength in 1877 and was the main reason, not the fair/foul rule, that ended his career prematurely. Both his offense and defense fell to below average levels.
Now if you had called your fictional player George or Bob instead of Oaf you might have a case. Do you want to say that George Mikan and Bob Kurland are your oafs and their real records should be expunged?
I concede the point that Barnes was helped by the rule. "How much" is the question.
Does anyone know if there were any other players who took advantage of fair/foul rule?
Deacon White, Paul Hines, George Gore and Ross Barnes. All are alive in January 1898 and expected to be in at the induction ceremony this August.
It's actually surprising all four would make it to the induction ceremony (and live many more years) when you consider how many ex-major leaguers died before their fiftieth birthday.
Indeed, as I reported previously, Cap Anson named Barnes to his personal best all-time team. And the team was named in the 1910's, decades after Barnes retired, of course. Thus, it seems that people even as late as the 1910's did not discount Barnes' achievements as mere artifacts of the fair-foul rule.
Barnes' place in the HOM may have merit if we take a pure value to his team approach (per the majority of voters). And this is the approach that we have all agreed to accept as valid. We can layer other approaches on top of this one, but a player's on-field value to his team is the cornerstone of the HOM.
In closing, our selection of Barnes may well turn out to be a lightning rod both within our group (perhaps as a precedent for subsequent voting) and from outsiders reviewing our selections. We should acknowledge that there was a diversity of opinions on Barnes but that he got enough support, especially due to our focus on on-field value, and move on.
For the record, I had him at #9. His career wasn't long enough for me to place him at the top of my ballot. Ultimately, I felt he deserved the honor, but I thought he would wait a few more "years."
With that said, we're not talking Tommy McCarthy here, gang.
Happy Easter!
He did, however, receive a fair amount of support. I'm positive he will not be the electee to receive the least support.
Worth noting that 17 of 29 voters had George Wright in the top 6, and six more had him in the top eight. In effect he lost out mainly by four voters not picking him at all. I hope Wright goes in this time..
Since we are voting only two players in this year, I seriously doubt it (though I agree that he should be inducted).
He was actually the best second baseman that year.
I agree with the rest of your ost, Joe.
Rob ? I find it helpful to know that Anson put Barnes on his all-time team, although I must temper that information a bit since they were teammates in 1876. Is anyone aware of any other contemporary accounts that would cite Barnes as an all-time great?
It also helps to know that a majority of the voters didn?t think highly enough of Barnes to put him in their top 4, although he did come in 4th in ?top 4? votes. I would point out that with Radbourne coming in 5th with 427 points, Barnes could have been elected with 8 fifth place votes and 20 sixth place votes (and no vote from me) for 428 points ? meaning that the system we are using could enshrine somebody that nobody thinks highly of.
That, I believe, was the point. By arranging the ballots so that the top vote-getter gets in, rather than those who receive more than a certain threshold (like in the HOF), you allow for electees who receive fewer votes than whatever threshold you would have otherwise set up.
I'm pretty sure that the next ("1900") election will produce some inductees with very low vote totals.
2B-Fox 94, Schoendienst 93, Maz 84
SS-Reese 98, Rizzuto 93, Aparicio 82
We'll be watching a year and a half from now to see if we're consistent about this ;-)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main