User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.2449 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Monday, April 28, 20031899 Results - Jim O’Rourke and King Kelly Elected to the Hall of MeritJim O’Rourke and King Kelly have been elected by an overwhelming majority to the Hall of Merit. O’Rourke, 48, will be at the ceremony, Kelly died in 1894 and will be honored posthumously. Buck Freeman, Dan McGann, Gus Weyhing, Bill Dinneen and the Washington Senators will face John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson, Jimmy Sheckard, Joe McGinnity and the Baltimore Orioles in the Hall of Merit game this year. Tim Keefe, who finished 4th, was the only player besides the electees to be named on all 31 ballots. Twelve players received at least one first or second place ballot, but Wright and the electees were the only ones to receive more than 3 such votes. RK LY Player Pts Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. -- J.O'Rourke 699 31 21 4 3 2 1 2. -- K.Kelly 625 31 4 12 5 7 1 2 3. 6 G.Wright 505 30 1 6 5 2 2 8 2 1 2 1 4. -- T.Keefe 480 31 2 6 4 6 3 3 2 2 1 2 5. -- H.Stovey 410 30 2 1 3 3 5 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 6. 5 C.Radbourn 401 29 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 5 3 2 4 2 1 7. 8 H.Richardson 378 29 1 5 1 2 1 4 6 4 1 1 2 1 8. 7 E.Sutton 370 27 1 3 2 6 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 9. 9 A.Spalding 307 23 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 10. 11 J.Start 286 24 1 2 2 1 2 5 2 4 2 1 1 1 11. -- B.Caruthers 279 23 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 12. -- C.Bennett 272 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 3 2 4 13. -- P.Browning 271 25 2 1 2 3 1 5 3 2 2 2 2 14. 10 E.Williamson 250 25 3 1 3 3 3 6 3 3 15. 13 C.McVey 163 15.5 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2.5 16. 12 P.Galvin 141 13 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 17. 15 L.Pike 91 11 1 3 1 6 18. 14 T.O'Neill 69 7 1 1 1 2 2 19. 18 F.Dunlap* 59 7 1 1 4 1 20. 17 M.Welch 59 7 1 1 1 1 3 21. 19 J.McCormick 41 5 1 1 1 2 22. 31 D.Pearce 32 3 1 1 1 23. 16 C.Jones 30 4 1 3 24. 22 J.Whitney 24 2 1 1 25. 23 T.York 20 3 1 2 26. -- H.Larkin 10 1.5 1 .5 27. 28 B.Mathews 8 1 1 28. 24 T.Bond 7 1 1 29. 20 D.Orr 6 1 1 * won tiebreaker, ahead 7-6 on individual ballots naming either player. Dropped Out: A.Dalrymple (21), H.Wright (25), J.Creighton (26), L.Meyerle (27), J.Clapp (29), Hugh Nichol (30), B.Sunday (32), C.Cummings (33).
JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: April 28, 2003 at 10:00 PM | 13 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
(20 - 10:37pm, Nov 30) Last: Alex02 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 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) 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 Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan |
|||||||
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 0.2449 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. Marc Posted: April 28, 2003 at 10:38 PM (#512578)Most underrated--Spalding
Most underrated: Al Spalding (had him #3)
I'm in agreement with Marc.
http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=8129495&ad=1
Most underrated: Start and Caruthers
But your point is an interesting one nevertheless. It will be interesting to see at some future time if an election outcome is swayed by our scoring method. I suspect it will. I doubt if that was the case so far.
The clearest indication of this is the voting patterns of George Wright and Hoss Radbourn. In 1898, Radbourn edged Wright in the voting, mainly due to four voters leaving Wright off their ballot. In 1899, Wright finished well ahead of Radbourn. Wright was the only major candidate who experienced a significant increase in support from year one to year two. What changed?
IMO, it was the competition for votes, more than anything else. Wright was no longer being compared unfavorably with Ross Barnes (and to a lesser degree, Deacon White). Some voters give a boost to the best candiate in a category, in this case the "best 1870's candidate" on the ballot. Despite the influx of great new candidates, Wright's 1st-thru-3rd place votes increased from 4 in 1898, to 12 in 1899.
At the same time, Radbourn was suffering by comparison to newbie Tim Keefe. IIRC, several voters even came out and said they were downgrading Hoss because Keefe was now the best pitching candidate. Radbourn's lower-than-11th place votes increased from 2 to 9.
To me, there is no place for this "best in his class" type of balloting. Candidates should be ranked according to their merit, unrelated to whatever similar candidates haapen to also be candidates.
Having said all that, I really don't think we're as prone to this tendency as much as the BBWAA. There are additional factors influencing the phenomena I describe. I doubt that many voters would admit to harboring this tendency, it happens mostly unintentionally. I raise the issue because there seem to be signs of it here, and awareness of the possibility makes it avoidable.
I agree that this would be disturbing when we get to the modern era, but right now, it is extremely difficult to compare hitters to pitchers. I am 1 of the people who put Radbourn 4th on my 1898 ballot and dropped him to 8th later on. He was the best pitcher IMO in 1898 and I had Keefe and Caruthers ahead of him in 1899. Because of this comparison dilemma, voters are trying to fit pitchers into the mix in a statistically agreeable ratio. I myself felt that 3 on the 1st ballot and 5 on the 2nd was a suitable number of pitchers and I tried to disperse them on the ballots evenly. I'll admit that this is a far from perfect method, but at this point, it is hard enough ranking 2 players at the same position(see Sutton/Williamson debate), let along across positions(especially pitchers to hitters). I think the vast majority of people in this group are trying their best to rank the players by merit. Its just an overwhelming task at this point.
"To me, there is no place for this "best in his class" type of balloting. Candidates should be ranked according to their merit, unrelated to whatever similar candidates haapen to also be candidates."
Except that part of a player's merit is comparative. Who was better: Ezra Sutton or Charley Radbourn? They don't have a lot of factors in common to compare. And there is no single number scale upon which you can compare them (if there were, then you could just use WARP-3 or Win Shares and go home). Part of the analysis was, "Was he the best?" When Sutton and Radbourn were the best at their respective positions, I had them close together.
Now, with the new information of Clarkson, Keefe, and Caruthers joining the ballot, all of whom I consider better than Radbourn, I re-assess Radbourn and think, "Is there a reason to believe that the fourth best pitcher was more valuable than the best third baseman?" I answer "No" and drop Radbourn accordingly.
Did the existence of Clarkson somehow make Radbourn worse than Sutton when he would otherwise have been better? Of course not. But the existence of Clarkson gave me more information that I did not otherwise have that convinced me that Radbourn wasn't as impressive as I originally thought.
My fear is actually the reverse. In a Win Shares centered post-Voros world where everyone is discounting any pitcher performance that relies upon outs on balls in play, I am concerned that reliance on pure ranking will place good infielders over great pitchers. Greg Maddux had an 5.0 WARP-3 in 2002 (but 157 ERA+), Jimmy Rollins had a 5.3 WARP-3 (but an 87 OPS+). Who had the more valuable season? Does it matter that Maddux was near the top of every relevant pitching stat, while Rollins led only in triples?
There is more to comparing Rollins to Maddux than just looking at the two in a vacuum and determining who has more Merit-units. The existence of A-Rod (much better than Rollins) and Randy Johnson (somewhat better than Maddux) will necessarily color your judgment, and rightfully so I think.
Also note that Maddux only had 199 innings in 2002. In 2002, when he pitched at the same level (155 ERA+) he had 50 more innings, and an 8.2 warp-3. WARP says that playing time matters.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main