BBTF's Hall of Merit Discussion :: 1901 Results - Tim Keefe & George Wright elected

Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, May 26, 2003

1901 Results - Tim Keefe & George Wright elected

In the narrowest voting to date, Tim Keefe and George Wright have been election to the Hall of Merit for 1901, narrowly edging first time eligible Jack Glasscock. Keefe finished with 657 points 17 more than Wright, despite the fact that Wright was named first on 10 ballots and Keefe just five. The 2.5 voters that left Wright off helped to keep the election close, as Wright only edged Glasscock (4 firsts, 6 seconds) by 21 points.

The previous order held for the 4th through 9th place finishers (Radbourn, Richardson, Sutton, Spalding, Stovey, Start each moved up one place). Bob Caruthers and Pud Galvin both jumped over Charlie Bennett, who dropped from 11th to 12th. Pete Browning finished 13th, after him there’s a big dropoff down to Cal McVey in 14th place. Tony Mullane was the only player who dropped significantly, from 18th to 21st place, and from 9 ballots to 5.5.

We had 35 voters for the 2nd election in a row, no new voters this time, one established voter skipped out for the 2nd straight week, although it was a different voter this time.

RK   LY Player       Pts Ballots  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 1    3 T.Keefe      657  35.0    5 10  6  2  2  4  1  1  3     1
 2    4 G.Wright     640  32.5   10  6  6  4  3        1     2              0.5
 3  n/a J.Glasscock  619  35.0    4  6  4  5  4  4  4  1  2  1
 4    5 C.Radbourn   555  34.0    4  3  4  7  3  2  2     3  3  1     1     1
 5    6 H.Richardson 485  34.0       2  2  3  3  4  6  4  5  2  1  1     1
 6    7 E.Sutton     469  32.0    2  1  4  5  4  4     2  2  1     3  2  1  1
 7    8 A.Spalding   450  30.0    5  2  2  1  2  1  2  2  4  1  4  1  2     1
 8    9 H.Stovey     420  32.5    3        1  2  2  6  4  2  3  2  2  2  1  2.5
 9   10 J.Start      414  29.0       4  3  1  4     3  5  1  1  2  1  1  2  1
10   12 B.Caruthers  355  30.0    2        3  2  2  1  2  2  3  1  3  2  2  5
11   13 P.Galvin     347  28.5       1  2  1  2  3  1  4     3  3  3  2  1  2.5
12   11 C.Bennett    303  28.0          1  1  1  1  3  2  2  3  3  2  3  4  2
13   14 P.Browning   295  28.0             1     3  1  2  2  3  5  5  1  3  2
14   15 C.McVey      237  21.0                3  2  2  1  3  1  1  2  2  3  1
15   16 E.Williamson 173  18.0                      2  1     1  3  5  4  2
16   17 L.Pike       120  13.0                            1  4  2  1  1  3  1
17   19 M.Welch      102  12.0                            1  2  1  1  2  3  2
18   21 J.McCormick   65   7.0                      1     1     1  1  1     2
19   20 F.Dunlap      63   8.0                               1     1  3  1  2
20   22 D.Pearce      55   6.0                   1              1  1  1  1  1
21   18 T.Mullane     54   5.5                         2           2     1  0.5
22   23 T.O'Neill     37   3.0          1              1                    1
23  n/a A.Latham      36   5.0                                  1        2  2
24   24 C.Jones       32   4.0                                  1     2     1
25  n/a D.Foutz       28   3.0                   1                       1  1
26   25 J.Whitney     27   2.0                   1        1
27   28 B.Mathews     16   2.0                                        2
28  n/a B.Hutchison   13   2.0                                           1  1
29  29T L.Meyerle     10   1.0                                  1
30  26T H.Wright       8   1.0                                        1
31T 26T T.York         7   1.0                                           1
31T 29T D.Orr          7   1.0                                           1
33  n/a O.Burns        6   1.0                                              1
Dropped out: Jim Creighton (29T), Curt Welch (32)

JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: May 26, 2003 at 10:29 PM | 33 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.

1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 26, 2003 at 11:02 PM (#513293)

Geez, I must be drunk when I compile these rankings.

2. Marc Posted: May 26, 2003 at 11:57 PM (#513294)

Underrated--besides the congenitally underrated Al Spalding, that is: Cal McVey
Overrated--along with the congenitally overrated Harry Stovey: Ezra Sutton, no respectable peak

3. Howie Menckel Posted: May 27, 2003 at 12:33 AM (#513295)

Teams with four HOFers (10 G min)
1873-75 BOS NA White-Barnes-O'Rourke-Wright
1887-89 NY NL Gore-O'Rourke-Ward-Keefe

MOST YRS AS TEAMMATES (10 G min)
EIGHT
White-O'Rourke 1873-75; 1877, 1881-84
SEVEN
O'Rourke-Wright 1873-79 (Wright 1 g 1880)
Gore-Kelly 1880-86

WITH SAME FRANCHISE
7 Gore-Kelly 1880-86 CHI NL

YEARS, number of HOFers selected (10 g minimum) who were active that year
1871 - 3
1872 - 5
1873 - 5
1874 - 5
1875 - 5
1876 - 5
1877 - 5
1878 - 6
1879 - 8
1880 - 7
1881 - 9
1882 - 8
1883 - 7
1884 - 8
1885 - 8
1886 - 8
1887 - 8
1888 - 8
1889 - 8
1890 - 8
1891 - 7
1892 - 5
1893 - 5
1894 - 2 (so far)

4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 27, 2003 at 01:25 AM (#513296)

Overrated--along with the congenitally overrated Harry Stovey: Ezra Sutton, no respectable peak

What years are you including for Sutton's peak? The 1883-85 years look more than respectable to me (1875-76 is not too shabby, either). If you compare him to the competition at his position those years, he standouts.

5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 27, 2003 at 01:34 AM (#513297)

If you compare him to the competition at his position those years, he stands out.

6. Sean Gilman Posted: May 27, 2003 at 02:03 AM (#513298)

The HOM game this year is the first ever between the champions of the American and National Leagues. Honus Wagner leads the NL's Pirates, while Clark Griffith heads a very good White Sox pitching staff for the new league.

Here's the link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608045823/http://www.whatifsports.com/mlb/boxscore.asp?GameID=8612903&ad=1

7. DanG Posted: May 27, 2003 at 02:31 AM (#513299)

Howie:
Good work, but please, PLEASE not HOFers. We're HoMers here. The less we identify with that place in upstate New York, the better.

8. Howie Menckel Posted: May 27, 2003 at 02:40 PM (#513303)

this is NOT the official list, but basically lifted from the 1901 thread with one addition, to give earlybirds something to chew on before the powers that be have the exact list:

1902
DAN BROUTHERS,1896,1904 -> 2
BUCK EWING,1896,1897 -> 1
SHORTY FULLER,1896
CONNIE MACK,1896
TOMMY MCCARTHY,1896
CHIPPY MCGARR,1896
DOGGIE MILLER,1896
SAM THOMPSON,1896,1897 -> 3,1898 -> 14,1906 -> 8
AD GUMBERT,1896
ADONIS TERRY,1896,1897 -> 1
Negro Leaguer Harry Stovey (no relation to George, duh)

9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 27, 2003 at 02:47 PM (#513304)

Negro Leaguer Harry Stovey (no relation to George, duh)

Huh? :-)

10. DanG Posted: May 27, 2003 at 03:57 PM (#513305)

Howie got his Stoveys flipped around.

FYI, and TSOP, here is the list of newbies upcoming in the next few elections, according to my research. The top 5 or 6 listed each year are worth looking at. Perhaps RobC can run another query to verify this:

1903
Cap Anson-1b
Roger Connor-1b
Denny Lyons-3b
Silver King-P
Fred Pfeffer-2b
Sadie McMahon-P
Lou Bierbauer-2b
Jack Boyle-C/1b
Eddie Burke-LF
1904
Amos Rusie-P
Mike Griffin-CF
Bill Joyce-3b
Jack Clements-C
Billy Nash-3b
Tom Brown-CF
Matt Kilroy-P
Germany Smith-SS
Billy Shindle-3b
Bug Holliday-CF
Walt Wilmot-LF
Red Ehret-P
Jimmy McAleer-CF
Jack Crooks-2b
1905
Bid McPhee-2b
Ed McKean-SS
Mike Tiernan-RF
Jack Stivetts-P
Bill Lange-CF
Jake Stenzel-CF
Frank Dwyer-P
Tommy Tucker-1b
Patsy Tebeau-1b/3b
Jouett Meekin-P
Farmer Vaughn-C
Billy Rhines-P
Jack B. Taylor-P

After this, the 1906 newbies are a pretty motley crew, so plan on then to eliminate some backlog.

11. DanG Posted: May 27, 2003 at 05:19 PM (#513306)

Another new candidate in 1905 is negro Bud Fowler.

There is good discussion of him, as well as George Stovey, here in the positional thread for Secondbasemen. (At the homepage link above.)

12. RobC Posted: May 27, 2003 at 06:35 PM (#513307)

1903:
CAP ANSON,1897
LOU BIERBAUER,1897,1898 -> 4
JACK BOYLE,1897,1898 -> 6
ROGER CONNOR,1897
DENNY LYONS,1897
FRED PFEFFER,1897
LES GERMAN,1897
GEORGE HEMMING,1897
SILVER KING,1897
SADIE MCMAHON,1897
JACK STIVETTS,1897,1898 -> 2,1899 -> 7
MIKE SULLIVAN,1897,1898 -> 3,1899 -> 1

1904:
TOM BROWN,1898
JACK CLEMENTS,1898,1899 -> 4,1900 -> 16
MIKE GRIFFIN,1898
JIMMY MCALEER,1898,1901 -> 3,1902 -> 2,1907 -> 2
BILLY NASH,1898
BILLY SHINDLE,1898
GERMANY SMITH,1898
RED EHRET,1898
DUKE ESPER,1898
AL MAUL,1898,1899 -> 4,1900 -> 5,1901 -> 3
AMOS RUSIE,1898,1901 -> 3

1905:
ED MCKEAN,1899
BID MCPHEE,1899
PATSY TEBEAU,1899,1900 -> 1
MIKE TIERNAN,1899
TOMMY TUCKER,1899
KID CARSEY,1899,1901 -> 2
FRANK DWYER,1899
BILL HILL,1899
BILL HOFFER,1899,1901 -> 16
DOC MCJAMES,1899,1901 -> 13
JOUETT MEEKIN,1899,1900 -> 2
BILLY RHINES,1899
JACK TAYLOR,1899

1906:
TED BREITENSTEIN,1900,1901 -> 3
BERT CUNNINGHAM,1900,1901 -> 1
JIM HUGHEY,1900
FRANK KILLEN,1900

13. MattB Posted: May 27, 2003 at 06:44 PM (#513308)

1906 is a very weak year, although Ted Breitenstein gets a pretty bad rap. He may actually be very good, but was stuck playing for awful cellar-dwelling St. Louis teams for half of his career. Check out how much his record improves once he moves to Cincinnati, which had some actual talent besides Ted on it.

Otherwise, the essential doubling of professional baseball in 1901 meant that anyone who wanted to continue playing after 1900 could get another chance the next year. Hence, no viable candidates.

14. DanG Posted: May 27, 2003 at 06:55 PM (#513309)

Thanks, Rob. Only two corrections to your listings.

1) After Jack Stivetts' arm went bad in 1897 he started playing more games in the field than at pitcher. If you look at his overall games, there is no question that he is not eligible until 1905.

2) For some reason, Gus Weyhing does not appear among the 1906 eligibles. Did his name get cut off at the bottom?

15. RobC Posted: May 27, 2003 at 07:30 PM (#513310)

1. Im making no claims as to when guys are actually eligible, just what the games played are. See the token thread and Sam Thompson. I tried to find a way to justify not voting for him for the next 2 years. :)

2. Not sure why Weyhing isnt showing up. Will have to check it out.

16. DanG Posted: May 27, 2003 at 07:43 PM (#513311)

RobC:
"1. Im making no claims as to when guys are actually eligible, just what the games played are."

I honestly meant no criticism of your work. I'm thankful you know how to do it. Your query as written actually gives very good answers to the eligibility question, in the vast majority of cases.

I simply wanted to point out to everyone that because the database sees Stivetts as a pitcher and looks only at his pitching games, we got an incorrect answer as to when his games fell below the 10 games/5 pitched mark. The year 1900 was his first year below 10/5, not 1898.

BTW, I suggest a slight change to your parameters, if that's possible. We seem to be seeing a lot of weak pitcher candidates, while simultaneously missing short-career players like Lange and Stenzel.

17. RobC Posted: May 27, 2003 at 07:50 PM (#513312)

Weyhing is in the 1907 group, shouldnt be, but is. Hmmm, will have to look at it.

I am using 1000 games min for hitters and 1000 ip for pitchers, Ive done that so I dont have to look thru 20 bajillion players. I will adjust those numbers if anyone has a good suggestion.

18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 27, 2003 at 08:02 PM (#513313)

Thanks, Joe. I haven't made a mess like that in a long time.

19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 27, 2003 at 08:03 PM (#513314)

... on the other thread, that is. :-)

20. DanG Posted: May 27, 2003 at 08:11 PM (#513315)

For the 19th century, 1000 IP is what, three seasons for a pitcher. For hitters, 1000 games is at least eight seasons. I would think if you lower hitters to 750 games and raise pitchers to 1500 IP the results would be a bit better (without approaching 20 bajillion). As we get further along, these numbers should be adjusted from time to time.

It's not a huge deal, of course.

21. RobC Posted: May 27, 2003 at 08:44 PM (#513316)

My numbers were picked out to work fairly well across time. I did 1000 IP to get relievers, and that may not be low enough. I figured I should get all HOMers this way, and since I picked out the numbers for me to get a reduced set of players to work with, it does work pretty well. I should adjust it for the results I post here though. The current version returns 31 players for 1996, which is close to 20 bajillion.

Now I need to figure out why it gets some players wrong. Arggghhh.

22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 29, 2003 at 07:16 PM (#513318)

Joe, you rule! :-)

23. MattB Posted: May 29, 2003 at 07:54 PM (#513319)

Just wanted to point out that if it weren't for the 4 point bonus for being placed first or second, Glasscock would have edged Wright this year.

24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 29, 2003 at 08:23 PM (#513321)

Speaking for myself, the only uncertainty I had was that I had Wright too low.

25. MattB Posted: May 29, 2003 at 08:52 PM (#513325)

Not that I was complaining.

If I had left Wright off my ballot completely instead of putting him #1, Glasscock would have edged Wright as well.

26. Marc Posted: May 29, 2003 at 11:04 PM (#513326)

Boy, I agree with Joe. If we are going to beat ourselves up over "shaky consensus" we are in trouble. The pool of strong candidates right now is ankle-deep. We are going to be hip deep soon and eventually over our heads. We will be electing players like Harry Stovey or Billy Herman or Elmer Flick or Fred McGriff someday. George Wright, with 32.5 ballots, 10 firsts and 6 more seconds, will look like the rock of gibraltar.

27. Marc Posted: May 29, 2003 at 11:10 PM (#513327)

PS. If the voting is 15-14-13...2-1 (no bonus and a modest 1 point penalty, a la the MVP voting) then the result is Wright 413.5 and Glasscock 404. So anybody trying to make out Wright as a fluke of the particular voting system has got it wrong. You have to consider both sides of the equation to make that analysis.

28. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2003 at 06:44 AM (#513329)

I'm saying that some of the comments from the vote didn't match up with the placement of the vote. How can you vote someone 3rd, but be unconvinced of his quality? I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but 7 times in the voting these sorts of comments appeared.

I went over the ballots to see what you were referring to. There were a few who had reservations, but it appeared to me that they were comfortable with where they had Wright. There reservations were more in the line of if he should go higher. I could be misreading their ballots, however.

29. Sean Gilman Posted: May 30, 2003 at 07:33 AM (#513330)

I don't know if I'm one of the one's you're counting as having reservations, but John describes my reasoning exactly.
I placed him fourth and expressed some reservations, but those were intended to justify placing him that low when so many people were rating him higher.

30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2003 at 02:04 PM (#513331)

I placed him fourth and expressed some reservations, but those were intended to justify placing him that low when so many people were rating him higher.

Guess I didn't misread your ballot, Sean. :-)

31. MattB Posted: May 30, 2003 at 03:49 PM (#513332)

More stats through 1901:

Top ten electees by vote %:

White: 94.40
Hines: 93.97
O'Rourke: 93.95
Clarkson: 90.00
Kelly: 84.01
Gore: 79.45
Keefe: 78.21
Wright: 76.19
Ward: 73.45
Barnes: 68.39

Top % vote getters among non-electees

Glasscock: 73.69 (1901)
Radbourn: 66.07 (1901)
Radbourn: 61.35 (1898)
Richardson: 57.74 (1901)
Radbourn: 57.62 (1900)
H. Stovey: 55.11 (1899)

Lowest % vote getters among eventual electees:

Keefe: 64.52 (1899)
Wright: 67.88 (1899)
Barnes: 68.39 (1898)

32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 14, 2004 at 05:23 PM (#797443)

I couldn't reconstruct any of the problem posts on this thread.

33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2004 at 08:41 PM (#838299)

The thread is fully restored now.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, May 26, 2003

1901 Results - Tim Keefe & George Wright elected

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate