Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

1930 Ballot

Sorry it’s late guys - I’m pretty sick right now, and I had some personal errands that couldn’t wait today (amazing how that always happens when you’re least up for it) and this completely slipped my mind . . . find me at SABR if you’re there and say hello . . .

JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: July 13, 2004 at 12:29 AM | 222 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 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. DanG Posted: July 15, 2004 at 08:09 PM (#735558)
Philly, Mike and Kelly,
I certainly don't dispute any of the points raised.

The issue I was pointing to was simply that if you use Ryan's career HR's to justify placing him #2 on your ballot, there is another side to that simple fact. Based upon better measures of value, there is little indication that Ryan had a unique talent to take advantage of his home parks.
   102. Brad G. Posted: July 15, 2004 at 08:56 PM (#735625)
DAVID- Thanks, my mistake. He comes in behind Jennings at SS. Jennings didn't quite make it on either.
   103. Max Parkinson Posted: July 15, 2004 at 10:36 PM (#735746)
A strange duo at the MP HoM induction ceremonies this summer, as Rube Foster goes in alongside Cal McVey (posthumously). On to the ballot!

1. Hughie Jennings (MP HoM 1908)

He’s been atop my ballot for a number of years now, and is getting on more of yours. But, there’s still a number of voters that don’t seem to care for Jennings. As many of you know, I use the building blocks of WARP in my system (modified in a number of ways), but it’s not just Davenport who loves Jennings. Some highlights:

My system:

Of the 7 eligible position players to have won the MP MVP, 6 have been elected (Anson, Barnes, Brouthers, Delahanty, Lajoie, Wagner). The seventh is Jennings. That’s the level of his peak.


The best position player peak eligible by 3 and 5 year. The best defWS per 1000 innings of any eliglible player, and one of the top handful of all time at SS. And, in case you’re wondering, that includes his injury-riddled non-peak; his peak defensive value was even higher.


At his best, the best defensive shortstop that the game will see until Ozzie. That’s over a century of professional baseball, folks.

Using more traditional numbers, let me state his case (as he’s only got until ’33 to get elected; I have no faith that he’ll be remembered once the ‘30s onslaught begins…). For his glorious 5-year run (’34-’98), he was the best player in the only league going, a league that had as much concentrated talent as any for at least the next 25 years. He was the best player in the world. His OBP for that run: .449. NL OBP: .349. To put that into perspective, in 2004 exactly 6 players have OBPs 100 points above league average. And none of them are world-class defensive shortstops. For his defense, during that run, the Orioles finished first or second in runs allowed every year, despite never finishing higher than 3rd in either K or BB*, and finishing in the bottom half of the league more often than not. It was their defense, particularly their infield defense that saved all of those runs – as it certainly was not their pitching…

*They did finish 1st a couple of times in HR allowed, but I don’t believe that HRs were of the over-the-fence variety very often. If anything, they were doubles or triples hit by faster players. Therefore they should not be excluded when looking at BIP or DIPS-type analysis.

Hughie brings nothing to the table other than those 5 years. I’m his strongest supporter, and I’ll readily admit that point. But, at a time when we’re debating between the 20th best position player of a period and the 18th best of another, or whether this player or that was really the 5th best LF of his time, many are overlooking the fact that only one player on the ballot has any license to the “Best Player in the World” argument. His 5 unbelievable years are more valuable than the 10-15 decent years that almost every other candidate is bringing.

2. Bob Caruthers (MP HoM 1899)

So little left to say; another short career, whose peak gets him this high.

3. Jimmy Sheckard (MP HoM 1925)

I think that these two have it this year…

4. Dickey Pearce (MP HoM 1926)

Had both the high peak and the long career. Thank you to all who encouraged us to look prior to 1871; my baseball experience is richer thanks to the research of David Foss and many others here.

5. Lip Pike (MP HoM 1926)

I’ll vote for the NA star above the deadball good player, even though I’ll concede that the latter had more actual talent…. Lip was definitely the best OF in the NA, and is the best NA player left. I really hope that he makes it before the superstars hit the ballot.

6. Eddie Cicotte (MP HoM 1927)

I’ve got more pitchers on my ballot than most everyone else, simply because I would have already elected them. My HoM is about 30% pitchers, and I’m pretty comfortable with that.

7. Jim McCormick (MP HoM 1905)

The best pitcher in the game for a couple of years. The fact that he had a short career doesn’t throw me; name me a single pitcher from the late ‘70s-early ‘80s who had one. They threw tons of innings, racked up a lot of value, and then burned out. That’s the way that it worked. But Bond and then McCormick were the cream of the crop for their time.

8. Clark Griffith (MP HoM 1912)

Some of you are coming around… The 4th best pitcher of the strongest decade of baseball yet. The 3 in front of him are inner-circle types, so there’s no shame in not medalling here.

9. Andrew (Rube) Foster (MP HoM 1930)

Less sure with the Blackball players, but at his best, was probably better than all big leaguers other than Matty, Cy and probably Ed Walsh. I don’t think that his best lasted that long, but what can you do, it’s not like the guys right below him are getting robbed of induction or anything…

10. George Van Haltren

The steady, long career. Good Player. Blah.

11. Fielder Jones

He keeps popping up this high on my ballot. If he was as good as both James and Davenport think in centre, he deserves it. My system has him as one of the best handful of OFers in the aughts, thanks to his glove…
   104. Max Parkinson Posted: July 15, 2004 at 10:36 PM (#735750)
12. Tommy Bond

See McCormick’s comment. Maybe ‘70s pitching didn’t mean a whole lot, but nobody did it better than him for a good 3-4 year stretch. Then went the arm.

13. Jake Beckley

Was decent. For a long time. We’ve elected the truly outstanding 1st basemen from the 19th century. This won’t be an embarrassing pick, but I’d hate to see it happen simply because he was the best of a weak lot.

14. Jimmy Ryan

See Van Haltren. Blah.

15. Spotswood Poles

Again, maybe here, maybe 35th. I truly don’t know. Bumped him a few places since the prelim ballot, but I can’t see electing him.

The rest:

16-20. Nash, Petway, Williamson, Monroe, Whitney
21-25. Cross, Buffinton, Konetchy, McGraw, Waddell
26-30. King, Cravath, Seymour, Long, Force
31-35. J. Williams, Childs, Duffy, Willis, Tannehill
36-40. Tenney, White, Griffin, Breitenstein, Hawley

I don't think that I've got any "have to justify"s this year, but let me make a comment about Bresnahan just in case. He just wasn't that good behind the dish. That's too soft - he was awful. He could hit, yes, but so could a bunch of other part-time CFers (I'm not voting for Mike Donlin either). I'll vote for defense at that spot, unless career value knocks me over.

Incidentally, it's not as if catcher is an under-elected position in the HoM. There's more of them than 1st basemen, and Santop should get in, so in my mind there's no kind of shortage between now and when we get to Dickey and Cochrane.
   105. favre Posted: July 16, 2004 at 12:29 AM (#736119)
1.Dickey Pearce
2.Lip Pike

We’ve all seen them before, but here is a summary of the arguments for Pearce: 1. From 1859-1868, he was the first or second best hitter on the premier team of his time. 2. He reinvented the position of shortstop, giving him tremendous defensive value 3. He was still fielding at short in his ‘40s 4. His career lasted over twenty years. 5. He was highly regarded by his contemporaries. That’s a strong case for induction. Baseball was very popular even in the antebellum years, with leagues and national rules and publications and even draft deferments for players. Therefore, I have no difficulty honoring players from that era.

I’ve been one of Lip’s strongest supporters for years now, but some re-examination has convinced me to drop him behind Pearce. Pike’s NA and pre-NA numbers are similar: he was clearly a star for years, the best 2B of the 1860s and the best outfielder of the NA. However, Pearce was arguably the best player in baseball for a stretch (’59-’63). Pike cannot make that claim, and Pearce’s career was considerably longer.

3.Jake Beckley
4. Clark Griffith
5.Jimmy Sheckard

The players with very good careers but little or no peak. I am struck by the fact that, in 1928, we’ve see few quality first basemen in the past thirty years (although Gehrig is setting the standard for the position as we speak). Ed Konetchy has similar value to Beckley from age 22-35; probably more value, given run production during the era and Konetchy’s defense. Yet Beckley also had a good season at age 21 and a very good season at age 36; he also had 300 PA at age 20 with 152 OPS+ and 900 PA in his late thirties where he hit for league average. Beckley’s career simply surpasses all other first basemen from the 1890s until the 1920s.

Between 1895-1901, Griffith never had a season ERA+ lower than 119 in a hitter’s era. In those seven seasons, Griffith was 154-87, .639 WP; his team’s WP was .449 without him. Sheckard He is the classic sabermetric hero: lots of walks, excellent defense, excellent baserunning, some power, overlooked by his contemporaries.

6.Rube Waddell
7.Rube Foster

I had Foster above Waddell for several years, but as the ballots get thinner, Waddell’s strikeouts and three ERA+ titles impress me more and more.

8.Tommy Leach
9.Ned Williamson

Leach mixed great defense at CF and 3B with good hitting in a low offense era—in. Williamson was also an excellent fielder and similar hitter to Leach, but played in more offense-friendly and overrepresented era.

10. Pete Browning
11. Cupid Childs
12.Larry Doyle
13. George Van Haltren
14. Mike Tiernan
15.Hugh Jennings

I see Thompson, Tiernan, and Browning having very similar value. Thompson and Tiernan have often been linked together, and I suggest Sammy's supporters take another look at Mike. If you give Browning a healthy AA discount (obviously a matter of contention), then he was a comparable player to T & T: relatively short career, not much defense, but a very good hitter. Childs and Doyle were also similar hitters, although Doyle has more questions about his defense.

Van Haltren takes a big leap onto my ballot. His candidacy resembles Bobby Wallace: long career, fairly good hitter, very-good-but-not-great defense-at-an-important-position. The offense of their respective eras and the importance of their respective positions gives Wallace a clear edge, but not by the 26 ballot spots I had before.

Hugh Jennings has moved up and down and on and off my ballot. Max Parkinson did an excellent job of stating his case.

16.Bob Caruthers

I guess I’m one of the last holdouts. I’ve never been a fan of the AA, and I think his peak is exaggerated by the relative weakness of his league in the mid-1880s (again, a matter of contention). Still, he could hit and he could pitch, and that made him a very valuable player for three to five years. And my hat is off to the Friends of Bob Caruthers. You have worked hard to bring him from near-extinction to the verge of induction.

17. Mickey Welch
18.Bill Monroe
19.Spotswood Poles
20.Charley Jones
21.Jimmy Ryan
22.Frank Chance
23.Bruce Petway
24.Roger Bresnahan
25.Vic Willis
26.Gavvy Cravath
27.Addie Joss
   106. EricC Posted: July 16, 2004 at 12:43 AM (#736177)
1930 ballot. Sparing the long comments this time in favor of a list of most similar players to each player on the ballot, as I've determined them by position and era adjusted Win Shares. HoMers in CAPS. (Player) indicates that Player is not yet eligible and only his stats through 1924 are used in the comparison.

1. Rube Foster (1)

I don't know if he was more like Ed Walsh or like Addie Joss, but talent combined with dedication and drive usually rises to the top.

2. Roger Bresnahan (2) (Schang), BENNETT, RICHARDSON.

Being the best at your position over a period of years automatically gets you far in my system, (see also Chance, Jennings, Childs, McGraw).

3. Jake Beckley (4) (Wheat), (Hooper), KEELER, Van Haltren, MAGEE, START, Ji. Ryan, Sheckard, CLARKE.

Other than Start, interesting that his most similar are all outfielders.

4. George "Rube" Waddell (6) BROWN, Griffith, GALVIN, KEEFE, RADBOURN, CLARKSON, Willis.

5. Eddie Cicotte (5) BROWN, GALVIN, Waddell, RADBOURN, (Faber), KEEFE, Griffith, Willis, CALARKSON, (S. Coveleski).

6. George Van Haltren (7) Sheckard, (Hooper), MAGEE, KEELER, (Wheat), F. Jones, Ji. Ryan.

7. Dickey Pearce (12)

Based on career length, age 35+ performance, defensive reputation, and sketchy pre-NA stats, looks very similar to, though a notch below, Bobby Wallace.

8. Frank Chance (11) Duffy, Tiernan, KELLEY.

Suffers in any rating systems that treats his seasonal WS or WARP totals obtained while playing 120 games in a season as equal to those of another player who achieved the same totals over 150 games.

9. Lip Pike (8)

Really tough to say who he's similar to. By the standards the electorate has applied to 1870s players, he's clearly the next in line, but it's not clear whether that puts him in or out.

10. Jimmy Ryan (9) Van Haltren, (Hooper), (Wheat), Sheckard, MAGEE, KELLEY.

11. Hughie Jennings (10) McGraw.

12. Hugh Duffy (14) GORE, Tiernan, KELLEY, J. COLLINS, F. Jones.

13. Cupid Childs (13) J. COLLINS, (Groh), RICHARDSON.

14. John McGraw (15) (nobody)

Like Foster, his fame for accomplishments off the field tends to overshadow how outstanding his on-field performance was. One of the rare 30+ WS/162 games careers.

15. Jimmy Sheckard (X) STOVEY, (Wheat), MAGEE, (Hooper), Van Haltren, KELLEY, F. Jones.

Finally makes my ballot after 11 years of near misses. Actually, I think that if push came to shove, he probably doesn't belong in the HoM because left-fielders are already well represented, WARP seems to overrate his defense, and the NL was weaker than the AL during his career. But the rules is that you gots to vote for who you think are the top 15.

16. Joss 17. Griffith 18. Cravath 19. Tiernan 20. F. Jones 21. Cross 22. McGuire 23. Leach 24. Bond 25. S. White

Clark Griffith GALVIN, KEEFE, Waddell, BROWN, Willis, Welch, (B. Adams), McCormick

With more historic perspective, Griffith could move up my list.

Bob Caruthers (Shocker), (Mays).

These comparisons make sense to me. Mays' 169-99 record, 121 ERA+, and 82 OPS+ in 2421 IP through 1924 was a greater accomplishment in his era and league than Caruthers' 218-99 record, 123 ERA+, and 135 OPS+ in 2829 IP (though BC closes the gap because of his OF games). I'd be happy to see all of the above in the Hall of the Very Good.
   107. dan b Posted: July 16, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#736648)
Win shares are my metric of choice. I have tweaked my approach by adding a look at 10-year consecutive “peak”, resulting a few key moves on my ballot. My composite ranking now = 5 x Career + (3 best years)/3 + (5 best consecutive years)/5 + (8 best years)/8 + (10 best consecutive years)/10 + WS per 162. I then make adjustments justified by individual components with a touch of subjectivity thrown in. I use the same system for hitters and for 60’ 6” era pitchers. I also look at WS w/o defense for a hitting only ranking. (Number in parenthesis shows composite rank.)

1.Duffy (1). 2nd in 5-year peak, 1st in 8-year and 10-year, PHoM in 1912.
2.Sheckard (2) 1st in career, 2nd in 3-year peak, 2nd in 8-yr peak, best hitter on ballot. PHoM in 1921.
3.Bresnahan (23) Big position bonus to fill the void behind the plate. HoM will be flawed if we do not induct at least one Major League catcher who played between Buck Ewing’s retirement in 1897 and Gabby Hartnett’s debut in 1922 – as The Old Professor said “You have to have a catcher….”. SABR dead ball era committee has him #1. Highest ranking available player by NHBA rankings. PHoM 1928
4.Jennings (9) – PHoM in 1908. 5-year peak 5th best of all eligible players to date behind Wagner, Baker, Delahanty and Lajoie. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar.
5.Griffith (1) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, elected to PHoM in 1913.
6.Poles First Negro Leaguer to make PHoM (1929). Bill James and the Cool Papa’s survey agree.
7.Chance (11) – By adding 10-yr peak to the equation, no longer ranks as best pure hitter on ballot. With short peaks and rate just 30% of the equation, still ranks a close 3rd behind Sheckard and Duffy. Hitting alone ranks – 1st in 3-year and 5-year, 3rd in WS/162, 4th in 8-year and 10-year, 11th for career. 5 times one of the top 12 players in the NL, 4 times one of the top 5 hitters. Best 1B of the era. NHBA rank of 25 puts him in the BJHoM. PHoM in 1921. The Peerless Leader merits more attention here.
8.Waddell (3) I like his peak and K’s. 2nd to Joss in WS/IP. 2nd best LHP to date. PHoM 1926.
9.Leach (4) 3rd in 8-yr peak, 3rd in career.
10.Browning (15) – Reclaimed lead in WS/162 with Jackson’s induction, elected to PHoM in 1906.
11.Caruthers –Use NHBA rankings to build BJHoM and Parisian Bob was inducted in 1898. PHoM in1929.
12.Doyle (9) NHBA rank of 20 put him in BJHoM in 1926. Joins mine this year with Wallace.
13.Joss (10) 1st in WS/IP. Great pitcher belongs on more ballots.
14.Van Haltren (5) 3rd best 10-year run on ballot, 4th best hitter.
15.Ryan (3) – 4th in career.
16.Willis (1) – 1st in career, 2nd in 3-year peak.
17.Fielder Jones (6) – 2nd best 10-year run.
18.Tiernan (10) 5th best on hitting alone.
19.Williamson (31) Named greatest player of all time in 1894 poll.
20.Petway Looking at John Holway’s ballot in Cool Papa’s, Petway is the first HoM eligible Negro Leaguer on his list – no Johnson, Grant, Poles or Monroe.
   108. TheGoodSamaritan Posted: July 16, 2004 at 03:50 AM (#736906)
1930 Vote:
01. Bill Monroe 2B - I have been thinking about Monroe for some time now. I might be wrong, but if there is only one Negro League second baseman that I could elect into the HoM, it probably would be Monroe. When I think of Bingo DeMoss or Newt Allen, I think of players like Red Schoendienst, Nellie Fox or Frank White. Great career players, very good chance to get into the HoM, but not impact players. When I think of Monroe, I think of a Charlie Gehringer who played in the deadball era, somebody who is a force in his league. He is one of the few 2B of the Negro League that is considered one of the best player of the entire league. Dirk Knemeyer wrote that "Monroe stands with John Henry Lloyd as the finest Negro League players of their generation."

02. Bob Caruthers SP - The last great 19th century pitcher to not make it into the HOM.

03. Spotswood Poles CF - Over in the discussion page for Poles, there seems (in my view) to be a lot of weight placed on the theoretical numbers that the fine folks at I am sure that they came up with the numbers based on sound reasonings, but they are still theoretical numbers; numbers that I can't trust enough to wipe out the all the favorable subjective reviews. 4th greatest Negro League CF? Sounds about right. Probably was the same kind of player as Cool Papa Bell. Was nicknamed "the Black Ty Cobb" (which I am sure that the real Ty Cobb hated) and served in the 369th Infantry, United States Army in 1917 at the age of thirty, and earned five battle stars and a Purple Heart while fighting in France.

04. Jimmy Sheckard LF

05. Jimmy Ryan CF - I think he is the best CF of the bunch -- which includes Duffy, Jones, Van Haltren and Griffin. Very close in value to Van Haltren

06. George Van Haltren CF

07. Mike Tiernan RF - His offensive production is very similar to a contemporary right fielder -- the newly elected Sam Thompson.

08. Roger Bresnahan C

09. John Donaldson SP - Along with Willie Foster, Donaldson has a claim to be the greatest left-handed pitcher in Negro League history. I have him personally ranked as the 8th greatest Negro League pitcher, above Rube Foster but below contemporaries Smokey Joe Williams and Cannonball Dick Redding. Here is my ranking:
01. Satchel Paige
02. Smokey Joe Williams
03. Bullet Joe Rogan
04. Willie "brother of Rube" Foster
05. Leon Day
06. Cannonball Dick Redding
07. Hilton Smith
-- HoM Mason-Dixon line --
08. John Donaldson
09. Rube Foster
10. Jose Mendez
11. Nip Winters
12. Ray Brown
13. Chet Brewer
14. Martin Dihigo (ranked here as a pitcher only)
15. Andy Cooper
IMHO I think that the top 7 pitchers are sure-fire HoMer, 8 to 11 are boarderline candidates, and 12 to 15 are very good pitchers but are only ballot fillers in my book (except for Dihigo). So it's plain to see that I consider Donaldson to be a very good player, a boarderline great player, but not a sure-fire HoMer when compared with the 7 men above him.
There seems to be (or going to be) a lot of support for Jose Mendez when he becomes eligible, while I am not going to dispute the worthiness of Mendez's candidacy because in my view he is a very good player, but I think that Donaldson is greater based on the stuff I've read about the both of them. They pitched about the same era, but it seems that the players and managers had more glowing comments for Donaldson than they did for Mendez.

10. Rube Foster SP

11. Hugh Duffy CF

12. Fielder Jones CF

13. Eddie Cicotte SP

14. Clark Griffith SP

15. Ray Chapman SS

BTW Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Rube Waddell, Jake Beckley and Del Pratt did not make my top 15.
   109. Rob_Wood Posted: July 16, 2004 at 05:40 AM (#737055)
My 1930 ballot:

1. Larry Doyle - top of a fairly weak ballot
2. Jake Beckley - very long peakless career
3. Jimmy Sheckard - great player sporadically
4. Dickey Pearce - pioneering shortstop
5. Rube Waddell - luv those strikeouts
6. Addie Joss - one of the stingiest whip's ever
7. Charley Jones - very underrated centerfielder
8. Roger Bresnahan - best catcher of his era
9. Lip Pike - early star few have ever heard of
10. Ed Konetchy - unspectacular first baseman
11. Cupid Childs - on the all-nickname team
12. Tommy Leach - very good at two positions
13. Clark Griffith - underrated pitcher
14. Bob Caruthers - superstar of his league
15. Jimmy Ryan - I prefer him over Van Haltren

Just off my ballot are Van Haltren and Foster, guys who were in the group top 10 last year.
   110. OCF Posted: July 16, 2004 at 06:20 AM (#737081)
1930 ballot. I hope that this is as far as I ever get from the mainstream of voters; it should start improving for me from here.

1. Jimmy Sheckard (3, 2, 2, 2, 1) My latest methods show his offense as nearly identical to Val Haltren (and also Sisler, but that's a different story.) Why stay with Sheckard over the 90's outfielders? One issue is the sense that the "everyone sacrifices himself for the good of the team" ideology of his times may have done him more than his share of damage to his personal stats.
2. George Van Haltren (12, 12, 10, 9, 8) Van Haltren gets a big boost from me this week, for three reasons. The first is that I have now decided that, peakless as it is, he career (including his little bit of pitching) does outweigh the slightly peak-heavier Ryan and Duffy. The second is the idea that maybe the best thing to do with a C-defense second baseman is to evaluate him as if he hit like that and were an outfielder - it's still close, but it pushes Doyle down. The third is a gut feeling that I had the pitchers a little too high. That lets Van Haltren leap over five people - and it's still all very close.
3. Jimmy Ryan (10, 10, 8, 7, 6)
4. Hugh Duffy (11, 11, 9, 8, 7) Movement pegged to Van Haltren. This is the 24th year Duffy has appeared on my ballot, the 22nd for Ryan. Maybe I'm now being unfair to Mike Griffin, who was last on my ballot in 1904.
5. Larry Doyle (-, 3, 3, 3, 2) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the available outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
6. Rube Waddell (9, 9, 7, 6, 4) RA+ PythPat 200-129. Big-game pitcher.
7. Mickey Welch (15, 15, 14, 11, 5) Another big-game pitcher, and as Chris J. suggests, maybe he really did earn those 300 wins.
8. Roger Bresnahan (13, 13, 11, 10. 9) Only catcher on the ballot.
9. Gavy Cravath (-, 8, 12, 11, 10)
10. Jake Beckley (20, 20, 20, 19, 18) An odd couple, these two. Cravath is big peak, short career; Beckley is no peak, long career. But I'll tell you this: I'll take either of them ahead of Harry Hooper.
11. Frank Chance (17, 17, 16, 15, 13) I could have him higher; huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time.
12. Vic Willis (14, 14, 13, 12, 11) Defense adjusted RA+ PythPat 248-196.
13. Joe Tinker (19, 19, 19, 18, 14) Defense at SS does matter, here and next.
14. Herman Long (25, 25, _, 25, 15) The key man in a great team defense. Scored some runs, too - twice over 100 R*.
15. Roy Thomas (18, 18, 17, 16, 16) I've got to have some leadoff hitter to rally around.
16. Johnny Evers (16, 16, 15, 14, 12)
17. Clark Griffith (5, 5, 18, 17, 17) RA+ PythPat of 203-146.
18. Spotswood Poles (----, 20) Everyone on the ballot is so close together. There's no way to be sure that he wasn't better than, say, Ryan, Van Haltren, and Duffy. We do know he wasn't comparable to Torriente, not that that's the issue at the moment.
19. Andrew Foster (22, 22, 23, 21, 21) Strictly as a pitcher, best guess is somewhere on the McGinnity-Waddell-Chesbro scale. Effective career seems to be brief. As an owner/organizer, has great value.
20. Hughie Jennings (23, 23, 24, 22, 22) If I completely trusted his defensive stats, I'd have him higher.
21. Bob Caruthers (24, 24, 25, 23, 23)
22. Tommy Leach (---, 24, 24)
23. Dickey Pearce (----, 25)
24. Mike Tiernan
25. Pete Browning
   111. Philip Posted: July 16, 2004 at 09:34 AM (#737113)
1930 ballot (Jackson and Griffith make my pHoM this year):

1. Pike (1-1-1-2-1) – I finally believe he will make it! Pike should appeal to both peak and career voters. Especially his peak is one of the highest of this group. And his 13 year career should not be considered short for the early days (longer than Thompson and effectively just as long as Duffy and Stovey). Also, he shouldn’t be considered part of the outfield glut since half his value comes at second base. Pike has been sitting in my HOM since 1908 and is now the only player left who is been on all my ballots since 1898.
2. Pearce (3-2-3-4-3) – MVP of the 1860’s.
3. Sheckard (6-5-4-5-4) – Good in all categories without excelling in one. Best of the Cubs’ position players .

Not to be overlooked:
4. Griffith (11-11-10-7-5) – I think he is underrated by this group. Maybe he is too all-round, not really excelling in either career or peak. Rating just as high in peak, prime and career in my system, mr. Consistent has never ranked higher than 10th or lower than 14th on my ballot.
5. Foster (25-24-21-10-6) – I believe I’ve been underrating him.
6. Van Haltren (11-9-8-11-10) – Benefits as I lean a little more toward Win Shares rather than WARP.
7. Jennings (15-13-9-9-7) – Collected enough career value in his short peak.
8. Ryan (12-10-9-12-11) – As always, just behind Van Haltren. A bit higher, but shorter peak.
9. Caruthers (17-16-17-18-18) – Just once has he been higher on my ballot. I finally see him as maybe deserving. Don’t know yet if he ever will make my pHoM.
10. Bresnahan (27-26-12-8-6) – It’s still very difficult to rank catchers. I find the argument that the best hitters were saved from catcher duties to make them more durable very interesting.

11. Childs (22-21-18-16-12) – No HoM material but best of the rest.
12. Poles (9) – I rate him just a level below Van Haltren and Ryan.
13. Long (11-18-17-17-13) – I think he’s underrated, although I no longer think he will make my personal HoM. Both WARP and win shares like him. Maybe his lack of a great peak hurts him but most of his value came from playing defense, which is generally more constant from year to year. I don’t believe it’s wrong to have a high percentage of shortstops in the hall, after all it’s the toughest and most important defensive position to play (just like there are more QB’s, centers and strikers considered the best players in their respective sports).
14. Monroe (16-15-11-13-14) – I’m convinced he deserves to be on the ballot.
15. Leach (23-22-15-14-16) – Third base duties push him in the top15.

16. C Jones (15-9-7-16-15)
17. Williamson (14-12-20-20-17)
18. Duffy (19-18-19-19-19)
19. Welch
20. Waddell
   112. PhillyBooster Posted: July 16, 2004 at 01:46 PM (#737172)

The issue I was pointing to was simply that if you use Ryan's career HR's to justify placing him #2 on your ballot, there is another side to that simple fact. Based upon better measures of value, there is little indication that Ryan had a unique talent to take advantage of his home parks.

Yes, I actually was not disagreeing with you as to Ryan. Just to clear up the possible extrapolation to the others on you chart.

Kelly quoting Gavy:

"There are always two sides to every fence."

Obviously, Cravath never played a game in Escher Field with its famous "Moebius Fence."
   113. karlmagnus Posted: July 16, 2004 at 02:19 PM (#737192)
Escher was always rough on outfieldrs, because if they hit the fence, it turned them upside down, thus leading to a lot of "Canseco moments" and a very high error rate!
   114. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 16, 2004 at 02:34 PM (#737203)
Less than fifty points between the top three candidates...
   115. PhillyBooster Posted: July 16, 2004 at 03:02 PM (#737249)
Unfortunately, the top three candidates are also all nicknamed "Candy": Cummings, LaChance, and Maldanado -- the last of whom shouldn't be eligible until 2001, but who is listed as eligible in 1901 in the only one of those "Y2K glitches" I used to keep hearing about that actually materialized.
   116. karlmagnus Posted: July 16, 2004 at 03:05 PM (#737253)
John, you're not supposed to do that, it encourages tactical voting. Also I'm trying to get some work done, and not obsess about whether Parisian Bob is going to make it :)) Monday 5pm PST is still a VERY long time away, and there's time for Mayor Daley and all kinds of Duvall County shenanigans before then (2 different elections there, political trivia buffs!)
   117. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 16, 2004 at 03:13 PM (#737266)
What do you mean "tactical voting?" I didn't drop Sheckard down or off my ballot because I wanted Caruthers to get in, but if I did, is that unconstitutional?
   118. Michael Bass Posted: July 16, 2004 at 03:14 PM (#737267)
Yep, it is not allowed by the constitution.
   119. ronw Posted: July 16, 2004 at 03:16 PM (#737269)
Out of the top 20 candidates so far, 16 have been on the ballot for 10 years or more. All of the top 10 candidates have been on the ballot for 10 years or more. We're really deep into the backlog.
   120. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 16, 2004 at 04:01 PM (#737328)
John, you're not supposed to do that, it encourages tactical voting.

I thought we weren't allowed to give names and the actual number of votes and placement (which I didn't do). I've done this before in other elections without any complaints. But if there's a problem with it, I won't do it again.

karlmagnus, Caruthers and Pearce will be elected within the next couple of weeks. I'm not worried about another two week wait for Pearce, so I'm not bothered about who goes in this week or not. No dead people voting should be allowed to vote in this election, though. :-)
   121. Dolf Lucky Posted: July 16, 2004 at 04:09 PM (#737345)
1 (2)Bob Caruthers--At his peak, likely the most dominant player on the board. Packed more into a given season, so it doesn't seem right to knock him for a short career.

2 (5)Jimmy Sheckard--A complete player who was just one or two "wow" seasons away from being a sure thing. The big jump to #2 is more indicative of the strength of the ballot than anything.

3 (6)Eddie Cicotte--Of the eligible pitchers, Cicotte has the highest career WARP score by a significant margin. Peak was pretty good, to boot.

4 (3)Donie Bush--The one thing that pops up from BP's numbers is that Bush's defensive peak coincided with his offensive peak, so that for a 5 year prime, he was pretty darn good. Couple that with what was a pretty decent career, and the intangibles of being a strong leadoff type (always leading lead in walks), and I've got him up here for now.

5 (-)Del Pratt--Better career, prime, and more dominant than Childs.

6 (7)Hughie Jennings--The peak stud. Not quite long enough of a career.

7 (8)Rube Waddell--My general feeling is that if McGinnity got in, Waddell should too. Rube makes my pHOM this week.

8 (9)Jimmy Ryan--Sheckard lite.

9 (13)George VanHaltren--Ryan lite. Actually, that's not entirely true, but VanHaltren's peak was pretty weak for an outfielder.

10 (10)Cupid Childs--Hanging around from the days that lots of 2nd basemen got props. Not really good enough to be hall-worthy

11 (12)Jim McCormick
12 (-)Clark Griffith--I'm starting to come around on Griffith. He actually compares fairly well to Cicotte, but has the disadvantages of playing earlier, and having a weaker peak.

13 (14)Silver King--I know that "everybody" did it, but I've got a thing for these pitchers who threw all the time, then exploded into oblivion. McCormick netted 265 wins in basically 9 years. King's 1888 may be the best season on the board.

14 (-)Gavvy Cravath--There are enough outfielders being elected, that we don't need to stretch for guys like Cravath, who really simply didn't play long enough. However, with Thompson now elected, Cravath probably takes over the mantle of best hitter on the ballot.

15 (15)Hugh Duffy

Dropped off--Herman Long

Top 10 omissions:

Dickey Pearce and Lip Pike--The level of competition questions are so strong, that it's almost impossible for me to compare these guys favorably to the "modern" era. Yes, it was baseball, but the quality of competition ramped up so heavily through the 1860s and 70s that you have to discount any and all numbers or testimonies from that era.

Jake Beckley--Dan Rosenheck ably articulated how I feel about this guy. Remember Bill James's question in the HoF test? Could a team win the pennant if player X were the best player on the squad? Check out the years where Beckley was the best player on his team. A .500 team at best. Truly mediocre for a very long time.

Rube Foster--For players that weren't in my original "quota" system for Negro leaguers, I use the i9s site, and apply a discount of roughly 15% to the rate stats, and a discount of 10% to playing time. Doing this to the known best players of Negro Leaguers yields very reasonable results, so I feel comfortable applying this formula to others. Anyways, Foster's discount yields 3460 IP with a career ERA of 2.96, were he a Major Leaguer. Putting him up against yearly ERA averages, I see Foster as a guy with a fairly lengthy career, but with a career ERA+ of 98. Not ballot worthy.
   122. DavidFoss Posted: July 16, 2004 at 05:41 PM (#737529)
I thought we weren't allowed to give names and the actual number of votes and placement (which I didn't do). I've done this before in other elections without any complaints. But if there's a problem with it, I won't do it again.

Yeah... I must admit that once my ballot has been cast, then I would *LOVE* to have a real-time scoreboard to watch and I would be clicking the "Refresh" button all day long. :-) But, if I haven't cast my ballot yet, I don't want to have the slightest idea what the running is like.
   123. Patrick W Posted: July 16, 2004 at 05:49 PM (#737552)
Last year was the first time in a contested year (everyone got ’22 & ’23 right) that I picked 1 & 2 correctly since 1919. I hold no realistic beliefs in repeating that this year. That’s the way this project should work: 70% of the electees obvious, 15% you like, 15% you don’t. Overall, everyone’s 85% happy.

1. Jimmy Ryan (3), Chic.(N), CF / RF (‘85-‘03) (1926) – My consensus scores have reached a new low. BTW, are those scores weighted towards the top of the ballot?
2. Jimmy Sheckard (4), Bkn.–Chic. (N), LF / RF (‘97-‘13) (1919) – Been in the P-Hall forever, but this might be his first taste of bonus pts. here.
3. George Van Haltren (5), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – Decided that offense should be the tiebreaker for these three. They’re all in my HOM, so the order doesn’t mean that much to me.
4. Jake Beckley (6), Pitt. – Cinc.(N), 1B (’88-’07) (1929) – Solid numbers forever.
5. Fielder Jones (7), Chic.(A), CF / RF (’96-’08) (1930) – For balance between offense & defense, only Sheckard rates with Jones among outfielders.
6. Eddie Cicotte (8), Chic. (A), SP (’08-’20) (1930) – Look at the numbers again - he’s better than Brown, despite the fact that you don’t like him.
--. Mordecai Brown, Chic. (N), SP (’03-’16) – He’ll make it.
--. Joe Start, Atlantic-Bkn (NABBP)-N.Y.Mut.(NL), 1B (‘60-’86) – Carry that weight.
7. Clark Griffith (9), Chic. (N) - NY (A), SP (’91-’14) – Griffith wasn’t killing his team at the plate like some other pitchers, and that vaults him to the 2nd best pitcher on the ballot.
8. Spotswood Poles (10), N.Y. Lincoln (--), CF (‘09-‘23) – MLE’s say he’s close to, but better than, Monroe in hitting. Right now, I’m not considering how he rates to Santop or Torriente (or others) since they are not eligible. But even if he doesn’t make it during this drought period, I don’t see him going away.
9. Bill Monroe (11), Phila. – Bkn. (--), 2B / 1B (‘96-‘14) – With no defensive numbers, does he rate above Poles simply for being a 2B? Not too far below Johnson & Hill.
10. Cupid Childs (12), Clev. (N), 2B (’90-’01) – Looks good under peak, even with fielding discount.
11. Rube Waddell (13), Bost. (N), SP (’97-’09) – In my opinion, Rube was the best pitcher among the eligible in terms of preventing runs, but because he didn’t last as long as the others Cicotte & Griffith pass him in overall value.
--. Joe McGinnity, NY(N), SP (‘99-‘08) –
12. Lave Cross (14), Phila.(N,A), 3B (’87-’07) – Love those fielding runs. Just beats out Long.
13. Pete Browning (15),Lou. (AA), CF / LF (’82-’93) – This spot might be better served by Griffin or Long, but the group has soundly rejected them and I can make no persuasive argument that you all are wrong. I still have Griffin ahead of Duffy by the slimmest of margins, so Duffy cannot be 15. I’m not enamored with some of the pitchers I am giving points to now, but clearly (to me) the pitching below McGinnity & Waddell is of a significantly lesser quality. So onto the “small sample / less than ideal competition” list: I’m a sucker for EQA and Browning is the poster child for EQA, even adjusted for competition. Just ahead of Pike.
14. Herman Long (--), Bost. (N), SS (’89-’03) – Somebody mentioned the ‘90s were short of HOMers?
15. Rube Foster (--), Chic. (--), SP (’02-’26) – He is probably as good of a peak pitcher as Waddell. The probably puts some distance between them. Uncertain of how the owning/managing/promoting impacts the actual pitching value.

Bob Caruthers – Same reason as last time.
Dickey Pearce – Same reason as last time.
Lip Pike – Maybe next year.

Caruthers, Pearce & Pike are in last year’s top ten, but not in my top 15.
   124. OCF Posted: July 16, 2004 at 06:47 PM (#737683)
What John said about ballot totals may have been true at the moment he said it, but the ballot process marches on. By popular demand, I won't tell you whether or not it's still true. There are 34 ballots cast so far, meaning at least a dozen yet to be cast, and late voters tend to have somewhat different characteristics than early voters.

Patrick: I don't want to fully explain consensus scores, so I won't. The system is based on points rather than ranks, so the "elect-me" bonus does give those spots extra weight. You may be on your way to your lowest personal score yet (but not quite as low as mine), but I can't say for sure until I see those last dozen or so votes, because they're part of the definition of consensus too. For both of us, our scores will start to improve once certain candidates we're not voting for are elected. As for the electorate as a whole, the consensus scores this year look like they'll be very similar to last year's.
   125. mbd1mbd1 Posted: July 16, 2004 at 07:04 PM (#737721)
1930 ballot: Del Pratt is the only newcomer to make my top 15, and he barely sqeaks in. Daubert and Gardner land in 20-25 range.

Otherwise, everyone slides on up.

1. George Van Haltren (2) - Career, career, career. Leads the field in career warp3, 2nd to Welch in Win Shares. I'm not excited about him though (or anyone else on this ballot, really).
2. Jimmy Sheckard (3) - half step behind GVH
3. Jimmy Ryan (4) - half step behind Sheckard
4. Bob Caruthers (5) - peak voters and career voters should both like this guy - his peak was his career.
5. Jake Beckley (6) - 10000+ PA's at an OPS+ of 125
----this is probably my in/out line-----
6. Hugh Duffy (7) - Yet another outfielder. He's about two steps behind the top three.
7. Vic Willis (9) - tons of innings.
8. Tommy Leach (10) - Win Shares likes him a lot.
9. Rube Foster (11) - Getting more love, but I'm not sure he'll make it.
10. Spotswood Poles (12) - I'm pretty sure Poles won't make it, especially as better Negro Leaguers come into consideration.
11. Eddie Cicotte (14) - ugh. Decent Ink, I guess. Everything from here on down is ballot deadweight.
12. Mickey Welch (13) - 354 Win Shares paces the field.
13. Clark Griffith (15) - lags Willis in win shares, IP, Ink.
14. Rube Waddell (NA) - He's been on and off my ballot. I love his K's and ERA+, but his win shares and warp3 don't help him out much.
15. Del Pratt (NA) - He and Doyle are pretty damn close; Pratt does better in Warp3. They both could have benefitted from a couple more years.

16-20: Doyle, Konetchy, Childs, Milan, Daubert.

Pearce and Pike aren't on my ballot for the quality of competition reasons. When does this backlog end again?
   126. DavidFoss Posted: July 16, 2004 at 07:25 PM (#737767)
When does this backlog end again?

32 Santop
33 WJohnson/Wheat
34 Cobb/Speaker/Collins/Lloyd/SJWilliams/Torriente

May be tricky inserting guys like Hooper into this backlog and Santop/Wheat may not be slam-dunks, but 1934 is definitely a "break" for our debate. Who is first ballot may be questionable, but I can say that the top 5 are HOM-ers that year with all the certainty that I'm allowed to use for statements like this.

But, as previously reported... the backlog is destined to return after a few years... but with newer backlog candidates mixed in. A little mix-up should be good.
   127. sunnyday2 Posted: July 16, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#737774)
The Pearce-Pike-Caruthers backlog will end as soon as they're elected!

P.S. Any questions about the quality of competition for R. Foster and Poles? Or maybe Smilin' Mickey whose best year came in a 24 team environment...? Or Parisian Bob? Or maybe Leach, Doyle, Konetchy, Daubert? Some people (with big Web sites) think they played in a weak league too.

Unlike all the other players mentioned in this post, Pearce and Pike appear to have played against the best competition available at the time. (OK, Welch usually did, too, and for Foster and Poles it was not their choice, but still....)

   128. yest Posted: July 16, 2004 at 08:11 PM (#737905)
OK, Welch usually did, too
does this mean you'll vote for him?
   129. Kelly in SD Posted: July 16, 2004 at 08:47 PM (#738013)
Mickey's best season (by unadjusted WS) was 1885, though his second was 1884.

However, the following people did have their best years in 84: Radbourn, Mullane, Hecker, Buffington, Hines, O'Rourke, Dunlap, Sutton.
   130. Rick A. Posted: July 16, 2004 at 10:03 PM (#738180)
Posed by Ed Williamson on July 16, 2004 at 06:01PM (#777777)

   131. Kelly in SD Posted: July 16, 2004 at 10:23 PM (#738226)
Ed, I'm sorry to tell you this, with you being dead.
But, according to WS, your best year was 1885 with 21, followed by 1888 with 20, then 1884 with 19. According to WARP1 it's your best year, but according to WARP3, your best is 1882 and 84 is your second best.
Of course, you have been dead for 36 years so it's understandable you don't remember everything exactly.

Now, will someone give the Ghostbusters or Mulder and Scully a call please?
   132. ronw Posted: July 16, 2004 at 11:53 PM (#738408)
Wow Ed. Comprehensive metrics aside, that 1884 HR total sure sticks out like a sore thumb.

You have to go another 103 years before you see something as weird on third baseman, when you see Wade Boggs hit twenty-four dingers.
   133. jimd Posted: July 17, 2004 at 02:04 AM (#738606)
Ballot for 1930

Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

The greatest players are those who combine a high peak with longevity. However, a player can demonstrate greatness for a shorter period of time and then be unable to follow through with the longevity, which is partly a function of luck (amongst other things such as genetics and discipline). OTOH, a player can demonstrate longevity and therefore accumulate value but not demonstrate "greatness" (no high peak).

Both of these latter types of players are flawed, but I think both have a place in the HOM, because there are not enough truly great players available to fill the HOM quota. I try to balance the two types, not leaning one way or the other. Although it may seem like my ballot caters to peak players, it only looks that way because the majority of voters here tend to elect most of the long career players (high peak or no) while leaving most of the great-peak/short-career guys behind.

1) B. CARUTHERS -- The best player available, measured by peak value. Probably would have won 2 MVP awards, serious candidate for 5.
1885: Best player on best team in AA; competition from Morris and Browning, both on .500 or worse teams, but with better seasons.
1886: Best season in baseball (WARP-3); best player on best team in AA; hands down winner if he didn't get 1886; otherwise teammate Dave Foutz may get it to spread the award around.
1887: Best player on best team in AA; competition from Kilroy (better season) and teammate O'Neill (spread the credit).
1888: Best player on 2nd place team in AA; King should win the award.
1889: Best season in AA (not up to Clarkson though); best player on best team in AA; critical to Brooklyn edging St. Louis in AA's best pennant race; a lock if there ever was one.

2) J. SHECKARD -- Surprised me. The best NL OF'er of the early oughts, by peak. When defense is factored in, better peak than Clarke, Crawford, or Magee; better career than Magee (so says WARP-3, Win Shares has them nearly even).

3) H. JENNINGS -- Using rolling 5-year peaks for WARP-3, only he and Tommy Bond, eligible for this ballot, can claim to have been the "best player in baseball" without question. All of the others have already been elected or are not yet eligible; elected to my PHOM over a decade ago.

4) J. RYAN -- Here comes the glut. Much better peak when compared with his contemporaries, but not up to Sheckard's level either. Best outfielder of the late 1880's.

5) D. PEARCE -- Reflecting on him and his long career at a top defensive position in the undocumented dawn of the game, I think he belongs. (Basically, the Joe Start argument, with less documented evidence.)

6) R. FOSTER -- Legendary peak for a short time in the oughts. Very good pitcher for some time afterwards. Those who vote peak should re-examine him. Still a lot of questions, but he has the potential to get a #1 vote, depending on the answers.

7) T. BOND -- Both WARP and Win Shares places him as the best player in the game during the late 1870's. Career prematurely shortened by the rule change that moved the pitching box back 5 feet in 1880. You just don't modify at will the break on that "curved-ball" you've been throwing for five years.

8) G. VAN HALTREN -- He and Wallace have the best careers left on the current ballot, now that the really good career players have been inducted. Wallace has the better peak, though that's not difficult to do. GVH is the Beckley of outfielders, though better, unless Jake deserves more defensive credit than I'm giving (via WARP).

9) N. WILLIAMSON -- Need some infielders on this ballot; the best not in either the HOM or PHOM.

10) S. KING -- Not likely to go anywhere soon, but this is where he rates.

11) F. JONES -- Reached the top of the OF heap before he walked away. Not enough peak for the peak voters to really get excited about and not enough career for the career voters. Some of each will work on my ballot.

12) F. DUNLAP -- Great two-way player; not great enough long enough.

13) H. LONG -- Great defensive player on a great defensive team.

14) C. CHILDS -- Best offensive 2b of the 90's.

15) J. WHITNEY -- He's back...

Just missing the cut are:
16-18) Jim McCormick, Gavy Cravath, Hugh Duffy,
19-21) Lave Cross, Spotswood Poles, Del Pratt,
22-24) Lip Pike, Jake Beckley, Rube Waddell,
25-27) Clark Griffith, Tommy Leach, Charlie Buffinton,
28-30) Roy Thomas, Bill Hutchison, Guy Hecker
   134. Howie Menckel Posted: July 17, 2004 at 02:43 PM (#738884)
1930 ballot

For the second time, I am looking at it this way: Almost anyone has a chance to get in for the next few years, so I have to more firmly than ever address the "which of these guys can I handle actually making the HOM?"
In a strong year, I've tended to slot the 5 studs at the top, then be comfortable 'rewarding nice careers' with the knowledge that they had no shot of getting in.
Now I have to say, "Do I really want to out these guys in?"

Also read all the comments and looked over some numbers again; there is some shuffling, even though some of the comments are the same..

1. LIP PIKE - One more 1870s star gets the nod; it bugs me a little that he didn't get to play much with 'the big boys' at a time when they seemed to seek each other out, but the hitting numbers are dazzling. My only trepidation is the murmurs about his ethics, but I voted Shoeless Joe No. 1.
2. RUBE FOSTER - He impressed too many people for me to keep him out. It's not just that he fared well in head to head games with Three-Finger Brown, it's that everyone EXPECTED him to. Did benefit from his park, though, and not quite as long a career as I'd like. But I said the same for Three-Finger.
3. DICKEY PEARCE - Big jump last year; uniqueness and greatness is big for me now (era just too rudimentary to grab No. 1 spot, though). Minor catching bonus.
4. CUPID CHILDS - Another big jump. The best 2B, or nearly so, for most of his career is something that we just don't see on this ballot. Even ignoring his monster year, still he ranks this high.
5. MICKEY WELCH - Again moves up a coupla spots. I'm still convinced we got a little off-track in the Keefe-Welch-Clarkson discussion; OK if we rate Welch third in that bunch, but not sure how he got THIS far behind. Went 61-34 vs HOMer pitching opponents. Yes, he had a very good team, but he lived up to that in the showdowns.
6. BOB CARUTHERS - Had basically reached the conclusion that he wouldn't make it for me, but when Sherry Magee is getting in on the second ballot, well, these accomplishments start to jump out at you more. Tough to encapsulate what it means when a special hitter and special pitcher share the same body/same season.
7. PETE BROWNING - Great hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time. Has been discounted too much for AA numbers, and may move up further for me.
8. FRANK CHANCE - Probably the kind of guy in mind of those who want 20 ballot spots. Came in at a tough ballot time, and spent too little time on the field. His reputation and his team's results suggest to me that there's something we may be missing. Not so much 'leadership,' but those Cubs played the game in a way utterly foreign to us now, and I'm not sure even our advanced methods are undertanding it.
9. JAKE BECKLEY - Deserves recognition, but doesn't have an "oomph" to bring to the HOM. Still, possibly no one will ever explain what Keeler has that Beckley doesn't.
10. JIMMY SHECKARD - Left startlingly few fingerprints in terms of baseball's collective memory, but you have to like the
all-around skills and imprint on pennant winners.
11. CLARK GRIFFITH - A personal favorite, I suppose: It's remarkable how much better he was than the teams he pitched for. I think he was a brilliant strategist long before he became a manager, and it showed in his pitching.
12. ROGER BRESNAHAN - First time I've voted for him; weird career, but had outstanding years relative to other Cs and other OFs. Chance-ian problems with playing time start him this low.
13. TOMMY LEACH - Second time I've voted for him. Hurt by being a hybrid, but he was a darn good one. Not a HOMer, though.
14. HUGHIE JENNINGS - This career annoys me. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies almost nothing else and even plays those games at 1B rather than SS. Tough call.
15. BILL MONROE - Penalized for position, in effect, and his timing was as wrong for HOM as it was in real life. But a really strong player and worth a ballot slot.

GEORGE VAN HALTREN - Starting to inch back on the radar screen, not a HOMer but good enough to rate strong ballot consideration. Pitching edges him past Ryan and Duffy and friends.
RUBE WADDELL - Strikeouts are cool, but cooler if you know what to do with them. Refuse to believe that this scatterbrain failed to win games just by bad luck.
ED CICOTTE, JOHN MCGRAW, SPOTSWOOD POLES, HUGH DUFFY, LARRY DOYLE - All of them could climb in here someday.
   135. Kelly in SD Posted: July 18, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#740456)
Only 37 ballots so far. Voting is very spread out (I don't keep count) so everyone please vote if you have time.
   136. yest Posted: July 19, 2004 at 12:03 AM (#740682)
Jake Daubert and John McGraw make my pHoM this year though
1. Mickey Welch finished in the top 10 in era, strikeouts and wins 9 times (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
2. Hugh Duffy only him, Ed Delahanty ,Rogers Hornsby and, Ted Williams ever hit 400/500/600 in 1 season (made my personal HoM in 1908)
3. Rube Waddell most strikeouts 6 times and strikeouts per 9 innings 8 times and the 7th lowest era for his career (minimum 2000 innings pitched) (made my personal HoM in 1917)
4. Pete Browning 341 batting avg. (13th total) and a 403 on base percentage (51st overall) (made my personal HoM in 1906)
5. Jake Beckley in the top 10 in RBIs 10 times (made my personal HoM in 1915)
6. Clark Griffith 619 winning percentage with sub 500 teams (made my personal HoM in 1912)
7. Addie Joss 1st in hits and walks per 9 innings for his career (made my personal HoM in 1918)
8. Lip Pike I think the NA still has a few viable candidates (made my personal HoM in 1910)
9. George Van Haltren 100 runs 11 times (made my personal HoM in 1925)
10. Jimmy Ryan has the 30th most (1642) runs ever (made my personal HoM in 1926)
11. Rube Foster Pitched from 1902-1926 (pitched semi pro from 1897-1901)
reportedly had these records:
1902; 51-3
1903; 59-1 (I also saw 54 wins and 55 wins) rumored to have won 44 in a row
1904; 51-4
1905; 50-4
There’s a legend that in 1902 John McGraw was so impressed with his screw ball that he asked him to teach it to his pitching staff whether it’s true or not the Giants era+ went from 99 in 1902 to 113 in 1903
Honus Wagner said he was "one of the greatest pitchers of all time...smartest pitcher I've ever seen..."
According to the stats in the Macmillan encyclopedia Foster hit .345 in 69 at bats
(made my personal HoM in 1927)
12. Jake Daubert 2326 hits (makes my personal HoM this year)
13. Gavy Cravath 6 HR titles (made my personal HoM in 1928)
14. John McGraw 4th in runs per game (makes my personal HoM this year)
15. Cupid Childs 24th in on base percentage
16. Ginger Beaumont 1 of only 12 players to have the most hits 4 times
15. Charlie Buffinton 20 wins 7 times
18. Bob Caruthers highest winning percentage 4 times
19. Deacon Phillippe led in walks per 9 innings pitched 5 times finished in the top 3 in walks per 9 innings pitched 8 times
20. Vic Willis 20 wins 8 times
21. Bobby Mathews I think the NA still has a few viable candidates
22. Hugh Jennings led in hit by pitches 5 years in a row and has the most for his career
23. Tony Mullane 30 wins 5 times 284 total
24. Jack Chesbro his 1904 season helps him big
25. Tip O’Niell 326 batting avg.
26. Levy Meyerle I think the NA still has a few viable candidates
27. Tommy Bond 5th in hits and walks per 9 innings for his career
28. Jim McCormick 33rd in era with a 243 era
29. Jack Stivetts 297 batting avg. while his opponents had a 255 batting avg.
30. Mike Tiernan 392 on base percentage
31. Jesse Tannehill 629 winning percentage
32. George Mullin had a 262 batting avg. and 319 on base percentage
33. Will White 9th lowest era ever (minimum 2000 innings pitched)
34. Sam Leever highest winning percentage 3 times
35. Mike Donlin 333 batting avg.
36. Cy Seymour 303 batting avg.
Explanations for the missing players in the top 10
Jimmy Sheckard too low a batting average for a deadball era outfielder
Dickey Pierce I use 1866 as a cutoff year that I consider it baseball
   137. Esteban Rivera Posted: July 19, 2004 at 01:24 AM (#740776)
It feels really weird not having Thompson on my ballot anymore. Anyway, here goes my ballot.

1. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball. The pre-NA numbers confirm what I have believed about his early career.

2. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress. I buy the "greatness can't take full advantage off lower competition" idea. Proved he could hold his own in the player's league.

3. Rube Waddell - Was a special picher. I buy the run support analysis and also believe in the higher value of being a phenomenal K artist in his time and place. His career record isn't that impressive but you have to remember that there were some stretches where he was jettisoned because his managers did not know how to deal with his unique personality.

4. Mickey Welch - The correction of my overreaction continues as Welch moves up 1 spot this year.

5. Jake Beckley - The career man moves up this year as I place a bit more emphasis on career this time around. There is a definite dearth of long career's at first.

6. Clark Griffith - The more that I look at him the more I realize I have been underestimating his accomplishments. The fourth best pitcher of the 90's should be in.

7. Hughie Jennings - A historical monster for five years.

8. Rube Foster - Have looked at Foster once more and have concluded that the evidence does support him being one of the best pitchers of his time.

9. Bill Monroe - Keep gaining confidence in him. Seems to be one of the best second basemen of his time.

10. Charley Jones - Great hitter and one of the top outfielders of his time. Shorter seasons and blacklisting distort the actual statistical accomplishmebnts Jones would have had.

11. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 90's. Then he just fell off. However, I feel his peak gives him the slight edge over Ryan and Van Haltren.

12. Roger Bresnahan - He has his favorable points such as his offense and being versatile. However, playing time and defensive issues make me a bit wary of going higher with him.

13. Bob Caruthers - The peak/combo man holds steady on my ballot. Definite crammed value but not enough to juice him above everyone else.

14. Dickey Pearce - Have gotten more confidence in the first half of Dickey's career. Career value is the most of available candidates. I don't know if he'll go higher. My level of confidence can only go so high.

15. Tommy Bond - The only other 70's era candidate that I feel is a viable candidate besides the ones already on my ballot. Was an outstanding pitcher for a stretch of five years. Arm gave out but was the best for what I feel is a long enough time for me to give him the last spot on my ballot. Caruthers without the hitting.

Not on ballot but made Top 10:

Jimmy Scheckard - Too many outfielders of his time already in and better than he was.

George Van Haltren - Another one with consistency but not the best at postion.

Jimmy Ryan - I'll take Van Haltren's consistency over Ryan's ups and downs.
   138. Chris Cobb Posted: July 19, 2004 at 02:03 AM (#740851)
1930 Ballot

Building a ballot during the drought is tough. I’ve rethought my rankings since the prelim ballot, giving serious attention to fair representation of periods and to more accurate assessment of pitchers. For the latter, I incorporated team errors into my analysis of defensive support. For the former, I ranked all players within their designated decade, using adjusted win shares and looking at career and peak measures as I have in previous years. I then weighted positions within decade rankings according to the number of HoM places the decade would receive on a strict quota system: 2 for 1860s, 7 for 1870s, 14.5 for 1880s, 14.5 for 1890s, 17.5 for 1900s, 20 for 1910s. Then I made some slight subjective adjustments in the ranking of players determined to be nearly equal in merit by this system.

This reconsideration benefited 1890s candidates and 1910s candidates; 1880s candidates generally lost ground.

1. Jimmy Sheckard. (1) While all of my rethinking has raised issues about other candidates, Sheckard has remained a clear #1. Rates well by both WARP and WS. Good peak and career value; good offense and good defense. Ranks well against his immediate contemporaries (#10 in my view among 1900s stars, well above the in/out line). On a ballot where practically every player has a significant downside, Sheckard is the all-around best candidate. Overdue for election.
2. Dickey Pearce. (2) I’ve studied the data posted by DavidFoss more closely, and while it has led me to greater appreciation of Dick McBride and Charley Smith, both of whom now make my top 50, it has also confirmed my view of Pearce as the second-best player of the 1860s after Joe Start. McBride may have had a better peak, but not by much, and Pearce’s career was significantly better. Incidentally, the claim that Pearce didn’t play baseball is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the history of the game.
3. George Van Haltren (10) Benefits significantly from my rethinking of period fairness. The best remaining player from the underrepresented 1890s. Not quite as good as Sheckard because he lacked a strong peak, but I’ve finally come around to supporting him strongly. Tenth best player of the 1890s.
4. Clark Griffith. (4) Benefited last year when I began to rethink the 1890s, so he slips behind Van Haltren. I’m more sure of his ranking now, though. Considering Dan Rosenheck’s system made me look again at my defensive evaluations and recognize the importance of including team errors in the calculation. Griffith’s Chicago squad was consistently and significantly below league average in this regard to errors per chance (in addition to not being so hot in terms of defensive efficiency), so he gets a bit more credit for his wins than I was giving him before. I think he has an argument to have been better than Rusie, actually. Eleventh best player of the 1890s.
5. Mickey Welch. (5) My support for Welch is also firmed up by a consideration of errors as part of team defense. Welch benefited greatly from team sure-handedness only in 1885, significantly less than the other remaining eligible pitchers from the 1880s (Caruthers, Mullane, McCormick), so my confidence in a high ranking for Welch as the third best 1880s pitcher has increased. 8th-10th best player of the 1880s.
6. Hughie Jennings (6) The third 1890s star now featured prominently on my ballot. While I understood those who favor Cupid Childs, I’m just not convinced that the “best second baseman” argument matters, and Jennings, at his best, was the best position player of the era. During his 1894-1898 peak, he was the best player in baseball, and better than a pair of contemporary first-ballot HoMers, Billy Hamilton and Ed Delahanty, who were also at their peaks during these years. Twelfth best player of the 1890s.
7. Spotswood Poles (15) Moves up significantly to establish period fairness. I realized that I was undervaluing the 1910s players. His peak was short, but strong in relation to his contemporaries. My view of him has changed, and I now see him as potentially worthy of election. 17th best player of the 1910s.
8. Tommy Leach (11) A significant jump up for Leach, as I recognized I’d been rating him below his numbers for no good reason. He’s a borderline candidate, but that makes him mid-ballot in 1930. 15th best player of the 1900s.
9. Lip Pike. (7) Pike slips a little due to period considerations, since the 1870s are fairly represented, but I still support his eventual election. Career wasn’t long, but he was a regular longer than Hugh Duffy, Pete Browning, or Sam Thompson. As the seventh best player of the 1870s, he’s the last serious 1870s candidate, I think, though I've promised Tommy Bond another look before the 1931 election. Pike’s clearly better than Tom York or Davy Force or John Clapp, but I’m not as sure about Bond: early pitchers are just hard to rank.
10. Rube Foster. (8) Foster, like Pike, slips slightly. The biggest star in black baseball in the aughts. Hurt in my rankings by the shortness of his career, but had more career than Ed Walsh, and nearly as good a peak. 16th best player of the 1900s.
   139. Chris Cobb Posted: July 19, 2004 at 02:08 AM (#740862)
1930 Ballot, continued

11. Larry Doyle (16). Gains ground due to considerations of period fairness. He’s a borderline candidate, but now I see him as just on the good side of my in-out line. 19th-best player of the 1910s.
12. Hugh Duffy (12). Not much to add; he still looks like a borderline candidate. Unless my evaluation of him changes, he’ll make my personal HoM at some point when it’s organized, but I don’t know if he will ever be elected to the real HoM. Thirteenth best player of the 1890s.
13. Jimmy Ryan (22) Substantial beneficiary of my reconsideration. I had been downgrading him subjectively for his long string of undistinguished seasons. Last year I moved him up according to his indicated value; putting that value in period context moves him up again. I’m not excited about him, so I may not keep him this high, but right now I’m trying to let the system show its conclusions, so I’ll put him about where it indicates. That also fits more with the consensus ranking of Ryan. Fourteenth best player of the 1890s.
14. Roger Bresnahan (13) Top catcher of the aughts. Genuinely great player (his peak rate trails only (Jennings, Chance, McGraw, and Pike among eligible position players), but not enough playing time or defensive value to be a definite HoMer. 17th best player of the 1900s.
15. Gavvy Cravath (24) Another boost for a player from the 1910s. I was surprised he did so well in the new system. May shift up or down as I solidify my rankings of 1910s players not yet eligible, especially negro-leaguers. #21 among 1910s players.

Bob Caruthers and Jake Beckley are consensus top ten, but miss my ballot. See below for their places in my top 40 and explanations.

16. Cupid Childs (14) #17 among 1890s players. Slightly higher than my system has him.
17. Bill Monroe (17) #18 among 1900s players.
18. Bob Caruthers (9) I’ve gone back and forth on Parisian Bob many a time. Last election he had my support for induction. Now he doesn’t, for two reasons. First, he just doesn’t rank that well against his immediate contemporaries. I see sixteen players better than the Caruthers from the group whose careers centered on the 1880s. Everyone better than Caruthers from the 1880s has been inducted except Welch, whose election I firmly support. When I compare Caruthers’ ranking within his period with other periods, adjusted for candidate pool size, his comps are Herman Long, Fielder Jones, Harry Hooper. That doesn’t encourage me. Second, I now see Caruthers as benefiting from strong fielding support significantly more than I thought, which accounts for his low rank within his period (I had him at 14th for the 1880s in 1929). Not only was the team spectacular in terms of defensive efficiency all through his pitching peak, it was also great at avoiding errors. I estimate that I was giving three win shares a season to Caruthers that belonged to his fielders, 1885-1887, which drops both his peak and career values. Putting that information together with taking a harder look at how far we’ve gone into the 1880s pool in comparison to the 1890s or 1910s pool, and Caruthers looks not quite good enough. He’s positioned to be elected this year, and he’ll probably make it, but if he does, it’ll have to be without my support.
19. Herman Long (18) #16 among 1890s players.
20. Charley Jones (19) #18 among 1880s players
21. Fielder Jones (21) #19 among 1900s players
22. Bruce Petway (35) #24 among 1910s players
23. Jake Beckley (23) Beckley is in the consensus top 10, but my new system doesn’t change his ranking at all, as it turns out. He just doesn’t appear outstanding in comparison to his contemporaries. Lack of better first-basemen could give him a positional boost, but right now I don’t see the justification for a positional bonus for first base, because it’s not an underrepresented position in an all-time sense. #18 among 1890s players.
24. Tom York (40+) #9 among 1870s players.
25. Frank Chance (27) #20 among 1900s players.
26. Tony Mullane (25) #20 among 1880s players.
27. Dick McBride (nr) Looks like the 3rd best player of the 1860s. Displaces Harry Wright (who also drops below Charley Smith, Al Reach, and George Zettlein among 1860s stars). McBride looks to have been rather similar to Tony Mullane in career length and in versatility, so I think my new cross-period ranking system has produced a good result in pairing them up. #3 among 1860s players.
28. Lave Cross (26) #19 among 1890s players.
29. Ed Konetchy (40+) #26 among 1910s players.
30. John McGraw (28) #20 among 1890s players.
31. Joe Tinker (32) #21 among 1900s players.
32. Johnny Evers (33) #22 among 1900s players
33. Ed Williamson (20) A significant casualty of the new system. Too many other better players in the 1880s for Williamson to look very strong. He, Cross, and McGraw may all deserve to rank a bit higher as third basemen, but I’m not sure how much, so no bonus for third-basemen yet. #21 among 1880s players.
34. Rube Waddell (30) #23 among 1900s players.
35. John Donaldson (ne) Data is very sketchy so I could be overrating him by bringing him into the top 40, but his reputation was formidable. Cross-period ranking system paired him with Waddell, which fits his reputation. #28 among 1910s players.
36. Davy Force (40+) #10 among 1870s players.
37. Addie Joss (34) # 24 among 1900s players.
38. Eddie Cicotte (40+) #29 among 1910s players
39. Jim McCormick (29) #22 among 1880s players.
40. Mike Tiernan (40) #22 among 1890s players.

Dropped out of top 40

Pete Browning (36), Roy Thomas (37), Billy Nash (38), Harry Wright (39).

Wright is now way down in my rankings. Browning, Thomas, and Nash are all between 40 and 50
   140. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: July 19, 2004 at 02:15 AM (#740876)
PHOM inductees this year are Bobby Wallace and Charlie Bennett.

1930 ballot:

1. Mickey Welch: There are a number of borderline pitching candidates kicking around now. He’s got the career totals to put him well inside the border. Better than, about the same as, or a little worse than Keefe, good enough for the HOM. (PHOM 1929)

2. Rube Foster: Unquestionably great. Did he pitch enough? I’ve decided he did. (PHOM 1929)

3. Pete Browning: Monster hitter, even considering AA discount. 8-time STATS all-star. (PHOM 1927)

4. Jake Beckley: At or near the top at his position for about 10 years. Long, steady career, lots of gray ink. 3 STATS AS. (PHOM 1926)

5. Bob Caruthers: Terrific pitching record, good hitter. A lot of value largely packed into 8 years. Short career and playing in the “wrong” league hurt his ranking some, but as the crowd thins out, he moves up.

6. Roger Bresnahan: Looks like the best catcher post-Bennett and there’s nobody looming on the horizon in the white leagues to challenge him. Positional boost moves him up, and I think his performance in non-catcher roles shows his quality rather than detracting from it.

7. Larry Doyle: No questions about his offensive credentials. There are some about his defensive ability, but if he were substandard, wouldn’t McGraw have moved him elsewhere?

8. Bill Monroe: Made 4 of Holway’s first 6 all-star teams, the last in his next-to-last year at age 37.

9. Hugh Duffy: Solid WS and WS/162, excellent defense in CF.

10. Rube Waddell: MVP/CYA in 1905, good ERA & ERA+, lots of strikeouts.

11. Clark Griffith: Solid, long career, McGinnity-like stats but spread out over more years. A top pitcher in the offense-heavy 90s.

12. Tommy Leach: I’ve been overlooking him, but here he is now, an A+ defender at two right-spectrum positions with solid offensive numbers.

13. Lip Pike: In his first 7 NA-NL seasons, I make him a first- or second-team all-star every year.

14. Dickey Pearce: Portrayed in Nineteenth Century Stars as an intelligent player who overcame his physical limitations to excel. Also portrayed as the best shortstop pre-Wright. He was the best in a very small universe, that hurts him a bit. He played forever, that helps a lot. A standout player in his time.

15. Cupid Childs: 6-time STATS all-star, good WS rate, good defense, underrepresented position.

In 1929 top 10, off ballot:

Jimmy Sheckard: Win shares and Warp3 really like him. A few very strong seasons mixed with so-so ones. He’s not at or near the top in his position often enough to suit me.

George Van Haltren: Solid career, like Sheckard, but not often a standout. I don’t want to make too much of those STATS retroactive all-star teams, but George didn’t get on even one of them. I have Ryan, Sheckard, & GVH close to each other and close to the ballot, in that order.
   141. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: July 19, 2004 at 03:36 AM (#740923)
Fellas, been out of town, having a blast with several of you at the SABR Convention - anything I need to address, as I doubt I'll catch up tonight, though I will post a ballot . . .
   142. Jeff M Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:59 AM (#740949)
1930 Ballot

System-wide tweaks really shook up my ballot this week.

1. Browning, Pete -- I have discounted his 82-85 and 89 seasons but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. Easily one of the best hitters we've evaluated or ever will evaluate. He was an outfielder in the early years, so I doubt his suspect defense detracts much from his overall value. Would have been in the majors earlier if not for the ear problem.

2. Monroe, Bill -- His alleged comp is Jimmy Collins. He certainly appears every bit as good as Grant, but competition was stiffening in his era, so he deserves more credit than Grant, IMO. I don’t see him getting elected now that Grant is in, but I would have preferred Monroe.

3. McGraw, John – I’m embarrassed to say I totally neglected John McGraw on previous ballots. I never even paid any attention to him. The guy’s OBP was .466! I would prefer a longer career, but among the backlog, I think he deserves some recognition. Plus, we aren’t too deep at 3b in the HoM.

4. Caruthers, Bob – With Browning, was easily the most dominant player in the AA. When he left, the league collapsed. There’s plenty of evidence that the top players in the middle years of the AA could compete at a HoM level in any league.

5. Sheckard, Jimmy – Apart from McGraw, Sheckard benefits the most from my system-wide changes. The changes mostly affect outfielders, by comparing their hitting to all outfielders rather than to the specific positions. Haven’t looked the posts in the last few days, but if it’s close at the top, this bump from #12 might make a difference.

6. Jones, Charley -- I give no additional credit for blacklisted seasons. He hit about as well as McVey, with power, but with a smaller WS peak and fewer WS per 162 games. I think he has been overlooked from the beginning because of the relatively short career and lack of notoriety. Also, he was a bit chunky.

7. Bresnahan, Roger -- In my system he was quite a bit better as a hitter than Charlie Bennett, though certainly not as good defensively. If you stack Bresnahan's WS and WARP1 numbers against the catchers actually elected to the HoF, he looks very solid.

8. Duffy, Hugh -- He has some good counting stats, good grey ink and scores well on WS and WARP1 measures. I was wrong to have him ahead of Thompson in prior years, but fortunately the electorate saw it more clearly.

9. Griffith, Clark -- An excellent win pct on some bad teams. I boost his win totals and win pct by approximately 1/2 of his Wins Above Team, which are outstanding. Has a nice career Linear Weights total also. Rosenheck’s posts on dERA are also in Griffith’s favor.

10. Waddell, Rube -- Comparable to Griffith, but win totals are far less impressive. Can't see putting him ahead of Griffith, unless you overvalue strikeouts. If you are looking for unique, Waddell would qualify.

11. Poles, Spotswood – Also moves up as a result of my outfield changes. It wouldn’t bother me if he wasn’t elected, because there are better players coming on the horizon.

12. Leach, Tommy -- His numbers are deflated by the era, but normalized he looks very good. I've got him with 7 gold gloves at two different tough positions. He played approximately half his games at 3b. He’s the biggest casualty in the revised system, at least among those that remain on the ballot.

13. Beckley, Jake -- My ranking of Beckley has changed for the first time since he became eligible. What changed my mind was watching the 1886 vintage game on ESPN, and I saw with my own eyes the difficulty of playing 1b at the time. Very solid and long career, but I don’t quite see him as a HoMer, though I do see a significant gap between Beckley and Konetchy.

14. Mullane, Tony – Bounced around on my ballot so much, I don’t think I can keep track anymore. Solid WARP1, WS and Grey Ink, even after discounts for AA play. I don’t see the need to elect him, but this is where he’s slotted.

15. Welch, Mickey – He’s receiving vociferous support like never before, but he’s the fourth/fifth best pitcher eligible, IMO, with Mullane. I’m impressed by his wins, but not much else.

Dropping off are Doyle (from #11 to #18), Pearce (from #14 to #16) and Foster (#13 to #16).

Required Disclosures:

Pike, Lip – Gut tells me he doesn’t quite belong. I’ve explained (too much) so I won’t say much more here. Every time I evaluate him, he drops a little bit. He’s #28 in my system, with Silver King.

Van Haltren, George – Van Haltren is the player whom I have evaluated and re-evaluated more than any other player in the history of this project (at least 10 times). I just can’t get him up there in the rankings. He is ranked #36 in my system, and the new system raised him 12 spots. Never the best player in the league and never a genuine All-Star. Virtually no black ink; poor grey ink. Maybe it’s because some of the counting stats during the 1890s are inflated by the high run-scoring environment.
   143. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:36 AM (#740960)
We're very deep in the backlog now; next year I'm going to be electing someone I'm really not sure belongs in my PHoM. This year it's Sherry Magee and Jimmy Sheckard.

1. Dickey Pearce (1) Didn't make my ballot until 1903, now he's at the top. It's clear from the Wright (via D. Foss) info that he was the best player of his time. It was a very different game, but he was playing the best competiton he could find. His NA numbers are not worthy of induction, but they aren't inconsistent with his being a great player earlier in his career. Made my PHoM in 1920.

2. Lip Pike (2) He was one of the five or six best players of the '71-'77 era, combined power and speed, and played important defensive positions. The information from Marshall Wright via David Foss compares him favorably to his compatriots already enshrined. Slips behind Pearce because while he was among the best, he was never a true challenger to being The Best. Made my PHoM in 1919.

3. Bob Caruthers (4) At his peak, he was the most dominant player in his league (and yes, it was the weaker one). He had a wider range of skills than anybody. He's got a clearer argument for greatness than any other pitcher on the ballot. We don't need more 1880s pitchers, but he's simply too good to leave out, and the AA may well be underepresented. Made my PHoM last year.

(3A Sherry Magee)

4. Jimmy Sheckard (5) Had an odd career path and much of his value is hidden, but he was a quality player. A lot of defensive value for a corner OF.
Makes my HoM this year.

(4A Joe McGinnity)

5. Bill Monroe (7) A good player at an important defensive position, with a great reputation for his fielding. I'm not certain his career was of HoM caliber, but that goes from eveyone from this point on. BTW, I was looking through Riley's Bio. Encyclopedia, and while I did see the McGraw quote, in another entry (Mendez or Poles, I forget), there was another quote where he listed 4 Negro Leaguers he'd have liked to have on the Giants and didn't mention Monroe.

6. Cupid Childs (6) He could hit the ball pretty well for a 2B and his defense was decent. It seems 1890s IF are underrepresented, but there's a bunch of 2Bmen on or near my ballot now and there's not much to tell them apart.

7. Hughie Jennings (8) Still a more impressive peak than anyone else on the ballot, and when he was good, he was good at everything.

8. Spotswood Poles (9) His numbers (as we have them) do seem similar to Monroe's, but he's an OF instead of a 2B. Ahead of Van Ryan because James likes him so much. His defensive reputation seems good (although further info is always nice)

9. Jimmy Ryan (10) A little more impact as a hitter - makes the top 10 OPS+ rankings 7 times to Van Haltren's 3

10. George Van Haltren (11) Ryan Version 1.1. Both guys were very good players for a respectable career, but don't seem to rise to the level of greatness to make the Hall.

11. Clark Griffith (13) The DERA numbers help a little, but he doesn't have one strong argument. Just not sure he was ever great.

12. Jim McCormick (12) OK, he probably was great, but not for long enough, and I'm really uncertain about adding more 1880s pitchers. He feels like he should be worthy, but we can't put everyone in.

(12A Sam Thompson)

13. Tommy Leach (15) Long career w/out much peak, but hit OK for defensive positions and fielded extremely well.

14. Mike Griffin (16) First time on ballot since 1914. A great fielder and a good hitter. Similar to Ryan and Van Haltren, but his career was cut short (OK, because he walked away).

15. Mickey Welch (19) First time ever on my ballot. Hard to separate him from Griffith and McCormick this year.

Off Ballot:
16. Del Pratt. WARP likes him a LOT more than Win Shares does.
17. Herman Long.
18. Larry Doyle. Both suffering from being poor at important aspects of job.
19. Rube Foster. There's a long post in the discussion thread (which everyone ignored - thanks, guys! :) ) on my ambivalence about him. His records are great, but are we sure about what they mean?
20. Hugh Duffy. I was underrating him somewhat.
21. Charley Jones.
22. Rube Waddell
23. Pete Browning
24. Jake Beckley. There just is no peak there whatsoever, and even when there weren't HOFers in the league, he wasn't a great deal better than his compatriots.
25. Roger Bresnahan. It'd be nice to have a catcher in for his era, but he just didn't play enough.
   144. Guapo Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:58 AM (#740964)
Q: What do you get if two when two off-ballot players get elected, and the new candidate class is unimpressive?

A: A lot of cutting-and-pasting, and a little tinkering.

1. Rube Foster- Was benchmarked throughout his career by observers to guys like Rusie, Young and Waddell. I can’t hold it against him that he didn’t have the career arc of an Eddie Plank. Dominated like no other player on the ballot.
2. Larry Doyle- The Derek Jeter of the teens? Finished in top 10 in league in OPS+ 7 times, in HR 6 times, in XBH 6 times, in times on base 5 times. He was a dominant offensive player in the league, comparable to Clarke and Magee, except he was a second baseman. As for his defense... Win Shares gives him a C+, John McGraw was apparently willing to live with him, and he was well regarded by his contemporaries (see BJHA, 1984 version). In other words, he doesn’t deserve a penalty that negates his offensive preeminence.
3. Gavvy Cravath- Moved him back up, largely because I don’t see anyone else on the ballot who had a comparable 5 year run at the top of the league.
4. Ed Konetchy - The best first baseman of his time, largely forgotten because of the era and teams for which he played.
5. Frank Chance- Keith Hernandez comp? An OBP stud who was an offensive star, albeit for a short time. Konetchy’s got a better case though.
6. Roger Bresnahan- benefits from sizable positional boost.
7. Bruce Petway- I have him pegged to Bob Boone in my mind- terrific defensive catcher, played a long time (not as long as Boone, but long for his era) and offense that can be charitably described as average- maybe above average for his position. But is seems to me a catcher like that is *much* more valuable in the era in which Petway played, when everyone is running the bases like madmen and catchers drop like flies after a few years.
8. Clark Griffith- could rank higher- maybe next week.
9. Lip Pike- Others have made the arguments, and they’re convincing. The premier outfielder of his time.
10. Hugh Duffy- This week’s winner of the weekly centerfielder re-evaluation.
11. Tommy Leach- I think Pike, Leach, Fielder Jones, and Duffy are all very close.
12. Charley Jones- Will probably bounce on and off the ballot depending on who’s eligible. There are a bunch of other guys who could rank here.
13. Dickey Pearce- Probably more of a “career” than a “peak” player, but based on the stats I’m thinking his peak was at least very good.
14. Mickey Welch- Probably his last week on the ballot. If Caruthers gets in, I think it’s time to give the pitchers from the 1880s a little rest.
15. John Donaldson- Great southpaw- relative to his competition, I think he’s more meritorious than the remaining pitcher glut.
   145. Guapo Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:59 AM (#740966)
The Less-Than-Magnificent Seven:

Jimmy Sheckard: Never quite made my ballot, although I have him as close to C. Jones. Very good player, but I see him as the third-best leftfielder in his not-particularly deep league for most of his career, behind Clarke and Magee.

Bob Caruthers: Could never quite bring myself to vote for him, but I’m willing to accept the possibility that his unique talents gave him more value than I ever saw. If he makes it, bully for him.

Jake Beckley: A personal fave, but he was the fourth best 1B for most of his career. Konetchy and Chance were the best of their eras.

George Van Haltren: Will never make my ballot- too many outfielders in front of him.

Jimmy Ryan: I’d take Jimmy over GVH based on peak. Ryan’s not a bad candidate, but he’s going to have to wait to get a vote from me.

Cupid Childs: I’ve been looking for an excuse to vote for Childs for a while, and he’s close to making the ballot. He was certainly the best second baseman of the 1890s, so it seems like he’d be worth a vote on that basis. But he was rarely one of the truly best players in the league. I don’t see him as a greater player than Jennings, but hope he gets on my ballot sometime.

Hughie Jennings- great player, but how many shortstops from the 1890s are we going to elect?
   146. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: July 19, 2004 at 07:17 AM (#740997)
If you spot something that looks illogical (like how could you have Doe #X and Smith #Y, when Smith was directly comparable and better) please speak up, I easily could have mis-slotted someone despite my careful reconsideration.

See post #261 of the 1928 discussion thread for my discussion of pitchers. Including adjust WARP1 numbers. I don't like WARP3 defensive adjustments at all. For pitchers I like WARP3 better, because it adjusts for leagues, and the defensive adjustments aren't a problem. I also take WS into account, but I don't have the numbers available to post them here - next time though.

1. Clark Griffith (3) - 95.7 aWARP3. His aWARP3 is best on the ballot aside from McCormick, and his two best years show as more valuable than McGinnity's (though McGinnity had 4 such years total).

2. Ed Cicotte (4) - 93.7 aWARP3. I line him up with Griffith, and I see them pretty even.

3. Jimmy Sheckard (5) - 79.2 aWARP1. He's close to Kelley or Keeler - moves ahed of Ryan on further review. If he was a little better or played a little longer he might have been #1.

4. Jake Beckley (6) - 80.5 aWARP1. Very good player for a very long time, much better than an average player. Good for 22-25 WS a year for about 13-14 years. That has a lot of value in my opinion. I also believe that 1B defense was more important in his time, and that gets him a subjective nudge forward from where modern methods place him. I see him as more Rusty Staub than Harold Baines.

5. Lip Pike (7) - 68.3 aWARP1. He was a great hitter. 155 OPS+ do not grow on trees . . . major bump, as that aWARP1 number has nothing before age 26.

6. Bill Monroe (8) - Still not convinced he was better than Grant or Johnson, but I am confident he should be ranked near the Thompson level.

7. Charley Jones (9) - 80.4 aWARP1. Top 7 in OPS+ in the league every year he played from 1876-85, and he played some CF too. Wow. Was better than I realized.

8. Hughie Jennings (10) - 67.4 aWARP1. Great peak, but it was just 5 years, there's not a lot on the resume besides that. His career number turned out higher than I expected, and when you throw in the peak, well, here he is.

9. Ed Williamson (11) - 67.8 aWARP1. I'm really serious about taking a second look at everyone. His career is quite comparable to Jimmy Collins'. Both had a 113 career OPS+, and Williamson's was more OBP driven than Collins'. Both Collins and Williamson were great defensive players, Williamson was actually better, good enough to play about 3 1/2 years as a SS, though he wasn't too good there.

10. Dickey Pearce (12) - Pearce was a great player, the only question for me was whether or not his career fell under the scope of this project. His NA/NL career clearly shows that he was comparable as a hitter from age 35-41 as other great shortstops, and I take that as positive evidence in evaluating his case. Could possibly be convinced to rank him much higher.

11. Jimmy Ryan (13) - 68.8 aWARP1. Good, not great defensive CF, which is probably why he was eventually shifted to RF. One heckuva hitter though. This is a tight ballot, he's not all that far behind Sheckard, but here is where he landed.

12. George Van Haltren (14) - 71.2 aWARP1. Nice, long, consistent career, very good player for a long time. Not a bad fielder, but not a great one either, pretty good hitter. Never had a monster year, he didn't make any Stats All-Star teams, but he also played mostly in a one-league era, where only 3 All-Star OFs were named per year, not 6. He's behind Ryan because of Ryan's higher peak.

13. Rube Foster (16) - Creeping up some more. I can see him as better than Waddell now, though with a similarly short career.

14. Mickey Welch (15) - 85.9 aWARP3. Based on my adjusted WARP he comes out basically a little below McGinnity, Willis, et al. Throw in some timeline, and he's below them. But Chris J. has mentioned that he was generally matched up against the other teams's best pitchers, so that gives him some bump. But he just doesn't compare to the top pitchers (Clarkson, Radbourn, Galvin) of his era.

15. Spotswood Poles (17) - I9s, with some downward adjustment shows him below Ryan and Van Haltren, above where I figure Cravath/Tiernan, so this is a reasonable starting point. I don't think his peak is enough to move him past Ryan and Van Haltren.
   147. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: July 19, 2004 at 07:18 AM (#740998)
Part II - with many comments deleted for space considerations.

16. Rube Waddell (18) - 80.5 aWARP3. Not quite as good as Joss at his best, but he pitched about 2 more seasons, enough to edge him forward.

17. Ed Konetchy (19) - 72.8 aWARP1. WARP loves his defense. Very good player - kind of Hernandezish - more power, less OBP, and overall not as good, but a similar package.

18. Cupid Childs (20) - 71.0 aWARP1. Now I can see how you could compare him to Doyle and have him ahead - consider me converted . . .

19. Vic Willis (21) - 88.7 aWARP3. I see very goodness. He's Dennis Martinez compared the guys on the ballot being Dave Stieb, David Cone or Tom Glavine.

20. Jim McCormick (22) - 121.1 aWARP3. A few huge years, and never a bad one, until his final season. Arguably the best pitcher in baseball (overall) from 1879-82.

21. Bob Caruthers (23) - 89.7 aWARP3. I see greatness, but not enough of it. And I don't see as much as those who think the AA was the NL's equal. I'm glad the discussion of him will finally end with his likely election this week. I think he's our first mistake, but it could be worse :-)

22. Larry Doyle (24) - 37.5 aWARP1. Very comparable to Ron Santo. Wasn't as durable and played one fewer season, but he was great hitter for the position, even when you consider that 2B wasn't nearly as important defensively as it is now. Questions about his defense have caused his drop from a few years ago - but I don't agree with the WARP defensive rating, which cost him 18.8 wins below an average 2B.

23. Gavvy Cravath (25) - 44.1 aWARP1. I ran a little quick and dirty WS comparison on Cravath at age 32-34 to find similar players, and four turned up - Bret Boone, Sam Crawford, Gary Sheffield and Billy Williams.

The others are slam dunk Hall of Famers (if Sheffield ages like Cravath, Crawford or Williams he will be one), except for Boone these guys averaged:

Age 28 - 25 WS
Age 29 - 30 WS
Age 30 - 26 WS

Of course, Cravath could've been a late bloomer, like Boone. At 27, Boone had 10 WS, Cravath 12 (in limited playing time 20 projected to a full season). From age 23-26 and 28-30 Boone compiled 82 WS. I could see this as a conservative estimate for Cravath. I could also see giving him credit for 39 WS age 23-26 and 81 WS age 28-30. I think that's what I'll do for now - it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable estimate of where Cravath might have been had he not been held back. That would peg him as a 320 WS player, which about where I see him. Carefully worked out opinion is the best we can do sometimes.

I'm not quite as comfortable projecting this as I was though - so he slips.

24. Bruce Petway (26)
25. Mike Tiernan (27)
26. Addie Joss (28)
27. Pete Browning (29)
28. Roger Bresnahan (30)
29. Tom York (31)
30. John Donaldson (n/e) - I see him a little below Joss - super-effective in a very short career.
31. Tony Mullane (32)
32. Lave Cross (33)
33. John McGraw (34)
34. Frank Chance (35)
35. Herman Long (36)
36. Mike Griffin (37)
37. Tommy Leach (38)
38. Joe Tinker (39)
39. Johnny Evers (40)
40. Levi Meyerle (41)
41. Joe Wood (42) - 58.7 aWARP1, 55.1 aWARP3. His 1912 was one of the best single seasons anyone has ever had.
42. Jake Daubert (n/e) - 53.9 aWARP1.
43. Fielder Jones (43)
44. Jimmy Williams (44)
45. Miller Huggins (45)
46. Larry Gardner (n/e) - 47.5 aWARP1.
47. Hugh Duffy (46) - 52.0 aWARP1. He had a nice career, but his 2nd best year was in a weak AA (1891), and distorts his eyeball peak value a little bit. I'd take the career of Mike Griffin over Duffy's. Easily the most overrated player by the group. Convince me why I might be wrong, please, I'm just not seeing it.
48. Roy Thomas (47)
49. Del Pratt (n/e) - 51.3 aWARP1.
   148. TomH Posted: July 19, 2004 at 11:55 AM (#741033)
1930 Ballot
review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 13 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 95 adjusted for defense and timeline and maybe speed. I don’t believe in much extra value for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

Personally disappointed if we don’t honor:
1-Clark Griffith (1)
He Won Lots of Games, Pitching for Lousy Teams, even often Facing the Toughest Opponents. Where Is The Love?
Joe D and I, in back to back ballots, get to be best friends of Clark Griffith.
2-Lip Pike (4)
Even with WARP’s timelining, his adjEqA is .300 (better than most players on the ballot); not bad for a guy who played the infield as well as CF. WS and OPS+ love him. The more “very good” OFers who come along, the more Mister Pike stands out.
3-Bob Caruthers (5)
Simply astounding W-L record as a result of his fine pitching AND bat. But in a weaker league. And his taste in teammates is unsurpassed; when he WASN’T pitching, they still won over 60% of their games.

After this, don’t much care either way:
4-George Van Haltren (6)
Hit. Ran. Played defense. Pitched. Long career. Played in one-league 1890s. Solidly on my ballot.
5-Rube Waddell (7)
Six time leader in KOs, 3 ERA+ titles. Unearned runs drag him down a bit.
6-Jimmy Sheckard (8)
7-Addie Joss (9)
Bonus points for his great pennant exploits.
8-Ed Williamson (10)
Decent hitter. Great defense. Underrepresented position, and many of the guys he played with and against thought he was the best. I don’t penalize him for his poor fielding when he was pressed to play shortstop.
9-John McGraw (12)
I’m a career voter, but Mugsy accomplished more in a few years than most others did in many. RCAP ain’t a perfect tool, but it can’t be THAT far off that McGraw gets no mention from us.
10- Roger Bresnahan (13)
A nod to position scarcity. A great player when he was on the field. Kinda like the two guys surrounding him.
11-Hughie Jennings (11)
As great as he was in 5 years, it’s not like he suddenly appeared for those years and then disappeared. He didn’t help his teams when he played prior to 1898, and he didn’t help when he played after 1898.
12-Jake Beckley (15)
Somewhere between Doggie Perez and Fred the Crime Dog McGriff. He’ll have a Ruff time getting the HoM, though.
13-Mickey Welch (off)
Excellent info on Welch. I’m partially (but only partially) convinced that his W-L record is more relevant than his comparatively poor ERA. I’m also convinced that I overrated Tim Keefe, who would now only be about #5 on my current ballot, were he still eligible.
14-Cupid Childs (off)
A fine hitting second sacker indeed, whose defense was passable.
15-Dickey Pearce (14)
Dominating a game in the N.Y. City area of the country while many guys are fighting a war and many others couldn’t give a hoot about pro baseball – well, I’m still on the fence

Nearest to the ballot edge: Larry Doyle, J Ryan, H Duffy, C Jones, B Monroe.
   149. Ken Fischer Posted: July 19, 2004 at 12:43 PM (#741042)
1930 Ballot

1-Bob Caruthers 337 WS
Is the wait over for Bob? If you look at my top 15 I don’t see anyone expect maybe Foster who meant more to his teams than Bob. Would‘ve the Browns & Grooms won their flags without Bob…maybe but I doubt it. His run during the late 1880s seasons are topped in BB history by only a handful. The man deserves a spot.

2-Dickey Pearce
If HOM voting started in 1880 he would’ve been a likely shoo-in. Maybe Dickey’s time is here. His presence in the HOM is long overdue.

3-Jimmy Sheckard 339 WS
Played on the incredible 1900 Superbas…what a line-up…included Jennings, Cross and Dahlen with McGinnity on the mound.

4-Rube Foster
A quote in one of John Holway’s books: “Rube Foster is a pitcher with the tricks of a Radbourne, the speed of Rusie and the coolness and deliberation of a Cy Young. What does that make him? Why, the greatest baseball pitcher in the country…”

5-George Van Haltren 344 WS
Still holds PCL record for most at-bats (941) in a season with Seattle in 1904.

6-Mickey Welch 354 WS
His win shares numbers show he was more than just the 1885 season. McCormick, Mullane and Mathews also deserve another look from the 19th Century.

7-Jimmy Ryan 316 WS
Ryan saw success early with the White Stockings then never tasted a pennant again after 1886. Sort of like some of the young Yankees in ’63-’64. Those mid-90s years when Anson was winding down his career must’ve been tough for Ryan.

8-Jake Beckley 318 WS
Like his career value. Otherwise, as Bill James said once about Jeff Bagwell….I pass.

9-Rube Waddell 240 WS
Mack signed Rube out of the coast league in 1902. The big cities of the east must’ve been quite a site for Rube.

10-Lip Pike
Great numbers even though he was in the twilight of his career during the NA days. I see Pearce-Pike-Mathews as picks to connect the early years. I know most voters don’t agree about Mathews. But I believe Pearce and Pike will both make the HOM. Along with the other pre-1880 players already in the HOM, our selections will put that other Hall to shame.

11- Roger Bresnahan 231 WS
I’m starting to agree with the argument that we need a catcher…and perhaps a third baseman on the ballot. Roger is probably the best C available.

12-Pete Browning 225 WS
The Players League year removes the AA discount as an obstacle for me. He had a lot of merit besides being the original Louisville Slugger and a great story.

13-Lave Cross 278 WS
Cross, Van Haltren and Ryan would’ve been more well known names if they had stuck around for 2 to 4 more years. You would think they could’ve caught on with weak teams. They would have their 3,000 hits. Yes, maybe they would’ve just been hanging around but history would know them better. In Van’s case he may’ve contributed something. The other two were probably already at the end of the line.

14-Hughie Jennings 214 WS
Peak among the best but his career value drops him down on my list. Hughie probably ranks third or fourth on the list of great 1890s shortstops.

15-Bobby Mathews 158 WS
All the Mickey Welch talk gets me thinking about Mathews. He gets discounted by many because his most successful years were in the NA & AA. Mathews really had three careers. There were the NA years where he was overshadowed by Spalding, the lost years (late 1870s thru early 1880s) then the outstanding seasons with the A’s. He was a pioneer in using the curve and spitball. Greg Maddux tied him on 7-17-04 at 297 wins. His longevity and the ground he helped break in the NA get him back on my ballot. Bobby played in the first NA game with Deacon White.

They’re close, but Griffiths (20th) & Childs (21st) are not on my ballot. Both players were second fiddle to other great players in the 1890s. Young, Rusie, Nichols over Griffith…Davis, Dahlen & Jennings over Childs.
   150. Daryn Posted: July 19, 2004 at 01:39 PM (#741065)

1. Andrew Foster – Strong peak and long career. While his legend is a bit enhanced by his managerial and executive accomplishments, he was a truly great pitcher. Wagner said he might have been the best. McGraw and Chance said similar things. Career spanned 1897-1912. Undeniably great from 1902 to 1907 – four 50 win seasons, at least. Likely also great but without opportunity to prove it 1899 to 1901 and great but in a self-imposed reduced role from 1908 onwards.

2. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data is helping Welch – those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe.

3. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. has him as the best first baseman in baseball for a long time.

4. Bob Caruthers – nice Winning percentage, great peak, short career, surprisingly low era+, 130 ops+ as a hitter.

5. Dickey Pearce – likely the best or second best player in the 1860s and played well for an old shortstop for about 5 of his 7 years post-1870. Nothing in the Constitution seems to suggest we should only consider players who had significant post-1870 careers.

6. Roger Bresnahan – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor.

In/out line for me

7. Jimmy Sheckard – I can’t ignore 339 win shares and he did walk a lot – throw in above average defense, a home run title and strong seasons 8 years apart and I guess I wouldn’t be embarrassed if he got in.

8. Tommy Leach – slightly inferior to Sheckard, better fielder, worse hitter. 300+ WS.

9. Lip Pike – 4 monster seasons, career too short.

The people below here are not HOMers to me at all.

10. Bill Munroe – I think he was pretty good. Any blackball player that is even talked about as among the best 70 years later is pretty good. I’ll take McGraw’s word for it.

11. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected.

12. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

13. Pete Browning – Joe Jackson’s most similar player, and they are pretty close – I have him as about 4/5ths of Jackson, who was 2nd on my ballot when elected.

14. George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated.

15. Spotswood Poles – Van Haltren seems like a good comp.

The rest

16. Jimmy Ryan – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs.

17. Hugh Duffy – 10 strong seasons, good black ink.

18. Gavvy Cravath – I’m not sure how to treat his non-ML time, but I do think one of the purposes of the HoM is to take into account great achievers outside the majors. Baker Bowl issues keep him here.

19. Konetchy – 287 Win Shares, but nothing really impressive on his resume, particularly for a firstbaseman. Belongs in the Hall of the Not as Meritorious.

20. Larry Doyle – not a bad hitter for a second baseman and it wasn’t a particularly strong decade for NL second sackers.

21. Clyde Milan – nice willie wilsonesque career.

22-25. Rube Waddell, Jim McCormick, Addie Joss and Ed Cicotte -- pitcher glut, throw in Willis, Bender, Mullane and Mullin for that matter.

Next in line, in no order, but I’d be very reluctant to but them on a ballot (26 to 42)-- Daubert, Pratt, Gardner, Donaldson, Petway, Evers, Tiernan, Tinker, Jennings, Bender, Williamson, Meyerle, Mullane, Willis, White, Thomas, Cross, Mullin and Chance.
   151. Jeff M Posted: July 19, 2004 at 01:58 PM (#741085)
[Duffy:] Easily the most overrated player by the group. Convince me why I might be wrong, please, I'm just not seeing it.

I'm not trying to convince you for a number of reasons: (e.g., you may be right, I don't advocate, etc.) But I know you use a modified version of WARP3, and WARP3 sees Duffy very much like Griffin -- and neither is rated highly, particularly if you use FRAA. WS gives a much more favorable view of Duffy. It certainly moves him way past a guy like Griffin.

Duffy's unadjusted WS comps are guys like Burns (the better one), Cuyler and Averill. On an adjusted basis (season-length and discounting 1891 by 24%), his comps are Sheffield, Mize, Cronin, Will Clark, McGwire and Sandberg (or if focusing on outfielders, Sheffield, Snider and Heilmann).* We could debate whether some of those guys are HoMers, but they certainly would make ballots in a backlog year.

*Note that my sim scores on an adjusted basis don't include adjustments for all players prior to 1950, so there may be some other (i.e., better) pre-1950s comps not mentioned.
   152. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2004 at 03:09 PM (#741149)
As of right now, I have 48 ballots.


Do you have a list of members who haven't voted as of yet? Thanks!
   153. Max Parkinson Posted: July 19, 2004 at 03:33 PM (#741173)

As far as people who voted last year, only Michael D. has not yet voted. As long as there's no new entries this afternoon, I think that we can call this one done (that is, if your totals are the same as mine...)
   154. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2004 at 03:36 PM (#741175)
I think that we can call this one done (that is, if your totals are the same as mine...)

I agree.

Thanks, Max!
   155. MichaelD Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#741239)
I'm not sure if I'm too late. I had trouble with internet access over the weekend.

Here's my ballot. Only a few changes at the bottom.

1. Jimmy Sheckard - In defense of his defense Win Shares for defense for years when he was not with the Cubs and with a bunch of different teams. That seems to suggest that he was a strong defender, not just lucky in my opinion.

2. Jimmy Ryan - I'm not sure what else to say. I guess I'm not necesarrily the biggest FOJR for a while now. Finally returns to an "in" spot for me.

3. George Van Haltren - Before I was discounting his Win Shares too much for his pitching.

4. Hugh Duffy - Every time I do a re-analysis, Duffy or Ryan turns out to be slightly in front of the other and it flip-flops each time. Now Ryan has the slight edge.

5. Tommy Leach - I guess he is my type of player, lots of career Win Shares. 3b was still a key defensive position while he was playing there, so the defensive Win Shares make sense.

6. Jake Beckley - Hard to ignore his entire career. Even though the peak is not very high, he was still often the best first baseman. Moved up slightly this year.

7. Gavvy Cravath - I'm right now giving him a middling bump up for his missed years (about half a full year) but could give him more.

8. Larry Doyle - Falls a little because of the points Joe made talking about questions about his defense with regards to WS and WARP.

Project personal 1932 cut line.

9. Clark Griffith - Also drops downward because of the pitcher re-adjustment.

10. Ed Williamson - There is now a chance Williamson could re-work into my PHOM situation again. A couple of years ago, I would have thought that highly unlikely.

11. Mike Tiernan - I always thought he was a little inferior to Thompson. The two are pretty close but that slight difference could be pretty important at this level.

12. Spotswood Poles - Not as strong as the elected NLers but given the weakness of the ballot gets a slot.

13. Roger Bresnahan - I'm not too big on positional bonuses with the exception of catcher and that is why Bresnahan get the last slot.

14. Cupid Childs - Returns to the ballot after a break. A tough player to judge. Best 2nd basemen during the 90s.

15. Dickey Pearce - I've been somewhat convinced. The big positive for me is that he was older than almost anyone else in the NA, which suggests he was probably pretty good before that. I'm just not sure if that was because the overall talent level just wasn't very high. I really hope this vote doesn't matter since I much prefer Sheckard and really don't want this to be the difference between him and Caruthers, who was just off the ballot for me.

Next groups. Listed alphabetically. Like what I do with grades, I tried to find break for these groups.

16-20: Caruthers, Chance, Evers, Konetchy and Welch.

21-24: Jennings, Monroe, Pratt and Tinker.

25-30: Cross, Mullane, Petway, Pike, Waddell and Willis.
   156. MichaelD Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:25 PM (#741245)
Missing ballot guys:

Bob Caruthers - Just missed this time. I admit I'm still a little sceptical of his performance because he was a pitcher in the 1880s and in the AA for a lot.

Lip Pike - I don't think he compare favorably to the other hitters of the NA era.

Rube Foster - I suppose I should give him more of a look, but I just don't see him as strong as the MLB pitchers on the ballot, the other NL pitchers of later years or as strong as the other NL position players.
   157. OCF Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:39 PM (#741260)
As of right now, I have 48 ballots.


Do you have a list of members who haven't voted as of yet? Thanks!

I was about to say that I only had 47, but your post provided the clue I needed to find the one I'd skipped. Yes, Michael makes 49, and everyone who voted last year has voted this year as well.

New voter this year: Dr. Chaleeko.

Didn't vote last year or this year so far, but have voted within the last three years:

Carl Goetz

Average consensus score appears to be -0.8, down from last year's -0.4.
   158. ronw Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:43 PM (#741266)

I don't think I'm spoiling anything (I'm not announcing results) but with the election close to finished, and based on my rudimentary calculations:

1. Every player was left off at least 10 ballots.
2. All but 5 players were left off at least 15 ballots.
3. All but 10 players were left off at least 20 ballots.
4. Only 15 players made 1/2 (24.5) of all ballots.

As Johnny Carson used to say, "Wild and wacky stuff."
   159. DavidFoss Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:48 PM (#741277)
Cool stuff Ron!

How about candidate who gets all 15th place votes. What place would he finish?
   160. Max Parkinson Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:53 PM (#741286)
In this election, he would have finished 17th.
   161. PhillyBooster Posted: July 19, 2004 at 04:53 PM (#741288)
4. Only 15 players made 1/2 (24.5) of all ballots.

This has actually been fairly consistent for the length of the project. I don't believe there has been any years where more than 16 or 17 made half of the ballots, and some years it has been 13 or 14.
   162. OCF Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:00 PM (#741302)
How about candidate who gets all 15th place votes. What place would he finish?

That candidate would finish 17th.
All 14th place votes: 15th.
All 13th place votes: 11th
All 12th place votes: 8th
All 11th place votes: 6th
All 10th place votes: 5th
All 8th or 9th place votes: 3rd
All 6th or 7th place votes: 2nd
All 5th place votes: 1st

Of course, that's not the way the voting ever works. This year, for the first time, my title of "most disagreed about candidate" goes to the person who is first in the vote total.
   163. Max Parkinson Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:21 PM (#741330)
Is anyone willing to call this?

I mean, really, what are the odds of all 3 voters that haven't been here for 2 years showing up and then voting for our #3 man in 1st or 2nd and none of them casting even a 15th for our #2 man?

Pretty freaking doubtful...
   164. OCF Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:34 PM (#741354)
... all 3 voters that haven't been here for 2 years showing up and then voting for our #3 man in 1st or 2nd and none of them casting even a 15th for our #2 man?

That would be insufficient. It would take at least four voters. (There are other voters who were last here 4-6 years ago.) Your main point stands: we know which two players have been elected. And Beckley, who had no #1 votes this year, might get a couple next year.
   165. Michael Bass Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:34 PM (#741355)
Ah, there's no hurry. We could use a discussion thread for 1931, though, if Joe pops by... (or if John get admin access? Not sure what his new powers are)
   166. jimd Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:47 PM (#741392)
My checklist has Brad Harris as missing from those who voted last year. I count 49 ballots (up one), RMC returning and Dr. Chaleeko as our latest addition.
   167. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:54 PM (#741403)
(or if John get admin access? Not sure what his new powers are)

I have access, but I don't know how to utilize it yet. I don't know if my "powers" extend beyong the Plaque Room anyway. I hope Joe at least gave me X-ray vision though. :-)

As for the deadline, let's keep it for 8PM EST. No rush for that, IMO (though I understand everybody's impatience).
   168. Max Parkinson Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:56 PM (#741408)
Right you are, Jim!

Sorry for the inadvertant slight, Brad... I guess we'll leave the hints aside until you vote.
   169. Michael Bass Posted: July 19, 2004 at 05:57 PM (#741414)
We'll know how great your powers are if all the EODP start having "login issues" for about a week starting next Monday. :-)
   170. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2004 at 06:09 PM (#741436)
We'll know how great your powers are if all the EODP start having "login issues" for about a week starting next Monday. :-)


If that were the case, I'm pretty sure Joe (and rightfully so) would send me some red kryptonite to zap my powers for good. :-)
   171. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2004 at 06:45 PM (#741511)
While we're waiting for the results, I'll toss out a question. Does anyone know who the Gil Hodges of the HOM is right now? That is, who has received the most votes without being inducted?
   172. DavidFoss Posted: July 19, 2004 at 07:40 PM (#741567)
Doc, that info is usually posted every year in the results thread. Check post 16 of the 1929 results thread. (Subject to change as people get inducted of course).

At the moment it goes Caruthers, Pike, Duffy, Pearce
   173. TomH Posted: July 19, 2004 at 07:40 PM (#741568)
4. Only 15 players made 1/2 of all ballots.

This has actually been fairly consistent for the length of the project. I don't believe there has been any years where more than 17 (or less than) 13...
That might be true almost by defintion, no? We all vote for 15 players...and, voila, about fifteen players make at least half of the ballots? Methinks it would take a truly odd scenario, such as 20 really-good-guys and nobody else, or 10 no-brainers and a whole pile o' other stuff, to get any other result. Maybe a truly outstanding new class one year could change the trend.
   174. karlmagnus Posted: July 19, 2004 at 07:55 PM (#741593)
1934 will probably change the trend; 6 or 7 players will be on almost all ballots, and the rest will be VERY splintered, because of the long drought. Will be interesting to see.
   175. DavidFoss Posted: July 19, 2004 at 08:05 PM (#741610)
Maybe a truly outstanding new class one year could change the trend.

Yeah, well, we haven't had one of those types since the early 1920s. We're just having fun analyzing the charactistics of some of the thinnest ballots we've had so far.

... and next year it gets even thinner. :-)
   176. andrew siegel Posted: July 19, 2004 at 08:22 PM (#741634)
I know it's early, but I'm curious how the battle for 4th place is shaping up. The winner of that battle (leading contenders: Pike, Beckley, Van Haltren, Foster? Welch?) becomes the favorite (or co-favorite with Jose Menendez)for the second slot in 1932. Whoever doesn't get in that year has to wait until at least 1938 to have a shot and may well be doomed to an eternity in HoM purgatory.
   177. PhillyBooster Posted: July 19, 2004 at 08:27 PM (#741647)
Yeah, well, we haven't had one of those types since the early 1920s.

Actually, that's right. Back in 1923, which was probably the strongest class we had, only 11 names made half of the ballots. So far, nine of those 11 have made the HoM, (only Sheckard and Caruthers have not, so far), and it was a pretty big gap betwen #11 (Caruthers on 28 ballots) and #12 (Pearce on 19 ballots).
   178. Carl Goetz Posted: July 19, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#741649)
Here's my 1930 ballot. Welcome Joe McGinnity and Jimmy Sheckard to my Personal HoM.

1) Lip Pike- Great peak, and for his era a decent career.
2) Dickey Pearce-Must have had an incredible career. Unless you completely ignore career value and focus solely on Peak, he's the #1 eligible SS. He's been in my HoM since 1919.
3) Bob Caruthers-Great pitcher, as I see it the best eligble. His hitting doesn't hurt either.
4) Rube Foster- He's subjective, I'll admit, but I just wouldn't feel right if he doesn't make it eventually.
5) Bill Monroe- Ditto
6) Jimmy Sheckard- Strong Peak, strong career
7) Jimmy Ryan- Ditto, they're almost too close to call.
8) Ned Williamson- Still very underrated by thiselectorate. Supposedly was brilliant defensively. And a solid Off player to boot.
9) Hughie Jennings- Hard to ignore that incredible peak.
10) Roger Bresnahan- Easily the best catcher eligible.
11) Vic Willis- Also Underrated. Strong peak and career numbers.
12) Spotswood Poles- I expect Spotswood to move up later, I just don't feel like I've got a handle on him yet.
13) Jake Beckley- Yes, I'm finally adding Beckley to my ballot. This is more a lack of viable candidates than any new opinion of Beckley. He did have a strong career, though. Even that wasn't spectacular when WS are adjusted for Replacement level.
14) Bruce Petway- Ditto on Poles.
15) Hugh Duffy- Good career, decent peak. I like Hugh, just not for the Hall.

Top 10 leave outs
Clark Griffith- When compared to replacement, he just doesn't stand out.
George Van Haltren- I think WS overrates GVH He's not even the top OF I left off my ballot.
   179. Michael Bass Posted: July 19, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#741671)
Andrew - Without giving too much away before the deadline, let's just say that the race for that 2nd 1932 slot is shaping up to be a wild 3-way (4 including Mendez) race.
   180. jhwinfrey Posted: July 19, 2004 at 08:55 PM (#741703)
And don't forget about Louis Santop on the 1932 ballot, too.
   181. Rick A. Posted: July 19, 2004 at 09:51 PM (#741761)

Not that this is a pressing issue or anything, but how about a thread for John Donaldson. He got a few votes this election.
   182. Brian H Posted: July 19, 2004 at 10:13 PM (#741792)
Well it took me longer to get back up to speed than I thought it would.
Anyway, here is my 1930 Ballot (if it's not too late).
1.Bobby Caruthers (STATS: 5 AS, 2 Cy Young, 2 MVP) I’m a peak voter for the most part and (depending on how one treats the AA and pre-1894 Pitchers) his is arguably one of the best ever.

2. Hugh Jennings – (3 AS + 2 MVP) His peak is among the highest ever at SS. He was not merely the top SS of an era abundant with outstanding shortstops. This was in perhaps the most competitive era we have judged to date (the one-league 1890’s). James (a peak fan) ranks Jennings 18th , just above Dahlen among all SSs... Jennings was an integral part of the “Old Orioles” dynasty of the ‘90s.

3.Rube Foster – The first great Negro League/Black ball Pitcher. His candidacy equires a great deal of reliance on anecdotal evidence.

4. Frank Chance (7 AS, 1 MVP) Chance was the was the premier 1B in baseball for several years (weak years for the position). Conversely, I have Beckley as the top 1B for only a few years. Very valuable on the bases.....Chance could rank higher if: (A) He was accorded credit for managing the Cubs; or (B) He was more durable player and put up career numbers like his longtime nemesis Fred Clarke.

5..Hugh Duffy –(2 AS, 1 MVP) Duffy was integral part of Boston’s “team of the 90’s”. He had an exceptional peak and enough of a career that I can’t call it a fluke. Renowned as a heads-up player and a top-notch fielder.
6.Cupid Childs (5 AS) – I had him above McPhee based on his peak and strength of competition (as does James). I also think he hit a bit better than Bid (although his fielding was clearly inferior).
7.Pete Browning (8 AS !) – A better AA hitter you will not find. Not as good all around as Stovey – a much better career than O’Niell. His early AA years are discounted. Known as “the Gladiator” for his battles in the outfield (with the ball) – not a great fielder.
8.Rube Waddell – (3 AS, 1 CY + 1 MVP) – one of the greatest strikeout Pitchers of all time. If he had the legendary savvy of Griffith, for example, he probably would have won 300 games and become a first ballot HOMer.
9.Clark Griffith – Among the top Pitchers for the (in my opinion) underappreciated 1890's.
10.Roger Bresnahan (4 AS) – Better than Bennett but not by that much. He was a tremendous all-around talent and played a prominent role in the successes of the Giants of the 1900's. The big question here is how much of a bump he gets as a Catcher.

11.Bill Monroe - Monroe made several all-star teams and apparently hit for power as well as average... I actually think he may have been better than Johnson.
12.Jimmy Sheckard - (2 AS) I think his career numbers warrant a ranking above the 1890's OFs, Ryan and Van Haltren (see below).
13.Dickie Pearce – somewhat convinced by what others have written. But now I wonder about Creighton (who had no career claim but a very strong peak argument).

14. JJ McGraw -- For a brief period among the most valuable players in the game at the hot corner. A big winner and that also carries some weight with me (see above).

15.Jimmy Ryan - I take his peak over VH’s career (but not by much).

Off the list :
Lip Pike – He played a bit later than Pearce but did not excel for as long and was probably never the BEST player. Then again at least we have some stats I can appreciate. I place him at 17 or 18.

Van Haltren – literally #16. Strong career but not up to what I look for in a peak for his position.
Jake Beckley – Same as Van Haltren above only much more so. He places near # 20 on my list. His best selling point for me is that he did a lot of it in the 1890s.

I'm a bit out of practice so let me know if I missed anything (or anyone) I need to address.
   183. karlmagnus Posted: July 19, 2004 at 10:18 PM (#741803)
Not too late; closing time is 5pm PST (8pm EDT), so there's 1 3/4 hours to go.
   184. Howie Menckel Posted: July 19, 2004 at 10:30 PM (#741827)
Through 1929, 5000+ vote points without having been elected (a few may disappear with 1930 results)

PIKE 8431
DUFFY 7339.5
RYAN 6490
   185. karlmagnus Posted: July 19, 2004 at 10:35 PM (#741833)
The interesting race will be who gets the most points and still gets elected in the end -- the longest successful climb. Thompson currently the leader, but if Pike makes it in '32 my money's on Beckley, who's the one of the current backlog with career stats you're not going to be able to ignore, even in 1985, yet whose peak will never thrill anyone.

Most points without making it will probably be Duffy or Ryan, who are ahead of Browning and will presumably stay that way. (my guess is that van H eventually makes it.)
   186. ronw Posted: July 19, 2004 at 11:27 PM (#741920)
Happy Jack says that he can't seem to log on, so I'm posting this for him . . .

Posted by Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro on July 19, 2004 at 07:25 PM

Did I win?
   187. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2004 at 11:48 PM (#741998)
Did I win?

Do you mean a toaster oven?
   188. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:00 AM (#742034)
Samuel Tilden may have never became president, but at least his namesake makes the first slot for the HoM.

The mayor of Paris will honor our second-place finisher with the Jerry Lewis Medal of Freedom.
   189. Jeff M Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:06 AM (#742058)
Y'know, Tilden's middle name was Jones. Surely you aren't suggesting Charley got elected.
   190. ronw Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:10 AM (#742075)
A Brief History of Bob Caruthers in the voting:

1899 – 11th – All ahead of him elected. Bennett, McVey and Galvin finished behind him, and would later be elected.

1900 – 12th - All ahead of him elected. Galvin & McVey finished behind him, and would later be elected.

1901 – 10th - All ahead of him elected. Galvin, McVey & Bennett finished behind him, and would later be elected.

1902 – 13th - All ahead of him elected. Bennett, McVey and Galvin finished behind him, and would later be elected. McVey the last future electee to finish behind Parisian Bob until 1916.

1903 – 14th – All ahead of him elected.

1904 – 14th – Only Browning ahead of him not yet elected.

1905 – 14th – Only Browning and Tiernan ahead of him not yet elected.

1906 – 12th - Only Browning and Tiernan ahead of him not yet elected.

1907 – 15th – Duffy, Childs, Browning, Tiernan & Pike ahead of him and not yet elected.

1908 – 15th - Duffy, Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Pike & Jennings ahead of him and not yet elected.

1909 – 19th - Duffy, Ryan, Van Haltren, Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Pike, Jennings, & McCormick ahead of him and not yet elected.

1910 – 20th - Duffy, Ryan, Van Haltren, Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Pike, Jennings, McCormick & Pearce ahead of him and not yet elected.

1911 – 20th - Duffy, Ryan, Van Haltren, Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Pike, Jennings, McCormick & Pearce ahead of him and not yet elected.

1912 – 20th - Duffy, Ryan, Van Haltren, Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Pike, Jennings, McCormick, Pearce & Griffith ahead of him and not yet elected.

1913 – 19th - Duffy, Ryan, Van Haltren, Beckley, Childs, Browning, Tiernan, Pike, Jennings, McCormick, Griffith & Pearce ahead of him and not yet elected.

1914 – 16th - Duffy, Ryan, Pike, Jennings, Van Haltren, Beckley, & Pearce ahead of him and not yet elected.

1915 – 14th – Duffy, Ryan, Van Haltren, Pike ahead of him and not yet elected.

1916 – 8th – All ahead of him elected. Grant & Thompson behind him and have been elected.

1917 – 9th - All ahead of him elected. Grant & Thompson behind him and have been elected. During this ballot discussion “WHY I WON”T VOTE FOR BOB CARUTHERS” gets posted by favre and moved to its own controversial discussion thread.

1918 – 7th - All ahead of him elected. Grant & Thompson behind him and have been elected.

1919 – 7th - All ahead of him elected. Grant & Thompson behind him and have been elected.

1920 – 9th - All ahead of him elected.

1921 – 8th - All ahead of him elected. Thompson behind him and has been elected.

1922 – 10th - All ahead of him elected. In one of the all-time controversial posts, Karlmagnus puts Caruthers ahead of both Nap Lajoie and Christy Mathewson on his ballot.

1923 – 11th - All ahead of him elected.

1924 – 10th - All ahead of him elected.

1925 – 9th - All ahead of him elected.

1926 – 7th – Jackson ahead of him and has been elected.

1927 – 7th - All ahead of him elected.

1928 – 6th - All ahead of him elected.

1929 – 4th - All ahead of him elected.

1930 - ELECTED
   191. ronw Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:12 AM (#742082)
My unofficial tally:


Pearce - 629
Van Haltren - 534
Beckley - 532
Pike - 516
Griffith - 481
Foster - 479
Ryan - 443
Jennings - 429
   192. Michael Bass Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:13 AM (#742088)
Me first? Here's what I've got

51 ballots

Sheckard - 754
Caruthers - 693

Pearce - 629
Van Haltren - 534
Beckley - 532
Pike - 516
Griffith - 481
Foster - 479
Ryan - 443
Jennings - 429
Bresnahan - 399
Welch - 384
Childs - 380
Waddell - 350
Duffy - 345
Browning - 344
   193. DavidFoss Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:15 AM (#742101)
Yeah... I saw the Tilden connection the other day. Americans used to be a lot more proud of their leaders than they are today. Can't imagine a young rookie coming up today named Walter Mondale Smith.

Looking at the cap races over the weekend has me thinking of a capologist. My knee-jerk reaction is that this equally contributes to the Cubs-Cardinals rivalry... but its not completely obvious that we don't have the first two Dodger Caps.
   194. DavidFoss Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:23 AM (#742145)
Wow... a little fall for the Lipman. Call it Revenge of the Career Candidates I guess. I saw this coming while looking at the ballots. Not many people have Mr. Pike rated 16th or 17th. He's either savely on the ballot or way off. On the other hand, Beckley & Van Haltren are often right around there. Beckley will probably make my ballot this year just because I can't think of who else to vote for.
   195. OCF Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:25 AM (#742158)
Um, My totals look quite a bit different. For me it starts out
Sheckard 766
Caruthers 702
Pearce 611
Van Halten 546
Beckley 520
Pike 492
Griffith 480
Foster 456
Ryan 456
Jennings 437

Am I that far off?
   196. jhwinfrey Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:36 AM (#742213)
I kept score for the first time this week. I'm pleased to see that I came up with the same numbers.

Congratulations to Caruthers, who made my PHoM in 1928.
Sheckard peaked at #16 in my rankings and probably won't make it into my PHoM...But congrats to him, too.
   197. jhwinfrey Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:45 AM (#742257)
uh, the same numbers as Michael and Ron, that is.
   198. OCF Posted: July 20, 2004 at 12:49 AM (#742278)
Ignore post #95. I had two different ballots entered incorrectly, and using Michael's totals I was able to track them down. I now concur with Michael in #92.

The average consensus score is -0.4, same as last year.
   199. OCF Posted: July 20, 2004 at 01:03 AM (#742342)
The top 3 consensus scores: RMc 13, Rusty Priske 12, Ken Fischer 10.

The bottom 3: Guapo -18, KJOK -16, Jim Sp -15.

The new guy, Dr. Chaleeko, was at +5. Returning from a year or two away: RMc (already noted), Carl Goetz 2, and Brian H. 0. Of the 51 voters, 27 (including Brian H.) were positive and 24 were negative. My own score was -8.

The most disagreed about candidate was Sheckard (the first time the #1 guy has had the most disagreement), followed closely by Pike and then Pearce.

The highest possible consensus score was +17, same as last year.
   200. Max Parkinson Posted: July 20, 2004 at 01:57 AM (#742633)
In following the ballots this year (my totals seem to match the consensus), I have found that there is incredible correllation between last year's ballot and this years.

For example, if voter Bill B. had Wallace in 3rd and Thompson in 8th in 1929, to figure their 1930 ballot (at least the top 13 spots), just move those names to 14 and 15, and leave everyone else in the same order. You would be right on between 80 and 90 percent of ballot spots.

That suggests that Mr. Pearce will have an easy time with it next year. While I don't have anything specific against that choice (he is in my personal hall after all), it worries me somewhat that we've all just settled into our voting patterns, and that the discussion threads are having precious little impact on any of us. I'm sure that it's a function of time - we all have jobs and whatever, the Hall of Merit isn't our entire lives (well, maybe Murphy's), but I'm calling for a renewed effort to examine those players that we're far from the consensus on. Let's make those discussion threads useful again!

I know that voters here have changed my mind on Wallace, Pearce and others. I commit to relooking at Roger Bresnahan - those of you who have been around a while may remember my diatribes against him - and Mickey Welch, and putting forth my best arguments for moving them up or down. As well, count on me to attempt to convince you of the valour in voting for Hughie Jennings...

I only wish that these two crucial elections weren't in the next few weeks, as I will be away quite a bit - the playoffs for the team I coach start Wednesday morning; we've got a decent shot at making the Mickey Mantle World Series in Dallas. When I'm in town, though, I'll be researching...
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 1.2632 seconds
59 querie(s) executed