User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.2675 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Tuesday, August 03, 20041931 Election Results - Congrations John Mur . . . uh Dickey Pearce!At long-last Dickey Pearce has been elected to the Hall of Merit. In the first election (1898), Pearce, a star in the not very well organized/documented 1860s received one 15th place vote - finishing tied for 29th. He was behind 16 players that are still not HoMers in that inagural tally. At the time of his death in 1908 (he was 72) his support had grown - but his election still appeared quite unlikely. He had finished 19th in the most recent election, named on just 12 of 42 ballots. Nine future HoMers were ahead of him; as were 9 others who still haven’t been elected, including: Hugh Duffy, Hughie Jennings, Cupid Childs, Mike Tiernan, Pete Browning, Lip Pike, Ed Williamson, Mike Griffin and Jim McCormick. In 1925 his candidacy got a shot in the arm, he was named on 7 additional ballots (there were two new voters), up from 19 to 26. From there it’s been a steady rise to the top - he was named on 40 of 53 ballots this year. Dan Greenia cast that lone vote for Pearce in 1898, but the most fervent support has come from John Murphy. If not for this early shred of light but intense support, Pearce likely would have slipped into obscurity. Now he’ll be the example people point to when they have a ‘pet’ candidate. More importantly he’s a great example of how this group will listen to the case for anyone, if someone is willing to make the case and it makes sense. Rube Foster shot from #8 to #2 this week, the biggest such one-year jump (to near the top of the ballot) that I can remember. George Van Haltren finished 3rd, just two points behind Foster. Clark Griffith moved past Lip Pike and Jake Beckley into 4th place. Pike moved past Beckley as well and into 5th. Hughie Jennings, Cupid Childs, Roger Bresnahan and Jimmy Ryan rounded out the top 10. RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 3 Dickey Pearce 661 40 12 5 3 2 2 3 3 1 4 2 2 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 8 Rube Foster 616 41 5 5 2 4 6 2 2 1 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 George Van Haltren 614 41 5 6 4 2 2 2 3 1 4 3 4 1 1 1 2 4 7 Clark Griffith 549 41 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 1 4 4 5 6 Lip Pike 533 34 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 2 1 6 5 Jake Beckley 511 33 3 3 8 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 10 Hughie Jennings 500 33 3 2 3 3 5 3 3 4 3 3 1 8 13 Cupid Childs 472 40 3 2 1 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 9 11 Roger Bresnahan 446 35 1 2 2 3 6 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 10 9 Jimmy Ryan 446 32 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 5 2 1 1 2 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 15 Hugh Duffy 427 32 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 7 1 3 1 12 14 Rube Waddell 426 30 1 5 4 4 1 5 3 1 1 4 1 13 12 Mickey Welch 407 28 5 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 14 16 Pete Browning 361 25 1 4 1 6 2 1 4 2 2 2 15 18 Tommy Leach 324 26 1 1 3 1 1 3 4 3 4 3 1 1 16 17 Bill Monroe 287 24 1 1 3 1 1 3 5 2 3 3 1 17 21 Spotswood Poles 264 25 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 2 18 20 Larry Doyle 255 19 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 19 n/e Harry Hooper 233 19 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 4 20 19 Charley Jones 220 15 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 21 n/e Bobby Veach 217 19 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 22 23 Frank Chance 176 15 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 23 22 Ed Cicotte 148 11 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 24 n/e George J. Burns 134 14 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 25 24 Gavy Cravath 134 12 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 26 25 Ed Williamson 127 11 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 27 Addie Joss 126 11 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 26 John McGraw 124 9 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 29 28 Fielder Jones 88 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 30 Vic Willis 70 7 2 3 1 1 31 34 Ed Konetchy 65 6 1 1 1 1 2 32 31 Lave Cross 64 6 1 2 1 1 1 33 32 Jim McCormick 57 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 34 36 Herman Long 46 5 1 1 2 1 35 35 Tommy Bond 46 4 1 1 1 1 36 33 Mike Tiernan 44 4 1 1 1 1 37 29 Del Pratt 42 3 1 1 1 38 38 Tony Mullane 38 6 2 4 39 37 Bruce Petway 38 4 1 2 1 40 43 Mike Griffin 36 4 1 1 2 41 39 Silver King 24 2 1 1 41 41 Donie Bush 24 1 1 43 40 John Donaldson 20 2 1 1 44 45T Fred Dunlap 19 2 1 1 45 42 Tom York 16 1 1 46 48 Joe Tinker 9 1 1 47T 45T Jake Daubert 8 1 1 47T 49T Billy Nash 8 1 1 47T 51T Roy Thomas 8 1 1 47T 51T Bobby Mathews 8 1 1 51 49T Levi Meyerle 7 1 1 52T 44 Harry Wright 6 1 1 52T 45T Jimmy Williams 6 1 1 52T 51T Jim Whitney 6 1 1 52T -- Johnny Evers 6 1 1 Dropped Out: R. Chapman (51T). JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: August 03, 2004 at 05:55 AM | 18 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(15 - 2:42pm, Nov 28) Last: cardsfanboy Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (11 - 11:21am, Nov 28) Last: DL from MN 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan Battle of the Uber-Stat Systems (Win Shares vs. WARP)! (381 - 1:13pm, Jul 14) Last: Chris Cobb |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.2675 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: August 03, 2004 at 06:36 AM (#772896)Obviously, there is a typographical error in the title. It should read ConFLAgrations.
ps Pete Hill is my personal HoM entrant for 1931.
Obviously, there is a typographical error in the title. It should read ConFLAgrations.
That's only if Van Haltren had moved ahead of him yesterday (I could have lived with Foster). :-)
No problem, Carl. BTW, I e-mailed anyone that hadn't voted even if they weren't a FODP. I don't want to be accused of electioneering. :-)
Dan Greenia cast that lone vote for Pearce in 1898
Dan deserves the credit (or the blame) for igniting my interest in him.
The electorate gave Gardner a combined 0 votes. He is the 16th player to make the BJPHoM, but not the HoM (yet). No other player (except maybe 1929 inductee Johnny Evers) has received less support from the electorate.
Does Bill James know something that we don't?
James' crappy timelining technique distorts his rankings. Even if it were proper timelining (which I don't have a problem with outside this project), many of us don't use it for our picks.
I guess whether your a FO or EO depends just as much on where others rank a player than where you rank him yourself! I had better re-consider my rankings to avoid being pushed off the back end of the bandwagon!
David was the guy who gave Pearce enough "gravitas" to be electable here. I don't think Pearce would have made it otherwise.
One day some of the vague pro-Pearce arguments finally got to me and I decided to dump all the information the book had about him and anyone else others were interested in. Eventually Pearce ended up in an elect-me slot on my ballot, but it took a few years to get there. The data certainly doesn't scream "elect Pearce" -- in fact some have used the data against him -- but it does paint an interesting picture of the expansion of the NYC club play of the 40s-50s to what became the NA. The data from the book probably removes any doubts about the Start and GWright's elections.
The Marshall Wright book is available at amazon. Its quite overpriced, but the "used & new" link usually has some 3rd party vendors willing to unload it for less than half the sticker price. It would be nice to see a 2nd edition of that someday as I'm sure box scores are popping up here and there from time to time. Also, a database version of data like that would be interesting as well.
After seeing my posts, Paul Wendt pointed me to the 19th-Century SABR committee mailing list. That is an impressive group of people! Those interested can ask Paul about all the resources they have there.
But anyway, Pearce ran the gauntlet. The one HoMer that really got a free pass IMO was Pete Hill. I doubt that I will ever understand that one, now that that conversation is over. Or maybe somebody will take on the task of helping us with Spot Poles by way of comparison with Pete.
I would take Wright over Barnes still, but I admit I underrated him in '98.
Dan deserves the credit (or the blame) for igniting my interest in him.
Why did I vote for Pearce in 1898? IIRC, the main reasons.
1) I tend to be a career guy and only Start had a longer career among the candidates. I believe that "longevity is a hallmark of greatness", and Pearce's NA stats seemed consistent with greatness in his younger days.
2) The uncertainty factor. Many have said they'd rather vote for a player who may have been dominant rather than those they are certain were not.
3) Era representation. I had already figured out that we were likely to elect a ton of guys born in the 1850's and very few born before then.
The popular candidates whom I did not vote for (O'Neill, Jones, Welch, Dunlap), fall back using the above criteria.
Most of the discussion before the first ballot ignored the early stars. Since we were planning to start with the 1906 election, focus was on the A-B-C firstbasemen and others like Clarkson, Rusie, Ewing, O'Rourke, etc. The last minute decision to back up eight years was critical in bringing scrutiny to Start, McVey and Pike as well as Pearce.
The Marshall Wright book is available at amazon. Its quite overpriced, but the "used & new" link usually has some 3rd party vendors willing to unload it for less than half the sticker price.
Books-a-Million put it on sale sometime last year and I reported it here, I think. (I don't really now how to search and I admire those who maintain a private list of links to specific HoM articles.)
It would be nice to see a 2nd edition of that someday as I'm sure box scores are popping up here and there from time to time. Also, a database version of data like that would be interesting as well.
I hope that the 19c research committee, SABR (we) will undertake a box scores and statistics project or two, covering 1854/57 to 1870/83. There is some inertia or bad history to overcome. Marshall Wright is a loner who probably collected all of his own box scores. Yes, more boxes are known and more can be found. (Wright evidently uses Howe Sports Data for his other books, most of which feature prominent minor leagues.)
After seeing my posts, Paul Wendt pointed me to the 19th-Century SABR committee mailing list. That is an impressive group of people! Those interested can ask Paul about all the resources they have there.
Not what we should have.
David refers to 19cBB, a Yahoo Group. There is a limited guest period for most SABR non-members.
If you might try SABR membership, note that you will get 18-20 months for the price of one year if you join October 1. (Only one year's bound publications.)
Re a Hall of Merit research presentation at the Annual Convention, I recommend featuring career MLB players as illustrations of some original research and new perspectives generated by the project. Rather than pre-1876 and black players. Although you have learned a lot about those players, the HoM innovation is mainly procedural: considering careers that HOF ignores. It may be possible to do a poster and a traditional "theater" presentation; on the other hand, a traditional proposal might be accepted (only) as a poster.
The vote totals for #2 through #10 under those assumptions would have been as follows:
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main