User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4455 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Monday, February 21, 20051945 Ballot Results: The Goose and Big Bill are Certified as Hall of Merit Inductees!With a record 68 candidates who earned at least one vote on one of our 52 ballots, Senators and Tigers slugger Goose Goslin pushed through the crowd fairly easily to claim the top spot for induction into the Hall of Merit in his second year of eligibility. In his third year as a candidate, lefty pitching great Willie Foster earned the second spot for immortality. He becomes the eleventh Negro Leaguer to claim that distinction (his half-brother Rube Foster was elected in 1932). Rounding out the top ten were John Beckwith, Eppa Rixey, Clark Griffith, Hughie Jennings, Wes Ferrell, Joe Sewell, George Sisler and George Van Haltren. RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 3 Goose Goslin 998 49 19 11 4 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 Willie Foster 796 47 8 7 4 5 2 2 3 4 6 3 1 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 5 John Beckwith 617 40 6 2 6 3 3 5 1 2 2 3 4 1 2 4 6 Eppa Rixey 497 36 1 1 1 3 6 5 6 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 5 7 Clark Griffith 412 29 2 5 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 6 12 Hughie Jennings 411 25 3 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 7 8 Wes Ferrell 390 28 2 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 8 11 Joe Sewell 374 26 4 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 4 9 13 George Sisler 366 26 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 10 9 George Van Haltren 360 23 1 4 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 10 Jake Beckley 351 25 1 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 12 14 Hugh Duffy 323 24 1 3 4 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 13 17 Edd Roush 297 25 1 1 1 2 1 7 2 2 2 1 3 2 14 15 Rube Waddell 294 25 2 1 1 5 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 15 16 Tommy Leach 248 23 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 16 18 Mickey Welch 222 13 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 17 19 Cupid Childs 216 18 2 3 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 18 20 Pete Browning 209 14 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 19 26 Roger Bresnahan 201 19 1 1 2 3 3 2 6 1 20 21 Cannonball Dick Redding 198 17 1 1 1 2 3 5 2 2 21 23 Charley Jones 174 12 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 22 22 Burleigh Grimes 170 15 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 23 24 José Méndez 160 13 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 24 29 Dick Lundy 160 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 25 27 Dobie Moore 146 15 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 26 30 Bill Monroe 141 13 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 27 28 Larry Doyle 141 12 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 28 25 Jimmy Ryan 127 10 1 2 2 2 2 1 29 32 Wally Schang 118 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 30 31 Sam Rice 106 9 2 1 2 1 1 2 31 34 Pie Traynor 88 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 32 35 George J. Burns 74 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 33 37 Gavy Cravath 73 6 1 1 1 1 2 34 33 Kiki Cuyler 69 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 41 Carl Mays 61 7 1 2 1 1 2 36T 39T John McGraw 55 5 1 1 2 1 36T 36 Ben Taylor 55 5 1 1 2 1 38T 39T Harry Hooper 51 5 1 3 1 38T 45 Spotswood Poles 51 5 1 1 1 1 1 40 38 Vic Willis 44 4 2 1 1 41 n/e Tony Lazzeri 41 4 1 1 1 1 42 43 Ed Cicotte 40 4 1 1 2 43 60T Ed Williamson 39 4 1 1 1 1 44 42 Urban Shocker 32 4 1 1 1 1 45 46T Hack Wilson 30 4 1 1 2 46T n/e Frank Chance 29 4 1 3 46T 60T Addie Joss 29 4 1 1 2 48 51T Ed Konetchy 23 2 1 1 49 49 Fred Dunlap 22 2 1 1 50 55T Rabbit Maranville 21 3 1 1 1 51 46T Bobby Veach 19 2 1 1 52 n/e Heinie Manush 16 2 1 1 53T n/e Tommy Bond 15 1 1 53T 50 Dolf Luque 15 1 1 55 n/e Fielder Jones 14 2 1 1 56 55T Buzz Arlett 13 1 1 57T 51T Donie Bush 12 1 1 57T 46T Wilbur Cooper 12 1 1 57T 54 Waite Hoyt 12 1 1 60T 58T Sam Leever 10 1 1 60T n/e Oliver Marcelle 10 1 1 62T 58T Mike Griffin 9 1 1 62T n/e Judy Johnson 9 1 1 64T 62T Dave Bancroft 8 1 1 64T 44 Lave Cross 8 1 1 64T 62T Jim McCormick 8 1 1 67 51T Tom York 7 1 1 68 n/e Ray Schalk 6 1 1 Dropped Out: Duke Farrell(55T). John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: February 21, 2005 at 03:43 PM | 70 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot Topics2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (10 - 1:16pm, Nov 25) Last: lieiam Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (11 - 6:01pm, Nov 24) Last: Ron J 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 Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1158199)I won't calculate consensus scores just yet - I'd still like to see if we can include favre and Trevor. If they send in corrections, I would include them in the official tally.
Van Haltren grabs the No 2 slot, Jennings is about to overtake Thompson and Duffy for No 3, and Griffith climbs into the top 10.
At this rate, Van Haltren would grab the top spot after the 1948 election, but the stellar incoming crop more likely makes him wait until 1949.
Pike 13399
VAN HALTREN 12395.5
Thompson 12349
DUFFY 12149
JENNINGS 12116
BECKLEY 11583
Bennett 11503
BROWNING 10818.5
Caruthers 10704
GRIFITH 10129
RYAN 10043
H Stovey 9576
WADDELL 9505
CHILDS 8551
WELCH 8436
(Bresnahan 6076)
All are welcome to trot out all-time lists if they like. I was updating one from a few yrs back, but seem to have misplaced the full list.
Can anyone make this Foster teams list more accurate?
BILL FOSTER
1924 CHI AM GIA (Mem)
1925-30 CHI AM GIA
1931 HOME GRE (Chi Am Gia)
1932-35 CHI AM GIA
1936 PIT CRAW (part-time)
1937 CHI AM GIA
Should 1935 with Chicago American Giants also be a "part-time" season, for instance?
Thanks!
Memphis Red Sox (1923-24, 1938); Chicago American Giants (1923-30, 1937); Birmingham Black Barons (1925); Homestead Grays (1931); Kansas City Monarchs (1931); Cole’s American Giants (1932-35); Pittsburgh Crawford (1936)
The average consensus score was -2.7. That's a considerable drop from the 9.8 and 9.2 of the last two years but still well above 1942's -9.0.
The top 6 scores: Howie Menckel 10, Ardo 8, jschmeagol 6, andrew siegel 6, Tiboreau 6, Chris Cobb 6.
The bottom 5 scores: David C. Jones -19, EricC -19, John Murphy -17, karlmagnus -17, yest -16.
Trevor's ballot would be a -1.
I haven't done it yet, but this year looks worth running the voter-to-voter cross-correlation. After all, David C. Jones and karlmagnus don't have much in common.
The highest few agreements between voters:
82 andrew siegel & jschmeagol
82 Thane of Bagarth & Michael Bass
80 Ron Wargo & Devin McCullen
80 jschmeagol & David Foss
80 jschmeagol & Howie Menckel
79 Dr. Chaleeko & Andrew Siegel
79 Dan G & Chris Cobb
79 Dr. Chaleeko & Andrew M
79 Andrew M & Trevor
The lowest few:
8 karlmagnus & David C. Jones (surprise!)
11 EricC & Jeff M
12 karlmagnus & Brent
12 EricC & jhwinfrey
14 Michael Bass & John Murphy
15 sunnyday2 & jhwinfrey
15 David C. Jones & yest
16 karlmagnus & jimd
16 Brent & yest
17 karlmagnus & Dr. Chaleeko
17 Brent & John Murphy
17 sunnyday2 & John Murphy
17 EricC & David C. Jones
The hardest person to agree with was John Murphy: his highest score with anyone else was a 51. Next on that scale was EricC at 56.
The hardest people to disagree with were Ardo, Howie Menckel, and Eric Enders; for each them their lowest score with anyone else was a 32.
Eric: your agreement score with David C. Jones was 46, but David had a 62 agreement score with Jeff M.
In my case, my 28 with David Jones was my lowest score; I had a 57 with Eric (and a 77 with Rob Wood.)
which years do you consider 'token' or part-time?
Not that I'm usually Mr. Consensus, but as I pointed out somewhere else, I'm upgrading my system. Therefore, until the new system is fully implemented, I'm probably going to be a little more contrary than normal.
York falls off my ballot in '46, so that has to help. I will also definitely have the next two winners in my top three, too.
John Beckwith - 51.4%
Wes Ferrell - 32.5
Edd Roush - 24.8
Dick Lundy - 13.3
Beckwith is the only unelected player to have received at least 51.4% of the possible points in any election.
Only one candidate among the 33 I am tracking saw his support fall in 1945:
Lave Cross - 0.7
Cross received 17.6% of the vote in his first election, but has not bettered that mark in the 30 years since. If he falls off next year, he would join Tip O'Neill and Mike Tiernan as the only players to initially receive at least 15% of the vote and receive 0% in a later election.
...
17 sunnyday2 & John Murphy
This one made me smile. I had these two grouped together in my mind when I first joined the project. (They were two of the most vocal Dickey Pearce supporters). Its fun to watch our notions of 'voter agreement' shift as the electorate changes.
My sense is that Willie Foster was "part-time" 23-25 and 36 (35 i'm just not sure about -- what is your line between ft and pt for pitchers?). 38 is "token" at best; some sources say he worked out with the team in the spring, but didn't actually pitch during the season.
It's half brothers, definitely. They shared the same father, which of course means they did not grow up together... in fact, until Willie made the Negro Leagues they barely knew each other. Rube was nearly a generation older.
Absolutely. I meant to post half instead of step (what the hell is a step-brother?)
Oy, what a way for me to make a first impression. I'll get that whole counting thing right for my 1946 ballot. I did graduate kindergarten, really.
:-)
This one made me smile. I had these two grouped together in my mind when I first joined the project. (They were two of the most vocal Dickey Pearce supporters).
We're probably the most vocal anti-timeliners, too. Since Pearce and the 19th Century guys are not really an issue anymore, Marc's peak preferences pushes our ballots apart.
Just ignore me, Daryn. I'm drowsy still and babbling.
Of course your right. After years of genealogical research (most of it from the actual source documents so I guess I'm not a plagiarizer like that Chris guy :-) for my family (plus watching every episode of "The Brady Bunch") I should know that. :-)
9 13 George Sisler
I've noticed several times that when another strong candidate at the same position enters the ballot, a player's score will drop; when the strong candidate is elected, their score will often rebound. In 1944 we elected a first baseman (Gehrig) and a middle infielder (Frisch), and the two biggest gainers are a middle infielder and a first baseman.
This observation suggests to me that several voters may be trying to "balance" their ballots across positions, adjusting their ballots to try to maintain a steady mix of players across the various positions.
In general, continually reranking players makes no sense to me. I think that after about ten years, your pecking order should be pretty well established. An occasional reassessment of a player is understandable, but some voters seem to draw names out of a hat every election.
If that's what is happening, then I agree with both of you. If Jennings is #6 one year, he should be near the same ranking the following year even if a Wagner or Lloyd make their debut (unless the vast majority of a returning candidate's votes are located at the bottom of our ballots).
To a certain degree this is true. On the other hand, there is a certain recursiveness to my rankings. Just as I weigh into my rankings that "Bill James ranked him 16th at his position," I also consider the fact that "the electorate inducted this player in the HoM." In fact, I consider the collective wisdom of the group much more than I do the rankings of any other individual.
So, for example, if the group inducts Bill Terry or Max Carey, and I think that George Sisler is comparable to Terry or that George van Haltren is comparable to Carey, that will increase my rankings of them. Sort of like seeing how many of a player's "Most Similar" are in the Hall of Fame, I will look at how many are in the HoM. For the HoM, this is a much more dynamic process, since we induct semi-weekly instead of annually.
Seven out of 10 of Hugh Duffy's most similar (on bb-ref) are in the Hall of Fame, but only four are in the HoM (not Cuyler, Roush, or Manush). If we eventually induct one of them (or Jimmy Ryan, GvH or Kenny Lofton or some guy who is not on Duffy's bb-ref most similar list who I consider to be more similar, era adjusted), that is something I would consider, and Duffy's standing on my ballot would rise as a result.
It is not a positional quota, but it is a recognition that "Y is better than X" changes in degree significance when X becomes a HoMer.
This is how Jennings finished in 1945.
Jennings, 1-3: 10
Jennings, 4-6: 5
Jennings, 7-9: 4
Jennings, 10-12: 5
Jennings, 13-15: 1
Assuming no new candidates, we can add two ballot places (no one had Jennings first or second in 1944).
This is how Jennings finished in 1944, shifting the rankings down two places.
Jennings, 3-5: 9
Jennings, 6-8: 4
Jennings, 9-11:4
Jennings, 12-15: 6
Essentially, there was one voter who voted for Jennings lower than fifth in 1944, who moved him into the top 3 in 1945. (That could be a voter who bumped him up one or two space relative to another player, or a voter who didn't vote in 1944 ranking him high in 1945 paired with one who didn't vote in 1945 who ranked him lower in 1944 -- I didn't check.)
Jennings had 23 votes in 1944 and 25 votes in 1945 (an increase which actually low, considering that he had four 14th or 15th place votes in 1945 -- so at least two voters dropped him in 1945 relative to his 1944 placement.)
Beware of attributing motive to a collective action. Sometimes every individual acting in a reaonable manner will look unreasonable when viewing the many individuals as a single "electorate".
He got some extra points somewhere that launched him over Ferrell into 6th, but that could have been caused by one or two new voter placing him on a ballot that excluded Ferrell.
Plus he's got a top-heavy ballot distribution. Those 8 "elect-me" bonuses that come in backlog years and go in first-ballot-shoo-in years are worth 40 points alone. Only 61 points differentiate slots 5-11 on the ballot.
This is also true of mysself.
BTW, it is not true that John and I are half-brothers or even step-brothers.
Interesting though that we agreed on Dickey Pearce. I'm not sure whether our agreement otherwise was high or low or in between.
But I can tell you my methodology has changed a lot over the years, as I know John's has, too. I started this project with a ranking/rating method that had been developed mostly with 20th century players in mind. Starting out in the 19th century, I decided very quickly that it wasn't working, partly because of shorter careers on average and of course because it didn't take into account non-statistical data which was indispensible in understanding players before 1871. And it also did not adjust nearly enough for short seasons. So I developed a new (old?) system for the 19th century.
Well, now that it's the 20th century, my old old system works just fine and I understand the remaining 19th century players well enough to slot them in sort of like I do the Negro Leaguers--subjectively.
So anyway, it is not surprising that any of us who have significantly reworked our evaluation system at any time would drift together and then apart in our judgments over time.
I would like to see a tabulation of votes by newbies, voters who have joined over the past decade or so, maybe since the big backlog period in the '20s and '30s. The theory being that newcomers to this project are either a) latercomes because they were not interested in the old-timers but are interested in the 20th century/golden age players, or b) might be interested in the 19th century but missed out on all the research and analysis and discussion and so are not well-informed re. the 19th century.
Either way, the hypothesis being that newbies (again, defined as joining since year X or perhaps defined as the last 5-10 newcomers to join, or whatever)...anyway, the hypothesis being that they vote less for old-timers (19th century for sure and maybe deadballers, too) than the electorate as a whole.
Anybody got an easy way to test the hypothesis?
FD=Dunlap TB=Bond JM=McCormick TY=York
1 MW/dary MW/KfSD MW/EsRi CJ/RicA
2 MW/karl PB/SeGi PB/RicA CJ/KfSD
3 MW/jhwi PB/KfSD CJ/SeGi CJ/JoDi
4 MW/yest PB/JefM PB/diEE
5 MW/Budd PB/EsRi CJ/Tibo
6 MW/RuPr PB/karl TB/sunn FD/jimd
7 MW/PhBo PB/yest PB/DonF PB/KeFi
8 MW/KeFi PB/AlPe CJ/ansi CJ/DaFo
9 MW/JoMu MW/HoMe CJ/karl CJ/JefM NW/sunn
10
11 MW/DonF PB/PhBo CJ/JoMu NW/favr
12 CJ/sunn NW/SeGi
13 PB/dary NW/Ardo JM/jhwi
14 PB/TBag FD/MiBa TY/JoMu
15 CJ/TBag
These are the votes recieved by 1870's/80's guys and who cast them (I trust the voter abbreviations are not too cryptic). About a quarter of the votes for Welch, Browning, and CJones come from voters for whom the historical Spalding/Start/Sutton debates were required reading in school ;-) Relative newcomers such as KfSD, jhwi, diEE, Budd, Tibo, Ardo and TBag all are mentioned here, some multiple times.
I don't think the elder marginals are being ignored by the new generation of voters (though a more indepth analysis may prove me wrong).
1933 -- Browning, Jennings, Van Haltren, Pike
1934 -- Browning, Jennings, Van Haltren
1935 -- Browning, Jennings, Van Haltren
1945 -- Browning, Jennings
Anyhow, I've actually been reevaluating my ranking of Browning and Charley Jones. I think I was giving Jones too much credit for his missed seasons, and generally overrating Pete by just a tad. Given that there isn't a huge difference between #15 on my ballot and #35, this change may drop them 10+ spots.
Anyway, I don't have any pre-1890 players on my ballot. I think we've done a good job with the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s. My first assessment of players is in the context of their era, and I think we have the HoMers we should from the first 30 years. The only two players from that era who I consider possible HoMers are Welch and Bond, whom we may have erred in leaving out of the HoM. Welch was on my ballot until recently and I could see supporting him in future; I've never supported Bond, but I know that I don't know enough about his real value to say that I could never support him. I respect Sunnyday2's long-running support for Bond, certainly.
The other pre-1890 players still getting support were very good players, but not outstanding enough in the context of their time to get close to my ballot at this point: I really can't see Charley Jones, Pete Browning, or Ned Williamson as top candidates now.
The 1890s are a whole different ballgame, of course. I've had Griffith, Jennings, and Van Haltren on my ballot forever, with Duffy and Ryan close. I have not supported Beckley or Childs myself. Since the electorate has (partly by an accident of the election cycle) underrated the players of the 1890s era, and I think it's important for us to elect another 2-4 players from that era to get it right, I'd rather have Beckley and Childs than nobody. Given that five of these players are among the top 10 returning candidates, there's a lot of support out there for this group, just not quite enough to get them over the top, perhaps because there are seven of them, and they all have this or that gap in the resume that has caused them to be buried by just enough voters to keep them from election.
Second, Chris' distinction between 1890s and pre-1890s players is exactly appropriate. The 1890s players are now a familiar part of baseball lore, though I must admit it is therefore surprising that we seem to have a shortage thereof in the HoM. But who doesn't have a mental image of the Billy Hamiltons and Hugh Duffys and Ed Delahantys and Clark Griffiths.
Meanwhile, our mental imagery of the 1860s-'70- and '80s players is quite different once you get past the obvious King Kellys. I mean, who even has a mental image of Jim O'Rourke? I have a statistical image but not a mental image. And so anybody who cannot be elected strictly by the numbers cannot get elected (I say this in reference to the bizzaro HoF discussion elsewhere).
Add to that the difficulty of creating a clear statistical legacy in 50-75-100 game seasons.
Again, Chris' basic observation goes against intuition--i.e. we should have too few from the '80s and too many from the '90s. Except that I would say we still do have too few from the '80s. If, as we get into electing 3 a year, if we don't elect any more from the '70s and '80s, that is, there will be too few.
Think of it this way. Our timeline today (you and me in real time) goes to 2005 and no further, or about 2010 in election time. But in the real/not real world, the voting will continue after 2010, after you and I are gone. If between 2010 and 2040 our kids and grandkids fail to elect any more players pre-1893 the HoM will become unbalanced over time because we are electing more and more players per year.
Now I know that the number of electees per year was set up that way to mirror the number of teams, but let's be honest. The number of teams has nothing to do with the number of players out at the far right end of the bell curve of baseball talent. I mean, that is exactly the point of those who say that so-and-so (Norm Cash?) should be discounted for "flukey" achievements that occur just after expansion. So we could double the size of the MLs today, and elect twice as many players from exactly the same talent base. And we would get really out of balance really fast.
But that is what we are going to be doing anyway, just not so egregiously. But, getting back to Chris' point, we will catch up on the '90s I think, but pre-'93, probably not.
While the number of teams has no real effect, in theory, on the number of players at the far end of the spectrum, we will be culling from a much larger population base.
In the 1890's there were no blacks, latinos, or asians, we had a much smaller population, AND not all of the country was well scouted.
The percentage of players at the top is what we should worry about, not the raw number. Since the pool in 2005 is probably 2 or 3 times larger then we should be sending in more players. Not 2 or 3 times more for a variety of reasons, but maybe 1.5-1.8 times more or something like that.
cblau,
I don't see how the weakenss of the pitching means that we should elect fewer 1890's position players. If you want to use that argument against Clark Griffith, fine. But it isnt' really relevant to Jennings, Childs, Duffy, et al. especially since uberstats like Win Shares and WARP aren't really affected by the weak pitching. If anything if the pitching was weaker during this period, a few Win Shares should be shifted from the pitchers to the position players.
1830s 1
1840s 4
1850s 20
1860s 10
1870s 15
1880s 20
1890s 10
1900s 5
This doesn't prove one way or another that any particular era is underrepresented or overrepresented, as clumping in the distribution of random events can occur by chance, but the large number of 1850s-born HoMers jumps out. Also, it proves that we need to elect Levi Meyerle to get the number of 1840s-born players divisible by 5. :-)
Should we elect Harry Wright, Nate Berkenstock, Dave Birdsall and Al Barker to bring the 1830s up to speed, too? ;)
Nah... it almost looks like binomial coefficents if we leave the '1' in there.
Never heard of Al Barker... is he Bob's little brother?
It wouldn't affect the comparison of them to their contemporaries. But if you are comparing them to players of another era, it is like using Buzz Arlett's PCL stats without adjusting them for the weaker pitching he faced.
When I use traditional stats I generally look at BP's translated or equivalent stats, regualr raw stats and draw a happy medium between them. I feel BP uses a very strong timeline, a little too strong maybe.
1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's 1930's 1898 White Hines Gore Barnes 1899 O'Rourke Kelly 1900 Clarkson Ward 1901 Wright Keefe 1902 Brouthers Ewing 1903 Anson Connor 1904 Glasscock Rusie 1905 Radbourn Richardson 1906 Spalding 1907 Hamilton 1908 Sutton 1909 Delahanty 1910 Galvin 1911 Nichols 1912 Start Burkett 1913 McPhee 1914 McVey 1915 Davis Dahlen 1916 Stovey 1917 Young Clarke 1918 Flick 1919 Keeler Kelley 1920 Walsh 1921 Bennett Collins 1922 Lajoie Mathewson 1923 Wagner 1924 Crawford Plank 1925 Johnson Brown 1926 Grant Magee 1927 Hill Jackson 1928 McGinnity Baker 1929 Thompson Wallace 1930 Caruthers Sheckard 1931 Pearce 1932 Santop Foster 1933 Johnson Wheat 1934 Cobb Speaker 1935 Lloyd Collins 1936 Alexander Williams 1937 Torriente Heilmann 1938 Groh Coveleski 1939 Carey Faber 1940 Pike Rogan 1941 Ruth Hornsby 1942 Vance Terry 1943 Charleston Cochrane 1944 Frisch Gehrig 1945 Goslin Foster 85 12 16 14 16 13 12 2 11 1 4 3 3 CJones Welch GRIFFITH WADDELL SISLER BECKWITH FERRELL JENNINGS LEACH RIXEY VANHALTREN SEWELL BECKLEY ROUSH DUFFY 23-34-28 1-5-6 6-4-6 3-7-4 6-5-5 3-6-4 4-6-2 0-1-1Numbers:
85 etc. Number of electees by decade
11 etc. Number of NeL electees by decade
CJones etc. Leading candidates by decade (caps denotes top 15)
23-34-28 etc. Breakdown by position group.
23 "arms" (pitchers)
34 "bats" (1B/OF)
28 "gloves" (C/SS/3B/2B)
Note: position groups probably should balance evenly, with a small lag for pitchers due to short rotations in the 19th century. Expectation should be about 24-30-30. As usual, "bats" are proving popular, though not alarmingly so (yet).
One quibble, okay two.
Pearce's prime clearly was in the '60s. Start's peak clearly was in the '60s though you could argue prime in the '70s depending on how many seasons make a prime.
OTOH I'm not advocating a whole new column just for that.
I had stopped counting the mix of arms, bats and gloves, nice to get caught up. I do think we are a little bat heavy and glove weak. My PHom/not HoM includes Childs, Jennings and Williamson, while HoM/not PHoM includes Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Pete Hill and Keeler, though it is true that Stovey is queued up to be the next current HoM/not PHom to go into PHoM.
Oh, and who says we haven't elected enough 1890s? Seems to me we are well within the margin of error, or rather what would be expected to be a random distribution of "greats," unless you assume a priori that the number of electees should increase ad infinitum. Which brings me to post #55.
The real difference between Arlett and Duffy et al, is Duffy played against the best available competition, Arlett (for whatever reason) did not. The issue was never whether Duffy could step off a time machine and be a star in the '20s, at least not to me. (Of course he is not in my PHoM or anything.)
With that said, I'll do just that. :)
What stands out to me is the apparent long-run deficit for the teens. It's not that it's low now (it has one more, for example, than the 20s), but that it only has one of the next 15 backloggers likely to get in.
I suppose this is my roundabout way of stumping for Mendez again. ;)
My horse in that particular race is Doyle. Of course he (and Beckwith) sort of throw a monkey wrench into jimd's simple classification of "bats" and "gloves."
On the other hand if the we were somehow counting for each decade not the headcount of how many we were electing but some kind of measure of total value (above replacement, above average - whatever you prefer) of those elected with primes in that decade ... if we were to count things that way, the teens are doing just fine.
My only query is that the one time where MLB teams decreased also is the one time we go 'backwards' in HOM selections.
Which doesn't guarantee that we've made any mistakes, either.
With that said, good chart, Jim!
Don't get too hung up on the names of the groups. The groups are based on defensive spectrum position groupings, not on analyzing the individuals. That is, Carey is a "bat" because he played CF; Hornsby is a "glove" because he played 2B, despite their respective reputations. Most "bats" are elected for their bats, but not all; most "gloves" get extra credit for their position, but not all. It's more mnemonic (and fun) than calling the groups Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.
I didn't have room for a 60's column. No misrepresentation intended.
Fred Clarke and Jimmy Collins
Players who turn 27-29 at the turn of a decade tend to be harder to classify because their peak may be in one with more value in the following. Hines and McPhee were also problems. Sisler would probably be, absent sinus infection. Another year or two and Terry too. Caruthers if he lasted longer, McGinnity the reverse if he got started earlier. And so on.
I know some will point at Beckwith here, but I tend to doubt that he would have stayed at 3B in the majors, given the questions surrounding his fielding. Hornsby came up as a SS and also played 3B before settling in at 2B. I see Beckwith as doing the same, if not moving directly to 1B.
The election data posted by David Foss shows 10353 total points this year, or 203 * 51.
203 is the number of points per complete ballot in this or any other "elect two".
Near the top OCF observed that the number of ballots would finally be 50 to 52
4. OCF Posted: February 21, 2005 at 09:49 PM (#1158265)
Oh, and that's 50 ballots, not 51. Goslin was on 48 ballots and left off exactly two (jhwinfrey and Jeff M). Trevor and favre would make 52.
--
Following the link to "Our Constitution" earlier this hour, I got a blank template, no title or introduction. I did not find that title in the 9-page index of the
Did you pass out at the end of that sentence, Paul? ;-)
The thread is reopened again. Why it was closed? Who knows?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main