User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3456 seconds
62 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Monday, August 08, 20051957 Results: DiMaggio and Beckwith Are the Latest of the Greatest to Be Hall of Merit Immortalized!By unanimous vote, New York Yankee legend Joe DiMaggio became a new inductee into the HoM. He’s now the seventh to receive 100% of all possible points (joing a group consisting of Cy Young, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Lefty Grove). Also selected (eligible since 1940) was Negro League slugger John Beckwith, who comfortably won the second spot to gain immortality. He is now the 20th NeL player to enter the portals of the HoM. Star shortstop Lou Boudreau made a very strong showing at #4 and should be on the road to induction himself fairly shortly. Rounding out the top-ten were: Billy Herman, Stan Hack, Joe Medwick, Red Ruffing, Hughie Jennings, Wes Ferrell, and Biz Mackey. RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 n/e Joe DiMaggio 1128 47 47 2 3 John Beckwith 654 40 13 4 2 5 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 4 Billy Herman 583 41 6 5 2 2 2 8 2 4 2 2 2 1 3 4 n/e Lou Boudreau 451 32 3 5 3 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 1 1 3 5 5 Stan Hack 417 32 4 2 1 5 3 2 4 2 4 2 3 6 6 Joe Medwick 369 29 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 4 4 7 7 Red Ruffing 347 26 3 5 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 8 8 Hughie Jennings 325 20 4 2 4 3 2 3 1 1 9 10 Wes Ferrell 292 23 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 10 12 Biz Mackey 268 24 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 4 2 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 9 Earl Averill 266 22 1 3 2 1 1 4 1 3 3 2 1 12 11 Eppa Rixey 238 18 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 14 George Sisler 231 18 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 14 13 Clark Griffith 219 17 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 15 15 Jake Beckley 213 16 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 16 17 George Van Haltren 203 17 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 17 16 Cool Papa Bell 198 16 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 18 19 Hugh Duffy 171 14 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 19 23 Mickey Welch 168 11 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 20 22 Cupid Childs 162 14 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 21 n/e Bobby Doerr 155 13 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 22 20 Joe Sewell 154 13 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 23 21 Pete Browning 146 11 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 24 27 Bucky Walters 135 11 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 25 18 Cannonball Dick Redding 130 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 26 28 Dobie Moore 123 10 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 27 34 Alejandro Oms 119 9 2 1 1 2 2 1 28 24 José Méndez 111 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 29 29 Charley Jones 109 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 30 Tommy Leach 100 9 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 31 26 Gavy Cravath 98 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 32 35 Burleigh Grimes 97 9 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 33 25 Joe Gordon 96 10 1 1 1 2 3 2 34 31 Rube Waddell 88 9 1 1 1 1 3 2 35 36 Roger Bresnahan 86 8 1 1 1 3 2 36 32 Wally Schang 78 6 1 1 1 1 2 37 33 Edd Roush 67 6 1 2 1 1 1 38 39 Larry Doyle 64 5 2 1 1 1 39 37T Dizzy Dean 61 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 43 John McGraw 50 5 1 1 1 2 41 37T Bob Johnson 46 4 1 1 1 1 42 42 Ernie Lombardi 41 3 1 1 1 43 44 Chuck Klein 39 3 1 1 1 44T 41 Tommy Bridges 38 4 1 1 1 1 44T 40 Bill Monroe 38 4 1 1 2 46 n/e Charlie Keller 36 3 1 1 1 47 45 Ben Taylor 35 3 1 1 1 48 48 Addie Joss 31 3 1 1 1 49 46T Sam Rice 24 2 1 1 50 58T Vic Willis 21 2 1 1 51 46T Wally Berger 20 2 1 1 52 50 Carl Mays 18 2 1 1 53 53T Ed Williamson 17 2 1 1 54 51T Pie Traynor 17 1 1 55 51T Ed Cicotte 16 1 1 56T 55 Tommy Bond 15 1 1 56T n/e Fred Dunlap 15 1 1 58 n/e Bobby Veach 14 1 1 59T 56 Dolf Luque 13 1 1 59T 57 Leroy Matlock 13 1 1 61 n/e Fielder Jones 11 1 1 62 53T George J. Burns 10 1 1 63T 58T Lefty Gomez 8 1 1 63T 58T Sam Leever 8 1 1 63T 49 Dick Lundy 8 1 1 66 n/e Rabbit Maranville 7 1 1 67T n/e Wilbur Cooper 6 1 1 67T 63T Hack Wilson 6 1 1 Dropped Out: Buzz Arlett(61T), Frank Chance(63T), Spotswood Poles(61T). John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: August 08, 2005 at 11:02 PM | 41 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 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: August 09, 2005 at 04:09 AM (#1531589)If "emplaque" is not a word, it should be. :-)
I agree. They're comparable players.
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-Off
0-4-2-4-3-0-2-3-0--0--0--0--1--0--1--27
--
good question, yest!
My dad (as he tells it) suffered on the high school track team as beng an athelete wihtout an event. He could finish 4th in the 100 yds, the mile, the shot put, the high jump...but he was never 'great' at any of them.
Sewell doesn't have the bestest peak, prime, or career; he merely is good at everything.
I guess that still doesn't explain why he USED to be electable tho. He is basically on-half smidge behind Boudreau in my book.
Our electorate is a stable body that shows no signs of growing. The last new member we accepted was Gadfly, who started voting in 1946.
We had a split-personality election: a unanimous #1 new candidate masking the fact that it was basically a backlog election. The average consensus score was -1.2, the lowest since 1945, and the best possible was a mere 15. Of course, the average consensus score is about to plunge much lower, perhaps challenging the all-time record lows.
Individual scores:
Adam Schafer: 9
dan b: 7
jschmeagol: 6
Andrew Siegel: 6
Patrick W: 5
...
Don F: 0.4 (median)
...
Al Peterson: -1.2
...
Brent: -11
yest: -11
Gadfly: -13
karlmagnus: -17
Kelly from SD: -18
We are supposed to influence each other - why else make the voting public? There have been occasions when I voted for someone - Ginger Beaumont, Johnny Evers - only to discover than no one else was voting for them. So I dropped them. That no one else could see what I thought I saw - well then maybe it wasn't even there. Is that re-evaluation, or is that dropping a lost cause? For years, Jimmy Ryan was coupled to George Van Haltren - and then they decoupled. Van Haltren is still a candidate, and Ryan has disappeared. That's certainly "lost cause" thinking - I know it was for me, as I gradually let new candidates filter into the space between them. Why isn't KJOK voting for Frank Chance? He doesn't even mention him any more.
The only difference with jimd was that he said it. As we have discovered, the issue with having a Hall with ~200 members is that the difference between #200 and #500 isn't very large. We elected Max Carey. Are we 100% sure that Max Carey was better than Fielder Jones? But you can turn that around - are we sure the Fielder Jones was better than Mike Griffin?
I hope everyone's being honest...jim obviously was, and has accepted the ruling. Karl and yest, to name a couple, obviously are as well. Let's not turn the HOM into a contest of strategic voting; let's discuss the players, and everyone rank their top 15 eligible, even if everyone else thinks they are batshit crazy. :)
Voters who vote for "lost causes" probably have more of an effect on the outcome than those who don't.
I am currently the only Dolf Luque voter, and he will probably never be elected. But why should I drop him and give more points to a lower rated candidate who I don't really think deserves it? For me, dropping Luque in the last election would mean adding #16 Averill. Why do I want to help him pull away from lower-ranked (by the electorate) but better (in my evaluation) Eppa Rixey?
If I wanted to be strategic, I would suddenly "discover" some lost causes to add to my ballot next year instead of Averill, not drop my lost causes so I could dilute my vote.
Anyone who is eliminating "lost causes" from their ballot are just as wrong as he was (except that Jim was upfront in regard to it). Thankfully, Jim had no problem with revising his ballot.
I hope everyone's being honest
I do, too.
Just a hypothetical.
jimd can explain his reasoning for his "lost causes" approach (and I think he has), but one thing that it does is call attention to the possibility that certain older candidates are being unfairly neglected.
I'm certainly going to take a closer look at Bobby Veach than I have in a while.
It is certainly possible to construct a hypothetical in which dropping a lost cause would be to your advantage strategically in a specific case.
I am referring to the pattern of systematically dropping lost causes in favor of consensus choices. Over the decades, the voter with 7 or 8 consensus picks and 7 or 8 lost causes will have a much greater impact on the voting than a voter with 15 consensus choices, in whatever order (or, alternatively, 15 lost causes).
Dobie Moore
Tommy Bond
Jose Mendez
Addie Joss
Ed Williamson
...who are on my ballot. (Can't believe I'm not in the bottom 5 in consensus, though I admit there is some imcredibly stiff competition for the bottom there.)
If I announce them as lost causes next year and delete them from my ballot, and then get a post from John saying no, you can't do that, and resubmit my ballot with my lost causes back in place, will more people give consideration to my lost causes then?
I didn't think so ;-)
PS. Matt, check back in about 40 years and you can ask karl how it feels to have 15 lost causes! ;-) ;-)
I didn't think so ;-)
I guess it couldn't hurt to try it, Marc. :-D
So there were several people - including jimd - between you and the bottom 5. You did have the top 4 candidates, and 6 of the top 8, on your ballot. Kelly from SD didn't vote for anyone from #2 through #8.
I will say that neither Moore nor Mendez really count as lost causes. The current discussion is focusing on our infielder glut - and Moore is very much a part of that conversation, with some strong supporters. And I expect at least one of Mendez or Redding to hang on for a long time and eventually climb up the ballot.
2Bmen 88 total ballots, 1,113 points
SSs 77 and 1,068
1 and 2. Herman and Childs 55 and 745
Boudreau and Jennings 52 and 776
3. Doerr 13 and 155, Sewell 13 and 154
4. Gordon 10 and 96, Moore 10 and 123
5-6-7. Doyle, Monroe, Dunlap 10 and 117
Lundy and Maranville 2 and 15
At 1 and 2, the career guy, Herman, leads a pair of slightly short careers (and more peak type candidates) and a really short career (and pure peak candidate). But if one of these 4 is not like the rest, seems to me it is Childs.
At 3 and 4, oddly enough, the career guys, Doerr and Sewell pair up, and the peak guys, Gordon and Moore, pair up. One of these 4 is not like the rest, and some think that makes him better, others not. For myself, I think we have both pairs (2Bs and SSs) in the wrong order.
At 5-6-7, are Doyle, Monroe and Dunlap that much better collectively than Lundy, Maranville and (your choice, mine would be Dave Bancroft)? Depends on how you value hitting versus defense, seems to me. I love Doyle and Monroe, but I also love Lundy and Bancroft. Dunlap and Maranville would fall into the category of l.c. (lost cause).
Of this entire group, Doerr and Maranville are the only ones who have never been on my ballot, and the Rabbit is clearly the weakest of the candidates, but Doerr is just up against some tough competition and I have him about equal to Doyle in about the middle of the pack--behind Jennings, Moore, Herman, Boudreau and Gordon, but ahead of Childs, Sewell, Monroe, Dunlap and Rabbit, in that order.
Clearly this was going to raise the problems of overinclusion (being forced to pick 2 - Bill Terry?) and underinclusion (having a glut of probably Merit-worthy players underneath their betters.)
Why is this just now becoming an issue?
The Kid With the 200 IQ would have recommended he take up decathlon.
He may be the king of all "lost causes" that was somehow found. I seem to remember a little bit of his back story. :-)
If it is, it's not a major issue. We do need to be on our toes for this election, though.
In this scenario, Hack is elected with 36 ballots, 4 1sts and 500 points. Compare that with:
Lyons 1949 47 ballots, 818 pts
W. Foster 1945 46, 784
Terry 1942 42, 571
Pike 1941 26, 496, 7 1sts
Faber 1939 44, 589
Carey 1939 37, 580
Coveleski 1938 49, 799
R. Foster 1932 40, 595
Pearce 1931 40, 661
Caruthers 1930 41, 693
McGinnity 1928 44, 685
Hill 1927 45, 706
Magee 1926 46, 722
M. Brown 1925 45, 766
Bennett 1921 37, 701
J. Kelley 1919 45, 768
Stovey 1916 41, 667
McVey 1914 37, 723
McPhee 1913 40, 751
Start 1912 38, 731
Spalding 1906 42, 758
H. Richardson 1905 41, 660
Rusie 1904 42, 720
G. Wright 1901 32.5, 640
J. Ward 1900 35, 617
K. Kelly 1899 31, 625
Gore 1898 29, 553
R. Barnes 1898 28, 476, 3 1sts
IOW we have never elected a player who didn't exceed Hack's anticipated total in either ballots, or points, or firsts, and Pike and Barnes are the only players who did not exceed him in ballots or points, and there were only 29 voters when Barnes was elected.
This is not an argument against Hack, of course. Whoever finishes 3rd will become one of if not the least widely supported electee yet.
Does your projection of Hack's point total include the revised point structure for a 3-electee year? (Probably does, but I thought I confirm it.)
Of course Barnes is the only #4 ever elected, Hack or someone will join Gore as the second #3.
There were only 29 voters in 1898. We've been building up the backlog quite a bit since 1942, I'm not too worried about inducting a lemon this time. We should be careful with Boudreau because he's a shiny new toy, but Herman & Hack have been a few ballots now. I'd hope that the new car smell had worn off on those guys by now.
Of course, we still have another week of discussion if anyone out there has any strong objections. :-)
What does trouble me is that we're still looking for more good information on guys like Lundy, Mendez, Redding, Cooper, Moore, Bell, Brown, Mackey, and even Monroe, players whose candidacies can truly benefit from more scrutiny and more knowledge.
What I did (or what I am doing now) was give him an additional 32 points (1 for each ballot he is on*), plus 4 bonus points for each elect-me position (7), plus 2 14ths and 2 15ths which are purely hypothetical. I didn't go back and actually look at any ballots to see if he was really 16th or 17th last year.
* The assumption here is that DiMaggio is ahead of all of these guys but Beckwith is not. So generally they will move up one slot rather than two. The effect of ballots on which Beckwith was in fact rated #2 is therefore not factored in, and this of course could make a difference of a few points. Don't think it will matter.)
But add all of that to 417 (+ 32 + 28 + 14 + 12) = 493, so considering the extra 4 ballots is also a bit hypothetical, the 500 was generous.
By the same method:
Herman 45 ballots, 701 points, 6 1sts
Boudreau 36, 553 and 3 1sts
Hack 36, 493, 4
Medwick 33, 456, 3
Ruffing 30, 411, 3
Jennings 24, 411, 4
Ferrell 27, 357, 1
Jennings gets a "structural" boost because if his higher number of elect-me spots, but there is nothing structural in our point system that will change the order. it will take approximately 3 voters changing their mind quite dramatically either about Hack (down-grading) or Medwick (up-grading) for a change. Or two of one and one of the other, etc. For Medwick to catch Boudreau we're talking 6 to 8 voters and that's not going to happen.
Willard Brown is of course the wild card.
Well, looking into my crystal ball, I see that along about 1984 we'll get nifty new infusion of data on the post-1920 Negro-Leaguers. The candidacies of Lundy, Redding (in part), Cooper, Moore, Bell, Brown, and Mackey will, if they have not yet been elected, become a more informed proceeding. I think we're on our own with the pre-1920 candidates, however.
And, to a lesser extent, Oms. A number of voters indicated on their 1957 ballots that they haven't placed him yet, but everybody is trying to get all their ducks in a row for this backlog election -- there's a lot to do!
Props to the 'rule of law' being applied and equally to jimd for I guess accepting the ruling. Good stuff all around; I know the feeling of getting 'bored' with candidates, but if you still really believe they are top 15, you gotta vote for them.
Now, back to watching tigers chase their balls tomorrow....
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main