User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3928 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 23, 20051958 Results: Infielders Herman, Boudreau, and Hack Can Now Play Pepper in the Hall of Merit!In his sixth year of eligibility, All-Star second baseman Billy Herman won the first spot for induction fairly easily. Barely making the second spot was Chicago Cub third baseman Stan Hack, in also his sixth year on the ballot. Cleveland Indian shortstop Lou Boudreau earned induction by attaining the third most number of possible votes in only his second year on the ballot. Rounding out the top-ten were: Joe Medwick, Hughie Jennings, Red Ruffing, Biz Mackey, Wes Ferrell, Earl Averill and Eppa Rixey. A record 71 candidates found their names on at least one ballot for this election.
RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 3 Billy Herman 676 40 9 4 2 1 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 5 Stan Hack 548 39 2 2 5 3 1 4 1 4 2 2 3 2 4 1 3 3 4 Lou Boudreau 547 34 5 4 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 6 Joe Medwick 433 31 1 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 6 3 2 5 8 Hughie Jennings 407 23 6 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 6 7 Red Ruffing 398 27 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 7 10 Biz Mackey 355 29 1 1 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 8 9 Wes Ferrell 350 23 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 9 11 Earl Averill 338 26 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 10 12 Eppa Rixey 293 22 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 14 Clark Griffith 271 19 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 12 13 George Sisler 268 19 1 2 5 2 1 4 3 1 13 n/e Willard Brown 237 19 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 14 15 Jake Beckley 234 16 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 15 16 George Van Haltren 231 15 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 16 20 Cupid Childs 219 18 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 17 18 Hugh Duffy 219 17 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 18 23 Pete Browning 206 14 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 19 17 Cool Papa Bell 193 14 3 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 20 21 Bobby Doerr 193 13 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 21 19 Mickey Welch 186 10 2 2 1 2 2 1 22 22 Joe Sewell 185 15 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 23 26 Dobie Moore 176 13 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 24 25 Cannonball Dick Redding 171 13 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 25 27 Alejandro Oms 165 12 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 26 28 José Méndez 164 14 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 27 24 Bucky Walters 151 11 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 28 29 Charley Jones 136 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 33 Joe Gordon 119 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 30 31 Gavy Cravath 117 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 31 32 Burleigh Grimes 116 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 32 34 Rube Waddell 108 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 33 35 Roger Bresnahan 103 8 1 1 1 3 2 34 36 Wally Schang 98 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 35 30 Tommy Leach 92 7 1 1 1 3 1 36 38 Larry Doyle 78 5 2 1 1 1 37 37 Edd Roush 70 7 2 1 2 1 1 38 39 Dizzy Dean 70 6 1 1 3 1 39 44T Bill Monroe 58 6 1 3 2 40 41 Bob Johnson 52 5 1 1 1 1 1 41 40 John McGraw 52 4 1 1 1 1 42 46 Charlie Keller 47 4 1 1 1 1 43 42 Ernie Lombardi 45 3 1 1 1 44T 44T Tommy Bridges 43 4 1 1 2 44T n/e Jimmy Ryan 43 4 1 1 1 1 46 47 Ben Taylor 38 3 1 1 1 47 n/e Dizzy Trout 37 3 1 1 1 48 n/e Quincey Trouppe 36 3 1 1 1 49 53 Ed Williamson 27 3 1 1 1 50T 48 Addie Joss 25 2 1 1 50T 50 Vic Willis 25 2 1 1 52 43 Chuck Klein 24 2 2 53 49 Sam Rice 22 2 2 54 54 Pie Traynor 22 1 1 55 62 George J. Burns 18 2 1 1 56 n/e Dom DiMaggio 17 2 1 1 57 55 Ed Cicotte 17 1 1 58T 56T Tommy Bond 16 1 1 58T 61 Fielder Jones 16 1 1 60T 59T Leroy Matlock 15 1 1 60T 58 Bobby Veach 15 1 1 62T 63T Dick Lundy 14 2 1 1 62T 67T Hack Wilson 14 2 2 64 59T Dolf Luque 14 1 1 65 56T Fred Dunlap 11 1 1 66T 63T Lefty Gomez 9 1 1 66T 63T Sam Leever 9 1 1 66T 52 Carl Mays 9 1 1 69T 67T Wilbur Cooper 6 1 1 69T n/e Sam Jethroe 6 1 1 69T 66 Rabbit Maranville 6 1 1 Dropped Out: Wally Berger(51). John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: August 23, 2005 at 01:00 AM | 55 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: August 23, 2005 at 12:13 AM (#1564334)BTW, I still don't understand Doerr over Gordon, while Medwick scares me.
I'm surprised that Oms didn't improve much, though Brown may make the top-ten by '59.
Of course, now that I don't have to bother with Beckwith (who used to get switched with Beckley on the ballot counter), now I have Brown/Browning to contend with. :-)
C (7.11) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 98, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11
1B (12.03) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Leonard 95, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10
2B (9.50) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10
3B (7.08) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10
SS (13.43) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, HWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15
OF (32.00) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10
SP (25.30) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16
INF: 49.15
OF: 32.00
P: 25.30
Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching weight of players like Ruth or Caruthers.
P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.
25 pitchers, plus four hybrids. Seems a little low.
The scale for consensus scores might be slightly different for an elect-3 election, but that effect should be small and I'm not even sure in which direction.
We did wind up with an average consensus score of -10.3, which is an all-time record low, comfortably beating out the previous record of -9.0 set in 1942.
The best possible consensus score was +9. As we'll see, no one came particularly close to that. In fact, only one person had a positive score, and only barely so.
Adam Schafer: +1
dan b: 0
Jeff M: -1
jschmeagol: -1
Brad G: -2
TomH: -3
Mark Donelson: -3 (contiuning a tendency for new guys to be above average)
...
OCF: -6
...
Jim SP: -10 (median)
...
flaxseed: -11 (in previous votes, he was always within ±3 of average)
...
Rick A: -17
Dr. Chaleeko: -17
Brent: -18
yest: -19
Kelly from SD: -26
Gadfly: -28
karlmagnus: -28
Despite the extreme nature of the year, we did not set the record for lowest absolute consensus score (yest, 1955, -29) and were nowhere close to any records for lowest score compared to average.
It looks like Walker Cooper won't be eligible until 1963. Will Wilbur Cooper still be getting votes then? (And will Walker Cooper get any?)
1856-59 - 1
1860-65 - 2 (3 1864)
1866-67 - 4
1868-71 - 6/8/9/10
1872-76 - 12
1877-78 - 11
1879-80 - 16/17
1881-84 - 20 to 22
1885-89 - 23 to 25
1890-92 - 29 to 30
1893 ---- 26
1894-03 - 21 to 22 (20 1900)
1904-07 - 24 to 25
1908-15 - 26 to 28 (25 1912)
1916 ---- 31
1917 ---- 26
1918-21 - 22 to 25
1922 ---- 27
1923 ---- 31
1924-25 - 35/37
1926-27 - 40/39
1928-32 - 33 to 36
1933-36 - 31 to 31
1937 ---- 29
then steady decline to 12 by 1943, as many future HOMers increasingly are not yet eligible.
Fixing 1928-37:
1928-30 - 36/34/33
1931-32 - 36
1933-34 - 33
1935-36 - 32
1937 ---- 31
then steady decline, as many future HOMers increasingly are not yet eligible.
The big problem is that there were only a hand full of ballots (a dozen-15 maybe) where 16-20 were clearly and completely and unambiguously identified. In other cases there were partials (some 16-20 mentioned by not others, usually when it was a required player) or I made estimates (e.g. where a voter listed 5 players in no particular order). So take this for what it is, which is to say an incomplete list.
In double figures for additional points:
1. Gordon 22 (8 mentions)
2. Doerr 18 (5)
3. Duffy 18 (4)
4. Boudreau 17 (7) elected
5. Bell 17 (5)
6. Sisler 16.5 (5)
7. Averill 16 (5)
8. Ruffing 14 (6)
9. Herman 14 (3) elected
10. Browning 13 (4)
11. Ferrell 12 (4)
12. Mackey 10.5 (3)
13. Roush 10 (4)
Childs 10 (4)
Rixey 10 (4)
15. Waddell 10 (2)
Just taking these votes at face value is also misleading. If they move up to 10-15 they will be getting 6 or more points rather than just 1 or more. So they are directional only.
Gordon gets the most 16-20 mentions, with 8. But he only has 11 ballots at present and rates only #29. Doerr is now #20 and his current 13 ballots + 5 at 16-20 adds up to one less than Gordon, so Joe could catch up to his alter ego, among others.
Ruffing, #5 overall, could really give Jennings, #4 overall, a run for his money if he gets those extra 6 ballots, while Hughie has a possible 3 more ballots. Medwick, for that matter, has only 2 more possible ballots, so Ruffing could pass him too. Ironically, Ruffing and Medwick actually tied at the top of the 1967 BBWAA HoF vote with 212 points, but neither had enough to get elected. So there was a run-off in those days, with a maximum of one elected, and Ruffing was elected 266-248. Medwick went in the next year.
All in all, I'm not sure learned much, especially considering only about half the voters gave any indication about #16-20 and only half of those were precise. In general the same players who placed 3-15 (by consensus) also got the most 16-20 mentions, so they all possibly just offset one another.
Congrats to Hack-Boudreau-Herman!
I did not vote for any of the elected (Notice that attractive consensus score...) but Herman was my #2 second baseman after Childs, Boudreau was my #3 shortstop after Moore and Jennings, and Hack was my #1.5 third baseman after Leach.
Could the big backers of Medwick (those who voted him 1 through 4) please describe why he is so attractive? Is it the peak? If yes, how do you respond to the idea that many of the 1930s Cards teams overachieved their pythag projections.
That gap was actually tightening by the weekend, then opened up today.
JENNINGS 16170
VAN HALTREN 15336.5
DUFFY 14759.5
BECKLEY 14750
GRIFFITH 13651
Pike 13399
BROWNING 12764.5
Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
WADDELL 11371
WELCH 10706
Caruthers 10704
CHILDS 10573
RYAN 10550.5
Beckwith 9920
H Stovey 9576
Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5
Suttles 7696
BRESNAHAN 7404
RIXEY 7347
T LEACH 7197
(Sisler 6835, C Jones 6296, Sewell 5523, Monroe 5207, Ferrell 4899, Doyle 4328, Williamson 4289, Roush 4276, Redding 4117, Mendez 4088)
(I'll doublecheck Averill next year)
bah.
But I guess pHOMing Leroy Matlock and Gavy Cravath will do that to a guy....
We are unlikely to see any more than 5 players on a majority of ballots for quite some time, unless discussion builds consensus much more strongly than it has in the last couple of (vacation-heavy) election cycles.
Now that we see what vote-counts of this sort look like, are is the electorate satisfied with this sort of distribution as the norm?
Kelly from SD: -26
Gadfly: -28
karlmagnus: -28
Despite the extreme nature of the year, we did not set the record for lowest absolute consensus score (yest, 1955, -29) and were nowhere close to any records for lowest score compared to average.
I thought I would have been closer to the conseus this year
at least I have my record :>)
Well, we had 47 ballots I think and 75 percent of 35-and-change, so a player would need 36 ballots. Only Herman and Hack did that.
But then you'd only be able to put 10 on your ballot, not 15, though of course we don't know if voters would have voted for 10 if that was just a cap, not a requirement. But assuming all of us voted for 10:
• Herman made top 10 on 33 ballots, short of the required 36
• Hack made top 10 on just 26 ballots, way short
• Boudreau--we know he didn't make top 10 on 36 ballots because he didn't make top 15 on 36 ballots, but he made top 10 on 28 ballots, 2 more than Hack
So, now does everybody have an appreciation of why the HoF has sometimes had difficulty electing anybody?
I also want to say that the after the fact strength of schedule argument against Win Shares is bogus to me as well. I will only serve to hurt players on good teams and help players on bad teams. But dont' those good teams win because they have better players? Good teams only have tougher schedules because they happen to win. Should we punish them for it?
The only place a tougher adjustment is helpful, in my opinion, is for pitchers (which teams/offenses did they play against) and for the very modern era of the unbalanced schedule.
How many WS do you penalize Medwick for the Cards' overachieving their pythag? It's beem shown that that was 9 wins for the '30s, 27 WS, of which Medwick can't have gotten more than 3 or 4.
The only place a tougher adjustment is helpful, in my opinion, is for pitchers (which teams/offenses did they play against) and for the very modern era of the unbalanced schedule.
You aren't thinking through the implications of your argument here. If this adjustment is valid for pitchers, it has to be valid in all cases, because in every case it's accounting for the same phenomenon: the set of opponents faced by each team is different, just as the set of opponents faced by each pitcher is different. The only difference between the case of the individual pitcher and the team's position players is that the effect on the position players is likely to be quite a bit smaller. Red Ruffing obviously had a somewhat easiser time of it in the 1930s because he never had to pitch against the Yankees' hitters. At the same time, the Yankees hitters never had to face him and Lefty Gomez. Red Sox hitters didn't have to face Ferrell and Grove in the mid-1930s.
The competition adjustment isn't "penalizing" good teams for being good. It's an adjustment that applies equally to all teams to register the fact that teammates don't face each other in competition. Having good teammates is not something that a player should get credit for, just as a player should not be penalized for having bad teammates.
In most cases, this adjustment is small enough that it makes no difference for an individual player's win share totals in a given season. But for extreme teams, both good and bad, it does matter.
I don't penalize him any amount of real WS so much as it slid him behind Cupid Childs and Willie Wells in my rankings and took away any chance he had of reaching Billy Herman. It was more of a mental note or tiebreaker. Medwick is now the top of my PHOM backlog, battling Duffy and Lyons.
Chris,
I didn't say that I put much weight on it, only that I can deal with it. Your points are well taken, but whether a pitcher is thrown out against a top offense more than the #2 or #3 guy on his team can have an affect. Actually, now that I think about it I dont' think we were talking about the same thing.
I also dont' think the benefits are really that great to the schedule adjustment. Even on extreme teams, what are we talking about, an extra two to three win shares for the best players on that team? I am comfortable with that. As a peak guy I really dont' look at career WS, career WARP, career hits, career, HR, or anyhting like that. They are only factored in at the end. So again that makes no difference to me.
bah.
Humbug?
Yes, as compared to what those players would probably earn with the same performance on a .500 team. As compared to what those players would probably earn with the same performance on a terrible team, we're talking a 4-6 win-share difference: basically the difference between Jimmie Foxx, 1935, and Jimmie Foxx, 1938.
Tom, if I actually rated that high based on my baseball "talent," I would be ecstatic. :-)
Having Mize and Paige at the top of my ballot in '59 shouldn't make my consensus any lower, though.
Some people who weren't in their usual places:
Higher than usual:Brad G (-2), sunnyday2 (-14), DanG (-4)
Lower than usual: Chris Cobb (-7), Devin McCullen (-6), Patrick W (-10).
"Elect me" positions:
Glasscock (1904), Radbourn (1905), Hamilton (1907), Delahanty (1909), Nichols (1911), Burkett (1912), Dahlen (1915), Davis (1915), Stovey (1916), Young (1917), Clarke (1917), Kelley (1919), Keeler (1919), Walsh (1920), Bennett (1921), Lajoie (1922), Mathewson (1922), Wagner (1923), Crawford (1923), Plank (1923), G. Johnson (1925), Magee (1926), J. Jackson (1927), Baker (1928), Sheckard (1930), Santop (1932), W. Johnson (1933), Wheat (1933), Cobb (1934), E. Collins (1935), Alexander (1936), J. Williams (1936), Torriente (1937), Heilmann (1937), Coveleski (1938), Faber (1939), Rogan (1940), Ruth (1941), Hornsby (1941), Vance (1942), Charleston (1943), Cochrane (1943), Gehrig (1944), Goslin (1945), Stearnes (1946), Simmons (1946), Grove (1947), Hartnett (1947), Gehringer (1948), J. Wilson (1948), Hubbell (1949), Waner (1950), Dihigo (1950), Foxx (1951), Cronin (1951), J. Gibson (1952), Ott (1952), Greenberg (1953), Dickey (1953), Vaughan (1954), Wells (1954), Leonard (1955), R. Brown (1955), Appling (1956), DiMaggio (1957), Beckwith (1957), Hack (1958)
#2 (in an elect-1 year): Sutton (1908), Galvin (1910), McPhee (1913), Flick (1918)
#3: Wallace (1929), Speaker (1934), Lloyd (1935)
#4: Start (1912), Groh (1938), Frisch (1944)
#5: Rusie (1904), Lyons (1949), Boudreau (1958)
#6: Richardson (1905), Spalding (1906), Brown (1925), Terry (1942)
#7: Grant (1926), McGinnity (1928)
#8: Carey (1939), W. Foster (1945)
#9:
#10: McVey (1914), J. Collins (1921), Suttles (1956)
#11:
#12:
#13:
#14:
#15: R. Foster (1932)
Off-ballot positions:
#17: Billy Herman (1958)
#19: Thompson (1929)
#21: Caruthers (1930)
#24: Pearce (1931)
Not listed: Pike (1940)
Everyone that I've ever put into an "elect me" position has eventually been elected, with four exceptions: George Van Haltren, Larry Doyle, Joe Sewell, and Red Ruffing. All of them are still on my ballot.
Cool demonstration. We're including VC/NeL inductees in our target induction count so we do indeed need to induct them faster than that.
On an unrelated note, Hack lead Boudreau 5-2 in third place votes, so the order of the top three was unaffected by the three-way ballot.
BTW, Boudreau snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory with the last few ballots.
John was at -15, 11th from the bottom. At 5 below the average, that was a pretty typical placement for him. He was higher than usual in 1957 with a near-average -2.
Thanks for verifying my gut feeling, OCF.
Well, I did have Herman, Boudreau and Hack on my ballot, though Hack just barely. He had been off-ballot but with his impending election I included him in a selective re-eval, boosted him above Gordon and on.
John, we're all gonna have Paige and Mize 1-2 or 2-1 so that isn't gonna help!
Which I guess means I'm half as disagreeable as the average voter ;-).
Well, that's true. :-)
no were not:,)
:-D
Actually, doesn't this mean the order was affected by the three way ballot? In a 2-person election, there would not be an "elect-me" bonus for the 3rd place slot, so Hack would have finished with 25 fewer points, and Boudreau would have finished with 10 fewer, placing Lou in second place overall, no?
Whoops... you are right! I'm not thinking this morning.
Of course, using the HoF rules several candidates would no longer be eligible, giving Herman, Boudreau and Hack a better chance of reaching voters' top 10.
The times are fine on my side of the Internet, Marc, though I have noticed some weird things in regard to the time over the past year before today's changes.
I'm on the west coast, so it was indeed 12:56 PM when I wrote that. :-) I half the opposite behavior that you describe now. PDT in hot topics, EDT on post headers.
The site has always been a bit flaky with time zones. Sometimes even a simple reload changes it for me. Most sports sites are EDT so I'm used to doing a double-take/double-check whenever I see a time on the internet. It could be better, but might not be worth all the effort to fix it.
have the opposite...
Seconded, with gusto.
(One of the little things that occasionally drives me nuts ;-)
My list includes: Max Carey, Red Faber, Bill Terry, Ted Lyons, and now Lou Boudreau.
Herman and Hack are also not currently pHOM, but they are just ahead of Lyons on the list, and they will likely pHOM in the mid 1960s, just in time to scoot off the ballot before the next big spate of backloggers comes on the scene and pushes Lyons back down the ballot.
Terry and Boudreau are somewhere in the 16-25 range, but Carey and Faber are utterly buried and won't see the light of day for a good long time. Bill and Lou could finally have their day in my pHOM in the three- and four-man elections of the 1980s and 1990s, but there's no guarantee at this juncture.
Boudreau, Sutton, Beckwith, Hack, Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Hill, Keeler, Galvin, Faber
(Boudreau, Beckwith, Hack probable; Stovey, Keeler and ???possible PHoM)
PHoM/not HoM:
Sisler, Childs, Jennings, D. Moore, Williamson, C. Jones, Medwick, H. Wright, Bond, Waddell, Mendez
(Medwick, Sisler, Jennings probably the only with a chance to go HoM someday)
Billy Herman got the most, with 9. I asssume this is a record (for fewest by the guy with the most) as well.
but the record I think is Frank Grant who had 5 first place votes in 1926 though second place sherry Magge had 8
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main