User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.8393 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Sunday, January 22, 20061968 Results: “Eppa Jeptha” and “Whiz Kid” Ashburn Get the Hall of Merit Nod!In his 30th year on a ballot, Phillie and Red pitching star Eppa Rixey earned 39% of all possible points to finally get his HoM plaque. Leadoff hitter extraordinaire Richie Ashburn gained 38% of all possible points to be awarded induction in his first year of eligibility. Rounding out the top-ten were: Biz Mackey, Clark Griffith, George Van Haltren, Cool Papa Bell, George Sisler, Bobby Doerr (huge jump for him!), Jake Beckley, and Willard Brown (first time in the top-ten). RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 3 Eppa Rixey 437 28 3 5 3 5 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 n/e Richie Ashburn 430 28 3 4 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 4 Biz Mackey 406 30 2 1 3 3 1 5 6 2 1 4 2 4 5 Clark Griffith 386 24 5 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 5 7 George Van Haltren 356 25 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 6 8 Cool Papa Bell 353 24 1 3 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 7 6 George Sisler 329 25 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 8 17 Bobby Doerr 312 23 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 9 9 Jake Beckley 300 21 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 10 12 Willard Brown 286 20 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 11 Dobie Moore 271 17 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 12 10 Cannonball Dick Redding 267 18 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 13 16 Hugh Duffy 265 19 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 19 Ralph Kiner 261 22 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 15 18 Joe Sewell 256 19 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 16 13 Cupid Childs 247 18 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 17 14 Pete Browning 246 17 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 18 15 José Méndez 240 16 1 2 2 4 2 1 3 1 19 21 Joe Gordon 220 18 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 20 24 Alejandro Oms 208 14 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 21 22 Bucky Walters 200 15 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 22 25 Rube Waddell 196 15 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 23 23 Mickey Welch 188 10 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 24 20 Charley Jones 182 13 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 25 26 Quincy Trouppe 164 13 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 26 27 Roger Bresnahan 158 14 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 27 28 Tommy Leach 158 12 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 28 29 Burleigh Grimes 150 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 29 31 Edd Roush 138 10 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 30 30 Larry Doyle 131 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 31 32 Gavy Cravath 128 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 32 35 Bob Johnson 127 13 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 33 33 Bob Elliott 115 11 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 34 34 Wally Schang 115 9 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 36 Charlie Keller 78 6 2 2 2 36 38 Tommy Bridges 64 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 37 John McGraw 62 4 2 1 1 38 43T Jimmy Ryan 55 5 1 1 1 1 1 39 42 Dizzy Dean 52 6 1 2 2 1 40 40 Frank Chance 52 5 1 1 1 2 41 47T Vic Willis 50 4 2 1 1 42 53T Vern Stephens 49 4 1 1 1 1 43 43T Phil Rizzuto 48 4 1 1 1 1 44 56T Fielder Jones 48 3 1 1 1 45 39 Ed Williamson 46 4 1 2 1 46 49 Sam Rice 42 4 2 1 1 47 45T Bill Monroe 41 3 1 1 1 48T 45T Ben Taylor 40 3 1 1 1 48T 41 Dizzy Trout 40 3 1 1 1 50 51 Carl Mays 39 4 1 1 1 1 51 47T Ernie Lombardi 39 3 1 1 1 52 56T Addie Joss 35 3 1 1 1 53 50 Luke Easter 35 2 1 1 54 52 Pie Traynor 30 2 1 1 55 55 Chuck Klein 26 2 2 56 60 Fred Dunlap 23 2 1 1 57 59 Leroy Matlock 23 1 1 58 n/e Red Schoendienst 21 2 1 1 59 62 Dom DiMaggio 19 2 1 1 60 73T Dick Lundy 18 2 1 1 61 64 Bus Clarkson 17 2 1 1 62T 63 Ed Cicotte 17 1 1 62T 65 Johnny Pesky 17 1 1 64 76T Wilbur Cooper 15 2 1 1 65 56T Bobby Veach 15 1 1 66 66 Tetelo Vargas 14 1 1 67 67T Joe Tinker 13 1 1 68T 71 Artie Wilson 12 1 1 68T 53T Dutch Leonard 12 1 1 70T 72 Sam Leever 11 1 1 70T 76T Rabbit Maranville 11 1 1 70T 67T Bobo Newsom 11 1 1 73T 67T Tommy Bond 9 1 1 73T 76T Mickey Vernon 9 1 1 75T 70 Lefty Gomez 8 1 1 75T 73T Hack Wilson 8 1 1 75T 76T Al Rosen 8 1 1 75T 73T Virgil Trucks 8 1 1 79 n/e Spot Poles 7 1 1 80T 76T Wally Berger 6 1 1 80T 61 George J. Burns 6 1 1 80T n/e Johnny Sain 6 1 1 Dropped Out: Buzz Arlett(81). Ballots Cast: 47 John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: January 22, 2006 at 08:16 PM | 91 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2024
(13 - 11:23pm, Dec 08) Last: Space Force fan 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (191 - 7:43pm, Dec 07) Last: Howie Menckel 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Ballot (4 - 3:10pm, Dec 07) Last: Jaack Hall of Merit Book Club (17 - 10:20am, Dec 07) Last: cookiedabookie Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (28 - 10:54pm, Dec 03) Last: cardsfanboy Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) 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 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: January 24, 2006 at 01:07 AM (#1835111)And what in the world happened to Bobby Doerr? Have we ever had a top 20 player who moved halfway up the charts in one fell swoop? Bob Caruthers did something similar once but not this dramatically I don't think. And Parisian Bob's fortunes were merely following the peaks and troughs of the weekly WARP re-ratings. What happened in Doerr's case?
You got me, Marc. I'm just puzzled, as usual, that Gordon is still in his shadow. I doubt this would be the case if they had switched parks during their careers.
Average: -15.4, new record, previous record -15.0 in 1967.
Rusty Priske: -6
DL from MN: -6 (A newbie, huh? Wait till he figures out where we've gone wrong.)
Tom H: -8
Daryn: -10
DanG: -10
Howie Menckel: -10
...
OCF: -13
...
danb: -15.4 (median)
...
yest: -16
...
karlmagnus: -19
...
Gadfly: -20
...
jimd: -21
Jim Sp: -21
Mark Donelson: -22
Kelly in SD: -24
Dolf Lucky: -29
The other newbie, AJM, was at -16.
...
>karlmagnus: -19
(At least a half dozen voters below.)
Who woulda thought this a few years ago?
As for Ashburn, he's sort of Bill Terry Part Deux - relatively short career, lots of very good but not great seasons, may have benefited from getting in ahead of the rest of his era's players, and had a lot of mid-ballot support. (Although it's worth noting that he just about beat out Mackey on elect-me bonuses.)
HOF-not-HOM through 1968
1 Bender, Chief
2 Bresnahan, Roger
3 Chance, Frank
4 Chesbro, Jack
5 Cuyler, Kiki
6 Dean, Dizzy
7 Duffy, Hugh
8 Evers, Johnny
9 Griffith, Clark
10 Grimes, Burleigh
11 Manush, Heinie
12 Maranville, Rabbit
13 McCarthy, Tommy
14 McGraw, John
15 Pennock, Herb
16 Rice, Sam
17 Roush, Edd
18 Schalk, Ray
19 Sisler, George
20 Tinker, Joe
21 Traynor, Pie
22 Waddell, Rube
23 Waner, Lloyd
And HOM not-HOF
1 Ashburn, Richie
2 Averill, Earl
3 Barnes, Ross
4 Bennett, Charlie
5 Boudreau, Lou
6 Campanella, Roy
7 Caruthers, Bob
8 Connor, Roger
9 Coveleski, Stan
10 Dahlen, Bill
11 Davis, George
12 Doby, Larry
13 Ferrell, Wes
14 Glasscock, Jack
15 Gore, George
16 Groh, Heinie
17 Hack, Stan
18 Herman, Billy
19 Hines, Paul
20 Kelley, Joe
21 Lemon, Bob
22 Magee, Sherry
23 McPhee, Bid
24 McVey, Cal
25 Mize, Johnny
26 Newhouser, Hal
27 Pearce, Dickey
28 Pike, Lip
29 Richardson, Hardy
30 Reese, Pee Wee
31 Rusie, Amos
32 Sheckard, Jimmy
33 Slaughter, Enos
34 Start, Joe
35 Stovey, Harry
36 Sutton, Ezra
37 Thompson, Sam
38 Vaughan, Arky
39 White, Deacon
The Japanese Sam Crawford?
;-)
Total ballots cast: 283
Necessary for election: 213
(HOMers in bold)
Name Votes PCT
Joe Medwick 240 84.81
Roy Campanella 205 72.44
Lou Boudreau 146 51.59
Enos Slaughter 129 45.58
Ralph Kiner 118 41.70
Johnny Mize 103 36.40
Allie Reynolds 95 33.57
Marty Marion 89 31.45
Arky Vaughan 82 28.98
Pee Wee Reese 81 28.62
Johnny Vander Meer 79 27.92
Joe Gordon 77 27.21
Phil Rizzuto 74 26.15
Hal Newhouser 67 23.67
Bucky Walters 67 23.67
Bobby Doerr 48 16.96
George Kell 47 16.61
Bob Lemon 47 16.61
Alvin Dark 36 12.72
Terry Moore 33 11.66
Phil Cavarretta 23 8.13
Tommy Henrich 22 7.77
Bobo Newsom 22 7.77
Mickey Vernon 22 7.77
Frankie Crosetti 15 5.30
Ted Kluszewski 14 4.95
Bobby Thomson 13 4.59
Charlie Keller 11 3.89
Sal Maglie 11 3.89
Carl Erskine 9 3.18
Don Newcombe 9 3.18
Walker Cooper 8 2.83
Dom DiMaggio 8 2.83
Johnny Sain 7 2.47
Richie Ashburn 6 2.12
Schoolboy Rowe 6 2.12
Dixie Walker 6 2.12
Ewell Blackwell 5 1.77
Dutch Leonard 5 1.77
Gil McDougald 4 1.41
Wally Moses 4 1.41
Harry Brecheen 3 1.06
Jackie Jensen 3 1.06
Frank McCormick 3 1.06
Augie Galan 2 0.71
Ed Lopat 2 0.71
Preacher Roe 2 0.71
Vic Raschi 1 0.35
Duffy claims No. 3 spot.... Childs passes Waddell for 8th.... Welch reaches the top 10... Rixey checks out for good at No. 14.... Bresnahan and Leach each add 158 to nearly-identical career totals to round out the top 20.
TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 18194.5
BECKLEY 17328
DUFFY 17020.5
Jennings 16976
GRIFFITH 16822
BROWNING 14940.5
Pike 13399
CHILDS 12807
WADDELL 12791
WELCH 12521
Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 10999
Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9920
SISLER 9740
H Stovey 9576
BRESNAHAN 8476
TLEACH 8443
Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5
OTHER TOP 25 ACTIVE
(C Jones 7813, Sewell 7513, Redding 6321, Mendez 6051, Mackey 6091, Monroe 5659, Roush 5392, Doyle 5307, CP Bell 5207, Williamson 4684, Moore 4312, Grimes 3874)
ALMOST
(Schang 3690, McGraw 3581)
In my first year I have Jake Beckley at #15 and Hughie Jennings at #14. Three years later Jennings was #1 and Beckley was outside of my top 50 never to return again. It is kind of funny how much a ballot changes in a voter's first few years.
As another lurker (since 1932), I have no idea what you mean. Do you think the HOF not HOM players are better than the HOM not HOF? If so, why?
Remember taht we have many years to go in which we can elect the players you want to see elected.
Which guys do you advocatha
Remember that we have many years to go in which we can elect the players you want to see elected.
Which guys do you advocate?
For example, this year Biz Mackey placed on 63.8% of the ballots and earned 406 points in a 47-ballot vote, or roughly 8.64 points per ballot. Since every ballot has 120 points, or 8 points per slot, this means on the whole Mackey is preferred by the electorate over the average selection. Without the 2 person limit, it seems reasonable that exceeding 8 points per ballot would be enough to enshrine someone in the HOF.
On the other hand, if you chose to set a higher standard - say, 10 points per ballot (or an average of a Top 5 finish across all ballots) - then nobody this year deserved inclusion into the HOM. If you struck a compromise at 9 points ber ballot (times 47 ballots = 423 points) then Rixey and Ashburn once again squeak through into the Hall of Merit.
In essence, because the rules are different, you can't compare the sets of inductions on any meaningful level.
The major disadvantage, of course, is that it over-rewards reluctant votes - the rationale and determination behind every 2nd place vote on a ballot is not the same, yet they are treated the same in scoring. The HOF system, on the other hand, ignores weighting and instead places a high emphasis on appearance - again, Biz Mackey would be the top vote-getter here with 30 ballots made using the HOF method (though that would fall short of HOF selection.)
I don't think we should lose sleep over such criticism. We elect two players who have been elected to the HoF, he scratches his head at the results and decided he prefers their pick of players? I don't see how this particular election provides any evidence of our difference from the Coop.
That is really the only test. Mid-project comparisons are just for fun. What will make our Hall noticeably better is that we won't have the 10-20 guys who don't make most evaluators' top 1000. The vast majority of our borderline guys will be arguably among the top 450 of all-time.
I think we'll also win at the next level of borderline guys, but that conclusion will be much more subjective.
What we should do is let an anti-HoM person pick our worst 25 man team and then we can pick the HoF's worst 25 man team and sim them. For the purposes of that project, we might have to ignore the picks we might be most proud of (NeLers and pre-1900 guys for which there are no/limited sims/stats avialable), but it would be interesting nonetheless.
Sorry if it came across as inflammatory. I have had a habit of that today.
That list would have to be much better, because electing nobody never harms your set of 225, but electing 2 somebodies who are less worthy than easy choices #226 and #227 does.
To wit: If the player who finishes 3rd in the final vote is more HOM-worthy than any player in the HOM, the HOM's 2 player requirement was a mistake.
To wit, redux: The very best player set would be on that after every year of voting compiles the list of 225 best players to date. At the end of all of the voting, the list then becomes the Hall of Merit.
>To wit: If the player who finishes 3rd in the final vote is more HOM-worthy than any player in the HOM, the HOM's 2 player requirement was a mistake.
I think you are contradicting yourself. The whole point of the quota per year was as you have already stated as an advantage of the HoM voting procedure:
>The major advantage to the HOM's voting system is the timelining effect, in that players who played and retired years before the actual Hall of Fame was invented received full shrift.
Just that in your earlier post you were referring to the 19th century, and now you're referring to the '50s and/or more recent times. But the concept is the same.
Our purpose is to get a historical cross-section, NOT just the "best" 225 players.
Take a look at post #9, Scoriano. You would honestly take the HOF guys elected as of '68 over the HoM guys? I think the guys we have elected kick their butts, IMO.
Could be but that doest make them HOF's in my book. I do think I'd prefer just those 23 even if I disagree with some of the picks in my personal Hall than the HOM 29. Both lists are too inclusive IMO but I'd likely take the smaller. Arky Vaughn may be the only player from the HOM list that is a "must be" HOF for me. If I thought there were a dozen of that (or close to that) caliber in the HOM list for me, I might go the other way on which list I preferred.
Anyway, don't take anything personal I was only expressing my gut feeling, and if I could re-express it, it would be better to say I think ther HOM bar is too low for whatever reason, and not make any comparison to Cooperstown until you are finished. I should have reserved final judgment on that point, and now will.
The HOM bar is the HOF bar. It is intended at the end to have the same number of members as the HOF. If we have made better selections at the margins then the project will be a success. (If not, it will still be a success because we're having fun.)
HOF-not-HOM through 1968
The HOF "reign-of-error" is just beginning.
Lloyd Waner, (VC, 1967)
Kiki Cuyler, (VC, 1968)
Waite Hoyt, (VC, 1969)
Earle Combs, (VC 1970)
Jesse Haines, (VC, 1970)
Chick Hafey, (VC, 1971)
Harry Hooper, (VC, 1971)
Rube Marquard, (VC, 1971)
Lefty Gomez, (VC, 1972)
Ross Youngs. (VC, 1972)
George Kelly, (VC, 1973)
Jim Bottomley, (VC, 1974)
But you could do an even better job IMO if you developed a consnsus by voting to eliminate the bad VC selections, and designing your project to match the number of HOF'ers sans VC mistakes--approaximately what would that remainder be? About 200? Absent that adjustment, you will do better. But not as well as you <strike>sh</strike>could.
In any event, it really is good fun. Kudos to the participants.
The key is, whatever number you choose, to be consistent. The HOF has failed in this department, while I feel we haven't.
In any event, it really is good fun. Kudos to the participants.
We appreciate that, Scoriano.
That's a great idea, but you can only do it retrospectively since we don't know until we are finished how many Hall of Fame mistakes there are.
I also agree that sizing our HoM to Cooperstown minus "mistakes" is not possible because you need a method, first, to id. the mistakes, and that is what the HoM project is doing. At the end we could take the HoF not HoM list, subtract it from 225, and declare the remainder to be the appropriate size for the HoM. Then we would have to subtract (un-elect) that many players from the HoM. It could be done and for those who can't bear the thought of this project actually coming to an end, it could be a worthy Phase 2.
Except the reason that he Vets' Committee was set up was because the ones in charge felt that the BBWAA was too restrictive. IOW, the BBWAA and Vets' Committee selections need to be seen as part of the same group.
The project never comes to an end, it just slows down in about 18 months. It'll be interesting to see how long the discussion threads become when they are left open for 51 weeks.
True in a sense though from what I've read, there wasn't a sense that the BBWAA was too restrictive as it relates to keeping out players who should have been in. The problem was that Coop wanted inductions and it wasn't getting any. It was marketing and PR, not a sense of injustice, that drove the creation of the VC.
Regarding the comparisons to the HoF, I think you guys answered everything pretty well, I don't really have anything to add . . .
I wish Ashburn had had to run the guantlet - I liked him, I wonder if there's anything systematically that causes the Terry/Faber/Ashburn phenomenon? Is it a flaw in our process, maybe an age requirement in addition to a years retired requirement would have been a better way to go?
I'm not sold on Mackey, but I would have been much happier if Griffith, Van Haltren or Bell were elected with Ashburn close behind.
I've looked at my Vote Totals and there are a few discrepencies between our results. The errors are probably from recent elections and are probably my fault, since I've been a little lax inputting the totals in recent elections. I'll check my totals against recent elections to see if mine are correct.
Here are the +/- totals my totals are off from yours (+ means mine are higher, - means yours are)
Van Haltren -13
Beckley -11
Duffy -14
Childs 78
Waddell -2
Welch -18
Ryan +.5
Beckwith -24
Bresnahan -17
Mackey +230 (this is a big difference, I must have a typo somewhere)
Moore -2
Also, you don't have him listed, but I have Cravath between Moore and Grimes with 3926 points.
Schang +21
McGraw +50
What exactly is the "Terry/Faber/Ashburn phenomenon?" That less-than-overwhelming candidates can be elected on the first ballot? One thing we can do is encourage voters to remember that every point matters in close elections. Don't just knee-jerk list a good new candidate - this ain't the HOF election where you need 5%. I don't think we want to have rules that require a higher level of support for first time candidates, or anything like that.
As for the age requirement, I think it's a good idea, and one that I floated in the formation process of our rules (has it been five years?). File it under Things We'll Do Differently Next Time.
Or under: Things We Can Do In Our Personal Hall of Merit . . .
I also agree with encouraging people to be conservative with first year candidates. We can always undo an error of omission, can't do much about the errors of comission . . .
When did the BBWAA announce their elections back in 1963? Hopefully it was before February 28, and he knew he made it.
My equivalent of sister-in-law (I'm not married) lives near Culpeper, VA (where Rixey was born) in a town called Amissville . . . I get down there from time-to-time. The main road leading into their development is called Rixeyville Rd., I wonder if his family has some history down there.
He died after the announcement of his election, but before the actual ceremony.
I know he was the first to have this happen to him, but I don't know if it happened to anyone else in later years.
For the sake of argument, Terry is the 26th 1B in the nBJHBA (2001) and Ashburn the 16th CF. Not saying that these are right or that everybody would agree, but if they were "correct", then one of these is not like the other.
They are alike in that they are guys who we elected in our their first year of eligiblity with historically (for us, kind of cool that we can say that now that we have 71 elections behind us!) low vote totals. It doesn't make them mistakes necessarily. Nor does it necessarily mean the system is flawed. But it would be nice to see a borderline candidate have to stand up to a little more scrutiny than a week of discussion before running them in.
Even in single electee years, and even when we elected a guy that is not yet in my PHoM, I had him on my ballot.
E.g. Sutton in 1908 and Galvin in 1910 were sole electees and neither is in my PHoM and yet I had them rated #3 and #13 respectively. (Neither would be in my top 50 anymore what with the larger pool of eligible [backlog] candidates.)
Other close calls include Stovey in 1916 (#12 on my ballot and not yet PHoM) and Averill in 1961 (#15, that's as close a call as you can get!). Then there was 1926 when I had Magee and Grant at 13 and 15 (tie), though both later made my PHoM.
Eppa was part of the graduating class of 1962. After that BBWAA election, the rules were changed to restrict eligibility to players retired up to 20 years ago, rather than 30. That threw a large number of candidates off the ballot (which doublely screwed this group, since they had gone to biannual elections after 1956). Many of Frisch's cronies were among this group, so he would eventually rectify this "injustice".
This is the list of 19 players who graduated from the BBWAA ballot in 1962, in order of support in that election, who were later elected by the HOF VC:
1963Rice S
1963Rixey E
1964Grimes B
1979Wilson H
1968Cuyler K
1964Faber R
1974Bottomley J
1972Gomez L
1969Hoyt W
1964Manush H
1968Goslin G
1991Lazzeri T
1971Hafey C
1976Lindstrom F
1970Combs E
1970Haines J
1975Averill E
1982Jackson T
1973Kelly G
I know, pretty morbid.
One of the many truly amazing things in the HoF--Manush going in ahead of Goslin! My god.
The same was true for me. (Of course, I'm a latecomer to all this, so that's a lot fewer elections.)
"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), Paige (1959), Mize (1959), Newhouser (1960), J. Robinson (1962), Feller (1962), Campanella (1963), Reese (1964), Doby (1965), Slaughter (1965), Williams (1966), Ruffing (1966), Medwick (1967)
#2 (in an elect-1 year): Sutton (1908), Galvin (1910), McPhee (1913), Flick (1918)
#3: Wallace (1929), Speaker (1934), Lloyd (1935), Rixie (1968)
#4: Start (1912), Groh (1938), Frisch (1944)
#5: Rusie (1904), Lyons (1949), Boudreau (1958)
#6: Richardson (1905), Spalding (1906), 3F Brown (1925), Terry (1942)
#7: Grant (1926), McGinnity (1928)
#8: Carey (1939), W. Foster (1945), W. Ferrell (1964
#9: Averill (1961)
#10: McVey (1914), J. Collins (1921), Suttles (1956)
#11:
#12:
#13:
#14: Ashburn (1968)
#15: R. Foster (1932), Irvin (1963)
Off-ballot positions:
#17: Billy Herman (1958)
#19: Thompson (1929)
#21: Caruthers (1930)
#24: Pearce (1931)
Not listed: Pike (1940), Jennings (1960)
Everyone that I've ever put into an "elect me" position has eventually been elected, with three exceptions: George Van Haltren, Larry Doyle, and Joe Sewell. All of them are still on my ballot.
Bifurcation? Rixey and Ashburn appeared on 60% of the ballots (28), Mackey a few more. Doyle and Schang appeared on 20% of the ballots (9) and no one else is within two. #34 Schang is almost 50% ahead of #35 Keller in points (115 to 78) as well as 50% ahead in votes (9 to 6). So let Schang and Keller demarcate the backlog and those who have been dismissed.
Is it true as Chris Cobb says (of course it's true) that the backlog is full of older candidates whereas recent ones have been quickly elected or quickly dismissed? Yes, it is. Indeed, it is true for a remarkably long recent period. Looking back about 20 years, the backlog includes no one but Cool Papa Bell (born 1902) and Bob Johnson (b. 1905) in their age group and includes no one who arrived as an important player between Bell in 1922 and Johnson in 1933. In the major leagues, Joe Sewell (born 1898) was an important major league player at his debut in 1920, as Johnson at his debut in 1933. Between them, 3Bman Bucky Walters achieved OPS+ 26 or 27 in 121 plate appearances; he pitched 7 innings in 1934 and arrived in 1935. No one in the backlog debuted in the majors during the ten years 1921-1930; no one arrived as an important player during the ten years 1923-1932 (selected to fit both Sewell/Johnson and Bell/Trouppe).
Following is a list of the Top 34 from the 1968 election results, two elected and 32 in the backlog as I write.
<u>Key</u>
bold :: African-American and Latin American stars
' - ' :: pitchers
' + ' :: catchers
X_____ to
_____X marks everyone on a rough timeline
On that timeline, '[' means earlier/older and 'X' means later/younger members of the group that is marked at one point left to right. The first group represents a longer period of time and the fourth includes no one at all in order to emphasize (while exaggerating the length of) the gap described above, between Bell and Johnson/Walters/Trouppe/Brown.
__[___ - Eppa Rixey
_____X Richie Ashburn
__X___ + Biz Mackey
X_____ Clark Griffith
X_____ George Van Haltren
__X___ Cool Papa Bell
__[___ George Sisler
_____[ Bobby Doerr
X_____ Jake Beckley
____X_ Willard Brown
_X____ Dobie Moore
_X____ - Dick Redding
X_____ Hugh Duffy
_____X Ralph Kiner
__X___ Joe Sewell
X_____ Cupid Childs
[_____ Pete Browning
_X____ - José Méndez
_____[ Joe Gordon
__X___ Alejandro Oms
____X_ - Bucky Walters
_[____ - Rube Waddell
[_____ - Mickey Welch
[_____ Charley Jones
____X_ + Quincy Trouppe
_[____ + Roger Bresnahan
_[____ Tommy Leach
__X___ - Burleigh Grimes
__[___ Edd Roush
_X____ Larry Doyle
_X____ Gavy Cravath
____X_ Bob Johnson
_____[ Bob Elliott
_X____ + Wally Schang
Here is the 'white fielders' subset of that list, 19 of the 34 players.
_____X Richie Ashburn
X_____ Clark Griffith
X_____ George Van Haltren
__[___ George Sisler
_____[ Bobby Doerr
X_____ Jake Beckley
X_____ Hugh Duffy
_____X Ralph Kiner
__X___ Joe Sewell
X_____ Cupid Childs
[_____ Pete Browning
_____[ Joe Gordon
______ Charley Jones
_[____ Tommy Leach
__[___ Edd Roush
_X____ Larry Doyle
_X____ Gavy Cravath
____X_ Bob Johnson
_____[ Bob Elliott
Among major league fielders, the backlog includes only five men later/younger than Sewell: Johnson (debut and arrival 1933), Doerr, Gordon, and Elliott (1937-1939), and Kiner (1946). From that 25-year period, Walters (1931 and 1935) is the only mlb pitcher. Indeed, since Sam Rice (earlier/older than Sewell and Bell), only six more players appear on even three ballots: Keller, Bridges, Dean, Stephens, Rizzuto, and Lombardi.
The youngest prewar players, Musial and Spahn, have not yet arrived, but they will
be elected immediately, as was the later/younger Ashburn. Chris Cobb anticipates that only a few Ashburn contemporaries, 25 to 30 years later/younger than Sewell and Bell, might join the backlog, and wonders whether even they will be promptly elected or dismissed.
Apropos of my consensus scores, I've got 4:
Harry Wright #2 in the dog days of 1925. We later got more data on Harry and that was a mistake.
And the non-mistakes who are still on my ballot (#12, 1 and 2 respectively) in 1968:
Tommy Bond #2 in 1939
Dobie Moore 1 or 2 10 times now between 1956 and 1968
George Sisler who finally hauled up to #2 in 1968
1;5,3,3,0,1,4
A slight rearrangement around WWII also seems appropriate on second thought.
<u>time distribution of backlog, 17 mlb fielders</u>
1;5,3,3,0,4,1
Adding the white pitchers and catchers only, it seems obvious to rearrange also by putting Schang with Sewell rather than Leach. Since Welch is with Jones, eligible for the first election, we have this.
<u>time distribution of mlb backlog in 1968 - 25 including Rixey</u>
2;6,5,6,0,5,1
Retaining the battery men without rearranging around WWII (thus dividing between Johnson/Walters and Doerr/Gordon/Elliott)
2;6,5,6,0,2,4
Is recent bifurcation a genuine phenomenon? It is too early to say whether there is a clearly genuine clearly recent effect. Depending on definitions, the preceding generation maybe contributed five men to the 25-man mlb backlog in 1968, or seven men to the 33-man backlog of all players.
The clearly genuine phenomenon is not recent, for it happened 16 to 25 rather than 6 to 15 years ago, when Traynor and Dean (and everyone else not elected) rather than Johnson and Walters were quickly dismissed. About the very recent quick dismissal of Rizzuto and Trout it is too early to say.
I can't add the African-American and Latin-American players to the distribution without taking the definition of generations 2 and 3 a lot more seriously than the results warrant. Mendez, Redding and Moore helped me decide to put everyone from Bresnahan to Bell (at least Sewell) in two generations rather than three, and define a slightly short generation with 0 members (or only Bell).
Here is the backlog listed in generations that support the mlb distribution "2;6,5,6,0,5,1" with Kiner alone in a generation that is incomplete.
0 : Jones, Welch
1 : Browning, Duffy, Van Haltren, Beckley, Childs, Griffith
2 : Bresnahan, Leach, Waddell, Doyle, Mendez, [ don't look too closely . . .
3 : . . . don't look too closely ] Oms, Grimes, Sewell, Mackey, Bell
4 : [ no one ]
5 : Johnson, Walters, Trouppe, Brown, Doerr, Gordon, Elliott
6 : Kiner
My own personal take, using my 1968 ballot position:
Kiner - 4
Elliott - 11
Vernon - 12 (Not listed by Paul; not on 3 ballots)
-- Ashburn 14 (Now removed from ballot)
Walters - 16
Rizzuto - 17
Gordon - 19
Bridges - 20 (Debut 1930)
Bell - 21
Stephens - 24
Johnson - 25
Doerr - 26
Note how many of them are just off my ballot; under either a reevaluation on my part or a deeper dip into the backlog, several of these players could start gaining points from me.
If I were to point a finger and say to the rest of you, "Hey! Look at him!" it would be towards Bob Elliott.
If the new Negro League Committee had been announced 4 years earlier, we would have opened up signficantly more election spots from the 40's through the 60's. I just assumed they had the correct number, with a similar mistake ratio to the MLB players.
I know you take some guff from the crew for your stances, and sometimes I agree with a lot of the 'crew.'
But I welcome all varieties of viewpoints, and many times you come at a view from a very interesting angle.
You don't seem to take critics to heart, and that's a good thing, on balance. The trick, we all agree, is both accepting genuine critiques and not folding to the consensus, either.
What we should agree on, however, is that Cupid Childs is fully qualified for the HOM! Vote Childs in 1970! Or whever there is another backlog opening.
I suppose Karl means beginning with the famous 1934 ballot (Charleston, Torriente). But despite the rather small number of strong candidates newly eligible in the preceding decade, elections 1924 to 1933, the backlog includes several from those years. And during Karl's period, Stan Hack, Billy Herman, Bill Terry, and Ted Lyons waltzed in while Pie Traynor, Buddy Myer, and Dizzy Dean were quickly dismissed; they didn't make the backlog. (Buddy Myer. Bill James once thought that Herman and Myer were practically indistinguishable.)
HoF not-HOM
C Bresnahan, Roger/Schalk, Ray
1B Sisler, George
2B Evers, Johnny
SS Maranville, Rabbit
3B Traynor, Pie
RF Rice, Sam
CF Duffy, Hugh
LF Manush, Heinie
P Chesbro, Jack
P Dean, Dizzy
P Griffith, Clark
P Grimes, Burleigh
P Waddell, Rube
And HOM not-HOF
C Bennett, Charlie/McVey, Cal
1B Start, Joe
2B Richardson, Hardy
SS Pearce, Dickey
3B Sutton, Ezra
RF Slaughter, Enos
CF Doby, Larry
LF Sheckard, Jimmy
P Caruthers, Bob
P Coveleski, Stan
P Ferrell, Wes
P Newhouser, Hal
P Rusie, Amos
Or do you mean 'in by 1968' or something?
yes
Slaughter also beats Rice in Right, while Doby has quite a few teammates besides himself in the HoM who can give Duffy a battle such as Gore and Hines (better than Duffy, though I like Hugh and hopes he makes it someday).
Sheckard and Magee were better than Manush. I'd also take our pitchers over theirs.
Why did you pick all of these 19th century guys when there were great 20th century guys lying around? I mean, I love Pearce, but even I don't think he's the best guy available from our group at short.
John that was my whole point to take the worst from or group against the best of theirs taking the best best of both and the HoM will destroy them
Okay, I understand what you were trying to do now.
I'd still take our group over theirs, but I admit it's certainly much closer than if we pitted our best against theirs.
Hopefully, I'll be able to take a look at my pre-1949 totals tomorrow.
I will tend to believe yours.
I'm not using a spreadsheet or anything, which is a factor.
Also, occasionally I posted the update before there were corrections to the 'final totals.' That's why you see the minor discrepancies. Mackey must be a "carry the 2" or whatever-type mistake, or just a missed year of voting.
My intent has been to give a 95-99 pct guide, with occasional correction by my betters.
Which is now happening...
Its a good thing we started the voting as early as we did or the 19th century would be as underrepresented in the HOM as it is in the HOF.
The main thing that Bresnahan, Sisler, Evers, Maranville, Traynor and Manush have over their earlier HOM counterparts is name recognition -- and some sort of assurance that they were playing a game closer to what is played today.
1) This was the first election where nobody received 40% of possible points.
2) A new record of 34 players received at least 10% of possible points.
As Daryn posted, "splinterrific!"
All-time 'vote points totals' leaders, through 1968. Active for 1969 vote in CAPS
TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 18181.5
BECKLEY 17317
DUFFY 17006.5
Jennings 16976
GRIFFITH 16822
BROWNING 14940.5
Pike 13399
CHILDS 12885
WADDELL 12789
WELCH 12503
Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 10999.5
Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9896
SISLER 9740
H Stovey 9576
BRESNAHAN 8459
TLEACH 8443
Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5
OTHER TOP 25 ACTIVE
(C Jones 7813, Sewell 7513, Mackey 6321, Redding 6321, Mendez 6051, Monroe 5659, Roush 5392, Doyle 5307, CP Bell 5207, Williamson 4684, Moore 4310, Cravath 3926, Grimes 3874)
ALMOST
(Schang 3711, McGraw 3631)
1) This was the first election where nobody received 40% of possible points.
2) A new record of 34 players received at least 10% of possible points.
3) We couldn't get 7 people to agree on the placement of even one player.
radical new system: one point for each first place vote
5 Clark Griffith - elected (10%)
4 Dobie Moore - elected (8%)
3 Richie Ashburn
3 Jake Beckley
3 Pete Browning
3 Eppa Rixey
3 Mickey Welch
Mackey and Van Haltren round out the Top Nine with two votes each.
1 Clark Griffith 13
2 Eppa Rixey 11
3 Richie Ashburn 10
4 Dobie Moore 9
5 Jake Beckley 8
5 Mickey Welch 8
7 Pete Browning 7
8 George Van Haltren 6
9 Cool Papa Bell 5
10 Biz Mackey 4
10 George Sisler 4
10 Bobby Doerr 4
10 Hugh Duffy 4
10 José Méndez 4
10 Alejandro Oms 4
10 Charley Jones 4
17 Joe Sewell 3
17 Willard Brown 3
17 Roger Bresnahan 3
17 Tommy Leach 3
17 Larry Doyle 3
22 Cannonball Dick Redding 2
22 Cupid Childs 2
22 Joe Gordon 2
22 Burleigh Grimes 2
22 Edd Roush 2
22 Gavy Cravath 2
22 Wally Schang 2
29 Bucky Walters 1
Hard to say. Candidates would expire which would make the available candidate list much shorter which would also reduce much of the splintering. The names would just have to appear on the ballot. On the other hand, we wouldn't have to fill all ten slots if we didn't want to.
I like our method much better. Feels more democratic.
Though if the voting method is simply yes and no, then I'm not sure the number of eligible candidates would matter.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main