When does the Hall of Fame mail the ballots? I assume we should have our 2009 election completed by that day.

Rickey plus two from the backlog.

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath, Luis Tiant, Phil Rizzuto, Hugh Duffy, David Cone and Ken Singleton are the top eligible returnees. All were named on 15 or more ballots.

This may have been addressed dozens of times in the past, so forgive me: Are all future elections intended to be "elect 3"? If not, how do you decide how many are to be elected? Since the HOM has matched the HOF in number of inductees, why not keep that standard? Elect as many players each year as the HOF does.

Of course, you are conducting your future elections before the HOF does, so you can't be sure how many they will elect. I guess you could go with 3 as a default, and then adjust it based on how many the HOF actually elected the year before. If you elect 3 in 2009 and the HOF actually elects 5, then in 2010 you elect 5. If the HOF elects only 1 in 2010, then in 2011 you have an elect-1. Keep trying to track the total inductees as close as possible, even if your adjustments need to lag a year behind.

When does the Hall of Fame mail the ballots?

Late November, I believe. Around the time they publicly announce the ballot.

The proposed schedule in post #156 of the Once We Catch-Up thread has the results announced on November 10, 2008. If we do a runoff it will be a week or two later.

I'm strongly against a runoff - I think the system has worked fine for 111 years . . .

To echo the chicken, will we adjust future ballots to keep HOF and HOM numbers consistent? Or just elect 3 each time? We have a little while to decide.

I'm generally against a runoff, but I do need to reread the thread to refresh the details.

Rickey would be an easy number 1 on my ballot. And by next November, I should have fully integrated DanR's WARP into my system.

We no longer care about matching the Hall of Fame.

If they aren't electing 3 per year at this point, they are changing the standard they've previously established - we aren't going to tighten up now because the current group has decided to be unfair to modern players.

We'll be electing 3 per year for the foreseeable future.

Why is Sasaki on the eligibles list?

We'll be electing 3 per year for the foreseeable future.

Just one caveat to this. We have never averaged three newly-eligibles elected over any long span in history. Our maximum newly-eligibles elected in any 7-year period is 20 (three different spans in the 40s and 50s). For any 10-year period it's 28 (1946-55). For any 22-year period it's 60 (1932-53). Even a span as short as five years, there is only one time we have more than 3 per year (17 total 1932-36). In the past 22 years (1987-2008) the count stands at 47 elected who were newbies in that span.

So electing 3 per year means we will continue to mine the backlog/frontlog. IOW, we can still be "fair to modern players" at a rate slightly under 3 per year, if we want to stay somewhat close to the Hall's number.

Why is Sasaki on the eligibles list?

See recent posts in the Japanses baseball thread.

Rickey plus two from the backlog.

No love for Jesse Orosco? How many other guys led the league in the same category stat for 6 consecutive years?

Will Henderson be on the HOF ballot for 2009?

I'm pretty confident that Sasaki is not going to rate anywhere near as well as Lee Smith. My ballot is going to be Rickey Henderson + 2008 returnees. It looks like Ben Taylor and Vic Willis will sneak onto the bottom because we actually elected 3 people off my ballot last year.

DanR's data is really favorable to Kevin Appier. He's probably my 2nd favorite new candidate.

Well, I guess that sticking to electing three per year keeps the HOMer percentage constant, right?

DL, what data from DanR do you have about pitchers? Is it based on his methodology comments or has he posted some spreadsheets?
Thanks.

I have *very preliminary* numbers for starting pitchers, mulder & scully, which I'd be happy to send you. I have not posted them publicly or spoken much about them yet because there are two big challenges I am still working out: doing my own defensive support adjustments, and figuring out how to account for changing career length norms over time.

For now, I'm dependent on BP's fielding adjustments, which I have begun to doubt in certain cases (in particular I think the fielders on teams like the 1904 Giants are getting credit that should be going to the pitchers). I have a *much* more sophisticated set of data from DRA, but the problem is that they are not yet park-adjusted, so they are really an adjustment for fielding plus a part of the park effect (effect on hits on balls in play) but not other parts (home runs, affect on things like runner advancement, etc.). So figuring out how to avoid double-counting parts of the park effect is a real challenge.

Then on the career length issue, I find that short-career deadball pitchers like Waddell and McGinnity get crunched by translating single season innings totals using IP leaders without making any adjustment for career length, while conversely, long careers like Tommy John's do a bit too well. Figuring out how to get around this conundrum without falling victim to making improper adjustments in response to mere star gluts and droughts has also been phenomenally difficult.

Nonetheless, let me know if you'd like to see them. My numbers show Appier has having a very nice 8-year prime, with 7 All-Star type seasons and two Cy Young type seasons, but not much outside of them. On career value he's no better than Dwight Gooden or Chuck Finley. And as I said, a short career in the 1990's is a bit different than a short career in the 1900's. I won't be voting for Appier, that's for sure. Appier, like Bridges, is a candidate that DL from MN will like more than I do because he uses pitching wins above *average* as part of his ranking system, whereas I do not. That makes him friendlier to lower-IP, higher-ERA+ candidates than I am.

Speaking of which, DL from MN, it might be worth mentioning that by using PWAA, you're actually comparing starting pitchers to an *above* average baseline, since of course the aggregate ERA for starters is higher than the aggregate ERA for relievers.

So electing 3 per year means we will continue to mine the backlog/frontlog. IOW, we can still be "fair to modern players" at a rate slightly under 3 per year, if we want to stay somewhat close to the Hall's number.

I thought we used league-size to scale the elect-me slots per year. We were scheduled to have our first elect-four year in 2011 if I'm not mistaken. Sticking with elect-threes is actually conservative. :-)

This has been discussed before, but I'll echo my opinion here. The HOF has ways of 'correcting itself' when it stays conservative for too long. I think we have to keep our schedule consistent and let them do the feasts and famines.

Wow, is this an instant replay or what? 2008 Rock +2. 2009 Rickey +2.

And I'm with John. Elect 3. If the HoF should continue to refuse to induct modern players that's their problem. We especially don't want to be beholden to their numbers if their numbers should happen to be zero.

Rickey's voting for Rickey.

On some previous thread, I posted my offensive numbers for "Rickey I" and "Rickey II," with the break between the two careers at the moment of the midseason trade that sent him from the Yankees back to the A's.

The way I aggregate the RCAA numbers I use, Rickey I is a pretty close offensive value match for Frank Howard or a war-credit-added version of Charlie Keller. Joe Medwick is another pretty good match. Others in the same value neigborhood include Goose Goslin and Zack Wheat, but they have lower peaks (and longer careers - at least, longer than Rickey I). Of course, Rickey may well have been the best defensive player of this bunch, and the only one with any significant time in CF. Certainly the defensive comparison to Howard ...

So on the whole, I think Rickey I would belong in the HoM, fairly easily.

Rickey II is a weaker candidate - a lower peak, despite the MVP season, a lot of scraggly stuff at the back end, evenentually coming down to drawing walks being about the only thing he could do. Still, Rickey II isn't a bad match for Darryl Strawberry, or Chuck Klein, or Albert Belle, or Rocky Colavito. He's got a peak advantage over Jose Cruz. Give some weight to that MVP year, and I even like him ahead of Bob Johnson. So it's not clear that Rickey II would belong in the HoM, but he's got a case that isn't that easily dismissed.

Of course, Rickey I + Rickey II, and considering the vote we just gave to Raines ... are we looking at unanimity? I've got him ahead of Sam Crawford and behind Frank Robinson. That's a pretty good neigborhood to be in. Hey, it might not even be that hard to persuade the BBWAA.

If they aren't electing 3 per year at this point, they are changing the standard they've previously established - we aren't going to tighten up now because the current group has decided to be unfair to modern players.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

You got the right idea, but the details are off. The number of electees per year is discussed here

Four in 1898; two each year from 1899-1905. After that . . .

1: 1906-11, 1913-14, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1923, 1931, 1961

2: 1912, 1915, 1917, 1919, 1921-22, 1924-30, 1932-57, 1959-60, 1962-71, 1973-79, 1981-84, 1986, 1988, 1992

3: 1958, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1989-91, 1993-2010, 2012-15, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2038, 2040

4: 2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036-37, 2039, 2041

So, three-a-years were rare until the 80s and weren't regular until 1993. Two-a-year was not regular until the 1920s.

I have Rickey comfortably in the inner circle, right ahead of Frank Robinson and behind Mel Ott.

It's possible the difference between #20 and #24 is more the ranking of Robinson than that of Henderson. In numbers that don't mean anything by themselves, for me: Aaron 448, Ott 383, Robinson 356, Henderson 304, Reggie Jackson 263. And if Bonds had retired after the 1999 season, he'd be at 354.

Bill James invented the notion of "secondary average" in an article in one of his Abstracts in which he was primarily talking about Rickey Henderson. The numerator of this expression is 3*HR+2*3B+2B+BB+SB; that's secondary bases. For a day or two in 2003, Rickey Henderson was the all-time leader in career secondary bases, after he passed Babe Ruth and before he was overtaken by Barry Bonds. Bonds, Henderson, and Ruth are the only players with 5000 career secondary bases. There about about a half-dozen or so with 4000. (And, if I remember correctly, Joe Morgan has 3999.)

Rickey's voting for Rickey

Are players allowed to vote for themselves under the Constitution? How would anyone know?

Are players allowed to vote for themselves under the Constitution? How would anyone know?

2008 Ballut
1-Chuck Finley- won of games grat pichers from 90's
2-Tim Samon- shud have bin all-star
3-Troy Pircivel- big-time closer you cud count on
4-Mike Sosia- grat cacher for dogers in 80's
...

Prelim :)

PHoM: Rickey Henderson, Mark Grace, Hal Newhouser

A little surprised by Grace. I am going to look closer to see if / where I have overvalued him.

1. Rickey Handerson
2. Tommy Leach
3. Reggie Smith
4. Tony Perez
5. Mickey Welch
6. Lou Brock
7. George van Haltren
8. Hugh Duffy
9. Ken Singleton
10. Rusty Staub
11. Norm Cash
12. Bob Johnson
13. Vic Willis
14. Dale Murphy
15. Kirby Puckett

16-20. Redding, Bonds, Grace, Streeter, Monroe
21-25. Grimes, Mullane, Cepeda, Strong, Gleason
26-30. Greene, Robinson, Souell, John, Ware

"you're actually comparing starting pitchers to an *above* average baseline"

Even better

At LF I have Bonds, Musial, and Williams ahead of Rickey.

Rusty,

I vaguely remember an old NgL pitcher named Sam (?) Streeter...? And is it Ted (?) Strong? Was he a NgL pitcher, too? Then, who are Greene, Robinson, Souell and Ware?

And I'll give ya this. Mark Grace will be ahead of them on my ballot, too.

And I'm with John. Elect 3. If the HoF should continue to refuse to induct modern players that's their problem. We especially don't want to be beholden to their numbers if their numbers should happen to be zero.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

OK, but this all misses my poorly-made point in #9. Electing 3 or 4 or 12 per year does nothing to ensure fairness to modern players. In practice, what it has meant in recent election is that we scoop more of the dregs of the backlog. In the past 14 elections we elected 10 players who hung around the ballot more than 25 years: Lundy, Oms, Browning, Bresnahan, Jones, Beckley, Roush, Fox, Keller and Trouppe.

Thus, the actual effect of electing three per year has been to be "fair" to the backlog. Are we doing this at the expense of the modern guys? Are we repeating the BBWAA errors of omission (on a lesser scale)?

I should have concluded by saying this.

If we used an alternating 3-2 election schedule, i.e., 2.5 per year, we would still be more than keeping up with all the deserving modern players, based on our recent election history and looking at the next four years of new candidates. We should probably elect 2 in 2009, 3 in 2010, 2 in 2011 and 3 in 2012.

As a side benefit, it keeps us more in line with the Hall's total, assuming no big dump-in by them.

Last 20 Years, Number of New Candidates From Each Year Who Are in the HoM

1989 - 4
1990 - 2
1991 - 2
1992 - 3
1993 - 3
1994 - 3
1995 - 2
1996 - 1
1997 - 1
1998 - 4
1999 - 4
2000 - 1
2001 - 2
2002 - 3
2003 - 2
2004 - 2
2005 - 2
2006 - 1
2007 - 3
2008 - 1
Total - 46

Thus, the actual effect of electing three per year has been to be "fair" to the backlog. Are we doing this at the expense of the modern guys? Are we repeating the BBWAA errors of omission (on a lesser scale)?

I appreciate Dan's concern. But.

The fallacy in this is that it sort of presumes that the HoM project and the HoM will end/cease to exist as of 2009-2010-2011-2012-or some time in the more or less foreseeable future. It is possible, certainly, that as of 2012 we will have more HoMers from the '20s and/or '30s and/or '60s than from the '80s and/or '90s. And if that is the end of it, then we don't have balance.

But theoretically (and probably, I would agree, only theoretically) as the project continues into the more distant future, it is likely IMO that that balance would be redressed. Let's just say for the sake of argument that we elect the next tier of the backlog that Joe listed above

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath, Luis Tiant, Phil Rizzuto, Hugh Duffy, David Cone and Ken Singleton

• There's a couple 19C (though, I would note that both are from the '90s and there's nobody from the '70s or '80s),
• three dead-ball (one NgL),
• two from the Golden Age,
• one from the truly under-represented WWII and integration eras,
• two-and-a-half men from the early expansion era (Reggie2, Tiant and half of Singleton), and
• two-and-a-half men from the latter expansion era (Kirby, Cone and the other half of Singleton).

Now, it's true, I'd have to analyze the deeper backlog in order to really make my point stick. But even this distribution, while not closing the gap in raw numbers between, say, the 1890s and the 1990s, would as a percentage do that, and in raw numbers would begin to redress our over-enthusiasm for the Golden Age--i.e. 3 players from 1920-1950 versus 5 from 1965-1999--if only slightly.

Okay, on second thought, let's go further--into a second baker's dozen of backloggers, making a total of 26. No way would we elect all these guys, and even if we did, not before 2025. But just for the sake of argument, now we're talking about:

17 12 Tony Perez 182 11 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 19 Bus Clarkson 177 13 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
19 39 Dizzy Dean 172 11 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
20 31 Vic Willis 169 10 2 2 4 1 1
21 22 Tommy Bridges 161 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
22 23 Dave Concepción 157 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
23 28 Don Newcombe 150 14 2 3 1 2 2 3 1
24 24 Burleigh Grimes 150 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
25 18 George Van Haltren 147 9 1 1 1 4 1 1
26 33 Lou Brock 142 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
27 27 Mickey Welch 141 10 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
28 32 Dale Murphy 135 12 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
29 29 Rick Reuschel

Now we've got (including the first baker's dozen):

• Four 19C, three from the '90s and just one from before
• Four-and-a-half dead-ballers (one NgLer and half of Grimes)
• Four from the Golden Age, three of them from the under-represented category of pitchers BTW
• Three from the WWII and integration eras, one and a half of them from the under-represented post-NgL era/pre-full integration era for blacks
• Six from the early expansion era, including half of Reuschal (insert comment here)
• Four from the late expansion era, including the other 250 pounds of Reuschel

Now ten guys 1965-1999 versus four 1865-1899. Ten guys 1965-1999 versus eight guys 1920-1960.

So it's a start. And you all know that there would be violent arguments and civil disobedience and air strikes and the whole deal in opposition to the idea of electing more guys from the Golden Age. So we would theoretically be pushing toward balance, though even theoretically none of us would ever live to see the balance that we wanted. Only Frankie Frisch could live that dream.

Well, look at the past 20 years. If we should somehow elect everyone you mention that debuted 1989-2008 (I count 8 guys) that still brings the total to 54, or 2.7 per year. This matches our historic maximum for any 20-year span (1934-53 and 1939-58).

So, we've still never averaged 3 per year from any long-term span and seem unlikely to do so for a very long time. Continuing to elect three per year will gradually lower the floor of the HoM.

will gradually lower the floor of the HoM.

Well, at least we're doing it in a systematic way, one player at a time, rather than reaching down 50 slots and then trying not to fill in. If over the next 3-4-5 years we elect

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding,

I don't see how that lowers the floor beyond what you'd need a calipers to measure. Personally for me not a one of them actually lowers the floor, until we un-elect Ken Boyer, anyway,

Will Henderson be on the HOF ballot for 2009?

Decided to answer my own question:


From the Hall of Fame site:

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, John Burkett, David Cone, Mike Bordick, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Denny Neagle, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams

I vaguely remember an old NgL pitcher named Sam (?) Streeter...? And is it Ted (?) Strong? Was he a NgL pitcher, too? Then, who are Greene, Robinson, Souell and Ware?

Sam Streeter - NgL pitcher from 1919 to 1936. He ended with a ~record of 117-75, 12th all-time.
Ted Strong - NgL player who appeared in the East-West All-Star Game at three different positions. He led the Kansas City Monarchs to four consecutive pennants (39-42). He also played for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Joe Greene - NgL All-star catcher from 39 to 47. He was a regular catcher for Satchel Paige for part of that time. He was also a decorated WWII vet.
Neil Robinson - NgL Outfielder from 38 to 48. He played in 8 all-star games, compiling a .476 batting average and an .810 slugging percentage, second only to Buck Leonard.
Herb 'Baldy' Souell - Longtime 3B for the Kansas City Monarchs. He played with Hilton Smith, Buck O'Neil, Ted Strong etc.
Archie Ware - Longtime 1B for the Cleveland Buckeyes along with Quincy Trouppe. Also played for Panama in the Carribean World Series.

I'd love to see a systematic accounting of approx how many Negro League players were as good as the equivalent MLB replacement level each year.

I don't see how that lowers the floor beyond what you'd need a calipers to measure. Personally for me not a one of them actually lowers the floor, until we un-elect Ken Boyer, anyway,

Marc, your approach is based on the assumption that the HoM is rife with errors. That, over time, we'll gradually "get it right" as regards any particular era.

I prefer to think that, right now, we've elected the best 234 players to be had; that we're not rife with errors, that the right guys have been elected. That the worst players from this era are of the same quality as the worst players from any era. I think this is closer to the truth.

Right now we have 46 who debuted in the past 20 years, 2.3 per year. To raise that number, to continue to usher in backloggers, means lowering the floor of HoM quality of player. Are we sure that's the direction we should be going?

Now that we've approximated the HOF's number of members, are we sure that's the direction we should be going? Or is it better to aim to maintain our current minimum standard and try to elect only as many players in upcoming elections as meet that standard? Certainly, in the next four elections, three per year will continue to lower our standard.

I don't know if that's good/bad, right/wrong. I'm just sayin'.

Certainly, in the next four elections, three per year will continue to lower our standard.

Since we have 11 months to discuss this, then I might ask what happened to all the new candidates? If we inducted two-a-year in the 40s and 50s, and now there are almost twice as many teams as there were then and yet now we 'only' induct three a year... well how come that isn't working out for us?

Is there a flukey glut of old guys still active in 2007 who'd been hanging on for milestones that will flood the ballot in five years? Are we underrating borderline 80s and 90s guys? I thought we had been inducting our share of post-expansion guys. Does the 'math' imply that we need to be inducting more? How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?

Rusty - you seem to have a much higher opinion of those players than anyone. In fact, you seem to be the only member of the electorate who has any opinion of them at all? Give us more. Advocate for them. Try to make us have our own opinions, too. Seriously. You have all year to tackle it.

How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?

Here's the whole chart, excerpted in #35, of HoMers coming on the ballot each year. The third column is 10-year total.

1898 15
1899 7
1900 2
1901 1
1902 3
1903 2 20 (1899-1908)
1904 1 15
1905 1 13
1906 0 14
1907 2 12
1908 1 11 (1904-1913)
1909 2 13
1910 0 14
1911 2 17
1912 1 17
1913 1 16
1914 3 15
1915 2 17
1916 3 17
1917 2 19
1918 0 22 (1914-1923)
1919 1 19
1920 2 18
1921 2 16
1922 3 15
1923 4 16
1924 0 15
1925 1 13
1926 1 11
1927 1 11
1928 1 10 (1924-1933)
1929 0 17
1930 0 17
1931 0 19
1932 3 19
1933 3 18
1934 7 21
1935 1 24
1936 3 27
1937 1 25
1938 0 27
1939 3 23
1940 3 22
1941 3 23
1942 1 25
1943 5 28 (1939-1948)
1944 3 27
1945 0 27
1946 4 25
1947 3 27
1948 3 27
1949 2 26
1950 3 28 (1946-1955)
1951 1 26
1952 3 27
1953 5 26
1954 2 26
1955 2 24
1956 2 24
1957 4 24
1958 2 20
1959 2 20
1960 1 20
1961 1 19
1962 3 15
1963 1 14 (1959-1968)
1964 2 15
1965 2 17
1966 1 18
1967 0 17
1968 1 17
1969 3 17
1970 3 17
1971 2 16
1972 2 18
1973 1 19
1974 2 17
1975 2 17
1976 0 17
1977 2 19
1978 2 22 (1974-1983)
1979 1 20
1980 3 18
1981 2 19
1982 4 17
1983 4 16
1984 0 19
1985 0 18
1986 1 18
1987 0 17
1988 1 16
1989 4 19
1990 2 21
1991 2 21
1992 3 22
1993 3 25
1994 3 25
1995 2 24
1996 1 24
1997 1 24
1998 4 23
1999 4 22
2000 1 22
2001 2 22
2002 3 24
2003 2 21 (1999-2008)
2004 2
2005 2
2006 1
2007 3
2008 1

or to look at it another way:
2008

HOMers per year, minimum 10 G per player to qualify, or equivalent
(NeL in parentheses refers to any non-MLB-credited seasons for non-white players)

1850s - 0/0/0/0/0/0/1/1/1/1.......................................... avg 0.4
1860s - 2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8...........................................avg 3.5
1870s - 9/10/12/12/13/13/13/12/13/17............................ avg 12.4
1880s - 18/20/22/22/24/25/26/25/27/27...........................avg 23.6 (with 0.4 NeL)
1890s - 31/33/32/29/24/25/24/23/23/24...........................avg 26.8 (with 1.5 NeL)
1900s - 23/27/27/25/27/28/27/28/29/29...........................avg 27.0 (with 3.5 NeL)
1910s - 30/29/28/31/30/30/34/28/26/28...........................avg 29.4 (with 7.4 NeL)
1920s - 30/33/37/39/44/47/50/49/49/46...........................avg 42.4 (with 16.2 NeL)
1930s - 44/46/47/45/42/41/41/42/39/41...........................avg 42.8 (with 14.6 NeL)
1940s - 44/43/39/28/20/22/34/34/34/28...........................avg 32.6 (with 9.4 NeL)
1950s - 28/29/26/28/29/33/34/31/31/32...........................avg 30.1
1960s - 32/33/34/35/35/35/35/35/37/38.......................... avg 35.0
1970s - 40/39/42/42/43/43/42/41/39/38...........................avg 41.1
1980s - 40/41/43/41/40/38/38/34/31/27...........................avg 37.2


I'll be refining this over the course of the year; probably you'll see moves of a tenth here and a tenth there..

What were the details of the 'number of inductees per year' calculation? I saw that it roughly tracked the number of MLB teams (with perhaps a five-year lag), but I am unfamiliar with how it was calculated exactly.

Was there an intention to deliberately create a backlog that catches up near the end? That would be the scenario that would imply that we slow down a bit. Certainly a 19th century backlog was around for a while.

Thanks for the histograms, guys.

Howie, do you have a list of HOM-ers who lost time due to war? Some guys are easy (DiMaggio, Mize, Reese, Williams), but I suppose it can get complicated with the very young (Spahn) or the very old (Lyons). Even more complicated, there's also odd cases like debateably late starts (Kiner?, JRobinson?) and even possibly who got career extended by the war (I think Foxx wasn't in the service in 1943 and likely would have stayed retired if not for the war). I guess I like the list as is, but I'm wondering if there is some other number that could be parenthetically listed.

I think treating the Negro Leagues as a de-facto expansion explains our numbers. We treated the leagues as expanded in the 20s and 30s and shrunk them in the 40s and 50s. Our numbers have gone up with subsequent MLB expansions, and the 1980s aren't done yet.

464 players were worthy enough to gather at least 1/6 of a 15th place vote on our collective ballots throughout the project. Which means that over half of all players to receive a vote were elected to the HOM. That seems stunning to me, although maybe it shouldn't.

All that time formatting in notepad goes for 'naught. oh well.

Congrats to M.Welch, the only player to receive a vote in every election. E.Williamson missed out due to lack of votes in '52-'53. C.Jones had the ill-fortune of getting elected.

It is surprising that half of the players who have gotten votes have been elected. It seems that we're more splintered than that on the backlog but of course there in consistency in the backlog over time if not within the year.

Is Dick Redding the highest rated backlogger now by this measure? Did I miss a name higher up?

Oh, and Oms is the lowest rated HoMer?

Van Haltren and Duffy are the top 2 non-HoM in the chart, Redding is 3rd. The lowest elected HoM is Dick Lundy. I think everyone above 1% is in my consideration set.

non-segregated player averages per year, per decade:

1850s - 0.4
1860s - 3.5
1870s - 12.4
1880s - 23.2
1890s - 25.3
1900s - 23.5
1910s - 22.0
1920s - 26.2
1930s - 28.2
1940s - 23.2
1950s - 30.1
1960s - 35.0
1970s - 41.1
1980s - 37.2

You could probably add in close to a full point in the 1910s for WW I, up to say 22.8.
And if you add oh, 3.5 for WW II in the 1940s, that bumps it to 26.7.

At that point, the sense of Negro Leaguers as "3rd major league" really comes into focus - whether people wanted us to vote that way or not, it's what happened.
Or so it seems.

I don't want to see anymore ballot comments about the "underrepresented 1890s".

I don't want to see anymore ballot comments about the "underrepresented 1890s".

Still a little bit of a dip from 1894-1900 but nothing I'd worry about -- especially considering the single league and syndicate issues.

1890-92 was always very high as there was a large overlap between older 70s-80s-AA stars and youngsters of the next generation. It was the sharp drop after 1892 that people perceived as a problem fifty-odd discussions ago. The inductions of Jennings, Griffith, Childs (anyone else 'recently'?) fixed whatever people were complaining about in my opinion.

At that point, the sense of Negro Leaguers as "3rd major league" really comes into focus - whether people wanted us to vote that way or not, it's what happened.

For my own accounting purposes, I counted the development of black baseball as expanding the majors to 18 teams during the 1910s and to 20 teams from 1920 on. My sense was that we should have roughly even numbers of HoMers per decade from 1920 through 1969, with the next rise coming with the expansion to 24 teams. I'm comfortable with some trough in the aftermath of WWII, but I think we've taken a few too many from the 1920-42 and a few too few from 1946 to 1969.

The problem is, it's hard to pick out the top players whose dominance is diminished by improved competition.

I'm coming round on Newcombe's case (and I can see the case for Elston Howard, although I haven't bought it yet), but who are the other top candidates from this era that have been overlooked? Are there any candidates for the missing players besides the African-Americans whose careers were disrupted by the Korean War and by the halting pace of integration? Or are they the entirety of "the lost generation"?

Our numbers for the 1950s are low, but the bottom HoMers from that decade are already among the apparently weakest players ever inducted: Nellie Fox, Billy Pierce, Bob Lemon, Minnie Minoso, and, leading into the 1960s, Ken Boyer.

I have not seen a competition argument attempted, much less made plausible, that would justify looking at the players below the Minoso/Lemon/Pierce/Fox level as serious candidates during the 1950s: these, I guess, are players like Schoendienst, Hodges, Vernon. Who else? I guess Rizzuto would cover the 1940s and the early 1950s, and Pesky would also fill in the late 1940s. Jim Fregosi for the 1960s? Jim Kaat?

These are serious, not rhetorical questions. I think it is probable that we have underrepresented this era, but I am at a loss to advocate for players who have been overlooked.

(Tangential point, but I think Howie's excellent decade-by-decade averages smooth out the most egregious spike in our selections. The ten year average 1924-33 is 46.7.)

P.S. I didn't mean to imply that Rizzuto and Pesky are in the same category as Schoendienst and Hodges. Both the 1940s stars are obviously much better, quite serious candidates. My concern is that we have to go outside the current serious candidates to find enough players to fill in the 1950s hole. Maybe that means it shouldn't be filled, or maybe it means we are not contextualizing the 1950s numbers correctly yet.

Bob Elliott is another name I can come up with for the 40s. Bus Clarkson is a possibility. Tiant fills in some of the 60s. Norm Cash is in my PHoM.

Yes, Chris, I nearly pointed out 1924-33 myself, but figured it might just jump out at a glance without even a need to highlight it.

Part of it is just that amazing Cobb-Speaker-Collins-etc crew that just wouldn't quit til the late 1920s.

Meanwhile, 1934-42 is being matched by 1970-77.
1980-84 also is off to a booming start, with a couple of candidates not even eligible yet.

Bob Elliott!! The man who keeps me out of the top consensus slot some years with my mid-ballot vote for him...

Not meant to be a thoughtful list, just a list, for the '50s.

Gil Hodges
Eddie Yost
Al Dark
Al Rosen
Gil McDougald

Red Schoendienst
Bobby Avila
Jackie Jensen
Ted Kluszewki
Gene Woodling

OK these are the top 10 from Bill James WS list for the decade. Not a great way to construct a consideration set.

1960s

Norm Cash
Frank Howard
Vada Pinson
Orlando Cepeda
Maury Wills

Johnny Callison
Curt Flood
Felipe Alou
Bob Allison
Jim Fregosi

These lists of course suffer from selective endpoints. But among these lists I would suggest the following as under-rateds, worth another look.

Hodges--9 consecutive 20 WS seasons
Yost--the walkin' man, I thought we loved the BB around here
Rosen--nice little peak
Avila--hey, look at those non-ML seasons! And there's that 5 year peak and the MVP-worthy year in '54
Schoendienst--well, he is in the HoF but I like Avila better

Cepeda, F. Howard, Cash
Pinson
Fregosi

But of course it's really the '50s that are under-represented. E. Howard and Newk are the Big Two, of course, Clarkson rings some people's chimes. But in addition, why not Yost and Avila?

I think it is probable that we have underrepresented this era [the '50's], but I am at a loss to advocate for players who have been overlooked.

Using Win Shares this effect might be estimated by examining what would happen if two expansion teams had been added. If one assumes they would win 65G each (80% of average), then the other teams would have their win totals inflated by about 5% each (from 81W to 85W). Note that this 5% "expansion bonus" is separate from the 5% bonus 50's players should already be receiving for schedule length adjustment (from 154G to 162G) when comparing to post 1960 players. This makes 300 WS in the 50's equivalent to 331 WS in the 60's.

Dan R. could possibly explore what effects the 60's expansion had on replacement levels and extrapolate those effects back to the 50's in his system.

This makes 300 WS in the 50's equivalent to 331 WS in the 60's.

Those 300 WS are unadjusted straight-from-the-book WS.

Rusty - you seem to have a much higher opinion of those players than anyone. In fact, you seem to be the only member of the electorate who has any opinion of them at all? Give us more. Advocate for them. Try to make us have our own opinions, too. Seriously. You have all year to tackle it.

I know what you are saying, but keep in mind that I am NOT stumping for their election. There are a bunch of guys I have ranked ahead of them. In fact, all those names were taken from my 16-30 group, meaning that while I like them, they are not making my ballot.

Now if you wanted to join in to a "Elect GVH" campaign, I'm all for that.

Marc, your approach is based on the assumption that the HoM is rife with errors. That, over time, we'll gradually "get it right" as regards any particular era.

DanG, well, of course, in terms of consensus we have elected "the best" 234 players. The 235th player--well, the 236th after Rickey--will be as a matter of consensus a guy whom we have previously rejected in favor of #234, #233, etc. etc.

Though one certainly could argue otherwise in the case of Dick Lundy--I mean, that he is NOT the 233rd best player at all but more likely one of the top 200, maybe top 150, but that we had missed him the first time through. And there will be some other players like him. If the consensus comes to believe that Don Newcombe deserves NgL, MiL and mil credit, all of them, for example, and if he were elected,then he would probably by the time thereof NOT be viewed as the weakest choice.

But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. As a matter of consensus, yes, each new choice out of the backlog will be "weaker" than the one before it.

But I would bet that every one of us has 10-15-20 players rated ahead of our lowest rated HoMer. In my case, that would be Ken Boyer maybe. So there's another way to look at consensus. There is a consensus, IOW, that says that there are better players out there than the ones we've already elected. It just doesn't agree as to who it is.

And there's yet another perspective and that is that even as a matter of consensus, and even if indeed we lower the standard each time we pick another backlogger, I think the consensus will be that we are lowering the standard only infinitesimally each time and so, as a practical matter, it would be hair-splitting to say that it was lowered at all.

And Dan, your own numbers suggest that maybe we should look "around" 1908, 1928 and 1963 for some more candidates whom we might have overlooked. Howie's number suggest that we may have overlooked some players from the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

To say as much is not quite to say that we are "rife with errors." That would be too strong. But have we fairly evaluated every single player? Probably not.

To say as much is not quite to say that we are "rife with errors." That would be too strong. But have we fairly evaluated every single player? Probably not.

Ah. You fought through the hyperbole.

I have uploaded my Hall of Merit Election History spreadsheet to the Yahoo! Group Files. I think it's a handy file for looking back, and maybe a helpful tool for looking ahead.

For instance, in the 111 years we've been doing this, only 12 times - involving only 4 individuals - have players received a score of 40% or greater and NOT eventually been elected to the HOM. I would like to take some time over the next year to examine Duffy, VanHaltren, Williamson and Ryan and make sure we are satisfied as a group with our collective change of heart on their worthiness.

For your reference, use or ignore as you please. Email me if you have any questions, comments, corrections or concerns. Thanks,

Of course these 4 got their 40 percent waaaaay back in the day when there wasn't much of a backlog. I don't know if that really represents a "change of heart." I also wonder when 40 percent for 1890s guys became 30 percent became 20 percent, etc. IOW there's probably some guy with 30 percent from the 1920s or 20 percent from the 1950s who hasn't been elected who we should also be thinking about. Do you have that data handy? 30 percenters and 20 percenters not elected and when they got their highest pcts?

The raw data is in there for everybody, so this information could easily be attained. However, it would involve some time compiling so I'm not gonna volunteer.

483 times, we gave somebody 40% or more points - roughly 4.5 per election. Just to pick a year at random, in 1962 there were 3 players who received over 40%, 3 additional players over 30%, and 6 more over 20%. Had to draw the line somewhere Marc...

Look at just about any election year, and the names that pop out are Redding, Duffy and VH - the highest vote-getters who are unhighlighted, yet surrounded by other highlighted players (i.e. future electees).

I don't know if that really represents a "change of heart."

NO, I think "change of heart" is close, maybe "reconclusion" or "downward assessment" would be better. Not so much on the fact their current pct is lower, but on the fact they've been passed by, in some cases, more than 20 players, many of whom were rated as lesser players for decades.

I ssupect many/most of us do not recall how to access the yahoo files...

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/HallofMerit/

Link to Yahoo! Groups HallofMerit

2009 (November 3, 2008)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
535 178.1 1979 Rickey Henderson-LF
294 96.5 1988 Mark Grace-1B
245 92.0 1987 Jay Bell-SS
241 91.0 1987 Matt Williams-3B
251 63.5 1986 Andres Galarraga-1B*
189 87.3 1990 Kevin Appier-P*
206 63.4 1988 Ron Gant-LF
199 63.8 1990 Greg Vaughn-LF
200 59.8 1991 Mo Vaughn-1B
151 65.8 1991 Mike Bordick-SS
140 61.9 1982 Jesse Orosco-RP
129 49.8 1990 John Burkett-P
109 53.6 1991 Charles Nagy-P
113 50.7 1986 Dan Plesac-RP
115 46.0 1992 Denny Neagle-P
125 37.4 1991 Orlando Merced-RF/1B
038 15.4 1991 Kazuhiro Sasaki-RP

and Mike Crudale

Patrick - Nice work on the HoM History spreadsheet. Thanks.

I compared my top 100 with Patrick's list and found 16 players who've never received an HoM vote. Here they are, grouped by decade:

1900s – Julián Castillo, Johnny Kling
1910s
1920s – George Uhle, Nip Winters
1930s
1940s
1950s – Johnny Antonelli (Korean Ward credit), Bobby Avila (Mex Lg credit), Jim Gilliam (Negro Lg & minor lg credit)
1960s – Rocky Colavito, Maury Wills
1970s – Vida Blue, Catfish Hunter, Mike Marshall, Amos Otis, Roy White, Wilbur Wood
1980s – Pedro Guerrero
1990s

These are all pretty good players. I was most surprised to see Avila on the list--he's been discussed a lot here but apparently never actually made it to anyone's ballot.

Funny that Jimmy Ryan and Hugh Duffy had a ton of votes and Colavito didn't get any, I see them as about the same value.

Patrick - Nice work on the HoM History spreadsheet. Thanks.

Indeed. Not just your ordinary HOM History spreadsheet. That's got everything!

As always, this chart is open to criticisms of selective endpoints and over-simplification. But it seemed pertinent to the current discussion:

By Decade:

1860s - 1 (Pearce) (SS)

1870s – 9 (Anson, Barnes, McVey, Pike, Spalding, Start, Sutton, White, Wright) (P, C, 1B-2, 2B, 3B-2, SS, CF)

1880s – 19 (Bennett, Brouthers, Browning, Caruthers, Clarkson, Connor, Ewing, Galvin, Glasscock, Gore, Hines, C Jones, Keefe, Kelly, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Richardson, Stovey, Ward) (P-5, C-2, 1B-2, 2B, SS-2, LF-3, CF-3, RF)
{Candidates –Welch, Williamson}

1890s - 17 (Beckley, Burkett, Childs, Dahlen, Davis, Delahanty, Grant, Griffith, Hamilton, Jennings, Keeler, Kelley, McPhee, Nichols, Rusie, Thompson, Young) (P-4, 1B, 2B-3, SS-3, LF-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates –Duffy, Van Haltren, McGraw}

1900s - 18 (Bresnahan, M Brown, Clarke, J Collins, Crawford, Flick, R Foster, Hill, G Johnson, Lajoie, Mathewson, McGinnity, Plank, Sheckard, Waddell, Wagner, Wallace, Walsh) (P-6, C, 2B, 3B, SS-3, LF-2, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates – Leach, Willis, Joss, Monroe}

1910s - 17 (Alexander, Baker, Carey, Cobb, E Collins, Groh, J Jackson, W Johnson, Lloyd, Magee, Mendez, Roush, Santop, Speaker, Torriente, Wheat, Williams) (P-4, C, 2B, 3B-2, SS, LF-2, CF-5, RF)
{Candidates –Redding, Cravath, Doyle, Taylor}

1920s - 20 (Beckwith, Charleston, Coveleski, Faber, W Foster, Frisch, Goslin, Heilmann, Hornsby, Lundy, Mackey, Moore, Oms, Rixey, Rogan, Ruth, Sewell, Sisler, Vance, Wilson) (P-6, C, 1B, 2B-2, 3B-2, SS-3, LF, CF-2, RF-2)
{Candidates – Grimes, Mays, Bancroft, Schang, Traynor}

1930s - 29 (Averill, Bell, R Brown, Cochrane, Cronin, Dickey, Dihigo, Ferrell, Foxx, Gehrig, Gehringer, J Gibson, Greenberg, Grove, Hartnett, Herman, Hubbell, Lyons, Medwick, Ott, Paige, Ruffing, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Terry, Vaughan, Waner, Wells) (P-8, C-4, 1B-5, 2B-2, SS-3, LF-2, CF-3, RF-2)
{Candidates – B Johnson, Dean, Bridges, Klein}

1940s – 18 (Appling, Boudreau, W Brown, DiMaggio, Doerr, Feller, Gordon, Hack, Irvin, Keller, Leonard, Mize, Musial, Newhouser, Reese, Slaughter, Trouppe, TWilliams) (P-2, C, 1B-2, 2B-2, 3B, SS-3, LF-3, CF-3, RF)
{Candidates – Walters, Rizzuto, Clarkson, Elliott, Stephens}.

1950s – 18 (Ashburn, Banks, Berra, Campanella, Doby, Ford, Fox, Kiner, Lemon, Mantle, Mathews, Minoso, Pierce, Roberts, J Robinson, Snider, Spahn, E Wynn) (P-6, C-2, 2B-2, 3B, SS, LF-2, CF-4)
{Candidates- Newcombe}

1960s – 21 (Aaron, Allen, Boyer, Bunning, Clemente, Drysdale, Freehan, B Gibson, Kaline, Killebrew, Koufax, Marichal, Mays, McCovey, B Robinson, F Robinson, Santo, Torre, Wilhelm, B Williams, Yastrzemski) (P-5, RP, C-2, 1B-3, 3B-3, LF-2, CF, RF-4)
{Candidates – Brock, Cash, Cepeda, E Howard, F Howard}

1970s – 23 (Bench, Blyleven, Carew, Carlton, Da Evans, Fingers, Fisk, Grich, RJackson, Jenkins, Morgan, Nettles, Niekro, Palmer, Perry, Rose, Ryan, Seaver, Schmidt, Simmons, Stargell, Sutton, J Wynn) (P-9, RP, C-3, 1B-2, 2B-3, 3B-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates- RSmith, Perez, Tiant, Singleton, Concepcion, John, Staub, Reuschel, Bonds, Tanana, Bando}

1980s- 21 (Boggs, Brett, Carter, Dawson, Eckersley, Dw Evans, Gossage, Hernandez, Molitor, Murray, Raines, Randolph, Ripken, Saberhagen, Sandberg, O Smith, Stieb, Trammell, Whitaker, Winfield, Yount) (P-2, RP-2, C, 1B-2, 2B-3, 3B-3, SS-4, LF, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates- Puckett, Murphy, L. Smith, Mattingly)

1990s- 3 (W Clark, Gwynn, McGwire) (1B-2, RF)
{Candidates- Cone, Belle}

From DavidFoss' earlier post:

Is there a flukey glut of old guys still active in 2007 who'd been hanging on for milestones that will flood the ballot in five years?

Yes- Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Glavine, there is a surplus of players playing well into their forties. There's also a bunch of guys in their late thirties who could retire at any time like Schilling, Smoltz and Mussina.

Also, there is a strong group of new candidates coming up in 2010 and beyond. The 2009 election will be Rickey and a pair of backloggers. But in 2010, '11 and '12, we have Alomar, Larkin, McGriff, Martinez, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Brown, Walker and Bernie Williams (though not all of them are shoo-ins). And 2013 could be looking at Clemens, Biggio and Bonds (though it's possible Clemens or Bonds could be back next year). It's entirely possible that we won't elect any backlog players for a while after 2009 even with 3-a-year elections.

Are we underrating borderline 80s and 90s guys? I thought we had been inducting our share of post-expansion guys. Does the 'math' imply that we need to be inducting more? How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?

We are inducting more post-expansion than pre-expansion players. Ignoring the '30s glut, we elected roughly 17-18 players per decade pre-expansion. Post-expansion, we've been averaging 22 (21 in the '60s, 23 in the '70s, and Rickey will be #22 for the '80s). So we have increased our numbers of inductees per decade by about 4.5. I don't know if 4.5 is the right number for the increase. I do believe that there should be an increase as there are more players. At the same time, I also believe that we shouldn't simply double the number of players just because the league doubled the number of teams. Whether 4.5 is too high or too low, I'll leave to others to argue.

However, we will be going up pretty drastically from 22 for the 1990s. Here's a preliminary '90s list: 23 (Alomar, Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, K Brown, W Clark, Clemens, Glavine, Griffey, Gwynn, R Johnson, Larkin, Maddux, P Martinez, McGwire, Mussina, Palmeiro, Piazza, I Rodriguez, Sheffield, Smoltz, Sosa, Thomas) (P-8, C-2, 1B-2 /1B-5, 2B-2, SS, LF, CF, RF/ RF-3). So the '90s will pass by the '60s-80s without any difficulty. Then you add any number of these guys: Cone, Belle, McGriff, E Martinez, Ventura, Walker, Olerud, B Williams. So the '90s are looking at a minimum of 23, but more likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.

Personally, I don't think that's too many.

But I do mention it because I think it has some bearing on the discussion about the number of electees.

If we reduce the number of electees from 30 per decade to 25 per decade, we're basically saying that we're closing the door on the backlog. Oh, some backlogger may sneak in here or there based on the timing of new eligible players. But for all intents and purposes, we would be done with them. Looking further ahead, we're looking at about 25 players for the decade of the '00s as well.

The way I see it, there are three scenarios:

One, continue with the current schedule: three inductees per year. That gives us 30 inductees per decade. This would have the advantage of insuring an open door for modern players, and we could expect about 25 new players to be inducted per decade. This would also leave some room for backlog inductions, at approximately 5 per decade (of voting, not of history).

Two, reduce the current schedule: alternating two and three inductees per year. That gives us 25 inductees per decade. This would have the advantage of ostensibly being as fair to modern players as to earlier players. But it could also insure that new candidates go through a rigorous competition against each other for induction. We would still be able to elect about 25 new players per decade if we so chose. However, this scenario would theoretically close the door to the backlog.

Three, reduce the current schedule while remaining responsive to Hall of Fame inductions:
Here's what I'm thinking. We reduce the current schedule to alternating elections with two or three inductees. However, we keep the option open of expanding elect-two years back to elect-three years if the Hall of Fame elects candidates from their backlog.

Here's what the 2/3 scenario would look like:
2009: 3
2010: 2
2011: 3
2012: 2
2013: 3
2014: 2
2015: 3
2016: 2
2017: 3
2018: 2

Hypothetically, that would be:
2009: Henderson (+ 2 backlog)
2010: Alomar, Larkin
2011: Palmeiro, Bagwell, Brown
2012: (2 of McGriff, Martinez, Walker and Williams)
2013: Biggio (+ active players who might retire like Clemens and Bonds, or holdovers from 2012 frontloggers)

But what if the Hall of Fame actually elects some players? What if Goose Gossage goes in this year (as I think he will)? What if Santo finally gets the VC nod in 2009? We've already elected those guys. What if Jim Rice finally makes it in on the writers vote? Or Gil Hodges? We could have flexibility built in. Basically, whenever the HoF elects a player from their backlog, we shift the next elect-2 ballot to an elect-3. If they go whole hog and elect 5 players at once, we don't have to follow suit in an identical fashion. Rather, we shift the next 5 elect-2 ballots to elect-3.

Here are some hypothetical situations:

2008: Hall of Fame elects Goose Gossage

Hall of Merit schedule:
2009: 3
2010: 3 (shifted up to account for HoF addition of Gossage)
2011: 3
2012: 2

2008: BBWAA elects Goose Gossage and 2009: VC elects Ron Santo

Hall of Merit schedule:
2009: 3
2010: 3
2011: 3
2012: 3 (shifted up to account for HoF addition of Santo)
2013: 3
2014: 2

2008: BBWAA elects Gossage and Rice, and 2009: VC elects Santo, Hodges and Kaat

(I don't see it happening, but if it did, we would simply shift back to elect-3 ballots for the foreseeable future)

Anyway, that's my two cents (and a little more)

burniswright:

You do bring up an interesting point about Frank Grant and the impact of information not previously considered. I think that's going to be a long conversation, and not an easy one. For one thing, the moment you bring up the specter of "unelecting" someone, then we're going to have people who want to talk about Sam Thompson and Ken Boyer and who knows who else. I think that for the moment, I'd like to keep that conversation simmering on the back burner, although we'll see how everyone else approaches it.

I have a more immediate question for you. You do seem to be someone who has a lot to bring to our dicsussions, so I'd like to hear your answer to this. Among all of the blackball, Latin American, and early-integration players that we have not elected, would you be able to identify and perhaps rank-order a top five or top 10? When we talk about and cast votes for Dick Redding, Bus Clarkson, Bill Monroe, Carlos Moran, Elmer Smith, and Luke Easter, are we even talking about the right people? And what about Don Newcombe and Elston Howard, anyway? Or Dolf Luque?

If we ever had a situation where we wanted to un-elect someone it should require a unanimous or near-unanimous (1 against) vote because we had people elected with <30%. I don't think we should remove anyone we have elected unless the data shows they are clearly worse than the top 4-5% of baseball players. I don't think we have that situation with anyone we have elected.

An alternative way to do a project like the HoM is to give everyone perpetual eligibility, even those players "elected". To track these electees' gradual fall from grace would be most informative. Instead, we chose to use a "HOF" type format, removing players' eligibility upon election. But we could have just as easily decided to walk through time, adding in the new eligibles each year and resifting all players.

"I have a more immediate question for you. You do seem to be someone who has a lot to bring to our dicsussions, so I'd like to hear your answer to this. Among all of the blackball, Latin American, and early-integration players that we have not elected, would you be able to identify and perhaps rank-order a top five or top 10? When we talk about and cast votes for Dick Redding, Bus Clarkson, Bill Monroe, Carlos Moran, Elmer Smith, and Luke Easter, are we even talking about the right people? And what about Don Newcombe and Elston Howard, anyway? Or Dolf Luque?"

OCF: I'll be happy to take on that assignment for you--I just need a good chunk of time in which to read and study what you've already done. I am so new to this site that I haven't even made a list yet of the NeL's who are in and who are out, much less the reasons why people think they should be in or out. For instance, Sunnyday2 just asked me to evaluate the Dobie Moore thread. Again, I will be glad to do that; it's just that there are 227 posts in the Moore thread, and for reasons that are hard to justify, given how much I love doing this stuff, I still work a day job.

In general terms, I would identify two problem areas. The first is the one I outlined in posts 58 and 59 on the Bill Monroe thread: the ever-changing landscape of available information and available analytical tools for everyone outside the mainstream of the 20th-century bigs, and how that will necessarily keep evaluations in a state of flux. I really think those two posts should be moved to this thread, even if everyone concerned recoils in horror at the thought of revisiting Ken Boyer (or whomever), as you point out in post 86, above. I don't know how to move posts, so if someone could do that for me, we'll see just how much recoiling in horror there really is.

The second problem, which has been discussed with a great deal of passion already on your NeL HOM page, is the extremely tricky juxtaposition of NeL stats and MLB stats for guys in the 1940s and 1950s. It would be nice if there was at least one important guy whose career was equally divided between the two. There isn't. The closest you can come is Monte Irvin, and in his case there's no question that he had a more important career in the NeL's than the majors.

For most, they're either on the Minoso/Mays/Newcombe side of the line, in which the NeL career really didn't give you a sense of what they were going to be able to do, or the Satch Paige side, in which the reverse is true.

For an extra wonderful migraine, you have all the Clarkson/Marquez stories about NeL stars who bombed out at the MLB level, at which point you have to start to bring in some cultural context.

All that said, I will certainly give your assignment my best effort--it's just not going to happen until the Xmas/New Year's madness is past.

Thank you. Whatever you do, we'll be appreciative.

58. burniswright Posted: December 11, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2641103)
One more thought about sunnyday2's' "We elected Frank Grant but I'd be hard pressed to tell you why", from post 53.

I'm all of about a week old on this site, so forgive any incorrect assumptions I may be making. But it looks like what you're trying to do here is elect people to the HOM based on honest efforts at doing real research and collecting hard facts, as opposed to some of the worst aspects of the old-boy network that has operated all too long at the HOF.

And from that, I further assume that if you had the power to remove, say, Jesse Haines from the HOF (along with a couple of dozen other people), you would do so; after all, he's mainly there because he was a pal of Frankie Frisch. That's not a good enough reason.

Well, among the many things I don't know about your site is whether your rules permit reconsideration of previous HOM votes. If they don't, they should. Here's why:

Everything you're doing is based on the principle of additive knowledge: the emergence of new data, newly-interpreted data, the design and subsequent refinement of analytical tools, the recognition and processing of differing opinions, and so forth. I think that's incredibly admirable, especially in comparison to how things are done at the HOF. In fact, I just wrote an e-mail to Gary A. praising the work on the NeL HOM page to the skies; if you read it, you'd all give yourselves a raise.

So if the process of evaluation is ongoing as new evidence comes to light, why should the results of the voting at a certain point in that process be sealed for all eternity? At the HOF they have this little problem called "It all takes place in bricks and mortar." I mean, the guys are there with their wives and children, the plaques are up on the wall, visitors have paid outrageous amounts of money to trek to Cooperstown (which ain't all that convenient to get to), and so on.

Well, the internet has changed the rules of the game in a lot of respects; why not this one?

In the Negro Leagues realm, and in the earlier 19th-century realms, there are sabermetric tools that just don't work as well as they do in modern baseball, and Frank Grant is in both of them. Scant and unreliable data is an obvious problem for the NeL's, and both cultural differences and rule changes will make certain kinds of analyses more difficult.

An obvious example would be the gap between Ross Barnes' year in 1876 and in all subsequent years being the result of disallowing the fair-foul hit. And any number of pitchers don't have coherent career curves because they could get guys out at 50 feet, but not at 60.

All of this argues for as much back-story input as possible--and never just from one guy, be it me or anyone else. For anybody who's interested, Monte Irvin's all-time all-star blackball selections are listed in the December issue of the SABR Negro Leagues Committee newsletter. Monte is a reasonably thoughtful guy, but some of his picks are beyond bizarre. It's a cautionary tale about what can happen if you rely too heavily on one person's opinion. If you want me to post them, write to me and tell me where it would be appropriate to do that.

But what all this is getting to is that the painstaking aspect of figuring this stuff out in a careful and collective way is exactly what makes this site great. I've now read the entire John Beckwith thread. And the fact that it's 372 posts long is a huge positive, not a negative, as perhaps some of you may have felt at the time. It says to me that you'll do whatever is necessary to get the job done right.

It's in this spirit that I suggest that you allow for the possibility of reconsidering HOM election results, as both new arguments and new data come to light. And just to be clear, this is not some sort of negative rant about Frank Grant; it's an honest suggestion about how to make sure that the HOM selections always represent the ongoing and cumulative best thinking about each candidate.
59. burniswright Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:05 AM (#2641112)
P.S.: I forgot to add my favorite legal precedent for the above position: it's the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Sometimes most everyone seems to agree about what the law of the land ought to be, and then, upon further review (as we say in the NFL), they change their minds. It happens.

"I will certainly give your assignment my best effort--it's just not going to happen until the Xmas/New Year's madness is past."

Take your time, we don't vote again for another year...

Wading into this thread after a week posted...

I'm strongly against a runoff - I think the system has worked fine for 111 years . . .

I think the runoff would be more cosmetic than anything, but I wish we had done it in 1898, IMO. It's easier to convince others outside of group of our selections when the inductees have a majority of the votes, rather than just a plurality.

We no longer care about matching the Hall of Fame.

I'd still like to see a periodic (5 years? 10?) review of the number of inductees per year just in case we get "carried away" too much. The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO.

I have Rickey comfortably in the inner circle,

Does anybody not have him there?

The comparitive aspect between the two halls should be maintained, IMO.

Chris Cobb said it better, but: For 111 years we've compared our choices versus their choices. From here on out, we'll be comparing electing worthy players versus keeping eminently and obviously worthy players out.

If we ever had a situation where we wanted to un-elect someone it should require a unanimous or near-unanimous (1 against) vote because we had people elected with <30%. I don't think we should remove anyone we have elected unless the data shows they are clearly worse than the top 4-5% of baseball players. I don't think we have that situation with anyone we have elected.

I agree, DL. In fact, I'm surprisingly not against it in theory, which I would have been years ago. Of course, if we had ceremonies and real plaques like the HOF has, I wouldn't even contemplate it.

Chris Cobb said it better, but: For 111 years we've compared our choices versus their choices. From here on out, we'll be comparing electing worthy players versus keeping eminently and obviously worthy players out.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive goals, Marc.

I doubt any evidence will come to light that makes Frank Grant a terrible pick.
He hit well at Buffalo compared to white contemporaries.

At worst, he makes a budding baseball historian say, "Hey, who IS this guy?"

That is NOT why we elected him, of course. But just as murkiness can creat doubters, it also makes it tough to compose solid evidence against him.

I only had him 5th or 6th, I think, the year he was elected, but I have no gripe with the pick.

I only had him 5th or 6th, I think, the year he was elected, but I have no gripe with the pick.

I had him roughly in the same spot, Howie, and also agree that Grant wasn't a bad pick.