Page 1 of 1 pages
1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 04, 2010 at 10:01 PM (#3427809)
hot topics

hot topics
OR
2. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2010 at 10:12 PM (#3427820)
I love seeing Kevin Appier ahead of Jack Morris.
3. OCF Posted: January 04, 2010 at 10:13 PM (#3427821)
Broader participation than last year. Last year we had 94 total votes; this year it's 152. Some trends in the voting, as the participation increases:

Raines: 100% -> 97%
Blyleven: 97% -> 95%
Trammell: 94% -> 90%
McGwire: 84% -> 82%
Dawson: 37% -> 45%
Murphy: 28% -> 22%
Smith: 24% -> 18%
Parker: 17% -> 7%
Mattingly: 6% -> 3%
Morris: 6% -> 5%
Baines: 2% -> 3%

John and Cone each had substantial support in our ballot last year (29% and 26%); they were taken off the ballot this year, for different reasons.
4. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2010 at 10:13 PM (#3427822)
Well, we've now quantified groupthink. Someone can use my equation to grade ballots. Tongue only slightly in cheek.
5. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 04, 2010 at 10:26 PM (#3427842)

Well, we've now quantified groupthink. Someone can use my equation to grade ballots. Tongue only slightly in cheek.



The ten I voted for finished #1-10 here. Do I win a prize!? Actually, I ranked mine, and I'm pretty sure I had Dawson over Martinez and Raines and Larkin both over Alomar (and, of course, I also voted for three guys who were on <50% of the BBTF ballots). So maybe not.
6. Jolly Old St. Nick (now, with Screen Name history) Posted: January 04, 2010 at 10:49 PM (#3427863)
How many players here have missed the first year and then made it in subsequent years?
7. Monty Posted: January 05, 2010 at 12:00 AM (#3427915)
Yeah, that's about where I picture Edgar Martinez: real close to the border line and capable of making it or not depending on the specific electorate.
8. Paul Wendt Posted: January 05, 2010 at 02:23 AM (#3427976)
JTM--
Evidently the title should be "2010 BBTF HOF Results". Probably the parenthetical remark on Raines should be "99% in 2008".

Kiko Sakata--
(there must be someone who appreciates the Wizard of Earl)
You'll need to split the modest prize several ways.

JTM--
Evidently the title should be "2010 BBTF HOF Results". Probably the parenthetical remark on Raines should be "99% in 2008".

You're right, Paul. Annoying that they slipped through my double checking of this thread. Thanks!

Wow that was quite the epic thread fuggery there John

Wow that was quite the epic thread fuggery there John

Heh. Unfortunately, when you change the title of a preexisting thread, it creates another thread. IOW, the original thread that stated that it was the 2009 election couldn't be amended, which is why I had to transfer the previous posts to this new one.

2010 BBTF HOF Results: Alomar, Larkin, Raines, Blyleven, Trammell and McGwire!

I want to go on record as objecting to this groupthink.

Groupthink, nuthin.' There just happened to be a correct answer. (To which 102 people objected. Groupthink, nuthin.')

1. baseven Posted: January 06, 2010 at 11:39 AM (#3429602)
Hi, I just don´t believe that a baseball player such as Andres Galarraga is not getting the merit he deserves. He has a batting title, hr title, rbi title (twice), hits title, 2b title, total bases title, extra bases title, 2 gold gloves, 5 all star appearances (less than he deserved), 6 times has been between the first 10th in mvp voting and 9 times has batted over 300 pct. That is, not counting that he had to quit baseball because of a cancer, got back (twice) and got the comeback player of the year (twice). That are statistic that show he is one of a kind, one of the best of his time, that he was the best in many fields in his time. Aren´t those premises for hall of famers? Even worse, How is it possible that he could be out of consideration for his first year of eligibility? In total numbers, he is a 288 pct average player, has 2333 hits, 399 hrs, and 1425 rbi, numbers above some hall of famers, and above many more than those in consideration. With all due respect, how come players such as Ventura who has never be a leader of any field, burks who only has a total base title and extra bases title, for example and many others who are far away from Galarraga´s achievments and total numbers can compare to him? Why is the reason he is so undervalued?
On the other hand, players such as Kirby Puckett is elegible in his first year???? He does not have any statistic over Galarraga, then? Ahh, he played with a team that was champion many times, meaning, a team that got more recognition that other, he was a player that was seen more than others, is that really a personal achievement? Such as to separate one player with similar or better numbers to another? come on...
I just don´t agreed and can´t understand, can anyone explain me?

Jorge
2. tjm1 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 11:51 AM (#3429615)

I just don´t agreed and can´t understand, can anyone explain me?



Galarraga was never the best first baseman in the major leagues, or even close to the best. He had two good years outside Colorado (1988 and 1998), and his numbers in Colorado overestimate how good he was. He was a good player, and his comeback from cancer is admirable, but he wasn't a consistently dominant player. A first baseman has to be a dominant hitter to deserve consideration, and Galarraga, while very good, didn't meet that standard.

Puckett played in a tougher park, at a time when it was tougher to score runs, and was also a pretty good defensive outfielder. Ventura was a terrific defensive third baseman (6 Gold Gloves), and while he never led the league in everything, he was one of those players who was above average in every facet of the game. The standards for hitting are a little lower at the tougher defensive positions.
3. Paul Wendt Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:07 PM (#3430205)
This year there were 8 members of the Hall of Merit on the BBWAA ballot and 7 of them remain on the ballot for 2011.

We cast about 8 votes per ballot including about 7.5 votes for candidates who will remain on the ballot for 2011. (For the HOM voters among us, eight votes cast for players who will remain on the ballot.)

With Bagwell, Brown, Palmeiro, and Walker arriving next year, it's likely that there will be 10 HOMers on the BBWAA ballot for 2011 and many many of us will support 11 or more candidates.
(There will be ten if the HOM elects three of those four newcomers, as many anticipate, or elects two of them plus McGriff.)
4. Don Malcolm Posted: January 07, 2010 at 12:43 PM (#3430918)
Paul, I think what will happen is that certain players will have to be jettisoned from the ballot as we start moving into the "glut" phase of voting.

This will actually signal a way out of the "groupthink" problem, and will result in a more mixed set of voting results than what we've seen for awhile.

Question for John: this is the second consecutive year where a player who received far less than 75% from the BTF/HOM "family" has been elected to the HoF by the BBWAA. Last year Rice was elected in his final year of BBWAA eligibility, so he wouldn't have appeared on the 2010 ballot under any circumstances, but Dawson would be in his tenth year of eligibility and since we didn't elect him, he could (theoretically, at least) remain on the ballot for a few more years. I realize that this might seem counter-productive given the real-life results, but it would be interesting to see how his percentages would be affected by the glut of candidates who will begin to appear over the next few years.

The discrepancy in the Dawson/Martinez vote pct. was covered in an adjacent thread, but has some inherent residual interest here given the differences in the overall voting population and the HoM subgroup.

Player, Overall, HOM, nonHOM
Martinez, 68%, 73%, 67%
Dawson, 46%, 67%, 39%

I think additional commentary on this would be at least interesting, if not enlightening.
5. OCF Posted: January 07, 2010 at 01:01 PM (#3430953)
HoM voters tend to be more "big-hall" than BBTF at large; on average we put more candidates on each of our ballots, and nearly every candidate did better with us than the at large electorate. The biggest difference was actually with McGwire, as very few, if any, HoM voters regard steroid accusations as disqualifying. And, although we argue all the time, I think we have some tendency to give at least some respect to our fellow voters' opinions. From that standpoint, the fact that both Dawson and Martinez were elected to the HoM (admittedly, both as marginal choices) helped bolster them with our group.

So why did Martinez and Dawson come out differently? I think both the HoM and non-HoM groups were framing Martinez's case in very similar terms, but we were framing Dawson's case differently. The HoM voters who put him on their ballots were clearly voting for the Expo CF (with a nice long tail to his career); some of the other voters may have been somewhat more influenced by the image of that career tail, the Cub RF.
6. Paul Wendt Posted: January 07, 2010 at 03:18 PM (#3431169)
Paul, I think what will happen is that certain players will have to be jettisoned from the ballot as we start moving into the "glut" phase of voting.

This will actually signal a way out of the "groupthink" problem, and will result in a more mixed set of voting results than what we've seen for awhile.

need to be jettisoned?
I was thinking that the glut will enforce variation. If many many of us support 11 to 14 candidates then many of us (not all of the "many many") will face close calls of a different nature down at number ten.


Quoting someone who isn't here, from the "discussion" thread
Chris Cobb #15
My preliminary ballot, more or less in rank order, if anyone cares. Top 8 are all HoM, so it's pretty clear they are well qualified for the Coop. Smith and Ventura don't make the HoM, but get a yes for the HoF.

Barry Larkin
Tim Raines
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Mark McGwire
Roberto Alomar
Edgar Martinez
Andre Dawson
Robin Ventura
Lee Smith

I would add Dale Murphy, too, if I could. McGriff, no, not even I had more space.

There were few such comments this year (although most voters participated only in the Ballot thread, where only a minority may be inclined to comment). Next year there should be many and some will "cut" at more than two candidates whom the voter supports more strongly than Chris Cobb does Dale Murphy.

Furthermore, when the cut falls among Hall of Merit members and HOMers in waiting --I anticipate 11 or 12 next year-- rather than the much discussed Lee Smith and Dale Murphy, those close calls will be unfamiliar ones. A regular HOM voter, for example, may Edgar Martinez and Larry Walker on the bubble, without much experience in considering their merits.


(I don't know the history and connotations of "groupthink" well enough to say much about that "problem". Let me escape by noting simply that I believe self-selection has much to do with the approach to unanimity regarding more than half the permitted number of votes, six of ten. People not inclined to see Barry Larkin and Alan Trammell as fairly clear cases may not frequent the HOM, or even BBTF.)
7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 07, 2010 at 03:37 PM (#3431197)

I think additional commentary on this would be at least interesting, if not enlightening.



I think OCF nailed it in post #5, Don.

As for keeping Dawson on the ballot for next year and beyond, while I admit to be interested as to how he would face the upcoming glut, I think we need to keep the election on the same playing field as the Cooperstown vote. Interesting idea, though.

John,

I wasn't all that serious about the Dawson idea, it's just one of those fring-y type of things that tend to pop into my mind.

As far as OCF's comments, a few thoughts. First, I'm about as a big a "Big Hall" person as there can be, but I didn't vote for Dawson. My image of him is both as an Expo CF and as a Cub RF; while I admire his longevity, I don't find it to be compelling enough to overlook his marginal HoF hitting qualifications at all points of his career. I'm also extremely skeptical of the ranges of defensive value that latter-day models assume for assigning overall value, and think that these are very likely creating significant distortions in the numerical values being generated.

Second, while I suspect that OCF's point about number of players on the ballot might be correct, I'd still like to see a comp between players/ballot for the two voting subgroups. He alludes to that, but doesn't provide the actual data. My admittedly cursory glance at this indicated that there's not all that much difference between them (and both groups are way ahead of the BBWAA's player/ballot average).

Third, McGwire received 78% of the vote from the non-HOM folks, as opposed to 97% from the HOM sub-group. That's not as much of a difference as the split for Dawson (39% to 67%).

Finally, a larger issue needs to be noted. I'm not criticizing the HOM for this, but it's virtually impossible to make a comprhensive comparison between the two player lists given that the induction criteria are different. Players are admitted to the HOM under far less stringent conditions than the HOF voting (creating, in effect, its own "Vets Committee" process that's built into the voting structure). One comp that Paul Wendt doesn't seem to have provided (though possibly I've not searched extensively enough, as he is truly indefatigable...) is a list of the HoM inductees compared with the list of BBWAA-elected HOFers (IOW, <u>non-VC</u> selections). What's more immediately available is the list of HOM inductees who exceeded the 75% HOF vote percentage (122). A breakout along these lines might be more revealing in terms of exactly how the two player lists really diverge.

I wasn't all that serious about the Dawson idea, it's just one of those fring-y type of things that tend to pop into my mind.

It actually wasn't a bad idea, Don. That's why I didn't dismiss it outright.

8. Don Malcolm Posted: January 09, 2010 at 04:00 PM (#3432910)
Players are admitted to the HOM under far less stringent conditions than the HOF voting (creating, in effect, its own "Vets Committee" process that's built into the voting structure). One comp that Paul Wendt doesn't seem to have provided (though possibly I've not searched extensively enough, as he is truly indefatigable...) is a list of the HoM inductees compared with the list of BBWAA-elected HOFers (IOW, non-VC selections). What's more immediately available is the list of HOM inductees who exceeded the 75% HOF vote percentage (122). A breakout along these lines might be more revealing in terms of exactly how the two player lists really diverge.

I haven't distinguished HOF "players" elected by the BBWAA from those elected by the several committees for veterans and Negro Leagues. I am not keen on that, partly because Cooperstown's veterans committees, lowercase and plural, have elected almost all of the players from before 1910 or from the Negro Leagues.


Second, while I suspect that OCF's point about number of players on the ballot might be correct, I'd still like to see a comp between players/ballot for the two voting subgroups. He alludes to that, but doesn't provide the actual data. My admittedly cursory glance at this indicated that there's not all that much difference between them (and both groups are way ahead of the BBWAA's player/ballot average).

I have looked at that and perhaps posted?. Looking again by eye:

(calculation, errorprone) The HOM subgroup comprising 33 voters year cast 8-2/3 votes per ballot, or 44 empty spaces on 33 ballots. Recognizing the 22 Dawson votes, there are now 66 empty spaces on 33 holdover ballots, or 8.0 votes and 2.0 empty spaces per "holdover ballot". I hope the sense is clear.

(estimate, not too wild) The average must be about three empty spaces per holdover ballot for the other 119 voters.

OK, data. I have 8.65 votes per ballot for the HoM voter subgroup, and 7.56 votes per ballot for the other group. (My definition of that subgroup may differ slightly from John's definition.)

Here are the top 10 candidates, listed in the order by which the BTF electorate differed from that of the BBWAA. We're talking different worlds here, at least for the top 4.

Player - BTF% - BBWA% - Difference

Trammell 90% - 22% - 68%

Raines 97% - 30% - 67%

McGwire 82% - 24% - 58%

Larkin 97% - 52% - 45%

Martinez 68% - 36% - 32%

Alomar 99% - 74% - 25%

Blyleven 95% - 74% - 21%

McGriff 41% - 22% - 19%

Murphy 22% - 12% - 10%

Dawson 46% - 78% - [32%]

BBTF liked Murphy as a candidate better than the BBWAA did?

I'm also extremely skeptical of the ranges of defensive value that latter-day models assume for assigning overall value, and think that these are very likely creating significant distortions in the numerical values being generated.

I would like to know more. What exactly are these ranges of defensive value that Don is objecting to?

PS - Does Andy's data in 12 allow for the fact that HoM ballots have five more names than HoF ones?

PPS - No, I'm being dense. This is the HoF ballot.

Player - BTF% - BBWA% - Difference

Trammell 90% - 22% - 68%

Raines 97% - 30% - 67%

McGwire 82% - 24% - 58%

Larkin 97% - 52% - 45%

Different worlds? No. It's only math and grammar.

Different worlds? No. It's only math and grammar.

????

I think sunnyday2 was referring to this.

NYT on 50th anniversary, C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures
- part of Snow's book is open at Google Books
- it doesn't really fit these debates

P.S. The NYT article too is only partly open to the public!

OCF: thanks for those numbers on the two voting groups (HoM and non-HoM) and their players/ballot. I think it demonstrates that the "big Hall"/"small Hall" distinction you were claiming is not an especially telling one, given that Chris reported that the BBWAA voters averaged 5.7 players/ballot.

There was clearly some confusion regarding the "difference" between support for McGwire and Dawson in the HoM-sponsored HOF vote, since folks are now quoting BBWAA voting results, which I did not reference. What I pointed out was that the non-HoM portion of the recent vote here showed a greater disparity between the HoM and non-HOM voters for Dawson than for McGwire.

At no point in what I wrote did I suggest a comparison between the HoM-sponsored vote and the BBWAA totals. OCF's original response <u>did</u> capture the specific comparison I was making; my counter-point was that the the non-HoM voters who participated in the HoF vote here at BTF were much more skeptical about Dawson (39%) than they were about McGwire (78%).

Paul B: As for the problems with defensive models, it's still unclear to me that the CF bias in defensive models (more credit assigned to the position compared with actual putout totals in both LW-based systems and in Win Shares) has been resolved. In a larger sense, the ranges of defensive value in new methods seem, from my cursory examination, to possibly explode beyond the approximate value of defense in the model-oriented approach to overall player value. This matter needs more study before something definitive can be concluded; until that occurs, I don't find any of the defensive value arguments persuasive. (All of which goes toward my lack of extra credit to Dawson for his CF play, which is one of the prime arguments by those supporting him as a HoFer.)

Paul W: While you're correct about the fact that pre-1910 players and Negro Leaguers were mostly elected by the VC (clearly an artifact of the HOF's own historical context), my point was that the voting structure of the HoM which allows a third inductee who often has less than 40% of the total vote means that this mechanism in the HoM operates in the fashion of a VC. How many of the HoM inductees from pre-1910 and from the Negro Leagues have vote percentages in that <40% range?

There are a number of more nuanced ways to look at the voting results; it's merely a question of deciding that they are worth pursuing. If time permits, I'll take a crack at it myself.

So, Don, if we accept for the purpose of argument the estimate of the chap at High Boskage House, you're saying that the aggregate value of defenders has to be capped at something like 5 per cent of the total value of hitting + pitching + defence to a team? And within that, the current distribution of value between positions as calculated by common formulae is by no means definite?

BBTF liked Murphy as a candidate better than the BBWAA did?

By percentage of voters, yes. By percentage of votes cast, I think the BBWAA liked Murphy better. The BBTF crowd cast many more votes per voter.

"The BBTF crowd cast many more votes per voter."
- the HOM subset (33), 52% more votes per ballot, about one-half more
- the rest of BBTF (119), 33% more votes per ballot, one-third more

Don,
I understand your point, broadly, but I don't recognize any analogy between 75% support in one of the BBWAA or veterans committee elections and 75% support in one of the HOM elections. The same goes for 40% or any other. These HOM percentages are shares of the maximum score in a point system, which is commonly 24 points per ballot. Permanent eligibility and fixed size of the rank-order ballot, along with sufficient increase in the stipulated numbers elected each cycle, have ensured that a growing pool of plausible candidates competes for votes.

None of these observations pertain to the mock BBWAA election that we completed this week, which mimicked the structure and conditions of the concurrent BBWAA election.

Paul B: I'm saying that we need to determine if the range between the best defender and the worst defender at each position, as measured by the "new metrics," is within the reasonable bounds of what are commonly accepted percentages for the value of defense in the baseball value model.

Paul W: Your percentages (which rework OCF's) show that the non-HoM voters are closer to the "big Hall" HoM subgroups than they are to the BBWAA. That's why I think OCF's characterization that the difference over Dawson is a matter of a "big/small" dichotomy isn't the key element in the voting discrepancy.

I think the comments about the 75% are relevant in that there's a lot of discussion of who is "in" one group vs. another, and it's interesting to note that there is a "tiering" effect in the HoM that has allowed many of the players overlooked by the BBWAA and the VC to be inducted into the HoM. I'm not criticizing that structure, I'm merely pointing out that an examination of the voting percentages would show which HoM inductees can be analogized to the BBWAA (front-door) and VC (side-door) induction processes. There are nuances there that bear some exploration. FWIW, Andre Dawson is in the HoM with what amounts to a 43% yes/no vote from the group (23 of 54 HoM voters put him on their ballot). That's not much different than what the mock BBWAA vote produced, which would have kept him out of the HoF had it been the official vote.

As one example of a more nuanced look at the HoM results, here’s the BBWAA-HoM ‘consensus list” of “Vet Committee selections,” based on the HoM inductees from VC and Old Timer Committee (OTC) admissions, sorted in descending order of HoM vote %, cutting off at under 65% of the HoM vote%:

Yr/BB, Yr/HM, Player, BB, HOM, BBWAA%, HOM%
1969, 1938, Stan Coveleski, VC, HOM, 13.0%, 62.2%
1998, 1965, Larry Doby, VC, HOM, 3.0%, 62.1%
1953, 1929, Bobby Wallace, VC, HOM, 3.0%, 61.0%
1985, 1965, Enos Slaughter, VC, HOM, 69.0%, 60.7%
1945, 1928, Joe McGinnity, OTC, HOM, 25.0%, 60.7%
1975, 1958, Billy Herman, VC, HOM, 20.0%, 59.9%
1974, 1929, Sam Thompson, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 54.6%
1964, 1939, Red Faber, VC, HOM, 31.0%, 46.3%
1961, 1939, Max Carey, VC, HOM, 51.0%, 45.6%
2009, 1976, Joe Gordon, VC, HOM, 29.0%, 41.7%
1975, 1961, Earl Averill, VC, HOM, 5.0%, 40.4%
1963, 1968, Eppa Rixey, VC, HOM, 53.0%, 38.7%
1946, 1986, Rube Waddell, OTC, HOM, 65.0%, 38.1%
1995, 1968, Richie Ashburn, VC, HOM, 42.0%, 38.1%
1996, 1977, Jim Bunning, VC, HOM, 74.0%, 37.7%
1945, 1960, Hughie Jennings, OTC, HOM, 37.0%, 37.7%
1978, 1985, Joe Sewell, VC, HOM, 9.0%, 34.8%
1986, 1972, Bobby Doerr, VC, HOM, 25.0%, 32.8%
1946, 1971, Clark Griffith, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 32.8%
1937, 2009, John McGraw, OTC, HOM, 17.0%, 31.0%
1997, 1997, Nellie Fox, VC, HOM, 74.0%, 30.3%
1962, 1997, Edd Roush, VC, HOM, 54.0%, 29.1%
1945, 2004, Roger Bresnahan, OTC, HOM, 26.0%, 29.0%
1971, 1998, Jake Beckley, VC, HOM, 1.0%, 25.0%

The highest BBWAA vote % is also included alongside the HoM vote %.

It seems to me that players with less than 65% of the HoM vote are less likely to get to the 75% BBWAA threshold than in the MSM world, due to the more intricate vetting process and the elaborate discussions between HoM members. Many of these folks were inducted in their first year due to the HoM voting rules, so we’ll never know how close to 75% they might have eventually come. While the membership may feel that the analogy to the BBWAA's standard is not appropriate, it's clear that the result of the HoM voting process is, in effect, to create a version of the Vets' Committee.

Due to the vagaries of the HoM process there are two VC/OTC inductees with vote percentages between 25% and 62% who are still on the outside looking in: Hugh Duffy (a max vote of 51% but didn’t make the cut that year) and Mickey Welch (31%, ditto).

Now that the HoM has done its work via its original rules, it might be very interesting to try <u>to have it follow the BBWAA rules</u> and begin, as they did, in 1936. Perhaps that's where the group should go next, and <u>take on the exact historical conditions that faced the BBWAA</u> when the HoF idea was first implemented. It would be even more interesting, IMO, if the first year's vote was taken without a round of discussion, just to see what it looked like.

I'm saying that we need to determine if the range between the best defender and the worst defender at each position, as measured by the "new metrics," is within the reasonable bounds of what are commonly accepted percentages for the value of defense in the baseball value model.

Don, the problem, which is a point I've been trying to make for years but can't get anyone to discuss with me, is that it appears on the basis of my research that a really good (or bad) defender busts through those bounds in an extraordinary way. A top-notch defender can add about three wins above average, relative to his position, whereas the normal range is +/- one win. But those three-win fielders are a lot less common than a batter adding three wins per season.

Paul B: Your findings sound very interesting, though one would have to see the exact basis that leads to such a conclusion...in any case, I suspect it's only peripheral to the work of the HoM, at least at this time. In your note here, I see no intimation that Dawson is one of those outliers...? Feel free to email me with more details.

Wait. Mark McGwire did steroids? Shouldn't we re-do this vote?

Don,
We've had some nuanced looks at the HOM voting over the years. Omphaloskepsis. For example there is the "frontlog" jimd and I distinguished: players elected without finishing any election behind anyone who is not in the frontlog. The midlog may have been distinguished from the backlog, too, but I have forgotten; "midlog" may now be a jocular term by analogy.

I think the comments about the 75% are relevant in that there's a lot of discussion of who is "in" one group vs. another, and it's interesting to note that there is a "tiering" effect in the HoM that has allowed many of the players overlooked by the BBWAA and the VC to be inducted into the HoM.

allowed?
The scheduled number of inductions by year and the rejection of many Hall of Famers forced many of those overlooked by the BBWAA and the VC to be inducted.

It's true that a criterion such as election on the first ballot or from the frontlog may be used to define two tiers crisply. Perhaps the forgotten midlog/backlog works, too.

Some have referred to election by appearance on a majority of the 15-deep ballots as a distinction. Like the share of maximum possible points, however, the share of ballots/votes steadily declined over time as the backlog expanded, by the operation of perpetual eligibility and a schedule of inductions that was "slow enough".

This is a chart of all the BBWAA-elected HoFers. I've listed the BBWAA year by year, and it comes out to being a Small Hall of 109 players.

The first BBWAA class was inducted in 1936, and the vote encompassed players whose careers ended in 1901 and later. Among the first three years of balloting (1936-1938) votes were given to two players whose careers ended in 1901: Kid Gleason and Ted Breitenstein. (The latest any BBWAA electee played was 1910: Willie Keeler.)

In those three years, the earliest any eligible careers began (among those who received votes) was 1888: Gleason, Ed Delahanty and Hugh Duffy.

Among the inductees listed below are two who were voted in under special circumstances, Lou Gehrig (inducted 1939) and Roberto Clemente (1973) , both of whom I've included as they would have undoubtedly been elected by the BBWAA if they had gone through the normal process. This list also includes three players who were elected through run-offs in years in which no player received 75% and there was a run-off vote conducted to elect one for induction: Charlie Gehringer (1949), Luke Appling (1956) and Red Ruffing (1953). In addition to the three years in which a run-off was conducted, there have been seven elections in which no one received the required 75%.

In the 75 years of voting there have been 66 votes taken, with 109 players elected. As the earliest year for consideration was 1901, the BBWAA candidates have now spanned 104 years of eligibilty, which renders a rate of barely more than one electee per year of eligibility.

Of the 109 BBWAA electees, the HoM has so far rejected 11 players (in order of their 2009 HoM ballot finish): Kirby Puckett (11th in '09 HoM voting), Tony Perez (17), Dizzy Dean (18), Lou Brock (36), Pie Traynor (37), Rabbit Maranville (60=), Jim Rice (60=), Bruce Sutter (66=), Luis Aparicio (no votes '09), Catfish Hunter (no votes '09), Herb Pennock (no votes '09).

The BBWAA Hall of Fame:
1936 Ty Cobb
1936 Honus Wagner
1936 Babe Ruth
1936 Christy Mathewson
1936 Walter Johnson
1937 Nap Lajoie
1937 Tris Speaker
1937 Cy Young
1938 Pete Alexander
1939 Lou Gehrig--special election
1939 George Sisler
1939 Eddie Collins
1939 Willie Keeler
1940 NO VOTE
1941 NO VOTE
1942 Rogers Hornsby
1943 NO VOTE
1944 NO VOTE
1945 NONE ELECTED
1946 NONE ELECTED
1947 Carl Hubbell
1947 Frankie Frisch
1947 Mickey Cochrane
1947 Lefty Grove
1948 Herb Pennock
1948 Pie Traynor
1949 Charlie Gehringer--run-off
1950 NONE ELECTED
1951 Mel Ott
1951 Jimmie Foxx
1952 Harry Heilmann
1952 Paul Waner
1953 Dizzy Dean
1953 Al Simmons
1954 Rabbit Maranville
1954 Bill Dickey
1954 Bill Terry
1955 Joe DiMaggio
1955 Ted Lyons
1955 Dazzy Vance
1955 Gabby Hartnett
1956 Hank Greenberg
1956 Joe Cronin
1957 NO VOTE
1958 NONE ELECTED
1959 NO VOTE
1960 NONE ELECTED
1961 NO VOTE
1962 Bob Feller
1962 Jackie Robinson
1963 NO VOTE
1964 Luke Appling--run-off
1965 NO VOTE
1966 Ted Williams
1967 Red Ruffing--run-off
1968 Joe Medwick
1969 Stan Musial
1969 Roy Campanella
1970 Lou Boudreau
1971 NONE ELECTED
1972 Sandy Koufax
1972 Yogi Berra
1972 Early Wynn
1973 Roberto Clemente--special election
1973 Warren Spahn
1974 Mickey Mantle
1974 Whitey Ford
1975 Ralph Kiner
1976 Robin Roberts
1976 Bob Lemon
1977 Ernie Banks
1978 Eddie Mathews
1979 Willie Mays
1980 Al Kaline
1980 Duke Snider
1981 Bob Gibson
1982 Henry Aaron
1982 Frank Robinson
1983 Brooks Robinson
1983 Juan Marichal
1984 Luis Aparicio
1984 Harmon Killebrew
1984 Don Drysdale
1985 Hoyt Wilhelm
1985 Lou Brock
1986 Willie McCovey
1987 Billy Williams
1987 Catfish Hunter
1988 Willie Stargell
1989 Johnny Bench
1989 Carl Yastrzemski
1990 Jim Palmer
1990 Joe Morgan
1991 Rod Carew
1991 Gaylord Perry
1991 Ferguson Jenkins
1992 Tom Seaver
1992 Rollie Fingers
1993 Reggie Jackson
1994 Steve Carlton
1995 Mike Schmidt
1996 NONE ELECTED
1997 Phil Niekro
1998 Don Sutton
1999 Nolan Ryan
1999 George Brett
1999 Robin Yount
2000 Carlton Fisk
2000 Tony Perez
2001 Dave Winfield
2001 Kirby Puckett
2002 Ozzie Smith
2003 Eddie Murray
2003 Gary Carter
2004 Paul Molitor
2004 Dennis Eckersley
2005 Wade Boggs
2005 Ryne Sandberg
2006 Bruce Sutter
2007 Cal Ripken
2007 Tony Gwynn
2008 Rich Gossage
2009 Rickey Henderson
2009 Jim Rice
2010 Andre Dawson

(The latest any BBWAA electee played was 1910: Willie Keeler.)

the earliest any BBWAA electee retired?

(The latest any BBWAA electee played was 1910: Willie Keeler.)

the earliest any BBWAA electee retired?

Yeah, well, oops.

With my research, 1910 IS late.

Of the 109 BBWAA electees, the HoM has so far rejected 11 players

For the BBWAA elections, the bigger problem has been errors of omission. Skimming through the ballots where we ranked HoM members by position, some of the players we ranked in the top half of the HoM at their position (thus qualifying for a "small hall") but who were passed over by the BBWAA include Mize, Grich, Vaughan, Dahlen, Baker, Santo, Allen, Raines, Clarke, Doby, Plank, Walsh, Newhouser, and Blyleven (so far).

(This list is limited to players who've retired since 1910 and excludes Negro league players.)

Mize, Grich, Vaughan, Dahlen, Baker, Santo, Allen, Raines, Clarke, Doby, Plank, Walsh, Newhouser, and Blyleven

That looks like a mixture of two lists, neither of them complete: Doby, Baker, Mize, Vaughan, Clarke, Plank, Walsh, and Newhouser did get picked up into the Hall of Fame by the VC (using "VC" as a catch-all for all non-BBWAA mechanisms). But so did some others - George Davis, to name one. I don't fault the BBWAA for not being complete for pre-1910 players. Whereas Grich, Dahlen, Santo, and Allen (I'll leave off Blyleven becuase of the likelihood of his 2011 election by the BBWAA) aren't in the HoF by any mechanism.

<u>Part one of two posts on this...</u>

Navel-gazing regarding this effort is all to the good--especially now that most of the heavy lifting is over.

Here is a list of the BBWAA and HoM inductees who got 75% of the vote (again, realizing that the HoM vote % has a different point of reference), sorted by the HoM pct:

Yr/BB, Yr/HM, Player, BB, HOM, BBWAA%, HOM%
1944, 1939, Lou Gehrig, SP, HOM, 100.0%, 100.0%
1982, 1982, Hank Aaron, BBWAA, HOM, 97.8%, 100.0%
1995, 1995, Mike Schmidt, BBWAA, HOM, 96.5%, 100.0%
1936, 1923, Honus Wagner, BBWAA, HOM, 95.1%, 100.0%
1936, 1941, Babe Ruth, BBWAA, HOM, 95.1%, 100.0%
2009, 2009, Rickey Henderson, BBWAA, HOM, 94.8%, 100.0%
1979, 1979, Willie Mays, BBWAA, HOM, 94.7%, 100.0%
1966, 1966, Ted Williams, BBWAA, HOM, 93.4%, 100.0%
1969, 1969, Stan Musial, BBWAA, HOM, 93.2%, 100.0%
2005, 2005, Wade Boggs, BBWAA, HOM, 91.9%, 100.0%
1955, 1957, Joe DiMaggio, BBWAA, HOM, 88.8%, 100.0%
1974, 1974, Mickey Mantle, BBWAA, HOM, 88.2%, 100.0%
1936, 1933, Walter Johnson, BBWAA, HOM, 83.6%, 100.0%
1947, 1947, Lefty Grove, BBWAA, HOM, 76.4%, 100.0%
1937, 1917, Cy Young, BBWAA, HOM, 76.1%, 100.0%
2007, 2007, Cal Ripken, BBWAA, HOM, 98.5%, 99.8%
1957, 1924, Sam Crawford, VC, HOM, 3.0%, 99.8%
1945, 1902, Dan Brouthers, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 99.7%
1973, 1971, Warren Spahn, BBWAA, HOM, 83.2%, 99.5%
1951, 1951, Jimmie Foxx, BBWAA, HOM, 79.2%, 99.5%
1992, 1992, Tom Seaver, BBWAA, HOM, 98.8%, 99.4%
1990, 1990, Joe Morgan, BBWAA, HOM, 81.8%, 99.4%
1938, 1936, Pete Alexander, BBWAA, HOM, 80.9%, 99.4%
1972, 1952, Josh Gibson, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 99.4%
1936, 1934, Ty Cobb, BBWAA, HOM, 98.2%, 99.3%
1999, 1999, George Brett, BBWAA, HOM, 98.2%, 99.2%
1991, 1991, Rod Carew, BBWAA, HOM, 90.5%, 99.2%
1976, 1942, Oscar Charleston, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 99.2%
1949, 1911, Kid Nichols, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 98.9%
1937, 1922, Nap Lajoie, BBWAA, HOM, 83.6%, 98.8%
1981, 1981, Bob Gibson, BBWAA, HOM, 84.0%, 98.7%
1997, 1994, Phil Niekro, BBWAA, HOM, 80.3%, 98.5%
1945, 1909, Ed Delahanty, OTC, HOM, 53.0%, 98.4%
1985, 1954, Arky Vaughan, VC, HOM, 29.0%, 98.4%
1989, 1989, Johnny Bench, BBWAA, HOM, 96.4%, 98.3%
1969, 1963, Roy Campanella, BBWAA, HOM, 79.4%, 98.3%
1962, 1962, Bob Feller, BBWAA, HOM, 93.8%, 97.9%
1949, 1948, Charlie Gehringer, BBWAA, HOM, 85.0%, 97.9%
1939, 1935, Eddie Collins, BBWAA, HOM, 77.7%, 97.8%
xxxx, 2008, Tim Raines, xxxx, HOM, 34.0%, 97.7%
2003, 2003, Eddie Murray, BBWAA, HOM, 85.3%, 97.5%
2003, 1998, Gary Carter, BBWAA, HOM, 78.0%, 97.2%
2000, 1946, Turkey Stearnes, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 96.9%
1971, 1959, Satchel Paige, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 96.6%
1999, 2000, Nolan Ryan, BBWAA, HOM, 98.8%, 96.3%
1986, 1986, Willie McCovey, BBWAA, HOM, 81.4%, 96.3%
1982, 1982, Frank Robinson, BBWAA, HOM, 89.2%, 95.8%
1942, 1941, Rogers Hornsby, BBWAA, HOM, 78.1%, 95.8%
1947, 1949, Carl Hubbell, BBWAA, HOM, 87.0%, 95.7%
1998, 1915, George Davis, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 95.7%
1936, 1922, Christy Mathewson, BBWAA, HOM, 90.7%, 95.5%
1978, 1974, Eddie Mathews, BBWAA, HOM, 79.4%, 95.4%
1951, 1952, Mel Ott, BBWAA, HOM, 87.2%, 95.3%
1952, 1950, Paul Waner, BBWAA, HOM, 83.3%, 95.3%
1989, 1989, Carl Yastrzemski, BBWAA, HOM, 94.6%, 95.1%
1946, 1912, Jesse Burkett, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 94.9%
1981, 1959, Johnny Mize, VC, HOM, 44.0%, 94.8%
1999, 1935. Smokey Joe Williams, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 94.8%
2007, 2007, Tony Gwynn, BBWAA, HOM, 97.6%, 94.7%
1976, 1972, Robin Roberts, BBWAA, HOM, 86.9%, 94.7%
1977, 1977, Ernie Banks, BBWAA, HOM, 83.8%, 94.7%
1980, 1970, Duke Snider, BBWAA, HOM, 86.5%, 94.6%
1972, 1969, Yogi Berra, BBWAA, HOM, 85.6%, 94.5%
2004, 2004, Paul Molitor, BBWAA, HOM, 85.2%, 94.4%
2001, 2001, Dave Winfield, BBWAA, HOM, 84.5%, 94.4%
xxxx, 1898, Deacon White, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 94.4%
1962, 1962, Jackie Robinson, BBWAA, HOM, 77.5%, 94.0%
1945, 1899, Jim O'Rourke, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 94.0%
xxxx, 2010, Barry Larkin, xxxx, HOM, 51.0%, 94.0%
xxxx, 1898, Paul Hines, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 94.0%
1953, 1946, Al Simmons, BBWAA, HOM, 75.4%, 93.7%
xxxx, 1998, Bert Blyleven, xxxx, HOM, 74.0%, 93.4%
1976, 1903, Roger Connor, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 93.2%
1973, 1978, Roberto Clemente, SP, HOM, 100.0%, 93.1%
xxxx, 1993, Pete Rose, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 92.3%
1955, 1947, Gabby Hartnett, BBWAA, HOM, 77.7%, 92.1%
2006, 1932, Louis Santop, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 92.0%
1994, 1993, Steve Carlton, BBWAA, HOM, 95.6%, 91.9%
1980, 1980, Al Kaline, BBWAA, HOM, 88.3%, 91.9%
1977, 1935, John Lloyd, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 91.9%
1964, 1956, Luke Appling, BBWAA, HOM, 94.0%, 91.7%
1954, 1953, Bill Dickey, BBWAA, HOM, 80.2%, 91.5%
1999, xxxx, Robin Yount, BBWAA, HOM, 77.5%, 90.7%
1952, 1937, Harry Heilmann, BBWAA, HOM, 86.8%, 90.6%
2000, 1999, Carlton Fisk, BBWAA, HOM, 79.6%, 90.5%
2005, 2003, Ryne Sandberg, BBWAA, HOM, 76.2%, 90.3%
1972, 1955, Buck Leonard, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 90.3%
1963, 1900, John Clarkson, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 90.0%
1993, 1993, Reggie Jackson, BBWAA, HOM, 93.6%, 89.7%
1990, 1990, Jim Palmer, BBWAA, HOM, 92.6%, 89.5%
1956, 1953, Hank Greenberg, BBWAA, HOM, 85.0%, 89.1%
1962, 1907, Billy Hamilton, VC, HOM, 1.0%, 89.1%
xxxx, 1915, Bill Dahlen, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 88.9%
1947, 1942, Mickey Cochrane, BBWAA, HOM, 79.5%, 88.3%
2006, 1937, Cristobal Torriente, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 88.2%
1984, 1981, Harmon Killebrew, BBWAA, HOM, 83.1%, 87.7%
xxxx, 1980, Ron Santo, xxxx, HOM, 43.0%, 87.7%
1956, 1951, Joe Cronin, BBWAA, HOM, 78.8%, 87.2%
1947, 1944, Frankie Frisch, BBWAA, HOM, 84.5%, 86.7%
1991, 1989, Gaylord Perry, BBWAA, HOM, 77.2%, 86.2%
xxxx, 2002, Alan Trammell, xxxx, HOM, 18.0%, 86.0%
xxxx, 2007, Mark McGwire, xxxx, HOM, 25.0%, 85.9%
1945, 1917, Fred Clarke, OTC, HOM, 25.0%, 85.2%
1939, 1903, Cap Anson, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 85.2%
2002, 2002, Ozzie Smith, BBWAA, HOM, 91.7%, 84.9%
1988, 1988, Willie Stargell, BBWAA, HOM, 82.4%, 84.3%
1945, 1899, King Kelly, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 84.0%
xxxx, 2010, Roberto Alomar, xxxx, HOM, 72.0%, 84.0%
1955, 1928, Frank Baker, VC, HOM, 30.0%, 83.6%
2006, 1955, Ray Brown, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 83.5%
1991, 1990, Fergie Jenkins, BBWAA, HOM, 75.4%, 83.0%
1977, 1950, Martin Dihigo, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 82.9%
xxxx, 1904, Jack Glasscock, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 82.4%
1946, 1924, Eddie Plank, OTC, HOM, 27.0%, 82.2%
1937, 1934, Tris Speaker, BBWAA, HOM, 82.1%, 82.0%
1968, 1945, Goose Goslin, VC, HOM, 14.0%, 81.5%
xxxx, 1994, Ted Simmons, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 81.5%
1998, 1940, Bullet Rogan, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 79.7%
xxxx, 1898, George Gore, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 79.5%
1974, 1973, Whitey Ford, BBWAA, HOM, 77.8%, 79.1%
1992, 1960, Hal Newhouser, VC, HOM, 43.0%, 78.6%
1997, 1954, Willie Wells, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 78.4%
1945, 1901, Tim Keefe, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 78.2%
xxxx, 2001, Lou Whitaker, xxxx, HOM, 5.0%, 77.5%
2004, 2004, Dennis Eckersley, BBWAA, HOM, 83.2%, 77.0%
1957, 1933, Zack Wheat, VC, HOM, 23.0%, 76.9%
2006, 1948, Jud Wilson, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 76.6%
1945, 1901, George Wright, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 76.2%
xxxx, 1908, Ezra Sutton, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 75.6%
1985, 1978, Hoyt Wilhelm, BBWAA, HOM, 83.8%, 75.5%
xxxxx, 2006, Will Clark, xxxx, HOM, 4.0%, 75.5%

Certain VC players are elevated into the "small Hall" version of the HoM: 10-Sam Crawford, Arky Vaughan, George Davis, Johnny Mize, Roger Connor, Billy Hamilton, Home Run Baker, Goose Goslin, Hal Newhouser, Zach Wheat.

Other non-HoF players elevated into the "small Hall" version of the HoM: 14-Tim Raines*, Deacon White, Barry Larkin*, Paul Hines, Bert Blyleven*, Pete Rose, Bill Dahlen, Ron Santo, Alan Trammell*. Mark McGwire*, Roberto Alomar*, Ted Simmons, Lou Whitaker, Will Clark.

Negro Leaguers elevated into the "small Hall" version of the HoM: 13-Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, Turkey Stearnes, Satchel Paige, Smokey Joe Williams, Louis Santop, Pop Lloyd, Buck Leonard, Cristobel Torriente, Ray Brown, Bullet Rogan, Willie Wells, Jud Wilson

(* indicates player still on active BBWAA ballot)

<u>Part two of two...</u>

Then there are those members of the HoM who didn't get 75% of the vote (again recognizing the difference in voting mechanism). In the earlier post, a swatch of these players were described as the "consensus VC players." Everyone at 65% and over on this list would almost certainly have reached 75% in the HoM voting if that percentage had been a hard-and-fast rule. Again, noting that two players--Duffy and Welch--remain out of the HoM despite outpolling many who made it in. Here's the full list:


Yr/BB, Yr/HM, Player, BB, HOM, BBWAA%, HOM%
2008, 2000, Rich Gossage, BBWAA, HOM, 85.8%, 74.7%
1939, 1902, Buck Ewing, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 74.7%
1946, 1920, Ed Walsh, OTC, HOM, 56.0%, 74.5%
2000, 1913, Bid McPhee, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 74.5%
xxxx, 1927, Joe Jackson, xxxx, HOM, 1.0%, 74.4%
1965, 1910, Pud Galvin, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 73.9%
1945, 1900, Monte Ward, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 73.5%
xxxx, 1914, Cal McVey, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 73.5%
1939, 1906, Al Spalding, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 73.4%
1939, 1919, Willie Keeler, BBWAA, HOM, 75.5%, 73.3%
xxxx, 1912, Joe Start, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 72.5%
1939, 1905, Charley Radbourn, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 71.7%
1945, 1921, Jimmy Collins, OTC, HOM, 49.0%, 70.7%
xxxx, 1898, Ross Barnes, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 69.9%
1984, 1964, Pee Wee Reese, VC, HOM, 48.0%, 69.8%
1977, 1904, Amos Rusie, VC, HOM, 2.0%, 69.8%
1963, 1918, Elmer Flick, VC, HOM, 1.0%, 69.2%
xxxx, 1983, Dick Allen, xxxx, HOM, 19.0%, 68.9%
1983, 1980, Juan Marichal, BBWAA, HOM, 83.7%, 68.3%
1971, 1919, Joe Kelley, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 68.1%
1983, 1984, Brooks Robinson, BBWAA, HOM, 92.0%, 68.0%
xxxx, 1925, Grant Johnson, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 67.7%
2006, 1956, Mule Suttles, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 67.3%
xxxx, 1905, Hardy Richardson, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 67.1%
1955, 1949, Ted Lyons, BBWAA, HOM, 86.5%, 66.8%
1949, 1925, Mordecai Brown, OTC, HOM, 27.0%, 66.5%
1987, 1983, Billy Williams, BBWAA, HOM, 85.7%, 65.8%
xxxx, 1992, Bobby Grich, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 65.2%
1996, 1945, Bill Foster, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 65.0%
xxxx, 1938, Heinie Groh, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 64.9%
xxxx, 1916, Harry Stovey, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 63.2%
1969, 1938, Stan Coveleski, VC, HOM, 13.0%, 62.2%
1998, 1965, Larry Doby, VC, HOM, 3.0%, 62.1%
xxxx, 1930, Jimmy Sheckard, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 61.6%
1973, 1963, Monte Irvin, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 61.3%
2006, 1926, Frank Grant, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 61.2%
1953, 1929, Bobby Wallace, VC, HOM, 3.0%, 61.0%
xxxx, 1921, Charlie Bennett, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 60.9%
1985, 1965, Enos Slaughter, VC, HOM, 69.0%, 60.7%
1945, 1928, Joe McGinnity, OTC, HOM, 25.0%, 60.7%
xxxx, 1926, Sherry Magee, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 60.2%
2006, 1927, Pete Hill, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 60.0%
1975, 1958, Billy Herman, VC, HOM, 20.0%, 59.9%
xxxx, 1984, Joe Torre, xxxx, HOM, 22.0%, 59.9%
xxxx, 1957, John Beckwith, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 58.0%
xxxx, 1930, Bob Caruthers, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 56.6%
1955, 1942, Dazzy Vance, BBWAA, HOM, 81.7%, 56.5%
1984, 1975, Don Drysdale, BBWAA, HOM, 78.4%, 54.9%
1974, 1929, Sam Thompson, VC, HOM, 0.0%, 54.6%
1972, 1972, Sandy Koufax, BBWAA, HOM, 86.9%, 54.3%
xxxx, 1931, Dicky Pearce, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 52.0%
1945, xxxx, Hugh Duffy, VC, xxxx, 0.0%, 51.1%
xxxx, 1996, Keith Hernandez, xxxx, HOM, 11.0%, 49.8%
1972, 1970, Early Wynn, BBWAA, HOM, 76.0%, 49.1%
1998, 1994, Don Sutton, BBWAA, HOM, 81.6%, 49.0%
xxxx, 1958, Stan Hack, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 48.6%
1981, 1932, Rube Foster, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 48.6%
1970, 1958, Lou Boudreau, BBWAA, HOM, 77.3%, 48.5%
2006, 1985, Jose Mendez, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 47.0%
1964, 1939, Red Faber, VC, HOM, 31.0%, 46.3%
1961, 1939, Max Carey, VC, HOM, 51.0%, 45.6%
1954, 1942, Bill Terry, BBWAA, HOM, 77.4%, 44.9%
1968, 1967, Joe Medwick, BBWAA, HOM, 84.8%, 44.7%
xxxx, 1995, Darrell Evans, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 43.6%
xxxx, 1985, Bill Freehan, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 43.0%
xxxx, 1997, Dwiight Evans, xxxx, HOM, 10.0%, 42.6%
2009, 1976, Joe Gordon, VC, HOM, 29.0%, 41.7%
1976, 1967, Bob Lemon, BBWAA, HOM, 78.6%, 41.5%
xxxx, 1964, Wes Ferrell, xxxx, HOM, 4.0%, 40.5%
xxxx, 1940, Lip Pike, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 40.5%
1975, 1961, Earl Averill, VC, HOM, 5.0%, 40.4%
1975, 1987, Ralph Kiner, BBWAA, HOM, 75.4%, 39.4%
xxxx, 1987, Billy Pierce, xxxx, HOM, 2.0%, 39.1%
1967, 1966, Red Ruffing, BBWAA, HOM, 86.9%, 38.8%
1963, 1968, Eppa Rixey, VC, HOM, 53.0%, 38.7%
1939, 1979, George Sisler, BBWAA, HOM, 85.8%, 38.2%
1946, 1986, Rube Waddell, OTC, HOM, 65.0%, 38.1%
1995, 1968, Richie Ashburn, VC, HOM, 42.0%, 38.1%
2006, 1976, Willard Brown, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 37.9%
1996, 1977, Jim Bunning, VC, HOM, 74.0%, 37.7%
1945, 1960, Hughie Jennings, OTC, HOM, 37.0%, 37.7%
xxxx, 2010, Edgar Martinez, xxxx, HOM, 36.0%, 37.0%
1974, 1973, Cool Papa Bell, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 36.8%
xxxx, 1995, Quincy Trouppe, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 36.2%
xxxx, 1988, Cupid Childs, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 35.5%
2006, 1975, Biz Mackey, NL, HOM, 0.0%, 35.4%
xxxx, 1991, Ken Boyer, xxxx, HOM, 26.0%, 35.1%
1978, 1985, Joe Sewell, VC, HOM, 9.0%, 34.8%
xxxx, 1987, Minnie Minoso, xxxx, HOM, 21.0%, 34.7%
xxxx, 1996, Charlie Keller, xxxx, HOM, 6.0%, 34.2%
1986, 1972, Bobby Doerr, VC, HOM, 25.0%, 32.8%
1946, 1971, Clark Griffith, OTC, HOM, 0.0%, 32.8%
xxxx, 2008, Dick Lundy, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 32.4%
1973, xxxx, Mickey Welch, VC, xxxx, 0.0%, 32.0%
xxxx, 1996, Jimmy Wynn, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 31.7%
1937, 2009, John McGraw, OTC, HOM, 17.0%, 31.0%
1997, 1997, Nellie Fox, VC, HOM, 74.0%, 30.3%
xxxx, 2009, Reggie Smith, xxxx, HOM, 1.0%, 30.0%
xxxx, 1991, Dobie Moore, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 29.9%
1962, 1997, Edd Roush, VC, HOM, 54.0%, 29.1%
1945, 2004, Roger Bresnahan, OTC, HOM, 26.0%, 29.0%
xxxx, 2008, Bret Saberhagen, xxxx, HOM, 1.0%, 28.7%
xxxx, 2001, Willie Randolph, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 28.2%
xxxx, 2005, Pete Browning, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 28.1%
xxxx, 2002, Dave Stieb, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 26.7%
1992, 2000, Rollie Fingers, BBWAA, HOM, 81.2%, 26.2%
xxxx, 2006, Alejandre Oms, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 25.3%
2010, 2005, Andre Dawson, BBWAA, HOM, 77.9%, 25.2%
xxxx, 2006, Graig Nettles, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 25.1%
1971, 1998, Jake Beckley, VC, HOM, 1.0%, 25.0%
xxxx, 2003, Charley Jones, xxxx, HOM, 0.0%, 24.9%

Players on "VC consensus" list: 24
Players in BBWAA but in HOM with less than 65%: 14-Dazzy Vance, Don Drysdale, Sandy Koufax, Early Wynn, Don Sutton, Lou Boudreau, Bill Terry, Joe Medwick, Bob Lemon, Ralph Kiner, Red Ruffing, George Sisler, Rollie Fingers, Andre Dawson.
Players with 25-64.9% of HoM vote but not in HoF: 33
Players with 65.2-74.7% of HoM vote but not in HoF: 8-Joe Jackson, Cal McVey, Joe Start, Ross Barnes, Dick Allen, Grant Johnson, Hardy Richardson, Bobby Grich.
Negro Leaguers: 8

Here are the players in the HoF (BBWAA, VC/OTC, Negro Leagues) who are not in the HoM (sorted by HoM vote %):

Yr/BB, Yr/HM, Player, BB, HOM, BBWAA%, HOM%
2000, xxxx, Tony Perez, BBWAA, xxxx, 77.2%, 24.2%
2001, xxxx, Kirby Puckett, BBWAA, xxxx, 82.1%, 21.7%
1994, xxxx, Phil Rizzuto, VC, xxxx, 38.0%, 20.1%
1964, xxxx, Burleigh Grimes, VC, xxxx, 34.0%, 18.8%
1971, xxxx, Harry Hooper, VC, xxxx, 3.0%, 18.3%
1963, xxxx, Sam Rice, VC, xxxx, 53.0%, 15.0%
1953, xxxx, Dizzy Dean, BBWAA, xxxx, 79.2%, 14.6%
1995, xxxx, Vic Willis, VC, xxxx, 0.0%, 14.1%
1999, xxxx, Orlando Cepeda, VC, xxxx, 74.0%, 13.8%
1946, xxxx, Frank Chance, OTC, xxxx, 73.0%, 13.8%
1985, xxxx, Lou Brock, BBWAA, xxxx, 79.7%, 12.7%
1978, xxxx, Addie Joss, VC, xxxx, 14.0%, 10.6%
1948, xxxx, Pie Traynor, BBWAA, xxxx, 76.9%, 8.9%
1986, xxxx, Ernie Lombardi, VC, xxxx, 15.0%, 6.8%
1980, xxxx, Chuck Klein, VC, xxxx, 28.0%, 6.3%
1979, xxxx, Hack Wilson, VC, xxxx, 38.0%, 5.6%
1968, xxxx, Kiki Cuyler, VC, xxxx, 34.0%, 5.6%
1954, xxxx, Rabbit Maranville, BBWAA, xxxx, 82.9%, 4.9%
1972, xxxx, Lefty Gomez, VC, xxxx, 46.0%, 4.6%
2006, xxxx, Bruce Sutter, BBWAA, xxxx, 76.9%, 4.4%
1984, xxxx, Luis Aparicio, BBWAA, xxxx, 84.6%, 4.3%
2009, xxxx, Jim Rice, BBWAA, xxxx, 76.4%, 4.0%
1991, xxxx, Tony Lazzeri, VC, xxxx, 33.0%, 3.3%
1971, xxxx, Dave Bancroft, VC, xxxx, 16.0%, 3.1%
2001, xxxx, Bill Mazeroski, VC, xxxx, 42.0%, 2.2%
1955, xxxx, Ray Schalk, VC, xxxx, 45.0%, 2.1%
1989, xxxx, Red Schoendienst, VC, xxxx, 43.0%, 1.9%
1946, xxxx, Johnny Evers, OTC, xxxx, 54.0%, 1.8%
1972, xxxx, Ross Youngs, VC, xxxx, 22.0%, 1.3%
1946, xxxx, Joe Tinker, OTC, xxxx, 20.0%, 1.3%
1964, xxxx, Heinie Manush, VC, xxxx, 9.0%, 1.3%
1946, xxxx, Jack Chesbro, OTC, xxxx, 2.0%, 1.3%
1969, xxxx, Waite Hoyt, VC, xxxx, 19.0%, 1.0%
1983, xxxx, George Kell, VC, xxxx, 37.0%, 0.8%
2001, xxxx, Hilton Smith, NL, xxxx, 0.0%, 0.6%
1948, xxxx, Herb Pennock, BBWAA, xxxx, 77.7%, 0.0%
1987, xxxx, Catfish Hunter, BBWAA, xxxx, 76.3%, 0.0%
1953, xxxx, Chief Bender, VC, xxxx, 44.0%, 0.0%
1977, xxxx, Al Lopez, VC, xxxx, 39.0%, 0.0%
1967, xxxx, Lloyd Waner, VC, xxxx, 23.0%, 0.0%
1974, xxxx, Jim Bottomley, VC, xxxx, 22.0%, 0.0%
1970, xxxx, Earle Combs, VC, xxxx, 16.0%, 0.0%
1971, xxxx, Chick Hafey, VC, xxxx, 11.0%, 0.0%
1971, xxxx, Rube Marquard, VC, xxxx, 11.0%, 0.0%
1970, xxxx, Jesse Haines, VC, xxxx, 8.0%, 0.0%
1982, xxxx, Travis Jackson, VC, xxxx, 7.0%, 0.0%
1976, xxxx, Freddie Lindstrom, VC, xxxx, 4.0%, 0.0%
1984, xxxx, Rick Ferrell, VC, xxxx, 3.0%, 0.0%
1973, xxxx, George Kelly, VC, xxxx, 2.0%, 0.0%
1987, xxxx, Ray Dandridge, NL, xxxx, 0.0%, 0.0%
1995, xxxx, Leon Day, NL, xxxx, 0.0%, 0.0%

A total of 51 players: 9 elected by the BBWAA (Perez, Puckett, Dean, Traynor, Maranville, Aparico, Rice, Pennock, Hunter); 36 VC/OTC, 6 Negro Leaguers.

The question that the original rule HoM voting did not answer (and, to be fair, was not designed to answer) is how many of the HoM'ers in the less than 75% range would get there if the BBWAA voting standard was used? I still think it's an interesting question, and worth pursuing if the voting group is receptive to a different level of "omphaloskepsis."

We've had some nuanced looks at the HOM voting over the years. Omphaloskepsis. For example there is the "frontlog" jimd and I distinguished: players elected without finishing any election behind anyone who is not in the frontlog. The midlog may have been distinguished from the backlog, too, but I have forgotten; "midlog" may now be a jocular term by analogy.

"Backlogger" was your definition Paul. A player who was eligible for votes but did not receive any (def'n A), or any other player who finished behind a backlogger in another election year (def'n B, apply recursively). Examples: IIRC, Oms, Moore, and Lundy all had elections where they did not receive any votes, making them def'n A backloggers. Any players who finished behind them in any other election year would be def'n B backloggers, as would any additional players who finished behind those players in some other year, etc. This is a formal definition that captures everybody who hangs around for some time, unless, like Suttles, he can "float" above the rest of the candidates while waiting to be elected.

"Frontlogger" is a candidate that receives more than 50% of the #1 votes in an election (def'n A), or would have done so if other frontlogger(s) weren't also on ballot (def'n B). Example: in 1941 Hornsby did not receive any #1 votes; Ruth got them all. However Hornsby was a unanimous #2, so he would have been a unanimous #1 if not for the bad luck of being eligible the same year Ruth came on. Another example: look at 1934 when 6 frontloggers became eligible the same year: Cobb, Speaker, Eddie Collins, Lloyd, Joe Williams, and Torriente. Untangling the ballots shows that if each had become eligible only by himself, the first 4 would have been unanimous #1s, Williams was almost unanimous, and Torriente would have gotten about 2/3rds of the #1s. "Frontloggers" all.

"Midlogger" was indeed jocular, meaning "neither of the above" (e.g. Suttles). They range in electoral strength from guys who just missed being "frontloggers" by one #1 (Devil Wells and Hoyt Wilhelm) to almost mingling with the backlog (Red Faber).

I don't have all my notes on this in front of me so this is approximate.
Just under half of the HOM is "frontlogger". In size, this is numerically close to the BBWAA count.
"Backloggers" account for about one third of the HOM.
"Midloggers" would then be the remaining one sixth.

Early "frontloggers" (deadball and earlier) include:
Not in HOF: Deacon White, Paul Hines, Bill Dahlen
VC HOFers: O'Rourke, Clarkson, Brouthers, Connor, Anson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Nichols, Burkett,
Davis, Clarke, Crawford, Plank, Baker
BBWAA HOFers: Young, Lajoie, Mathewson, Wagner, W.Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, E.Collins, Alexander

NeL "frontloggers" include: Santop, Lloyd, J.Williams, Torriente, Charleston, Stearnes, Wilson, Dihigo, J.Gibson,
Leonard, R.Brown, Paige
Later VC HOFers and "frontloggers" (BBWAA omissions): Vaughan Mize

Modern non-HOFers and "frontloggers": Santo Grich Rose Whitaker
Still eligible: Blyleven Trammell McGwire Raines Larkin Alomar

Thanks, jimd. I had forgotten the terms and your meaning. Privately and in #27 I have used your term 'frontlog' for my recursive dichotomy, a refinement of the ordinary so-called backlog.

The two recursive definitions are equivalent (#27 and #35). There is a simple variant where the "tie goes to the backlog" and there is a simple variant of jimd's where 50% of the #1 votes goes to the frontlog. Those variants may be practically important in application to other rank-order observations.