The results match my feelings fairly well, though I would have switched Evans with Randolph. I think Willie stood out more among second basemen historically than Evans did among right fielders, IMO.

Consensus scores (revised scale). It's a scale that runs from -100 to 100. If everyone were in perfect agreement, everyone would be a 100. Everyone voting randomly would lead to scores clustered around zero.

The average was 74. Here are the high and low scores and a few in the middle:

Devin McCullen: 84
mulder & scully: 83
andrew siegel: 81
dan b: 81
Howie Menckel: 81
OCF: 81
Rick A: 80
...
AJM: 76
karlmagnus: 76 (median score)
zoperino: 76
...
Rusty Priske: 70
sunnyday2: 70
Joe Dimino: 65
pocket8pin: 60
Daryn: 58
jimd: 58
Sean Gilman: 50

We can also measure which candidates we agreed on, or disagreed on, the most. The number here is simply the standard deviation of the candidate's ballot placement. A low number reflects agreement; a high number disagreement.

0.744 Raines
0.827 Blyleven
1.415 Randolph
1.507 Whitaker
1.623 Trammell
1.725 McGwire
1.856 Clark
1.877 Saberhagen
2.093 Evans
2.103 Stieb
2.114 Hernandez
2.426 Dawson

BTW, I have the next ballot thread set up. Question: should I post it now or should we have another week of discussion?

Whatever we do, we shouldn't set up the next discussion thread until the results for the next election are posted, IMO. We don't need to rush the process. :-)

karlmagnus: 76 (median score)

A definite sign of the Apocalypse. ;-)

Normally the standard deviations of ranks would be low for those at/near the ends, who can't go below 1 or above 12, and high for those near the middle. So the high score for Dawson, of course, and the low score for Whitaker are the most telling standard deviations.

Feared slugger Mark McGwire

Zing!

So Jim Rice was eligible for this ballot, and didn't crack the top 12? Hilarious.

How do we plan on integrating these lists into one big list once we make them?

Zing!

:-)

So Jim Rice was eligible for this ballot, and didn't crack the top 12? Hilarious.

Jim Rice wasn't eligible. Only HoM inductess were eligible.

How do we plan on integrating these lists into one big list once we make them?

Good question, Dan. Now I need to think up a good answer.

Funny, the only players whose spot on that list I'd seriously question would be Clark and Evans, whom I had 3 apart but in opposite directions. I say funny, because I'm usually more of a peak voter than a career one, and between those two Clark is clearly the peak candidate.

Nice thread, though, and I like the requirement of that brief explanation for each player. It forces you to think things through and be able to justify your rankings, even if only to yourself.

Good question, Dan. Now I need to think up a good answer.

I'll but in -- I'd say have an election with the top three from each of the four lists - have everyone rank them 1-12. Then after the ballots have been tallied, announce the top 3 as the official top three, and replace them with the next best guys from the ballots, so that there's always three from each of the four groupings until you've voted from top to bottom.

Or something like that.

How do we plan on integrating these lists into one big list once we make them?

Well, the next step is not to integrate the lists, since the players in question won't be appearing on a ballot together under current HoF rules. The next step for us after we finish doing HoM-not-HoF rankings for each of the HoF groups is, if I understand the plan correctly, is to rank HoMers by position, which will place the HoMers-not-HoFers in an easily interpretable larger context.

There are no plans to do an integrated list? I feel like it would be valuable for us to say This Is The Best Player Not In The Hall Of Fame < cough > Bill Dahlen < cough >.

If I am recalling the decisions reached in the discussion of "what to do next," there are not yet plans to integrate the lists. Creating the lists and then ranking HoMers by position will carry through until the 2009 ballot discussion begins. Beyond that election I don't believe any firm plans have yet been made.

So Jim Rice was eligible for this ballot, and didn't crack the top 12? Hilarious.

Jim Rice wasn't eligible. Only HoM inductess were eligible.

Right. So we can't quite say for sure that Rice would not have cracked the top 12. Not every voter would have ranked him last. Is it possible he would have gotten enough support to beat out Randolph or Dawson? Probably not, but we don't know; it was decided that we should avoid tackling such issues head on.

it was decided that we should avoid tackling such issues head on.

Besides, it was tackled during our normal election cycle anyway. Rice was the loser.

Rice was the loser.

From the 2005 Results thread, ordinal rank and vote totals

3) Andre Dawson. 326 points
79) Jim Rice. 24 points

From the 2001 Results thread, ordinal rank and vote totals

3) Willie Randolph. 318 points
71T) Jim Rice. 23 points

There's also the recent BBTF 2008 HoF ballot, where relevant totals were

Raines 141 of 143. 34 of 34 among HoM participants
Dawson 50 of 143. 21 of 34 among HoM participants
Rice 10 of 143. 4 of 34 among HoM participants

I think the regular HoM elections pretty well established that we rank Rice substantially below Dawson and Randolph, whatever pool they are placed in. The question is, if and when we make an effort to publicize our results to people who actually vote for the HoF, how do we make the meaning and the significance of these results clear?

if and when we make an effort to publicize our results to people who actually vote for the HoF, how do we make the meaning and the significance of these results clear?

Exactly. Wouldn't it have been really useful towards this end if every ballot in this election had a line or two in it why Rice, Lee Smith, Jack Morris and Tommy John (the four most popular BBWAA candidates who aren't in the HoM) rank below The 12?

Though we're probably too late, are we doing anything to forestall the Jim Rice bandwagon to the Hall in 2009?

I think the regular HoM elections pretty well established that we rank Rice substantially below Dawson and Randolph, whatever pool they are placed in. The question is, if and when we make an effort to publicize our results to people who actually vote for the HoF, how do we make the meaning and the significance of these results clear?

I think you made it very clear in your post how the electorate views Rice compared to the Group 1 inductees, Chris. :-)

Though we're probably too late, are we doing anything to forestall the Jim Rice bandwagon to the Hall in 2009?

I really, really, really wish we had the type of impact that we could sway members of the BBWAA to our way of thinking, Dan, but I think the only impact that we can reasonably create at this time is with future baseball writers. Which would be well worth the effort, IMO.

I do have my bully pulpit in the NY Times sports section...I can't exactly turn it into Dan's Hall of Fame Musings™, but around election and induction time I can slip in a column or two...I don't know if BBWAA members actually read the Times, not to mention enough to be influenced by it, but it can't hurt.

Dan R:

How about a column entitled something like: "Stop the Madness: Why Jim Rice's Election Would Be a Mistake". ;)

I do have my bully pulpit in the NY Times sports section...I can't exactly turn it into Dan's Hall of Fame Musings™, but around election and induction time I can slip in a column or two...I don't know if BBWAA members actually read the Times, not to mention enough to be influenced by it, but it can't hurt.

Now, your column is a different story, Dan, since you're a scribe at a major newspaper. You could possibly change someone's mind with a well articulated argument for or against a particular candidate.

I do have my bully pulpit in the NY Times sports section

Where you write under what name?

Where you write under what name?

Dan Rosenheck.

The thing is that just doing a piece on the merits of one guy's candidacy is a little narrow for that space. It has to illustrate some larger point, something that on the one hand is more sophisticated than you could get by reading, say, Rob Neyer, but on the other doesn't require a doctorate in statistics. It's always a tough line to walk, but my column on Raines's baserunning is probably a good example of the type of thing I can do.

The larger point being that the election criteria employed by the BBWAA has gone astray; that electing players because they are famous or because you like their personality or because they were good in some statistical area that correlates poorly to wjat actually wins games...well, this fails to truly honor players. What truly honors players is them knowing that their qualifications has been carefully considered by an expert electorate employing merit based criteria and they have been found worthy. A hall of fame is meant to confer fame upon players through selecting them, not selecting them because they are famous.

I don't know if BBWAA members actually read

I've often wondered that myself.

Whitakers a couple slots too high. Otherwise an eminently reasonable ranking.

The thing is that just doing a piece on the merits of one guy's candidacy is a little narrow for that space.

A piece on one guy's merits is always narrow for any space. It is exactly the sort of thing that skews everything. Ir's always a question of who is the best candidate, not just whether this guy or that guy exceeds some imaginary threshold. (And Iknow you know that, I'm not attacking what you said, just that it triggered the thought.)

The larger point being that the election criteria employed by the BBWAA has gone astray;

This implies that they're electing the wrong players, and sometimes they do. The larger problem right now is their failure to elect modern players who are twice as good and equally as famous as 1/3 of the guys that are already in there. Of course if you do both--lower the threshold and elect the wrong guys--well, then, you're Frankie Frisch.

One thing I noticed is that Dawson finished ahead of Randolph despite garnering the most last place votes. I suspect that if the list was longer (more marginal choices) that Randolph would actually finish ahead of Dawson in our collective ranking.

I really, really, really wish we had the type of impact that we could sway members of the BBWAA to our way of thinking, Dan, but I think the only impact that we can reasonably create at this time is with future baseball writers.

John, I'm just that "silly old ant" tilting at windmills.

30. DL from MN Posted: February 04, 2008 at 09:29 AM (#2683172)
One thing I noticed is that Dawson finished ahead of Randolph despite garnering the most last place votes. I suspect that if the list was longer (more marginal choices) that Randolph would actually finish ahead of Dawson in our collective ranking.

This is probably true if they were consensus marginal candidates like Randolph (low s.d.) and probably false if they were marginal candidates like Dawson (high s.d.). With four fifth place votes Dawson is seventh by "top fives" and he is right there with Stieb and Saberhagen by "middle and above" ranks 1-7. With some more marginal candidates like that (Bill Freehan? Dobie Moore? Pete Browning?) those middle votes for Dawson, which Randolph lacks, would be worth more points.


John Murphy
I really, really, really wish we had the type of impact that we could sway members of the BBWAA to our way of thinking, Dan, but I think the only impact that we can reasonably create at this time is with future baseball writers.

I agree. That's a realistic hope.
Most writers do read, probably all writers on some definition, but not on the BBWAA definition. Those members who do write baseball for a living, and not only game stories, probably read baseball too. But I'm sure most reading about the past is recommended or cited sources, mainly books. Eg, David Halberstam has a new baseball book. At best for HOF purposes it will provoke some to think about the WWII class that includes Johnny Pesky and Dom DiMaggio. Eg, somebody has a new book about race and the Red Sox. That one won't help at all. In a generation there may be numerous BBWAA members who read about baseball past on the web, either browsing or visiting sites they knew before they were writing baseball for a living.


Dan Rosenheck
>>I do have my bully pulpit in the NY Times sports section

>Where you write under what name?

Dan Rosenheck.

He doesn't write every day, Andy, or for a living in the sense above. If you rely on checking NYTimes that you find on the bus or subway as I do (in Boston), you will have a batting average worse than Hank Aguirre.

I do have my bully pulpit in the NY Times sports section...I can't exactly turn it into Dan's Hall of Fame Musings™, but around election and induction time I can slip in a column or two...

Dan, any chance you ever get a BBWAA HOF vote?

In a word, no. The BBWAA is for beat writers, not occasional pundits. Someone like Marchman would have a much more legitimate claim.

Dan,

where is the research for your Times piece on Raine's baserunning? Is it available online?

What do you mean the research? The story is most certainly online--just search for my name and Raines on the NYT website. The baserunning numbers used to calculate it I got from Dan Fox at Baseball Prospectus.

Actual results:

BB TR MM AT LW WC KH DE DS BS AD WR

Prediction based on ballot strength:

TR BB MM AT LW WC KH DE WR DS AD BS

Not perfect but not too bad either.

Has Randolph lost support from the electorate?
Or is it just that his supporters are not participating here?

Dan,

yes the baserunning numbers. Nevermind, I found the Dan Fox article at BP.

I think it's a little of both. Randolph has been downgraded (DanR's WARP v. BP WARP) by many of us.

The more I look over the rankings, the more I tend to like them. They're logically consistent.

Dawson, Stieb, Saberhagen and Randolph are all in the same vicinity. Peak vs. career weightings are the big issue in choosing an order.

You'd be surprised at how many people read Dan's column. I've been contacted (through Dan) by several people from all sorts of areas based on that column - not to mention the San Antonio writer that wrote a column based on what he read in Dan's article.

I imagine it was read by many BBWAA voters. He could certainly have some influence with a column.

As for combining the lists, I'm not really sure of what utility that would have, to make it worth the trouble. We specifically broke it down by the different HoF election groups to try to have the most influence, right?

Just for fun, Group 1 + Group 2.

1. Santo--Group 2
2. Grich--Group 2
3. McGwire--Group 1
4. Raines--1
5. Blyleven--1
6. W. Clark--1
7. Trammell--1

(gap)

8. Minoso--2
9. Simmons--2
10. Allen--2
11. Freehan--2
12. Hernandez--1
13. Torre--2
14. J. Wynn--2
15. Da. Evans--2
16. Dawson--1

(gap)

17. Stieb--1
18. Whitaker--1
19. Saberhagen--1
20. Dw. Evans--1

(gap)

21. Nettles--2
22. Randolph--1
23. Boyer--2
24. Pierce--2

I am bothered by the way they cluster--a bunch of 1s, then a bunch of 2s and a bunch of 1s, and so on. But for the life of me, I can't see where the order is wrong.

John, I'm just that "silly old ant" tilting at windmills.

Nothing wrong in trying, Dan. :-)

I imagine it was read by many BBWAA voters. He could certainly have some influence with a column.

Absolutely, Joe.

sum yung gai

The BBWAA gives HOF votes to baseball writers with 10 or more consecutive years with a BBWAA vard (ideally, this would mean 10 fulltime, home-and-road experience covering an MLB team, but frankly it's not as efficient as that). Many ex-beat guys seem to have votes, seemingly emeritus. Not sure if that will change.

As noted elsewhere on the site in other arguments, the organization's purpose has been to be a voice for the guys-in-the-pressbox crew in dealing with team access issues, etc.

The world is changing, obviously.


P.S. I wouldn't mind seeing one "overall HOM-not-HOF" vote after these 5 subgroups. The preliminary work is what would make that final vote feasible, for many of us.

"BBWWA Card," that is.

I forgot you can't edit on this part...

bump because I just looked for these results and couldn't find them easily....

Yes, I noticed that last fortnight. These threads should be grouped somewhere in Important Links.

Head-to-head results matrix:

33 BB TR MM AT LW WC KH DE DS BS AD WR
BB -- 18 27 30 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 339
TR 15 -- 28 28 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 325
MM 06 05 -- 19 30 30 31 31 31 31 33 33 280
AT 03 05 14 -- 25 26 30 32 32 32 31 33 263
LW 00 00 03 08 -- 19 27 32 28 29 29 33 208
WC 00 00 03 07 14 -- 27 20 28 27 27 33 186
KH 00 00 02 03 06 06 -- 15 25 23 23 25 128
DE 00 00 02 01 01 13 18 -- 16 20 26 26 123
DS 00 00 02 01 05 05 08 17 -- 20 19 22 099
BS 00 00 02 01 04 06 10 13 13 -- 22 23 094
AD 00 00 00 02 04 06 10 07 14 11 -- 17 071
WR 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 07 11 10 16 -- 052

Example: BB (Blyleven) defeats TR (Raines) 18-15.

Note: Row total + 1 pt/ballot (33) equals election total in header above.

Define "close" to be [ballots/2 + 1 binomial standard deviation]
In this case that is 17-16, 18-15, 19-14, which also happens to be all HTH battles less than 60%.

These are:
17-16: Stieb-Evans!, Dawson-Randolph
18-15: Blyleven-Raines, Evans-Hernandez!
19-14: McGwire-Trammell, Whitaker-Clark, Stieb-Dawson

The ! point indicates a "backwards" result, where the HTH victory goes against the cumulative standings. There are two of those, both involving Evans, who is upset by Stieb, while in turn upsetting Hernandez. Meanwhile, completing the triangle, Hernandez emphatically defeated Stieb 25-8. (You wanted consistency?)
The only non-adjacent (with respect to the final standings) matchup that was close was Stieb-Dawson.

Does this work?

This ranking of HOM members still under BBWAA jurisdiction is strictly inconsistent with the rankings by fielding position at one point.

Here Dave Stieb ranks 9, Bret Saberhagen 10. Stieb also beat Saberhagen "head to head" (see #51), 20 to 13 among 33 voters.

The recent Ranking of Pitchers (1959-1986+) shows Saberhagen and Don Sutton tied at ranks 16-17 and Rich Gossage at 18, decisively ahead of Stieb at 19.

Roughly equal minorities put Stieb or Saberhagen in the middle of the pack here. Recently a few voters rank Saberhagen in the middle of the 1959-1986 pitchers, where no one ranks Stieb.