Baseball Fever Hall of Fame [Archive]

Brad Harris

03-26-2006, 06:27 AM

Welcome to the Baseball Fever Hall of Fame

The Baseball Fever Hall of Fame (BBFHoF) was established to honor the greatest players and contributors in baseball history. We seek to match our wits against those of the National Hall of Fame in Cooperstown by comparing and contrasting our selections to their own. Our elections are held monthly.

All voters are welcome, however, prospective voters should first read our rules (in this post) and must agree to observe them.

There are two elections, one for players who have been retired for a full season and one for contributors to the game, who are either retired or at least 60 years of age. Ballots must be posted in the monthly voting thread by the 25th of the month and adhere to the rules below in order to be counted.

Players from and contributors to the major, negro and japanese leagues are eligible for consideration. Once inducted as either a player or contributor, an individual is no longer eligible for consideration in the other capacity. Players are to be considered based on their performance and its impact on their teams. Contributors are to be considered for the quality and impact of their contribution to their teams and/or the sport in general. (This may include a contributor's playing career.)

A Players Ballot should list the 25 most deserving candidates (until we have elected at least 90% of the number of players in Cooperstown.) A Contributors Ballot should list the 10-15 most deserving candidates (until we have elected at least 95% of the number of contributors in Cooperstown.)

At the conclusion of each election (midnight EST on the 25th), the votes will be tabulated and any candidate named on 75% or more of the ballots will be inducted that month.

Feel free to ask questions by either sending Chancellor a PM, or by posting a question in this thread.

Brad Harris

03-26-2006, 06:34 AM

Baseball Fever Hall of Fame Membership

168 players inducted (74% of Cooperstown's 225)
48 contributors inducted (90% of Cooperstown's 53)

Pitchers
Pete Alexander, Bert Blyleven, Mordecai Brown, Raymond Brown, Steve Carlton, John Clarkson, Stan Coveleski, Dizzy Dean, Dennis Eckersley, Bob Feller, Whitey Ford, Pud Galvin, Bob Gibson, Goose Gossage, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Ferguson Jenkins, Walter Johnson, Masaichi Kaneda, Tim Keefe, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Hal Newhouser, Kid Nichols, Phil Niekro, Satchel Paige, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Eddie Plank, Charley Radbourn, Robin Roberts, Joe Rogan, Amos Rusie, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn, Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhelm, Joe Williams, Early Wynn, Cy Young

Catchers
Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Gary Carter, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Buck Ewing, Carlton Fisk, Josh Gibson, Gabby Hartnett, Biz Mackey, Katsuya Nomura, Louis Santop, Ted Simmons, Deacon White

First Basemen
Dick Allen, Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Buck Leonard, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Johnny Mize, Eddie Murray, Sadaharu Oh, George Sisler, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry

Second Basemen
Roberto Alomar, Rod Carew, Eddie Collins, Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Billy Herman, Rogers Hornsby, Nap Lajoie, Joe Morgan, Jackie Robinson, Ryne Sandberg

Third Basemen
Frank Baker, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Jimmy Collins, Ray Dandridge, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Paul Molitor, Brooks Robinson, Ron Santo, Mike Schmidt, Pie Traynor

Shortstops
Luke Appling, Ernie Banks, Joe Cronin, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Barry Larkin, Pop Lloyd, Pee Wee Reese, Cal Ripken Jr., Ozzie Smith, Alan Trammell, Arky Vaughan, Honus Wagner, Willie Wells, Robin Yount

Left Fielders
Lou Brock, Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Goose Goslin, Rickey Henderson, Monte Irvin, Joe Jackson, Ralph Kiner, Sherry Magee, Joe Medwick, Minnie Minoso, Stan Musial, Jim O'Rourke, Tim Raines, Al Simmons, Willie Stargell, Zach Wheat, Billy Williams, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski

Center Fielders
Richie Ashburn, Cool Papa Bell, Oscar Charleston, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, Larry Doby, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Kirby Puckett, Duke Snider, Tris Speaker, Turkey Stearnes

Right Fielders
Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Sam Crawford, Andre Dawson, Martin Dihigo, Tony Gwynn, Harry Heilmann, Reggie Jackson, Al Kaline, Willie Keeler, King Kelly, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson, Pete Rose, Babe Ruth, Sam Thompson, Christobal Torriente, Paul Waner, Dave Winfield

Managers
Walter Alston, Sparky Anderson, Frank Chance, Bobby Cox, Leo Durocher, Ned Hanlon, Whitey Herzog, Miller Huggins, Tony LaRussa, Tommy Lasorda, Al Lopez, Connie Mack, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Bill McKechnie, Frank Selee, Billy Southworth, Casey Stengel, Joe Torre, Earl Weaver, Dick Williams

Executives
Ed Barrow, Charles Comiskey, William Hulbert, Ban Johnson, Kenesaw M. Landis, Larry MacPhail, Walter O'Malley, Cum Posey, Branch Rickey, Albert Spalding, Bill Veeck, J.L. Wilkinson

Pioneers
Doc Adams, Sy Berger, Alexander Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, Charles Conlon, Rube Foster, Marvin Miller, John Montgomery Ward, Harry Wright

Broadcasters
Mel Allen, Red Barber

Writers
Bill James, Francis Richter, J.G. Taylor Spink

Umpires
Bill Klem

Brad Harris

03-26-2006, 06:45 AM

New Thread
For those of you wondering, I was doing some "housecleaning" with the old discussion thread and accidentally deleted it, after having merged it with the old data thread. :eek:

Taking advantage of the opportunity to "start fresh" with a new discussion forum, minimizing clutter. The first post in this thread is the rules. Please refer anyone interesting in this project to that post. The second post is the full membership of the BBFHoF. These are the only reference items I will maintain from this point on.

Rule Change
Please also note that voters may now vote for as few as 10 contributors if they can't justify a full ballot (of 15). Players ballots, however, will continue to have 25 names until at least 200 players have been inducted.

Election Results
The results of the March election can be found, in detail, at the end of that thread, but a quick summary is as follows:

We elected 5 new players and 4 new contributors. Congratulations to Stan Coveleski, Dizzy Dean, Kirby Puckett, Pee Wee Reese and Early Wynn on the player side; and Charlie Comiskey, Judge Landis, Walter O'Malley and J.L. Wilkinson on the contributor side.

Some of those individuals have been well supported for a very long time. Their election should open up quite a few spots on some of our tenured voters' ballots.

Brad Harris

03-26-2006, 07:14 AM

The 23 people who turned in a ballot last month each have between 1-5 open spaces on their player ballot for April. I strongly urge those of you who aren't already to support the following three players:

Willie (Bill) Foster (http://www.blackbaseball.com/players/williefoster.htm)

Shigeo Nagashima ("Mr. Baseball") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagashima_Shigeo)

Jud "Boojum" Wilson (http://www.nlbpa.com/wilson__jud.html)

Each missed election in March by a single vote. All are deserving of induction.

leecemark

03-26-2006, 07:42 AM

--I thought Tom Selleck was Mr Baseball:laugh .

catcher24

03-26-2006, 08:28 AM

So that explains the "Not Valid Link" error I kept getting.:rolleyes: I was wondering what on earth was going on! Well, OK then, a new discussion thread, and all the bitter comments and posts from the old one are banished to computer oblivion! A fresh start. Wish I could do that with my life sometimes!:o

Anyway, congrats to the five new members! And four out of five from my ballot isn't bad. And two of four contributors. So I guess it was a good month.

jalbright

03-26-2006, 10:02 AM

Well, I'll start by seconding the Chancellor's push for Foster, Nagashima and Wilson. In the past five elections, we've elected precisely one Negro League player, Ray Brown. I know there's a gap from the bunch we put in in May through October last year, but Foster and Wilson are now within a vote and are quite deserving at this point. I'll post individual arguments for these guys to bolster the point.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-26-2006, 10:06 AM

Jud Wilson

He has a solid array of accolades to point to:
1) He's been selected to the Baseball Think Factory "Hall of Merit";
2) He finished 26th in the SABR poll which attempted to rank Negro League luminaries;
3) he was named as both the third team first baseman and the third-team third baseman in the Pittsburgh Courier poll;
4) he was named as a Hall of Fame caliber player by 80% ot the Negro League historians polled for Cool Papas and Double Duties; and
5) Elected to Cooperstown in 2006.

The data we have on Wilson against major leaguers in exhibitons shows 31 hits in 86 at bats with 3 homers, a .360 average.

The Baseball Think Factory guys project Wilson as a career 336/431/447 hitter with 2845 career hits. That projection puts him behind only one man who has become eligible for Cooperstown who is not in: Harold Baines, with 2866 career hits. Baines was good, but not a comparable quality hitter 289/359/465 for his career, especially in terms of on-base ability. Another way of looking at it is there's only one eligible man with 2700 or more hits and a career average over .300 who isn't in Cooperstown. That one man is Al Oliver, a career 303/348/451 hitter with 2743 career hits. Oliver also loses out to the Wilson projection due to inferior OBP.

The BTF guys peg Wilson at 378 career win shares, a best five of 140, and top three of 34, 31 and 28. As a guy who favors career value, I'd put him above the excellent Ron Santo (322; 162; and 37, 36, and 32). If you are one who values peak over career, I'd say you should put him over Brooks Robinson (355; 130; 33, 27 and 25).

From pages 120-121 of William McNeil's Cool Papas and Double Duties:

Wilson . . . packed a solid 185 pounds on a squat 5' 8" body. He had massive shoulders and a huge chest that tapered down to a small waist, and short, bowed legs . . .

He led the . . . . Eastern Colored League in batting in his sophomore year, crushing the ball to the tune of .464. He followed with seasons averages of .394, .397, .358, .412, .375, .346 and .371 . . . [H]e [then] played two years with the Grays, hitting .362 and .370, before jumping to the Philadelphia Stars where he played for six years. All he hit in Philly was .354, .412, .309, .380 and .319. He added three more batting championships [in the two years he hit .412 and the one he hit .380}. . . . He also led the league in doubles, triples and home runs, once each.

When he retired from the Negro Leagues, he left behind a .354 lifetime batting average, the highest average for any player with more than 2000 at bats . . . .

Jud Wilson was primarily a hitter, but he could also handle himself in the field and on the bases. He had good speed and was an aggressive baserunner . . . . On defense, he played first base and third base, both acceptably. He was not flashy, and he was not graceful, but somehow he got the job done. At third base, he was noted for knocking balls down with his chest, then picking them up and throwing the runner out.

Jud Wilson made the annual trek south in the winter to play in the Cuban Winter League. He spent six . . . winters there and almost destroyed the pitching staffs [in that league]. He raked opposing pitchers for averages of .430, .333, .424, .397 and .363 . . . . In all, Wilson won two batting championships in Cuba (the two seasons over .400] . . . . He also led the league in runs scored twice, triples once, home runs once, and stolen bases once. His career batting average in Cuba was .372, which is the highest batting average in Cuban baseball history . . . .

He also played in the California Winter League against major league players during the winter of 1930-31 and he hit .469 in fifteen games. And he played one year in the Puerto Rican Winter League, where he hit .404 as a 45-year-old graybeard.

Overall, Jud Wilson hit .354 in the Negro Leagues with 30 doubles, 6 triples and 13 home runs [per 550 AB]. . . In Cuba, he averaged .372 with 27 doubles, 19 triples and 13 home runs [per 550 AB].

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-26-2006, 10:08 AM

Willie Foster

His list of accolades is rather impressive:
1) enshrined in Cooperstown;
2) selected to the Baseball Think Factory "Hall of Merit";
3) on the first team in the Pittsburgh Courier poll; and
4) finished 18th in the SABR poll ranking luminaries of the Negro Leagues.

Bill James in his latest Historical Abstract indicates Foster was the best pitcher in the Negro Leagues in three different seasons, 1927, 1931, and 1932. The Baseball Think Factory guys calculate that he earned 49 Black Ink points in the Negro Leagues and 97 Gray Ink points.

The Baseball Think Factory guys project him as deserving of a 212-136 record, worth 205 Fibonacci win points. They also project him at 254 career win shares, 131 in his best 5 consecutive, and top three of 33, 28 and 27. In my opinion, those marks are deserving of a slot between Ted Lyons (311 career, 110 best 5 consecutive, top three of 30, 26 and 23 and 168 Fibonacci) and Jim Bunning (252 career, 100 best 5 consecutive, top three of 30, 27 and 26 with a Fibonacci of 163).

William McNeil on page 203 of Cool Papas and Double Duties says Willie Foster "is generally considered to be the greatest left-handed pitcher in Negro league history."

Fom Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues, page 292:
Willie Foster was a pitching star for the Chicago American Giants for over a decade. With near-perfect control and a wide assortment of pitches, [many] delivered with the same motion, the tall left-hander was at his best when the stakes were the highest. With a crucial game to win, Willie was the kind of pitcher a manager wanted on the mound. He was a smart pitcher who knew how to get the most out of his vast repertory of pitches, which included a blazing fastball, a fast-breaking drop, a sidearm curve, and a masterful change of pace.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-26-2006, 10:09 AM

Shigeo Nagashima

Japanese Record

He is the most popular player ever in Japan, lauded for his clutch play and superb defense. He was named the best third baseman in the Central League in each of his seventeen seasons, and won the only two Gold Gloves awarded in his career (in the final two years of his career). He won 5 MVPs, 6 batting titles, 5 RBI titles, batted over .300 in 11 seasons, and had 25 or more homers 12 seasons. He also was named the MVP of the Japan Series four times.

In Baseball's Other Stars, Daniel Johnson, William McNeil and Fumihiro Fujisawara all name him the best third baseman in Japanese baseball history. McNeil names him as the starting third baseman on his all-world non major league team and as the reserve third baseman on his all-time all world team. I concur that he was the best third baseman ever in Japan, and have named him the third best player there ever. I also consider him the second best player in Japan in the 1960's, behind Oh.

In 1961, the Yomiuri Giants trained with the Dodgers in Vero Beach. Walter O'Malley was so impressed with Nagashima he tried to buy Nagashima's contract, only to be turned down flat by Giant ownership. (pp. 72-73. The Meaning of Ichiro by Robert Whiting)

Wally Yonamine on Nagashima on pp 28-29 of Remembering Japanese Baseball by Robert Fitts: Nagashima was such a natural athlete. Nagashima. . . could field [and] could hit. . . He was a showman. . . When you really needed one, he came through for you.

Glenn Mickens, also from the Fitts book: Shigeo Nagashima was the best all-around playerI saw over there. Oh was undoubtedly one of the greatest hitters they ever had, but for running, throwing and hustling, Nagashima was the best.

The late Don Blasingame, who also managed in Japan, from the Fitts book: "Nagashima could do it all. He had defense, speed, and he could hit."

Japanese stats
AB 8094
R 1270
H 2471
2B 418
3B 74
HR 444
RBI 1522
BB 969
K 729
SB 190
avg .305
OBP .379
slg .540

Major League Projection
AB 9210
H 2569
2B 401
3B 187
HR 271
avg .279
OBP .368
slg .451

This projection meets 57 HOF standards, and the average HOFer "only" meets 50. I did a study comparing Nagashima to all the third basemen who had at least two thirds of their careers after 1920 and were either in the HOF or finished in the top ten in BBWAA voting. That study is here: http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/analysisjalbright30.html#Shigeo_Nagashima The categories examined were runs created, runs created per 27 outs, OPS, runs scored and RBI, pitting Nagashima's projected figures versus the others. Each man scored based on his ranking in the group, and Nagashima came out fifth, behind Schmidt, Brett, Boggs and Mathews and ahead of Santo, Brooks Robinson and Pie Traynor, not to mention Freddy Lindstrom and George Kell.

In a study of projected individual seasons here http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/analysisjalbright32.html#Nagashima , Nagashima had four MVP candidate/Hall of Famer type years, which combined with at least two other years which were clearly All-Star quality and a third year which might have been an All-Star effort plus excellent defense sounds like a Cooperstown resume, especially when he had nine other seasons, at least five of which would be the quality one would expect from a good regular. The seven years identified were worth approximately 200 win shares in the majors. He should have accumulated over 350 career win shares had he been in the majors, and over 80% of players with between 350 and 400 career win shares are in so long as they don't get into Pete Rose/Joe Jackson-type problems.

Jim Albright

DoubleX

03-26-2006, 10:41 AM

I haven't participated in these elections in several months, but I'm glad to see Stan Coveleski and Kirby Puckett finally make it.

How much did Puckett's induction have to do with his recent death? It's unfortunate that sometimes it takes tragic circumstances to really appreciate someone.

As for Coveleski, he just seems lost to history. Very good pitcher, but never gets any mention, good or bad.

jalbright

03-26-2006, 10:49 AM

jalbright

03-26-2006, 10:57 AM

Before the old discussion thread went to cyberspace oblivion, I posted an idea to try and revive discussion here. Since it seems we're low on passion for candidates, maybe we still have it against them--or at least can provoke discussion that way. What I'm interested in is a list of several candidates you have yet to be convinced you will ever support. The twist is, I want them to be candidates receiving a good degree of support in the BBF HOF voting who have yet to get in--say at least 8 votes of the 23 cast this month. Since you're taking on candidates getting good support, I think it is incumbent upon those who actually want to provide a list to provide their reasons for their stances.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-26-2006, 11:04 AM

I'll start with my contributor list, which is not so much a matter of opposition as it is that I have yet to be convinced to give these guys my support.

1. Clark Griffith. I know he's one of the founding owners of the AL. but I don't get the sense he was one of the driving forces there. What did he do that merits the honor? I'm listening, but I haven't seen enough yet.

2. Jack Dunn. He found a lot of fine players and had some wonderful Baltimore Oriole teams in the International League. Show me how much individual credit he deserves for players like Lefty Grove and you might sway me. Right now, though, what I see is he fought a good fight against the majors and lost. That doesn't cut it for me.

3. Ernie Harwell. A good broadcaster with a long career. Fine--but lots of cities can boast that. I'm not going there. What influence did he have on a national level?

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-26-2006, 11:13 AM

Now for my player list:

1. Albert Belle If I evaluated guys just on peak, he'd make it. But I put serious emphasis on career accomplishments. He's seriously short there, so much so that it sinks his candidacy for me. For more of my analysis of Belle, see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=378081&postcount=151

2. Chuck Klein The problem with him is he was a monster in the Baker Bowl, just another player elsewhere. Check out his splits in the post I'll refer you to. To me, a guy whose sole claim to fame is a unique abilty to exploit one park doesn't have a good enough case--and Klein epitomizes that idea for me. See post http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=380614&postcount=155

3. Mickey Welch Yes, I'm big on career accomplishments, so I can't dismiss a 300 game winner lightly. The problem is, he only pitched 13 years, so that accomplishment isn't the result of being a very good pitcher for a very long time. If you look at his gray ink, you might think he was spectacular for the time he did play. Unfortunately, a large portion of that ink comes from 7th place and lower finishes in leagues where teams were using 3 or less pitchers as their "rotation". Those kind of finishes are good, but not great in my view. So what it boils down to for me is he won 300 games because he pitched for good teams and the circumstances allowed him to get a lot of innings for those teams. See this post for more: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=413488&postcount=192

Jim Albright

Brad Harris

03-27-2006, 03:46 PM

Comments on Jim's Picks

Clark Griffith - While Griffith had a long career as a very good pitcher, modestly successful manager and not-so-successful owner, I don't think the sum of those parts is a "great" contribution to baseball. I feel differently about Hughie Jennings, who was a genuinely great shortstop and darn good manager. Both careers shone brightly briefly, but combined...I think that makes the difference for Jennings, whom I intend to vote for. I don't ever intend to vote for Griffith.

Ernie Harwell - I thought someone else - I forget who - had documented Harwell's national accomplishments. He's not Detroit's version of Jacques Doucet or Jack Buck. I'd sure like to see someone post Harwell's resume again.

Jack Dunn - I was the first person to vote for Dunn, so I'll defend him here. Kicked around the majors for seven years as a pitcher before becoming a successful minor league manager. Won the Eastern League pennant in 1905 with Providence. Purchased, ran and managed the Baltimore Orioles from 1907-1928. Simply put, Dunn created and maintained the most successful minor league franchise in the history of professional baseball. He won seven consecutive International League pennants and his teams were often recognized as being stronger than all but the top major league franchises. Dunn personally scouted, signed, coached and managed a dozen players who went on to long careers in the majors, including two future Hall-of-Famers (Babe Ruth and Lefty Grove). Dunn sold Ruth only to keep his club solvent during the Federal League (when they were losing money despite running away with the IL pennant) and only sold Grove and other players after his fellow minor league managers accepted a new agreement with the majors, in part to spite the Orioles' dominance. Besides managing so many pennant winners and discovering two of the greatest players in history, Dunn was the owner/operator of the greatest franchise in minor league history. What's not to like?

Albert Belle - I give more emphasis to peak over career than Jim does, so I'm not surprised that we disagree on Belle. Suffice it to say that he's one of the 50 greatest hitters in history and 6,673 plate appearances is nothing to sneeze at. His career ended through no fault of his own.

Chuck Klein - This is one I can't agree with enough. He has long had a fair amount of support in these elections and I think Klein is the poster boy for short-career, park-dominated stats. I'd be willing to bet that we'll see some hypocrisy when some of Klein's supporters don't give Larry Walker their vote this November. I'll never vote for Klein.

Mickey Welch - First of all...anyone voting for a 19th century pitcher needs to start with Welch. Secondly, Welch won 300 games. Is he to be penalized because he did so while pitching for good teams? How good would those teams have been without him? The Hall of Merit (at Baseball Think Factory) had some excellent research on Welch's career. Apparently, he dominated other great pitchers in head-to-head matchups. So it's not an empty 300 wins, he certainly earned them. I'm not that keen to elect any more 19th century pitchers, but he's the best of the rest, as they say.

leecemark

03-27-2006, 03:54 PM

Brad Harris

03-27-2006, 03:56 PM

Picks of my own...

Chuck Klein - Ditto.

Bruce Sutter - Why Sutter, but not Fingers? Why Sutter, but not Quisenberry? Why Sutter, but not Wetteland? I don't see how Sutter is the best remaining reliever. I certainly don't see how he compares to the value of the top remaining starters. If he gets my vote, it's so far down the road, I couldn't guess how many we'd have already elected.

Jake Beckley - The Steve Garvey of his era. Beckley was good for a very long time, but never great.

Judy Johnson - Misguided negro league supporters lend Johnson support because of his long tenure in Cooperstown. Don't see what distinguishes him over Oliver "Ghost" Marcelle. He's certainly not as good as John Beckwith.

Bid McPhee - A 19th century Bill Mazeroski (though, literally, without the glove.) McPhee wasn't as great a player as Hardy Richardson, he just played longer.

Harry Caray - This most annoying sportscaster ever is only "nationally" prominent because of his eccentricites, not because he was particularly good. He also had the benefit of broadcasting for St. Louis when that was the westernmost MLB club east of the Rockies. Doesn't make him Hall-worthy.

Clark Griffith - See earlier comments.

Jack Buck - Same as Caray, minus the annoying personality.

Curt Gowdy - Talk about the "death effect!" If he had such a compelling case, how come he wasn't getting 5 votes a month before his kicking the bucket bought national headlines this spring?

Brad Harris

03-27-2006, 04:05 PM

--Griffith being one of the founder fathers of the American League is not, in and of itself, hall worthy.
--Griffith being a long time and relatively successfull owner is not truely hall worthy.
--Griffith was a very successfull manager, but probably not hall worthy.
--Griffith was a very good pitcher, but probably not quite hall worthy.
--The fact that Griffith is has a fairly reasonable argument for hall worthiness in 4 different categories seems very hall worthy to me. He has been on my ballot for some time.

Griffith was not a "very successful manager." In 20 years of managing (among four clubs), Griffith's team finished first in his first season as a manager. Not only was he the club's pitching ace (he was a 31-year old player-manager) who had a very good season on the mound, but it was the inaugural year of the American League and I would argue that the competition wasn't quite what it would be in just a few short years (particularly after the AL-NL dispute was settled in 1903-04.)

leecemark

03-27-2006, 04:58 PM

--Okay a moderately successfull manager then:laugh . His managerial career is 4th amoung his different claims to worthiness IMO anyway.
--Agree 100% on Harry Caray. I've heard he was a good announcer once. By the time I saw him (and that was well before the end of his career) he was the most annoying and ineffective announcer I've had the displeasure to see. You could have picked a random drunk out of the stands and been just as well off.
--Also agree 100% on Judy Johnson. Easily the biggest mistake of the Negro League Committee (and they made a few of both commission and ommission). Essentially the Negro League equivalent of Willie Kamm.
--Sutter actually made my ballot at one point, but I was so appalled by his selection over Goose Gossage for the real Hall that he dropped way down in my consideration set. As Chancellor says there are lots of guys with as good or better numbers, if not the reputation.
--McPhee was a better hitter than Maz and at least as good with the glove. I could see eventually voting for him, but it won't be any time soon.
--Beckley I think is very comparable to Raffy Palmerio (which I know most voters won't take as a compliment, although it is in my mind). I would have voted for Raffy before his positive test and probably will eventually anyway, so Beckley has a shot at my ballot if we go on long enough.

2Chance

03-27-2006, 05:21 PM

This month I was ready to welcome Hughie Jennings back to my ballot, but thought it was worth researching first. (And with a couple of comments above, maybe I should do the same with some of my players too.)

As a player, he could never make the cut. As a manager, he ranks as better than average (.543 W%), but not so much that he deserves a vote over the Charlie Grimms of the world. He was replaced by Davey Johnson.

I, for one, have posted a resume for Ernie Harwell (monthly), but Jim and I have agreed to disagree over whether he is more worthy than Vin Scully, Harry Kalas or Caray. Jacques Doucet, Harwell and "original baseball broadcaster" Ty Tyson (see the post) are the three broadcasters who have earned my vote. No others are in queue. Popularizing a 7th inning stretch song isn't enough to win entrance, IMO.

Funny you should mention Judy Johnson and Ollie Marcelle. Both have been removed from my ballot after spending some time there.

Brad Harris

03-27-2006, 05:38 PM

Talking about quality, I like Vin Scully a lot. That doesn't mean he's a Hall-worthy broadcaster. Besides broadcasting Dodgers games, what's his contribution to the game been? Like umpires or writers, there are only a handful of broadcaster (I believe) who have had a wider than parochial impact on the game.

I'd vote for Curt Flood if I could see how his failed (but celebrated) Supreme Court case "paved the way" for free agency. Miller, his attorney, is in. I wouldn't put Peter Seitz in -- and he had a bigger impact on Flood on the advent of free agency.

jalbright

03-27-2006, 08:11 PM

When it comes to broadcasters, I want to see something more than a parochial influence, and I just don't see enough in Harwell to put him over the top. Say what you like about Caray, but every game you go to, "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" is played during the 7th inning stretch, and Harry had a big hand in making that happen.

Griffith doesn't impress me as a manager or owner, and as far as I'm aware he wasn't anywhere near the class of Commiskey and Ban Johnson in the formation of the AL. That leaves his pitching. Since nobody's making the case for him on that grounds, I'll rest my case until somebody does or introduces new evidence on the other points.

Dunn's close, but he dominated a league where the other owners weren't able and/or willing to compete with him. He had some good ideas in waging his battle with the majors, but, like Curt Flood, he lost that one. That carries no weight with me. How much lasting effect did he have on the minors? Given that he lost, my feeling is not much. I'm far more impressed with the talent his teams possessed. How much personal credit does he deserve for that? Convince me that he's the deserves a lot of personal credit for finding Ruth and Grove and one or two others, and I can easily come around.

Judy Johnson would have made my list if he'd had more support, but I think it's fortunate he hasn't fooled nearly as many of our voters as he did the Negro League Committee. Mediocre career average, no power, no evidence to suggest he was a walk machine, but a great glove. Clete Boyer comes to mind as a comparison, and I don't hear too many arguments for him as a HOFer.

I would put agree with putting Welch at the head of the remaining 19th century pitchers, but since I see him as a good not great pitcher, that just means I've closed that particular door.

Beckley isn't in my queue either, so I'd agree with that choice.

Jim Albright

2Chance

03-27-2006, 09:34 PM

I'm not sure I know the best way to say this, so take this only for what it's worth.
Say what you like about Caray, but every game you go to, "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" is played during the 7th inning stretch, and Harry had a big hand in making that happen.
Harry Caray was a great broadcaster. He could get a lot more votes if his reach was more national than regional and he impacted the game somehow, if he reached a new audience or if he was known as the first this or that.

But singing a song during the 7th inning stretch doesn't have much more to do with the game than wearing a mascot suit, and those guys aren't within shouting distance of most of our ballots. (I don't mean that to sound as bad as it probably does, but sleep deprivation does that to a person.)

Brad Harris

03-28-2006, 04:39 AM

The Dude

03-28-2006, 06:10 AM

Two Things:

Sutter/Quisenberry
-I've pointed out time and again, these guys have the exact same innings pitched, yet quisenberry has half the walks that Sutter does and a better ERA and a better ERA+. Sutter has the three best seasons, but after that, Quisenberry was far more consistent.

Gomez
-There's been seven players in 20th+ century MLB history that have tossed two or more triple crowns.

Five of them are in our HOF
-Lefty Grove
-Sandy Koufax
-Walter Johnson
-Christy Mathewson
-Grover Cleveland Alexander

One of them is not "retired" yet:
-Roger Clemens

That leaves one pitcher, the sorely underrated because he was overrated:
Lefty Gomez

Yes, his career was short. Yes, he pitched for the Yankees. But the fact remains he was second most dominant pitcher in the AL during the 1930's, and his name is up there with five pitchers who were elected so long ago, I don't remember what month they were elected in. It's about time he was elected.

leecemark

03-28-2006, 06:16 AM

--There is currently a thread going asking the question "is Ron Guidry a Hall of Famer?". The answer is a resounding NO. Guidry is Gomez 40 years later. Maybe Gomez is this much better, but maybe not. I can't vote for Gomez unless Guidry is pretty close to my ballot also and that isn't happening any time soon.

jalbright

03-28-2006, 11:13 AM

Is Caray responsible for the "7th inning stretch" as we know it, or is he just the most famous example of it? Sure, Caray was once a talented broadcaster, long before I ever heard him, but his status as a baseball "icon" is just something the WGN has pushed on the rest of the country the past 25 years.

Dunn was the scout, coach, manager, general manager and owner of his teams. Who else signed those players? Who else trained them? Who else brought them up through the ranks? Dunn's name - and no other - was on every facet of that organization. I don't know where the idea that someone else was involved and that Dunn wasn't personally responsible for those goings-on came from, but that's ridiculous. Even in the majors, at that time, the status quo was for the manager to act as the primary scout and coach as well. And the guy who built the greatest minor league dynasty receives no credit for his accomplishments as GM/manager/owner, but Japanese leaguers do?!? Poppycock.
I'm saying that to my knowledge, Caray popularized that. Guys who are viewed as local treasures in broadcasting are close but not there in my book. Add something like the seventh inning stretch song, and that's enough for me.

As for Dunn, I want proof of what you say on player development. I don't think asking for proof is ever ridiculous. Actually, I think that failing to meet a reasonable request for same fits the criteria far better. Point me to a bio or a reputable website (Wikipedias, because anyone can post, don't count). The problem I have with Dunn as a manager/owner is he was in a league that was either unwilling or unable to compete with him. Not even the Yomiuri Giants had that advantage, at least in the Japan Series, if nowhere else.

Jim Albright

Brad Harris

03-28-2006, 01:52 PM

George Wright
Unless someone feels strongly that Wright was not a great player, I would request that all those supporting Wright on their contributor ballot place him on their player ballot, if he isn't already on there. Wright has accumulated a small, but significant group of supporters on the players ballot - I'm projecting 10 votes this month - and has a better chance of being elected through that ballot.

catcher24

03-28-2006, 03:43 PM

I remember hearing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh inning stretch as a kid (many, many years ago, and long before Harry Caray did it). I don't believe he had anything to do with it, except perhaps for making him a WGN "icon". In my case, he made me NOT want to hear it - at least when he did it! And he may have been great in St. Louis, I don't know, because here on the east coast we didn't get KMOX very well. But as the Cubs announcer, he was terrible, IMHO. He constantly made mistakes, and the great loss to Cubs announcers was when Steve Stone left!

Brad Harris

03-28-2006, 04:46 PM

Regarding Jack Dunn

There is a neat little summary of Dunn's career in Baseball: The Biographical Encyclopedia, but the best - and most comprehensive - portrait of Dunn I have run across is in Neil J. Sullivan's The Minors.

Dunn operated an indepedently run franchise that was the model of what minor league teams "could have been." The International League, which the Orioles dominated throughout Dunn's tenure, was the strongest of the minor leagues during these years.

As a scout and talent evaluator, Dunn "showed persistence and thoroughness in being able to find such a player [as Ruth] in such an obscure place."

"Dunn's eye for talent was matched by a fierce determination to win, insistence of discipline, and generous rewards for the players who met his standards."

"Jack Dunn was a very serious businessman who made his living from the sport of baseball and who profited by extending opportunity to talented young men. Dunn was no wealthy sportsman pursuing a hobby; nor was he an idle figurehead who awaited profits while subordinates did the work. He knew the business of baseball as a player, manager, and owner. He knew what was required to be successful, including the risks that had to be assumed. Unlike other minor league owners who were content to be wards of the majors, Dunn trusted his own abilities and work ethic."

"In a league of teams that were independent franchises, Dunn had no peer. He repeatedly discovered talent from sandlots to reform schools to colleges. Few other baseball executives worked as hard or as successfully as Dunn."

Sullivan notes that Baltimore crushed good competition in exhibitions with major league teams and in season play with many high-quality IL teams. Connie Mack is said to have trusted Dunn's baseball judgement explicitly. McGraw also had confidence in Dunn's ability to find good players; both he and Mack negotiated with Dunn on a regular basis, seeking to purchase players from him.

Dunn and Branch Rickey were practically separated at birth, according to Sullivan, who writes that both were "talented and tireless scouts who found great players at the very beginning of their careers." Unfortunately for the minor leagues, Rickey's genius continued to work towards their enslavement after Dunn's heart attack in 1928 put a sudden end to his efforts to save them.

Dunn's Orioles were a team that was the equal (or better) of most major league clubs of its day, run as a one-man operation, by a bright and energetic baseball man who, through intelligence and hard work created an enormously successful dynasty. That this is a "minor league" club is more a designation giving it in a sweeping endictment by the self-appointed "major" leagues as opposed to an actual statement on the excellence of the organization or quality of the teams it fielded.

Jack Dunn is a man who's success in and influence on the game of baseball is on par with men like McGraw, Mack and Rickey. He merits inclusion with them here.

jalbright

03-28-2006, 07:57 PM

Thank you. Dunn's not in this month, and we'll see when I have an opening in the contributor portion of the ballot, but he'll get some consideration at that time.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-29-2006, 11:54 AM

I'm tracking Lou Boudreau, Willie Foster, Bobby Grich, Stan Hack, Bob Lemon, Ted Lyons, Shigeo Nagashima, Enos Slaughter, and Jud Wilson among the players, and among the contributors C. I. Taylor and Tetsuharu Kawakami.

Grich and Slaughter are out of the running unless new votes revive their chances. We've had 18 votes already, and only 8 who voted last month have yet to vote. The biggest "x factor" this month seems likely to be in terms of new voters rather than what we've had in the last few months, which is who would fail to cast a vote.

At this point, any player who doesn't already have 13 votes and any contributor with less than 11 votes has little or no chance. If you can point to someone not in my list who has at least as many votes as set out in the two categories, I'll consider tracking them for the rest of the month. If they have only the minimum, I'm not as anxious to do it, as they'll nearly have to run the table to make it unless new votes boost them. If they have more than the minimum, I'm likely to accomodate you.

The Players

Boudreau already has two insurance votes and is just about a lock to make it.

There are four guys precisely on a pace to make it, but absent new votes, they're strong favorites to make it since we already have so many votes cast and these guys have enough support left to give them a margin of error in terms of votes not cast. They are: Willie Foster, Bob Lemon, Shigeo Nagashima and Jud Wilson.

Hack and Lyons have to run the table absent new votes, and therefore are longshots at best for this month.

The Contributors

C. I. Taylor has climbed to within one vote of election, but has only two chances to get that elusive vote. He's a slight favorite to make it, but hardly a lock.

Kawakami is on a pace to fall three votes short of election and has four chances to get those votes. He's definitely a long shot this month.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-29-2006, 12:08 PM

Gomez
-There's been seven players in 20th+ century MLB history that have tossed two or more triple crowns.

Five of them are in our HOF
-Lefty Grove
-Sandy Koufax
-Walter Johnson
-Christy Mathewson
-Grover Cleveland Alexander

One of them is not "retired" yet:
-Roger Clemens

That leaves one pitcher, the sorely underrated because he was overrated:
Lefty Gomez

Yes, his career was short. Yes, he pitched for the Yankees. But the fact remains he was second most dominant pitcher in the AL during the 1930's, and his name is up there with five pitchers who were elected so long ago, I don't remember what month they were elected in. It's about time he was elected.

Five of the retired guys added a long body of excellence to their two "Triple Crowns" and thus aren't good comparisons. The same applies to Clemens. The only really comparable guy in terms of career length in that group is Koufax--and you're going to have one heck of a time convincing too many folks here that Gomez was in Sandy's class at his peak. As for Gomez' placement among pitchers in the 1930's, the Win Shares book lists him behind Grove, Hubbell, Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, Mel Harder, Dizzy Dean and Larry French in total win shares for the decade, so that point is at least debatable. I'll just say I've yet to be convinced he's worth my vote, but at least you raised an interesting argument.

Jim Albright

dgarza

03-29-2006, 12:51 PM

At this point, any player who doesn't already have 13 votes and any contributor with less than 11 votes has little or no chance. If you can point to someone not in my list who has at least as many votes as set out in the two categories, I'll consider tracking them for the rest of the month. If they have only the minimum, I'm not as anxious to do it, as they'll nearly have to run the table to make it unless new votes boost them. If they have more than the minimum, I'm likely to accomodate you.

Mickey Welch and Albert Belle both have 13 votes at this point. I think they are well worth tracking. Their support has been similar or better in the last 4-6 months than many of the players you are currently tracking.

jalbright

03-29-2006, 06:53 PM

Mickey Welch and Albert Belle both have 13 votes at this point. I think they are well worth tracking. Their support has been similar or better in the last 4-6 months than many of the players you are currently tracking.
Since they'll have to virtually run the table (they're at 13-5 at that rate, and they've got to make 20-6 if everybody who voted last month votes), that's a circumstance I'm not terribly interested in doing the work for. If they can move it significantly closer than that, I'll reconsider. You can track them yourself by looking at who among the 8 outstanding voters voted for them last month and those who didn't. If you want the list of those 8 voters, PM me, and I'll provide it to you.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-29-2006, 07:06 PM

I'm a little disturbed that Enos Slaughter just can't seem to make any progress the last few months. I've already made my argument for him individually here: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=374539&postcount=148 To that post, I can add that despite spending three seasons in military service in the 1940's, he's got the 15th most win shares of the decade. If everyone was allowed to fill in their service time, he'd surely move up at least 8 spots because those guys spent less time in the service.

Another point is we recently elected Kirby Puckett. I'm not going to slam that selection, but if Kirby belongs in, so does Slaughter.

.................................................. ......Puckett.............Slaughter
career win shares..................................281....... .............323
top 3 seasons in win shares.....................92..................... 95
best 5 consecutive in win shares.............136...................141
black ink............................................... .22.....................12
gray ink............................................... ..122...................161
HOF standards......................................38. 8.................41.0
times an all-star........................................10.... ................10
MVP shares..........................................2. 56..................2.10
# of 10 most similar in Cooperstown............2.......................2

Yes, Puckett had his glaucoma, but that didn't affect him until after he was 35. He's 1 1/2-2 years of win shares behind Slaughter, and that gives Enos no credit for serving his country for three years at ages 27, 28 and 29. As Kirby's weight was creeping up anyway, you've got to wonder if Kirby could have caught Slaughter if you give both men a break. Frankly, I'm more sympathetic in analytical terms to Enos. The reason is, yes, Puckett's eyes betrayed him, but only after they had served him so well up to age 35. Enos' wartime service had very little relation to his baseball skills, other than those skills were ample evidence of his physical fitness to serve. I won't go too deeply into the above chart except to say that to my mind it demonstrates that if Puckett is fully qualified for the BBF HOF, so is Enos.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-30-2006, 12:48 PM

Captain Cold Nose

03-30-2006, 01:49 PM

One quick follow-up on Belle's status in the voting. He now has to run the table to get elected, absent some additional votes. I wouldn't put money on his chances at anything resembling even odds.

Jim Albright
Wow. Five days into the actual balloting and it's essentially over. I'd love to believe otherwise, but Jim's prognostications are usually on, and always well thought out.
We really need fresh blood for these elections. Because this shouldn't be so predictable.

jalbright

03-30-2006, 02:15 PM

Wow. Five days into the actual balloting and it's essentially over. I'd love to believe otherwise, but Jim's prognostications are usually on, and always well thought out.
We really need fresh blood for these elections. Because this shouldn't be so predictable.

Actually, we've already got four people to vote this month who didn't do so last month. The reason things are so close to over is that five days in, we've got 19 votes cast and only 7 outstanding. That small number of outstanding votes makes it easy to predict, since the most important premise of my predictions is that if you supported a guy last month and he was over 50% then, you'll continue your support in hopes he'll get elected. That part is anything but rocket science.

The things that are most difficult to predict are a) people not casting a ballot this month after doing so last month, and 2) people casting a ballot this month when they didn't do so last month. However, at least new ballots tend to work more against candidates than for them simply because of the 3/4 of the vote rule. Every "no" vote needs three to counter it, while every yes vote basically only puts an extra 1/4 of a vote into savings, the rest goes to the principal of helping elect the guy.

That's not to say I'm against new blood--but what I've said is just mathematical sense.

BTW thanks for the kind words. They're appreciated.

Jim Albright

jalbright

03-31-2006, 12:54 PM

With two more votes today (21 in the first week--I can't ever remember more than 15 in the first week to ten days in my year here), Belle and Lyons have now slipped below the waves for this month. Their only chance is for either a new voter to come along and name them or for someone who has voted this month to change his/her mind to include Belle and/or Lyons, and then for the lucky candidate to run the table. I'd say it's fair to call such a scenario unlikely. Welch improved to 16-5. He still needs five of the remaining six votes from last month's participants, and three of them didn't vote for him last month. He's got a shot, but right now I'd call it a slim one.

Foster and Boudreau are virtual locks, and if there are no new voters who don't name Nagashima, Lemon and Wilson, they're in as well. The last three would benefit greatly from pulling one more vote from the remaining voters who didn't support them last month.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-01-2006, 09:03 PM

I know there's a limited number of voters left, but for all those who haven't supported Bob Lemon, Stan Hack, C. I. Taylor, and George Weiss, I'm going to run some info on each to try and persuade you to do so, if not this month, then soon. Lemon's the only one who's on a pace for election, but he sure could use an insurance vote or two. Hack needs to get 2 votes he didn't get last month (two of the outstanding voters didn't support him then) but a switched vote would help him immensely. Taylor and Weiss both project to come up a vote short, and at least Taylor has two shots from the outstanding ballots to get it. Weiss has one shot to get his one vote, absent a change of heart.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-01-2006, 09:07 PM

George Weiss see this from Cooperstown's website: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Weiss_George.htm

C. I. Taylor--Negro League contributor

From Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues, pages 763-764:

Acknowledged with Rube Foster as one of the two greatest managers of all time [in the Negro Leagues], contemporaries said that C. I. trained the players and Rube signed them. On the field, the master builder from Carolina was a strict disciplinarian and great teacher who brought out the best in his players . . . . In 1914, he . . . transferred his team to Indianapolis, where the club was sponsored by the American Brewing Company and called the ABCs. Immediately his baseball acumen was evident as he built and nurtured a team that was recognized as a perennial power . . . . Taylor knew how to handle men . . . . Taylor's brilliant career was abruptly terminated when he died at . . . age 47.
Notable accomplishments:
Won a championship in 1916
Brought Oscar Charleston, Dizzy Dismukes, Frank Warfield, Dave Malarcher and Biz Mackey among other Negro League stars into the top level of the Negro Leagues.

From BaseballLibrary.com:
C. I. Taylor was regarded by many . . . as the finest manager in black baseball history. He was patient and dignified, a strict disciplinarian and a good teacher, scrupulously fair and honest with his players. . . . Taylor's teams were perennial powers . . . . Taylor was also instrumental in the founding of the Negro National League.

From The Indianapolis ABCs by Paul Debono, pages 156 and 157:
C. I.'s greatest talent was recruiting and developing players. . . . Not only did Taylor develop players, but he developed managers. The list of Negro League managers who benefitted from his guidance at early stages of their careers is impressive: "Candy" Jim Taylor, "Bingo" DeMoss, "Dizzy" Dismukes, Oscar Charleston, Dave Malarcher, "Biz" Mackey, Otto Briggs and Frank Warfield all became noted managers in the Negro Leagues.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-01-2006, 09:09 PM

Bob Lemon

He has the fifth largest total of win shares of any 1950's pitcher. He was a seven time all star and was The Sporting News' AL pitcher of the year three times. He is 117th in MVP win shares, was 31st in Black Ink, and 57th in Gray Ink. He led the league 5 times in complete games and was second twice more.

Stan Hack

You've got to love a leadoff hitter with a .394 career OBP. His 318 career win shares place him 12th among 3rd basemen in the latest BJHA, 138th overall. His best 3 years in win shares are 8th among 3rd basemen, and his best 5 consecutive seasons are 10th among third sackers.

catcher24

04-02-2006, 07:29 AM

I would like to encourage anyone who hasn't cast a ballot yet to seriously consider 19th century OF Harry Stovey. At the present time, he has received 17 votes out of 23, meaning that if one more ballot comes in with Stovey's name on it, and there are no further ballots, he will gain election.

Slugging per cent: Led 3 times, 2nd twice.
Runs: Led 4 times, 2nd once.
Triples: Led 4 tmes, 21st all time.
Homeruns: Led 5 times, 2nd three times.
Stolen Bases: Led twice, 32nd all time. 13th among 19th century players.
Extra base hits: Led five times, 2nd twice.
Career OPS+: 143, 62nd highest all time.
Black Ink: 56 - 20th all time.
Grey Ink: 210 - 33rd all time.

He was the career home run leader until passed by Roger Connor, who in turn was passed by Babe Ruth.

Please consider a vote for Harry Stovey this month or next, as he is very close to election.

jalbright

04-02-2006, 08:51 AM

I've supported Stovey, so I'm sympathetic, but his chances this month aren't good. While what catcher24 said is correct, there are four outstanding ballots this month. Stovey has to get all of them unless a new ballot is cast with his name on it--and not one of those outstanding ballots had Stovey's name on it last month.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-04-2006, 08:29 PM

We've gotten to 25 voters, with three outstanding votes. Five players have insurance votes in their pockets, and their prospects of induction this month are excellent: Boudreau, Foster, Lemon, Nagashima and Wilson. Lyons and Belle have received temporary reprieves, but need at least three favorable votes (i.e., if only those who voted last month vote the rest of this month, they need to run the table), and in each case, two of the three outstanding voters didn't vote for them last month. Either one might make it, but if I had to guess, I'd say both fall short this month. Welch is in a better position, needing only two of the three outstanding votes. Again, two of the three didn't vote for him last month, but in his case, he only needs one of them to go his way. I'd say he's pretty much even money. All other players are done this month as far as I'm aware.

My favorites among the contributors, Kawakami and Taylor, will spend at least one more month before induction.

Jim Albright

Brad Harris

04-22-2006, 11:15 AM

Mickey Welch and Ted Lyons need you!

These are two 300-game winners who are languishing outside a Hall of Fame that already has nearly 200 members. Unless there's some very good reason not to include them (which I certainly can't see), I implore those of you who haven't already voted for these men this month to reconsider. They are both r-i-g-h-t on the fence going into the final days of this election.

Who doesn't like a 300-game winner, after all?

jalbright

04-22-2006, 11:24 AM

To follow up on the above, with our three outstanding voters (and counting the return to the fold of a familiar face--welcome back, 538280:waving ), the situation is this:

Unless we get new voters, Boudreau, Foster, Lemon and Nagashima are in

Wilson is in unless three more votes are cast, all against him (and one of the outstanding voters had him on last month's ballot)--so he's in good shape as well.

Welch and Lyons need all the votes cast the rest of the way, and need at least two votes to be cast. Both only had support from one of the 3 outstanding voters last month. That means they're longshots.

C. I. Taylor's chances were revived, and he needs all three outstanding voters to cast their votes for him. Two supported him last month, so he's got a real chance.

As far as I'm aware, no other players have a chance absent new voters--IIRC there is one contributor in reasonable shape.

Jim Albright

catcher24

04-22-2006, 06:05 PM

No doubt Welch was a 300 game winner, Chancellor. But Lyons is about 40 wins shy of 300, unless I missed something at bb-ref.com.:confused:

Brad Harris

04-22-2006, 09:16 PM

(Is my face red?) I don't know what came over me. Must have been thinking Ted Lyons = Early Wynn or something like that.

Nevertheless...he might have won 300 games! :laugh

538280

04-23-2006, 10:04 AM

Sal Bando

Sal Bando is a player who I'm voting for, but no one else has. Why? I don't know, I would think he deserves at least some votes. So, this is my little case for Sal Bando.

I think Bando gets a bad rap too for being the captain of the "Swinging A's". In reality, he was about as good a captain as the team could have possibly had. He kept them under control, and kind of served as a spokesman for the team with their owner, Charlie Finley. I said this in another post:

Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. He was the leader of the Oakland A's who won three straight championships 1972-1974 and helped to keep the team together during some of their famed brawls. Reggie Jackson in his autobiography talks at some length about how great Bando was for the team and how he kept everyone focused on their goals-winning the World Series. To quote him:

"Sal Bando was the Godfather. Capo di capo. Boss of all bosses on the Oakland A's. We all had our roles, we all contributed, but Sal was the leader and everyone knew it. He didn't make a big deal out of it, but when something needed to be said, he said it."

Bando was the leader of the team. Without him, the A's wouldn't have been the same. The Baseball Page calls him "the glue that held the A's together".

Where do I rank Bando? For a long time I've had him 8th among 3Bmen, and I haven't seen a great argument for why I should lower him. I think Bando had one hell of a peak, and was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. Probably a HOF caliber player.

Bill James rates him 11th among 3Bmen, which is a HOF type rating, and he's not doing it on his subjective element, rather Bando is a player who a closer look at the evidence by James has elevated him into that rating. In his first Abstract, James didn't even mention Bando in his 3B section. Now he's 11th. Why? Simple, Win Shares, which take into account all things a player does in context have showed Bando to be what he really is-a great player. Here are his top 15 3Bs of all time, ranked according to James' rating system, minus the subjective element:

1.Mike Schmidt 153.87
2.Eddie Mathews 148.97
3.George Brett 141.38
4.Wade Boggs 140.89
5.Frank Baker 139.38
6.Ron Santo 133.26
7.Paul Molitor 129.85
8.Al Rosen 127.66
9.Stan Hack 126.55
10.Sal Bando 124.36
11.Darrell Evans 119.75
12.Brooks Robinson 118.14
13.Ken Boyer 116.77
14.Graig Nettles 113.32
15.Pie Traynor 109.04

It is ironic that the player James calls the most underrated of all time (Darrell Evans) actually rates below Sal Bando (a player historically rated even lower) by his own system.

Players who receive much more support for our hall like Boyer, Nettles, and Evans rate below Bando, and some who have already been elected like Traynor and Robinson also rate lower.

I'm not asking that everyone put Bando on their ballots, just that you take a closer look, because he has received just about no support other than my ballot.

2Chance

04-23-2006, 07:50 PM

I'm not asking that everyone put Bando on their ballots, just that you take a closer look....
Good case, well thought out. And that is the reason we make our cases for certain players, in order to get our members to take a closer look.

I liked Bando when he was playing, but never thought he was a HoFer. However, it's worth looking into. I thought I was done at 3B, but am willing to spend the time to be convinced that the top 25 players left next month might include another third baseman. If so, it might be him--or Evans, or Hack (who I feel is below the line), or somebody else.

538280

04-25-2006, 06:07 PM

Good case, well thought out. And that is the reason we make our cases for certain players, in order to get our members to take a closer look.

I liked Bando when he was playing, but never thought he was a HoFer. However, it's worth looking into. I thought I was done at 3B, but am willing to spend the time to be convinced that the top 25 players left next month might include another third baseman. If so, it might be him--or Evans, or Hack (who I feel is below the line), or somebody else.

Thanks, 2Chance. I've been arguing for Bando as a truly great player for a long time, and when I starting looking at previous results I must admit I was surpreised that I am the only one voting for Sal Bando! I thought there'd be at least one other....

Anyway, thanks for reading and taking him into consideration. :)

Brad Harris

04-25-2006, 10:54 PM

Results for April have been posted in that month's voting thread.

Congrats to Tom Connolly, Jud Wilson, Shigeo Nagashima, Bob Lemon, Lou Boudreau and Willie Foster, our April inductees!

abacab

04-26-2006, 09:45 AM

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.

Freakshow

04-26-2006, 10:22 AM

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.
1) Hack is often seen as the best thirdbaseman in the 30 years between Baker and Mathews. Traynor fans, YMMV.

2) Welch: agreed.

3) From the Rules: Players are to be considered based on their performance and its impact on their teams. What evidence is there that Belle's demeanor cost his team wins?

dgarza

04-26-2006, 11:43 AM

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.
For me this generally applies more to Bobby Grich. I used to have Hack as the best MLB 3B available. All this time I forgot about Al Rosen and am now sticking him up in the "best" position.

Johnny Bench at 1B doesn't quite do it for me either.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.Welch certainly does have alot of counting stats in his favor, but even with 275 wins he would probably still be making my ballot.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.
I think players are a mixture of the 2. Purely neither.

abacab

04-26-2006, 11:50 AM

1) Hack is often seen as the best thirdbaseman in the 30 years between Baker and Mathews.

That's my point exactly - if Hack would have put up the same numbers at LF, RF, 1B, and probably CF, he just wouldn't have as much support. Of course you'll tell me that standards for third base are different, which is true. I think my problem is that Hack is getting credit just for playing third base, without being particularly good at it. Had he been a Gold Glover, then I'd support him. Grich is a different situation in this respect, because his support is due mainly to the fact that he was a terrific fielder, and also a good hitter for his position. Hack was a good hitter for his position, but not a particularly good fielder; he's a good hitter who happened to play third base, rather than a great third baseman, if that makes any sense.

As for Belle, I maintain that electing him is honoring his numbers rather than the person. To me, a player that spends his career disgracing the game does not deserve the highest honor. Then again, I voted for Dick Allen.

The Dude

04-26-2006, 12:03 PM

I think my problem is that Hack is getting credit just for playing third base, without being particularly good at it. Had he been a Gold Glover, then I'd support him. Hack was a good hitter for his position, but not a particularly good fielder; he's a good hitter who happened to play third base, rather than a great third baseman, if that makes any sense.

Everything I use for fielding (FWS, FRAR, League Leads) shows Hack from being an average to good to very good fielder. What am I missing?

abacab

04-26-2006, 01:55 PM

BaseballProspectus has him -15 FRAA, career. Win Shares is a little kinder, giving him three GGs and putting him in the top 20 in career fielding WS at his position. I'm not saying he was a butcher at third, but he wasn't exceptional either. Maybe that's my real problem with Hack - nothing about him is exceptional. Good, not great hitter. Adequate fielder. Career totals are respectable but not eye-popping. Even going by sabermetrics, Hack's career is impressive - 316 WS, 90 WARP3 - but short of "no brainer" status, and while he had some very good seasons, he never had a string of MVP type seasons that would identify him as a great player. He seems to fall just short on every possible measure - maybe if you put it all together, you get a Hall-worthy player.

538280

04-26-2006, 02:08 PM

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.

The standards for 3B are different though, but I agree with you Hack doesn't really deserve it (although I think I may have put him on my ballot for lack of a better candidate). Hack played right after the spectrum jump, so little to no credit there, and he's not the best 3B between Baker and Mathews really (Heinie Groh).

I don't understand why he's close to election and two of my favorites (Groh and Bando) can't get any support. I see them both as much better candidates at 3B than Hack.

I don't see Hack having much of a peak either. His best season by Win Shares and WARP (1945) was during the war, and discouting that his three best WS years are 33, 30, and 26, which rates far below Bando and Groh.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.

Definitely agree there. Welch has never been on my ballot, and he probably never will be. He didn't even really last very long either. Just 300 wins, and 307 wins in all honestly really isn't all that impressive in the 1880s.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.

The Hall of Fame is for the best players of all time. If you feel Belle meets that criteria, you can vote for him. Belle is in my quene, but I don't think will quite make it next month. He'll probably see my ballot in June.

jalbright

04-26-2006, 08:06 PM

Jim:

As the new overseer here, I have a point of procedure question for you. It relates to this rule:

A Players Ballot should list the 25 most deserving candidates (until we have elected at least 90% of the number of players in Cooperstown.)

90% of 225 is 203 players. We now have 173, so this would imply that after we elect 30 more it will be permissable to submit ballots with less than 25 players listed.

But, is this the right way to look at it? In that total of 173 are 13 players not eligible for the Coop: 7 who become eligible from 2007-2010; 4 Japanese players; and 2 who are "permanently" banned.

Might it be reasonable to add these 13 to the Hall's total, making the threshold 90% of 238, or 214 players enshrined before short ballots are allowed? To me, this would be a better way to go. Otherwise, the project will grind to a halt well short of the Coop's total of 225 (and with at least two more to be added next year).

First, let's take this discussion to the discussion thread, and leave the voting in the voting thread. Second, I don't think that your suggestion was in keeping with Brad's idea (the quoted material on this point was written by Brad), but I will listen to other points of view. Third, the only place it is marginally close to applicable is on the contributor ballot right now.

Jim Albright

Freakshow

04-26-2006, 08:52 PM

First, let's take this discussion to the discussion thread, and leave the voting in the voting thread. Second, I don't think that your suggestion was in keeping with Brad's idea (the quoted material on this point was written by Brad), but I will listen to other points of view. Third, the only place it is marginally close to applicable is on the contributor ballot right now.

Jim Albright
This is my 900th posting!:clapping

I think the spirit intended by Brad is embodied in this sentence from the Rules: We seek to match our wits against those of the National Hall of Fame in Cooperstown by comparing and contrasting our selections to their own. To me, this means that any system that falls well short of matching the number of players in the Coop fails the mission of the project.

Once we start allowing short ballots, our number of electees per month will gradually atrophy. We may find it gets to be tough sledding to get our total up to the Coop's. This is the problem I'm trying to anticipate and prevent, anyway.

Your third point I, frankly, don't understand. (Perhaps because I don't do the Contributors election.) Please explain.

leecemark

04-26-2006, 08:58 PM

--We are closer to the real Hall's number of contributors than players. Short ballots are allowed on the contributor side, although there is still a minimum of 10. FWIW, I endorse Freak Show's proposition.

jalbright

04-27-2006, 05:13 AM

Actually, Mark, we've got to get a few more contributors before short ballots are allowed under the rule promulgated by Brad.

Let's start with my perspective on my role here. I was asked to take over an existing project in which I have been an active participant. The originator and, before now, only person to have run this project asked me to take it over, and I agreed. Brad may return and might want to resume these duties. Additionally, even if Brad doesn't return or want to resume these duties, it is entirely possible that at year's end or by the end of January next year, I will be looking to get out of this job. The reasons for this are due to factors in my life outside of BBF. I hope that it won't be necessary for us to have a third person running the project within the space of a year, but I cannot promise that will be the case. Therefore, I see myself very much as a caretaker of a going concern.

Given that perspective and the fact the rule promulgated by Brad was the result of much earlier discussion on the subject of short ballots and is also IMO a clearly written rule, I am loath to change it. One thing which is not specified is how short a ballot is permitted, and given the fact it was Brad's notion that we should match wits with the HOF, I think a rule which indicates that ballots must contain at least enough names such that the minimum number of names which must be on a ballot when added to the number of players already elected to the BBF HOF would equal the number already elected to Cooperstown is acceptable. Thus, for example, if Cooperstown has 230 players elected to it and BBF HOF has 210, a ballot must have at least 20 names on it.

One of my reasons for citing the fact that the contributor ballot is the one which is the one near the limit is that in terms of players, we are not in a situation where the issue is imminent. Indeed, if we could all somehow agree on the players to elect this month and arranged our ballots to elect the maximum our band of less than 30 could elect, we still would not reach the threshhold for players (I think with less than 30 voters we could theoretically elect a maximum of 26 players in a month).

We will be facing the issue on the contributor side shortly, however. I welcome input, but since the rules here have not been up for a vote in the past, I will have to be persuaded either by overwhelming support for a position beyond what I have outlined here, or a logical argument why I should adopt a different position given the realities of the situation (the best angle being the continued health of the project given its goals). It may be that our coming experience with short ballots on the contributor side changes my perspective about short ballots on the player side.

It should be pointed out that simply because short ballots are permitted, it is not certain such ballots will be submitted, much less how prevalent they will be.

My own opinion is that logically, there is a limit to how many players we should elect and therefore the project will "grind to a halt" at some point. We have already had controversy that we are electing too many (remember wrgptfan?), and I think one of the reasons we have had concerns lately over the degree of participation both in voting and the discussion thread is the fact we are getting much closer to a point where there is a growing sense that we are nearing the end of the line. There are those like leecemark, freakshow and myself who wouldn't mind a larger number than in Cooperstown, but I think it is equally clear that some participants are getting to the point where they think we are electing marginal or worse candidates. I tend to think the rule Brad came up with is a fair compromise position.

Jim Albright

leecemark

04-27-2006, 06:57 AM

--Brad had previously posted that contributor ballots could be from 10-15 names, starting with this month. Understood on your wish to serve as caretaker and not innovator though. Requiring at least enough names (when we get to less than 25 away) to match Cooperstown works for me.

abacab

04-27-2006, 07:43 AM

Yesterday I was dissing players, so today I'll give props to my boys...

Max Carey

Carey was a master basestealer and centerfielder in the deadball era. He is considered one of the best fielding outfielders ever. He is still in the top 10 all-time in stolen bases. The dead ball era died out when Carey was in his 30s, but he adjusted and became a .300 hitter while continuing to be among the league leaders in steals. In his only World Series, Carey hit .438 as the Pirates came back from being down 3-1. Lou Brock is in the BBF Hall; Carey was Brock with better defense.

Elmer Flick

Flick was a star slugger at the turn of the century (I mean, the turn that happened 106 years ago, not the turn that happened 6 years ago). His career was cut short by stomach problems; otherwise, he'd probably be remembered as a legend today. In 1900, the NL contracted to eight teams (thus consolidating the talent), but Flick had his best year, hitting .367 with 110 RBI. From 1898 to 1907, Flick's lowest season OPS+ was 120, and it went as high as 172. He led the league in triples three times and stolen bases twice.

Rollie Fingers

Fingers is getting a bad rap on this site because his ERA+ of 119 is not impressive for a reliever, and because he was clearly not as good as HoF snub Gossage. Fingers also benefitted from playing on the Oakland mini-dynasty; on the other hand, he was one of the main reasons for their success. I think of Fingers as the Mariano Rivera of the 1970s. If you look at the World Series games in '72, '73, and '74, you'll be surprised at how many of them were very close games, and how many Oakland wins were saved by Fingers. He was named WS MVP in '74 after saves in each of the last three games, and he got more than three outs in each of those games. His AL MVP in the strike-shortened 1981, deserved or not, shows how respected he was in his time.

jalbright

04-27-2006, 12:55 PM

Harold Baines
Jim Bottomley
Ellis Burks
Orlando Cepeda
Will Clark
Chili Davis
Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Andres Galarraga
Bob Johnson
Dave Kingman
Heinie Manush
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Al Oliver
Dave Parker
Tony Perez
Vada Pinson
Jim Rice
Jimmy Ryan
Enos Slaughter
Rusty Staub
Don Sutton
Mickey Vernon
Mickey Welch
Ordinarily, I would not comment on someone's ballot so long as it complied with the rules. There are exceptions to everything, and this ballot is (at least I hope) an exception--or should I say aberration? Given the history of this voter (Beltran for the HOF as a notable thread--it fits with this ballot), I cannot say that I am surprised by its quality, or more accurately, lack thereof. It is very heavily tilted toward players from 1960 onward, which is at least unusual. But what distinguishes it is its utter lack of agreement with the consensus of the group:

--it contains only 2 of the 14 players receiving less than 75% but 50% or more of last month's votes;

--it contains the grand total of ten names which received absolutely no support last month (most if not all for good reason, IMO);

--it contains four more candidates who amassed the sterling total of one vote each last month;

--it contains a mere five candidates receiving more than four votes last month;

--the candidates on this ballot received the whopping total of 81 votes last month, and average of 3.24 votes per candidate--and if we eliminated the top five vote getters from his ballot, the average would dip to 1.15 votes per candidate.

Jim Albright

Captain Cold Nose

04-27-2006, 01:15 PM

It's the baseball card approach. Looking at a certain set of numbers and those numbers alone, without the slightest hint of the context behind them.

jalbright

04-27-2006, 01:21 PM

In the interest of full disclosure, I will use the same tests on my player ballot, deducting my vote in all cases and also eliminating the five candidates which were elected:

--8 of 14 in the 50-74% group;

--none where I was the sole voter naming the candidate;

--three where only one other voter named the candidate;

--seven where four or less other voters named the candidate;

--the 20 unelected names on my ballot, deducting my votes for them, still averaged 9.98 votes per candidate--which means I averaged more votes per candidate even after deducting my own vote and eliminating the elected candidates than all but two of the other voter's candidates received (his third best total was 8 votes).

Jim Albright

dgarza

04-27-2006, 01:27 PM

On the noted ballot:

While it does seem an "off" ballot, I'm seeing that there are 6 players similar to my ballot, which is more in agreement than other voters' ballots with mine.(see abacab's post) And I can't knock abacab's ballot in the slightest. And I have not heard much knock about my ballot.

Only maybe 5 of those players listed I would probably never vote for. Although I think there are many "more-deserving" available.

Why is "Beltran for the HOF" important. Beltran is not on this voter's ballot. And I don't see why totally unrelated and independant threads that a member posts or contributes to should be used to judge a member's ballot. It doesn't seem relevant to me.

jalbright

04-27-2006, 01:35 PM

dgarza

04-27-2006, 02:01 PM

Actually, I was judging the ballot on its own skimpy merits. I daresay I haven't seen anyone who has cast a valid ballot in the past six months or more who is so demonstrably out of step with the consensus of the group.

Recently, no, I do not remember a ballot quite like this. It does seem that there have been much more objectionable, yet "legal", ones in the past.

jalbright

04-27-2006, 02:37 PM

The big problem with a ballot like that is the fact it serves to block candidates. There are only two on that ballot with a decent chance of election, so every other candidate has to get three votes just to balance this one ballot out.

I'd say ballots should have at least 10 of the 20 top candidates at the end of the month. Adding in the ties at 20, there were 22 such candidates last month. Our voters averaged having 13 of them on their ballots. I had sixteen, you (dgarza) had seven. That seven is a little low, but you have had better months. The ballot I'm questioning has virtually no chance of passing this pretty basic test.

Jim Albright

leecemark

04-27-2006, 03:37 PM

--I don't agree with Sockeye's choices, but I think he has the right to make them. They are consistent with the views he has demonstrated elsewhere at BBF and not some sort of political statement. Taking any action on this ballot would be a departure from the standards of this project, since Sockeye sincerely believes these are the both deserving 25.

538280

04-27-2006, 06:46 PM

I think we should count the ballot (every one of the players I guess somewhat of a case could be made for, and he did follow the rules. People's opinions should be counted), but I do agree the member's approach is rather annoying. I like the analogy made earlier, it's like he lined up baseball cards for all the players and did nothing but simply look at their career totals, making no notice of peak performance or context, or taking into account more advanced measures that aren't on the cards.

People have been telling him this since he's been here, and he shows little to no chance of being enlightened. Still, though, it's not like he has any players who couldn't be described as good players, and it does follow the rules. I wouldn't be in favor of not counting a completely valid ballot unless it has completely unreasonable candidates that are just beyond the reach of a case being made for. For very strict longevity people, I guess I could even see how someone could think Harold Baines and Chili Davis are HOFers, though it would take a subsequent case about how they really don't care about the DH, and that longevity and counting stats are MUCH more important than anything else.

Anyway, I say count his ballot, though it is unfortunate that it does block so many, much better candidates.

catcher24

04-27-2006, 07:07 PM

Regardless of how you feel about the ballot, if Sockeye followed the rules (he did, far as we know) the ballot has to be counted. I actually have Bob Johnson in my queue, although I don't know if he'll ever make the ballot before I stop voting. But he put up excellent numbers for some positively horrid Athletics and Senators teams. The main hesitation for me is that Johnson's best season came during the war years, when the competition was watered down. But he was also 38 years old at the time, so perhaps they cancel each other out.

538280

04-27-2006, 07:15 PM

The main hesitation for me is that Johnson's best season came during the war years, when the competition was watered down. But he was also 38 years old at the time, so perhaps they cancel each other out.

I don't follow with that logic. You give a player more credit for a great season if he did it in old age?

jalbright

04-27-2006, 07:56 PM

A ballot in good faith which meets the rules, so long as the choices among the players are at least stars, although in this case far too frequently of the lowest magnitude, will be counted. I have no reason to believe that this is anything like wrgptfan's Alan Rothstein or 20+ leading Japanese player ballots. That said, to borrow the words of Ollie North's attorney, I needn't sit here like a potted plant and pretend it's just peachy. I have the right to point out what I believe are the flaws in the ballot, in the (likely vain) hope that doing so might result in some improvement, especially if some others were to echo the sentiments. Please note I did not attack any one specific selection, but my complaint is directed at the sum total of the ballot.

Jim Albright

2Chance

04-27-2006, 09:13 PM

This ballot, and this post is NOT to pick on this ballot, just to reiterate an old unwritten rule, IS consistent with the rules posted at the beginning of this thread. However, we had an unwritten rule at one time that was something many of us agreed was a good idea, that the first person to vote for somebody should make a case for them.

In other words, if I vote for Dave Concepcion this month (his name was chosen because I don't think he has any votes, OK?), I should let you know what makes me think that he is one of the 25 best players available, and why I think you should vote for him too.

If there are any "firsts" on this ballot, I think the rest of us should know why they deserve our support.

J W

04-27-2006, 09:36 PM

For reference, jalbright has picked up Chancellor's mantle and posted the May ballot. I've stickied it and removed the April ballot.

Thank you Jim--I'm sure Brad will appreciate it when he comes back.

:gt

Captain Cold Nose

04-28-2006, 05:07 AM

I think it's fair to question the candidates put forth on the ballot, but every player on Sockeye's ballot was arguably an all-star caliber player. We've had homerism rear its head on ballots that have counted (I remember Andy Benes receiving votes) and I think that's far worse than what we've seen this month.

dgarza

04-28-2006, 07:09 AM

That seven is a little low, but you have had better months. Quite seriously, I do object to this comment. All of my ballots have been posted in honest and good faith. None have been "better" or "worse." This kind of judgement, I feel, is uncalled for. Question a player choice, sure, but to say I have had "better" ballots, no, I don't agree with that. They have all been equally valid and honest and good.

jalbright

04-28-2006, 08:56 AM

Quite seriously, I do object to this comment. All of my ballots have been posted in honest and good faith. None have been "better" or "worse." This kind of judgement, I feel, is uncalled for. Question a player choice, sure, but to say I have had "better" ballots, no, I don't agree with that. They have all been equally valid and honest and good.
I'm sorry you interpret my less than ideal phrasing that way. What I meant was you have had months with a higher percentage of the top candidates. In that sense, I think the use of the word better is defensible. That is not to say I shouldn't have expressed the point better. If one looks at the word better in the way you took it, I agree that the judgment is in the eye of the beholder.

Jim Albright

catcher24

04-28-2006, 10:45 AM

Posted by 538280:
I don't follow with that logic. You give a player more credit for a great season if he did it in old age?

Normally, no. However, it was quite unusual for a player to post their best season at the advanced age of 38 back in the 40's (and still is, actually). Players weren't pampered and didn't have the training facilities or medical attention that they get now. And players normally - especially pre-steroid days - have a decline period. It usually begins in mid to late thirties. In this particular case, I was just mentioning that perhaps the fact the competition was not as good as when he was younger might be balanced out by his age. I don't give a lot of extra credit, but I do consider it in this particular case.

catcher24

04-28-2006, 10:47 AM

Posted by JAlbright:
A ballot in good faith which meets the rules, so long as the choices among the players are at least stars, although in this case far too frequently of the lowest magnitude, will be counted

I got the ORIGINAL reply, Jim. Glad to see you modified it a bit.:laugh

dgarza

04-28-2006, 11:41 AM

I'm sorry you interpret my less than ideal phrasing that way. What I meant was you have had months with a higher percentage of the top candidates. In that sense, I think the use of the word better is defensible. That is not to say I shouldn't have expressed the point better. If one looks at the word better in the way you took it, I agree that the judgment is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the word you were looking for was "higher," not "better." "Better" IS a judgement word. It's not a case of "eye of the beholder," making it sound like my fault. I get what you are saying, though.

jalbright

04-28-2006, 12:04 PM

If you want to nitpick, we can do this for some time. I explained my meaning. If that's not good enough, so be it. My point in my explanation is that it's in how you look at it. "Judgment being in the eye of the beholder" referred to whether or not your ballot was "better" in the sense of judgment. OTOH, do I believe it's better if folks support at least half of the top candidates as opposed to a hair under one-third of those candidates? Yes, I do--and as support for that opinion, I point to the fact our goal here is to elect candidates, and it is easier to do so if the voters can reach some degree of agreement on who the top candidates are. There may be other factors to consider, just as batting average hardly tells the whole story, but a higher batting average is better than a lower one, all else being equal.

Also, please consider the fact that your post giving some support to the ballot I complained of also talked of no one complaining of your ballot. All our ballots could be complained about, so we've made the sensible yet generally unspoken agreement that so long as ballots are reasonable, we'll keep our opinions to ourselves. But when you make a statement like that, you are inviting some scrutiny, and should expect it--and some commentary to go with the scrutiny.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-28-2006, 01:56 PM

I got the ORIGINAL reply, Jim. Glad to see you modified it a bit.:laugh

I didn't amend it to spare anyone's feelings. I would stand by the word asinine to describe the ballot I've questioned. However, the way I said it, if a first time voter posted a ballot like the April Fool's 2005 spoof ballot and there were no indications the voter didn't believe that the likes of Mario Mendoza, Dick Stuart, Marv Throneberry, Choo Choo Coleman, and Moonlight Graham weren't actually the 25 players most worthy of being honored by the BBF HOF, there would be no way to invalidate the ballot, even though such a ballot would be far more unreasonable than the ballot in question. The ballot in question IMO is unreasonable, but not so clearly that it needs to be invalidated.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-28-2006, 02:16 PM

jalbright

04-28-2006, 02:22 PM

I haven't yet taken the opportunity to thank those who helped make Shigeo Nagashima the fourth Japanese League player elected to the BBF HOF. I greatly appreciate the support given to Japanese League candidates. Thank you again.

That said, I've still got a few more guys I think are worthy. Isao Harimoto is one, and happens to be the one receiving the most votes last month. In fact, he received over 50% of the votes cast last month. For those of you unfamiliar with his qualifications, I present the following:

Isao Harimoto

Japanese Record

He won 7 batting titles, and was in the top 10 in average 17 times. He is the only Japanese player to reach 3000 hits in their shorter seasons. He is one of only eight men with 500 homers and his .319 career average is a mere point below the record for career average with over 4000 AB. He drew the third most career walks. He won an MVP and was named as one of the three best outfielders in his league 16 times.

He once had a thirty game hitting streak and had 3 hits or more in 251 games.

I've named him the best outfielder in Japan in both the 1960's and 1970's, its best outfielder ever, and its fourth best player overall. In Baseball's Other Stars, William McNeil, Fumihiro Fujisawara and Daniel Johnson all name him as a starting outfielder in their all-time Japanese teams.

Actual stats
AB 9666
R 1523
H 3085
2B 420
3B 72
HR 504
RBI 1676
K 815
BB 1274
SB 319
avg .319
OBP .399
slg .534

Glenn Mickens from the Rob Fitts' Remembering Japanese Baseball: Harimoto had big league material. He was a pretty good-sized kid. He was unbelievably talented. He could fly. And he could hit with anybody. . . As [a] hitter I had tremendous respect for him.

Major League Projection

AB 10510
H 3093
2B 386
3B 170
HR 300
avg .294
OBP .391
slg .449

This projection meets 58 of the HOF standards, well over HOF quality, as the average HOFer scores at 50. The ten most similar names to his projection has six HOFers (Molitor, Kaline, Brett, Clemente, Winfield and Perez), Rickey Henderson plus Pinson, Baines and Staub. The three outsiders all had averages under .290 and less than 3000 hits, so it's fair to put Harimoto in while they're out.

A study of Harimoto's individual seasons here: http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/analysisjalbright32.html#Harimoto conlcuded Harimoto had two seasons in which he'd have been an MVP candidate, and would have been an all-star a minimum of five times, but likely 7-10 times and possibly even as many as 13 times. In the 13 years we looked at, he's worth at least 290 win shares and probably more like 338. When you then consider he had seven other seasons, 3 of which were good but not great and another 3 of which were decent full time efforts, he clearly should have surpassed the 350 career win share level, at which over 80% of players get into the Hall, and maybe even 400 win share mark, at which point everybody who's eligible gets in. There's little question he has a HOF-caliber resume.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-28-2006, 02:28 PM

I had all five electees on my ballot last month, and so I have space for five new players. Those five are Dale Murphy, Will Clark, Don Drysdale, Don Sutton and Hugh Duffy. A blurb on each follows:

Dale Murphy: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=443230&postcount=224

Will Clark: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=443216&postcount=221

Don Drysdale: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=443195&postcount=218

Don Sutton: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=425947&postcount=206

Hugh Duffy: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=534926&postcount=262

Jim Albright

dgarza

04-28-2006, 02:45 PM

jalbright

04-28-2006, 02:57 PM

After getting no more than 8% of the vote last month, Bob Caruthers is at an impressive 50% this month. Certainly it's early in the voting, but his support has tripled. He's certainly a deserving candidate at this point. Although I do not have him on my ballot now, he is not far off. I'd love to see him get in in the near future.

I haven't had time to fully compile the votes yet, so I would only caution that going simply by a rise in percentage this early could be most deceptive, especially if in this small sample, it so happens his supporters are strongly represented in the votes cast so far.

Jim Albright

catcher24

04-28-2006, 07:51 PM

Well, at least on my ballot Caruthers is a new addition. He had been hanging around, and it was time to add him.

jalbright

04-29-2006, 02:49 PM

I think I'm finally getting to catch my breath in my new role as manager of this project right about now. I've been able to vote, compile the votes to the moment I started to type this, and have put up my voting guide for May.

We've already gotten 15 votes in. After the weekend is over, I'll try to fill you in on the status of the voting. Since I've got easier access to the entire voting (not hard given that I'm the one compiling it), I'll try to do a more general job of tracking the top candidates now. I'm thinking of doing only guys with over 60% of the vote this month and still in a position to possibly be elected. I'll see when I go to do the post.

Jim Albright

jalbright

04-29-2006, 02:53 PM

BTW, Caruthers had only two votes last month and now is at 8. He's got no real shot this month, though. Still, he has made a significant step forward.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-01-2006, 12:41 PM

Voting status as of 2:30 PM EDT 5/1/2006:

Player votes counted: 17
Projected total votes for players: 29
Projected votes needed for election of player: 22

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Slaughter.............15............88.2.......... ....23.........................94
Averill..................13............76.5....... .......18.........................43
Hack...................13............76.5......... ......23........................94
Welch..................12............70.6......... .....20.........................53
Belle....................11............64.7....... .......19.........................31
Gordon.................11............64.7......... .....20.........................41
Fingers.................11............64.7........ ......17.........................21
Lyons...................11............64.7........ ......20.........................41
Stovey.................11............64.7......... ......17........................21
Joss,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11............64.7....... .......15.........................16

Contributor votes counted: 14
projected total votes for contributors: 25
projected votes for election of contributor: 19

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
H. Caray................11...........78.6............ ..15...........................43
Kawakami...............11...........78.6.......... ....19...........................88
Harwell..................10...........71.4........ .......18..........................70
Doucet....................9...........64.3........ ......10...........................13
Griffith....................9............64.3..... .........15...........................25
Taylor.....................9...........64.3....... ........17...........................42

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

538280

05-03-2006, 08:07 PM

I would like to re-open my case for Sal Bando, seeing how no one thus far has voted for him this month. Here is the link:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=530761&postcount=52

Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time, keeping the famous "Swinging A's" of 1972-1974 together and focusing on the game rather than their owner's ongoing mission to cheat them out of well earned money.

Bando also was a great hitter, whose hitting greatness is masked by when he played, and no slouch at third either. Bill James rates him the 11th best 3B ever and his WS system has him as the 10th best. He should be getting at least some support. I will be voting for him once I get my ballot for this month together.

We all know 3B has been drastically underepresented in Cooperstown, and there are tons of 3Bmen who get support. Of course Ron Santo heads the list, but we also frequently hear about Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Graig Nettles, and Stan Hack. We never hear anything about Bando.

Darrell Evans is a player whose stock has gone dramatically up since Bill James called him the most underrated player ever in his New Historical Basebal Abstract. The ironic thing, to me, is that there is a player rated one spot behind Evans (Bando) who has been historically rated even lower, and yet James makes no mention of him being extremely underrated. James' rating system actually shows Bando to be the better player, and yet it's Evans who gets the props. I don't know why, especially when James' own system says Bando is better.

jalbright

05-04-2006, 07:59 AM

I looked at Bando more closely, and he's made my queue. However, given that we're getting to the point of voting on guys who are in some queues and not others, I'm focusing a lot more on voting for guys 1) in my queue who 2) are getting the most support. Bando makes the first test but not the second, so he'll wait a while.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-08-2006, 12:35 PM

Voting status as of 2:20 PM EDT 5/8/2006:

I have not yet counted mtortolero's ballot, as I have asked him to alphabetize it to facilitate my task in counting the votes.

Player votes counted: 20
Projected total votes for players: 29
Projected votes needed for election of player: 22

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Slaughter.............17............85.0.......... ....25.........................98
Averill..................15............75.0....... .......18.........................37
Hack...................16............80.0......... ......23........................96
Welch..................14............70.0......... .....20.........................43
Belle....................14............70.0....... .......20.........................43
Gordon.................14............70.0......... .....21.........................64
Lyons...................15............75.0........ ......21........................73

Anybody with 13 votes has to run the table to make it this month, and that's probably too much to ask.

Contributor votes counted: 16
projected total votes for contributors: 25
projected votes for election of contributor: 19

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
H. Caray................13...........81.3............ ..15...........................45
Kawakami...............12...........75.0.......... ....19...........................90
Harwell..................12...........75.0........ ......18...........................73
Griffith...................11...........68.8...... ........15...........................26
Taylor....................11...........68.8....... .......17..........................43

Anybody with 10 votes in this category has to run the table, and that's probably too much to ask.

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

There is one other concern beyond the usual issues of new voters: based on his own statements, I do not expect the Chancellor to vote this month, though I hope I am wrong. It may be that his better half (The Wizard) will not vote either. The two of them have been strong supporters of candidates near election, and if they do not vote, these projections may be rather optimistic as a result.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-08-2006, 12:38 PM

Please note I have added the following to the rules:

I reserve the right to reject ballots which do not alphabetize the listing of candidates. The process of counting the votes is hard enough, and my spreadsheet is set up to take advantage of the tradition of alphabetized ballots.

This is a reminder to our voters of long standing and to any new voters. It is a continuation of a tradition requested by the founder of this project, and I have merely made it an express part of the rules.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-11-2006, 08:00 PM

I've put together my cases for all but a few tough calls and have placed them in my musings thread. For ease of reference, I've placed links to all these cases in my monthly voting guide, which is here: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42740

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-15-2006, 01:56 PM

Voting status as of 3:30 PM EDT 5/15/2006:

Only two votes counted this week, mtortolero's and EricGotMunsoned's

Player votes counted: 22
Projected total votes for players: 30
Projected votes needed for election of player: 23

Player........Votes....%....projected....chance... .........needed/opportunities
Slaughter.....18......81.8.....25............98... .................2 insurance/1
Averill..........15......68.2.....18.............9 .................................5/5
Hack...........17......77.3.....24............96.. ..................1 insurance/1
Welch..........15.....68.2.....20.............15.. ...............................3/3
Gordon.........15.....68.2.....22.............41.. ...............................1/1
Lyons..........16.....72.7......22.............66. ................................1/2

Contributor votes counted: 16
projected total votes for contributors: 25
projected votes for election of contributor: 19

Contributor...votes,,,,%....projected...chance.... .......needed/opportunities
H. Caray......14.......82.4.......15..........40..... ....................5/8
Kawakami... .12......70.6........19..........65............... ..........1/2
Harwell........13......76.5........18..........56. .........................2/4
Griffith.........11......64.7.......15............ 9.........................5/5
Taylor.........11.... ..64.7.... ..17..........15..........................3/3

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month. The last category is votes needed versus opportunities to get those votes.

There is one other concern beyond the usual issues of new voters: based on his own statements, I do not expect the Chancellor to vote this month, though I hope I am wrong. It may be that his better half (The Wizard) will not vote either. The two of them have been strong supporters of candidates near election, and if they do not vote, these projections may be rather optimistic as a result.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-15-2006, 02:03 PM

I'm planning a significant upgrade in my "voting guide" for this month. I'm going to include the rules, lists of electees in both alphabetical and by position/contributor category form, last month's voting results, by votes received and alphabetically, then the usual stuff, and the stuff I've added to this month's thread with respect to links to discussions of all the guys in my queue plus players I consider "tough cases" and prominent cases I'm not supporting and why. I hope folks will find the changes useful.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-15-2006, 07:11 PM

Just to clarify the previous post, I've put a lot of what I want in there already, though not in the order I want. The thread I post after the voting ends this month will be the way I'm envisioning it.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-21-2006, 09:24 AM

Guys,

I would like to be accomodating, but the only conditional ballots allowed by the rules are the leading Negro League/Japanese/non major league ballots. Frankly, even those ballots are a pain in the rump for me to deal with, but they're a valuable tool, so that's not changing. However, I'm not going to go over to more individualized requests, so please don't even ask.

Jim Albright

AG2004

05-22-2006, 02:39 AM

Quoting from Albright's musings:

Babe also doesn't have nearly as many MVP shares as one might expect, because the award was only given sporadically until late in his career. That doesn't invalidate the stat for everyone, especially if the award was given every season of their careers.

Actually, with the sole exception of 1929, the AL had an MVP award from 1922 onward. However, from 1922 until 1928, the AL also had a rule that anyone who had received an MVP award in a prior season could not receive the award again.

Since Ruth won the AL MVP award in 1923, the voting rules prohibited him from receiving any MVP votes - and thus any MVP shares - during the following five seasons.

Therefore, the stat has problems for every American Leaguer of the 1920s. If they did win the award, they couldn't get MVP shares in subsequent years. This, in turn, boosts MVP shares for players who didn't win any MVP awards, since players such as Ruth could have siphoned off votes from players who did get them had they been eligible for the award.

Freakshow

05-22-2006, 06:40 AM

Re: George Wright and leecemark's requested accomodation.

While Jim is right, IMO, the point I want to make about Wright is that anyone who considers him in the contributors category is wrong; he is a HOFer because he was a great player. Period.

At the time of his election, before the Coop was even open, there were no classifications dividing the greats into players, managers, executives, pioneers, and so forth. You were simply a hall of famer.

Many years later, the HOF put Wright in the pioneers category. This was done because Wright's playing record was mostly incomplete, having occurred before the official founding of the first Major League in 1876.

We now know a great deal more of Wright's playing record and there is no doubt he was a dominant player for all of the decade preceding the NL (1866-75), as well as most of the decade following this. Apart from his playing, his contribution to The Game was insignificant, AFAIK.

So, to those listing him as a contributor, please put him with the players where he belongs.

jalbright

05-22-2006, 09:24 AM

Actually, with the sole exception of 1929, the AL had an MVP award from 1922 onward. However, from 1922 until 1928, the AL also had a rule that anyone who had received an MVP award in a prior season could not receive the award again.

Since Ruth won the AL MVP award in 1923, the voting rules prohibited him from receiving any MVP votes - and thus any MVP shares - during the following five seasons.

Therefore, the stat has problems for every American Leaguer of the 1920s. If they did win the award, they couldn't get MVP shares in subsequent years. This, in turn, boosts MVP shares for players who didn't win any MVP awards, since players such as Ruth could have siphoned off votes from players who did get them had they been eligible for the award.
Actually, baseball-reference.com lists no award in 1930 in either league, and the NL had no award in 1922 or 1923. I didn't recall about that rule in the 20's, but I did correctly recall there was something fishy there. Anyway, for guys whose careers had high quality years before 1931, you've got to be careful with MVP shares.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-22-2006, 10:01 AM

OK, folks, remember that the voting closes at 12:01 am EDT on the 26th. We've got seven voters who voted last month who haven't voted this month (AG2004, Baseball Guru, Blue Jay, JW, Loria Stinks plus the Chancellor and The Wizard). There's reason to believe the last two on the list won't be voting, which makes the other five all more important for reasons I will soon make clear.

Enos Slaughter is a virtual lock to make it, with 20 of 24 votes cast so far and support from six of the seven outstanding voters.

Earl Averill is on life support for this month, with 17 of 24 votes cast, and support from only two of the seven outstanding voters. He needs to run the table (minimum 4 votes) unless we reach 32 votes cast, and it seems very unlikely that he will do so.

The other three players still alive this month also have 17 of 24 votes cast and need to run the table (minimum of 4 votes)--but they had significantly greater support among the outstanding voters: Joe Gordon and Stan Hack had support of 6 of the seven, and Ted Lyons five of the seven. These candidates need at least four votes (or someone who didn't support them so far this month to change their mind) to get to 75%, so if we assume the Chancellor and The Wizard don't vote, they could only absorb the failure to vote of one of the five remaining voters and still have a chance.

On the contributor side, Ernie Harwell is close, with 15 of 19 votes cast, and support from 4 of the outstanding voters. He can absorb one of those voters failing to support him, or he can even absorb the failure of two voters to support him if he gets at least three votes in his favor. Harry Caray is in a similar situation as Averill on the player side. He's at 14 of 19 votes, so he needs to run the table (minimum 1 vote) unless 5 or more votes are cast, at which point he could absorb the failure of one voter to support him. Problem is, he received support from only one of the outstanding voters last month. Tetsuharu Kawakami is a guy who needs to run the table with a minimum of five votes, but he had support of six of the seven outstanding voters last month. That's not the best situation to be in, but I like his chances better than Caray's.

Of course, the appearance of new voters or changes of heart among those who have already voted could seriously alter this analysis.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-24-2006, 07:01 PM

Just a reminder that the voting ends at 12:01 am on the 26th, which means those of you who haven't voted have a little over 24 hours to vote from the time I post this.

Jim Albright

J W

05-25-2006, 11:38 AM

Question: are we going to continue projected future HOF classes as we move forward, and if so what schedule should we keep?

Thanks again Jim. My ballot is up, with one of your five, Will Clark, my addition. I've decided to finish my queue matching the # of players in Cooperstown (not contributors) and as I've run out of my old queue, that means there are 27 OPEN slots as of right now. I'll take suggestions!

jalbright

05-25-2006, 12:10 PM

I will try to duplicate what the chancellor did, which is that in November of this year players who retired and stayed out of the game all season (Sosa, Palmiero, Kevin Brown, Clemens if he doesn't play), etc, will be eligible then. I may need some help compiling that list when the time comes, but it's too early to deal with that now IMO because some of these guys could "un-retire".

You're welcome, and I assume you mean for taking over the reins of this project. It's hardly a secret that I enjoy this project and would hate to see it die before we reached the appointed goal at the very least, so I can't cast my decision to do so as entirely altruistic.

As for suggestions for who you might support, you may want to consult my voting guide when it's fully up, as it will list not only everyone I am voting for, but also those candidates in my queue, those I regard as tough cases, and even some prominent cases I won't support together with a rationale for my position in each case. I've started the thread, but cannot complete it until voting is over here: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44029

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-25-2006, 12:15 PM

I must also note that in my latest posting on the status of the ballot, I mistakenly counted 19 ballots when in fact 20 were cast, so the situation is more unfavorable than presented there. Harwell is OK, but cannot afford being excluded from any ballots unless at least three after JW's are cast, and given there's under 10 hours of voting left, it becomes increasingly unlikely we will see that many ballots cast. Caray is now toast, as is Kawakami.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-25-2006, 12:59 PM

In going through the votes for contributors, I note I've listed an ineligible guy in my queue in Ted Giannoulas a/k/a the San Diego Chicken, as he is not dead, retired, or over 60 years old. Similarly, an individual has voted for Mike Hargrove as a contributor, and he meets none of those conditions either.

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-25-2006, 03:08 PM

We're to the point where Slaughter is a lock, and only Gordon, Hack and Harwell have a chance. The latter three all need at least 2 votes in their favor to make it, and must run the table unless six more votes are cast. Given that as I write this there are five outstanding ballots and just a tad over 6 1/2 hours left in the voting, it's not much of a stretch to say they must run the table with a minimum of two votes. The hardest part may be getting two people to vote.

Jim Albright

dgarza

05-26-2006, 07:44 AM

My case for Jim Mutrie:

.611 winning % - 2nd best ever
3/9 1st place finishes - 2 being back to back - 1st in NY
4/9 2nd place or better finishes
5/9 better than .611
Created the New York Team that soon became known as the Giants, a name Mutrie created.

jalbright

05-26-2006, 09:06 AM

After AG2004's inquiry on Perucho Cepeda, I'm defining the eligible leagues thusly: the majors or Japan's top professional leagues or various top blackball leagues (Negro Leagues in the US. Cuban Leagues pre 1950, Puerto Rican Winter League pre 1950, Mexican League pre 1950, 1937 Dominican League, California Winter League)

In fact, if the consensus of voters agrees, I'm willing to open the gates to consideration of any player from any league--but with the significant catch that if you want to do so for a guy who didn't play in the enumerated leagues, you've got to make the case in this thread that the guy was great enough to stand on a par with reasonably good HOF (or any BBF HOF) selections (note the emphasis on the plural). AG2004's ballot on Perucho Cepeda here: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=558641&postcount=43 would be a more than acceptable model. Of course, I would look favorably upon efforts modeled on my own work on Japanese players. If your case is reasonable and in good faith, the vote for the candidate will be accepted. If I or anyone else has doubts about the legitimacy of the case, it would be noted in this thread, and while I reserve judgment to myself, I promise to listen to any discussion of the voters in this thread as to whether or not the case is a) reasonable and b) made in good faith. If we go this route, I would require that votes for such candidates would not be accepted within the last ten days of the voting period, to allow time for discussion of the presentation and for a decision.

AG2004

05-26-2006, 06:23 PM

More information on Perucho Cepeda, a shortstop (and, in his 30s, outfielder) from Puerto Rico.

From 1938 until 1942 - the first five seasons for which we have statistics for Cepeda - he accomplished the following in the Puerto Rican Winter League against some of the top talent from the Negro Leagues:

Won two MVPs
Won two batting titles and finished third twice
Won three RBI titles and finished second once
Was second in HR once
Led in triples once and was third once
Was third in runs scored once and fourth twice

The people at baseballthinkfactory have come up with major league equivalents for pre-integration Puerto Rican legends Francisco Coimbre and Perucho Cepeda, both of whom would appear to be HOF candidates based on their reputations. Based on the projections alone, Coimbre doesn’t seem quite worthy of the BBFHOF, so I won't mention him any futher here. However, these are the win shares produced for Cepeda:

1938 (Age 32) 36
1939 (Age 33) 26
1940 (Age 34) 31
1941 (Age 35) 20
1942 (Age 36) 13
1943 (Age 37) 1

Unfortunately, we have no statistics whatsoever for Puerto Rico prior to 1938. We do know, however, that Cepeda played professionally around the Caribbean for at least a decade before 1938, and he was called “The Babe Ruth of Puerto Rico” for being the best baseball player on the island.

Looking at what he did from age 32 onwards, and knowing that he played on the 1937 Ciudad Trujillo team in the Dominican Republic, it seems reasonable to assume that Cepeda would have racked up the equivalent of four or five seasons with 30+ win shares during his career, which is certainly BBFHOF territory. No eligible major leaguer with five such seasons is outside the BBFHOF. Of those with four such seasons, only Charlie Keller, Jimmy Wynn, and Bobby Bonds are outside the BBFHOF. All three were outfielders; Cepeda, however, was a shortstop during his prime. Furthermore, Cepeda had a full career (Keller didn't), and had a great reputation (Wynn didn't).

[For those who are curious, Stan Hack is the only eligible major leaguer at 2B, 3B, or SS with three 30+ win share seasons not in the BBFHOF. There are only two eligible major league shortstops with two 30+ win share seasons not in the BBFHOF: Hughie Jennings and Vern Stephens.]

-----

Also, it seems even more reasonable to assume that Cepeda would have earned at least 40 win shares total at ages 30 and 31, and would have averaged at least 22 win shares per season from ages 24 to 31. Given his reputation before the PRWL started, we know that he wasn't a late bloomer, and we do have MLEs for Cepeda from age 32 onwards, so this would most likely underestimate his real ability. This would give Cepeda at least 303 career win shares, at least 133 win shares in his best five seasons, and at least 93 win shares in his best three seasons. Since I'm being very conservative in setting these minimums, he was most likely better than that.

Now, these shortstops are in the BBFHOF:

Barry Larkin. 346 career WS, 130 in best five seasons, 32, 31, 30 in best three seasons.

Ozzie Smith. 326 career WS, 123 in best five seasons, 33, 25, 23 in best three seasons.

Alan Trammell. 318 career WS, 132 in best five seasons, 35, 29, 26 in best three seasons.

Pee Wee Reese. 314 career WS plus war credit, 134 in best five seasons, 32, 27, 26 in best three seasons.

Lou Boudreau. 277 career WS, 135 in best five seasons, 34, 32, 30 in best three seasons.

Thus, in all probability, Perucho Cepeda was at least the equal of fellow shortstops Larkin, Smith, Trammell, Reese, and Boudreau, all of whom are members of the BBFHOF. Do we have all the statistics to make this absolutely certain? Unfortunately not. But the statistics we do have for Cepeda, as well as the reputation Cepeda had before he compiled our available numbers, lead me to believe that Cepeda belongs in the BBFHOF.

jalbright

05-26-2006, 08:00 PM

A weak month for electing candidates. The biggest problem was losing too many voters who supported top candidates, and the new voters we did get this month were a lot like many new voters in that they didn't support the top candidates tremendously well. Our only addition is Enos Slaughter.

The player voting (numerical):

Player Ballot
26 votes cast
one elected

votes Pct Name
21 80.8 Slaughter, Enos--Elected
19 73.1 Gordon, Joe
Hack, Stan

18 69.2 Averill, Earl

17 65.4 Lyons, Ted

16 61.5 Harimoto, Isao

15 57.7 Belle, Albert
Grich, Bobby
Joss, Addie
Stovey, Harry
Welch, Mickey

14 53.8 Duffy, Hugh
Fingers, Rollie
Redding, Dick
Wright, George

13 50.0 Carey, Max
Klein, Chuck
Murphy, Dale

12 46.2 Browning, Pete
Mays, Carl
Sutter, Bruce

11 42.3 Starffin, Victor

10 38.5 Beckley, Jake
Caruthers, Bob
Freehan, Bill
Sutton, Don

9 34.6 Drysdale, Don

8 30.8 Clark, Will
Doerr, Bobby

7 26.9 Cepeda, Orlando
Martinez, Edgar
Parker, Dave
Rice, Sam
Roush, Edd

6 23.1 Boyer, Ken
Grant, Frank
Ruffing, Red

5 19.2 Barnes, Ross
Bonds, Bobby
Brown, Willard
Ferrell, Wes
Kelley, Joe
Rice, Jim

4 15.4 Bunning, Jim
Evans, Darrell
Gomez, Lefty
Grimes, Burleigh
Hill, Pete
Hunter, Catfish
Inao, Kazuhisa
Manush, Heinie
McGriff, Fred
Quisenberry, Dan
Ryan, Jimmy
Smith, Hilton
Whitaker, Lou

3 11.5 Day, Leon
Flick, Elmer
Fox, Nellie
Hernandez, Keith
Johnson, Bob
Johnson, Judy
McPhee, Bid
Mendez, Jose
Perez, Tony
Rixey, Eppa
Stephens, Vern
Wilson, Hack

2 7.7 Aparicio, Luis
Bando, Sal
Beckwith, John
Bennett, Charlie
Bessho, Akira
Cuyler, Kiki
Evans, Dwight
Faber, Red
Groh, Heinie
Kell, George
Mattingly, Don
Ochiai, Hiromitsu
Pinson, Vada
Rosen, Al
Smith, Lee
Wallace, Bobby
Wynn, Jimmy
Yonamine, Wally

1 3.8 Baines, Harold
Bond, Tommy
Bottomley, Jim
Burks, Ellis
Butler, Brett
Cepeda, Perucho
Colavito, Rocky
Cravath, Gabby
Davis, Chili
Galarraga, Andres
Garvey, Steve
Glasscock, Jack
Gore, George
Griffith, Clark
Hodges, Gil
Hooper, Harry
Howard, Frank
Hoyt, Waite
Jennings, Hughie
Kingman, Dave
Kuenn, Harvey
Lazzeri, Tony
Leach, Tommy
Lewis, Duffy
Lombardi, Ernie
Lyons, Denny
Marcelle, Oliver
Maris, Roger
Mathews, Bobby
Mazeroski, Bill
McCormick, Jim
McInnnis, Stuffy
McVey, Cal
Morris, Jack
Munson, Thurman
Oliva, Tony
Oliver, Al
Orr, Dave
Pennock, Herb
Pierce, Billy
Poles, Spotswood
Rizzuto, Phil
Schang, Wally
Sewell, Joe
Start, Joe
Staub, Rusty
Stephenson, Riggs
Tiant, Luis
Van Haltren, George
Vernon, Mickey
Youngs, Ross

jalbright

05-26-2006, 08:01 PM

Player Ballot (alphabetical)
26 votes cast
one elected

Name votes pct
Aparicio, Luis 2 7.7
Averill, Earl 18 69.2
Baines, Harold 1 3.8
Bando, Sal 2 7.7
Barnes, Ross 5 19.2
Beckley, Jake 10 38.5
Beckwith, John 2 7.7
Belle, Albert 15 57.7
Bennett, Charlie 2 7.7
Bessho, Akira 2 7.7
Bond, Tommy 1 3.8
Bonds, Bobby 5 19.2
Bottomley, Jim 1 3.8
Boyer, Ken 6 23.1
Brown, Willard 5 19.2
Browning, Pete 12 46.2
Bunning, Jim 4 15.4
Burks, Ellis 1 3.8
Butler, Brett 1 3.8
Carey, Max 13 50.0
Caruthers, Bob 10 38.5
Cepeda, Orlando 7 26.9
Cepeda, Perucho 1 3.8
Clark, Will 8 30.8
Colavito, Rocky 1 3.8
Cravath, Gabby 1 3.8
Cuyler, Kiki 2 7.7
Davis, Chili 1 3.8
Day, Leon 3 11.5
Doerr, Bobby 8 30.8
Drysdale, Don 9 34.6
Duffy, Hugh 14 53.8
Evans, Darrell 4 15.4
Evans, Dwight 2 7.7
Faber, Red 2 7.7
Ferrell, Wes 5 19.2
Fingers, Rollie 14 53.8
Flick, Elmer 3 11.5
Fox, Nellie 3 11.5
Freehan, Bill 10 38.5
Galarraga, Andres 1 3.8
Garvey, Steve 1 3.8
Glasscock, Jack 1 3.8
Gomez, Lefty 4 15.4
Gordon, Joe 19 73.1
Gore, George 1 3.8
Grant, Frank 6 23.1
Grich, Bobby 15 57.7
Griffith, Clark 1 3.8
Grimes, Burleigh 4 15.4
Groh, Heinie 2 7.7
Hack, Stan 19 73.1
Harimoto, Isao 16 61.5
Hernandez, Keith 3 11.5
Hill, Pete 4 15.4
Hodges, Gil 1 3.8
Hooper, Harry 1 3.8
Howard, Frank 1 3.8
Hoyt, Waite 1 3.8
Hunter, Catfish 4 15.4
Inao, Kazuhisa 4 15.4
Jennings, Hughie 1 3.8
Johnson, Bob 3 11.5
Johnson, Judy 3 11.5
Joss, Addie 15 57.7
Kell, George 2 7.7
Kelley, Joe 5 19.2
Kingman, Dave 1 3.8
Klein, Chuck 13 50.0
Kuenn, Harvey 1 3.8
Lazzeri, Tony 1 3.8
Leach, Tommy 1 3.8
Lewis, Duffy 1 3.8
Lombardi, Ernie 1 3.8
Lyons, Denny 1 3.8
Lyons, Ted 17 65.4
Manush, Heinie 4 15.4
Marcelle, Oliver 1 3.8
Maris, Roger 1 3.8
Martinez, Edgar 7 26.9
Mathews, Bobby 1 3.8
Mattingly, Don 2 7.7
Mays, Carl 12 46.2
Mazeroski, Bill 1 3.8
McCormick, Jim 1 3.8
McGriff, Fred 4 15.4
McInnnis, Stuffy 1 3.8
McPhee, Bid 3 11.5
McVey, Cal 1 3.8
Mendez, Jose 3 11.5
Morris, Jack 1 3.8
Munson, Thurman 1 3.8
Murphy, Dale 13 50.0
Ochiai, Hiromitsu 2 7.7
Oliva, Tony 1 3.8
Oliver, Al 1 3.8
Orr, Dave 1 3.8
Parker, Dave 7 26.9
Pennock, Herb 1 3.8
Perez, Tony 3 11.5
Pierce, Billy 1 3.8
Pinson, Vada 2 7.7
Poles, Spotswood 1 3.8
Quisenberry, Dan 4 15.4
Redding, Dick 14 53.8
Rice, Jim 5 19.2
Rice, Sam 7 26.9
Rixey, Eppa 3 11.5
Rizzuto, Phil 1 3.8
Rosen, Al 2 7.7
Roush, Edd 7 26.9
Ruffing, Red 6 23.1
Ryan, Jimmy 4 15.4
Schang, Wally 1 3.8
Sewell, Joe 1 3.8
Slaughter, Enos--Elected 21 80.8
Smith, Hilton 4 15.4
Smith, Lee 2 7.7
Starffin, Victor 11 42.3
Start, Joe 1 3.8
Staub, Rusty 1 3.8
Stephens, Vern 3 11.5
Stephenson, Riggs 1 3.8
Stovey, Harry 15 57.7
Sutter, Bruce 12 46.2
Sutton, Don 10 38.5
Tiant, Luis 1 3.8
Van Haltren, George 1 3.8
Vernon, Mickey 1 3.8
Wallace, Bobby 2 7.7
Welch, Mickey 15 57.7
Whitaker, Lou 4 15.4
Wilson, Hack 3 11.5
Wright, George 14 53.8
Wynn, Jimmy 2 7.7
Yonamine, Wally 2 7.7
Youngs, Ross 1 3.8

jalbright

05-26-2006, 08:02 PM

Contributor Ballot
22 votes cast
no one elected

votes Pct Name
16 72.7 Harwell, Ernie

15 68.2 Kawakami, Tetsuharu

14 63.6 Caray, Harry

13 59.1 Griffith, Clark
Taylor, C.I.

12 54.5 Dunn, Jack
O'Neil, Buck

11 50.0 Weiss, George

10 45.5 Doucet, Jacques
Jennings, Hughie
Scully, Vin

9 40.9 Krichell, Paul

8 36.4 Buck, Jack

7 31.8 Gowdy, Curt
Hubbard, Cal

6 27.3 Flood, Curt

5 22.7 Barlick, Al
Bolden, Ed
Brickhouse, Jack
Martin, Billy
Mazzone, Leo
Steinbrenner, George
Wright, George

4 18.2 Chylak, Nestor
Frick, Ford
Lardner, Ring
Rice, Grantland
Schuerholtz, John
Tsuruoka, Kazuto

3 13.6 Canel, Buck
Chandler, Happy
Foster, John B.
Harris, Bucky
Jobe, Frank
O'Doul, Lefty
Ritter, Lawrence
Shoriki, Matsutaro
Smith, Red

2 9.1 Autry, Gene
Conlan, Jocko
Evans, Billy
Harris, Vic
Hodges, Russ
Johnson, Davey
Reach, A.J.
Thayer, Ernest
Tyson, Ty
Yawkey, Tom

1 4.5 Bouton, Jim
Burns, Ken
Carey, Skip
Dykes, Jimmy
Fullerton, Hugh
Gaston, Cito
Greenlee, Gus
Grimm, Charlie
Haney, Fred
Harvey, Doug
Hemond, Roland
Hillerich, John
Houk, Ralph
Kuhn, Bowie
MacPhail, Lee
Mauch, Gene
Mills, A.G.
Mizuhara, Shigeru
Mutrie, Jim
Nelson, Lindsay
Norworth, Jack
Pasquel, Jorge
Pearce, Dickey
Reese, Jimmie
Richards, Paul
Robinson, Wilbert
Ruppert, Jacob
Tanner, Chuck
Uecker, Bob
Vene, Juan

jalbright

05-26-2006, 08:03 PM

Contributor Ballot
22 votes cast
no one elected

Name votes Pct
Autry, Gene 2 9.1
Barlick, Al 5 22.7
Bolden, Ed 5 22.7
Bouton, Jim 1 4.5
Brickhouse, Jack 5 22.7
Buck, Jack 8 36.4
Burns, Ken 1 4.5
Canel, Buck 3 13.6
Caray, Harry 14 63.6
Carey, Skip 1 4.5
Chandler, Happy 3 13.6
Chylak, Nestor 4 18.2
Conlan, Jocko 2 9.1
Doucet, Jacques 10 45.5
Dunn, Jack 12 54.5
Dykes, Jimmy 1 4.5
Evans, Billy 2 9.1
Flood, Curt 6 27.3
Foster, John B. 3 13.6
Frick, Ford 4 18.2
Fullerton, Hugh 1 4.5
Gaston, Cito 1 4.5
Gowdy, Curt 7 31.8
Greenlee, Gus 1 4.5
Griffith, Clark 13 59.1
Grimm, Charlie 1 4.5
Haney, Fred 1 4.5
Harris, Bucky 3 13.6
Harris, Vic 2 9.1
Harvey, Doug 1 4.5
Harwell, Ernie 16 72.7
Hemond, Roland 1 4.5
Hillerich, John 1 4.5
Hodges, Russ 2 9.1
Houk, Ralph 1 4.5
Hubbard, Cal 7 31.8
Jennings, Hughie 10 45.5
Jobe, Frank 3 13.6
Johnson, Davey 2 9.1
Kawakami, Tetsuharu 15 68.2
Krichell, Paul 9 40.9
Kuhn, Bowie 1 4.5
Lardner, Ring 4 18.2
MacPhail, Lee 1 4.5
Martin, Billy 5 22.7
Mauch, Gene 1 4.5
Mazzone, Leo 5 22.7
Mills, A.G. 1 4.5
Mizuhara, Shigeru 1 4.5
Mutrie, Jim 1 4.5
Nelson, Lindsay 1 4.5
Norworth, Jack 1 4.5
O'Doul, Lefty 3 13.6
O'Neil, Buck 12 54.5
Pasquel, Jorge 1 4.5
Pearce, Dickey 1 4.5
Reach, A.J. 2 9.1
Reese, Jimmie 1 4.5
Rice, Grantland 4 18.2
Richards, Paul 1 4.5
Ritter, Lawrence 3 13.6
Robinson, Wilbert 1 4.5
Ruppert, Jacob 1 4.5
Schuerholtz, John 4 18.2
Scully, Vin 10 45.5
Shoriki, Matsutaro 3 13.6
Smith, Red 3 13.6
Steinbrenner, George 5 22.7
Tanner, Chuck 1 4.5
Taylor, C.I. 13 59.1
Thayer, Ernest 2 9.1
Tsuruoka, Kazuto 4 18.2
Tyson, Ty 2 9.1
Uecker, Bob 1 4.5
Vene, Juan 1 4.5
Weiss, George 11 50.0
Wright, George 5 22.7
Yawkey, Tom 2 9.1

jalbright

05-27-2006, 05:18 AM

jalbright

05-27-2006, 06:27 AM

The June voting thread is up, and I am just about done with my voting guide (only post #10 still needs some work). The voting guide thread is here: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44029 Here's to hoping for a more successful month than last month!

Jim Albright

jalbright

05-27-2006, 10:04 AM

Now the voting guide is complete, and I've got a PM out to get the May 2006 vote "un-sticky-ed" and that designation put on the June 2006 thread.

Jim Albright

AG2004

05-27-2006, 04:48 PM

I've read that he had many offers to play in the States, but always declined because he felt that with his temper, dealing with the rampant racism in the States would create a volatile mix at best. I can understand that. The curious thing is why he never played in Cuba or Mexico (at least that I can find).

Jim Albright

There was some de facto segregation in Cuba during the 1930s and 1940s. It wasn't as bad as it was in the southern part of the United States, but it might have been bad enough to deter Cepeda from playing there.

Google has cached some stories from www.listin.com.do about single games between Caribbean teams in 1933 and 1934 (the originals are no longer online). They indicate that Cepeda played for Ponce in Puerto Rico in 1933, and for Escogido in the Dominican Republic in 1934. Unfortunately, box scores are not always available with the articles.

AG2004

05-27-2006, 10:13 PM

AG2004

05-27-2006, 10:43 PM

While we're considering announcers, the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum has two inductees known primary for their broadcasting prowess: Tokuro Konishi and Masayori Shimura. Shigeru Ohta is also in as a pioneering sportswriter and commentator. I don't know much about any of them, though.

A full list of Japanese Hall of Famers and summaries of their contributions can be found at:

http://english.baseball-museum.or.jp/baseball_hallo/list/year.html

Unfortunately, English-language commentary on the inductees is limited.

mtortolero

05-28-2006, 05:24 AM

I'm surprised I didn't consider this question earlier: are there any Spanish-language broadcasters who might be worthy of being in the contributors wing of the BBFHOF?

From the following webpages, it would appear that Rafael "Felo" Ramírez has a good case for inclusion:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/frick_bios/ramirez_felo.htm
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/ago01/07e6.htm

However, I would like to know if anybody knows more about him.

The other interesting case is that of Eloy "Buck" Canel:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/frick_bios/canel_buck.htm
http://www.walteromalley.com/hist_hof_canel.php

Canel received three votes in the Contributors vote last month, so I hope at least one of the voters might be able to tell us more about Canel than the above articles do.

I know both broadcasters.
The first one, Buck Canel, was transmitting ML and winter baseball by almost 40 or 50 years in many countries of this area including my country, Venezuela.
He was native from Argentina but his family moves to USA when he was a kid.
His voice has a bass tone and he use to pronounce in spanish with cuban or puertorican accent and not as usually do argentinians and that is why a lot of people thinks he was from the caribean. I remember him transmitting a game from Shea Stadium just when happened one of the New York city's blackout at the end of the 70's (I was a kid but that memory is recorded forever). Canel was very funny to hear and one of the best I ever heard in spanish. One of his memorable phrases when a pitcher was changed or with any play that interrupt the game was "No se vayan que esto se pone bueno" (Don't go, this it will become better)
Felo Ramirez is still active transmiting Marlins games. The same of Canel he has all the years in the world transmitting baseball, MLB and winter baseball.
He is cuban and has a particular style to call homers.
I think both are very nice candidates for contributors.

jalbright

05-29-2006, 07:58 AM

538280

05-29-2006, 11:42 AM

I spent some time looking over at Baseball Think Factory, and their "Hall of Merit" has a bunch of guys in my queue or I regard as tough calls. They are (in no particular order): Stan Hack, Joe Gordon, Don Drysdale, Ted Lyons, Willard Brown, Charlie Bennett, John Beckwith, Bobby Doerr, Frank Grant, Heinie Groh, George Wright, Harry Stovey, Max Carey, Pete Hill, Elmer Flick, Eppa Rixey, Bob Caruthers, Jack Glasscock and Earl Averill. I'd say that's a good group of names to chew on.

Jim Albright

I've spent quite a bit of time on Groh. You can check the archives for a case on him. He had a monster peak, was the best NL player in the late 1910s. Could take a walk, hit for average, and was a good deadball power hitter. Great fielder from 3B too. Lacking a bit on the longevity side, but his peak and the fact he's probably the 2nd best early 3Bman (behind Baker) should make up for that.

jalbright

05-29-2006, 05:40 PM

Groh is one that happens to be in my queue.

Jim Albright

catcher24

05-29-2006, 07:09 PM

Interesting about Groh. I never really considered him a HOF'er, but did a quick check after Chris's post. Top three seasons, WS: 37,30,28.Top five seasons: 147. The second figure (top 5 seasons) is EIGHTH all time (as of the NHBA, around 2001), behind Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, Boggs, Baker, Santo and Rosen - pretty select company (and also gives me a new appreciation of how good Rosen was!). WS per 162 games for Groh was 26.19, SEVENTH among post 1900 players (a couple of pre-1900 players were also higher), behind Schmidt, Mathews, Baker, Hack (!), Rosen (again), and Chipper Jones. I think you have to seriously consider Groh, and if you value peak over career, he goes even higher.

538280

05-29-2006, 07:53 PM

For those interested, here is a link to my long Heinie Groh post:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=476327&postcount=1

jalbright

05-30-2006, 01:40 PM

Voting status as of BlairRosen's ballot

Player votes counted: 12
Projected total votes for players: 26
Projected votes needed for election of player: 20

Only presenting players with at least 7 votes. I am crediting Redding with one leading Negro League candidate vote and Harimoto with the one leading Japanese League player vote, though Starffin could wrest that title from Harimoto (not likely, though).

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Gordon.................11...........91.7.......... ....20.........................87
Averill..................10...........83.3........ ......19.........................76
Hack...................10...........83.3.......... ....19.........................76
Lyons..................10...........83.3.......... ....17.........................54
Belle.....................9...........75.0........ ......15.........................37
Duffy....................9...........75.0......... .....14.........................33
Fingers.................9...........75.0.......... .....13.........................29
Harimoto..............10..........83.3............ ...16.........................48
Joss......................9...........75.0........ ......15.........................37
Stovey..................9...........75.0.......... ....15.........................37
Welch....................9...........75.0......... .....15.........................37
Carey....................8...........66.7......... .....14.........................26
Caruthers...............8...........66.7.......... ....10.........................17
Klein......................8...........66.7....... .......13.........................23
C. Mays.................8...........66.7............. ..12........................21
Redding.................9...........75.0.......... .....14........................33
Starffin.................8............66.7........ ......11........................19
Wright..................8............66.7......... .....14........................26
Beckley................7............58.3.......... .....10........................11
Browning..............7............58.3........... ....12........................14
Grich...................7............58.3......... ......16........................25
Murphy................7............58.3........... ....13........................15
Sutter.................7............58.3.......... .....12.........................14

Contributor votes counted: 10
projected total votes for contributors: 22
projected votes for election of contributor: 17

Only presenting candidates with at least six votes

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
Harwell...................9...........90.0........ ......16............................77
Kawakami................9...........90.0.......... ....15...........................64
H. Caray.................8...........80.0............ ..14............................50
Griffith....................8...........80.0...... ........14............................50
Doucet...................7...........70.0......... .....10............................24
Dunn......................7...........70.0........ ......12............................30
Krichell...................7...........70.0....... .......10............................24
Scully.....................7...........70.0....... .......10...........................24
Taylor.....................7...........70.0....... .......13...........................35
Weiss.....................7............70.0....... .......11...........................26
Hubbard..................6............60.0........ .......7............................11
Jennings.................6.............60.0....... .......10...........................16

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

AG2004

05-30-2006, 09:19 PM

Mtortolero, I thank you for your comments on Canel and Ramirez.

For everyone else on this thread, here's another article on Spanish-language broadcasters:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050926&content_id=1224812&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

From the articles I've read in English, it would seem as though Buck Canel and Felo Ramirez have more of a reputation internationally than Rene Cardenas or Jaime Jarrin.

Given the reputations of Canel and Ramirez in Venezuela, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Mexico, Central America, and among Spanish-speaking residents of the United States, I would think that they have the statue in the Spanish-speaking baseball world that Red Barber and Mel Allen have in the English-speaking baseball world. Given the size of the international Spanish-speaking audience, Canel and Ramirez thus appear to be worthy of induction into the BBFHOF.

(If someone could tell me more about the stature of Tokuro Konishi and Masayori Shimura in Japan, it would help me to decide if they are also worthy of induction into the BBFHOF.)

jalbright

05-31-2006, 08:56 AM

Can't say much about Shimura except that he's in the Japanese HOF and was Konishi's broadcast partner.

Konishi managed, and with the exception of a very strong 1950 Shochiku Robin club which had a winning percentage of .737 and won its league by nine games (but lost the first Japan Series in six), he never had a great deal of success. He retired from managing the Robins after that year, but came back to lead two losing Whales clubs in 1952 and 1953. After that, he became a popular baseball commentator. He's in the Japanese HOF, and even with what seems to these Western eyes to be the quirky ways of the Japanese Hall, it seems his announcing was a factor, though I'd think leading that tremendously successful Robin club was another factor.

If you want more, I'd suggest posting a question at japanesebaseball.com, either in the "Ask the Commish" or "History" sections. You needn't register or provide any info if you don't want to, much less pay anything. You have little to lose if you want to try to get the information that way.

Took a look at google, and got this from the Japanese HOF website in English:
It was fortunate for him to cover the game between the Giants and the Senators at Suzaki Stadium on November 29, 1936. gPitcher Sawamura winds up. He kicks up his leg so high that the sole of the spike is clearly visible.h His expression was so clear and easy to visualize that the audience could imagine themselves at the stadium watching the game.
It was also Shimura who covered the first game after World War II. His familiar voice was on the air again. gI am very happy to cover a professional baseball game after a long absence.h It was the East versus the West game held on November 23, 1945. He also did live play-by-play radio announcing for the first baseball game of TBSUL after World War‡U.
On the way back from covering the Helsinki Olympics in 1952, he dropped by at Yankee Stadium. He was so impressed by the running commentary being done by Joe DiMaggio, the Yankee Clipper, that three years later, in 1955, he had Tokuro Konishi (1971 Hall of Famer) with him to comment on the games. The combination of a fluent announcer and an ex-baseball manager who spoke slowly but steadily with unique elocution enjoyed an instant and enduring popularity. It was a partnership that might remind older fans of Abbott and Costello. One of their most memorable broadcasts was at a game between the Giants and the Tigers with the royal attendance of the Emperor and Empress at Korakuen Stadium on June 25, 1959. His articles in the monthly Yakyu Shonen (Baseball Kids), which lasted for several years from 1947, were avidly read among baseball fans.
He retired from NHK in 1969.

Yoshio Nishida, former NHK announcer and now a new member of the Special Selection Committee, said in his congratulatory speech at the press conference, gHis induction is symbolic of the contribution to the promotion of baseball done by broadcasting and the baseball world has long recognized that Shimura was always in the vanguard of baseball broadcasting.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-04-2006, 02:11 PM

Since I'm still pushing for C. I. Taylor on the contributor ballot, and I came across this nugget, I have to bring it to you. In Cool Papas and Double Duties, William McNeill sought the input of a number of Negro League historians. Twenty-four responded, though one chose not to submit an all-star team. One question that McNeill asked was who the greatest Negro League manager was. Rube Foster came in first, but C. I. Taylor was second, with five votes, which is more than all the candidates besides Foster combined could possibly have received.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-05-2006, 02:12 PM

Voting status as of EastVanMungo'ss ballot

Player votes counted: 15
Projected total votes for players: 26
Projected votes needed for election of player: 20

Only presenting players receiving at least 10 votes. I am crediting Redding with one leading Negro League candidate vote and Harimoto with the one leading Japanese League player vote, though Starffin could wrest that title from Harimoto (not likely, though).

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Gordon.................14...........93.3.......... ....21.........................95
Averill..................13...........86.7........ ......19.........................79
Hack...................13...........86.7.......... ....19.........................79
Lyons..................12...........80.0.......... ....17.........................51
Belle....................11...........73.3........ ......15.........................31
Duffy...................10...........66.7......... .....14.........................18
Fingers................10...........66.7.......... ....13.........................16
Harimoto..............11...........73.3........... . ...16........................36
Joss....................11...........73.3........ ......15.........................31
Stovey................11...........73.3.......... ....15.........................31
Welch.................10...........66.7......... .....15.........................21
Carey..................10..........66.7......... .....14..........................18
Caruthers.............10..........66.7.......... ....10..........................12
Klein....................10..........66.7....... .......13..........................16
Redding................10..........66.7.......... .....14........................18
Wright.................10...........66.7......... .....14........................18
Grich...................10...........66.7......... ......16........................26

Contributor votes counted: 12
projected total votes for contributors: 22
projected votes for election of contributor: 17

Only presenting candidates receiving at least eight votes

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
Harwell..................10...........83.3........ ......16...........................76
Kawakami...............10..........83.3.......... ....15...........................61
H. Caray................10..........83.3............ ..14...........................51
Griffith...................10..........83.3...... ........14...........................51
Doucet...................9...........75.0......... .....10............................24
Taylor....................8...........66.7....... .......13............................26
Weiss.....................8..........66.7........ .......11...........................19
Jennings.................8..........66.7....... ........10...........................16

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-12-2006, 02:08 PM

Voting status as of egautographs' ballot

Player votes counted: 17
Projected total votes for players: 26
Projected votes needed for election of player: 20

Only presenting players receiving at least 12 votes. Anybody with 11 would have to run the table if we get no new voters, and no one close to election has more than six votes from last month among the outstanding voters.

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Gordon.................15...........88.2.......... ....21.........................96
Hack...................15............88.2......... . ....19.........................82
Averill..................14...........82.4........ ......19.........................79
Lyons..................14...........82.4.......... ....17.........................53
Belle....................12...........70.6........ ......15.........................22
Stovey................11...........70.6.......... ....15.........................22

Contributor votes counted: 14
projected total votes for contributors: 22
projected votes for election of contributor: 17

Only presenting candidates receiving at least nine votes. Candidates with eight would have to run the table, and of the candidates close to election, only Harwell has as many as six votes among the outstanding voters.

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
H. Caray................12..........85.7............ ..15...........................64
Griffith...................11..........78.6...... ........15...........................56
Kawakami...............11..........78.6.......... ....15...........................56
Harwell..................10...........71.4........ ......16..........................65
Doucet...................9...........64.3......... .....10............................6
Taylor....................9...........64.3....... .......13...........................11

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

AstrosFan

06-12-2006, 11:24 PM

So all I have to do to participate is submit a ballot of (I'm presuming) ten players? Who do I submit it to, and before I do, could anyone point me to websites that provide good info on Negro Leagues and international players?

2Chance

06-13-2006, 12:22 AM

Check out the rules, the first post in this thread.

Essentially a ballot should be of the 25 best players who have not been voted in already (second post), according to their performance and its impact on their teams. The second part is the contributors ballot, which is basically anybody associated with baseball who deserves to be enshrined for their contributions to the game other than playing. A Contributors Ballot should list the 10-15 most deserving candidates.

Please put the players on your ballot in alphabetical order for convenience, in this month's voting thread. Ballots are tallied on the 25th of each month. If you need to make any changes to your ballot, send a PM to jalbright, as he is taking care of this thread now in Chancellor's absence.

For reference, check out this forum, and this thread in particular. We generate some pretty interesting discussion regarding who we think is deserving and who isn't. Also in this forum, check out the All-Timeline project, which has generated some great discussion regarding some old-timers with whom you may not be familiar. And Jim Albright's musings has a collection of his posts, many of which are to endorse candidates in the major leagues, Negro Leagues and Japanese Leagues. He has also put up his own personal voting guide: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32451

Other places to look:
http://www.baseballlibrary.com
http://www.thebaseballpage.com
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit

Negro Leagues:
You can also use the Negro League forum here at BBF. There is some good discussion in there. Also:
http://www.blackbaseball.com
http://www.negroleaguebaseball.com
http://www.nlbpa.com
http://baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway06.html

Japanese Leagues:
I'm gonna direct you to Jim again, this time at Baseball Guru dot com:
http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/InfoLinks.html

Good to have you aboard! Make us proud!

2Chance

06-13-2006, 12:24 AM

Charlie Bennett, Catcher
originally posted by leecemark in the All-Timeline thread
--Charlie Bennett was the first great career catcher. We all know how brutal the catching postion was in early baseball. Most top catchers, such as Buck Ewing and King Kelly, actually played more elsewhere to save their bodies. Bennett was an outstanding defensive catcher who was willing to take the punishing duty as often as Ewing and Kelly combined. Although this had to depress his hitting, Bennett still managed a career OPS+ of 118 - better than a number of Hall of Fame catchers. He finished in the top 6 in the league 4 times before the wear and tear of catching began to take a toll on his numbers. Bennett made such an impression on Detroit baseball fans in the short NL stay in that city that when the Tigers built their first real stadium many years later it was named after Bennett.
--If you are concerned at all about positional representation then Bennett deserves a hard look.... The next catcher inducted into Cooperstown [after Buck Ewing] was Roger Bresnahan and he has virtually no support in our group (nor is he as deserving as Bennett). Perhaps Ray Schalk and Wally Schang will get a look down the road, but I don't see a sure thing catcher until Mickey Cochrane in the late 30s. Does it really seem reasonable that no catcher in the 40 years between Ewing and Cochrane played at a level worth honoring? Bennett is the best guy in this field and I hope you'll give him some consideration....
originally posted by jalbright
Charlie Bennett
Even the most durable catchers of his day tended to catch only 65-75 % of the time. Before 1878 and after 1913, the most durable catchers tended to catch 87 % or the time or more. If you think catchers deserve credit for the toll their position places on them, Bennett gets a huge boost IMO. He averaged 23.95 win shares per 162 games, which is all-star level. Despite his limited playing time, he amassed 64 gray ink points, which exceeds the 50 cutoff I use for catchers and the HOF. The Baseball Think Factory guys agree with me, and inducted him into their "Hall of Merit".

He was used almost exclusively as a catcher, which limited his playing time to the point where it was very difficult to place among the league leaders. Yet, he managed to do that with some frequency: 3 times in the top eight in average; 4 times in the top seven in slugging percentage; 3 times in the top ten in RBI; six times in the top ten in walks drawn; an three times in the top 10 in runs created.

The Baseball Think Factory plaque for him says the following:
Two-time Stats, Inc. NL Catcher (1881-82). Win Shares NL Gold Glove winner (1881-82; 1886; 1890). His era’s most durable catcher, Bennett was also its greatest backstop. Besides fielding, Charlie was second only to Buck Ewing as a hitter for his position during the 1880’s. Member of the Detroit Wolverines’ only pennant winner (and World Series championship) in 1887; he was also part of the great Boston dynasty of 1891-93. He led the NL in putouts and double plays 3 times, plus many times in total chances per game. Led the NL seven times in fielding percentage. Retired with the career records for most games as a catcher (954), putouts (5,123), double plays (114), and fielding percentage (.942).

Albert Belle, LF
I hate to endorse this man for anything, because he’s got a reputation as a real S.O.B. But we have had this discussion about the character issue not mattering for the purposes of this voting. All that counts is what he did on the field. Here is all we are to consider:Players are to be considered based on their performance and its impact on their teams.
Belle, in a 12-year career, finished in the top 10 in homers (seems to be a favorite stat) 8 times. He was a slugging machine, finishing near the top in several categories most of the time, his strengths being RBI, homers and extra base hits, although he fared pretty well in BA, finishing his career at .295.

His slugging pct. is .564, good for 17th all-time; and OPS (another favorite stat) is .933, 37th.
For those who like the Jamesian stats, he’s around the average in black and grey ink, a little below in the HOF Standards (36/50) and over in the HoF Monitor (134/100). Basically this says that he amassed some good stats and was among the best players of his time.

Davey Johnson, Manager - a .564% ; 5-1st place and 7-2nd place finishes in 14 years managing, and one World Championship with the most unlikely group of knuckleheads and dope fiends. His teams won 90 or more games in his first five seasons managing, twice breaking 100 wins.

In 1993, he was hired by Cincinnati to replace Tony Perez 44 games into the season, and that controversial debacle was his worst year, going 53-65 to finish fifth in the NL West. (That was the last year of the two divisions.) The next two seasons, his Reds finished first in the Central. Other than that bad start for Cincy, he has never finished below third place (for a sorry excuse for a Dodgers team in 1999).

2Chance

06-13-2006, 12:26 AM

Rollie Fingers, RP
I’m not convinced Fingers is the best pitcher available, or even the best reliever. His moustache should be in the Hall, but not necessarily the rest of him.

I neither put any stock in, nor hold anything against him for, his losing record (114-118), as his job was to enter the game in late innings with the game on the line. He had little or no chance to win a game, but lots of chances to lose them. For the same reason, a closer’s ERA means nothing to me. WHIP is important, and he does well there, but he’s still a closer, for crying out loud. He usually only had to pitch an inning or two! He’s not supposed to let anybody get on base!

Perhaps it’s just a bias against part-time players, but I have voted for other relievers, and I figure if Eck is in, Gossage, Sutter and Quisenberry deserved it more; and later, Trevor Hoffman and Mo Rivera. But I’m still not sold on Fingers. He’s in the “close, but no cigar” territory IMO.

Anybody whose primary job was DH

Chuck Klein
If not for the little bitty Baker Bowl, he wouldn’t enter any discussion.

Harry Caray, Broadcaster
Great character in Chicago and St. Louis, but IMO has not contributed to baseball at the national level. (Bet Cub fans were glad they were sitting down!)

Clark Griffith, team owner
Somebody tell me why he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as an owner! What did he do that was groundbreaking? Unusual? Something that separates him from the pack?

2Chance

06-13-2006, 12:26 AM

by the way, Astros Fan....

Those previous two posts are some of the more popular that I'm not voting for, and the less popular that I am....

If you want to see how the other guys are faring, check out the last page of the previous month's voting thread....here's a link to May 2006. http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42610&page=2

Some here are of the opinion that you should seriously consider the ones who we collectively vote the most for. It's a good rule of thumb, I suppose, but my advice is to consider them, but question the logic if you don't agree.

One of the unwritten rules is that if you are the first person to vote for somebody we would like to know why. If, for instance, you want to vote for Jose Cruz, you would be the first. Tell us why you believe he's one of the best outfielders left, what he brought to the game that some others didn't. Convince us that we need to jettison Dave Parker or Dale Murphy from our list and replace him with Jose. :)

jalbright

06-13-2006, 09:26 AM

Astros fan,

2Chance gave you a lot of great info (thanks for the kind words, BTW, 2Chance!). The voting guide gives you links to my cases for and sometimes against candidates and gives information on the rules and who we've already elected. The links are to my musings file, so I guess I needn't give you that link as well right now, since there's plenty for you to consider. If you want it later, I'll be happy to provide the link. I'm working on a thread to collect the Negro League data from Baseball Think Factory which I hope to get up this week.

Ballots short of 25 players or 10 contributors are generally invalidated in the department in which they are short (so if you have 25 players and 8 contributors, the player ballot counts, but the contributor ballot would not), though I do have discretion in that regard. I try to notify people of problems with their ballots, so about the only time there is any chance of a short ballot going through is one which comes in the last day, and even then the only ones which might get through are ones I think are short through good faith oversights or errors. Any names not submitted in good faith (a past example is Rothstein, the alleged fixer in the Black Sox scandal) will not be counted, and if a portion of a ballot is short without submissions I deem made in bad faith, that portion of the ballot will be disregarded.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-13-2006, 09:37 AM

I see 2Chance's link is to my musings thread, not the voting guide thread for this month. The link for that thread is: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44029

In terms of who to consider, I would only ask you to look at the guys I listed on the post before your first in this thread as being viable candidates. You may disagree with any number of them, but these are the only guys with any realistic chance of election this month. Accordingly, this may be your only chance to vote for them, you might push one or more of them over the top or by withholding your support, prevent their induction this month. I don't think anyone would suggest you check your own thinking process at the door with respect to the list, but those are the candidates whose prospects you can dramatically effect right now, whereas almost all other unelected candidates will be around next month no matter what you do.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-13-2006, 09:41 AM

2Chance:

With respect to Clark Griffith, I used to agree with you. However, I have changed my mind, and this part of one of my posts should give some hint of why I did so:

Clark Griffith: He's got a better pitching record than I thought (nearly or actually HOF caliber in its own right), and then when you add in the fact he was a reasonably successful manager (career record over .500), he owned a World Champion club and another pennant winner and owned that franchise for a long time, I have to say the combination makes him deserving of the honor.

Also, Griffith initially owned the AL New York franchise and had it in contention to the last day in 1904.

Jim Albright

AstrosFan

06-13-2006, 12:57 PM

Don't know how I missed the rules in the first thread. 2Chance, jalbright, thanks for the info, and I'll submit a ballot shortly.

catcher24

06-13-2006, 05:31 PM

2 Chance: Agree with you 100% on Albert Belle. He's not yet on my ballot, but will eventually make it. Once Rose and Joe Jackson were elected, there was no longer any viable argument left to not vote for someone due to their character. I don't care for Belle as a person, either, but his numbers speak for themselves.

Davey Johnson - Never realized how good a managerial record he had. You have convinced me, and I have added him to my queue.

Rollie Fingers - Don't agree 100%, he may go on my ballot eventually. However. Sutter and Quisenberry will have to go in first.

Chuck Klein - ditto your sentiments. In the NHBA, James has him rated 40th in right field.

Harry Caray - with apologies to Cubs fans, including my nephew, I could never understand why he was considered a great broadcaster. Sometimes I couldn't even understand what he was saying, and a lot of the time when I could understand him, he was wrong. IMHO, they lost more when Steve Stone left.

Clark Griffith - I wouldn't vote for him strictly as a manager. But I think his overall package (excellent pitching record, owner, manager) is worth his election.

jalbright

06-13-2006, 09:15 PM

Put up a thread with Negro League data cut and pasted from Baseball Think Factory here: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=45199

Jim Albright

2Chance

06-17-2006, 12:34 AM

After looking over Griffith's credentials more closely, he zips to the head of the class...for next time. Thanks, guys, for his advocacy. And yes, my research included more than your two posts.
:waving

jalbright

06-19-2006, 10:44 AM

Got a bunch of votes cast this past week. Through yest's ballot, we have the following:

Players:
22 votes cast so far, 5 outstanding votes from last month
Report limited to those who already have 16 votes (including best Japanese, etc), as we'd need to get to 28 votes for those guys to have any chance.

Joe Gordon 19 votes so far, and 3 of the five outstanding voters selected him last month. It would take an extreme combination of occurrences to stop him this month.

Ted Lyons 18 votes so far, but none of the outstanding voters supported him last month. He can absorb being left off of two ballots, but no more*.

Earl Averill Also has 18 votes so far, but had the support of two of the outstanding voters last month. He also can absorb being left off of two ballots, but no more*. If he picks up even one of the ones who didn't support him last month, he's in*.

Stan Hack Has exactly the same number of votes and scenario as Aveill.

The contributor ballot is a tad more complex, but overly so.
17 votes cast, 5 outstanding votes from last month
Reporting only contributors who already have 12 votes, as anyone with less would need us to reach 24 votes to have any chance.

Tetsuharu Kawakami 14 votes so far, and supported by 2 of the 5 outstanding voters last month. He could absorb being left off of one ballot and still make it, and even would make it if left off two ballots so long as he got at least one more vote*. If he's left off 3 ballots, he's cooked*.

Harry Caray 13 votes so far and supported by 2 of the 5 outstanding voters last month. If no one else voted, he'd be elected, and could absorb being left off of one ballot provided he got two more votes.* If he's left off of two ballots, he's cooked.*

Calvin Griffith Same exact number of votes and scenario as Caray.

Ernie Harwell 13 votes so far, and supported by 3 of the 5 outstanding voters last month. Again, if no one else voted, he'd be elected, and could absorb being left off of one ballot provided he got two more votes.* If he's left off of two ballots, he's cooked.*

C. I. Taylor 12 votes so far, and supported by only one of the five outstanding voters last month. He's got to run the table with a minimum of three votes*.

*--assuming no new voters nor changes in ballots already cast

There are two key factors to watch: which of the outstanding voters cast ballots, and do any of them add any of the above candidates to their ballot. If all five vote and don't change their positions on these five, only Gordon makes it. However, if even one doesn't vote, every candidate discussed in this post not on "his" ballot except perhaps C. I. Taylor has his chances improve. I think we'll have a rather high number of candidates making or missing election this month by one vote.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-26-2006, 10:53 AM

This month is in the books with three players and three contributors elected. The three players are Joe Gordon, Earl Averill, and Stan Hack. The contributors are Tetsuharu Kawakami, Ernie Harwell, and Clark Griffith.

A special word of thanks to those who supported Kawakami.

More complete information on the voting will be available on the voting thread ( http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44131&page=2 ) or in the forthcoming July voting guide.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-26-2006, 11:25 AM

We have now reached the point where a ballot consisting of one or more contributor names submitted in good faith is a valid ballot.

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-26-2006, 07:51 PM

Players new to my ballot

Dobie Moore: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361398&postcount=59

Bobby Doerr: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=540607&postcount=269

Contributors returning to my ballot

Vic Harris Won seven pennants with the Homestead Grays, 5 of them consecutively. He had a lot of talent, but with that talent comes egos, and he managed to keep them on top. Also a talented player. Probably a good analogy is Joe Torre. For more about him, see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361404&postcount=61

Dr. Jobe His invention of the Tommy John surgery has saved countless pitching careers, including, of course, Tommy John's.

2Chance

06-27-2006, 12:37 AM

I would like to see more like the one Jim posted earlier and I followed with much later, of stumping for or against certain candidates. Anybody controversial or on the IN/OUT border would be interesting to see. Also, anybody who is not getting the attention you feel they deserve, or those who you can't understand others' fascination with. Any takers?

Also....
Although we have reached a point where we can submit a short ballot, which I thought for a long time would be a good idea, I have changed my mind on the methodology I use while voting, and will continue to submit a full ballot of those who I think are most worthy. Doing this will still enshrine those who are most worthy, and even if they are not my personal favorites, those chosen should reflect the collective wisdom of the electorate.

jalbright

06-27-2006, 10:03 AM

Players with 50% or more of the vote in June

On my July ballot

Ted Lyons: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=405603&postcount=180

Bobby Grich http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=425932&postcount=203

Isao Harimoto: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=405875&postcount=184

Max Carey: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=540575&postcount=266

George Wright: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361608&postcount=98

Harry Stovey: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=426581&postcount=210

Dale Murphy: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=443230&postcount=224

Cannonball Dick Redding: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361387&postcount=52

Hugh Duffy: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=534926&postcount=262

Rollie Fingers: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=469902&postcount=236

Probably will support in the near future:

Carl Mays http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=545938&postcount=283

Players I'm not likely to support and why

Albert Belle: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=378081&postcount=151

Addie Joss: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=485853&postcount=244

Chuck Klein: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=380614&postcount=155

Mickey Welch: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=413488&postcount=192

Jim Albright

jalbright

06-27-2006, 10:15 AM

Contributors with 50% or more of last month's vote

There are only two with 50% or more I am currently not supporting, Jacque Doucet and Vin Scully. I'm more apt to be persuaded by Scully, as I want media types to have a national impact, which you might be able to persuade me Scully meets by virtue of his network telecasts.

My blurbs for the rest:

Harry Caray Though his status as a Chicago baseball mainstay is important, lots of announcers have that qualification and I'm not voting for them. What sets Harry apart in my mind is his role in popularizing the use of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" for the seventh inning stretch. Put the two together, and I think he qualifies.

C. I. Taylor built the Indianapolis ABCs into a powerhouse franchise in the teens. Riley says he is one of the two "geniuses" to manage in the Negro Leagues, the other being Rube Foster. For more about him, see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361405&postcount=62

Buck O'Neill see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=491052&postcount=248

Jack Dunn: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=508643&postcount=249

George Weiss see this from Cooperstown's website: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Weiss_George.htm

Hughie Jennings 24 James manager success points. An excellent shortstop, albeit in a short career. I can't go for him just as a player nor just as a manager, but when you combine it with his success as a manager, I can.

mtortolero

06-27-2006, 03:48 PM

I am a little surprised about how few love has Luis Aparicio among voters. Usually the reference for a defensive "non plus ultra" SS is Ozzie Smith, and I understand that specially by his range , but Luis Aparicio was not far from Ozzie about defensive skills and he has better HOF monitor numbers:
Smith: Black Ink 2; Gray Ink 51; HOF Standards 35; HOF monitor 142.5
Aparicio: Black Ink 19; Gray Ink 85; HOF Standards 36; HOF monitor 140.5

Both played all their carrers as SS and until I know Aparicio is the SS with most hits at the position with 2677 vs 2460 by Smith (to save time for those who does not have this data, neither Wagner, Yount, Ripken and Appling played all their carrers as SS). And Aparicio played his best years in the 60's dread hitting pitchers era and if you have to name a SS in that decade the name of Little Lou is the first that come to the mind.

I am not voting by Aparicio because he is venezuelan, I am voting by him because I think he deserves the honor by his merits as one of the best defensive SS of all times . And see how low he is considered overhere, with two or three votes meanwhile Smith has his name in looks a little weird for me.

jalbright

06-27-2006, 07:26 PM

2Chance

06-27-2006, 07:53 PM

Luis happens to be one of my all-time favorites. (And, mtortolero, if I thought it was worthwhile I would be stumping for your fellow countryman Davey Concepcion as well.)

Aparicio indeed is a great glove man, and at that time, hitting was secondary for middle infielders -- almost to the same point as pitchers! -- so we can't hold that against him. But what he did do, was steal 506 bases (which SABR guys hate, but they weren't around in his day), led the league in SB in his first nine years by the by, make 10 All Star teams, earn nine Gold Gloves, and though he gets criticized here for not taking a walk, he almost never struck out, either (about 7.25% of the time, or once every 13.79 ABs). He also did what the little guys are supposed to do, which is make a lot of Sac hits.

This entire exercise is about putting the 25 most worthy players on the ballot each month until the BBFHoF is filled. Little Luis might be on my ballot this time, I just haven't completely worked it out yet.

538280

06-27-2006, 07:58 PM

Two very large differences between Aparicio and Ozzie:

1.Ozzie only started off as a horrible hitter, later in his career he started walking quite a bit, getting his BA up, stealing lots of bases, and actually became a very good leadoff man. In 1987 Ozzie probably deserved the MVP with his .303 average, .392 OBP, 43 SBs. Those things made him an outstanding leadoff man, along with of course the glove. Aparicio could never draw a walk, and thus never get on base, and thus was never really a very good leadoff man.

2.While Aparicio was a very good defensive SS, he was not Ozzie Smith. Ozzie was an amazing SS, he was regarded like that in his time, and defensive metrics have confirmed this. Aparicio was regarded to be good, but never as good as Ozzie, and defensive metrics have not been able to see him among the true all time great SSs. Defensive Win Shares has Ozzie graded an A+, Aparicio a B.

These two factors, IMO, make Ozzie a FAR better and more valuable player than Aparicio. Aparicio is on the fence for me, he lasted a long time and was regarded to be a spcial player but in hindsight it's hard for me to see how exactly he was very valuable. Smith is easy to see, he was certainly a great player.

leecemark

06-27-2006, 08:09 PM

--This may be totally unfair to Aparicio, but playing in a sim league soured me on him as a Hall of Famer. In the Classic Keeper League we drafted from all players active in 1961, when Aparicio was in his prime. Researching 60s players I found Little Louie was not an attractive SS option for me. This was not just for 1961, but going forward through the decade.
--He was a bad hitter, even for a SS. His only offensive plus was his stolen bases, but it was insane to have his horrid OBP at the top of the order. He was a natural born 8th hitter, where his speed wasn't going to do you much good.
--Aparicio did have a long and distinguished career as a top defensive SS. Looking at his defensive numbers he appears to have had good, rather than great range (he did have great hands though). He sure wasn't as good as Ozzie Smith. I can only go by the numbers regarding his defense, since he was past his defensive prime (although like Smith an improved hitter) by the time I saw him play in the late 60s. He actually had pretty bad range in his 2nd tour with the White Sox and especially in his last years with the Red Sox.

catcher24

06-28-2006, 04:39 AM

Mark - Funny you mention the sim league. While reading Chris's post, all I could think of was my Strat-O-Matic days in the early 60's on, and always wondering what on earth Aparicio was doing on any team - the hitting was horrid. Of course, he was a top defensive shortstop at first, but when you're young you don't really look a that. Apologize for getting off of main topic here, too.

mtortolero

06-28-2006, 06:59 AM

Well, I am not so sure about Aparicio's defense was so inferior regarding Ozzie. For example one of the metrics I use to check is how was the defensive range against the league.
Ozzie's range looks out of this world (5.03 vs 4.10 plays by game as league's average is 22.6% more than this last one, which is by far the highest difference for any infielder) but Aparicio's range was very good too, 4.86 vs 4.33 or 12.24%+ than league, which is the best for a 60's SS and one of the few over 10% of difference vs. league for SS post deadball with that number of games). And they were playing in different circunstances as the artificial turf of Bush Stadium in almost all Smith´s carrer, which looks as a better surface to improve infielders defense, something that is very hard to adjust.
Smith´s offensive, although he is usually very underated about this matter, was in an enviroment of 4.2 runs by game againts 4.08 runs by game of Aparicio's era which means that his OPS+ adjusted to Aparicio's era is .84, not big difference against Luis (.84 vs .82) to consider it important. That happens because Luis has little more slugging than Ozzie which in certain way equalize his lower obp.
Smith's best offensive year, 1987 with 111 OPS+, was in a year when runs per game in the NL (4.52) were 10% highest than the average of runs per game in the rest of that decade (4.05 in 1980-1986 and 1988,1989) which is the highest jump in runs per game by decade in that league. Aparicio´s best year , 1970 with 111 OPS+, was in a league with 4.17 runs per game as average. Aparicio´s best year was in league 8% toughest to score a run than Smith´s best year, then era's adjustment is important to see both ofensive values in the same context.
I am not saying that Smith is not deserving the Hall, what I am saying is Aparicio deserves much more love than two or three votes each time (which includes the mine who thinks he belongs ).
About Concepcion´s case I would like to try him in other thread but I think he was the best overall SS in the NL from 1973 to 1982 and that should mean something.
BTW, out of Ozzie's 1980 season (621) I can not find any other season with more than 600 assistances for a SS, which I think is the record for the possition in one year. If anyone have this data please let me know.
Manuel

jalbright

06-28-2006, 08:42 AM

Smith´s offensive, although he is usually very underated about this matter, was in an enviroment of 4.2 runs by game againts 4.08 runs by game of Aparicio's era which means that his OPS+ adjusted to Aparicio's era is .84, not big difference against Luis (.84 vs .82) to consider it important. That happens because Luis has little more slugging than Ozzie which in certain way equalize his lower obp.
Smith's best offensive year, 1987 with 111 OPS+, was in a year when runs per game in the NL (4.52) were 10% highest than the average of runs per game in the rest of that decade (4.05 in 1980-1986 and 1988,1989) which is the highest jump in runs per game by decade in that league. Aparicio´s best year , 1970 with 111 OPS+, was in a league with 4.17 runs per game as average. Aparicio´s best year was in league 8% toughest to score a run than Smith´s best year, then era's adjustment is important to see both ofensive values in the same context.
Manuel
OPS+ already adjusts for the context of the league, so you can't make the adjustment again like you are doing and be fair. If Aparicio gains some more traction, I can support him, but right now, there are other (often more popular) candidates I would prefer to support right now.

Jim Albright

mtortolero

06-28-2006, 09:25 AM

OPS+ is adjusted for the league of that year and park but not for the era thus 111 OPS+ in 1970 have more merit than 111 OPS+ in 1987.

catcher24

06-28-2006, 11:00 AM

OPS+ adjusts for what needs to be adjusted. It compares apples with apples - the players of a given year compared to each other with adjustments made for park effects. So a 111 OPS+ in 1970 and a 111 OPS+ in 1987 show the same offensive ability against the players and in the parks of that time. Aparicio's 111 OPS+ in 1970 does NOT have any more merit than Smith's in 1987. Both were just as valuable at the time they occurred. Smith's career OPS+ was 87; Aparicio's 82 - not a huge difference, but significant enough to tilt the scales in Smith's favoer, all other factors being equal. Also, I think your reasoning that Smith played on turf made it easier to have a greater range factor than on grass is flawed. Seems to me that your range should be higher on grass, since the ball is slower on grass and thus a shortstop should reach more balls. Errors would be less on turf, because of truer hops, but range (balls reached per game) should be higher on grass. So playing on turf, at least in my theory, Smith's range factor being that much greater than league average is even more impressive.

If you want to adjust for era, I believe the relevant stat would be Win Shares, which make era adjustments. So let us compare those:
..............................Aparicio.........Smi th
Career WS:................293..............326
Top 3 Seasons:..........22,21,20.......33,25,23
Top 5 Consecutive.......92................123
WS per 162 Games.......18.26............20.53
WS Gold Gloves.............5.................10
Defensive Ws/1000 innings..5.47..........6.42

Looks to me like Smith is the choice, regardless of whether one prefers peak or career totals, especially given his superior ability with the glove. Aparicio may make my ballot some day, but that day is in the future.

jalbright

06-28-2006, 12:14 PM

Because of vacation plans, I'm going to have to end voting this month at 11:59:59 PM EDT, Thursday July 20

Jim Albright

mtortolero

06-28-2006, 02:31 PM

Also, I think your reasoning that Smith played on turf made it easier to have a greater range factor than on grass is flawed.
Seems to me that your range should be higher on grass, since the ball is slower on grass and thus a shortstop should reach more balls. Errors would be less on turf, because of truer hops, but range (balls reached per game) should be higher on grass. So playing on turf, at least in my theory, Smith's range factor being that much greater than league average is even more impressive.

The problem with your theory is that you put the same speed to all groundballs, which is not true. A SS on turf can play more deep waiting for "hard groundballs" meanwhile they can attacck slow groundballs running forward without any problem about the trayectory of the ball, thanks to the lower turf rubbing, and turf makes easy throwing with one bounce to first base (see David Concepcion), something that is not easier in grass. If you play deep at grass, the exposure to become slowgroundballs in infield hits is higher but if you play short on grass the area covered will be minor.

mtortolero

06-28-2006, 03:59 PM

I think that Chuck Klein´s case must be reviewed in function of others BF Hall of Famer cases.

First let's see a post by Jim Albright that resume the main point against him:

"...The problem with him is he was a monster in the Baker Bowl, just another player elsewhere. Check out his splits in the post I'll refer you to. To me, a guy whose sole claim to fame is a unique abilty to exploit one park doesn't have a good enough case--and Klein epitomizes that idea for me. See post http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...&postcount=155"

If this is a rule applied to every player in the Hall then should be a applied to:

Ron Santo
Home .383 OBP .522 SLG .905 OPS 145 OPS+
Away .342 OBP .406 SLG .748 OPS 104 OPS+
Carrer .362 OBP .464 SLG .826 OPS 125 OPS+
Lgu .334 OBP .399 SLG .733 OPS

Ryne Sandberg
Home .361 OBP .491 SLG .852OPS 129 OPS+
Away .326 OBP .412 SLG .738 OPS 99 OPS+
Carrer .344 OBP .452 SLG .796 OPS 114 OPS+
Lgu .337 OBP .404 SLG .741 OPS

Kirby Puckett
Home .388 OBP .521 SLG .909 OPS 143 OPS+
Away .331 OBP .430 SLG .761 OPS 103 OPS+
Carrer .360 OBP .477 SLG .837 OPS 124 OPS+
Lgu .336 OBP .410 SLG .746 OPS

These three players, which played all or almost all their carrers with the same franchise in the same park, were average hitters out of his home fields.

Inclusive if Chuck Klein's away OPS figures are correct as per IPOD's post refered by Jim Albright (.345 OBP .465 SLG), his away numbers against leagues figures during his carrer ( .353 OBP .418 SLG) gives him 109 OPS+ away, which with 137 OPS+ total carrer is more or less in the same range of Carl Yastrzremski and Femway Park:

Home .402 OBP .523 SLG .925 OPS 152 OPS+
Away .357 OBP .422 SLG .779 OPS 113 OPS+
Carrer .379 OBP .462 SLG .841 OPS 130 OPS+
Lgu .334 OBP .397 SLG .731 OPS

Klein has a case just only because splits (as per retrosheet.org) shows us that Santo, Sandberg, Puckett and Yas were just average or only good players out of their homefields, but they are in and he is out.

catcher24

06-28-2006, 06:25 PM

mtortolero

06-28-2006, 07:12 PM

Pretty decent argument on Klein's behalf, but I don't think you've convinced me. You have to also consider that Santo was the premier fielding thirdbaseman in the NL for a half dozen years, and Puckett was a GG in centerfield. From all I have read, Klein was more of a deficiency in RF than anything. But your argument is well made. Also, your point on the difference in speed of groundballs on grass/turf is well taken, and that situation is probably a wash as far as turf or grass favoring the fielder.

I agree with you about that Puckett and Santo were premier defensive players but their OPS away makes them looks more as Mickey Rivers and Bob Bailey and that is not the idea for a HOF.
Wrigley Field have a lot of players with those home/away splits as for example Andre Dawson 1987 MVP season splits playing for the Cubs :
home 332 avg 373 obp 668 slg
away 246 avg 288 obp 480 slg
MVP at home and less valuable player away

jalbright

06-28-2006, 07:26 PM

mtortolero

06-28-2006, 08:16 PM

You're right about one thing--I should have added one other key element against Klein--he had a quite short career for a HOF OF (6486 AB). By contrast, Puckett had 7244 AB as a GG CF, Sandberg had 8385 as a GG 2B, Santo had 8143 as a GG 3B, and Yaz had 11988, 184.8% of Klein's total. Klein is close to overcoming the issue of the home/road split despite his short career--but the home/road issue plus the short career combined are too much to overcome.

Chuck Klein (7168 PA) is in the same range of plate appearences of other inductees as Dick Allen (7314), Earl Averill (7215) or Bill Terry (7111) and inclusive has more plate appearences than Ralph Kiner (6256) who is so suspect of being benefit by Forbes Field as Klein by Baker Bowl.

AG2004

06-28-2006, 10:27 PM

With Jacques Doucet exceeding 50% in the Contributors' vote, I'm wondering why there isn't more support for the likes of Buck Canel, Felo Ramirez, Masayori Shimura, or Tokuro Konishi.

I posted some links to articles on Canel and Ramirez, who appear to be the best-qualified Spanish-language announcers, on page 6 of this thread. [Canel announced 42 World Series to the Latin American audience via the Cabalgata Deportivo Gillette, and was the first Spanish-language broadcaster to win the Frick Award; Ramirez, who became Canel's partner in 1950 just five years after his on-air debut in Cuba, broadcast 31 World Series and 40 Caribbean Series to the Spanish-speaking world.]

Due to my being ill over most of the past month, I haven't asked the people at japanesebaseball.com about Shimura and Konishi (I plan to do this in the next few days), but I do know that are the only people inducted into the Japanese Hall of Fame for their broadcasting.

No offense to Doucet, but the Francophone baseball world is much smaller than the Spanish-speaking or Japanese-speaking baseball worlds.

jalbright

06-29-2006, 09:23 AM

With Jacques Doucet exceeding 50% in the Contributors' vote, I'm wondering why there isn't more support for the likes of Buck Canel, Felo Ramirez, Masayori Shimura, or Tokuro Konishi.

I posted some links to articles on Canel and Ramirez, who appear to be the best-qualified Spanish-language announcers, on page 6 of this thread. [Canel announced 42 World Series to the Latin American audience via the Cabalgata Deportivo Gillette, and was the first Spanish-language broadcaster to win the Frick Award; Ramirez, who became Canel's partner in 1950 just five years after his on-air debut in Cuba, broadcast 31 World Series and 40 Caribbean Series to the Spanish-speaking world.]

................

No offense to Doucet, but the Francophone baseball world is much smaller than the Spanish-speaking or Japanese-speaking baseball worlds.

I think the lack of information on Konishi and Shimura tells the story there, and I for one look forward to more information. I hadn't focused on Canel and/or Ramirez due to their lack of support, but I will pay more attention to them now. They seem to have the widespread influence (beyond one team) that I want to see and to date I haven't seen about Doucet. I also agree on the point of the larger Spanish speaking interest in baseball as opposed to the French speaking interest in the sport.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-05-2006, 10:58 AM

Voting status as of BlairRosen's ballot

Player votes counted: 15
Projected total votes for players: 25
Projected votes needed for election of player: 19

Only presenting players with at least 10 votes. I am crediting Redding with the leading Negro League candidate votes and Harimoto with the leading Japanese League player votes.

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Grich..................13.............87......... ......20..........................96
Lyons.................12.............80........... ....18..........................77
Murphy...............12.............80............ ....18..........................77
Stovey...............12.............80.......... .....16..........................52
Belle...................11............73.......... ......15.........................37
Carey.................11............73......... .......18..........................73
Welch.................11............73........ ........14.........................32
Duffy..................10............67......... .......14.........................22
Harimoto..............10...........67............. ...16.........................33
Klein....................10...........67....... .........12.........................17
Redding................10...........67.......... ......14.........................22
Wright.................10...........67......... ........16.........................33
Browning..............10...........67........... ......12.........................17

Contributor votes counted: 13
projected total votes for contributors: 22
projected votes for election of contributor: 17

Only presenting candidates with at least nine votes

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
H. Caray.................11...........85............ ....16........................78
Dunn......................10...........77........ ........16........................73
Jennings...................9...........69....... .........13........................26
Taylor......................9...........69....... .........14........................33

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

Freakshow

07-05-2006, 11:33 PM

I am crediting Redding with the leading Negro League candidate votes and Harimoto with the leading Japanese League player votes.

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance

Redding................10...........67.......... ......14.........................22

I must point out that I think we're on the verge of electing the wrong Negro league player. Redding was the leading Negro League candidate last month. He is in neither the Coop Hall of Fame nor the BBTF Hall of Merit.

The next three leading Negro League candidates are in both the Coop Hall of Fame and the BTF Hall of Merit. They are Frank Grant, Pete Hill and Willard Brown.

I believe any of those three players are more suitable for our Hall than Redding. Of course, "Cannonball Dick" is a pretty cool nickname.:rolleyes:

jalbright

07-06-2006, 09:54 AM

I must point out that I think we're on the verge of electing the wrong Negro league player. Redding was the leading Negro League candidate last month. He is in neither the Coop Hall of Fame nor the BBTF Hall of Merit.

The next three leading Negro League candidates are in both the Coop Hall of Fame and the BTF Hall of Merit. They are Frank Grant, Pete Hill and Willard Brown.

I believe any of those three players are more suitable for our Hall than Redding. Of course, "Cannonball Dick" is a pretty cool nickname.:rolleyes:

I think we can all agree Cooperstown is hardly infallible, so I'm hardly overwhelmed by that objection. As good as the BTF guys are, a) they've got a vastly different system of election than we do and b) they're not any more perfect than we are.

Freakshow, I also have to note that your objection would carry a lot more weight with me if you actually supported any Negro League candidates recently. You certainly haven't for some months now, though you have supported some along the way. However, as memory serves, you have been vocal about the idea we have enough Negro league candidates in the BBF HOF in the past. As things stand, your complaint could be interpreted merely as an attempt to derail a Negro league candidate, though I doubt such is the case.

Redding has four more votes than the next closest Negro League candidate, which entitles him to the two "leading Negro Leaguer" votes. Personally, I'm warming to Brown's case, which means I think all four of the names discussed in your post would be fine additions to the BBF HOF.

David Lawrence (a Negro League historian) accumulated data on Negro League players for an APBA set of franchise all stars. Redding's data is for the New York Lincoln Giants, who he played for in his prime of 1911-1916. Lawrence's data have Redding winning 78% of his games against other top Negro League competition in those years with 8 strikeouts per nine innings in an era in which it was nearly seen as a mortal sin to strike out and a 4.0 strikeout to walk ratio. He was durable as well and earned a spot as a second team pitcher on the Pittsburgh Courier poll in 1952, a poll whose one notable flaw is its favoritism of players that the polled fans would have seen more recently than a comparative old timer like Redding.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-06-2006, 10:01 AM

I might add that another factor in our collectively greater support for Redding over the three HOFers listed by Freakshow is something I have felt for a while from following our voting: we seem to have a desire to push candidates not in Cooperstown for our Hall here over similarly qualified candidates who are in. Perhaps in a project like this, such a tendency is inevitable, but it is a phenomenon which I think exists here.

Jim Albright

Freakshow

07-06-2006, 04:19 PM

Jim, I think you've miscast my intent, calling my post a "complaint". I think a better term would be caution.

Yes, it's my opinion that Negro league stars are sufficiently well represented in the BBFHOF. For me, I can't justify putting any of the NeL candidates above anyone on my ballot. However, this has nothing to do with the content of my caution.

Many Negro league stars have been elected without my support, and this will continue to be the case no matter what my opinion. I was simply sending a message to the electorate at large to take another look--voters usually pile on to a popular candidate nearing election just to get him off the ballot. Are we sure Redding should be the next one?

I don't know. But given the fact that two strong electorates have passed on Redding, after much careful deliberation, should give anyone pause.

leecemark

07-09-2006, 07:19 AM

--I think Redding is the best NeL pitcher available. Whether the position players you mention are more deserving or not is debatable. Pete Hill is on my ballot (well has been, I haven't yet voted in July). Frank Grant actually played mostly before the Negro Leagues got organized and deciding whether a guy who was basically a barnstorming semi-pro is deserving is a daunting task. Willard Brown failed in his MLB shot (probably not a very fair shot to be honest) while in his prime. He had an extreme lack of plate discipline which would hurt him with me even had he succeeded in MLB.

jalbright

07-09-2006, 09:40 AM

Willard Brown failed in his MLB shot (probably not a very fair shot to be honest) while in his prime. He had an extreme lack of plate discipline which would hurt him with me even had he succeeded in MLB.

I've wrestled with the same issue on Brown, and I think he wouldn't have acquired the plate discipline the BTF guys seem to think he would have. I'm coming to the view that since Negro League pitchers couldn't stop him, they were smart enough to try throwing pitches outside the strike zone and see what would happen. My sense is he kept chasing pitches, but he earned that bad ball hitter rep for a reason. He's just one of those odd cases who can manage a high average and high power with darned few walks, I think. I feel he'd have hit for a high enough average to give him a better than average OBP, but nothing like we'd normally expect from a guy with those averages. I think his power was enough to legitimately put him in Cooperstown. I'm thinking an Andre Dawson type but with mediocre left field defense and consistently at or near top ten averages as a model for Willard Brown. That's HOF caliber for me.

Jim Albright

leecemark

07-09-2006, 02:14 PM

--Dawson is a Hall of Famer for me ONLY because I consider him to be a CFer and a good one (although that truely only represents the first half of his career). Dawson with less than stellar corner OF defense, as you describe Brown, is below the line IMO.

jalbright

07-09-2006, 02:46 PM

Dawson was only in the top ten in average five times in 21 years. Brown, I think, would have done so far more consistently, which would at least somewhat compensate for the defense. Then it all gets down to exactly where you draw the line for the HOF.

Jim Albright

538280

07-09-2006, 06:26 PM

I'm not really supportive of Dawson for the HOF, but Dawson really wasn't much of a BA hitter either, he hit .279 versus .265 league, hardly a great BA guy. From what I gather Brown was supposed to be a really high BA guy, and that means his OBP would probably be quite a bit above average, unlike Dawson's which is 9 points below. I'm thinking in Dawson's environment Brown would have hit .295 or so, making his OBP (given Dawson's walk rate) be .339. His SLG would get the same boost, to .498. That would make a 128 OPS+, significantly higher than Dawson's 119. I think Brown deserves it.

jalbright

07-10-2006, 12:29 PM

Voting status as of yest's ballot

Player votes counted: 17
Projected total votes for players: 25
Projected votes needed for election of player: 19

Only presenting players with at least 12 votes. Anyone with 11 would have to run the table to make it, and anybody with less needs more voters or a change in an existing vote to even have a chance. I am crediting Redding with the leading Negro League candidate votes and Harimoto with the leading Japanese League player votes.

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Grich..................14.............82......... ......20..........................97
Stovey...............14.............82.......... .....16..........................54
Carey.................13.............77......... ......18..........................75
Lyons.................13.............77........... ....18..........................75
Murphy...............13.............77............ ....18..........................75
Welch.................12.............71........ .......14..........................23
Wright................12.............71......... ......16..........................34

Contributor votes counted: 14
projected total votes for contributors: 22
projected votes for election of contributor: 17

Only presenting candidates with at least nine votes. Anyone with less needs us to have more voters or have someone who has already voted change their minds and include them on the ballot.

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
H. Caray.................11...........79............ ....15........................57
Dunn......................11...........79........ ........16........................75
Jennings.................10...........71....... .........13........................27
Taylor......................9...........64....... .........14........................15

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-10-2006, 12:38 PM

Of particular note in the vote count, at least in my opinion, is the fact we have three players who project to fall one vote shy of election (Ted Lyons, Dale Murphy, and Max Carey), and one contributor (Jack Dunn) in the same situation. If you haven't voted yet and haven't supported these guys, I ask you to seriously consider doing so. In each case, there are three remaining voters who meet the description, so there's ample opportunity to get these guys in.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-10-2006, 03:10 PM

Back to Willard Brown.

You'll probably want to supplement this discussion with a review of the discussion on him at Baseball Think Factory here: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/willard_brown

Years played: 1935-1950 (2 years in military, 11 years in Negro League, 10 in Puerto Rican Winters)

Main position: CF (probably a LF in majors)

All Stars: six times in Negro League All Star game before 1950.

MVP: Bill James picks him twice, ESPN's Encyclopedia twice, and John Holway three times.

League Champions on: 5 in American summers, 2 in Puerto Rico

Poll results: Not on Cool Papas and Double Duties' historian's poll All Star team, Not in top 30 in SABR poll, 2d OF in Negro League Museum members' poll, apparently didn't draw votes in the Pittsburgh Courier poll

League leading performances: in American summers, in the top five in average four times, led in homers six times, and in the top four in steals four times (led twice). In Puerto Rico, he won two Triple Crowns, holds the career average (.350) and slugging percentage marks (.603) as well as the single season records for RBI and homers. He was in the top two in average in Puerto Rico four times (led three), in the top two in homers four times (led three) in the top three in hits four times (led two), led in runs twice, led in RBI four times, and led in slugging percentage twice.

Honors: Elected to Cooperstown and Baseball Think Factory's "Hall of Merit"

I was able to dig up some rather complete stats for him in Clark and Lester's Negro Leagues Book For his Negro League years, he had the following per 550 AB (from 1576 recorded AB, which excludes 1947 (no extra base hit data), and steals omit 1943 and 1949 due to lack of data)

hits 196.8
2B 31.4
3B 11.9
HR 26.5
SB 16.0
AVG .358
SLG .603

His Puerto Rican numbers did not include steals, and I had to exclude the 1956-57 winter due to lack of extra base hit data. Per 550 AB, they are quite similar (based on 1917 recorded AB)

hits 193.1
2B 38.7
3B 7.7
HR 28.4
AVG .351
SLG .605

My off the cuff remark about his being similar to Dawson understates him significantly in this analysis. Dawson did not have power nor averages in Brown's class. I would, however, prefer Dawson in the field. Brown missed what may have been two of his prime years to military service in WW II as well, given his performances in 1943 and 1946 for the Kansas City Monarchs and in Puerto Rico. Granted, the PRWL and Negro League weren't the majors, but they were no more than one level down when Brown played there. Those numbers are suimply excellent, even if he walked very little.

I don't think he would have come undone even drawing unusually few walks. First off, since blackball pitchers were having so much difficulty stopping him, I think they would have tried to get him to chase bad pitches even if that wasn't their usual game plan. His record doesn't demonstrate a fall off. Besides, he earned a reputation as a bad ball hitter somehow. My guess is, he was unusually good at doing so.

Jim Albright

catcher24

07-10-2006, 05:36 PM

Just a quick note to ask those voters who have not yet submitted ballots to please consider Harry Stovey. He has been close to election for a couple of months now, but needs a little additional support. I know some hold the fact that he played in the American Association against him, but it was considered a major league at the time, and that was where he chose to play. He also put up OPS+'s of 138, 137 and 141 the three full seasons he played in National League. He was an outstanding player, in my opinion, and shouldn't be ignored. Thank you for your consideration.

538280

07-10-2006, 07:19 PM

I would like to re-open my case for Sal Bando. Here is the link:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpo...1&postcount=52

Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time, keeping the famous "Swinging A's" of 1972-1974 together and focusing on the game rather than their owner's ongoing mission to cheat them out of well earned money. He was the captain of that team, which won three consecutive World Series titles.

Bando also was a great hitter, whose hitting greatness is masked by when he played, and no slouch at third either. Bill James rates him the 11th best 3B ever and his WS system has him as the 10th best. Ken Boyer is a player who gets much more support than Bando. I think it is clear Bando is the much better hitter, when you place their contributions in context. Bando had a higher OPS+, significantly higher peak OPS+, and the same conclusion was reached with EqAs and just about every other significant offensive metric I know of. Boyer was better with the glove, but that advantage is negligible, really. Bando's WS grade is a C+, Boyer's is a B. The defensive difference is that of an average 3Bman to a good one. How much is that worth? I can't see how it's worth more than 5 or 6 runs a year. Bando's hitting/leadership is more significant than that.

We all know 3B has been drastically underepresented in Cooperstown, and there are tons of 3Bmen who get support. Of course Ron Santo heads the list, but we also frequently hear about Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Graig Nettles, and Stan Hack. We never hear anything about Bando.

Darrell Evans is a player whose stock has gone dramatically up since Bill James called him the most underrated player ever in his New Historical Basebal Abstract. The ironic thing, to me, is that there is a player rated one spot behind Evans (Bando) who has been historically rated even lower, and yet James makes no mention of him being extremely underrated. James' rating system actually shows Bando to be the better player, and yet it's Evans who gets the props. I don't know why, especially when James' own system says Bando is better.

2Chance

07-10-2006, 08:51 PM

About this month’s ballot:
Don Suttonoriginally posted by jalbright
He's 13th in career wins and 20th in career win shares among pitchers listed in the latest BJHA. That is superb for a pitcher outside of the deadball or 1960's like Sutton. He was in the top ten in K per 9 IP 12 times, the top ten in Ks 14 times, the top ten in ERA eight times (leading once), the top seven in wins seven times, the top ten in winning percentage six times, and the top ten in WHIP fourteen times, (leading four times!). He's 18th in career strikeouts and tenth in career shutouts. His gray ink score is 23rd best among pitchers, and he's 19th among pitchers in the number of HOF standards met. Seven of his ten most similar pitchers as determined by baseball-reference.com are in Cooperstown.
Most of the time I place more value on career accomplishments as opposed to peak, but Sutton never “seemed” like a HoFer to me. As for your final word on the subject,
He may not have been the most highly noticed guy year in and year out, but he was darned good year in and year out. You can't discount the importance of that dependability in my opinion.
“darned good” should not be the line we draw for Hall of Famers. To bolster my case, I copied and pasted this from bbref:

Black Ink: Pitching - 8 (278) (Average HOFer ~ 40)

which shows you that Sutton, in a 23 year career, only led the league in something meaningful eight times.

However, going over your post again, (of course, bbref ( http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/suttodo01.shtml) had it blazing right before my eyes!), he was at or near the top of the list for WHIP, one of my favorite pitching stats, and even with him pitching before my eyes for 20+ years I never noticed that. Not allowing walks or hits of course helped him in the ERA department and helped him pitch 58 Shutouts. He was also consistently among the leaders in another of my favorite stats, K/BB, and finished his career with 2.66, good for 46th all time. (Yes, he was also on several other leaderboards.)

Continuing after the black ink score, you see these:
Gray Ink: Pitching - 240 (23) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 58.0 (19) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 149.0 (42) (Likely HOFer > 100)
...and if you hadn’t seen the anemic Black, you would say “sure-fire Hall of Famer.”

Yes, some of these are due to longevity, but areas where a pitcher would normally be falling off, Sutton still looks good. And yes, dependability IS worth something. I have re-evaluated his candidacy and placed him on my ballot.

Dale Murphy temporarily takes the place of Sam Rice. Murph was another that, having watched him, I thought fell a little short of being Hall-worthy. Just because he was one of the 80s best outfielders doesn’t mean he deserved a vote. Two MVPs doesn’t do it for Roger Maris, why him? But a serious look at his statistics compared to his peers year-in and year-out convinced me that he is one of the best players available. If he wasn’t so close in the voting, he wouldn’t be on this month’s ballot, maybe next month. But using the litmus test for Cooperstown, “does he belong or not?” did it for Dale this time.

Still no new third basemen here, but with Stan Hack in, I can see a case for one or two others. Or do we have enough? Perhaps next month’s ballot will tell. Meanwhile, anybody wanna discuss the merits or demerits of Darrell Evans, Ken Boyer, Graig Nettles and Sal Bando? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=530761&postcount=52) (This was written, but not posted, before your post, Little Joe!)

Point well taken on SS Perucho Cepeda, and he is in my queue. So is his son, at 1B.

jalbright

07-11-2006, 09:58 AM

About this month’s ballot:
Don Sutton
Most of the time I place more value on career accomplishments as opposed to peak, but Sutton never “seemed” like a HoFer to me. As for your final word on the subject,

“darned good” should not be the line we draw for Hall of Famers. To bolster my case, I copied and pasted this from bbref:

Black Ink: Pitching - 8 (278) (Average HOFer ~ 40)

which shows you that Sutton, in a 23 year career, only led the league in something meaningful eight times.

Bill James has written there are three in general three classes of HOFers: those who have great peaks and great career accomplishments, and those who have one of those two, but not the other. The ones with both are easy. We're pretty much into the latter two groups at this point, the only possible exceptions coming from outside the majors since 1900. Sutton is one of those who has the great career, but not the great peak. But he wouldn't have had the great career without being very good for a very long time. That's what I was trying to get at, perhaps less successfully than I'd like.

As for black ink, you have a slight misunderstanding. Categories have values from 1 to 4 points, so Sutton could have amassed those eight points in only two top placements or as many as eight. Anyway, glad to see you're reading my stuff and even more that it causes some thinking and research. Of course, it certainly doesn't hurt when all those things combine to garner another vote. ;)

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-11-2006, 11:28 AM

Just a reminder that because of my vacation plans, I'm going to have to end voting this month at 11:59:59 PM EDT, Thursday July 20

Jim Albright

2Chance

07-11-2006, 01:11 PM

originally posted by jalbright
As for black ink, you have a slight misunderstanding. Categories have values from 1 to 4 points, so Sutton could have amassed those eight points in only two top placements or as many as eight.
Right. I didn't count 'em, so that should have read, "In a 23 year career, Sutton only lead the league in something meaningful a maximum of eight times." The point of my post was that I changed my mind while trying to build a case against him.

I guess it doesn't hurt to read. ;)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function while open."

jalbright

07-11-2006, 02:35 PM

Right. I didn't count 'em, so that should have read, "In a 23 year career, Sutton only lead the league in something meaningful a maximum of eight times." The point of my post was that I changed my mind while trying to build a case against him.

Understood, but I have this thing about correcting misunderstandings or misstatements like that, especially since they have a way of spreading like weeds. Kind of like an itch I just have to scratch. ;)

Jim Albright

catcher24

07-11-2006, 06:33 PM

Posted by Jalbright:
Bill James has written there are three in general three classes of HOFers: those who have great peaks and great career accomplishments, and those who have one of those two, but not the other.

Jim, do you remember where you saw that? When I read your post, I thought I remembered James listing four categories of HOF calibre players, and I found that entry in the original Historical Abstract. Sounds a bit different than what you indicate, and I'd like to read your source information. Maybe in the book about the HOF (Whatever Happened to the HOF)? I read that book, but it was quite a while ago. Anyway, in the OHBA, James lists the following classes of HOFers:
1. A player who could reasonably be argued as the best ever at his position. Examples: Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Walter Johnson.
2. A player who is one of the best ever at the position he played. Should be the dominant player at his position during his career (excluding the rare exceptions where two players who might qualify under definiton1 play concurrently, such as Mantle/Mays or Gehrig/Foxx). Should generally be the biggest star on the field at a given time. Examples: Joe Morgan, Willie McCovey.
3. A player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. Would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team unless it was a pennant winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuable players on said team. Examples: Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Harry Heilmann.
4. A player who rises well above the level of the average player, a player capable of contributing to a pennant winning team, and who would be one of the outstanding players on an average team. Examples: Wally Schang, Lloyd Waner, Eppa Rixey, Tommy McCarthy.

The examples are James', not mine. Using these four definitions, I would put Sutton under definition #3, although I imagine some voters would argue he would be a Def. #4 player.

jalbright

07-11-2006, 07:34 PM

catcher:

Regrettably, I don't. I am doing that one from memory, without the source. I have so much of James' stuff that it would be hard to find, and the one place I quickly thought of where it might be is the section on peak versus career in the original Historical Abstract isn't correct. He did do one like you are talking about, calling each variety a definition of a HOFer--the first being Definition A, the second Definition B, etc. to Definition D. The reality is that the good choices for the HOF end when they no longer arguably meet Definition C. He didn't put letters to the classes I recall about peak versus career. The one you cite really doesn't discuss the issue of peak versus career, and what I recall was solely about that issue.

Sorry I can't be more helpful on this one.

Jim Albright

catcher24

07-11-2006, 07:51 PM

jalbright

07-11-2006, 08:36 PM

Jim - Yeah, he had them listed A through D. I started with 1 so didn't bother to change.
I think what you may have been thinking of was his comment on an Unavoidable Concern, which was Section V on his introduction to the Player's Section. In this short essay he mentions that when deciding on "the greatest" at any position, you must decide whether you are using peak value or career value as a yardstick.

I have the same problem. I have a good many of James' books (and looking for others) and can't usually remember where I saw something. The index doesn't always help, either.

It's possible that's what I was thinking about, but I really believe there was something much closer to what I posted. Of course, trying to confirm my memory in this instance presents more work than I am willing to do. Even if I'm wrong about James writing that, I have seen that idea expressed somewhere before I voiced it here, and regardless of who said it, I agree with the notion.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-12-2006, 10:52 AM

catcher,

You would have to ask a sensible question about a source I didn't have a ready answer for, wouldn't you ;) ? If you don't know it already, that is one of those things I can be particularly anal about, and I've dug around and found what may well be the quotation I'm thinking of. James certainly doesn't express it in the terms I posted, but I submit a very similar idea is there. This passage comes from Politics of Glory, which later went by the title Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?. This appeared on page 66 of my copy:

The Black Ink test is the counterpoint to the career standards list. The players who do best in both methods are the players who are outstanding for a long period of time, like Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Tom Seaver. But the players who do next best, behind that group, are radically different. The career standards list nominates as likely Hall of Famers the players who had long careers that may not have been as brilliant, like George Davis and Al Oliver. The Black Ink Test nominates as the next group the players who were brilliant, but in shorter careers, like Tony Oliva and Gavy Cravath

Jim Albright

catcher24

07-12-2006, 12:52 PM

jalbright

07-12-2006, 02:02 PM

Thanks, Jim. Didn't intend to cause you a lot of extra effort. I had thought perhaps you read it recently and had it readily available. Yes, I read the book when James had it titled "The Politics of Glory", which was several years ago. Don't have the book myself, but may pick one up (Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?) and reread it.

Please, there's no need to explain yourself for asking a perfectly reasonable question. My own quirks are my problem (and my wife's and son's, because they live with me), no one else's. Fortunately, I guessed it was in one of the Historical Abstracts or that book, and I didn't have to poke around too long to find it. If I'd have struck out on those, I would have admitted defeat.

Jim Albright

catcher24

07-12-2006, 05:40 PM

I would have admitted defeat.

That would have been a first!;)

jalbright

07-12-2006, 07:43 PM

Maybe here at Fever. Unquestionably, it is a rare event, but it does happen sometimes. My only excuse is that I get it honestly--my mother insists she's "persistent" while the rest of us in our family are "stubborn", and my usual reply is that a rose by any other name..... My dad's the same, except that he admits he's stubborn and moves on. I'll take his tack.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-15-2006, 05:48 AM

George Wright

This is one of the rare cases where if we could only agree on whether this guy is a contributor or a player, we would elect him. As I write this, he's received 14 votes as a player and 3 as a contributor from the 21 folks to vote thus far. Of the outstanding votes, he's got two as a player and two as a contributor. That's 21 out of 26 if those votes were in one category, well over the amount needed for election.

I'm sure a major part of the problem is that a lot of his career came in the National Association and before. However, I ask you to consider this review of his play: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361608&postcount=98 and the fact that there's very strong support for him as a player. If you still think he should only go in as a contributor, please explain what he did outside of playing the game to merit induction as a contributor.

Let's get him elected next month, folks!

Jim Albright

2Chance

07-15-2006, 10:34 PM

originally posted by Chancellor
Unless someone feels strongly that Wright was not a great player, I would request that all those supporting Wright on their contributor ballot place him on their player ballot, if he isn't already on there.
I thought this was worthy of recalling, and it somehow feels better to me than debating his place among the contributors.

He has "contributions," I suppose, but he really belongs as a star shortstop.

from baseballlibrary.com (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/W/Wright_George.stm)
George Wright was baseball's first franchise player. His older brother Harry was asked to form the first pro team, the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, and the first player Harry recruited was George, a shortstop. The Wrights transferred operations to Boston when the National Association was formed, and won four of five pennants. George was the team's sparkplug, Harry the manager. They joined the National League in its first season, 1876, and won pennants in 1877 and 1878, with George leading the league in at-bats. George managed Providence to a pennant in 1879, with Harry's Boston club finishing second.

George gave up baseball almost entirely to establish a sporting-goods business. Since Albert Spalding and A.J. Reach already had strong footholds in baseball, Wright looked to other sports for development. He was helped in this goal when his son, Beals, became an early tennis star. When the Hall of Fame opened in 1939, Wright was one of its first inductees. (JK)

"George Wright never had any equal as a fielder, base runner and batsman, combined with heady work of a quality never accredited to any ball tosser. All his qualifications taken together, he was really in a class by himself, and I do not know of a ball player today who ever was entitled to be considered in the same breath with him."
— Jim O'Rourke

jalbright

07-17-2006, 09:43 AM

Remember, we've only got through Thursday for voting for this month due to my vacation schedule.

The status of the voting is most interesting right now. If we stopped with 538280's ballot, we'd have five players and two contributors elected. On the player side, we've got Bobby Grich with 18 of 21 votes cast, and Max Carey, Ted Lyons, Dale Murphy and Harry Stovey all with 16 of 21. There's no one else who can make it without new voters or changes in already submitted ballots.

Grich is in great shape. He's got support from three of the five outstanding voters, and he'd be above 75% unless he was left off of four of those ballots. Not likely.

The rest of the players are hanging on, though, in part because they're just over 75% and in part because they haven't been heavily supported by the outstanding voters last month. These candidates with 16 votes would need both votes if only two are cast, then they could survive if they were left off of one ballot each, but no more.

Dale Murphy is closest, since he has the support of three of the five outstanding voters. However, if both voters who didn't support him last month vote and maintain that position, he goes down absent new voters or changes in votes from those who have already submitted a ballot.

Carey and Lyons are in the identical situation of having 16 votes and two supporters in the five outstanding votes. If only two or three vote, they could make it if their previous supporters are among the voters and maintain that support. Otherwise, they need some fresh support. If we go to four or five voters, they clearly need new support to get elected.

Stovey doesn't seem likely to make it this month if only because none of the five outstanding voters supported him last month. It's possible he can win that many of the votes yet to be cast this month, but I doubt it.

On the contributor side, Dunn and Jennings each have 13 of the 17 votes cast, and Taylor has 12. No one else can make it without new voters or changes in already submitted ballots.

Taylor's a longshot, as he was supported by only one of the outstanding 5 voters last month. He needs 1) to run the table 2) with at least three votes. That's a tall order when you've gotten so little support from the outstanding voters.

Jennings would be in if no more ballots were cast. If as few as two are cast, he needs them both. After that, he could survive being left off of one ballot of the remaining ones to be cast. He had support from three of the outstanding voters last month, so he might pull it off.

Dunn is in the same situation as Jennings in terms of how many votes he needs from those yet to cast them. However, he only had the support of two of the outstanding voters last month, which makes his chances of making it significantly slimmer than Jennings'.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-19-2006, 03:05 PM

A final reminder that due to my vacation schedule, voting ends in a little over 30 hours from when I am posting this

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-21-2006, 10:14 AM

Voting for July has now ended. We have elected three players: Bobby Grich, Dale Murphy and Harry Stovey and one contributor: Jack Dunn.

Jim Albright

jalbright

07-21-2006, 10:15 AM

Player voting, listed alphabetically

Aparicio, Luis 5
Bando, Sal 2
Barnes, Ross 4
Beckley, Jake 10
Beckwith, John 3
Belle, Albert 14
Bennett, Charlie 3
Bessho, Akira 2
Bonds, Bobby 4
Boyer, Ken 6
Brown, Willard 5
Browning, Pete 13
Bunning, Jim 6
Carey, Max 16
Caruthers, Bob 9
Cepeda, Orlando 4
Cepeda, Perucho 1
Clark, Will 6
Cuyler, Kiki 1
Day, Leon 3
Doerr, Bobby 9
Doyle, Larry 3
Drysdale, Don 8
Duffy, Hugh 12
Evans, Darrell 7
Faber, Red 2
Ferrell, Wes 5
Fingers, Rollie 9
Flick, Elmer 6
Fox, Nellie 4
Freehan, Bill 12
Glasscock, Jack 5
Gomez, Lefty 2
Gore, George 1
Grant, Frank 5
Grich, Bobby 19
Grimes, Burleigh 4
Groh, Heinie 7
Harimoto, Isao 15
Hernandez, Keith 7
Hill, Pete 5
Howard, Frank 1
Inao, Kazuhisa 4
John, Tommy 1
Johnson, Bob 2
Johnson, Judy 3
Joss, Addie 11
Kaat, Jim 1
Kell, George 1
Kelley, Joe 5
Klein, Chuck 11
Kuenn, Harvey 1
Lombardi, Ernie 1
Lyons, Ted 16
Manush, Heinie 2
Martinez, Edgar 7
Mathews, Bobby 1
Mattingly, Don 1
Mays, Carl 11
Mazeroski, Bill 1
McCormick, Jim 1
McGriff, Fred 5
McPhee, Bid 3
McVey, Cal 1
Mendez, Jose 3
Moore, Dobie 2
Murphy, Dale 17
Ochiai, Hiromitsu 2
Orr, Dave 1
Parker, Dave 11
Pearce, Dickey 1
Perez, Tony 2
Poles, Spotswood 1
Quisenberry, Dan 5
Redding, Dick 13
Rice, Jim 6
Rice, Sam 4
Richardson, Hardy 3
Rixey, Eppa 3
Rosen, Al 1
Roush, Edd 3
Ruffing, Red 5
Ryan, Jimmy 2
Schalk, Ray 1
Schang, Wally 1
Sewell, Joe 1
Smith, Hilton 4
Smith, Lee 2
Starffin, Victor 7
Start, Joe 1
Stephens, Vern 2
Stieb, Dave 1
Stovey, Harry 17
Sutter, Bruce 10
Sutton, Don 10
Tiant, Luis 3
Van Haltren, George 3
Veach, Bobby 1
Wallace, Bobby 4
Welch, Mickey 13
Whitaker, Lou 7
Wilson, Hack 2
Wright, George 15
Wynn, Jimmy 4
Yonamine, Wally 1

jalbright

07-21-2006, 10:18 AM

Player voting listed in descending order of votes received:

Grich, Bobby 19

Murphy, Dale 17
Stovey, Harry 17
------------------------------------------
Carey, Max 16
Lyons, Ted 16

Harimoto, Isao 15
Wright, George 15

Belle, Albert 14

Browning, Pete 13
Redding, Dick 13
Welch, Mickey 13

Duffy, Hugh 12
Freehan, Bill 12

Joss, Addie 11
Klein, Chuck 11
Mays, Carl 11
Parker, Dave 11

Beckley, Jake 10
Sutter, Bruce 10
Sutton, Don 10

Caruthers, Bob 9
Doerr, Bobby 9
Fingers, Rollie 9

Drysdale, Don 8

Evans, Darrell 7
Groh, Heinie 7
Hernandez, Keith 7
Martinez, Edgar 7
Starffin, Victor 7
Whitaker, Lou 7

Boyer, Ken 6
Bunning, Jim 6
Clark, Will 6
Flick, Elmer 6
Rice, Jim 6

Aparicio, Luis 5
Brown, Willard 5
Ferrell, Wes 5
Glasscock, Jack 5
Grant, Frank 5
Hill, Pete 5
Kelley, Joe 5
McGriff, Fred 5
Quisenberry, Dan 5
Ruffing, Red 5

Barnes, Ross 4
Bonds, Bobby 4
Cepeda, Orlando 4
Fox, Nellie 4
Grimes, Burleigh 4
Inao, Kazuhisa 4
Rice, Sam 4
Smith, Hilton 4
Wallace, Bobby 4
Wynn, Jimmy 4

Beckwith, John 3
Bennett, Charlie 3
Day, Leon 3
Doyle, Larry 3
Johnson, Judy 3
McPhee, Bid 3
Mendez, Jose 3
Richardson, Hardy 3
Rixey, Eppa 3
Roush, Edd 3
Tiant, Luis 3
Van Haltren, George 3

Bando, Sal 2
Bessho, Akira 2
Faber, Red 2
Gomez, Lefty 2
Johnson, Bob 2
Manush, Heinie 2
Moore, Dobie 2
Ochiai, Hiromitsu 2
Perez, Tony 2
Ryan, Jimmy 2
Smith, Lee 2
Stephens, Vern 2
Wilson, Hack 2

Cepeda, Perucho 1
Cuyler, Kiki 1
Gore, George 1
Howard, Frank 1
John, Tommy 1
Kaat, Jim 1
Kell, George 1
Kuenn, Harvey 1
Lombardi, Ernie 1
Mathews, Bobby 1
Mattingly, Don 1
Mazeroski, Bill 1
McCormick, Jim 1
McVey, Cal 1
Orr, Dave 1
Pearce, Dickey 1
Poles, Spotswood 1
Rosen, Al 1
Schalk, Ray 1
Schang, Wally 1
Sewell, Joe 1
Start, Joe 1
Stieb, Dave 1
Veach, Bobby 1
Yonamine, Wally 1

jalbright

07-21-2006, 10:22 AM

Contributor votes, listed alphabetically

Autry, Gene 1
Barlick, Al 7
Bolden, Ed 9
Bouton, Jim 1
Brickhouse, Jack 1
Buck, Jack 5
Canel, Buck 6
Caray, Harry 11
Chandler, Happy 2
Chylak, Nestor 3
Conlan, Jocko 3
Doucet, Jacques 8
Dunn, Jack 14
Evans, Billy 2
Flood, Curt 6
Foster, John B. 3
Frick, Ford 3
Fullerton, Hugh 3
Gowdy, Curt 4
Greenlee, Gus 2
Grimm, Charlie 3
Harris, Bucky 2
Harris, Vic 3
Harvey, Doug 1
Hubbard, Cal 6
Jennings, Hughie 13
Jobe, Frank 4
Johnson, Davey 2
Krichell, Paul 9
Kuhn, Bowie 1
Lardner, Ring 6
MacPhail, Lee 1
Martin, Billy 4
Mazzone, Leo 4
Mills, A.G. 2
Mizuhara, Shigeru 1
Mutrie, Jim 2
Norworth, Jack 1
O'Doul, Lefty 4
O'Neil, Buck 10
Pasquel, Jorge 1
Pearce, Dickey 1
Pesky, Johnny 1
Piniella, Lou 1
Ramirez, Felo 1
Reach, A.J. 1
Rice, Grantland 2
Richards, Paul 1
Ritter, Lawrence 3
Shoendienst, Red 1
Schuerholtz, John 2
Scully, Vin 9
Shoriki, Matsutaro 2
Smith, Red 1
Steinbrenner, George 9
Taylor, C.I. 13
Thayer, Ernest 3
Tsuruoka, Kazuto 6
Tyson, Ty 1
Weiss, George 11
Wright, George 3
Yawkey, Tom 2

jalbright

07-21-2006, 10:23 AM

Contributor votes, listed in descending order of votes received:

Dunn, Jack 14
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennings, Hughie 13
Taylor, C.I. 13

Caray, Harry 11
Weiss, George 11

O'Neil, Buck 10

Bolden, Ed 9
Krichell, Paul 9
Scully, Vin 9
Steinbrenner, George 9

Doucet, Jacques 8

Barlick, Al 7

Canel, Buck 6
Flood, Curt 6
Hubbard, Cal 6
Lardner, Ring 6
Tsuruoka, Kazuto 6

Buck, Jack 5

Gowdy, Curt 4
Jobe, Frank 4
Martin, Billy 4
Mazzone, Leo 4
O'Doul, Lefty 4

Chylak, Nestor 3
Conlan, Jocko 3
Foster, John B. 3
Frick, Ford 3
Fullerton, Hugh 3
Grimm, Charlie 3
Harris, Vic 3
Ritter, Lawrence 3
Thayer, Ernest 3
Wright, George 3

Chandler, Happy 2
Evans, Billy 2
Greenlee, Gus 2
Harris, Bucky 2
Johnson, Davey 2
Mills, A.G. 2
Mutrie, Jim 2
Rice, Grantland 2
Schuerholtz, John 2
Shoriki, Matsutaro 2
Yawkey, Tom 2

Autry, Gene 1
Bouton, Jim 1
Brickhouse, Jack 1
Harvey, Doug 1
Kuhn, Bowie 1
MacPhail, Lee 1
Mizuhara, Shigeru 1
Norworth, Jack 1
Pasquel, Jorge 1
Pearce, Dickey 1
Pesky, Johnny 1
Piniella, Lou 1
Ramirez, Felo 1
Reach, A.J. 1
Richards, Paul 1
Shoendienst, Red 1
Smith, Red 1
Tyson, Ty 1

jalbright

07-21-2006, 11:32 AM

Players with 50% or more of the vote in June

On my August ballot

Ted Lyons: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=405603&postcount=180

Isao Harimoto: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=405875&postcount=184

Max Carey: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=540575&postcount=266

George Wright: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361608&postcount=98

Cannonball Dick Redding: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361387&postcount=52

Hugh Duffy: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=534926&postcount=262

Carl Mays http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=545938&postcount=283

Dave Parker: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=421713&postcount=196

Bill Freehan: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=443042&postcount=213

Probably will support in the near future:

Players I'm not likely to support and why

Albert Belle: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=378081&postcount=151

Addie Joss: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=485853&postcount=244

Chuck Klein: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=380614&postcount=155

Mickey Welch: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=413488&postcount=192

Pete Browning: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=547693&postcount=292

jalbright

07-21-2006, 11:44 AM

Contributors with 50% or more of last month's vote

There are only two with 50% or more I am currently not supporting, George Steinbrenner and Vin Scully. I might be persuaded by Scully, as I want media types to have a national impact, and you might be able to persuade me Scully meets by virtue of his network telecasts. I recognize Steinbrenner's success, but I wonder if his influence has been good for baseball as a whole. If his impact isn't negative, he belongs in, but if it is negative, the question becomes how negative was it and is that enough to counteract the positives? I don't think I can answer that one until after George has left the game for a few years.

My blurbs for the rest:

Harry Caray Though his status as a Chicago baseball mainstay is important, lots of announcers have that qualification and I'm not voting for them. What sets Harry apart in my mind is his role in popularizing the use of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" for the seventh inning stretch. Put the two together, and I think he qualifies.

C. I. Taylor built the Indianapolis ABCs into a powerhouse franchise in the teens. Riley says he is one of the two "geniuses" to manage in the Negro Leagues, the other being Rube Foster. For more about him, see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361405&postcount=62

Buck O'Neill see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=491052&postcount=248

George Weiss see this from Cooperstown's website: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Weiss_George.htm

Hughie Jennings 24 James manager success points. An excellent shortstop, albeit in a short career. I can't go for him just as a player nor just as a manager, but when you combine it with his success as a manager, I can.

Paul Krichell: The man who scouted many of the best players to stock Weiss' Yankee farm system.

Ed Bolden Owned two franchises (not at the same time) in the Philadelphia area, Hilldale and later, the Philadelphia Stars in addition to being the founder and commissioner of the Eastern Colored League, all while holding down a day job as a postal employee. For more about him, see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361408&postcount=64

jalbright

07-21-2006, 12:57 PM

Players New to my ballot:

Willard Brown: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=608541&postcount=304

Elmer Flick: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=540581&postcount=267

Carl Mays http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=545938&postcount=283

Contributors new to my ballot:

Buck Canel announced 42 World Series to the Latin American audience via the Cabalgata Deportivo Gillette, and was the first Spanish-language broadcaster to win the Frick Award

AG2004

07-21-2006, 01:34 PM

catcher24

07-21-2006, 04:29 PM

Congratulations to the three new members! I'm particularly pleased to see Harry Stovey get elected:clapping :clapping , as I have campaigned hard for him. And Grich and Murphy were also both on my ballot, as was Jack Dunn. Room for a few additions now!

catcher24

07-21-2006, 04:30 PM

Posted by JAlbright:
What sets Harry apart in my mind is his role in popularizing the use of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" for the seventh inning stretch.

I disagree with Jim on this point. I distinctly remember singing that song at ballgames when I was a kid, and that was 45 years ago. It was already popular. The only place Caray might have popularized it was in Chicago. IMO, he wasn't even a good announcer. That, coupled with the fact I don't believe he did much to popularize the song, will keep him off of my ballot.

leecemark

07-21-2006, 04:44 PM

--Maybe Carey was a good announcer once, but by the time I saw him he was a drunken embarassment (I'm no spring chicken either). He'll never make my ballot.

jalbright

07-21-2006, 06:44 PM

Scully holds the record for most World Series by an English-language broadcaster, including 23 national broadcasts.

Television
NBC - 1953, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1974, 1984, 1986, 1988

Radio
NBC - 1966
CBS - 1979-82, 1990-93, 1995-97

Also, the American Sportscasters Association voted him the ASA Sportscaster of the Century Award in 2000.

The top eight in that vote:

1. Vin Scully
2. Howard Cosell
3. Mel Allen
4. Red Barber
5. Bob Costas
6. Jim McKay
7. Al Michaels
8. Curt Gowdy

Between the number of postseason broadcasts and the high regard he has among his peers, I think Scully is worthy of induction.

Ok, but not this month.

Jim Albright

538280

07-21-2006, 08:38 PM

Please consider Jimmy Wynn for your August ballot. Wynn was the star of the expansion Astros (after the name change). He got on base a lot with his phenomonal walk rate, slugged really well, and his numbers were supressed not only by the extreme pitcher's era he played in but also by the Astrodome. He fielded and ran very well, and his only real weakness was the batting average. But when you're getting on base as much as Wynn was, your BA is neutralized a bit.

Win Shares (as well as every other sabermetric method I know of) unquestionably call him a HOF caliber player. Please consider him for your ballot.

jalbright

07-22-2006, 10:45 AM

A few notes before I am quieted on the board by vacation:

1) Check this thread, the voting thread, or my voting guide thread for general announcements on the voting.

2) I rarely contact voters by PM except to point out errors in ballots. Please monitor your private messages for any such messages from me.

3) I'm happy to see one of my pet contributors finally getting some recognition: Ed Bolden. This guy ran some strong teams (the Hilldale Daisies, who won a 1921 championship per Riley and then Eastern Colored League pennants from 1923-1925 and the Philadelphia Stars, who won the Negro National League pennant in 1934), and was an officer in most of the leagues he was involved in, most notably being the prime force in creating then running the Eastern Colored League, all while holding down a regular day job in the Post Office. For more details, see this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361408&postcount=64

Jim Albright

2Chance

07-31-2006, 01:15 AM

For this month's ballot, a few players just missed. Maybe I got it wrong, and I hope you will tell me!

Timeliners, I need your help. From the 19th Century Golden Oldies, I voted for Joe Start. Jake Beckley was already on the ballot. Overlooked this time were George Gore, Lip Pike, Bob Caruthers, Elmer Flick, Jack Glasscock, Bid McPhee, Ross Barnes, Hardy Richardson, Bobby Veach, Bobby Wallace and George Van Haltren.

Which of the above do you think are most worthy of another vote, and why?

Also, at third base, I nearly voted for one guy. It surprised me, looking at their rate stats, how close Darrell Evans and Sal Bando are. Evans was able to play another five years, had a little more pop in his bat which made him more feared (averaging 97 BB/year to Bando's 83), but batted about 6 points lower (both in the .250 range). Can somebody with a little more technical savvy show their comparative stats (Rates and Career Totals)? If only one of these two could get your vote, why choose him?

One thing I would put in Bando's favor is leadership on a winning team. Evans' teams were seldom in contention. (Yes, he was on the Tigers in the mid-80s, but he was not "THE guy" like Bando. That would have been Gibson or Tram.)

jalbright

07-31-2006, 08:52 AM

Voting status as of 2Chance's ballot

Player votes counted: 10
Projected total votes for players: 23
Projected votes needed for election of player: 18

Only presenting players with at least 6 votes.

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Carey................. 7..............70......... ......16..........................52
Harimoto..............7..............70........... . ...16..........................52
Sutton.................7..............70......... ......12.........................26
Wright.................7..............70......... ......17.........................69
Doerr...................6.............60.......... ........9.........................13
Drysdale...............6.............60......... ........9.........................13
Lyons...................6.............60.......... . .....17........................60
Parker..................6..............60......... . .....13........................21
Redding................6.............60.......... ......14........................25
Welch..................6.............60........ ........14........................25

Contributor votes counted: 8
projected total votes for contributors: 20
projected votes for election of contributor: 15

Only presenting candidates with at least 5 votes

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
Jennings...................6...........75....... .........14........................74
O'Neil.......................6...........75....... ..........11........................43
Taylor......................5...........63....... .........13........................52

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

538280

08-03-2006, 04:32 PM

Also, at third base, I nearly voted for one guy. It surprised me, looking at their rate stats, how close Darrell Evans and Sal Bando are. Evans was able to play another five years, had a little more pop in his bat which made him more feared (averaging 97 BB/year to Bando's 83), but batted about 6 points lower (both in the .250 range). Can somebody with a little more technical savvy show their comparative stats (Rates and Career Totals)? If only one of these two could get your vote, why choose him?

One thing I would put in Bando's favor is leadership on a winning team. Evans' teams were seldom in contention. (Yes, he was on the Tigers in the mid-80s, but he was not "THE guy" like Bando. That would have been Gibson or Tram.)

I would go with Bando, though it is extremely close. Evans' edge seems to be career length, and that's just about it. For rate stats, Bando seems to have the edge is just about every stat I know of, and WS sees Bando's peak far exceeding Evans':

3 Best Years
Bando-96
Evans-87

5 Best Consectuive Years
Bando-143
Evans-117

Evans is very much hurt by being inconsistent from year to year, and having his peak seasons so spread out, and I think that's a legit criticism. Add on to that Bando being the captain of 3 WS teams, and one of the best leaders in baseball history (I've posted about that a ton of times, you can check back for info on that), and I think he's the choice vs. Evans. Either one are very good candidates though, and I certainly support either over the tremendously overrated Ken Boyer. :rolleyes:

538280

08-06-2006, 09:33 AM

I found this in one of Jim's old files. I disagree with it, I just want to say why. This again relates to Jimmy Wynn.

The thing is, the whole argument from the sabermetric side is based on the difficulty of scoring 1) in his time and 2) in his home parks. I don't discount either of them, but it seems to me that in order to go with the sabermetric conclusion on Wynn, we need to know how much the parks affected Wynn. Wynn's home/road splits don't show any huge overall dropoff at home, though he did lose about 20 homers or so in his career. But he had more doubles at home to compensate. The real killer for me is if we double his road figures, which is in a slightly better than neutral park because it eliminates the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium when Wynn played for those teams. Doubling the road figures gives Wynn 1654 career hits and 300 homers with a 245/355/429 line. I don't care what era Wynn played in, those numbers are not HOF caliber for an outfielder.

Another way to state my position is the following: I look at various things to determine whether or not a candidate is worthy. When I look at Jimmy Wynn, the things I look at line up into two distinct camps: Win Shares for him, the rest against. The way I would usually balance this stuff comes out on the against side. That means that for me to support Wynn, I have to toss aside the other measures and go solely with what win shares says.

You make it sound as if WS is completely on its own. The more appropriate thing to say is sabermetrics say Wynn is a HOFer and more traditional measures say no. This is true. All statistical metrics (WS, WARP, TPR, the new BFW) all have Wynn in HOF territory, in many cases rather comfortably. This means that a careful examination of statistics will say Wynn's statistical contribution was HOF caliber.

If Wynn's value is overstated by 3.5% in his career and best 5 consecutive seasons, those two Win Share measures would no longer call him a HOFer for me. Frankly, with the way the other non Win Share measures are, I am certain that an overstatement of his value by only about half of that is enough for me to decisively say no. So the challenge to those of you who want to convince me to even consider supporting Wynn is to convince me that, despite Jimmy Wynn's home/road splits, the methods used in Win Shares in determining his value do not overstate his value by more than 2% of the values given. I am simply not convinced of that in this case, and in view of the size of the park adjustment (it seems to me to be at least three or four times that large), I doubt I ever will be. Another way of putting it is that if I am to give total faith to the verdict of Win Shares in this case, it has to prove itself worthy of such total faith.

Below are the park factors for Wynn's years as a regular in the Astrodome:

1965: 93
1966: 93
1967: 97
1968: 98
1969: 98
1970: 96
1971: 97
1972: 98
1973: 100
Average: 96.67

That means the Astrodome supressed run scoring in Wynn's years by 3.33%. When applying park adjustments, of course, you need to cut it in half because only half of games are played at home. So, the park adjustments are inflating Wynn's WS by about 1.66%. Does that sound like an excessive inflation to you? It doesn't to me, and another thing to remember with these WS is that Wynn was playing in an extremely competitive era in baseball history, when it was hard to separate from the pack. That more than makes up for any concerns about the 1.66% park boost being too large, or at least IMO it does.

jalbright

08-06-2006, 10:15 AM

All I'll say to Chris's reiteration of an old argument is I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. I might be able to buy his park adjustment bit if Wynn had produced like a HOFer on the road. He did not. Frankly, Chris, you have a tendency to overestimate the Astrodome's effects, and while this is hardly the worst example, it is one. Even if you buy the park effects argument, (and in my overall consideration of the issue, I did), Wynn falls short because I can't accept that I must discard the non-win shares items of consideration (the inks, HOF standards, and contemporary opinion as seen through all-star appearances and MVP voting) and go only with the win share conclusion. While I put significant stock in Win Shares, I cannot put total faith on them.

Jim Albright

538280

08-06-2006, 03:36 PM

I think you have to sit back and ask yourself WHY Wynn doesn't do well on the inks, the HOF standards, and to a lesser extent, the contemporary opinion.

He doesn't do well on the HOF standards for the same reasons that his regular stats don't look good, but WS sees him being good-because of the low run context he played in. It seems strange to me that you said before it is necessasry to take into account context (even forgetting about parks for a moment-Wynn played in a huge pitchers era as well), and yet in the case with HOF Standards you refuse to recognize that the only reason he doens't do well there is because of the context he played under. As it is, he already scores at 30, not a level at which it is unheard of to get into the HOF.

He doesn't do well on Black and Gray Ink of the park he played in, and the fact his skill set is horrible for acculating them the way they are set up. They will penalize well rounded players whose value is not easily summarized in the triple crown statistics (BA/HR/RBI) which is exactly what Wynn was. I know you don't agree, but I find such measures to be hardly useful at all, and a player like Jimmy Wynn exemplifies their uselessness.

Contemporary opinion is one that I agree when tallking about the HOF (though perhaps not necessarily the BBFHOF, if we're trying to get deserving and not famous players), should be given some weight. Wynn did not garner a huge force of impression on observers in his time. I still think this is a largely unfair way to look at him. Wynn's skill set was one that was hardly appreciated by anyone at the time, and even still today is not appreciated by the masses. Such a player will never get the credit he deserves. Should we abide by the mistakes of the past, letting their obvious mistakes inform our decisions, or try to right their wrongs by realizing they were just wrong? I go with the latter option, and have been struggling since I came here trying to figure out why so many choose the former. Wynn also played on a bad, bad horrible team, and when playing on such teams it is hard to get MVP support. When he finally did play for a winner in 1974, he finished 5th in the vote.

My point is not that Jimmy Wynn was not regarded to be very good. He was regarded to be an extremely exciting player, the star of the expansion Astros, the face of the franchise. He was a tremendous power/speed guy, a coloful personaility, and beloved by the Houston fans. He was given the nickname "The Toy Cannon" for his moonshot HRs and very powerful arm. He holds the record for the longest HR in Crosley Field History, which he hit in 1967. Nonetheless, he did not get the respect he deserved.

Also, as to your point about Wynn's home/road splits, it is also important to remember when using such splits that players generally will do better at home by 5%. Going by OPS, a good quick indicator in this case, Wynn did 4.46% better at home. He actually fell short of his expectation by 0.54%. I really think you have to look at what the big problem is here. Your problem is the 1% advantage the park factors give him that a home/road split analysis would not?

538280

08-06-2006, 07:50 PM

jalbright

08-06-2006, 07:58 PM

Chris

I don't know what the reason is, but you simply don't get my point. When I use the exact approach I use for everyone else, Jimmy Wynn doesn't come out good enough. Win Shares and the sabermetric measures may say he's a HOFer, but just barely IMO. What you're asking me to do is throw away my whole approach for Jimmy Wynn based solely on the win share verdict when I've found this approach yields more satisfactory results than win shares alone. First of all, if I had unwavering confidence in Win Shares alone, do you think I'd even be using the other measures? Second, if I don't have unwavering confidence in the precision of the sabermetric measure, why should I toss out the other measures for a guy the sabermetric measure (which is at least 70% of the evaluation I apply to everyone BTW) tells me is a marginal candidate. When he's a marginal candidate, league leaderships (the inks) and contemporary opinion (the all-star appearances and MVP shares) are things I find exceptionally valuable in crystallizing my opinion. Since the alleged reason to do this is the Astrodome, Wynn's home/road splits are relevant--and his road marks frankly work against the argument he was a great one. Your argument IMO boils down to he wasn't a HOFer on the road (and thus in neutral parks), his home stats are unimpressive, but the park was so godawful tough that I should also ignore the contemporary opinion that he wasn't a great one because sabermetrics is so precise that I have to trust implicitly its verdict that he belongs in, though as a marginal candidate. Sorry, no sale.

538280

08-06-2006, 08:37 PM

jalbright

08-06-2006, 09:48 PM

And your approach is certainly your choice. But the key is, I've found this overall approach yields the most satisfactory results from my subjective viewpoint. I recognize the issues regarding Jimmy Wynn, and if he had played better on the road or had received more recognition in terms of all-star appearances or MVP award shares or even if win shares had him as better than a marginal candidate, then I might well have sufficient reason to make an exception in his case. But none of those pieces of the puzzle are there, so I am not inclined to do so.

Jim Albright

jalbright

08-07-2006, 09:45 AM

Voting status as of Honus Wagner's ballot

Player votes counted: 13
Projected total votes for players: 24
Projected votes needed for election of player: 18

Only presenting players with at least 8 votes. Anybody with 7 would have to run the table, and less than that, well, lightning isn't likely to strike them this month.

Player................Votes..........%............ .projected................chance
Carey................. 9..............69.2......... ......16..........................54
Harimoto..............9..............69.2......... ... ...16..........................54
Sutton.................9.............69.2......... .......12..........................27
Wright.................9..............69.2........ . ......19..........................94
Doerr...................8.............61.5........ .........14..........................14
Lyons..................8.............61.5......... .. .....17..........................63
Welch..................8.............61.5........ ........15..........................32

Contributor votes counted: 11
projected total votes for contributors: 21
projected votes for election of contributor: 16

Only presenting candidates with at least 7 votes. Anybody with six has to run the table, and less than that requires almost a miracle for election this month.

Contributor...........votes,,,,,,,,,,,%........... .projected...............chance
O'Neil.......................9...........81.8..... ............12........................44
Jennings...................8...........72.7....... .........15........................72
Taylor......................7...........63.6...... . .........13........................32

The "votes" category in each table is the official vote count as of the time cited above, and the % is the percentage of votes counted as of that same time. The "projected" is the sum of votes already gotten plus the number of votes received from last month's voters whose votes have not yet been counted this month. The chance is a percentage estimate of the individual's chance of being elected this month.

Jim Albright

jalbright

08-09-2006, 09:55 AM

New rule, effective this month.

The idea of this project has always been that each member will cast his or her own individual ballot without creating voting blocs a la "Survivor". If I become aware of violations of this concept, they will be dealt with. Toward that end, if there is more than one vote being cast from any one computer or IP, it must be cleared in advance, or only the first vote will be counted. I only anticipate exceptions for family members living in the same home, like the Chancellor and the Wizard, but I will entertain requests on other bases. Please note that I and the other mods who participate in the project have the capability of determining the IP from which posts come, and I for one intend to monitor same.

Jim Albright

jalbright

08-12-2006, 10:03 AM

August is not yet half over, and already it's been quite a month here at BBF for me. It started out nicely enough, with an invitation to become a moderator. I accepted, and have been invested with a significant amount of power, but given a lot of responsibility too. Taking care of spammers is actually a pleasure--I'm doing something I wished I could do before, and it's good for the folks who actually care about the site.

However, little did I know my newfound powers would lead me to a dark and unpleasant fact about our own little project. I had thought I noticed some odd patterns in voting before, but I passed it off as the product of working in the accident insurance industry, where it is commonplace for people to try and cheat. Then some circumstances I won't recount so as to avoid tipping off the wrongdoer where he tripped up caused me to use one of my newfound powers--checking the IP from which posts were made. Lo and behold, a set of votes submitted this month came from the same computer. I examined the names and thought surely there must be some rational explanation. I compared the votes of these names over the time I've run the project, and they were remarkably similar. Now I had a problem on my hands.

I decided that whatever the reason, I cannot and will not abide such shenanigans if I am aware of them. If I turned a blind eye to this and kept quiet, I'd be allowing someone to get away with perpetrating a fraud on all of us who have abided by the concept that the only politicking permissible in this project is above board stumping for favored candidates. I would sooner shut the project down or leave it entirely after letting the rest of you know the facts rather than turn a blind eye to such a fraud. I quickly informed my fellow mods in this project as well as one other trusted member, and began deciding how to handle this. Only the other mods and I know the names involved (other than the perpetrator[s]). None of us wanted to believe this was all the work of one person, especially given the names involved. We were a little unsure at first what to do if it was a group of conspirators rather than one poster. I think we've swung around to the idea we cannot tolerate conspiracies of this type if they come to light, but unfortunately, further investigation into the computers used by this group of names has led us rather conclusively to the belief that this is the work of one individual.

This deceptive behavior has gone on for some time, because the names were added slowly, and there were cosmetic differences between the ballots. That said, this set of ballots was not large enough to do anything more than put a candidate within range of two changed minds in the rest of the group over the top. They could create a bit of artificial momentum for candidates, and while that has its impact, I can't see undoing what has gone before over that. However, they were numerous enough to have an effective veto over candidates they did not approve.

The group of voters has been confronted with the facts I have learned through my investigation, and their responses sought. They have not replied within the deadline set. I will consider any responses if and when I get them. It is possible the other moderators will permanently ban all but one of the names, but that has yet to be decided as a write this.

So what to do? I've decided that 1) none of the group's ballots count this month; 2) only one member of that group will be allowed to return next month; 3) the previous election results will stand; 4) there is a new rule prohibiting multiple votes from a single IP without advance permission, 5) I have checked all votes this month and those I expect to be cast this month, and there are no other similar plots out there that I can detect, and 6) I will monitor future new voters for several months to see if they show a connection to any of the past or present voters here. If I'm seeing a dismissed voter or an impermissible duplicate, the newcomer will be summarily dismissed.

I will not be revealing the name(s) involved, but if any of the dismissed parties tries to submit another ballot (or anyone from those IPs does), I will delete it such that everyone can see who did it. First of all, if it turns out for some unforseen reason I have acted hastily, no one will be damaged. Further, the nature of cyberspace makes it virtually impossible to keep this individual from participating if he really works at it, and that is a major reason he will be permitted to continue. He certainly has demonstrated the willingness to work at it. Another reason is the admonition from the Godfather movies to keep one's enemies close, so that you can keep an eye on them. In one way, I'd like to out the rascal, but if he chose to stay, that would be unduly divisive. I hope this turns out to be the best choice. However, he has been informed that votes by any other names from computers associated with him will not only cause the other name to be banned, it will also be cause for his banishment. I would also consider naming names if there is any further trouble from this set of Ips.

The span of time this disappointing state of affairs has existed is a major reason I won't invalidate earlier results. Also, the group was small enough that almost all the candidates who have been elected to date would make it into our Hall either now or in the very near future given the significant amount of support they received from outside the voters in question. We also have had voters come and go, so we can never replicate the group of voters at the time of most if not all of the deceptive votes. Also, since I have only been in this position a few months, I would have to recalculate by hand the results for the entire span of the deception. I think there is little to be gained by such an exercise, and much to be lost. We might have to reopen old wounds on topics such as Negro Leaguers or Japanese players, among others. I don't want to go there.

So, we will see a drop in our membership. However, remember that not necessarily all the names who leave are implicated in this plot. There may be other, more common reasons why a voter drops out. Additionally, right now I have some ballots I cannot count because the participants have not provided the proper number of names. They have been notified of the discrepancy, and I expect them to rectify these trivial errors.

Sorry to be the bearer of such bad tidings, but I promise to do my best to run an honest project.

Jim Albright

jalbright

08-13-2006, 08:00 AM

Rather than do my usual post on the state of the voting, I think we'll change something in view of the loss of some long time votes as well as the addition/return of several voters. As things stand, there are only two players with any significant chance of election (the two with twelve votes thus far), and even they need someone to change their mind or to go three for three in the votes I still anticipate seeing this month. When it comes to players, one party who has been PMd about the fact his player ballot contains only twenty names and therefore that portion of the ballot is currently invalid is one of the three voters I anticipate yet this month. There are two people I still expect to see submit both player and contributor ballots, one of whom missed last month due to the change in the usual schedule because of my vacation. We're very likely to get one contributor as it stands (O'Neil), and another will make it if he gets the remaining votes (Jennings).

I know some folks plan their votes based at least on candidates who have momentum and/or 50% or more of the vote. All the upheaval of this month removed the basis for some of those votes, and I think this might be a good time for people who made votes for these reasons to at least consider changing some of them. Therefore, I will list all candidates who currently have 50% or more of the vote and would be the ones most likely to be able to be elected by virtue of a change of a vote or two.

Players--17 votes cast, 3 more anticipated
Albert Belle--11 received
Max Carey--12
Bobby Doerr--10
Don Drysdale--10
Isao Harimoto--10
Ted Lyons--11
Don Sutton--11
Mickey Welch--9
George Wright--12

Contributors--15 votes cast, 2 more anticipated
Hughie Jennings--11 received
Buck O'Neill--13
C. I. Taylor--9

If anyone wants to change their votes, please PM me with the change(s). Thanks.

Jim Albright

jalbright

08-13-2006, 08:18 AM

Today is finally the day (I've been semi counting them down). The Jimmy Wynn page (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/jimmy_wynn/) has opened up on the BBTF Hall of Merit. Wynn very well may (in time probably will) get himself elected there. Hopefully that will get more people to open their eyes to this tremendous but unlucky in context player.

I don't detect a huge groundswell of support for him in that thread. Even if I'm just missing the groundswell if it's there, one poster at BBTF made an important point about Wynn: he didn't have a very long career. His 8010 plate appearances was 82nd among outfielders as of 1997 per the Bill James Baseball Encyclopedia.

Jim Albright

538280

08-13-2006, 09:02 AM

I don't detect a huge groundswell of support for him in that thread. Even if I'm just missing the groundswell if it's there, one poster at BBTF made an important point about Wynn: he didn't have a very long career. His 8010 plate appearances was 82nd among outfielders as of 1997 per the Bill James Baseball Encyclopedia.

Jim Albright

Yeah, Wynn did burn out early. When he was playing though.....watch out! 82nd is games played from OF is not bad anyway. Dividing that by 3 will give you a good idea where he stands among CFers, and that will get him to about 27th. 27th isn't that that far from the HOF anyway, and considering Wynn's case is mostly on peak and prime anyway, rating 27th for longevity is not so bad.

Another thing to remember about Wynn is how exciting a player he was viewed to be in his time. Many people around here have labeled him as a one dimensional sluggish slugger. This could not be further from the truth. Wynn was like players in the class of Darryl Strawberry, Bobby Bonds, and Eric Davis. Players who hit for a low batting average, but got on base a lot with walks and were extremely exciting with their fielding play, huge monster HRs, and stolen bases. Tal Smith, former Astros GM, once called Wynn the most exciting player in the game. He was given a very colorful nickname, the "The Toy Cannon" for hitting mooshot HRs (which he did-in 1967, when he was in a famed race with Hank Aaron for the HR crown, he hit a ball off the very top of the scoreboard in Crosley Field, which set the record for longest HR there and stood until the park closed in 1970. He also became the first batter ever to hit a ball into the upper deck of the Astrodome in 1970, and that spot was marked with a Cannon througout the rest of the Astrodome's time as a park, to commemorate him). He also had a cannon for an arm, and was a small man, 5'9'', 170 lbs, so "the Toy Cannon" was an apt nickname.

Before the 1971 season, Wynn was celebrating his anniversary with his wife, when he was stabbed by her. He went into the season not feeling too well an slumped the whole year. He had a pretty good year in '72 but then slumped in '73 and was traded to the Dodgers. He became the piece to get them over the top as they went to the '74 World Series and Wynn was the Comeback Player of the Year (though he certanly deserved the MVP over his teammate Steve Garvey).

Wynn got his number retired by the Houston Astros a few years ago and is today a treasurer in the MLB Player's Allumni Association. He even received a commendation (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/784/billtext/HR00215F.HTM) from the Texas Legislature for his career.

That's just a little background on Jimmy Wynn. There is of course a lot more, these are some online articles:

http://www.astrosdaily.com/files/team/wynn/wynn.html

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/blast-from-the-past-jimmy-wynn/

http://www.thetoycannon.com/
(http://www.thetoycannon.com/)
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/keating_2003-03-27_0/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_3_62/ai_96992903

jalbright

08-13-2006, 09:25 AM

Given my request for people to reconsider their ballots in view of developments, I think it only fair to post the entire status of the vote at present. Remember, 17 votes counted, three more anticipated:

Players Alphabetical Players votes
Name votes % Name votes %
Andujar, Joacquin 1 5.9 Carey, Max 12 70.6
Aparicio, Luis 3 17.6 Wright, George 12 70.6
Bando, Sal 1 5.9 Belle, Albert 11 64.7
Barnes, Ross 6 35.3 Lyons, Ted 11 64.7
Beckley, Jake 5 29.4 Sutton, Don 11 64.7
Beckwith, John 3 17.6 Doerr, Bobby 10 58.8
Bell, George 1 5.9 Drysdale, Don 10 58.8
Belle, Albert 11 64.7 Harimoto, Isao 10 58.8
Bender, Chief 1 5.9 Welch, Mickey 9 52.9
Bennett, Charlie 3 17.6 Duffy, Hugh 8 47.1
Bessho, Akira 1 5.9 Fingers, Rollie 8 47.1
Bond, Tommy 1 5.9 Freehan, Bill 8 47.1
Bonds, Bobby 3 17.6 Parker, Dave 8 47.1
Boyer, Ken 5 29.4 Redding, Dick 8 47.1
Brown, Willard 5 29.4 Sutter, Bruce 8 47.1
Browning, Pete 7 41.2 Browning, Pete 7 41.2
Buffinton, Charlie 1 5.9 Klein, Chuck 7 41.2
Bunning, Jim 3 17.6 Mays, Carl 7 41.2
Carey, Max 12 70.6 Rice, Jim 7 41.2
Carter, Joe 1 5.9 Barnes, Ross 6 35.3
Caruthers, Bob 6 35.3 Caruthers, Bob 6 35.3
Cedeno, Cesar 1 5.9 Ferrell, Wes 6 35.3
Cepeda, Orlando 3 17.6 Flick, Elmer 6 35.3
Cepeda, Perucho 1 5.9 Joss, Addie 6 35.3
Cey, Ron 1 5.9 Martinez, Edgar 6 35.3
Chesbro, Jack 1 5.9 Rice, Sam 6 35.3
Clark, Will 4 23.5 Ruffing, Red 6 35.3
Corcoran, Larry 1 5.9 Whitaker, Lou 6 35.3
Cummings, Candy 1 5.9 Beckley, Jake 5 29.4
Cuyler, Kiki 1 5.9 Boyer, Ken 5 29.4
Day, Leon 3 17.6 Brown, Willard 5 29.4
Doerr, Bobby 10 58.8 Hill, Pete 5 29.4
Doyle, Larry 1 5.9 McGriff, Fred 5 29.4
Drysdale, Don 10 58.8 Wilson, Hack 5 29.4
Duffy, Hugh 8 47.1 Clark, Will 4 23.5
Evans, Darrell 4 23.5 Evans, Darrell 4 23.5
Faber, Red 2 11.8 Fox, Nellie 4 23.5
Fernandez, Tony 1 5.9 Grimes, Burleigh 4 23.5
Ferrell, Wes 6 35.3 Inao, Kazuhisa 4 23.5
Fingers, Rollie 8 47.1 Manush, Heinie 4 23.5
Flick, Elmer 6 35.3 Quisenberry, Dan 4 23.5
Fox, Nellie 4 23.5 Smith, Hilton 4 23.5
Freehan, Bill 8 47.1 Starffin, Victor 4 23.5
Glasscock, Jack 3 17.6 Aparicio, Luis 3 17.6
Gomez, Lefty 2 11.8 Beckwith, John 3 17.6
Gore, George 1 5.9 Bennett, Charlie 3 17.6
Grant, Frank 2 11.8 Bonds, Bobby 3 17.6
Grimes, Burleigh 4 23.5 Bunning, Jim 3 17.6
Groh, Heinie 2 11.8 Cepeda, Orlando 3 17.6
Harimoto, Isao 10 58.8 Day, Leon 3 17.6
Hecker, Guy 1 5.9 Glasscock, Jack 3 17.6
Hernandez, Keith 3 17.6 Hernandez, Keith 3 17.6
Herr, Tommy 1 5.9 Kelley, Joe 3 17.6
Hill, Pete 5 29.4 Mattingly, Don 3 17.6
Howard, Frank 1 5.9 McCormick, Jim 3 17.6
Inao, Kazuhisa 4 23.5 McPhee, Bid 3 17.6
John, Tommy 2 11.8 Perez, Tony 3 17.6
Johnson, Bob 1 5.9 Rixey, Eppa 3 17.6
Johnson, Judy 2 11.8 Roush, Edd 3 17.6
Joss, Addie 6 35.3 Stephens, Vern 3 17.6
Kaat, Jim 1 5.9 Wallace, Bobby 3 17.6
Kell, George 1 5.9 Wynn, Jimmy 3 17.6
Kelley, Joe 3 17.6 Faber, Red 2 11.8
Kingman, Dave 1 5.9 Gomez, Lefty 2 11.8
Klein, Chuck 7 41.2 Grant, Frank 2 11.8
Kuenn, Harvey 1 5.9 Groh, Heinie 2 11.8
Lombardi, Ernie 1 5.9 John, Tommy 2 11.8
Lyons, Ted 11 64.7 Johnson, Judy 2 11.8
Manush, Heinie 4 23.5 Mathews, Bobby 2 11.8
Martinez, Edgar 6 35.3 Mazeroski, Bill 2 11.8
Mathews, Bobby 2 11.8 McVey, Cal 2 11.8
Mattingly, Don 3 17.6 Mendez, Jose 2 11.8
Mays, Carl 7 41.2 Ryan, Jimmy 2 11.8
Mazeroski, Bill 2 11.8 Smith, Lee 2 11.8
McCormick, Jim 3 17.6 Stieb, Dave 2 11.8
McGee, Willie 1 5.9 Tiant, Luis 2 11.8
McGriff, Fred 5 29.4 Andujar, Joacquin 1 5.9
McKean, Ed 1 5.9 Bando, Sal 1 5.9
McPhee, Bid 3 17.6 Bell, George 1 5.9
McVey, Cal 2 11.8 Bender, Chief 1 5.9
Mendez, Jose 2 11.8 Bessho, Akira 1 5.9
Moore, Dobie 1 5.9 Bond, Tommy 1 5.9
Morris, Jack 1 5.9 Buffinton, Charlie 1 5.9
Mullane, Tony 1 5.9 Carter, Joe 1 5.9
Nettles, Graig 1 5.9 Cedeno, Cesar 1 5.9
Ochiai, Hiromitsu 1 5.9 Cepeda, Perucho 1 5.9
O'Neil, Tip 1 5.9 Cey, Ron 1 5.9
Parker, Dave 8 47.1 Chesbro, Jack 1 5.9
Pendleton, Terry 1 5.9 Corcoran, Larry 1 5.9
Perez, Tony 3 17.6 Cummings, Candy 1 5.9
Porter, Darrell 1 5.9 Cuyler, Kiki 1 5.9
Quisenberry, Dan 4 23.5 Doyle, Larry 1 5.9
Redding, Dick 8 47.1 Fernandez, Tony 1 5.9
Rice, Jim 7 41.2 Gore, George 1 5.9
Rice, Sam 6 35.3 Hecker, Guy 1 5.9
Richardson, Hardy 1 5.9 Herr, Tommy 1 5.9
Rixey, Eppa 3 17.6 Howard, Frank 1 5.9
Rosen, Al 1 5.9 Johnson, Bob 1 5.9
Roush, Edd 3 17.6 Kaat, Jim 1 5.9
Ruffing, Red 6 35.3 Kell, George 1 5.9
Ryan, Jimmy 2 11.8 Kingman, Dave 1 5.9
Schalk, Ray 1 5.9 Kuenn, Harvey 1 5.9
Sewell, Joe 1 5.9 Lombardi, Ernie 1 5.9
Smith, Hilton 4 23.5 McGee, Willie 1 5.9
Smith, Lee 2 11.8 McKean, Ed 1 5.9
Starffin, Victor 4 23.5 Moore, Dobie 1 5.9
Start, Joe 1 5.9 Morris, Jack 1 5.9
Stephens, Vern 3 17.6 Mullane, Tony 1 5.9
Stewart, Dave 1 5.9 Nettles, Graig 1 5.9
Stieb, Dave 2 11.8 Ochiai, Hiromitsu 1 5.9
Sutter, Bruce 8 47.1 O'Neil, Tip 1 5.9
Sutton, Don 11 64.7 Pendleton, Terry 1 5.9
Tannehill, Jesse 1 5.9 Porter, Darrell 1 5.9
Tiant, Luis 2 11.8 Richardson, Hardy 1 5.9
Van Haltren,Geo 1 5.9 Rosen, Al 1 5.9
Veach, Bobby 1 5.9 Schalk, Ray 1 5.9
Wallace, Bobby 3 17.6 Sewell, Joe 1 5.9
Welch, Mickey 9 52.9 Start, Joe 1 5.9
Whitaker, Lou 6 35.3 Stewart, Dave 1 5.9
White, Will 1 5.9 Tannehill, Jesse 1 5.9
Wilson, Hack 5 29.4 Van Haltren, Geo 1 5.9
Wright, George 12 70.6 Veach, Bobby 1 5.9
Wynn, Jimmy 3 17.6 White, Will 1 5.9
Yonamine, Wally 1 5.9 Yonamine, Wally 1 5.9

jalbright

08-13-2006, 09:32 AM

And now for the contributor side of the ballot, remembering we have 15 votes counted and two more anticipated:

Contributors Alphabetical Contributors Votes
Name votes % Name votes %
Ashford, Emmett 1 6.7 O'Neil, Buck 13 86.7
Autry, Gene 1 6.7 Jennings, Hughie 11 73.3
Barlick, Al 3 20.0 Taylor, C.I. 9 60.0
Bolden, Ed 4 26.7 Canel, Buck 6 40.0
Bouton, Jim 1 6.7 Caray, Harry 6 40.0
Brickhouse, Jack 1 6.7 Krichell, Paul 6 40.0
Buck, Jack 2 13.3 Scully, Vin 6 40.0
Busch, Augie 1 6.7 Weiss, George 6 40.0
Canel, Buck 6 40.0 Martin, Billy 5 33.3
Caray, Harry 6 40.0 Steinbrenner, George 5 33.3
Carey, Skip 1 6.7 Bolden, Ed 4 26.7
Chandler, Happy 2 13.3 Chylak, Nestor 4 26.7
Chylak, Nestor 4 26.7 Doucet, Jacques 4 26.7
Conlan, Jocko 3 20.0 Flood, Curt 4 26.7
Dineen, Bill 1 6.7 Foster, John B. 4 26.7
Doucet, Jacques 4 26.7 Jobe, Frank 4 26.7
Evans, Billy 2 13.3 Lardner, Ring 4 26.7
Flood, Curt 4 26.7 O'Doul, Lefty 4 26.7
Feller, Sherm 1 6.7 Barlick, Al 3 20.0
Foster, John B. 4 26.7 Conlan, Jocko 3 20.0
Frick, Ford 3 20.0 Frick, Ford 3 20.0
Fullerton, Hugh 2 13.3 Johnson, Davey 3 20.0
Greenlee, Gus 1 6.7 Mazzone, Leo 3 20.0
Grimm, Charlie 2 13.3 Buck, Jack 2 13.3
Haak, Howie 1 6.7 Chandler, Happy 2 13.3
Harris, Bucky 1 6.7 Evans, Billy 2 13.3
Harris, Vic 2 13.3 Fullerton, Hugh 2 13.3
Harvey, Doug 2 13.3 Grimm, Charlie 2 13.3
Hubbard, Cal 1 6.7 Harris, Vic 2 13.3
Jennings, Hughie 11 73.3 Harvey, Doug 2 13.3
Jobe, Frank 4 26.7 Mutrie, Jim 2 13.3
Johnson, Davey 3 20.0 Pesky, Johnny 2 13.3
Kelly, Tom 1 6.7 Piniella, Lou 2 13.3
Krichell, Paul 6 40.0 Rice, Grantland 2 13.3
Kuhn, Bowie 1 6.7 Ritter, Lawrence 2 13.3
Lardner, Ring 4 26.7 Schuerholtz, John 2 13.3
MacPhail, Lee 1 6.7 Sheppard, Bob 2 13.3
Martin, Billy 5 33.3 Shoriki, Matsutaro 2 13.3
Mazzone, Leo 3 20.0 Thayer, Ernest 2 13.3
Mills, A.G. 1 6.7 Tsuruoka, Kazuto 2 13.3
Mizuhara, Shigeru 1 6.7 Yawkey, Tom 2 13.3
Mutrie, Jim 2 13.3 Ashford, Emmett 1 6.7
Norworth, Jack 1 6.7 Autry, Gene 1 6.7
O'Doul, Lefty 4 26.7 Bouton, Jim 1 6.7
O'Neil, Buck 13 86.7 Brickhouse, Jack 1 6.7
Pasquel, Jorge 1 6.7 Busch, Augie 1 6.7
Patkin, Max 1 6.7 Carey, Skip 1 6.7
Pesky, Johnny 2 13.3 Dineen, Bill 1 6.7
Piniella, Lou 2 13.3 Feller, Sherm 1 6.7
Ramirez, Felo 1 6.7 Greenlee, Gus 1 6.7
Reach, A.J. 1 6.7 Haak, Howie 1 6.7
Rice, Grantland 2 13.3 Harris, Bucky 1 6.7
Richards, Paul 1 6.7 Hubbard, Cal 1 6.7
Ritter, Lawrence 2 13.3 Kelly, Tom 1 6.7
Schoendienst, Red 1 6.7 Kuhn, Bowie 1 6.7
Schuerholtz, John 2 13.3 MacPhail, Lee 1 6.7
Scully, Vin 6 40.0 Mills, A.G. 1 6.7
Sheppard, Bob 2 13.3 Mizuhara, Shigeru 1 6.7
Shoriki, Matsutaro 2 13.3 Norworth, Jack 1 6.7
Smith, Red 1 6.7 Pasquel, Jorge 1 6.7
Steinbrenner, George 5 33.3 Patkin, Max 1 6.7
Taylor, C.I. 9 60.0 Ramirez, Felo 1 6.7
Thayer, Ernest 2 13.3 Reach, A.J. 1 6.7
Tsuruoka, Kazuto 2 13.3 Richards, Paul 1 6.7
Tyson, Ty 1 6.7 Schoendienst, Red 1 6.7
Weiss, George 6 40.0 Smith, Red 1 6.7
Weyer, Lee 1 6.7 Tyson, Ty 1 6.7
Yawkey, Tom 2 13.3 Weyer, Lee 1 6.7

jalbright

08-13-2006, 12:51 PM

One thing from the above posts which jumps out at me is significant evidence the contributor side of the ballot is winding down. Three guys above 50%, and five more at 40%, then down to a third or less. Maybe this will sort itself out in a month or two after the developments of this month, but if it doesn't, we may have to consider cutting back on the frequency of votes for that side of the ballot. I don't see an urgent need to do anything, but I thought I'd mention it.

Jim Albright

catcher24

08-15-2006, 01:23 PM

jalbright

08-15-2006, 01:35 PM

Just a comment on Jim's decision not to backtrack and recount due to the recently discovered shenanigans perpetrated by our Hydra (many headed) voter. I believe Jim made the correct decision to leave the prior elections stand. I would estimate that maybe two or three players got elected based on the Hydra's votes, but I honestly don't believe it was much more than that. The work involved, as well as the potential to reopen old wounds and aggressions in the Rose/Jackson debates (as Jim points out on the Timeline HOF thread), simply aren't worth it. Let's just all be sorry someone found it necessary to manipulate our election, trust that no one else sinks to that level again, and move forward with the project.

As I think I indicated earlier, I really think there are few players who were put over the top at the time by the Hydra who wouldn't be in by now. I suspect at least most of the ones who might still be on the outside are ones with the potential to cause trouble: Rose, Joe Jackson, some Negro Leaguers, and some Japanese players are examples. Even so, all of them had to receive more than a majority of the legitimate votes cast to be elected. If we are to plow this ground again, the only thing that makes sense to me is that the candidates must be confirmed with 75% or more of the vote.

However, if others feel differently, I am more than willing to hear their side on this--you may have thought of something I have not in this regard.

I have taken steps to try and prevent this from happening again--but that's no guarantee another like minded soul won't be devious enough and patient enough to avoid detection in the steps I intend to take to try and prevent this. I think the steps I will take should prevent it in most cases, but I have no intention of making prevention of such abuses my life's work and that introduces a weakness in the defenses against them.

Jim Albright