Mock First HOF election - this year!

[Appling]

Imagine that the concept of a Baseball Hall of Fame was just invented, and you get to vote for the inaugural class of 2007. You can choose up to ten players from the list of everyone who every played the game and is now either retired or deceased. (NO ACTIVE PLAYERS PLEASE!)

I will provide a list of candidates -- every first ballot selection by the BBWAA plus a few other "special cases" (such as the entire class of 1937).

With such a long list, I wonder how many we will elect on the first ballot. Surely we won't agree on the top ten, but perhaps 75% of us will agree on the top five or six!

I suspect that a few actual first-ballot HOFers won't get ANY votes in this poll. (Boggs? Eckersley? Gwynn? Koufax?)

[THE OX]

What the heck.... Count me in!

[DoubleX]

Funny, I was just thinking of doing something similar, but I was thinking of starting back in 1936 so to not be too overloaded with candidates, but with some revamped rules.

[abacab]

One notable name not on the list is Grove. I might have picked him. (Oops, now I see there's an "other" option - should've taken a little more time)

The ten players I picked are not necessarily who I think are the ten best players of all time. I tried to pick players with historical significance, who were truly unique players. That's why I picked Speaker but not Mantle. Though I'm already having second thoughts about that.

As a result, my list is skewed towards the early days. I only voted for two players who started their careers after WWII. I think if the Hall started now, you have to honor the true pioneers first.

[vtbub]

That was exceptionally tough.

[milladrive]

This is terrific. I think we can have some fun with this methodology. I'm already looking forward to the tenth ballot! Nice goin', Luke. :D

[Sockeye]

Write in: Jimmie Foxx
Write in: Mel Ott

[milladrive]

Actually, I found my ten relatively easily from this list. :)

P.S. I didn't vote "other" because perhaps it can be added later, but I think Pete Rose and Joe Jackson should eligible for the BBF HoF. Perhaps on the second ballot? There are also several Negro Leaguers I'd like to see show up.

[DoubleX]

Isn't this kind of just repeating the BBF Hall of Fame project that's been ongoing now for several years? The rules are slightly different, but the spirit is the same, especially at the starting point in which both this and the BBF Hall of Fame were working with all of baseball history to that juncture.

[Colorado Express]

1. Aaron
2. Cobb
3. Gehrig
4. Johnson
5. Mantle
6. Mathewson
7. Mays
8. Musial
9. Ruth
10. Williams

[Westlake]

Isn't this kind of just repeating the BBF Hall of Fame project that's been ongoing now for several years? The rules are slightly different, but the spirit is the same, especially at the starting point in which both this and the BBF Hall of Fame were working with all of baseball history to that juncture.

This is true. I wouldn't want this to overshadow something that has been going on for so long.

[jalbright]

I'll leave it to others to decide whether this project is too much of an interference with the BBF HOF project, which, out of full disclosure, I must note I run. However, if people really want to help the other project, come and participate in the other project rather than carp about this one. We're down to 15 voters last month, and can use the input if there's interest. On the other hand, there may be a reason we're down to 15 voters--we've elected most of the guys who really inspire a great deal of passion and/or have a realistic chance of getting 75% of that project's votes. My own view is that if the users want both projects to succeed, they'll find a way for that to happen. If the users choose between them, I suspect their choice is the one that's best for the forum as a whole. If both die, I have to question how much the idea in that form continues to motivate our users.

My one concern is how this project works with the annual mock elections starting in 1979. I suspect there are enough differences between the two that both can survive, but I would encourage the leaders of both projects to talk to each other about ways they can work together to help both projects survive. If there's anything I can do to help the other two HOF projects, I'm open to suggestions. I will say I'm voting in all three.

Jim Albright

[Appling]

Write in: Jimmie Foxx
Write in: Mel OttSorry that I missed these two. My bad.

I noticed the Foxx omission soon after my posting but I hadn't noticed my Mel Ott omission until now.

Part of my confusion is that neither Foxx nor Ott was elected on his first ballot. (There was no requirement of five years retired at that time.) Foxx was elected six years after retirement and Ott just four years after his retirement.

Foxx retired after the 1945 season. Ott retired after 1947. Foxx got 50 votes iin 1948, 89 in 1949, and 103 in 1950, before achieving 75% in 1951.
Ott received 94 votes in 1949 and 115 votes in 1950 before his election (also in 1951).

Similar issue with Lefty Grove: retired after the 1941 season and elected in 1947, but he received 12 votes in the 1936 election while he was still an active player.

Of course my poll dioes not require the players to be first-ballot HOFers -- or even HOF of any kind.

[Appling]

My one concern is how this project works with the annual mock elections starting in 1979. I suspect there are enough differences between the two that both can survive, but I would encourage the leaders of both projects to talk to each other about ways they can work together to help both projects survive. If there's anything I can do to help the other two HOF projects, I'm open to suggestions. I will say I'm voting in all three.

Jim Albright
I do not intend this poll to compete with the annual mock elections. Those IMO are much more important.

I intended this poll only as a one-time shot, to see how different the initial balloting might have been if it had been delayed for 70 years! Many more candidates. History changes things.

It would be confusing to carry on competing mock elections with the same candidates but different starting points. I don't propose to do that.

[dgarza]

Other = Hornsby

[THE OX]

Man, this one is TOUGH!!!

I'm inclined to vote for those whose careers took place at least partially during the part of my life since I became aware of Major League Baseball, which would go back to the mid-to-late 1950s. Add to those a few who are just so overpoweringly legendary as not to be dismissed, and that's who I voted for.

I could probably have voted for as few as 15 off this list without feeling I'd done a disservice to any of them, but cutting that down to 10 was tough indeed! And there are another dozen or so for whom I'd like to have voted who are not included in this list, such as Foxx and Hornsby and a few others who have been mentioned.

In a way, due to only having 65 years worth of players to consider than 135 years worth, those who chose the "real-life" initial HOF'ers had it a helluva lot easier than we with an additional 70 years of great players.

Wish we'd been allowed 25 or 30....(grumble, grumble....)

[KCGHOST]

To me this should be a "one-and-done" thread. Its only value is to show how tough it is for a group of voters to deal with too many qualified candidates. Also the lack of real 19th Century guys is a clear flaw.

[Appling]

So far, five players have reached the 75% level. Three others are over 60% and may still have a chance to make it!

So far, I count 246 votes from 25 voters. Nearly everybody is voting for ten players. Good job!

If the first ballot had to cover over 100 years of baseball, a ballot with 15 names might be more reasonable -- but I thought it might be fun to try: is it EASY or is it HARD to pick a "top ten" from this long list?

[Brooklyn]

If the first ballot had to cover over 100 years of baseball, a ballot with 15 names might be more reasonable -- but I thought it might be fun to try: is it EASY or is it HARD to pick a "top ten" from this long list?

I found it pretty easy to get to 7 or so (Aaron, Cobb, Johnson, Mays, Ruth, Williams, Wagner), and struggled with the last three.

The last three for me were more interchangeable. I thought pitchers were under represented and went with Mathewson. It is interesting that there would only be one pitcher in the top 10 right now, and no one else is really even close.

I went with Musial and Gehrig for the rest of my top ten, but those two could have been interchanged for me with several others.

[BoSox Rule]

I went with my top 10

Ruth
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Wagner
Musial
Johnson
Cobb
Young
Speaker

[Appling]

I went with my top 10

Ruth
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Wagner
Musial
Johnson
Cobb
Young
Speaker
You and I agreed on 8 of the ten, but I picked Mantle and Gehrig instead of Musial and Speaker.

[AG2004]

I voted for just seven candidates in the given list, and added three write-in votes.

In alphabetical order:

Hank Aaron
Oscar Charleston
Ty Cobb
Josh Gibson
Walter Johnson
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Satchel Paige
Babe Ruth
Honus Wagner


Several Negro Leaguers should have been included in the list as "special cases;" they played the game, too. Paige actually is a first-ballot electee to Cooperstown, as he was the first person selected by the Negro Leagues Committee in 1971.

[Defense Counts!]

How can Aaron, Cobb and Mays not be unanimous?

Those who didn't vote for these three, please explain yourselves ...:noidea

[MadHatter]

Write in... though I didn't think of it until AFTER I voted.

Joe Jackson

[Appling]

These write-in votes may keep guys like Gehrig, Wagner, Walter Johnson and Cy Young from "Making the cut". But that is just like real life!

[Johnny Evers]

That was VERY difficult - I originally checked 20 players and spent the past 20 minutes narrowing it down.

Alphabetically:

Aaron
Alexander
Cobb
Gehrig
Johnson
Matthewson
Mays
Ruth
Williams
Young

[AG2004]

These write-in votes may keep guys like Gehrig, Wagner, Walter Johnson and Cy Young from "Making the cut". But that is just like real life!

As someone who had three write-in votes on my ballot, I doubt that the write-in votes would keep them from making the cut. Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson made Bill James' top ten. While Satchel Paige was in James' second ten, one must admit that he is a candidate for the title of best pitcher of all time. People can disagree whether these three candidates belong in the top ten. However, I can't see how one can claim that they are terrible choices, unless one claims that Negro Leaguers shouldn't be considered for the initial ten - a position which I simply must reject.

I can also see how someone could legitimately put Hornsby in their top ten. I don't agree with the choice, but I don't see a vote for Hornsby as a big mistake. It's the same with Grove; I can see the argument for putting him in the initial class of ten. While I don't see Foxx and Ott as top ten material, they are much better than several players who received votes.

How could the likes of Boggs, Clemente, R. Jackson, McCovey, Murray, and B. Robinson possibly receive votes for membership in the initial group of ten? In my opinion, those are the votes that could keep the likes of Wagner and Walter Johnson out. I can't even imagine the arguments for all those players.

[Appling]

(1) I can also see how someone could legitimately put Hornsby in their top ten. I don't agree with the choice, but I don't see a vote for Hornsby as a big mistake. It's the same with Grove; I can see the argument for putting him in the initial class of ten. While I don't see Foxx and Ott as top ten material, they are much better than several players who received votes.

(2) How could the likes of Boggs, Clemente, R. Jackson, McCovey, Murray, and B. Robinson possibly receive votes for membership in the initial group of ten? In my opinion, those are the votes that could keep the likes of Wagner and Walter Johnson out.
(1) When I made my list of candidates, I assumed that everyone with a reasonable chance of making this long-delay "first HOF class" would himself have been a first-ballot choice in real life. Working from my own list of "first ballot" players, I inadvertantly left off some great players who were technically not first ballot: like Rogers Hornsby, Lefty Grove, Jimmie Foxx and Mel Ott. These are all players who had strong support from BBWAA writers even when retired just a year or two--but not strong enough to be elected that early. A vote for them is reasonable, even if a write-in.

My goal was to qualify perhaps six or seven players in this mock "first vote" to see if we could get a near consensus even though we each have only ten votes to "spend". That doesn't have to be your goal.

(2) Certainly I expect that other candidates, like Boggs, Clemente, Reggie Jackson and Eddie Murray -- are not likely to get 75% approval, and thus in a sense are wasted votes. But if they are on anyone's top ten list they deserve to be included here.

[AG2004]

(1) When I made my list of candidates, I assumed that everyone with a reasonable chance of making this long-delay "first HOF class" would himself have been a first-ballot choice in real life. Working from my own list of "first ballot" players, I inadvertantly left off some great players who were technically not first ballot: like Rogers Hornsby, Lefty Grove, Jimmie Foxx and Mel Ott. These are all players who had strong support from BBWAA writers even when retired just a year or two--but not strong enough to be elected that early. A vote for them is reasonable, even if a write-in.

(2) Certainly I expect that other candidates, like Boggs, Clemente, Reggie Jackson and Eddie Murray -- are not likely to get 75% approval, and thus in a sense are wasted votes. But if they are on anyone's top ten list they deserve to be included here.



I never claimed that votes for Boggs, Clemente, Jackson, and Murray were wasted votes. I implied that they were terrible votes - in contrast to Hornsby, Grove, and Charleston, for example - in the sense that I was unable to even imagine an argument for putting them in the top ten. As I claimed in my initial reply, a vote for Hornsby is reasonable.

Contrast Boggs, Clemente, etc. with Tom Seaver and Joe DiMaggio. The vote totals for Seaver and DiMaggio are in single digits, and neither candidate is likely to get 75% approval. However, I can both imagine and understand an argument that Seaver is the best pitcher ever (or at least the best retired pitcher ever), and therefore worth electing. I can understand why someone would vote for DiMaggio, even if I wouldn't agree with the choice. Thus, I don't see votes for Seaver and DiMaggio as terrible votes; I see them as reasonable.

That's why I was referring to the votes for the likes of Boggs, and not the write-in votes, as being the votes that could keep Wagner and Walter Johnson out.

I am curious, however. Just what is the argument for putting McCovey or Brooks Robinson in the top ten? That's something I would like to know.

-----

As for the first point, the assumption fails for all Negro League stars. Charleston, Gibson, and Paige could not have been elected by the BBWAA because they didn't play enough seasons in the majors; Charleston and Gibson didn't play in the major leagues at all. I have the same goal you do. However, the rules indicated that we were honoring baseball players, and I saw no grounds for leaving Negro Leaguers off my ballot if I felt they were worthy otherwise.

[Appling]

Actually we have pretty amazing agreement here. With a long list of qualified candidates and only ten names allowed per ballot, we have five players above the 75% needed for HOF election, and another 4 players between 60% and 74.9%. Nine of a possible ten are approved by 60% of the voters.