PDA

View Full Version : BBF Mock Veterans Committee Election: 1988


Freakshow
02-20-2007, 09:23 PM
Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock VC Election for 1988. The goal of this project is to conduct Hall of Fame VC elections from 1987-2001 (and perhaps beyond, as long as we’re still electing guys), as if we were the VC, and then compare our results to the actual results. However, these elections will not consider players already elected in BBF Mock BBWAA elections, such as Ashburn and Santo.

This post will provide two things:

1) The Format and Rules

2) A Guide for the 1988 Election

Format and Rules
- The HOF VC never published an actual ballot, and the results of their voting were not compiled for public consumption. At the same time, they rarely considered players who retired over 70 years ago, preferring guys they fondly remembered seeing. Thus, our focus will be towards 20th century players they should have been considering. Our ballot will allow them a 50-year window of retirees (1915-1964 for this election). This will eliminate most players whose careers began in the 19th century. As the actual VC did, we will consider those players in separate ballots 1995-2001. The VC was also giving short shrift to Negro league candidates at this time. Again, as the actual VC did, we will consider those players in separate ballots 1995-2001.

- We will have a 41-player ballot for this election, down from 45 in 1987. I will act as the screening committee. You can suggest other candidates, of course, and if I get a second for a candidate I’ll add him to the next ballot. This number will likely decline as we proceed with elections, but we will always list at least 25 candidates. Close attention will be paid to identifying candidates who are in their last two years of eligibility (1915-16 retirees for the 1988 election).

- Voters may vote for between 1-41 candidates; you’re free to support anyone you think is deserving of the Hall. Because we are electing only one player each time, voters will have complete freedom to support everyone they like. This policy is consistent with the VC rules in force at the time.

- A "None of the Above" option is not available. We operate under the premise that the continued existence of a veterans committee establishes a fait accompli, that it is an acknowledgment that there are worthy players who should be elected. Our mandate is to identify the best ones, so figure out which players deserve the honor and vote for them. (The words above the poll, “but at least five,” are a suggestion and not a requirement, that we might have a better chance of fulfilling our mandate and actually electing a few guys. I would ask that anyone who can't find five worthy candidates here to explain why, that we all might profit from your thought process.)

- 75% support or greater will elect a player, but only one player per year maximum. Exception: If two players with 75%+ tie for first place, they both will be enshrined. If three or more players with 75%+ tie for first, there will be a runoff election.

- Players will ensure their continuing on the ballot as long as they draw 5% (candidates failing to get 5% will sometimes be added back to the ballot to reach the 25-player minimum or if they’re deemed deserving of another chance). Players in their final year eligible will be allowed to continue beyond that as long as they receive 15% support. We’ll also give new candidates a chance to build some momentum: players drawing less than 5% may also continue on the ballot if their vote percentage equals or exceeds their years eligible minus 1%. Look at that in chart form:

Yr 1 needs 0%
Yr 2 needs 1%
Yr 3 needs 2%
Yr 4 needs 3%
Yr 5 needs 4%
Yr +5 needs 5%

- This thread is also meant to be a discussion thread, so please feel free to stump for and/or against players, including players that will come up for election in the following year.

- When figuring a candidate’s worthiness, everything counts, the sum of their lifetime in baseball. Some players have significant manager credit – Red Schoendienst, Gil Hodges, Alvin Dark and Fielder Jones. Others, like Lefty O’Doul, made contributions that nearly surpassed their playing career.

- The election will close exactly a week after it started. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

- IMPORTANT: There is some concern about voters defrauding this process by voting with multiple screen names. First, please don't as there is really no point and it takes the fun out of this which is to see how we come out, more than it being a heated competition to get your player elected. Nevertheless, to take precaution against the possibility of a voter abusing the process, votes will be made public, so if we see unfamiliar screen names casting similar ballots, we'll see cause for concern, and if the concern proves to be founded, some form of punitive action could follow. So basically, ONE PERSON = ONE BALLOT. Anything else is really just moronic and defeats the purpose.

- One thing I want to add. Remember, this is a veterans committee election. We’re dealing with players near the Hall’s in-out line. Careful study of the candidates is required to determine the ins from the outs. If you’re not up to this, please, no off-the-top-of-my-head ballots. If that means fewer ballots, that’s fine. I would rather have an informed vote of 12 ballots then a quick-and-dirty vote of 52 ballots.

1988 Guide
There are 41 candidates on the 1988 ballot. They all played their final game in the period 1915 to 1964. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

Top Vote-getters in the 1987 Election
Name Pos Pct
Larry Doby CF 71.05
Hal Newhouser P 68.42
Joe Gordon 2B 60.53
Sherry Magee LF 52.63
Stan Hack 3B 47.37
Carl Mays P 42.11
Red Schoendienst 2B 42.11
Gil Hodges 1B 34.21
Wes Ferrell P 31.58
Heinie Groh 3B 28.95
Tony Lazzeri 2B 28.95


First Timers (1)
Billy Pierce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Pierce)

Other Recently-New Eligibles
Gil Hodges (2nd year)
Red Schoendienst (2nd)
Eddie Yost (2nd)
Ted Kluszewski (2nd)
Don Newcombe (3rd)
Mickey Vernon (3rd)
Alvin Dark(3rd)
Larry Doby (4th)
Del Ennis (4th)

Last Year of Eligibility
Fielder Jones (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1195&pid=7123)

Next to Last Year of Eligibility
Nap Rucker (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=927&pid=12303)

Actual Hall of Famers on VC 1988 Ballot (5)
Larry Doby (1998)
Tony Lazzeri (1991)
Hal Newhouser (1992)
Phil Rizzuto (1994)
Red Schoendienst (1989)

Members of BBF Hall of Fame on VC 1988 Ballot (6)
Larry Doby
Wes Ferrell
Joe Gordon
Stan Hack
Sherry Magee
Hal Newhouser

Members of the Hall of Merit on VC 1988 Ballot (8)
Larry Doby
Wes Ferrell
Joe Gordon
Heinie Groh
Stan Hack
Sherry Magee
Hal Newhouser
Billy Pierce

Candidates Named to the BBF Hall of Corrections (4)
Wes Ferrell
Joe Gordon
Stan Hack
Sherry Magee

Candidates Listed on the 2007 Hall of Fame VC Ballot (7)
Wes Ferrell
Joe Gordon
Gil Hodges
Carl Mays
Don Newcombe
Lefty O’Doul
Mickey Vernon

For previous discussion of this project, see these threads:
Cooperstown, NY - Spring, 1986 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57472)
BBF Mock Veterans Committee Election: 1987 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57498)

KCGHOST
02-22-2007, 08:51 AM
Okay, I went for Bridges, Doby, Hack, Magee, Newhouser, Shocker, and Pierce.

Freakshow
02-22-2007, 10:22 PM
Sockeye:

Can you explain the reasoning for your ballot, please?

Freakshow
02-23-2007, 12:32 PM
UTforever22:

Can you explain the reasoning for your ballot, please?

BoofBonser26
02-24-2007, 04:48 PM
A mandatory five? That's not a real rule, is it?

Freakshow
02-25-2007, 12:21 PM
A mandatory five? That's not a real rule, is it?
Gotcha! It's mainly meant for the hit-and-run voters who don't bother to read through the rules.:lookitup

Freakshow
02-26-2007, 09:53 AM
I need to make a clarification regarding this project and the serious approach we are asking of the voters. In the rules I wrote:

"We operate under the premise that the continued existence of a veterans committee establishes a fait accompli, that it is an acknowledgment that there are worthy players who should be elected. Our mandate is to identify the best ones, so figure out which players deserve the honor and vote for them."

I also wrote:

"Remember, this is a veterans committee election. We’re dealing with players near the Hall’s in-out line. Careful study of the candidates is required to determine the ins from the outs. If you’re not up to this, please, no off-the-top-of-my-head ballots. If that means fewer ballots, that’s fine. I would rather have an informed vote of 12 ballots then a quick-and-dirty vote of 52 ballots."

Yet, we still get ballots like Sockeye's and UTforever22's. I judge these votes to be spurious, dishonest and contrary to what the project is about. This is based on the following:
1. Just as they voted in 1987, their ballots included one name, a player with no chance of election.
2. They ignored a request to vote for at least five.
3. They offered no explanation on the forum for their short ballots.
4. I sent private emails to them a couple days ago with this message: “We require a reasonable explanation for your ballot, or it will not be counted.” Sockeye’s response was short and flip. UTforever22 has not responded.

If I thought these ballots honestly reflected who they thought was the best candidate, or if they made an attempt at a coherent explanation, I might feel differently. As it stands, I put too much into this project to have it sabotaged so cavalierly by some.

Sockeye's ballot has been deleted from the poll. We will do the same with UTforever22's ballot if we do not get a good explanation.

Finally, I am adding this to the rules for the next election:

"I think that the BBWAA missed some guys, that there are numerous players on this ballot clearly over the line for the Hall. We need voters who are on board with the mission. A ballot that is judged to be spurious, dishonest or contrary to what the project is about may be disqualified from the election."

I am sorry if this seems heavy-handed, but I don't think it's too much to ask voters to treat their ballot somewhat seriously. IOW, don't be a BBWAA voter, give it some thought.

And if you think that nobody on the ballot is deserving that's fine. Make that argument in the discussion. But don't try to affect the process by dishonestly casting a vote for player you don't really support.

dgarza
02-26-2007, 10:26 AM
One player who I thought would get some support is Bob Elliot. He wasn't outstanding in the field, but his bat was plenty good. I have him just behind Boyer and Nettles, I believe.

Sockeye
02-26-2007, 10:46 AM
1. In the rules it clearly states. "Voters may vote for between 1-41 candidates" There is 5 vote minimum rule. Get your fact straight please.

2. You you need to include a blank ballot option for anyone who doesn't feel any of the nominees are deserving. Making the case here is not as good. That isn't the same as a vote.

3. I felt the person I voted for was every bit as deserving as anyone else on the ballot period end of discussion!

4. Voting for someone with little or no support has less effect on the "project" than voting for a more popular nominee who you don't really support as your vote could be the difference between them being elected or not elected. Voting for someone with little or no support is virtually the same as casting a blank ballot.

5. Picking and choosing which ballots to keep or delete because you may or may not like their choices destroys the credibility of your "project" more so than any vote by any one member!!

6. Good day sir!

Freakshow
02-26-2007, 11:27 AM
6. Good day sir!
Thank you! (That was the only one that seemed to need a response. For the rest we simply disagree.)

What needs to be understood is that we are trying to elect someone, that this is the raison d'etre for a veterans committee. If it were just me running a poll I would enshrine the top vote-getter each election. However, we are doing a mock-VC election, so I think we are compelled to retain the 75% super-majority needed for election.

Maybe think of it this way. The actual VC would trek to upstate NY in the later part of winter and sit down face-to-face and agree to elect someone. (In years they elected nobody it was invariably due to some members being absent, making it almost impossible to reach the 75% support needed.) We can't do it that way, of course. The point is they were there to elect someone; nobody sat in that room obstinately objecting that nobody should be elected. So if we are to simulate their deliberations, this must be our aim as well.

dgarza
02-26-2007, 11:27 AM
3. I felt the person I voted for was every bit as deserving as anyone else on the ballot period end of discussion!


Why didn't you just vote for everybody then?

Freakshow
02-26-2007, 12:33 PM
Why didn't you just vote for everybody then?
Yes, it does beg the question, eh?

Actually, it reveals a complete lack of in-depth analysis.

One thing I'm doing with this project is focusing on the players with eligibility expiring, to highlight the best candidates remaining from that time in history. Maybe there's something we've previously overlooked about them, so they deserve one final hearing before passing off the ballot.

Nap Rucker was easily the best candidate among the leftovers retiring in 1916. Many on this forum perhaps have scarcely heard of him, so I provided a link to pursue more information.

In actuality, he's not a serious HOF candidate. A player of the caliber of Jon Matlack, the ace of a poor team, one of the league's best pitchers for a brief period. Maybe he deserves the back door of the HOVG, but I put him on the ballot primarily for historical interests.

BoofBonser26
02-26-2007, 12:42 PM
Gotcha! It's mainly meant for the hit-and-run voters who don't bother to read through the rules.:lookitup
I think only one player is deserving - Larry Doby - but I haven't voted because there's this arbitrary 5-person rule.

Freakshow
02-26-2007, 01:24 PM
I think only one player is deserving - Larry Doby - but I haven't voted because there's this arbitrary 5-person rule.
Well, maybe they're a bit lengthy, but if you would carefully read the rules you would understand better. It says this:

"The words above the poll, “but at least five,” are a suggestion and not a requirement, that we might have a better chance of fulfilling our mandate and actually electing a few guys. I would ask that anyone who can't find five worthy candidates here to explain why, that we all might profit from your thought process."

So, if you vote for one that's entirely within the rules. We only ask that you share with us some of your analysis, especially what it is that leads you to conclude that other top candidates fall short of established HOF standards.

The limitations of this website refrain me from actually being able to require five votes, or any other minimum more than one. But if you read my previous two postings here (#7 & #10), hopefully you would understand the inappropriateness of voting here if you cannot identify at least five worthy players.

The first paragraph in this thread says, "The goal of this project is to conduct Hall of Fame VC elections from 1987-2001 ... as if we were the VC." Well, the VC would meet until they agreed on whom to elect that year. Our aim is similar, to get someone elected each year.

Freakshow
02-27-2007, 08:00 PM
Well, this one is nearly over, and unlike the HOF VC, we fulfilled our mission and elected someone. It looks like Doby is finally in, a decade sooner than the HOF got him. Good job.

I'll have the 1989 election up either tonight or tomorrow night. It looks like we'll have a 38-man ballot, unless we get some quick suggestions for others. Nellie Fox leads the newcomers, while Newhouser, Gordon, Magee and Hack are the most viable returnees.

John Shoemaker
02-27-2007, 08:19 PM
Anyone interested in seconding Roy Sievers for next years VC ballot?

dgarza
02-27-2007, 08:57 PM
Anyone interested in seconding Roy Sievers for next years VC ballot?
I will...........

dgarza
02-27-2007, 09:01 PM
Nellie Fox leads the newcomers, while Newhouser, Gordon, Magee and Hack are the most viable returnees.
So will Fox be on it even though he's not out of the running in the other poll?

I know we can vote for as many players as we want to, but it still seems like having him in the poll may though things if he gets elected in "1985".

Freakshow
02-27-2007, 09:02 PM
Anyone interested in seconding Roy Sievers for next years VC ballot?
Yes, indeed! Sievers was already on the list, in fact, as a top new eligible. It WAS gonna be a surprise.:dance

Freakshow
02-27-2007, 09:05 PM
So will Fox be on it even though he's not out of the running in the other poll?

I know we can vote for as many players as we want to, but it still seems like having him in the poll may though things if he gets elected in "1985".
Actually, he's already toast in the 1985 election. If we get our usual 62 ballots, he needs to be named on 18 of the remaining 19 ballots to make it. Ain't happening.

Freakshow
02-27-2007, 09:55 PM
Here are the results, in order, for the 1988 Mock VC election:

1915-1964 Pos Votes Pct
Larry Doby CF 25 80.65%
Hal Newhouser P 18 58.06%
Sherry Magee LF 18 58.06%
Joe Gordon 2B 17 54.84%
Stan Hack 3B 16 51.61%
Gil Hodges 1B 14 45.16%
Carl Mays P 13 41.94%
Red Schoendienst 2B 13 41.94%
Wes Ferrell P 11 35.48%
Heinie Groh 3B 10 32.26%
Gavy Cravath RF 8 25.81%
Billy Pierce P 8 25.81%
Bob Johnson LF 7 22.58%
Tony Lazzeri 2B 6 19.35%
Al Rosen 3B 6 19.35%
Urban Shocker P 6 19.35%
Phil Rizzuto SS 5 16.13%
Vern Stephens SS 5 16.13%
Larry Doyle 2B 5 16.13%
Don Newcombe P 4 12.90%
Eddie Yost 3B 4 12.90%
Ted Kluszewski 1B 4 12.90%
Bucky Walters P 4 12.90%
Mickey Vernon 1B 4 12.90%
Tommy Bridges P 4 12.90%
Lefty O'Doul LF 3 9.68%
Johnny Pesky SS/3B 3 9.68%
Wally Schang C 3 9.68%
Tommy Leach 3B/CF 3 9.68%
Joe Wood P 3 9.68%
Dolph Camilli 1B 2 6.45%
Lon Warneke P 2 6.45%
Walker Cooper C 2 6.45%
Del Ennis LF 2 6.45%
Bob Elliott 3B 1 3.23% (will not appear on 1989 ballot)
Charlie Keller LF 1 3.23% (will not appear on 1989 ballot)
Alvin Dark SS 1 3.23%
Fielder Jones CF 1 3.23% (eligibility expired)
Frank McCormick 1B 1 3.23% (will not appear on 1989 ballot)
Hal Trosky 1B 0 0.00% (will not appear on 1989 ballot)
Nap Rucker P 0 0.00% (eligibility expired)


The average ballot had 8.48 names listed, a slight improvement from 8.21. That seems like a pretty reasonable minimum to me; voters ought to be able to find eight guys worth supporting.

Now that we've elected someone, maybe we can focus again on the top guys and elect somebody. The top four runnersup here have impeccable cases for election, IMO.

There are seven players here who will not be carried over to the 1989 ballot. Four of these players may appear on future ballots, if someone raises them as candidates and they are seconded. Fielder Jones' case now passes to the 19th century ballot committee, set to begin voting in 1995.