BBF Mock Veterans Committee Election: 1989

[Freakshow]

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock VC Election for 1989. 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, Santo and Cepeda.

This post will provide two things:

1) The Format and Rules

2) A Guide for the 1989 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 (1916-1965 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 38-player ballot for this election, down from 41 in 1988. 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 (1916-17 retirees for the 1989 election).

- Voters may vote for between 1-38 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.)

- 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, and Alvin Dark. 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.

- MORE IMPORTANT: One thing I want to add. Remember, this is a veterans committee election. I think that the BBWAA missed some guys, that there are numerous players on this ballot clearly over the line for the Hall. However, we’re dealing with players near the Hall’s in-out line; there aren’t any no-brainers on here. 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. 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.

1989 Guide
There are 38 candidates on the 1989 ballot. They all played their final game in the period 1916 to 1965. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

Top Vote-getters in the 1987-88 Elections

Name Pos 1987 1988
Larry Doby CF 71.05 80.65%
Hal Newhouser P 68.42 58.06%
Sherry Magee LF 52.63 58.06%
Joe Gordon 2B 60.53 54.84%
Stan Hack 3B 47.37 51.61%
Gil Hodges 1B 34.21 45.16%
Carl Mays P 42.11 41.94%
Red Schoendienst 2B 42.11 41.94%
Wes Ferrell P 31.58 35.48%
Heinie Groh 3B 28.95 32.26%
Gavy Cravath RF 23.68 25.81%
Billy Pierce P NE 25.81%

First Timers (2)
Nellie Fox
Roy Sievers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sievers)

Other Recently-New Eligibles
Billy Pierce (2nd year)
Gil Hodges (3rd)
Red Schoendienst (3rd)
Eddie Yost (3rd)
Ted Kluszewski (3rd)
Don Newcombe (4th)
Mickey Vernon (4th)
Alvin Dark (4th)
Del Ennis (5th)

Last Year of Eligibility
none

Next to Last Year of Eligibility
Ed Reulbach (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=911&pid=11823)
Harry Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Davis_%28baseball_player%29)

Actual Hall of Famers on VC 1989 Ballot (5)
Nellie Fox (1997)
Tony Lazzeri (1991)
Hal Newhouser (1992)
Phil Rizzuto (1994)
Red Schoendienst (1989)

Members of BBF Hall of Fame on VC 1989 Ballot (5)
Wes Ferrell
Joe Gordon
Stan Hack
Sherry Magee
Hal Newhouser

Members of the Hall of Merit on VC 1989 Ballot (7)
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 (none elected) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57498)
BBF Mock Veterans Committee Election: 1988 (Larry Doby elected) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57838)

[dgarza]

Why did Harry Davis just make the ballot when he only has 2 years left to be on it? It sure doesn't give him much of a chance.

The same goes for Reulbach

[Erik Bedard]

I basically went with absolutely anyone I could see any sort of a case for. I don't necessarily support all fifteen (!) guys I voted for, but I can see the case for them, and I wouldn't mind if they got elected.

[-Kyle-]

I basically went with absolutely anyone I could see any sort of a case for. I don't necessarily support all fifteen (!) guys I voted for, but I can see the case for them, and I wouldn't mind if they got elected.
Same, except I had 18 I think.

[Erik Bedard]

dgarza had 23!

[dgarza]

dgarza had 23!
I think I had something like 26 the 1st time we did this.

[KCGHOST]

I went with Bridges, Hack, Magee, Schocker, Pierce, and Newhouser.

[Freakshow]

Why did Harry Davis just make the ballot when he only has 2 years left to be on it? It sure doesn't give him much of a chance.

The same goes for Reulbach
Fair question. I explained it like this in last year's ballot thread:

"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."

Also, the rules include this sentence:

"Close attention will be paid to identifying candidates who are in their last two years of eligibility (1916-17 retirees for the 1989 election)."

The rules also allow a player to continue past his expiration date as long as they get at least 15% support each year. So Sherry Magee will not disappear after the 1992 election, assuming we don't elect him (which we ought to, IMO).

As always, if you think of someone who deserves a ballot spot, including players who we dropped due to the 5% rule, feel free to bring him up. That list looks like this:

Wally Berger
Wilbur Cooper
Jack Quinn
Cecil Travis
Dolf Luque
Marty Marion
Buddy Myer
Bob Elliott
Charlie Keller
Frank McCormick
Hal Trosky

[Freakshow]

Sockeye:

Can you explain the reasoning for your ballot, please? Why do you think those are the five best candidates?

[Freakshow]

nerfan:

Can you explain the reasoning for your short ballot, please?

[Sockeye]

Alvin Dark: For his contributions as both a player and as a manager

Harry Davis: One of the premier power hitters of his day, solid peak from 01-09.

Tommy Leach: Great all around player. Tremendous defense (597 FRAR), Speed (361 SB's), Power (302 translated HR)

Wally Schang: Best offensive catcher of the WW1 era. Batted over .300 6 times, OBP or .400 or better 8 times. Solid game caller.

Lon Warneke: Dominating pitchers from the early 30's. Overshadowed by Grove. Won 20+ games 3 times in 4 years, 17+ wins 6 times. Fantastic .613 career winning %.

I considered a few others but decided to go with the best 5 and they are it.

[dgarza]

Fair question. I explained it like this in last year's ballot thread:

"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."

Also, the rules include this sentence:

"Close attention will be paid to identifying candidates who are in their last two years of eligibility (1916-17 retirees for the 1989 election)."


Hmmm....
I just seems contradictory to me. How can you highlight these players when they are rarely given the spotlight or much time to shine?

[leecemark]

--I don't understand the lack of support for Hal Newhouser. Prince Hal was basically the Koufax of the 40s. True, a couple of his big years were during WWII, but he proved it was no fluke when the regulars came back.

[Freakshow]

I considered a few others but decided to go with the best 5 and they are it.
Thanks, nice capsule summations of those guys' pros. But that hardly begins to explain why you believe they're the best on the ballot.

And I actually agree that Leach & Schang are deserving - but nowhere near the top candidates.

[Freakshow]

I just seems contradictory to me. How can you highlight these players when they are rarely given the spotlight or much time to shine?
Well, nobody suggested them as candidates, so their cases clearly aren't strong to begin with. Mentioning them before their time expires is, IMO, better than not mentioning them at all. A "tip of the hat" to history if nothing else.

In any case, these elections haven't shown much tendency for low-supported candidates to build momentum and contend for election. So, I think it does no harm to treat them "better late than never".

[John Shoemaker]

I cannot understand the lack of support for Gil Hodges. Even thogh the BBWAA did not put him in the hall of fame they did give him more votes (over 3000) than anyone else except JIm Rice who recently passed Hodges for total votes.

[Freakshow]

--I don't understand the lack of support for Hal Newhouser. Prince Hal was basically the Koufax of the 40s. True, a couple of his big years were during WWII, but he proved it was no fluke when the regulars came back.
Yeah, I don't get it either. He's in the Coop HOF, and the BBFHOF and the Hall of Merit both elected him pretty easily. He blew away the wartime competition like nobody else did, and had some great years outside of that, as well.

[dgarza]

Well, nobody suggested them as candidates, so their cases clearly aren't strong to begin with. I suggested Reulbach when this project began ..... but nodoby seconded him :(

[DoubleX]

I voted for more than I usually voted for this time, adding guys like Carl Mays, Billy Pierce, Larry Doyle, and Tommy Leach to my ballot. I forgot to vote for Wally Schang, though I meant to.

[Freakshow]

I suggested Reulbach when this project began ..... but nodoby seconded him :(
Big Ed has some gaudy rate stats. But he had TREMENDOUS offensive and defensive support. Remember, ERA+ adjusts for park and league, but not team defense, so his 123 mark should actually be less. His ERA+ is also boosted by his year in the FL, a near-AAA league. Take away 1915 and his career is about as long as Addie Joss', very short for a HOF pitcher. He was also a weak hitting pitcher for his era, OPS+ of 15.

When this project began, I was working from the top-132 candidate list that I made for the Hall of Corrections, and Reulbach didn't make it. Joss is a distinctly better player than Reulbach, but the Hall of Merit voters have rejected him due to his short career and the many better pitchers of that era. In actuality, I think Big Ed is somewhere between Nap Rucker and Harry Howell, well short of the HOF.

[Sockeye]

Thanks, nice capsule summations of those guys' pros. But that hardly begins to explain why you believe they're the best on the ballot.

And I actually agree that Leach & Schang are deserving - but nowhere near the top candidates.

What do you want a complete summary of all 38 candidates??? I researched all 38 candidates indepthly and determined that these 5 had more pros and less cons than the others based on overall career performance taking into account all aspects such as positional value and era importance. Like it or not these are my picks and I stand by them. Since no player has 100% support or anywhere close to it obviously not everyone agrees on who the top candidates are. In my opinion these are the top candidates and deserve the most support.

[DoubleX]

As always, if you think of someone who deserves a ballot spot, including players who we dropped due to the 5% rule, feel free to bring him up. That list looks like this:

Wally Berger
Wilbur Cooper
Jack Quinn
Cecil Travis
Dolf Luque
Marty Marion
Buddy Myer
Bob Elliott
Charlie Keller
Frank McCormick
Hal Trosky

If put back on the list, I would seriously consider voting for Berger, Travis, Myer, and Elliot. I can't promise I'd vote for any of them, but I am feeling a little bit more generous given 1) The futility the actual VC, and 2) Our own futility so why not vote for more players. Of the four, Travis would most likley get my vote and I think WWII really cost him a shot at the Hall.

[dgarza]

If put back on the list, I would seriously consider voting for Berger, Travis, Myer, and Elliot. I can't promise I'd vote for any of them, Me too, especially Elliot. And I would add Wilbur Cooper to the list of those I'd vote for.

[Freakshow]

What do you want a complete summary of all 38 candidates??? I researched all 38 candidates indepthly and determined that these 5 had more pros and less cons than the others based on overall career performance taking into account all aspects such as positional value and era importance. In my opinion these are the top candidates and deserve the most support.
That still gives us little idea of your methods and analysis to reach your conclusions.

How about this: Can you compare your guys to some similar candidates? How about:
Warneke vs Ferrell & Mays & Newhouser
H.Davis vs Magee & Doyle & Vernon
Schang vs Stephens & Gordon
Dark vs O'Doul & Schoendienst
Leach vs Groh & Hack

What particular evidence led you to believe that your five are more deserving?

[Freakshow]

Me too, especially Elliot. And I would add Wilbur Cooper to the list of those I'd vote for.
So, are you seconding all four (Berger, Travis, Myer, and Elliot) or just Elliott?:confused:

[dgarza]

In actuality, I think Big Ed is somewhere between Nap Rucker and Harry Howell, well short of the HOF.
Even though Reulbach peak is so much higher than those 2?
And I don't see how Harry Howell has anything to do with Reulbach in comparison.
I know Reulbach had relatively short career, and that part of it included the Federal League, and that part of his gaudy stats are because of his team, but I think you're selling him sort. I have him more up along the lines of a Hippo Vaughn than a Nap Rucker. Actually, Reulbach falls a tad short of the Hall for me, but I vote for him more as a "benefit of the doubt" that I would give nearly all players who are just shy.

[Sockeye]

That still gives us little idea of your methods and analysis to reach your conclusions.

How about this: Can you compare your guys to some similar candidates? How about:
Warneke vs Ferrell & Mays & Newhouser
H.Davis vs Magee & Doyle & Vernon
Schang vs Stephens & Gordon
Dark vs O'Doul & Schoendienst
Leach vs Groh & Hack

What particular evidence led you to believe that your five are more deserving?

I will as soon as everybody else makes a case for who they supported over everyone they didn't support.

[dgarza]

So, are you seconding all four (Berger, Travis, Myer, and Elliot) or just Elliott?:confused:
I'll 2nd all of them.

[Freakshow]

I will as soon as everybody else makes a case for who they supported over everyone they didn't support.
What, you have no evidence at your fingertips? But you said "I researched all 38 candidates indepthly and determined that these 5 had more pros and less cons than the others". From that, I assumed you would have some research, maybe even a spreadsheet, that you could glean a few facts from. Nothing?:eek:

[Freakshow]

Even though Reulbach peak is so much higher than those 2?
And I don't see how Harry Howell has anything to do with Reulbach in comparison.
I know Reulbach had relatively short career, and that part of it included the Federal League, and that part of his gaudy stats are because of his team, but I think you're selling him sort. I have him more up along the lines of a Hippo Vaughn than a Nap Rucker. Actually, Reulbach falls a tad short of the Hall for me, but I vote for him more as a "benefit of the doubt" that I would give nearly all players who are just shy.
I've never been one to give much extra credit for "higher peak" guys. Anyway, one 20-win year in MLB isn't much peak for a deadball pitcher.

I mention Howell because he pitched in the same era and had similar career length. Except he was on really lousy teams so nobody knows him. In a neutral context he's nearly equal to Reulbach.

Likewise, Rucker pitched for bad teams. WARP3 sees him as distinctly better than Big Ed, 60.9 to 48.2.

I think the worst hall of fame deadball era pitchers (and Hall of Mistakes inductees), Marquard and Bender, are better than Reulbach.

[Freakshow]

I'll 2nd all of them.
OK, I'll put them on in 1990.

I'm also considering retirees from 1918 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Frank "Wildfire" Schulte (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schulfr01.shtml) or "Wild" Bill Donovan (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/donovbi01.shtml) deserves a ballot spot?

I'm also considering retirees from 1966 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Bob Friend, Harvey Kuenn, Jim Gilliam or Joe Adcock deserves a ballot spot?

[Captain Cold Nose]

OK, I'll put them on in 1990.

I'm also considering retirees from 1918 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Frank "Wildfire" Schulte (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schulfr01.shtml) or "Wild" Bill Donovan (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/donovbi01.shtml) deserves a ballot spot?

I'm also considering retirees from 1966 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Bob Friend, Harvey Kuenn, Jim Gilliam or Joe Adcock deserves a ballot spot?
Kuenn and Adcock assuredly deserve a spot on the ballot. Gilliam was a great do whatever is asked of player, so why not.
I don't know enough about Friend to endorse him either way.

[Freakshow]

I don't know enough about Friend to endorse him either way.
Bill James did a full bio of Friend in his pitchers book a couple years ago. Here's a shorter one: Bob Friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Friend)

[John Shoemaker]

OK, I'll put them on in 1990.

I'm also considering retirees from 1918 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Frank "Wildfire" Schulte (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schulfr01.shtml) or "Wild" Bill Donovan (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/donovbi01.shtml) deserves a ballot spot?

I'm also considering retirees from 1966 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Bob Friend, Harvey Kuenn, Jim Gilliam or Joe Adcock deserves a ballot spot?

Joe Adcock certainly deserves a spot on the ballot.

[DoubleX]

I'm also considering retirees from 1966 for the next ballot. Does anyone think Bob Friend, Harvey Kuenn, Jim Gilliam or Joe Adcock deserves a ballot spot?

I wouldn't second any of them, but Kuenn curiously performed fairly well with the writers - lasting 15 years and reaching as high as 39.43% and never falling anywhere really close to 5%. It seems like there have been so many lesser players to get much less support from the writers, so why did Kuenn seem like a somewhat viable candidate to the writers?

[Freakshow]

I wouldn't second any of them, but Kuenn curiously performed fairly well with the writers - lasting 15 years and reaching as high as 39.43% and never falling anywhere really close to 5%. It seems like there have been so many lesser players to get much less support from the writers, so why did Kuenn seem like a somewhat viable candidate to the writers?
Several reasons come to mind: Rookie of the Year. 8 all-star games. Four times led in hits. A batting title. One of the best BAs on the ballot (.303). Traded for a great player in his prime (Colavito). Pennant-winning manager. Long-time coach. Played in both leagues so more writers knew him. From all reports, just a really nice guy. In a word, Fame.

[Erik Bedard]

If Kuenn needs to be seconded, I'll perform the honors.

[Freakshow]

If Kuenn needs to be seconded, I'll perform the honors.
Kuenn and Adcock have been approved for the 1990 ballot. Gilliam was proposed by CCN.

Bob hasn't found a Friend yet. Neither have oldtimers Schulte and Donovan.

[dgarza]

Sockeye:

Can you explain the reasoning for your ballot, please?
Is it because they we all better than Dick Allen and Orlando Cepeda?

[THE OX]

Kuenn and Adcock have been approved for the 1990 ballot. Gilliam was proposed by CCN.

Bob hasn't found a Friend yet. Neither have oldtimers Schulte and Donovan.

Friend has a friend! I'll second his nomination. And I'll also speak up for Gilliam, Kuenn, and Adcock.

One thing that impresses me about Friend (and also Larry Jackson) is that even with a relatively mediocre W-L record, you have to be damn good to get sent out there that many times to accumulate that many losses. Unless a pitcher had a unique career where he performed for nothing but desperate teams, you still have to be a mighty fine pitcher to be sent out there every 4th day for 15 years!

To me, Friend (and Larry Jackson, when his turn comes up!) is darn near as good as Warren Spahn, but with a weak-hitting supporting cast who couldn't supply a few extra runs to turn a lot of those "L's" into "W's!"

Just an analogy I'd like to throw in here: I think 400 or more GS is equivalent to 2500 hits for a batter. You have to be pretty damn good to play (or pitch) regularly for long enough to rack up counting stats like that!

[Captain Cold Nose]

As the Tigers co-mod, I have to at least speak on Wild Bill. When given his opportunity, he took full advantage of it, winning 25 for the Tigers the year they won their first pennant in 1907.
I wouldn't vote for the least famous of the two Bill Donovans (the other of OSS fame.) He was a workhorse in his time but his numbers aren't overhwlming, just good. He was a fine pitcher, but I would understand if he goes no further than this consideration.

[-Kyle-]

Berger definitly should be on the next poll, 138 OPS +, and cracked 172 OPS+ once. That is enough for me, despite 11 seasons.

[DoubleX]

Per Freakshow's request, I've added votes for Gordon, Fox, and Newhouser, on behalf of nerfan.

[RuthMayBond]

What's with having to vote for at least five?

[Freakshow]

What's with having to vote for at least five?
See post #14 in the 1988 election thread.

[Freakshow]

As we move through these mock VC elections, I understand better what it is about and I can better articulate it, I think.

First, let me explain the distinction between these elections and the mock BBWAA elections. Many voters have personal standards for election that are so strict as to disqualify most of the VC selections to the Hall of Fame. For the mock BBWAA elections this is OK, because many of the actual HOF voters feel the same way.

By contrast, the mock VC elections attempt to employ the same standard that the HOF VC elections used; thus, a lower standard should be employed by our voters. Maybe you didn’t vote for Nellie Fox in the mock BBWAA election because he didn’t meet your personal higher standards; now, in the VC elections you should, you are asked to realize that he fits in just fine with the lower tier of players in the Hall so you should vote for him.

Try pretending it’s real, that you have been invited to be a voter in the VC conclaves in the late 1980’s. You know that all the candidates are rejects from the writers’ ballot. Yet, the HOF persists in having your committee sift through these leftovers. Why? Just to reject them all? No - to reach a consensus on the best one to elect. This essentially means you look at who is getting good support from the other voters, then pick from among them the ones you think are most worthy. IOW, consensus. We need to elect someone, otherwise we're irrelevant and we might as well quit.

In our three elections, five candidates have set themselves above the rest, being supported by a majority of the voters: Nellie Fox (replaced Doby), Hal Newhouser, Sherry Magee, Joe Gordon and Stan Hack. We should eventually elect all of these.

Another group of five comprises the next level of support: Red Schoendienst, Carl Mays, Wes Ferrell, Gil Hodges and Heinie Groh. We should eventually elect most of these.

Many other candidates have received strong support, led by Billy Pierce, Larry Doyle, Gavy Cravath, Bob Johnson, Tony Lazzeri, Vern Stephens, Urban Shocker and Phil Rizzuto. We should eventually elect some of these.

A ballot that is helping us to our goal of electing the best will include: most of the top five; plus some of the next five; plus a couple other strong candidates; plus a few personal favorites you’re pushing to the electorate to support better.

Examples of ballots this election that are not very helpful to us:
yaznted93 – Ennis, Newhouser, Pesky, Rizzuto, Walters (one of top 10)
Westlake – Fox, Hack (good guys, but only two?)
John Shoemaker – Cravath, Ferrell, Groh, Hodges, Johnson, Lazzeri, Pierce, Rosen, Shocker, Sievers (none of the top seven)

Another ballot had only two names, neither one in the top five. That one has been revised. Yet another ballot had the requested five minimum, but none of them were in the top 18 candidates listed above. This one may be deleted.

Finally, I know, there aren’t any great candidates here. Our mock BBWAA elections are doing a fine job of picking up those guys that the BBWAA most sorely missed (Santo, Allen, Ashburn, Cepeda). But there are still some deserving players here. If you can’t stomach lowering your standards to the VC level, please, don’t vote. IOW, don’t vote just to vote; paraphrasing Socrates, “The unexamined ballot is not worth casting.”

If we’re going to do this rerunning of the Leftovers Committee, it must be done in an affirming way, that we’ll come to a consensus on the best. Our choices will no doubt be miles ahead of the Lindstrom-Kelly-McCarthy selections of the actual VC. They will also be much better than the Bottomley-Hooper-Cuyler level.

If you have a compelling argument for or against a candidate, by all means try to influence the voters with it. But don’t just cast a contrarian ballot without good reasoning. Ballots that are judged to be frivolous or an obstruction to our goal of electing someone may be deleted from the poll.

[Colorado Express]

I begrudgingly voted for 5 players, but I don't understand why anyone is expected to lower their standards for election. The purpose of the Veterans Committee is to correct the mistakes of the writers, not to let lower tier guys in. The reason we're not going to see many guys get in is the because we are the same people that did not elect them while filling the role as the writers.

I'm also a bit concerned that people's votes are being disregarded. If you are going to select which voter's votes to count, you may as well enshrine whoever you want without a vote. Personally, I've noticed several voters who seem disingenuous with their votes in both threads and I would rather have the other voters vote them off rather than have one individual pick and choose.

Just my two cents.

[vtbub]

I begrudgingly voted for 5 players, but I don't understand why anyone is expected to lower their standards for election. The purpose of the Veterans Committee is to correct the mistakes of the writers, not to let lower tier guys in. The reason we're not going to see many guys get in is the because we are the same people that did not elect them while filling the role as the writers.

I'm also a bit concerned that people's votes are being disregarded. If you are going to select which voter's votes to count, you may as well enshrine whoever you want without a vote. Personally, I've noticed several voters who seem disingenuous with their votes in both threads and I would rather have the other voters vote them off rather than have one individual pick and choose.

Just my two cents.

Agreed. This needs to be an honest process.

[Freakshow]

I begrudgingly voted for 5 players, but I don't understand why anyone is expected to lower their standards for election. The purpose of the Veterans Committee is to correct the mistakes of the writers, not to let lower tier guys in. The reason we're not going to see many guys get in is the because we are the same people that did not elect them while filling the role as the writers.

I'm also a bit concerned that people's votes are being disregarded. If you are going to select which voter's votes to count, you may as well enshrine whoever you want without a vote. Personally, I've noticed several voters who seem disingenuous with their votes in both threads and I would rather have the other voters vote them off rather than have one individual pick and choose.

Just my two cents.
The short answer is, because we'd never elect anyone if we didn't do these things. I let things go in the first election; nobody was elected. Since then, I've increasingly prodded and coaxed the electorate towards consensus; even then we seem to be just barely be getting there.

The "reason for being" for a veterans committee is to elect players. When they don't, their existence is unnecessary. (That's why there is increasing outrage over the real-life VC.) IOW, if we're not electing someone in most years, there's no project. This was, in fact, the attitude of the actual VC at this point in time, AFAIK.

If you read my previous post, it tries to instruct voters what the standard is, to steer tham away from their "personal blends" or what they think the standards ought to be. If this makes a voter feel disingenuous, voting for someone below their own standards, I respect their right to drop out of participating in the project. The rest of us will somehow carry on and figure out the best players to elect.

And as for dealing with recalcitrant voters, it's WAY more efficient and practical to have one commissioner to deal with them. If someone else wants the job, they can have it.

[Colorado Express]

The short answer is, because we'd never elect anyone if we didn't do these things. I let things go in the first election; nobody was elected. Since then, I've increasingly prodded and coaxed the electorate towards consensus; even then we seem to be just barely be getting there.

The "reason for being" for a veterans committee is to elect players. When they don't, their existence is unnecessary. (That's why there is increasing outrage over the real-life VC.) IOW, if we're not electing someone in most years, there's no project. This was, in fact, the attitude of the actual VC at this point in time, AFAIK.

If you read my previous post, it tries to instruct voters what the standard is, to steer tham away from their "personal blends" or what they think the standards ought to be. If this makes a voter feel disingenuous, voting for someone below their own standards, I respect their right to drop out of participating in the project. The rest of us will somehow carry on and figure out the best players to elect.

And as for dealing with recalcitrant voters, it's WAY more efficient and practical to have one commissioner to deal with them. If someone else wants the job, they can have it.
Do you think the MLB should follow the same rules as the NFL (a mandatory 6 get in each year)?

I'm a proponent of a small HOF. I want it to be preserved for the "best of the best", not for the "best of the good". I know what you're going to say next..."then don't vote". But if I don't vote, then what fun is the process?

If the stipulation for voting is to only vote if you are a proponent of getting as many players in as possible, then I will kindly step aside and stop voting (although I did vote for 5 reasonable players). If you want to ensure that someone gets in each year, then take the top vote-getter and eliminate the 75% rule, but if you want to reflect realism and truly get the opinion of the forum, then let the democracy play out (pretend that Glory, Glory Hallelujah is quietly playing in the background and a large American flag is gently waving in the breeze).

[Freakshow]

Do you think the MLB should follow the same rules as the NFL (a mandatory 6 get in each year)?
Like the actual VC at that time, we only allow one inductee per year.
I'm a proponent of a small HOF. I want it to be preserved for the "best of the best", not for the "best of the good". I know what you're going to say next..."then don't vote". But if I don't vote, then what fun is the process?
Again, personal standards should be expressed in the mock BBWAA vote. I understand that small hall advocates will like few, if any, of the VC candidates; the opinion of BBF-assembled would never allow any of these guys 75%. I understand that. We're moving beyond that now, aiming to elect some of these candidates.
If the stipulation for voting is to only vote if you are a proponent of getting as many players in as possible, then I will kindly step aside and stop voting (although I did vote for 5 reasonable players). If you want to ensure that someone gets in each year, then take the top vote-getter and eliminate the 75% rule, but if you want to reflect realism and truly get the opinion of the forum, then let the democracy play out.
Again, I think we already know the opinion of the forum: nobody gets in. If this was the BBFHOF VC mock vote I would eliminate the 75% rule. But it's intended to imitate the Cooperstown HOF, wherein the 75% requirement is written in stone.

[Colorado Express]

Please only take this is a discussion and not an argument...

I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but what fun is it to say that the BFF VC elected Roger Maris (EXAMPLE ONLY) to the HOF when, in reality, only 50% may have liked him for the HOF, but because of mandating a 5-player vote, he reaches 75%? I thought the purpose of this and the BFF HOF poll was to get the opinions of the forum to see how we would change the HOF. Has this changed or am I missing the point (goal)???

Again, personal standards should be expressed in the mock BBWAA vote. I understand that small hall advocates will like few, if any, of the VC candidates; the opinion of BBF-assembled would never allow any of these guys 75%. I understand that. We're moving beyond that now, aiming to elect some of these candidates.
The difference between us and the Veterans Committee is that we are the same group of people. Yes, the idea behind the real VC is to get players, that have been overlooked by the BWAA, into the HOF, but as we've seen in the last three votes, they don't feel anyone has been overlooked.

I suspect that over time, we'll vote some players in...I may not have 5 guys that I feel strongly about now, but I can already see that I'll have several players that will be sent to the VC and will get my votes when they arrive. I may be willing to slightly lower my standards and vote for a player like Jim Bunning as part of the VC (a borderline player for me) if he should get pushed here, but I don't like being told that I have to vote for 5 guys (some of which are not worthy, IMO). I may vote for 3 this year, but I might vote for 10 in the 1993 election. I don't want to see my vote (opinion) pushed aside because of that.

Again, I think we already know the opinion of the forum: nobody gets in. If this was the BBFHOF VC mock vote I would eliminate the 75% rule. But it's intended to imitate the Cooperstown HOF, wherein the 75% requirement is written in stone.
Aren't we already breaking the rules by mandating 5 votes?

[Freakshow]

I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but what fun is it to say that the BFF VC elected Roger Maris (EXAMPLE ONLY) to the HOF when, in reality, only 50% may have liked him for the HOF, but because of mandating a 5-player vote, he reaches 75%? I thought the purpose of this and the BFF HOF poll was to get the opinions of the forum to see how we would change the HOF. Has this changed or am I missing the point (goal)???
This is not the BBF VC. We've done those projects in the past. This is a mock of the HOF VC, or as close as I can make it to be that. There's a difference.

Again, I am satisfied that in the opinion of BBF voters none of these would get 75%. Or, at best, you might elect one every five years. To me, a project like that is "zero fun, sir".

The difference between us and the Veterans Committee is that we are the same group of people. Yes, the idea behind the real VC is to get players, that have been overlooked by the BWAA, into the HOF, but as we've seen in the last three votes, they don't feel anyone has been overlooked.
And since the leading vote-getter here is someone that "we've" rejected in the mock BBWAA voting, it's safe to conclude that "we" don't think any of the candidates deserve election. OK, I get that. Now, let's set aside your personal standards and try to see what the actual standards are by which a player has historically earned enshrinement.
I suspect that over time, we'll vote some players in...I may not have 5 guys that I feel strongly about now, but I can already see that I'll have several players that will be sent to the VC and will get my votes when they arrive. I may be willing to slightly lower my standards and vote for a player like Jim Bunning as part of the VC (a borderline player for me) if he should get pushed here, but I don't like being told that I have to vote for 5 guys (some of which are not worthy, IMO). I may vote for 3 this year, but I might vote for 10 in the 1993 election. I don't want to see my vote (opinion) pushed aside because of that.
Again, your opinion is being expressed in the mock BBWAA vote. Now, you're being asked to play the role of a VC voter, whose aim is to elect someone, who knows they are applying a lower standard than the BBWAA uses.
Aren't we already breaking the rules by mandating 5 votes?
Well, I hate to admit it, but I can't really mandate 5 votes. The poll formatting doesn' have that feature. Also, as you say, it would be contrary to what the actual VC was doing. But again, you're playing a role of a VC voter. You go into that room with a list of players that you're supporting; nobody goes in there with the aim of objecting to every candidate brought up. By requesting, insisting, agitating for at least five votes, I'm trying to impress this reality on our electorate here: you've gotta support someone. And to achieve our goal of getting someone over the 75% hump, I am asking voters to be sensitive to the consensus of who the top candidates are and try to support them. I've even taken the unpleasant step of singling out ballots that are obviously contrary to our aim. If this guidance restricts your sense of freedom, well, we all have times in our life where our personal freedom is subsumed to the greater good; this is one of those times.

If the real HOF worked more like this it would be a better institution. There is no chance for any of our choices to rank among the worst 10% in the HOF. Electing Magee, Gordon, Hack and Ferrell (and Santo and Allen) would enhance the HOF's legitimacy as the bestower of the game's ultimate honor, because it would demonstrate a willingness to apply consistent standards to all players, smoothing out some of the glaring inequities that currently exist. It would be justice in our time! (pretend that Glory, Glory Hallelujah is quietly playing in the background and a large American flag is gently waving in the breeze).

[Erik Bedard]

I'd like to add two things. One, isn't part of the goal of anything this site to have fun? If you don't elect anybody, how is that fun? And two, I fail to see how anybody can not find five people on this ballot as good as or better than Travis Jackson, one of the worst HoF selections, IMO. Heck, Wes Ferrell was almost a better hitter, as well as a very good pitcher.

[Sockeye]

I'd like to add two things. One, isn't part of the goal of anything this site to have fun? If you don't elect anybody, how is that fun? And two, I fail to see how anybody can not find five people on this ballot as good as or better than Travis Jackson, one of the worst HoF selections, IMO. Heck, Wes Ferrell was almost a better hitter, as well as a very good pitcher.

For that to be a valid argument then one would have to accept the fact that that there are no mistakes in the HOF. Everybody knows that is simply not the case. If the criteria for electing players via the veterans committee is that they have to be better than the worst player in the actual HOF then a valid argument could easily be made for 500+ players.

[jalbright]

Why not just change the rule such that so long as a player gets (a majority, 60%, whatever percent of the vote up to 75), we will elect at least one per election? That will give the project some vitality and allow for expressions of differences of opinion. That is certainly the prerogative of someone running a project.

Jim Albright

[Freakshow]

Why not just change the rule such that so long as a player gets (a majority, 60%, whatever percent of the vote up to 75), we will elect at least one per election? That will give the project some vitality and allow for expressions of differences of opinion. That is certainly the prerogative of someone running a project.

Jim Albright
I've been reeaalllly tempted to do that, since that would easily accomplish the aim of the project.

But.

The Hall of Fame has made it clear that the 75% supermajority is sacrosanct, that they'll change everything else about their procedures, but 75% is non-negotiable. Why? They say because everyone who's ever been elected has made this benchmark, that it is a "true measure" of an immortal, or something like that.

So I resist making that change. Does anyone else think we should dump the 75% requirement and simply elect the top guy each year?

[John Shoemaker]

I've been reeaalllly tempted to do that, since that would easily accomplish the aim of the project.

But.

The Hall of Fame has made it clear that the 75% supermajority is sacrosanct, that they'll change everything else about their procedures, but 75% is non-negotiable. Why? They say because everyone who's ever been elected has made this benchmark, that it is a "true measure" of an immortal, or something like that.

So I resist making that change. Does anyone else think we should dump the 75% requirement and simply elect the top guy each year?

I think we should keep the 75% requirement.

[Freakshow]

Here are the results, in order, for the 1989 Mock VC election:

1916-1965 Votes Pct
Nellie Fox 24 77.42%
Sherry Magee 21 67.74%
Hal Newhouser 21 67.74%
Joe Gordon 20 64.52%
Stan Hack 18 58.06%
Carl Mays 14 45.16%
Schoendienst 14 45.16%
Wes Ferrell 13 41.94%
Heinie Groh 11 35.48%
Gil Hodges 11 35.48%
Billy Pierce 10 32.26%
Larry Doyle 9 29.03%
Gavy Cravath 8 25.81%
Bob Johnson 7 22.58%
Tony Lazzeri 6 19.35%
Lefty O'Doul 6 19.35%
Vern Stephens 6 19.35%
Tommy Leach 5 16.13%
Urban Shocker 5 16.13%
Bucky Walters 5 16.13%
Tommy Bridges 4 12.90%
Phil Rizzuto 4 12.90%
Mickey Vernon 4 12.90%
Joe Wood 4 12.90%
Walker Cooper 3 9.68%
Don Newcombe 3 9.68%
Alvin Dark 2 6.45% (will not be on 1990 ballot)
Del Ennis 2 6.45%
Ted Kluszewski 2 6.45%
Johnny Pesky 2 6.45%
Ed Reulbach 2 6.45%
Al Rosen 2 6.45%
Wally Schang 2 6.45%
Roy Sievers 2 6.45%
Lon Warneke 2 6.45% (will not be on 1990 ballot)
Eddie Yost 2 6.45%
Dolph Camilli 1 3.23% (will not be on 1990 ballot)
Harry Davis 1 3.23% (eligibility expired)


The average ballot had 8.97 names listed, a slight improvement from 8.48. That seems like a pretty reasonable minimum to me; voters ought to be able to find nine guys worth supporting.

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

There are four players here who will not be carried over to the 1990 ballot. Three of these players may appear on future ballots, if someone raises them as candidates and they are seconded. Harry Davis' case now passes to the 19th century ballot committee, set to begin voting in 1995.

A minor revision of the eligibility rules will now disqualify some players with +5% support.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm in favor of just electing the top guy each year, and dropping the 5-vote minimum rule.

[Freakshow]

I'm in favor of just electing the top guy each year, and dropping the 5-vote minimum rule.
I guess nobody reads through the rules. The 5-vote minimum is not a rule. However, it is strongly suggested.

But, yes, it's still on the table for doing as you say, electing the top guy and dropping the 5-vote request. We'll see how things go in 1990.

[Erik Bedard]

I knew it was a suggestion, but it's way easier to type rule than request. And I'm a typical American teenager.

[Freakshow]

I knew it was a suggestion, but it's way easier to type rule than request. And I'm a typical American teenager.
Got it, dude!:laugh

[jalbright]

I've been reeaalllly tempted to do that, since that would easily accomplish the aim of the project.

But.

The Hall of Fame has made it clear that the 75% supermajority is sacrosanct, that they'll change everything else about their procedures, but 75% is non-negotiable. Why? They say because everyone who's ever been elected has made this benchmark, that it is a "true measure" of an immortal, or something like that.

So I resist making that change. Does anyone else think we should dump the 75% requirement and simply elect the top guy each year?

Why are you so dedicated to that one rule when you've changed a number of things with respect to how the Hall actually did business? I fully understand and agree with your goal in this project, but if it comes down to ditching the 75% rule or determining who is trying to stall the process with their votes (short of use of multiple user names), I'll go with ditching the 75% rule in a heartbeat. It's rather difficult to determine who is acting in bad faith in a setup like this and then disallowing the votes of said miscreant, and cutting down the 75% requirement largely eliminates this issue from causing serious problems--and you'd still have the safeguard of electing only one. That's the context in which I advocate changing the rule. I understand the problem of a malcontent can be very real in a project like this. If we could be assured we're avoiding that problem, I would never suggest changing the rule--but the fact is, there's a legitimate concern in that regard not only in a hypothetical sense but also in practice.

Jim Albright

[leecemark]

--I propose selecting the top vote getter in any year in which no one gets 75% of the vote, provided the top vote getter at least gets a majority (or perhaps require at least 60%). If no one is getting elected, this project will be hard pressed to hold people's interest.

[Freakshow]

Why are you so dedicated to that one rule when you've changed a number of things with respect to how the Hall actually did business? I fully understand and agree with your goal in this project, but if it comes down to ditching the 75% rule or determining who is trying to stall the process with their votes (short of use of multiple user names), I'll go with ditching the 75% rule in a heartbeat. It's rather difficult to determine who is acting in bad faith in a setup like this and then disallowing the votes of said miscreant, and cutting down the 75% requirement largely eliminates this issue from causing serious problems--and you'd still have the safeguard of electing only one. That's the context in which I advocate changing the rule. I understand the problem of a malcontent can be very real in a project like this. If we could be assured we're avoiding that problem, I would never suggest changing the rule--but the fact is, there's a legitimate concern in that regard not only in a hypothetical sense but also in practice.

Jim Albright
That's certainly a reasonable arguement, and in fact I think I'm coming around to it. I see it as an accomodation to the fact that this electorate is different than the actual one at the time, and that by adopting this rule we will get a closer simulation of the actual results.

So, yeah. Let's do that for the current election. The leading vote-getter is elected, so long as a majority of the electorate (more than 50%) supports him.

Thanks Jim and Mark and Erik.