BBF Mock HoF Election: 1987

[vtbub]

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1987. The goal of this project is to conduct Hall of Fame elections from 1979-2007, as if we were the BBWAA, and then compare our results to the actual BBWAA results. For the most part, we will proceed just like BBWAA does. 1979 was selected as the start date as that is when the BBWAA elections first implemented the 5% rule (though it was not always adhered to).

This post will provide two things:

1) The Format and Rules

2) A Guide for the 1987 Election


Format and Rules
- The BBF ballot will consist of the same players that were on the BBWAA ballot, except for in instances where we have elected, dropped, or sustained on the ballot different players than the BBWAA (which will likely be quite a few).

- Voters may vote for between 0-10 candidates. A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot.

- Adjusting Ballots: Anyone who votes for more than 10 candidates will have all their votes discounted unless they inform me within 48 hours of submitting their vote (or the close of the election, whichever comes first) of the mistake and which players they wish to discount. In such a situation, if I am not informed of the players to be dropped, I will discount that voter's entire ballot. If a voter habitually submits a ballot with more than 10 players, they risk having their votes discounted in all present and future elections. Otherwise, there will be no adjusting ballots after submitted, even if you forgot to vote for someone you meant to vote for or clicked on the wrong player. So please think carefully about your ballot before voting and make sure you have selected everyone you intend to vote for (up to 10).

- 75% support or greater will elect a player. Players receiving less than 5% will be dropped from all future elections (even if in reality, that player was included in future BBWAA elections). Players receiving 5% or more but less than 75% will stay on the ballot for the next election, unless that player's 15-year eligibility is over.

- 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.

- Also, in the interest of making this process as genuine as possible, I strongly urge voters to not view the results before they vote, as viewing results before voting could influence a person's votes (perhaps subconsciously).

- 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.


1987 Guide

This may be the weakest first year class in HOF history as only five players are added to the list of eligibles for 1987. Lou Brock missed by a whisker in 1986, falling one vote short or .49% of the magic 75%. Minnie Minoso, who returned to the ballot in 1986 after a decade break, was the surprise darkhorse of our voters, nearly grabbing 2/3rds of the vote on his first try. One would think that Brock and Minoso stand the best chance of induction.

There are 23 candidates on the 1987 BBF ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:


First Timers (5)

Sal Bando
Bobby Bonds
Jerry Grote
Mike Marshall
Steve Stone

Holdovers (18)
Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support Previous Year’s BBF Support

Luis Aparicio 9th 59.68% (1980) 50.98%
Ken Boyer 13th 33.33% (1986) 33.33%
Lou Brock 3rd 74.51% (1986) 74.51%
Jim Bunning 11th 58.83% (1986) 58.83%
Norm Cash 8th 18.18% (1981) 11.76%
Curt Flood 11th 11.86% (1981) 7.84%
Bill Freehan 6th 41.17% (1986) 41.17%
Willie Horton 2nd 5.88% (1986) 5.88%
Frank Howard 9th 27.46% (1986) 27.46%
Catfish Hunter 3rd 32.69% (1985) 27.46%
Bill Mazeroski 10th 37.10% (1980 & 1984) 33.33%
Minnie Minoso 2nd 62.75% (1986) 62.75%
Thurman Munson 7th 16.95% (1981) 11.76%
Tony Oliva 6th 27.45% (1986) 27.45%
Boog Powell 5th 17.74% (1984) 13.73%
Joe Torre 5th 61.54% (1985) 56.87%
Maury Wills 10th 16.13% (1984) 9.80%
Jimmy Wynn 5th 34.62% (1985) 33.33%


Last Year of Eligibility
None

Players on BBF Ballot not on BBWAA Ballot
Luis Aparicio - Elected by BBWAA (1984)
Lou Brock – Elected by BBWAA (1985)
Norm Cash – Dropped by BBWAA (1980)
Bill Freehan – Dropped by BBWAA (1982)
Frank Howard - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)
Boog Powell – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)
Jimmy Wynn – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)

Players on BBWAA Ballot not on BBF Ballot
Dick Allen – Elected by BBF (1985)
Lew Burdette - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Orlando Cepeda - Elected by BBF (1984)
Elston Howard – Dropped by BBF (1981)
Roy Face - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Harvey Kuenn - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Don Larsen – Dropped by BBF (1980)
Mickey Lolich – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Jim Lonborg – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Roger Maris – Dropped by BBF (1982)
Dave McNally - Dropped by BBF (1981)
Andy Messersmith – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Vada Pinson - Dropped by BBF (1983)
Ron Santo - Elected by BBF (1980)
George Scott - Dropped by BBF (1985)
Billy Williams – Elected by BBF (1982)
Wilbur Wood - Dropped by BBF (1984)

Actual Hall of Famers on BBF Ballot
Luis Aparicio (BBWAA - 1984)
Lou Brock (BBWAA – 1985)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Catfish Hunter (BBWAA – 1987)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)

Players Elected by BBF Between 1979-1986 (17)

Player BBF Election Year BBF Election Percentage Year on Ballot

Hank Aaron 1982 100.00% 1st
Dick Allen 1985 75.00% 3rd
Richie Ashburn 1979 75.41% 12th (1st for BBF)
Orlando Cepeda 1984 79.03% 5th
Don Drysdale 1983 79.03% 9th (5th for BBF)
Bob Gibson 1981 89.83% 1st
Al Kaline 1980 90.32% 1st
Harmon Killebrew1981 93.22% 1st
Juan Marichal 1981 79.66% 1st
Willie Mays 1979 98.36% 1st
Willie McCovey 1986 100.00% 1st
Brooks Robinson 1983 88.71% 1st
Frank Robinson 1982 100.00% 1st
Ron Santo 1980 82.26% 1st
Duke Snider 1979 83.61% 10th (1st for BBF)
Hoyt Wilhelm 1979 77.05% 2nd (1st for BBF)
Billy Williams 1982 80.00% 1st



Players Elected by BBWAA Between 1979-1986 (14)
Hank Aaron (1982)
Luis Aparicio (1984)
Lou Brock (1985)
Don Drysdale (1984)
Bob Gibson (1981)
Al Kaline (1980)
Harmon Killebrew (1984)
Juan Marichal (1983)
Willie Mays (1979)
Willie McCovey (1986)
Brooks Robinson (1983)
Frank Robinson (1982)
Duke Snider (1980)
Hoyt Wilhelm (1985)

BBF/BBWAA Election Ratio: 17:14

Players Elected by BBF but not BBWAA (through 1986)
Dick Allen (1985)
Richie Ashburn (1979)
Orlando Cepeda (1984)
Ron Santo (1980)
Billy Williams (1982)

Players Elected by BBWAA but not BBF (through 1986)
Luis Aparicio (1984)
Lou Brock (1985)

Players Dropped by BBF After 15 Years on Ballot (7)
Nellie Fox (1985)
Gil Hodges (1983)
Ted Kluszewski (1981)
Don Newcombe (1980)
Red Schoendienst (1983)
Enos Slaughter (1979)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59
1982: 55
1983: 62
1984: 62
1985: 52
1986: 51

(If someone can tell me how to wrap links around text, I'll link the old elections)

[vtbub]

Any corrections, please let me know.

[AlecBoy006]

Please change my vote from Stone to Torre. Thanks.

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:
Frank Howard
Norm Cash
Boog Powell
Bobby Bonds
Willie Horton

[vtbub]

Please change my vote from Stone to Torre. Thanks.

You'll have to PM a Mod, I don't think I can do that.

[2Chance]

Aparicio
Bando
Brock
Bunning
Freehan
F. Howard
Mazeroski
Minoso
Torre
Wynn

[Erik Bedard]

Back to voting for ten, after only nine last time:

Aparicio
Bando
Brock
Bunning
Flood
Freehan
Maz
Minoso
Torre
Wynn

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I only voted for 4 this time around.

Torre
Cepada
Bunning
Minoso

I was considering however 3-4 others.

[brewcrew82]

Please change my vote from Stone to Torre. Thanks.

May I suggest you start reading the opening post of these threads?

In the first post of this thread it clearly state:
- Adjusting Ballots: Anyone who votes for more than 10 candidates will have all their votes discounted unless they inform me within 48 hours of submitting their vote (or the close of the election, whichever comes first) of the mistake and which players they wish to discount. In such a situation, if I am not informed of the players to be dropped, I will discount that voter's entire ballot. If a voter habitually submits a ballot with more than 10 players, they risk having their votes discounted in all present and future elections. Otherwise, there will be no adjusting ballots after submitted, even if you forgot to vote for someone you meant to vote for or clicked on the wrong player. So please think carefully about your ballot before voting and make sure you have selected everyone you intend to vote for (up to 10).

:rolleyes:

[leecemark]

I only voted for 4 this time around.

Torre
Cepada
Bunning
Minoso

I was considering however 3-4 others.

--You couldn't have voted for Cepeda since he isn't on the ballot. We elected him in 1984.

[dgarza]

1. Tony Oliva
2. Minnie Minoso
3. Lou Brock
4. Joe Torre
5. Jim Bunning
6. Ken Boyer
7. Luis Aparicio
8. Frank Howard
9. Bobby Bonds
10. Catfish Hunter

[Colorado Express]

Aparicio
Brock
Howard
Minoso
Munson
Oliva

[vtbub]

With half of the precincts reporting, we are on the verge of electing no one this time, thoughts?

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

--You couldn't have voted for Cepeda since he isn't on the ballot. We elected him in 1984.
I ment apperacio.... a fruedian slip.

[John Shoemaker]

With half of the precincts reporting, we are on the verge of electing no one this time, thoughts?

Well - there is no slam dunk candidate this time like Willie McCovey was last time or Willie Stargell will probably be next time. There are a group of five that are close - Aparicio, Brock, Bunning, Minoso and Torre but I think the voting reflects my thinking that these 5 are borderline and it will be touch and go if any of them get in.

[The Dude]

I don't really know what to say. It seems we're splitting our votes, and there's no way this can be fixed unless we start to change our votes.

I mean really.

We have 4 guys (technically 5, because a vote was misplaced on Steve Stone instead of Torre) with 19 votes, but if you notice there's a number of people who voted for 2-3 of them, and didn't vote for 2 more. And they all just traded their votes. If we ever want to elect someone, we'll have to get people to change their votes each year just to elect people.

[The Dude]

John, another thing is, not to be a jerk, 2 of your guys are 1B and three are corner outfielders, who all put up good power numbers. Aparicio, Torre, and Brock aren't going to be those guys. Their game was totally different. Bunning's a pitcher and Minoso was only able to play half a career through no fault of his own.

Would I be too much of a jerk to ask you to just look closer at them and see what else they had to offer that made them so good at their respective positions?

[John Shoemaker]

John, another thing is, not to be a jerk, 2 of your guys are 1B and three are corner outfielders, who all put up good power numbers. Aparicio, Torre, and Brock aren't going to be those guys. Their game was totally different. Bunning's a pitcher and Minoso was only able to play half a career through no fault of his own.

Would I be too much of a jerk to ask you to just look closer at them and see what else they had to offer that made them so good at their respective positions?

They were all just below the line for me - but I'll take another look at all 5. I almost voted for Bunning and probably will next time. I'm not sure about the other 4.

[Ubiquitous]

I would think the goal is to get the right people elected not simply electing people into the hall. The hall set the bar at 75% because for the most part they wanted locks. 75% is more then "super majority". A 75% vote means that you are going to get very very few "mistakes" inducted into the hall. Which for the most part if you look at the actuall writers votes you will see that that is what is happening with their elections.

I personally agree with this notion. I think people should vote for who they think is a hall of famer and if enough people agree then he is. I don't think people should compromise and vote for a player they don't really believe is a hall of famer simply for the sake of electing someone.

[John Shoemaker]

I would think the goal is to get the right people elected not simply electing people into the hall. The hall set the bar at 75% because for the most part they wanted locks. 75% is more then "super majority". A 75% vote means that you are going to get very very few "mistakes" inducted into the hall. Which for the most part if you look at the actuall writers votes you will see that that is what is happening with their elections.

I personally agree with this notion. I think people should vote for who they think is a hall of famer and if enough people agree then he is. I don't think people should compromise and vote for a player they don't really believe is a hall of famer simply for the sake of electing someone.

I completely agree with you. That's the way it should be.

[The Dude]

I'd like to make just a small arguement for Aparicio.

First things first, offense.

I wont lie, Aparicio wasn't the greatest guy on offense. However, the time he played in his league, offense wasn't that important to a SS. What SS's at the time were great on offense? Ernie Banks was the first really great offensive Shortstop after 1950. People really only expected good defense, which Aparicio had much of. Let's stick to offense though.

Aparicio batted just above the league average for his career. His offensive value however, was speed and great baserunning skills. This can be seen by his 500+ Stolen bases (A few more than Bobby Bonds if I might add a comparison here), his 78% sucess rate, and his being ranked in the top 100 of all time in Runs and Hits.

So Aparicio carried an average stick, but he had the best legs in his league for a number of years, a recored 9 consecutive years. In fact, only Rickey Henderson (12) and Max Carey (10) have led their league more times in SB's than Aparicio. And we must remember, his SB totals are lower than they could have been, as Aparicio played just a few years in the era where SB's were not as big as they have become.

Now, onto his defense. Aparicio was widely regarded and is still today, as one of the greatest defensive short stops ever. During his time he was given 9 gold gloves by the league. At the most important defensive position, being this highly acclaimed would for some, be enough to put him in the hall.

Modern fielding statisctis show him as a very good SS as well. FRAA has him pretty high, not close to Ozzie Smith or Rabbit Maranville, but one of the best fielding short stops of all time. I believe Fielding Win Shares also has him ranked pretty well.

Now if we are to add his "All-Time" fielding ability to one of the best base-stealers of all time, plus his average ability with the bat, I would say this makes him over the line by at least a little bit.

[BoofBonser26]

I would think the goal is to get the right people elected not simply electing people into the hall. The hall set the bar at 75% because for the most part they wanted locks. 75% is more then "super majority". A 75% vote means that you are going to get very very few "mistakes" inducted into the hall. Which for the most part if you look at the actuall writers votes you will see that that is what is happening with their elections.

I personally agree with this notion. I think people should vote for who they think is a hall of famer and if enough people agree then he is. I don't think people should compromise and vote for a player they don't really believe is a hall of famer simply for the sake of electing someone.
Exactly.

And Dudecar00, thanks for the Aparicio support.

[vtbub]

I would think the goal is to get the right people elected not simply electing people into the hall. The hall set the bar at 75% because for the most part they wanted locks. 75% is more then "super majority". A 75% vote means that you are going to get very very few "mistakes" inducted into the hall. Which for the most part if you look at the actuall writers votes you will see that that is what is happening with their elections.

I personally agree with this notion. I think people should vote for who they think is a hall of famer and if enough people agree then he is. I don't think people should compromise and vote for a player they don't really believe is a hall of famer simply for the sake of electing someone.

I agree completely with that. After looking to see how close Brock and Minoso were last time, I thought they would be shoo-ins, especially on a year that has no HoF'ers new on the ballot.

[538280]

I'd like to make just a small arguement for Aparicio.

First things first, offense.

I wont lie, Aparicio wasn't the greatest guy on offense. However, the time he played in his league, offense wasn't that important to a SS. What SS's at the time were great on offense? Ernie Banks was the first really great offensive Shortstop after 1950. People really only expected good defense, which Aparicio had much of. Let's stick to offense though.

Aparicio batted just above the league average for his career. His offensive value however, was speed and great baserunning skills. This can be seen by his 500+ Stolen bases (A few more than Bobby Bonds if I might add a comparison here), his 78% sucess rate, and his being ranked in the top 100 of all time in Runs and Hits.

So Aparicio carried an average stick, but he had the best legs in his league for a number of years, a recored 9 consecutive years. In fact, only Rickey Henderson (12) and Max Carey (10) have led their league more times in SB's than Aparicio. And we must remember, his SB totals are lower than they could have been, as Aparicio played just a few years in the era where SB's were not as big as they have become.

I don't think that people were not expecting offense from shorstops in Aparicio's time. I think absolutely the offensive standards change by position, a shorstop with a career OPS+ of 110 over a long career who is a good defender is probably a HOFer, while a 1B with those same credentials isn't even close. But an 84 OPS+? Aparicio was just a terrible hitter, and while he was a great baserunner, I just don't see how this translates into him being even a good offensive player. Baseball Prospectus' metrics include baserunning, they have Aparicio 144 runs below average over his career and with a .249 EqA (.260 is average). That's just a terrible offensive player, and it isn't even very good from a shortstop. Coop once posted a list of the top 20 shorstops in relative OBP 1956-1973, here it is:

111 Denis Menke
111 Ernie Banks
109 Jim Fregosi
107 Rico Petrocelli
104 Dick Groat
104 Maury Wills
102 Ron Hansen
102 Bud Harrelson
100 Johnny Logan
100 Eddie Bressoud
100 Gene Alley
99 Don Kessinger
99 Leo Cardenas
99 Roy McMillan
98 Larry Brown
98 Bert Campaneris
98 Luis Aparicio
97 Mark Belanger
94 Tony Kubek
94 Dal Maxvill

Aparicio is 17th. Among all shorstops, because of his running, he's probably a little higher than that, maybe like 14th or 13th at a guess. But I still don't think his offense, even from shorstop, can even be described as good. He did not carry an average stick, his stick was FAR below average, and his running makes him just plain below average.

Now, onto his defense. Aparicio was widely regarded and is still today, as one of the greatest defensive short stops ever. During his time he was given 9 gold gloves by the league. At the most important defensive position, being this highly acclaimed would for some, be enough to put him in the hall.

Modern fielding statisctis show him as a very good SS as well. FRAA has him pretty high, not close to Ozzie Smith or Rabbit Maranville, but one of the best fielding short stops of all time. I believe Fielding Win Shares also has him ranked pretty well.

Fielding Win Shares has him as a B shortstop. FRAA probably has him in the B+ range. I think he deserves a bit more credit with that, but with his offense he had better be in the upper echelong, and all available defensive metrics don't see him even close. He doesn't belong in IMO.

[The Dude]

So his relative OBP was only 2 points below the league average ... coupled with a B+ rating at defense (And like we both have stated, we give hime more credit than that). The big thing I think we see differently, is how much his baserunning/speed payed off. He is 97th all time in runs scored, which is probably also do to the fact that he played on some very good White Sox teams. But I would give him more credit for the fact that his defense and ability to score runs was probably a help to his team.

[538280]

So his relative OBP was only 2 points below the league average ... coupled with a B+ rating at defense (And like we both have stated, we give hime more credit than that). The big thing I think we see differently, is how much his baserunning/speed payed off. He is 97th all time in runs scored, which is probably also do to the fact that he played on some very good White Sox teams. But I would give him more credit for the fact that his defense and ability to score runs was probably a help to his team.

Aparicio being 97th all time in runs scored is not really that impressive, though, it's a function of his lasting a long time much more than it is of him being a special player. He's 29th all time in plate appearances. For a guy who was a leadoff hitter just about his whole career for very good teams, and is 29th all time in plate appearances, he should be higher than 97th all time in runs scored. I just think Aparicio was a terrible offensive player, well below average, and while his defense was really good, I think that with the offense he brought, he should be Ozzie Smith defensively at least. Given that data we have from fielding metrics, I don't think it's appropriate to give him credit for anything more than 100 or so runs above average (and that's better than the metrics see him), and that still leaves him about 40 runs below average for his career. He should get a little boost offensively for his position which brings him up to about average. I just don't see, running him through a formal methology, how Aparicio is much better than an average player over the course of his career, and that isn't a HOFer.

[The Dude]

Wouldn't you give points to Aparicio for staying around that long while still playing very good defense, and improving his offense at the end of his career? His two best seasons in OPS+ were at the end of his career when he was losing his speed.

[538280]

Wouldn't you give points to Aparicio for staying around that long while still playing very good defense, and improving his offense at the end of his career? His two best seasons in OPS+ were at the end of his career when he was losing his speed.

Yeah, I'd give him credit for his longevity and improving his hitting at the end of his career (if he had more seasons hitting like 1970 he'd be a no questions guy like Ozzie Smith), but those decent offensive seasons at the end of his career were really too little too late unless he could have sustained that level over five or six years, and he didn't. They weren't enough to cancel out his very weak offensive seasons earlier in his career. He still is a well below average offensive player with those seasons.

[The Dude]

There's just two more little points I'd like to talk about.


Aparicio being 97th all time in runs scored is not really that impressive, though, it's a function of his lasting a long time much more than it is of him being a special player. He's 29th all time in plate appearances.
Now, I just wanted to throw this little bit in here. Of people who are ahead of Aparicio in PA's, there are two who scored less runs than him.

Rabbit Maranville
Brooks Robinson

Now I would be insane to say something such as, Brooks Robinson had less offensive value than Luis Aparicio. What I would like to know, is would you put Brooks Robinson in the hall of fame? Aparicio played a more important defensive position (Although it's tough to tell who was more valuable, as well, Brooks was the best ever at his position, or 2nd best), and scored more runs per PA than Robinson did. It's true that Robinson was the better offensive player, but Aparicio was not "lasting a long time" without doing something right.

Another point I would like to point out, is he was top 10 in Runs scored 5 times, with four of those seasons having him score 90+ Runs. I would also say it's no coincidence that 3 of those four seasons, he stole over 50 bases. His baserunning ability must have had a huge impact on his ability to score those runs, as it put him in better position to score from 2nd, as he was never a prolific doubles hitter (although he ranked top 5 in triples 3 times).



For a guy who was a leadoff hitter just about his whole career for very good teams, and is 29th all time in plate appearances, he should be higher than 97th all time in runs scored.

Just going to throw this bit of information out here. He was not a leadoff hitter for about his whole career, nor was he one for a majority of his career. He was a leadoff hitter for 50% of his career. If that changes your opinion, I don't know.

[AstrosFan]

Brooks Robinson batted mostly in the middle of the order: 4th, 5th, or 6th. Aparicio batted mostly first or second. Top of the order players will tend to score more runs than middle order guys, all other things being equal.

[The Dude]

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. The only problem, is most of the players ahead of Aparicio in PA are middle of the order guys.

[538280]

There's just two more little points I'd like to talk about.



Now, I just wanted to throw this little bit in here. Of people who are ahead of Aparicio in PA's, there are two who scored less runs than him.

Rabbit Maranville
Brooks Robinson

Now I would be insane to say something such as, Brooks Robinson had less offensive value than Luis Aparicio. What I would like to know, is would you put Brooks Robinson in the hall of fame? Aparicio played a more important defensive position (Although it's tough to tell who was more valuable, as well, Brooks was the best ever at his position, or 2nd best), and scored more runs per PA than Robinson did. It's true that Robinson was the better offensive player, but Aparicio was not "lasting a long time" without doing something right.

I would put Brooks in the HOF and I think that his is a totally different situation than Aparicio's. I would call Aparicio a more valuable defensive player (because he played SS and Brooks 3B, though I think Brooks played 3B better than Aparicio did SS). But, Aparicio was just not as good an offensive player as Brooks or even close. Aparicio was a little better than Brooks in the offensive area of scoring runs (and to best honest even that edge is not all that solid, with Aparicio batting in the top of the order and Brooks in the middle, and Aparicio playing in a higher run context than Brooks). Scoring runs however does not cover all of offense, getting on and moving around the bases is not all there is-you also can help the offense by moving runners along yourself, and Brooks in that area is MUCH better than Aparicio. To just show that simply with RBI, Aparicio scored about 13% more runs per PA than Brooks, but Brooks drove in 64% more runs per PA than Aparicio. Taking everything into account Brooks is a FAR better offensive player than Aparicio, I think plenty enoiugh to make up for differences in defense.

Maranville I wouldn't support for the HOF for much the same reasons as Aparcio, his offense is just so bad that it makes him clearly not a great player IMO. He's probably better defensively than Aparicio but even worse on offense because while he wasn't a bad baserunner he wasn't the baserunner Aparicio was.

Another point I would like to point out, is he was top 10 in Runs scored 5 times, with four of those seasons having him score 90+ Runs. I would also say it's no coincidence that 3 of those four seasons, he stole over 50 bases. His baserunning ability must have had a huge impact on his ability to score those runs, as it put him in better position to score from 2nd, as he was never a prolific doubles hitter (although he ranked top 5 in triples 3 times).

Aparicio was actually top 10 in runs scored 3 times (1965, 1966, 1967) (Being top 10 in runs scored 3 times for a guy who was a leadoff hitter for very good teams over his career is not all that impressive. Even when he was with the White Sox and supposedly the best leadoff guy in the game he never was top 10 in runs scored. It took the Orioles (and for two years Frank Robinson) to get him in the top 10 for just three years. Again, this is not impressive for me for a guy who was a leadoff hitter and playing for very good teams-he should have done far better than this and the fact that he didn't tells me he just wasn't doing the job.

Just going to throw this bit of information out here. He was not a leadoff hitter for about his whole career, nor was he one for a majority of his career. He was a leadoff hitter for 50% of his career. If that changes your opinion, I don't know.

It doesn't. Really I don't care much about runs scored totals anyway, just that they provide actual hard evidence that he wasn't particularly effective compared to where he should have been. What matters more to me is the value of the contributions he made himself (regardless of where in the lineup they were coming from), and how they stack up-and they don't stack up well.

[BoofBonser26]

Anyone know when DoubleX will be back? Just wondering.

[vtbub]

Anyone know when DoubleX will be back? Just wondering.

I think before Sunday, he only gave me the info for one year.

[DoubleX]

Anyone know when DoubleX will be back? Just wondering.

I'm back...well not really. I'm just checking in. Snowstorm has affected my plans so I won't really be back for a few more days. All going well, I hope to have 1988 up and running by Monday.

Also, I have to say that Vtbub has done an excellent job and I'm very grateful for him stepping in. Thanks again Vtbub!

[Erik Bedard]

Looks like we won't elect anyone this year.

[vtbub]

I want to take a moment and thank you who have sent notes and have voted. This was incredibly fun to do.

I look forward to just being a voter again. :)

[Johnny Seven]

voted for aparicio, brock, bunning, minoso, and torre.

[DoubleX]

We sadly did not elect anyone this year, which is a first in our history of voting (going back to 1979). Willie Stargell headlines the next ballot, so hopefully we can get at least him in next year.

I will not have 1988 up and running at least until tomorrow night, but more likely Tuesday. Perhaps a couple of days off could help restore some of the waning interest in this project.

[John Shoemaker]

We sadly did not elect anyone this year, which is a first in our history of voting (going back to 1979). Willie Stargell headlines the next ballot, so hopefully we can get at least him in next year.

I will not have 1988 up and running at least until tomorrow night, but more likely Tuesday. Perhaps a couple of days off could help restore some of the waning interest in this project.

I think the number of voters was down not because the interest is waning but because there were no strong candidates this year. With Willie Stargell coming up in 1988 and Carl Yastrzemski and Johnny Bench coming up in 1989 I think we'll be back up to at least 60 voters.

[Brooklyn]

46 voters is still pretty strong, particularly compared to some of the other projects that are running. I agree that with stronger candidates we may be able to get back up to the levels of earlier elections