The Ultimate Quest for Candidates: Round 1 – The 1890’s

[Freakshow]

Welcome to the Ultimate Quest for Candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68815)! This thread will have the seventh poll in this project, choosing the best candidates for the Hall of Fame from the MLB stars of the 1890’s. You will be asked to vote for your top SIX (6) players. The poll will close five weeks after it opens.

I’m asking voters not to peek at the results of the voting until after they’ve cast their ballot. I would hope that voters are capable of independently assessing the candidates without worrying about whom the consensus is favoring.

The threads in this project will always be posted a few days before the poll is added. This is done in order to encourage research and discussion of the candidates. I believe (paraphrasing Socrates) that the unexamined ballot is not worth casting. This also gives you a little time to make the case for a candidate not listed who you think deserves to be on the ballot (although you should sign up as a consultant if you really want to be involved in this aspect of the project).

If someone wants to open a separate thread to focus on one of these candidates, go for it; we already see that a lot on this forum. All of these players are worthy of discussion, because the worst candidates here are on a par with the worst players in the Hall.

I expect that everyone is familiar with Baseball-Reference.com and Baseballprospectus.com. These are essential sites for researching a player’s statistical record. I’ve also inserted links to each player’s bio at the SABR Bioproject or Wikipedia.

We will be judging players by the same criteria that the Hall of Fame uses:

“voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game.”

So everything counts, their lifetime achievements on and off the field, along with their character and other intangibles.

Below are the players we think are the top 22 candidates whose careers centered in the 1890’s. We will need to decide which ones of these to drop for the poll. Basic data are shown for each:


Pos BJ Player Name Win Shares WARP3 Car WS Adj
1 --- Ted Breitenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Breitenstein) (231: 41-39-35)(67.8: 13.3-12.2-9.6) +19
4 #26 Cupid Childs (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1230&pid=2391) (263: 33-33-32)(90.0: 11.7-11.0-10.3) +25
5 #33 Lave Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lave_Cross) (299: 29-26-21)(109.8: 10.8-8.4-8.1) +21
1 --- Nig Cuppy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=nig+cuppy&go=Go) (202: 45-39-33)(51.4: 11.4-10.7-8.3) +9
6 #21 Bill Dahlen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Dahlen) (426: 37-33-27)(151.3: 12.9-11.3-11.0) +32
4 #55 Tom Daly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daly_%28baseball_infielder%29) (242: 29-28-24)(77.0: 9.8-8.5-7.1) +27
2 #45 Duke Farrell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Farrell) (199: 24-19-17)(75.7: 8.6-7.0-7.0) +16
4/1 #72 Kid Gleason (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=247&pid=5188) (263: 26-25-22)(87.5: 11.3-7.1-7.0) -31
8 #45 Mike Griffin (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=827&pid=5486) (273: 34-25-25)(92.5: 11.2-9.4-8.8) +28
8 #47 Dummy Hoy (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=832&pid=6635) (278: 32-27-27)(72.2: 8.1-7.2-7.2) +24
8 #64 Bill Lange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Lange) (165: 36-30-25)(46.5: 9.8-8.0-7.8) +27
6 #34 Herman Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Long) (292: 32-31-28)(91.5: 11.0-8.8-8.1) +27
5 #42 Denny Lyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Lyons) (207: 30-28-27)(65.9: 9.7-9.4-8.9) +17
2 #40 Deacon McGuire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacon_McGuire) (208: 20-17-16)(71.1: 10.2-5.8-5.0) +19
6 #64 Ed McKean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_McKean) (250: 29-28-24)(69.1: 8.3-7.9-7.6) +29
5 #49 Billy Nash (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Billy_Nash_1865) (259: 29-26-24)(87.5: 10.9-9.1-8.1) +37
8/9 #26 Jimmy Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Ryan_%28baseball_player%29) (351: 37-29-28)(100.0: 10.0-9.9-7.7) +35
7 #74 Kip Selbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Selbach) (232: 30-26-23)(80.0: 11.7-8.5-8.2) +17
7 #75 Elmer Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Smith_%2819th_century_outfielder%29) (261: 31-31-29)(76.7: 11.3-10.5-10.1) -24
1 --- Jack Stivetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Stivetts) (237: 38-34-29)(66.9: 13.1-9.5-8.7) -48
9 #49 Mike Tiernan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tiernan) (288: 34-30-30)(86.0: 10.9-10.6-9.7) +37
8 #28 Geo. Van Haltren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Van_Haltren) (359: 29-28-27)(97.8: 9.0-8.2-7.8) +15

Pos – primary position(s)
BJ – rank at his position in the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (2002)
Win Shares – shown are career total and best 3 years
WARP3 – from Baseball Prospectus; shown are career total and best 3 years
Other –

Some other things to be aware of:
1) Bill James’ rankings emphasize players’ peak years; this results in long steady careers being rated lower than what may seem right.
2) Win shares in seasons before 1904 are increased to adjust them to a 154-game season (actually, to a 152-decision level).
3) Win shares are discounted for the lower quality of play in certain leagues: AL 1901 (3%); AA 1890-91 (12%); AA 1886-89 (3%), AA 1885 (6%); AA 1884 (9%).
4) Pitching win shares before 1893 are discounted by 50% (the same adjustment used by Bill James for his system). These win shares should be assigned to fielding, but I have not attempted this.
5) Due to Bill James' timeline, a player’s rank at his position is lower than it ought to be IMO. I would increase their standing by about 30%. For example, a timeline-free Bill Dahlen would be ranked about the #15 shortstop rather than #21; Lave Cross would be the #23 third baseman rather than #33.
6) You are free to credit players with minor league or foreign league play. I have not systematically attempted this.

[Brad Harris]

Tentatively:

Childs
Dahlen
Long
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltren

[Paul Wendt]

Dahlen (ss) should advance unanimously through the first three rounds.
I am inclined toward Nash, Long, and Childs (3b-ss-2b)

Ryan and Van Haltren seem inevitable. Maybe not, but they have the inside track to complete the six-pack.

I would like to support Cross and Griffin but they are likely to be just off ballot. with Tiernan

At least six others are plausible in that I see the lines of argument.

[Freakshow]

These Round 1 elections are mainly a preliminary weeding-out of the non-candidates. Suggestions as to which four to drop here are heartily welcomed.

[leecemark]

--It hard to know what to think of the WS per season piled up by 19th century pitchers. Alot of it is just due to their being able to throw so many games. Basically I think I'm going to just ignore it and look at where they ranked against their peers. A 40 WS season in which you were the 5th best pitcher is not as impressive as a modern 30 WS season where you were the best pitcher in your league. This is a huge issue for Elmer Smith. If any of his top 3 were as a pitcher it pretty much dismisses his (already slim) chances with me. Is that the case FS?
--Amoung position players Bill Dahlen is the huge omission. Candidates for cutting would be Bill Lange (WAY too short a career), Kip Selbach (niether career nor peak impresses), Ed McKean (3rd best SS on the list), Kid Gleason (peak too low for sub-300 WS career), Denny Lyons (3rd best 3B on list) and Deacon McGwire (unless you give a huge catcher bonus).

[Freakshow]

--It hard to know what to think of the WS per season piled up by 19th century pitchers. Alot of it is just due to their being able to throw so many games. Basically I think I'm going to just ignore it and look at where they ranked against their peers. A 40 WS season in which you were the 5th best pitcher is not as impressive as a modern 30 WS season where you were the best pitcher in your league. This is a huge issue for Elmer Smith. If any of his top 3 were as a pitcher it pretty much dismisses his (already slim) chances with me. Is that the case FS?
--Amoung position players Bill Dahlen is the huge omission. Candidates for cutting would be Bill Lange (WAY too short a career), Kip Selbach (niether career nor peak impresses), Ed McKean (3rd best SS on the list), Kid Gleason (peak too low for sub-300 WS career), Denny Lyons (3rd best 3B on list) and Deacon McGwire (unless you give a huge catcher bonus).
I'll run through Elmer Smith as an example of what I'm doing with win shares.

I own the print version of the Win Shares book; I do not have the digital version. The book tells me that of his 285 career WS, 96 were for pitching. We're halving pitching win shares pre-1893, as Bill James recommends. Nearly all of Smith's pitching was pre-1893 so we'll take 48 WS from his career total. This is my estimate of his pitching WS and Adjusted Win Shares for each season:


WS Yr PWS x.5 TeamDec AWS
5 1886 4 2 138 3.2
54 1887 52 26 135 30.6
30 1888 28 14 134 17.6
9 1889 7 3.5 139 5.8
31 1892 5 2.5 153 28.5
25 1893 -- -- 129 29.5
19 1894 -- -- 130 22.2
16 1895 -- -- 132 18.4
26 1896 -- -- 129 30.6
20 1897 -- -- 131 23.2
27 1898 -- -- 152 27.0
12 1899 -- -- 150 12.2
11 1900 -- -- 138.3 12.1
==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
285 totals 96 48 -- 260.9

So, of Smith's seven seasons with 20+ win shares, only one is from his pitching; his 54 WS season in 1887 is reduced to 31. His 30 WS season in 1888 is deflated to 18 WS. Also note there is a 3% reduction in the calculation for his years in the AA 1886-89.

The WARP3 view is similar. Of his seven season with 6+ WARP3, only one is from his pitching career; his 1887 season is given 10.1 WARP3, his third best season.

[Freakshow]

In addition to the above. Similar reductions to Smith were done for Gleason, Stivetts, and to a lesser degree, Van Haltren and Cuppy. The peaks of Breitenstein and Cuppy, coming after the 1893 pitching changes, are pretty impressive. Of the pitchers who worked hard 1893-99, only Young and Nichols (maybe Griffith) had particularly long careers.

[jjpm74]

Ryan, Cross and Dahlen are pretty much locks for me. The rest are up in the air. Of that list, I'm not sure if Breitenstein even belongs in the company of the rest of those players.

[Paul Wendt]

It's a minor honor to be one of the 18 hypo-ante-penultimate candidates in any decade, eh?

So some of us would like to get it right. But does that mean here the most worthy or those most likely to attract a few votes at this stage? As a consultant last fortnight I put great weight on the latter. For Daly or Selbach, whom I didn't recommend, the case is strictly that he is one of the 18 most worthy players not in the Hall of Fame who can reasonably be assigned to this decade. The small number of catchers honored and the great degree of uncertainty about how to evaluate their playing time and their defense probably means that not only McGuire and Farrell but Jack Clements and Chief Zimmer are more likely to get a vote.

Two players, at least, have some case beyond what the ubermetrics (TPR, WS, and WARP) try to encompass.
- Dummy Hoy could not hear or speak. He made his major league debut a month before his 26th birthday and put up a big year.
- Kid Gleason managed the White and Black Sox 1919-1923. For the Fall '19 to Spring '21 part of the story, some give him more than sympathy. For '22-'23, any claim that the team simply fell apart is poetic license and some may give him some credit for it.

Three players have going for them that some people agree with Win Shares for pre-1893 pitchers. "Yes, the structure of the game permitted even a mediocre pitcher to have now-outlandish impact on a season. It was nonetheless their impact."
- Kid Gleason
- Elmer Smith
- Jack Stivetts

[Paul Wendt]

I believe
McKean has(had?) a stone glove reputation.
So does Bill Joyce who did not make the cut.
Lyons does not have that. As far as I know, he was a big batter who could play the position.

[Freakshow]

It's a minor honor to be one of the 18 hypo-ante-penultimate candidates in any decade, eh?

So some of us would like to get it right. But does that mean here the most worthy or those most likely to attract a few votes at this stage? As a consultant last fortnight I put great weight on the latter. For Daly or Selbach, whom I didn't recommend, the case is strictly that he is one of the 18 most worthy players not in the Hall of Fame who can reasonably be assigned to this decade. The small number of catchers honored and the great degree of uncertainty about how to evaluate their playing time and their defense probably means that not only McGuire and Farrell but Jack Clements and Chief Zimmer are more likely to get a vote.

Two players, at least, have some case beyond what the ubermetrics (TPR, WS, and WARP) try to encompass.
- Dummy Hoy could not hear or speak. He made his major league debut a month before his 26th birthday and put up a big year.
- Kid Gleason managed the White and Black Sox 1919-1923. For the Fall '19 to Spring '21 part of the story, some give him more than sympathy. For '22-'23, any claim that the team simply fell apart is poetic license and some may give him some credit for it.

Three players have going for them that some people agree with Win Shares for pre-1893 pitchers. "Yes, the structure of the game permitted even a mediocre pitcher to have now-outlandish impact on a season. It was nonetheless their impact."
- Kid Gleason
- Elmer Smith
- Jack Stivetts
It's great to have Paul's input on his specialty, the 19th century.

Here's what I wrote in the 1920's, regarding what I think is the order of importance of criteria for the ballot:

And it's not just about sabermetric valuations, although that is the primary factor.

There are four primary factors I'm juggling in deciding who should be the candidates:
1. Value from sabermetric indicators;
2. Value from traditional stat indicators;
3. Popularity as a candidate for the HOF;
4. Value from non-playing contributions.

Another note on Hoy. Contraction to eight NL teams in 1900 pushed him and many productive players to the AL, a very strong minor league that year. He deserves credit for that year. Another 18 wins shares puts him at 296 for his career.

And I did work up the numbers for Bill Joyce, whom you suggested:

WARP3: 56.4: 10.2-9.9-7.6
AWinSh: 173: 34-25-21

Silver King had most of his value in the 1880's, so we'll get him then. I had worked up Bill Hutchison earlier, since "raw" win shares gives him a peak of 54-49-45 from 1890-92 (career 221 WS):

WARP3: 55.8: 15.6-11.3-10.8
AWinSh: 157: 30-28-24

[Paul Wendt]

I need to be somewhere at 1:00 so this is it for now.
Every player, every season, gets credit for his fielding games as a share of team games played. Regarding Ken Boyer or Bob Elliott, I posted some "Full Seasons" data for 3Bmen, maybe with more explanation.

Catcher games (full seasons equivalent, from 1871, debut 1871-1899)
full seasons Fname Lname debut
11.5848001395352 Deacon McGuire 1884
10.549449313432 Pop Snyder 1873
9.69854816794395 Wilbert Robinson 1886
8.94073366001248 Chief Zimmer 1884
8.42312245070934 Charlie Bennett 1878
8.4068078994751 Malachi Kittridge 1890
8.11246815137565 Jack Clements 1884
7.96226917207241 Silver Flint 1875
7.3977669836022 Billy Sullivan 1899
7.13921000622213 Duke Farrell 1888

Deacon White and Doug Allison make the list easily (5th and 8th?) with credit for 1868-70.

McGuire is #11 and Snyder #18 all-time.

progression of the record:
debut FullSeasons
1871 ~8.5 Deacon White
1873 10.55 Pop Snyder
1884 11.58 Deacon McGuire
1922 11.62 Gabby Hartnett
1928 12.40 Al Lopez (and Rick Ferrell 11.75, 1929-)
1972 13.96 Bob Boone 1972-1990
1969 14.04 Carlton Fisk 1969-1993
1991 ?? Ivan Rodriguez, expected

McGuire was still fourth until sometime in the 1980s when Boone, Fisk, Carter, and Sundberg surpassed him, followed by Pena, Santiago, and I-Rod in 2006.

[dgarza]

My Top 6 of this bunch are players I could support for the Hall:

Bill Dahlen
Ed McKean
Denny Lyons
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren

[Freakshow]

The poll has been added to this thread. It will be open for five weeks.

Four players were cut from the list above: Daly, Lange, McKean and Selbach. Thanks for all the input in deciding the last few ballot spots.

[jjpm74]

The first five for me came pretty easily (Cross, Dahlen, Ryan, Van Haltren, Childs). The sixth choice was a bit harder to make as there are several candidates with very similar careers. I ultimately gave the nod to Dummy Hoy based on these two standards mainly:


3. Popularity as a candidate for the HOF;
4. Value from non-playing contributions.


As they seem to separate him from the rest of the remaining contenders, IMO. It was his bio and what he is credited for, the fact that he was still around the game at age 99 and the support for him as a candidate for the hall of fame that ultimately swayed me in his favor.

[Freakshow]

The first five for me came pretty easily (Cross, Dahlen, Ryan, Van Haltren, Childs). The sixth choice was a bit harder to make as there are several candidates with very similar careers. I ultimately gave the nod to Dummy Hoy based on these two standards mainly:



As they seem to separate him from the rest of the remaining contenders, IMO. It was his bio and what he is credited for, the fact that he was still around the game at age 99 and the support for him as a candidate for the hall of fame that ultimately swayed me in his favor.
His case reminds me a lot of Buck O'Neil's: a very good player who overcame discrimination and became a positive example for all, and who enjoyed great longevity as an ambassador for the game.

[Paul Wendt]

Here they arranged by primary fielding position, by lastname within position.
* marks those with significant time as young pitchers; # vice versa

LF CF RF
Smith* Griffin Tiernan
Hoy
Ryan
VanHaltren*

3B SS 2B 1B
Cross Dahlen Childs --none--
Lyons Long Gleason*
Nash

P
Breitenstein
Cuppy
Stivetts#

C
Farrell
McGuire
I might like to vote for more outfielders than Ryan and VanHaltren. Griffin and Hoy are two favorites and Tiernan is a big bat. But the competition is stiff. I expect to take four infielders which probably means Cross or Nash, Nash or Cross? although only Dahlen is a certainty.

As far as I know, contemporaries considered Griffin, Cross, Long, and Nash maybe the best fielders at their positions.

[baseballPAP]

I ultimately went with Nash as my final spot....he's virtually unknown to the general public...but all of these guys are. His career also flies under the radar of most baseball "experts". What he is is a long career deadball 3Bman who covered multiple eras, had some pop, roughly average speed for the time and a plus glove. Its the longetivity that gets the slot for him.... Cross was more versatile, but not as good with the glove. He played even longer, but his best years were in transistion years (1894 and 1901-02), his power was a step behind and his baserunning also was lacking. Edge and vote to Nash.

[Cougar]

Dahlen was super-automatic...one of the dozen best eligible players not enshrined.

Ryan and Van Haltren were easy too.

Cross's career numbers have too much weight to ignore.

I've always had a soft spot for Dummy Hoy.

Could have left #6 blank, but settled on Herman Long.

So:

Cross
Dahlen
Hoy
Long
Ryan
Van Haltren

[Paul Wendt]

There is a remarkable gap in the leaderboard for full seasons played at third base before 1910.

11.9909192509949 Arlie Latham
11.9187789708376 Lave Cross
11.6316487491131 Ezra Sutton
11.5910967290401 Billy Nash
11.5496441870928 Jimmy Collins
9.58255107700825 Jerry Denny
Sutton, Nash, and Collins played in Boston without break 1877-1907 (NL except Nash, PL 1890, and Collins, AL after 1900). When Collins arrived, the NL club traded 12-year veteran Nash to Philadelphia for 8-year veteran Billy Hamilton, a good deal for Boston.

[Freakshow]

Could have left #6 blank
But I'm glad you followed the rules.

Just a reminder to voters that you're required to list six names. If for some reason you vote for less than six, you should email me with the remaining names.

[Freakshow]

This thread needed a bump, so I would like to announce that the list of 1960's candidates has been sent to the ballot consultants. The thread will be posted next week.

If anyone else wants to be a consultant, you still can sign up. If you want to know more about what that means, follow the link in the first post above to the intro thread for the project.

[Paul Wendt]

I did pull the trigger for Billy Nash over Lave Cross (refer to bold in the table).
Not yet mentioned, Nash was the captain of three championship teams, Boston NL 1891-1893.


I ultimately went with Nash as my final spot....he's virtually unknown to the general public...but all of these guys are. His career also flies under the radar of most baseball "experts". What he is is a long career deadball 3Bman who covered multiple eras, had some pop, roughly average speed for the time and a plus glove. Its the longetivity that gets the slot for him.

Maybe longevity "as a plus glove" or longevity over "third thirdbaseman" Denny Lyons or over OFs Griffin and Tiernan. It can't be simple longevity over "first thirdbaseman" Cross or over OF Hoy, P/2B/mgr Gleason, or C McGuire.


Cross was more versatile, but not as good with the glove. He played even longer, but his best years were in transition years (1894 and 1901-02), his power was a step behind and his baserunning also was lacking. Edge and vote to Nash.

By contemporary reputation it's understatement to call Nash a "plus glove" yet wrong to call Cross "not as good with the glove". Both were considered great with the glove, at least. Bill James gives Nash A, Cross A+.

Cross was still a regular 3Bman at his 41st birthday. I presume he suffered some decline, so the grade by Bill James is a surprise to me. I have noticed that longevity eliminates the A+, because James averages the entire mlb career. His A+ 3Bmen before 1930 are Jimmy Collins, Cross, Art Devlin, Tommy Leach, and Lee Tannehill. Only Collins and Cross played third in their late 30s. I guess Cross found a team that distorts the win shares measurements some.

[Paul Wendt]

Dahlen was super-automatic...one of the dozen best eligible players not enshrined.

Ryan and Van Haltren were easy too.

Odd, the first 16 voters in alphabetical order agree on those three candy-dates. The last three do not agree.

Oh, Dahlen must be in the top third of the dozen best eligible players not enshrined.

[Freakshow]

This poll is now in its final week; it'd be nice to get a couple more voters. We have a pretty clear top 8, leaving the last couple at-large candidates still in doubt.

Remember, these guys will be combined with the winners of the 1900's poll for Round 2.

[Freakshow]

We're still hoping to hear from Yankee Legend in the next couple days. He checked only two names in the poll, so we need four more from him.

[Paul Wendt]

Those are painfully low numbers of votes beyond the first eight.
The voters don't quite speak with one voice, but with enough unison to be audible.

[Freakshow]

This poll has now closed. With 24 voters weighing in, there are six players assured of being on the ballot in Round 2, the best Hall of Fame Candidates from the 1890's:

Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
Bill Dahlen
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren

These six will be combined with the top six from the 1900's poll, plus three at-large spots.

These five players have earned consideration for an at-large spot on the ballot in Round 2:

Nig Cuppy
Kid Gleason
Dummy Hoy
Billy Nash
Mike Tiernan

Due to a short ballot cast by one voter, we have again applied a point system, so the percentages here differ slightly from those above. Here are the official results of the 1890's poll:


Advances to Rd. 2 Ballots Points Percent
Jimmy Ryan 22 22 91.7%
George Van Haltren 22 22 91.7%
Bill Dahlen 21 20.33 84.7%
Cupid Childs 19 19 79.2%
Herman Long 15 15 62.5%
Lave Cross 9 9 37.5%
At-large Candidates
Mike Tiernan 8 8 33.3%
Dummy Hoy 7 7 29.2%
Kid Gleason 4 4 16.7%
Nig Cuppy 3 3 12.5%
Billy Nash 3 3 12.5%
Also-ran
Denny Lyons 2 2 8.3%
Elmer Smith 2 2 8.3%
Deacon McGuire 2 1.33 5.6%
Jack Stivetts 1 1 4.2%
Ted Breitenstein 0 0 0.0%
Duke Farrell 0 0 0.0%
Mike Griffin 0 0 0.0%

[Paul Wendt]

Does my vote for Billy Nash count double or did someone with a short ballot weigh in privately?

[jjpm74]

All five of those short list candidates have a good case for inclusion, so it'll be hard to whittle that down to two. My personal choices would be Nash and Hoy, but I can see Gleason, Tiernen and Cuppy getting support and some good cases made for them.

[Freakshow]

Does my vote for Billy Nash count double or did someone with a short ballot weigh in privately?
The latter; zemtech completed his short ballot via PM.

I know; you wish it was the former.

[Freakshow]

All five of those short list candidates have a good case for inclusion, so it'll be hard to whittle that down to two. My personal choices would be Nash and Hoy, but I can see Gleason, Tiernen and Cuppy getting support and some good cases made for them.
You know that and I know that. However, for this project, we pretended that all the decades from 1880's to 1950's are equally overlooked by the HOF; the corollary being that each of these decades has been treated equally fairly by the HOF. From my observations, this is how the typical HOF voter views the HOF.

One of the things I hope this project demonstrates is the error of this mindset. That some decades are almost bereft of candidates due to their players overrepresentation in the Hall. That the HOF has a lot of work to do in the 19th century and in the decades since the 1950's.