Ranking the Hall of Famers - Election One

[DoubleX]

I can’t remember if we’ve done something like this, but if we have, I don’t think it’s been for a long time. The goal of this project is simple - to rank the players in the Hall of Fame, one at a time.

Voting Criteria: Voting is to be based on a player’s qualifications to be in the Hall of Fame. As such, subjective elements can and should very much factor into the evaluation, and this should not simply be an exercise in ranking players based on ability and statistics. Jackie Robinson is probably the best example of this.

Election Format: Elections will last a week, with winner takes all. A tie will result in a two-day runoff. For now the ballot will list 25 players, plus an “Other” option. If voting for “Other” please post and specify the player. Also, feel free to let me know if you feel I should expand/contract future ballots and/or add/subtract certain players from the future ballots.

[KCGHOST]

Probably should have started with the #2 slot.

[Brad Harris]

Bonds should be one of the choices.

[Brad Harris]

Obviously Bill hasn't seen this poll yet. ;)

[leecemark]

Bonds should be one of the choices.

--This is ranking the Hall of Famers. Bonds is at least 5 years away from qualifying to be in such a poll.

[philkid3]

Obviously Bill hasn't seen this poll yet. ;)

I noticed, too. :laugh

I wanted to vote for someone other than Ruth just to be different, but nah.

[leecemark]

--If this was best player I'd have voted for Mays, but sey hey the Babe is the most recognizable name in baseball history as well as being the consensus best player by both casual and more analytical fans. He pretty much has to be the first guy in. Willie can wait till next poll to get my vote.
--The interesting question for me is when does historical importance start to outweigh strictly performance in picking who to vote for. Neither Jackie Robinson nor Cap Anson are in my top 25 players, but if there were a 25 man Hall they'd both be on my list. And quite the odd couple they'd be!

[DoubleX]

--The interesting question for me is when does historical importance start to outweigh strictly performance in picking who to vote for. Neither Jackie Robinson nor Cap Anson are in my top 25 players, but if there were a 25 man Hall they'd both be on my list. And quite the odd couple they'd be!

I wondered the same thing when I started this and that's why I included both on the initial 25-man list. If I were to rank the players purely on performance, Robinson might come in around 40, but this is a different sort of ranking, and here I find it hard to have Robinson outside the top 5, and I might vote for Robinson next.

Anyway, I hope people realize that this is not meant to be just another player ranking that we do from time to time, but that it's a ranking on a players qualifications for the Hall of Fame, which should encompass more than just performance and will bring in subjective elements.

[Paul Wendt]

this is not meant to be just another player ranking that we do from time to time, but that it's a ranking on a players qualifications for the Hall of Fame, which should encompass more than just performance and will bring in subjective elements.

You can handle that by putting "record" or "performance" (as a player) in the preface, where the point of "ability and statistics" (as a player) may be only to make the objective/subjective distinction.

You'll need to decide when to roll Al Spalding, John Ward, John McGraw, Rube Foster, and Frank Robinson into the ballot. And Buck O'Neil or Joe Torre if he gets into the Hall soon.

Is it possible to arrange in two columns?

[DoubleX]

You can handle that by putting "record" or "performance" (as a player) in the preface, where the point of "ability and statistics" (as a player) may be only to make the objective/subjective distinction.

You'll need to decide when to roll Al Spalding, John Ward, John McGraw, Rube Foster, and Frank Robinson into the ballot. And Buck O'Neil or Joe Torre if he gets into the Hall soon.

Is it possible to arrange in two columns?

I don't quite follow your first suggestion, but I am open to any suggestions that attempt to better clarify the criteria. I don't think it takes too much explanation though, as I think there is more subjectivity involved in assessing Hall of Fame qualifications than simply ranking players on performance, though everyone will weigh the subjective elements differently (as well as objective elements).

As for the ballot, I think I will expand it. I don't want the ballot to get too cluttered, but I want to be encompassing enough so as to no leave someone off that may be a viable candidate at that point in the election. So I think I'll expand the next ballot to 40 or 50 and see how that goes.

Also, the ballot will be restricted to only players actually in the Hall. So that will rule out Joe Torre, Buck O'Neill, John McGraw, etc... To make the ballot, a person has to have been inducted as a player. Interestingly, if this project is successful and we go through all the players one by one, we will likely have a few more electees down the road, such as Rickey Henderson. By the time we get to Henderson, we would already have had about 50 elections, so what would we do about Henderson if we feel he should slot in someplace in the top 50? My guess at this point is that we'll have a vote on where to slot Rickey in and we'll bump everyone else down one slot if necessary.

[Freakshow]

Also, the ballot will be restricted to only players actually in the Hall. So that will rule out Joe Torre, Buck O'Neill, John McGraw, etc... To make the ballot, a person has to have been inducted as a player. Interestingly, if this project is successful and we go through all the players one by one, we will likely have a few more electees down the road, such as Rickey Henderson. By the time we get to Henderson, we would already have had about 50 elections, so what would we do about Henderson if we feel he should slot in someplace in the top 50? My guess at this point is that we'll have a vote on where to slot Rickey in and we'll bump everyone else down one slot if necessary.
1) Is there any reason to think for a second that Rickey will not be elected to the Hall in 2009? I recommend you go ahead and include him as in the HOF for this exercise.

2) Remember that guys like McGraw, G. Wright, T. McCarthy, etc., were designated as "manager", "pioneer", "player" ex post facto to their elections to the HOF. Wright was elected for his great play but was subsequently classified as a pioneer because his career was mainly before the founding of the NL. McCarthy was elected more as a pioneer than a player. "Players" Jennings, Chance and "manager" W. Robinson were elected as much for their managing as for their play.

[DoubleX]

2) Remember that guys like McGraw, G. Wright, T. McCarthy, etc., were designated as "manager", "pioneer", "player" ex post facto to their elections to the HOF. Wright was elected for his great play but was subsequently classified as a pioneer because his career was mainly before the founding of the NL. McCarthy was elected more as a pioneer than a player. "Players" Jennings, Chance and "manager" W. Robinson were elected as much for their managing as for their play.

For whatever reason, a distinction was eventually made with these individuals, and if that distinction is to cast them as a manager rather than a player, they will be ineligible for this project. Thus McGraw is out and Chance is in. We could quibble with how appropriate the designation is for some of these guys, but we're going to strictly go by who the Hall has deemed as players.

[Freakshow]

For whatever reason, a distinction was eventually made with these individuals, and if that distinction is to cast them as a manager rather than a player, they will be ineligible for this project. Thus McGraw is out and Chance is in. We could quibble with how appropriate the designation is for some of these guys, but we're going to strictly go by who the Hall has deemed as players.
What about George Wright?

[OleMissCub]

There are few people who are bigger homers for Cobb than myself (Bill obviously), but #1 just HAS to be George Herman Ruth, Jr.

http://www.baseballantiquities.com/BabeRuth.jpg

[DoubleX]

What about George Wright?

The Hall of Fame website lists him as an "Executive/Pioneer" so he will not be part of this. I think that's a fair designation. He had a nice playing career, especially considering the era, but it came at a time when the professional game was in its extreme infancy, and his career was relatively short by Hall of Fame standards (era considerations aside), that a Pioneer designation seems pretty apt to me.

Would it be fair anyway to compare the playing career of someone like Wright or McGraw (who had a very good, albeit short career), to the players that are in the Hall entirely on the strength of their playing careers (with some exceptions, such as Chance).

[Freakshow]

The Hall of Fame website lists him as an "Executive/Pioneer" so he will not be part of this. I think that's a fair designation. He had a nice playing career, especially considering the era, but it came at a time when the professional game was in its extreme infancy, and his career was relatively short by Hall of Fame standards (era considerations aside), that a Pioneer designation seems pretty apt to me.

Would it be fair anyway to compare the playing career of someone like Wright or McGraw (who had a very good, albeit short career), to the players that are in the Hall entirely on the strength of their playing careers (with some exceptions, such as Chance).
Short career? Wright played 17 seasons at the highest level (1866-1882). Often recognized as the game's best player; his NA stats 1871-75 compare well to anyone except Barnes.

And isn't the task we have before us exactly this: comparing players holistically, based on their lifetime contributions to the Game; synthesizing the value of their playing careers together with contributions made off the diamond. That's the criteria used by the HOF veterans committee, as stated in their rules.

[DoubleX]

Short career? Wright played 17 seasons at the highest level (1866-1882). Often recognized as the game's best player; his NA stats 1871-75 compare well to anyone except Barnes.

And isn't the task we have before us exactly this: comparing players holistically, based on their lifetime contributions to the Game; synthesizing the value of their playing careers together with contributions made off the diamond. That's the criteria used by the HOF veterans committee, as stated in their rules.

The game in 1866 was such a shell of what it would become, and what most of the players in the Hall played in, that I feel a pioneer designation is appropriate when you put all his contributions together.

The goal of this project is to rate the players based on what they did only as players, and not what they contributed to the game in other capacities. So even if Wright is included, you'd have to ignore everything else he did and zero in only on what he did/how he impacted the game as a player. If the Hall has deemed an inductee to have been inducted first and foremost as a player, than he will be a part of this project. You can quibble with that designation, but that's not the purpose here. Yes there are a few more complicated examples, like Frank Chance, but he's in as a player, so we will consider him as a player and only consider what while playing.

I think the issue here is that you seem to want to include everyone in the Hall in this project, which would be like comparing apples and oranges, IMO. I'd rather just stick to apples. Yes, some apples will be different than others, but they're all apples. The Hall of Fame has a list of people that are in the Hall as players, and the simple goal of this project is to take that list of players and rank their qualifications as players for being in the Hall.

[Freakshow]

Only as players. OK, that's clear now. How about character? Should that have any impact on our ratings?

[DoubleX]

Only as players. OK, that's clear now. How about character? Should that have any impact on our ratings?

Consider it to whatever extent you want. For some people, character issues factor into how worth a player is of the Hall of Fame, and character might be the difference in a close comparison between two players. As I said elsewhere in this thread and many times before, the Hall of Fame is necessarily different than simply ranking players on performance. Other subjective elements factor into a player's Hall of Fame credentials that go beyond just objective statistics. So I guess I'm saying vote based on your criteria for what constitutes a Hall of Famer. A good reference though might be the criteria that the actual voters are supposed to follow.