BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1901 (Test)

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Last year we conducted mock Hall of Fame elections beginning with 1979. That project proved very successful, so we’re going to try it again, but this time start at 1901.

Format and Rules
For the sake of simplification, convenience, and continuity, we will adopt the rules currently employed by the BBWAA and apply them throughout, with the exception of modifications made for the 1901 election as described below:

- Voting Rules: 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. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 10 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED. Votes will be made public so we can ensure that people are not voting for more than 10 candidates (I also encourage you to not view the results until after you cast your vote).

- Editing Ballots: Please review and consider your ballot thoroughly before submitting, as requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally checked on a wrong player, or accidentally went over the 10 player limit (but in both instances, I strongly encourage you do your best to prevent either from happening).

- Required Support: 75% support or greater will elect a player. Players receiving less than 5% will be dropped from all future 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 (see next paragraph).

- Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 major league seasons. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote.

- Election Period: Elections will close exactly a week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

1901 Rule Modifications
Given that this is the first election and thus more history to cover than subsequent elections, the following rule modifications will apply:

-Player Eligibility: Taking into account that the conditions of the day may have prevented extended careers, the 10 year rule is modified so that players appearing in at least 7 major league seasons between 1871 and 1896 will be eligible. Players from before this period, or who do not meet the 7 year requirement, will be eligible for the Veterans Committee (likely imaginary), provided their last appearance was no later than 1881. If a player retired by 1896 but subsequently reappeared before 1901, they will not be eligible for this election and will be eligible 5 years from their last appearance (for example, Arlie Latham seemingly last played in 1896, but appeared again in 1899, so his first year of eligibility will be in 1904 (he might become eligible again in 1914 as well due to a brief appearance in 1909)).

- More Player Eligibility: Every player eligible for this election will have 15 years of eligibility regardless of when they retired prior to 1896 (provided they played at least 7 seasons and continue to meet the 5% rule).

- Ballot Size: The 1901 ballot will likely be larger than usual (78 candidates) to account for the longer historical period. So while this ballot might look cumbersome due to its length, it should not be indicative of a typical ballot.

- Support Requirements: The 5% drop rule is waived for this election to account for a potentially large number of worthy candidates. However, a player must receive at least one vote in order to be on the 1902 ballot (at which point the 5% rule will apply).


Guide
Future elections will contain a more detailed guide summarizing past results and the status of candidates on the current ballot.

Actual Hall of Fame Players on Ballot (10):
Player Election Year
Dan Brouthers 1945 (VC)
John Clarkson 1963 (VC)
Pud Galvin 1965 (VC)
Tim Keefe 1964 (VC)
King Kelly 1945 (VC)
Tommy McCarthy 1946 (VC)
Jim O’Rourke 1945 (VC)
Charley Radbourn 1939 (VC)
John Ward 1964 (VC)
Mickey Welch 1973 (VC)

[jalbright]

Went with
Brouthers
Clarkson
Galvin
Gore
Hines
Keefe
King Kelly
Radbourn
Stovey
Deacon White

Will vote for (so long as I have a chance)
Bennett
Glasscock
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Sutton

oops! Missed him this time
Jim O'Rourke

[dgarza]

Is there a reason Al Spalding is not on the ballot?

I'm assuming Candy Cummings is not listed because he did not play 7 years.

[dgarza]

Tentatively, I will be voting for :
Dan Brouthers
Tim Keefe
John Clarkson
Ross Barnes
Jim O'Rourke
King Kelly
Harry Stovey
Charley Radbourn
Pete Browning
Jim McCormick

Still not sure what keeps Spalding off the ballot.
If he becomes eligible, I will replace McCormick with Al Spalding.
I'll wait to vote until I hear an answer.

There are so many good players here. Easily 10-15 more I could eventually vote for.

[DoubleX]

Is there a reason Al Spalding is not on the ballot?

I'm assuming Candy Cummings is not listed because he did not play 7 years.

Good catch with Spalding. I'll add him at the end and I'll honor any requests from those who have already voted to change a vote for him. Cummings missed due to eligibility (had to cut the line somewhere).

EDIT: I've inserted Spalding into his alphabetical place, moving everyone below down one and carrying their vote totals with them. That's why when you click on the totals for someone like Deacon White or John Ward, you don't see who voted for them, but the votes are there.

[DoubleX]

It was tough to make the cutoff here. I didn't realize how many good candidates there are. I might have to further modify the drop rule if seems a number of decent candidates fail to even receive a vote in this election due to the numbers crunch.

I voted for these 10:

Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
John Clarkson
Jack Glasscock
Paul Hines
Tim Keefe
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn
John Ward
Deacon White

In the future, I can see possibly voting for at least:

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Dave Foutz
Pud Galvin
George Gore
King Kelly
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Mickey Welch

[jjpm74]

When does this poll close? I'm going to need some time to mull over my choices as there are quite a few on that list that I support.

[jalbright]

When does this poll close? I'm going to need some time to mull over my choices as there are quite a few on that list that I support.

The poll itself contains the answer: 5/4 at a specific hour (2:08 PM is what shows for me, though it may differ by what time zone you've inputted for yourself).

[DoubleX]

I'd like to add that there is nothing wrong with voting strategically, and it perhaps should be encouraged in this election. We should of course aim to get as many people elected as possible, but if you're at the end of your ballot and you're torn between a guy that will probably get at least some support, and a guy that might get no support in this election, you might want to go with the latter in order to ensure he'll stick on the ballot. For instance, I was about to vote for King Kelly, but I figured if he's not elected this time, he'll almost certainly stick around, so I went with Jack Glasscock instead. I'm sure Glasscock will get some support at some point, but with so many good candidates this time, I wouldn't be surprised if he fell to the numbers crunch and got no support this time.

This is why I might need to further modify the drop rule for this year. I can see guys that might eventually get decent support, such as Welch, Mullane, McCormick, Bennett, Sutton, and others, perhaps being dropped due to zero support in this election, and that would be ashame.

[jjpm74]

This is why I might need to further modify the drop rule for this year. I can see guys that might eventually get decent support, such as Welch, Mullane, McCormick, Bennett, Sutton, and others, perhaps being dropped due to zero support in this election, and that would be ashame.

Maybe you could do a push for a few candidates until we get through the first dozen elections. At the end of each cycle, you could publish the list of candidates that had zero votes and ask if anyone out there wants to make a legitimate case for any of them. If someone steps forward, keep them viable. If no one does, drop them from the eligible pool of candidates.

[DoubleX]

Maybe you could do a push for a few candidates until we get through the first dozen elections. At the end of each cycle, you could publish the list of candidates that had zero votes and ask if anyone out there wants to make a legitimate case for any of them. If someone steps forward, keep them viable. If no one does, drop them from the eligible pool of candidates.

I was thinking of something like that. I don't know if I'd do it for the first dozen elections, but maybe for the first few. One idea could be for voters to do what Jim and I did, which is to submit a list of players you might vote for down the line.

In fact, I'll encourage that now. I'd appreciate it if voters could post a list of players they think they might vote for when their ballot opens up. If there are players regularly on these lists, I'll probably waive the drop rule for them.

[jjpm74]

Voted for:

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Dan Brouthers
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
Paul Hines
Charley Radbourn
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Deacon White

Would vote for if the opportunity arises:

Charlie Buffinton
Bob Caruthers
John Clarkson
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Al Spalding
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton

[leecemark]

Mark Baldwin, SP (1887-1893) no way
Ross Barnes, 2B (1871-1879, 1881) made ballot
Charlie Bennett, C (1878, 1880-1893) made ballot
George Bradley, SP (1875-1877, 1879-1884) no way
Dan Brouthers, 1B (1879-1896) made ballot
Pete Browning, CF (1882-1894) maybe someday
Charlie Buffinton, SP (1882-1892) no way
Jack Burdock, 2B (1872-1888, 1891) no way
Oyster Burns, RF (1884-1885, 1887-1895) no way
Tom Burns, 3B/SS (1880-1892) no way
Fred Carroll, C/LF (1884-1891) no way
Bob Caruthers, SP/RF (1884-1893) eventually
Elton Chamberlain, SP (1886-1894, 1896) no way
John Clapp, C (1872-1881, 1883) no way
John Clarkson, SP (1882, 1884-1894) made ballot
Charlie Comiskey, 1B (1882-1894) support as contributor, but not player
Larry Corcoran, SP (1880-1887) no way
Abner Dalrymple, LF (1878-1888, 1891) no way
Jerry Denny, 3B (1881-1894) no way
Fred Dunlap, 2B (1880-1891) doubtfull Jack Farrell, 2B (1879-1889) no way
Bob Ferguson, 3B/2B (1871-1884) doubtfullSilver Flint, C (1875, 1878-1889) no way
Davy Force, SS (1871-1877, 1879-1886) no way
Dave Foutz, 1B/SP (1884-1896) no way
Pud Galvin, SP (1875, 1879-1892) eventually
Jack Glasscock, SS (1879-1895) maybe
George Gore, CF (1879-1892) eventually
Ned Hanlon, CF (1880-1892) not as a player
Guy Hecker, SP/1B (1882-1890) no way
Paul Hines, CF (1872-1891) made ballot
Charley Jones, LF (1875-1880, 1883-1888) maybe
Tim Keefe, SP (1880-1893) eventually
King Kelly, RF/C (1878-1892) made ballot
Henry Larkin, 1B (1884-1893) no way
Jack Manning, RF/SP (1873-1878, 1880-1881, 1883-1886) no way
Bobby Mathews, SP (1871-1879, 1881-1887) no way
Tommy McCarthy, RF (1884-1896) no way
Jim McCormick, SP (1878-1887) no way
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879) 1 20.00% made ballot
Levi Meyerle, 3B (1871-1877, 1884) doubtfullDoggie Miller, C (1884-1896) no way
John Morrill, 1B (1876-1890) no way
Ed Morris, SP (1884-1890) no way
Tony Mullane, SP (1881-1884, 1886-1894) made ballot Candy Nelson, SS (1872-1875, 1878-1879, 1881, 1883-1887, 1890) no way and what up with all the missed years?
Tip O'Neill, LF (1883-1892) no way
Jim O'Rourke, LF (1872-1893) made ballot
Dave Orr, 1B (1883-1890) doubtfull
John Peters, SS (1874-1884) no way
Bill Phillips, 1B (1879-1888) no way
Lip Pike, CF (1871-1878, 1881, 1887) maybe
George Pinkney, 3B (1884-1893) no way
Blondie Purcell, OF/SP (1879-1890) no way
Charley Radbourn, SP (1881-1891) eventually
John Reilly, 1B (1880, 1883-1891) no way
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892) maybe
Yank Robinson, 2B (1882, 1884-1892) no way
Jack Rowe, SS/C (1879-1890) doubtfull
Orator Shaffer, RF (1874-1875, 1877-1886, 1890) no way
Pop Snyder, C (1873-1879, 1881-1891) no way
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) eventually
Harry Staley, SP (1888-1895) no way
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886) eventually
Harry Stovey, LF/1B (1880-1893) eventually
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) maybe
John Ward, SS/SP (1878-1894) made ballot
Curt Welch, CF (1884-1893) no way
Mickey Welch, SP (1880-1892) doubtfull
Deacon White, 3B/C (1871-1890) made ballot
Will White, SP (1877-1886) no way
Jim Whitney, SP (1881-1890) no way
Ned Williamson, 3B (1878-1890) doubtfull
Sam Wise, SS/2B (1881-1891, 1893) no way
Jimmy Wolf, RF (1882-1892) no way
George Wood, LF (1880-1892) no way
Tom York, LF (1871-1885) no way


--Bolded those I pl;an to vote for or at least consider voting for. We'll definately lose some good candidates if we drop everyone who doesn't get a vote. I'd keep everybody on a list like those offered so far thru say 1905. The one vote to stick rule ought to work by then. The 5% rule I think needs to wait until at least 1910 when we've made our way through most of the backlog.

[DoubleX]

--Bolded those I pl;an to vote for or at least consider voting for. We'll definately lose some good candidates if we drop everyone who doesn't get a vote. I'd keep everybody on a list like those offered so far thru say 1905. The one vote to stick rule ought to work by then. The 5% rule I think needs to wait until at least 1910 when we've made our way through most of the backlog.

Ok, I've decided what we'll do for the time being, unless there are any objections. I'll postpone the 5% rule for at least the first 5 elections. As for the one vote rule, we'll drop it for this election and decide whether to use it on an election by election basis for the first five years.

At the end of this election, I'll post a list of players that did not receive a vote but who will appear on the next ballot anyway. This will mostly be based on voters expressing a future possibility of voting for those players, but I'll leave some time for people to express a desire to have more players added to that list.

[Erik Bedard]

Ross Barnes, 2B (1871-1879, 1881)
Charlie Bennett, C (1878, 1880-1893)
Dan Brouthers, 1B (1879-1896)
Pete Browning, CF (1882-1894)
Bob Caruthers, SP/RF (1884-1893)
John Clarkson, SP (1882, 1884-1894)
Fred Dunlap, 2B (1880-1891)
Pud Galvin, SP (1875, 1879-1892)
Jack Glasscock, SS (1879-1895)
George Gore, CF (1879-1892)
Ned Hanlon, CF (1880-1892)
Paul Hines, CF (1872-1891)
Charley Jones, LF (1875-1880, 1883-1888)
Tim Keefe, SP (1880-1893)
King Kelly, RF/C (1878-1892)
Tommy McCarthy, RF (1884-1896)
Jim McCormick, SP (1878-1887)
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879)
Tony Mullane, SP (1881-1884, 1886-1894)
Tip O'Neill, LF (1883-1892)
Jim O'Rourke, LF (1872-1893)
Lip Pike, CF (1871-1878, 1881, 1887)
Charley Radbourn, SP (1881-1891)
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892)
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877)
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886)
Harry Stovey, LF/1B (1880-1893)
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888)
John Ward, SS/SP (1878-1894)
Mickey Welch, SP (1880-1892)
Deacon White, 3B/C (1871-1890)
Ned Williamson, 3B (1878-1890)
George Wright, SS (1871-1882)

Bold are the ones I voted for this time, italic are the ones I will probably vote for in future elections, the others remaining there's a possibility that they might appear on my ballot at some point. The ones I left off will never make my ballot.

[Paul Wendt]

The case for George Wright to escape dismissal to the antiquarian office is probably better than for his Red Stockings teammates Spalding and Barnes.
--

Are you looking for pure players?
Or all roles filled during the playing career?
Or whole careers?

In other words,
Should Joe Torre get consideration for managing the Yankees?
(I think not.)
Should Frank Robinson get consideration for player-managing the Indians?
(??)

[DoubleX]

The case for George Wright to escape dismissal to the antiquarian office is probably better than for his Red Stockings teammates Spalding and Barnes.
--

Are you looking for pure players?
Or all roles filled during the playing career?
Or whole careers?

In other words,
Should Joe Torre get consideration for managing the Yankees?
(I think not.)
Should Frank Robinson get consideration for player-managing the Indians?
(??)

You should only consider what a player did as a player, though if the player was a player/manager, you can consider that as part of your assessment of the player's career.

I added Wright seeing as it was pretty simple to add him to the end of the ballot. I doubt anyone is eager to vote for him at this stage, but if anyone who has voted already wants to change a vote for Wright, let me know and I'll change it.

[jalbright]

I'd rather have Wright than some of the guys I voted for, but if it doesn't affect his likelihood of sticking around, I'll leave things the way they are. If it does, let me know, and I'll tell you who to drop from my ballot in favor of him.

[leecemark]

--I don't know if I'd have voted for Wright this time or not. I definately will vote for him at some point though.

[KCGHOST]

Brouthers
Browning
Clarkson
Galvin
Glasscock
King Kelly
O'Rourke
Radbourn
Ward
Spalding

[Paul Wendt]

You should only consider what a player did as a player, though if the player was a player/manager, you can consider that as part of your assessment of the player's career.

OK. So I might vote for Ferguson or Comiskey but not for Hanlon.
add one line: and John Ward, who already has my vote. He led the Players Brotherhood and the Players League, wrote some books and articles, and served as player-manager for five fairly successful seasons in Brooklyn and New York.

I added Wright seeing as it was pretty simple to add him to the end of the ballot. I doubt anyone is eager to vote for him at this stage, but if anyone who has voted already wants to change a vote for Wright, let me know and I'll change it.

I voted for Wright and I wasn't the first. I cast one strategic vote but that wasn't it. More important, I didn't hem and haw until the deadline over number 9, 10, 11, 12. On these terms I can participate.

Counting George Wright, Mark has 33 in his "bold" list of keepers. If I don't count maybes that depend on my doing some original research with interesting findings :rolleyes: then I have 31:
leecemark's 33, minus four, plus Comiskey and York.
Those two are "doubtful" here, like all four I have crossed off his list.

[DoubleX]

Still several days to go, but right now only Dan Brouthers would be elected. It would be nice to clear up the ballot a little, but Brouthers is likely the most deserving of the distinction of being in the first induction class.

Also, MadHatter, you've gone way beyond the 10 vote limit, voting for 19 players. Please let me know which 9 players you want to trim from your ballot. If I don't hear from you, I'll have to discount your entire ballot.

[Paul Wendt]

. . .
Tony Mullane, SP (1881-1884, 1886-1894) made ballot
Candy Nelson, SS (1872-1875, 1878-1879, 1881, 1883-1887, 1890) no way and what up with all the missed years?
. . .
Before 1872, John Candy Nelson played in Brooklyn for the Eckfords and Mutuals including three professional seasons. He played for Allegheny(Pittsburgh) in the International Association in 1877, having moved from a Philadelphia team to that one mid-season 1876 (perhaps when the Allegheny team was organized.)

Except 1981 he was the regular shortstop for the New York Metropolitans throughout their independent and AA history (1880-1887). Part of 1881 he played for the new Brooklyn Atlantics, part for Troy (NL). After the Mets went out of business he played for Buffalo in the minor International League (not the old IA). Still a shortstop. Evidently he played beside Eckford's best player Jimmy Wood in 1868, ostensibly amateur, and played beside Buffalo's best player Frank Grant in 1888, Grant's last for a high minor team as the color line shifted against him.
1889, no record
1890, the new team in Brooklyn (AA), which didn't complete the season, then in Albany. He also played some 1888 and 1878 games for Albany teams.

I suppose he played in Brooklyn or New York whenever someone would pay him a salary there, otherwise as close as possible.

[Brad Harris]

Willing to vote for...
Ross Barnes, 2B (1871-1879, 1881)
Charlie Bennett, C (1878, 1880-1893)
Dan Brouthers, 1B (1879-1896)
Pete Browning, CF (1882-1894)
Bob Caruthers, SP/RF (1884-1893)
John Clarkson, SP (1882, 1884-1894)
Pud Galvin, SP (1875, 1879-1892)
Jack Glasscock, SS (1879-1895)
George Gore, CF (1879-1892)
Paul Hines, CF (1872-1891)
Charley Jones, LF (1875-1880, 1883-1888)
Tim Keefe, SP (1880-1893)
King Kelly, RF/C (1878-1892)
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879)
Tony Mullane, SP (1881-1884, 1886-1894)
Jim O'Rourke, LF (1872-1893)
Lip Pike, CF (1871-1878, 1881, 1887)
Charley Radbourn, SP (1881-1891)
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892)
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877)
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886)
Harry Stovey, LF/1B (1880-1893)
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888)
John Ward, SS/SP (1878-1894)
Deacon White, 3B/C (1871-1890)

I'd keep everybody on a list like those offered so far thru say 1905. The one vote to stick rule ought to work by then. The 5% rule I think needs to wait until at least 1910 when we've made our way through most of the backlog.
Couldn't agree more! Or, alternately, remove the maximum number of players listed on a ballot for the first 15 elections.

[dgarza]

Just a thought...
How does the idea of holding 2 elections per year for the 1st 2-3 years sound, to help ease and deal with the backlog of players?

[AG2004]

How did Dickey Pearce (1871-1877, HOM Class of 1930) get left of the ballot?

[DoubleX]

How did Dickey Pearce (1871-1877, HOM Class of 1930) get left of the ballot?

He was mentioned in the thread preceding this and I decided he better fits into a pioneer distinction that would be considered by the imaginary VC. If people would strongly like to see Dickey Pearce on the ballot, I'll add him next time.

[KCGHOST]

I think we can see the problems with having too many good candidates on a ballot. Even candidates well above the rest (Clarkson, Radbourn, and O'Rourke) are struggling to maintain the 75% level. And you have to believe the omission on one Ballot of Dan Brouthers was just a mistake.

[jjpm74]

I know we're late into this, but maybe we could restart the balloting, again with the same candidates and leaving it open for a week, but just for this first election eliminate the 10 person maximum? We could then continue from 1902 on with the standard 10 person maximum, 15 year eligibilty, 5% minumum rule and probably not encounter another issue like this for the remainder of the balloting. Otherwise, we may be struggling to elect anyone for the first 10-15 ballots of this process.

[DoubleX]

The one vote rule might actually be taking care of itself, assuaging concerns that we might need to abandon a firm cutoff for a few years. Not countingthe players that only madhatter voted for (because he needs to trim his ballot, or I'll have to remove all of his votes), the following 28 players have all received at least a vote:

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
John Clarkson
Charlie Comiskey
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Jim O'Rourke
Lip Pike
Charley Radbourn
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Mickey Welch
Deacon White
George Wright

I was concerned about guys like McCormick, Mullane, Sutton, and Welch getting any support, but it's there. How many more players that haven't received a vote, should be carried over, and which ones?

[dgarza]

How many more players that haven't received a vote, should be carried over, and which ones?
These players have not received a vote yet:

Charley Jones
Bobby Mathews
Tommy McCarthy
Levi Meyerle
Dave Orr
Will White

I can live without McCarthy (I just list him because he is a HOFer and may draw support for that reason).

I support the rest and believe they should be held over for just a little while longer. Bobby Mathews was very close to getting my vote this time around. And I strongly support Levi Meyerle too.
I support the rest to a lesser degree.

[DoubleX]

Here's what I'm thinking - we'll carry over 40 players from this election, a little bit more than half. Everyone getting at least one vote but not getting elected, will be guaranteed a spot. After that, the list will depend on the feedback everyone is giving.

[DoubleX]

I know we're late into this, but maybe we could restart the balloting, again with the same candidates and leaving it open for a week, but just for this first election eliminate the 10 person maximum? We could then continue from 1902 on with the standard 10 person maximum, 15 year eligibilty, 5% minumum rule and probably not encounter another issue like this for the remainder of the balloting. Otherwise, we may be struggling to elect anyone for the first 10-15 ballots of this process.

We could do this, though my fear would then be that we might elect too many at once. I'm still optimistic that we'll elect 3-5 players in this election, and that's not a bad result.

What does everyone else think?

[Paul Wendt]

I was concerned about guys like McCormick, Mullane, Sutton, and Welch getting any support, but it's there. How many more players that haven't received a vote, should be carried over, and which ones?

After I voted yesterday 27 of my 31 "keepers" had votes perhaps including singletons by Mad Hatter.
Of the four with zero votes, Bob Ferguson and Charley Jones are the ones I put in categories maybe and higher (leecemark's categores).

How many people would vote in a week, if they weren't frightened away by this issue (looks unorganized, or they will probably redo it)? Without 21 voters, thre is no distinction between one-vote and 5% thresholds.

[DoubleX]

After I voted yesterday 27 of my 31 "keepers" had votes perhaps including singletons by Mad Hatter.
Of the four with zero votes, Bob Ferguson and Charley Jones are the ones I put in categories maybe and higher (leecemark's categores).

How many people would vote in a week, if they weren't frightened away by this issue (looks unorganized, or they will probably redo it)? Without 21 voters, thre is no distinction between one-vote and 5% thresholds.

I think people will be more frightened away by the early start date as there is generally less familiarity and interest with 19th Century ballplayers. When we did this last year beginning with 1979, we regularly received over 30 votes, and sometimes near 60. I'm actually impressed that we've received 18 so far.

Things will settle down after the first few elections and I think voter turnout will pick up as we get to more modern and familiar players.

[Erik Bedard]

Of the voteless ones, I would only perhaps vote for McCarthy and/or Jones. Williamson is a (very) long shot.

[jjpm74]

Of the guys possibly on the chopping block, I will eventually vote for Lip Pike and Charlie Buffinton. I can also go either way on Dave Foutz, Ned Williamson and Davey Force.

[Paul Wendt]

Of the voteless ones, I would only perhaps vote for McCarthy and/or Jones. Williamson is a (very) long shot.

Williamson?
Hm, at the moment my keepers seem to be divided 28 and 3 (Ferguson, Jones, Williamson), but there are some crucial MadHatter singletons.

On the other hand, I may not know how to read this or it may be obscured by editing. I thought my strategic vote for Sutton was the only one ("1") but your name is also listed, DoubleX.

[jjpm74]

We could do this, though my fear would then be that we might elect too many at once. I'm still optimistic that we'll elect 3-5 players in this election, and that's not a bad result.

What does everyone else think?


Right now, things are good as they are. My suggestion is just something to consider if the project ends up stalling out before it gains momentum.

[DoubleX]

On the other hand, I may not know how to read this or it may be obscured by editing. I thought my strategic vote for Sutton was the only one ("1") but your name is also listed, DoubleX.

That happened because of adding Al Spalding and George Wright to the ballot after I voted. I can change vote totals, but when I move an option to another slot, the voter's name will still appear. So my vote listed as Ezra Sutton was really for John Ward, and the vote totals accurately reflect this. For instance, when I remove votes from madhatter, the vote total will reflect it but his name will still appear beside the player.

[DoubleX]

If Madhatter's entire ballot is discounted, here's how the results would look so far:

Dan Brouthers - 94.12
John Clarkson - 82.35
Jim O'Rourke - 82.35
Charley Radbourn - 76.47

Tim Keefe - 70.59
King Kelly - 64.71
Deacon White - 58.82
Pud Galvin - 52.94
Paul Hines - 47.06
Al Spalding - 35.29
John Ward - 35.29
Ross Barnes - 23.53
Pete Browning - 23.53
Harry Stovey - 23.53
Jack Glasscock - 17.65
Tony Mullane - 17.65
Joe Start - 17.65
Charlie Bennett - 11.77
Bob Caruthers - 11.77
George Gore - 11.77
Mickey Welch - 11.77
George Wright - 11.77
Charlie Comiskey - 5.88
Cal McVey - 5.88
Jim McCormick - 5.88
Lip Pike - 5.88
Hardy Richardson - 5.88
Ezra Sutton - 5.88
Oyster Burns - 0
Larry Corcoran - 0
Fred Dunlap - 0
Tip O'Neill - 0

[Erik Bedard]

In that case, add O'Neill to the ones I wouldn't want dropped.

[dgarza]

In that case, add O'Neill to the ones I wouldn't want dropped.
I'd have to add O'Neill as well.

[Brad Harris]

If someone hasn't voted yet and they have an extra available slot on their ballot (and they don't mind), please give Charley Jones a vote. His Hall case isn't strong enough to merit being one of the ten most deserving players here, but it's certainly strong enough to merit retention on the ballot for a few years.

[DoubleX]

Scanning through this thread, I count 17 players that don't yet have a vote but who voters have expressed an interest in retaining on the ballot (this includes players that only Madhatter voted for):

Charlie Buffinton
Oyster Burns
Larry Corcoran
Fred Dunlap
Bob Ferguson
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Charley Jones
Bobby Mathews
Tommy McCarthy
Levi Meyerle
Tip O'Neill
Dave Orr
Jack Rowe
Will White
Ned Williamson
Tom York

Let me know if I missed anyone.

Next, this is a tentative list of players that will be joining the ballot in 1902, having retired in 1897 (thanks to help from Freakshow). Please let me know if you feel I missed anyone that should be on there:

Cap Anson
Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
Bill Hutchison
Silver King
Denny Lyons
Sadie McMahon
Fred Pfeffer
Adonis Terry

I've decided to postpone the 10 year rule for the first 5 elections, and thus Bill Hutchison and Sadie McMahon are eligible. However, I will be using more discretion when going outside of 10 years, and thus 7 will probably no longer cut it (as worthy players retiring in 1897 and so on should have played for more than 7). Otherwise, Anson, Connor, and Ewing, make for a very strong crop.

[Paul Wendt]

That happened because of adding Al Spalding and George Wright to the ballot after I voted. I can change vote totals, but when I move an option to another slot, the voter's name will still appear. So my vote listed as Ezra Sutton was really for John Ward, and the vote totals accurately reflect this. For instance, when I remove votes from madhatter, the vote total will reflect it but his name will still appear beside the player.
OK. So it isn't all messed up because you made the change early and Spalding is low in the alphabet.

Among Hatter's four singletons Dunlap is on my keeper list (and Mark's bold list)
==> Dunlap, Ferguson, Jones, Williamson

Regarding the 10-vote maximum and one election per year, I think you should retain them. That's what makes it educational, experiencing what the BBWAA and the officials and the fans reading newspapers experienced until the mid-1950s. Why didn't they elect anyone? Or why didn't they elect Joltin' Joe DiMaggio (compare King Mike Kelly here, baseball's biggest STAR).

By the way, I voted for the six most obvious Hall of Famers, in my opinion.
White
O'Rourke
Hines
Kelly
Ward
Brouthers

They were the greatest players or nearly so and they enjoyed medium long (Brouthers) to extremely long (White and O'Rourke) careers at the highest level of play.
Anson, Connor, and perhaps Ewing from the class of 1897 belong with those six.

For now there is a notable gap after six because
1.
the next excellent players with long careers --Start, Sutton, Glasscock, Keefe?--
weren't quite "the greatest" --Wright, Barnes, Dunlap, Browning, Clarkson, Caruthers.
That is, they weren't quite "the greatest or nearly so" in my judgment.
2.
Spalding's enormous off-field role as a builder of baseball came mainly after his playing career. So it doesn't contribute much to his case under consideration here --in contrast to Ward and Ferguson.

I voted for the early guys (bold).

[NJMetfan4life]

I voted for King Kelly and Tip O'Neil

[Paul Wendt]

I voted for King Kelly and Tip O'Neil

Kelly and O'Neill only? :(

[NJMetfan4life]

Kelly and O'Neill only? :(

Yes, I think they surpass everyone else.

[leecemark]

--I suppose there is some sort of argument for Kelly being the best player in this group, although its not one I'd try to make. O'Neill as #2 and so far ahead of the rest that you draw the line though? I can't see any reasonable case for that.

[dgarza]

Yes, I think they surpass everyone else.
How much can a player surpass Brouthers?

[Freakshow]

Hey, give the guy credit. Usually the lunatic fringe are hit and run voters, they rarely make a post. :crazy

[Paul Wendt]

It seems to me that we have another nearly blank ballot since last night (in the last 20 hours, since my query to NJMetfan4life).

[Brad Harris]

Anyone who can't find 10 players worth voting for in this election doesn't need to be participating in this project.

[leecemark]

--I second that. The backlog is HUGE. I would recommend that people be required to vote for 10 for at least the first 10 years. I don't know that we need to limit it to ten at this time either. We sure don't need the none of the above option. Only someone actively hostile to the project could possibly vote that way at this jucture.

[DoubleX]

I agree that it's unfortunate that some people might vote in this without as much consideration as others and make it hard to get enough support for deserving players, but I don't want to compel people to vote for a minimum number of candidates, let alone 10. I may be amenable to opening up the voting to beyond 10, which may actually be fair here because of the extended historical period, but then again, election should not be easy. I guess we'll see how it goes for another election or so, and then perhaps retool.

We've had 30 different players have received at least 1 vote so far. I think that's pretty good. More importantly, Clarkson, and O'Rourke are each 1 vote away from election. Perhaps we can find someone to join this project and hopefully get those two over the hump.

EDIT: Madhatter gave me his 10 players, and I've adjusted the vote totals accordingly (though is name will still appear alongside players he voted for and from which I have removed a vote). In case anyone is interested, the 10 players that will count from him are:

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
Charlie Comiskey
King Kelly
Tony Mullane
Charley Radbourn
Mickey Welch
George Wright

Votes have been removed from:

Oyster Burns
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
Fred Dunlap
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
Cal McVey
Tip O'Neill
Harry Stovey
Deacon White

[John Shoemaker]

I votrd for:

Ross Barnes
Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
Pud Galvin
Paul Hines
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Al Spalding
John Ward
Deacon White

[Paul Wendt]

. . . I may be amenable to opening up the voting to beyond 10, which may actually be fair here because of the extended historical period, but then again, election should not be easy. I guess we'll see how it goes for another election or so, and then perhaps retool.

We've had 30 different players have received at least 1 vote so far. I think that's pretty good. More importantly, Clarkson, and O'Rourke are each 1 vote away from election. Perhaps we can find someone to join this project and hopefully get those two over the hump.

One vote away? They are two votes short, needing two past voters to revise and add them. Or seven votes short, needing seven consecutive yes from new voters.

DoubleX,
A couple days ago you announced the standings to date showing four players who were above 75%: Brouthers comfortable, Clarkson and O'Rourke with one surplus vote (one "vote ahead" in the "games behind" sense), and Radbourn with nothing to spare.
(quote) . . . If Madhatter's entire ballot is discounted,
here's how the results would look so far:

Dan Brouthers - 94.12 [16 : 1 --that is, 16 yes and 1 no -Ed.]
John Clarkson - 82.35 [14 : 3]
Jim O'Rourke - 82.35 [14 : 3]
Charley Radbourn -76.47 [13 : 4]

Tim Keefe - 70.59 [12 : 5]
King Kelly - 64.71 [11 : 6]
Evidently Mad Hatter voted for 20 without naming Clarkson, O'Rourke, or Keefe; and he voted for Brouthers, Radbourn, Kelly and retained all three. So none of the six leaders lost one of his phantom votes.

Since then four people have cast ballots but none for Clarkson and O'Rourke, only one for Radbourn, two for Keefe, and three for Kelly. So those five are tied for second with [14 yes : 7 no], needing seven consecutive yes votes to get from here to there.

It's possible that we are learning in poll one who has the better chances of early election, and we can use that knowledge to revise votes in the second poll. (For example, I might switch from Ward to Clarkson if I support both.) But it's also possible that people are voting to the score, based on your announcement or on a more up-to-date peek. In that case we may not learn anything in poll one that will help elect anyone in poll two.

[jjpm74]

I think that if this poll and the next few don't go anywhere, that instead of a poll, people should name the 10 from the ballot as their own post (like the BBFHOF ballots but limited only to the list of eligible candidates from each year). It'd put an end to the hit and run voting, focus the mock elections and force people to actually think about who they are picking, or at the very least, maybe they can be structured more like the Ultimate Quest polls where candidates are posted several days before a poll is added.

[DoubleX]

I think that if this poll and the next few don't go anywhere, that instead of a poll, people should name the 10 from the ballot as their own post (like the BBFHOF ballots but limited only to the list of eligible candidates from each year). It'd put an end to the hit and run voting, focus the mock elections and force people to actually think about who they are picking, or at the very least, maybe they can be structured more like the Ultimate Quest polls where candidates are posted several days before a poll is added.

The problem with that is that I then have to count them. :)

I'm amenable to restarting this whole thing if people think it's not being as productive as it could be. In general though, I would prefer to remain as close to the BBWAA's rules as possible, and I also think something things might work themselves out as we progress. With Anson, Ewing, and Conner joining the ballot next year, it's hard to imagine that we'd elect just one player again. I don't think it's that egregious if we only elect Brouthers this time. He is almost certainly the most worthy and I believe on at least a slightly higher plateau than any of the other candidates.

If we were to restart, here are two changes I'd recommend:

- You can vote for up to 15 players in the first 5 years, after that we'll go back to 10

- We'll go back to my original plan that you need at least 1 vote to stay on the ballot for the first five years, after which we'll go to 5%. Given that we've had like 30 different players get a vote in this election, with expanding voting to 15 players, the 1 vote rule really shouldn't be an issue.

[DoubleX]

Evidently Mad Hatter voted for 20 without naming Clarkson, O'Rourke, or Keefe; and he voted for Brouthers, Radbourn, Kelly and retained all three. So none of the six leaders lost one of his phantom votes.

I don't quite follow Paul. Did I do something wrong when fixing Mad Hatter's ballot? The one notable change I did make was add a vote for George Wright for him. He didn't originally vote for Wright, but since I added Wright late to the ballot I said if anyone who already voted wanted to add a vote for Wright, I'd do it.

[dgarza]

If we were to restart, How would you feel about starting before 1901? Is that too far back for some people?

[jjpm74]

How would you feel about starting before 1901? Is that too far back for some people?

I'd be willing to go back as far as 1893, but I don't think it'd make that much of a difference ballot wise.

[Paul Wendt]

I don't quite follow Paul. Did I do something wrong when fixing Mad Hatter's ballot? The one notable change I did make was add a vote for George Wright for him. He didn't originally vote for Wright, but since I added Wright late to the ballot I said if anyone who already voted wanted to add a vote for Wright, I'd do it.

I don't suppose that you did anything wrong. It appears that none of the top six should lose a vote with the M.H. correction. He voted for only three of them in the first place and retained all three.

For me the only reason to look at the M.H. correction was to deduce how many votes each of the top six received from the last four voters. For example, O'Rourke went from 14:3 in the standings to 14:7 (14 yes, 7 no). Because he did not lose a retraction by M.H., we know that he went 0-for-4 with the last four voters --that is, the 18th thru 21st ballots cast, the "last four" at the time I wrote.

[Freakshow]

In general though, I would prefer to remain as close to the BBWAA's rules as possible.
If I may ask an impertinent question: Why?

Why perpetuate the HOF's gerrymandered, patchwork, reactionary, illogical, (insert your own pejorative) system? This is the root of all the problems, shackling yourself to a system that was never thought out and has never stayed unchanged for long.

The 5% rule is an abomination. The 15-year rule and the ten vote limit are necessary only if you don't have a trustworthy electorate but are pretending to trust them. We don't need these rules - we are, in general, a stronger electorate.

Yet, we know how BBF polls go: there are usually enough contrarians and plain old nincompoops to make things frustrating to those who take it seriously. You either have to 1) restrict it to invitation only, in which case you have to count the votes yourself, or 2) exercise ruthless Commmissioner privilege to eliminate the chaotic element among the electorate, or 3) compile a list of rules that render the obstructionists impotent.

So, I make the general suggestion that you use this vote as a way of paring the field down to a manageable number to start with. Than, aim for #3 in the preceding paragraph and start over.

[jjpm74]

The problem with that is that I then have to count them. :)


I'd help you count them if needed.

The only reason I bring this up is that I'm having a hard time believing that anyone would have any trouble coming up with at least 10 players in these first few elections. I think it's more likely that you're getting a small contingency of voters who couldn't care less about the purpose of these mock elections, see a poll when browsing the view new posts option and think, "gee, I've heard of this guy. I'll make him my vote because polls are cool" who are skewing the results. In a project like this one that relies on a 3/4ths majority, it only takes a handful of people to throw a monkey wrench into the cogs and screw up the whole process.

[dgarza]

The 5% rule is an abomination. The 15-year rule and the ten vote limit are necessary only if you don't have a trustworthy electorate but are pretending to trust them. We don't need these rules - we are, in general, a stronger electorate.
I know some of us would like to think that we are a better electorate than the writers, but whenever we do projects like this the results generally show that we are not all that different.

[jjpm74]

I know some of us would like to think that we are a better electorate than the writers, but whenever we do projects like this the results generally show that we are not all that different.

The writers actually do a pretty good job. If they elect Jim Rice this year, he'll be the first person they elected I don't think deserves to be there, and there are many who feel he does belong. Only a handful have fallen through the cracks since the system went into its current configuration.

[Freakshow]

The writers actually do a pretty good job. If they elect Jim Rice this year, he'll be the first person they elected I don't think deserves to be there, and there are many who feel he does belong. Only a handful have fallen through the cracks since the system went into its current configuration.
The writers major errors are ones of omission. They've missed A LOT of worthy players.

[jjpm74]

The writers major errors are ones of omission. They've missed A LOT of worthy players.

I'd rather see errors of omission than what we witnessed come out of the Veteran's Committee mess.

[Freakshow]

I'd rather see errors of omission than what we witnessed come out of the Veteran's Committee mess.
So, "The writers actually do a pretty good job" only in comparison to the follies of the VC? Gee, I guess I would have to agree!:rolleyes:

[jalbright]

I know some of us would like to think that we are a better electorate than the writers, but whenever we do projects like this the results generally show that we are not all that different.

I think we may have a stronger electorate in projects without polls, as the work involved tends to weed out the more casual participants. However, the polls approach doesn't demand much work from voters, and then I think our electorate is about the same quality as the BBWAA.

[BlueBlood]

Enforcing a minimum is absolutely the wrong idea for a project such as this. I applaud the thread creator for not doing so.

On the other hand, there should be no enforced maximum whatsoever. It will speed things up and remember that it's really a yes/no whether someone deserves credit for superior play in the game, and there should be no ceiling stopping us from making such a decision. I see each individual player as their own ballot: yes/no.

[jjpm74]

So, "The writers actually do a pretty good job" only in comparison to the follies of the VC? Gee, I guess I would have to agree!:rolleyes:

The writers have voted in a lot more than they have left out so I'd say it's more than a narrow margin here. You say they've omitted a lot of players. I'm curious who these players are?

[jjpm74]

Looking back as far as the 1980 election, these are some of the players the BBWAA have overlooked to this point that I can see. * means still eligible. # means they are in the HOF through the Veterans Committee:

Dick Allen
Richie Ashburn#
Bert Blyleven*
Jim Bunning#
Orlando Cepeda#
Andre Dawson*
Nellie Fox#
Bobby Grich
Keith Hernandez
Mark McGwire*
Minnie Minoso
Dan Quisenberry
Tim Raines*
Jim Rice*
Ron Santo
Ted Simmons
Lee Smith*
Luis Tiant
Alan Trammell*

Of those no longer eligible, only Santo, Minoso and Quisenberry seem to me to be clear HOFers. That doesn't look like a very large list compared to who they voted in during that stretch:

Hank Aaron
Luis Aparacio
Johnny Bench
George Brett
Wade Boggs
Lou Brock
Rod Carew
Steve Carlton
Gary Carter
Don Drysdale
Dennis Eckersley
Rollie Fingers
Carlton Fisk
Bob Gibson
Goose Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Catfish Hunter
Reggie Jackson
Fergie Jenkins
Al Kaline
Harmon Killebrew
Juan Marichal
Willie McCovey
Paul Molitor
Joe Morgan
Eddie Murray
Phil Niekro
Jim Palmer
Tony Perez
Gaylord Perry
Kirby Puckett
Cal Ripken Jr.
Brooks Robinson
Frank Robinson
Nolan Ryan
Ryne Sandberg
Mike Schmidt
Tom Seaver
Ozzie Smith
Duke Snider
Willie Stargell
Bruce Sutter
Don Sutton
Hoyt Wilhelm
Billy Williams
Dave Winfield
Carl Yaztrzemski
Robin Yount

As much as I'd like to believe that the BBWAA have done a bad job, the bottom line is they've only overlooked 3 people over 29 elections that are clear HOFers to me and 1 of them is a reliever who became eligible at a time when relievers were seen as failed starters. That's a very good ratio. No system is perfect and not all players we'd like to see in the HOF will show up as HOFers some day and that's because it's called the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not The Hall of Recent All Star Players and Perennial Favorites.

[jjpm74]

By comparison, of the projects related to the HOF that have been conducted since I started browsing this site, the BBFHOF elections encourages bandwagoning. The Ultimate Quest forces people to vote for a specific number of candidates each round even if the pool is a weak pool or a strong pool that may leave some players from a certain period on the outside looking in while inferior players advance on. The SOC forced people to pick players more suited to a sim and people to waste a few picks. This system encourages hit and run voting. There's no one way to tell what makes a HOFer a HOFer and all we can do is the best we can. If there was 1 perfect system out there, there'd be no cause for debate. :)

[DoubleX]

I agree that hit and run voting is the biggest issue here. It's an odd thing in that in some ways it's not really an issue, while at the same time it is. We've had 23 ballots submitted, that really isn't many, and most have come from established and well regarded users of the sight. Most others probably feel that this is not for them or don't like the early start date. So we haven't really been attracting lots questionable voting. But at the same time, given that voter turnout is so low, it only takes a few hit and run votes to really skew things.

So here's what I propose to hopefully resolve things once and for all:

- Voters must submit ballots, there will be no more poll and all candidates will be listed on the first page. I may request some help in counting the ballots though. Understand though that this runs the risk of attracting too few votes.

- We will redo 1901 and chalk up this election as a test run. Some have discussed an earlier start date, but I want to stick with 1901. It's just one of those convenient dates in baseball history. The inception of the AL, 25 years from the NL's inception, 30 years from the 1871 date we track back to, the beginning of the 20th Century, and by this point, the game as we know it was largely in place and established. Plus, this project will theoretically go on for a long time and I don't think I want to add years on at the beginning. It will unfortunately create a backlog, but we'll implement the following safeguards:

- You can vote up to 15 candidates during at least the first 5 elections. We'll revisit whether we need to keep it expanded.

- The 1 vote rule will be in effect from the very beginning, and it too will be revisited after 5 elections. Eventually, we'll adopt the 5% rule. It might not be an issue anyway as for several elections, particularly early, 1 vote may be at least 5%, and with the expanded ballot, we should capture more players. I believe at least 30 different players received votes while limiting ballots to 10. The only time I might consider not having any type of drop rule is for the first election. We'll see how it goes, but I'm optimistic that with 15 votes each, we'll capture pretty much everyone.

- Finally, I'd much prefer to stick as closely to the BBWAA rules as possible, no matter how flawed some of us perceive them to be. This is for convenience and continuity sake. Convenience in that voters won't have to remind themselves of the rules as much (as many of us are already familiar with the rules), and also because the BBWAA rules, for better or worse, are the rules of how players are actually elected. So my vision here is to take those rules and apply them throughout to see how we come out. Finally, it's just easier to set a standard, because if we start discussing how best to conduct this, I don't know if we'll ever come to a concrete formula that everyone likes and that won't have to be tweaked as we go.

So is this all good with everyone?

[dgarza]

I think most people here see more than 3 solid BBWAA misses since 1980.

* Solid HOF cases

Dick Allen*
Richie Ashburn
Albert Belle*
Bert Blyleven*
Bobby Bonilla
Ken Boyer
Jim Bunning*
Jose Canseco
Orlando Cepeda*
Andre Dawson
George Foster
Nellie Fox
Steve Garvey
Bobby Grich
Keith Hernandez
Sparky Lyle
Don Mattingly
Bill Mazeroski
Mark McGwire*
Minnie Minoso
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy*
Tony Oliva*
Al Oliver
Dave Parker
Vada Pinson
Dan Quisenberry
Tim Raines
Jeff Reardon
Jim Rice*
Pete Rose*
Ron Santo*
Red Schoendienst
Ted Simmons
Lee Smith
Luis Tiant
Joe Torre
Alan Trammell

I know most people would not have as many players listed as I do and the some of them may be different, but I do think most could come up with 5-10 solid BBWAA misses from 1980-present. Go back further in history, and we can find even more. This is not to say that the BBWAA have done a horrible job, but I do think the BBWAA could have been 20% more efficient by electing 57 or so players rather than the 48 they did.

[jjpm74]

You only have 3 strong case guys that are not currently on the Ballot: Allen, Oliva, Santo. Oliva is not in the BBFHOF and I don't know how much support he really has. Many of the uber stat guys don't like his case. He's one of the many fringe candidates that gets a small group of supporters rallying to his cause. Rose is not eligible. If he was, I don't think anyone out there would make a convincing case against him. Five of the guys you list are in the HOF courtesy of the Veteran's Committee and two of them are considered mistakes by many people here (Mazeroski, Schoendienst).

[jjpm74]

On post #77

Before going with the ballot system, why not let this 1st ballot run its course then go to 15 maximum for the next round and see if there's a better percentage of elected candidates first?

[leecemark]

--XX, I think going to 15 is a good decision,. I'm fine with that whether that is a poll or ballot. Dropping no vote guys is okay, but I wouldn't want to see it strictly enforced for the first year. Maybe once the first vote is complete you could point out the zero vote players in the start up post for year 2. If anybody wants to save them from being dropped they could make room for them on their ballot the next time (and as long as they think appropriate). With a 15 man ballot we'll each be able to afford a slot or three to keep a favorite alive. Eventually you might switch over to 5% instead of 1 vote and/or reduce to a 10 man ballot, but we've got too big a pool for that now.

[Freakshow]

Looking back as far as the 1980 election, these are some of the players the BBWAA have overlooked to this point that I can see. * means still eligible. # means they are in the HOF through the Veterans Committee:

Dick Allen
Richie Ashburn#
Bert Blyleven*
Jim Bunning#
Orlando Cepeda#
Andre Dawson*
Nellie Fox#
Bobby Grich
Keith Hernandez
Mark McGwire*
Minnie Minoso
Dan Quisenberry
Tim Raines*
Jim Rice*
Ron Santo
Ted Simmons
Lee Smith*
Luis Tiant
Alan Trammell*

Of those no longer eligible, only Santo, Minoso and Quisenberry seem to me to be clear HOFers.
"Clear HOFers". What does that mean? Since you didn't define it, I'll define it as players that a solid majority of us agree should be in. Seems reasonable. I'm looking for something objective, not my own subjective list. I know, let's say that anyone elected by both the BBFHOF and the Hall of Merit is a Clear HOFer.

Among those on the BBWAA ballot since 1980 that the writers failed to elect:
Santo
Bunning
Fox
Ashburn
Freehan
Torre
Allen
Boyer
Minoso
Grich
Simmons
Blyleven
Whitaker
Trammell
Dawson
Clark W
McGwire
Raines

I dunno, 18 guys seems like a lot to me, not even including your and BBF's favorite Quisenberry. I know, I know most of these don't meet your "Clear HOFer" standard. Well, sure, most of these are closer to the borderline than those they've elected. But two independent, knowledgeable voting bodies agree that these 18 are deserving.

The thing is, the BBWAA is perfectly capable of identifying the no-brainers. That's about all they tend to elect. They still manage an occasional clunker or two (Sutter, Rice's impending election). But, basically their only function is to wave in the obvious picks. Well, heck, anyone could do that. What's really needed is an electorate that has a better idea where the Hall borderline is so they can get the right guys elected before they're dead. Right now, they're missing A LOT of deserving players.

[DoubleX]

On post #77

Before going with the ballot system, why not let this 1st ballot run its course then go to 15 maximum for the next round and see if there's a better percentage of elected candidates first?

I'd like to keep things as uniformed as possible from the start. Given that we've only run one election, I don't see much harm in doing it again). If nothing else, this election could be seen as an test run, and hopefully we will have worked out the kinks.

[BlueBlood]

Written ballots will take forever and I don't really know how much it will ultimately differ from the BBFHOF. If we are going to stick to written ballots, let's not post the voting results of the last round. Just tell us who is still on the ballot (received 5%) and who is newly eligible. Also, encourage everyone to vote without looking at the ballots of others.

Or why not just say in the poll question that everyone must also post their ballot in the thread. That way we can still have easy tabulation and at least 95% of the voters will probably adhere to this.

[Paul Wendt]

why not just say in the poll question that everyone must also post their ballot in the thread. That way we can still have easy tabulation and at least 95% of the voters will probably adhere to this.

That seems like a good idea to me. If you wish, PM everyone who votes in teh poll without also posting the ballot (list of players supported). That will still be much quicker than administering written-only ballots.

It is more difficult to avoid reading written lists of names than to avoid reading prelminary results. But it is probably futile here to be much concerned about voting to the score.

[jjpm74]

"Clear HOFers". What does that mean? Since you didn't define it, I'll define it as players that a solid majority of us agree should be in. Seems reasonable. I'm looking for something objective, not my own subjective list. I know, let's say that anyone elected by both the BBFHOF and the Hall of Merit is a Clear HOFer.

Someone the majority of people out there recognize as one of the best in the game.

Among those on the BBWAA ballot since 1980 that the writers failed to elect:
Santo 15 43.1%
Bunning Elected by the Veterans Committee
Fox Elected by the Veterans Committee
Ashburn Elected by the Veterans Committee
Freehan 1 0.5%
Torre 15 22.2%
Allen 14 18.9%
Boyer 14 25.5%
Minoso 15 21.1%
Grich 1 2.6%
Simmons 1 3.7%
Blyleven* still has 4 years of eligibility
Whitaker 1 2.9%
Trammell* still has 8 years of eligibility
Dawson* still has 7 years of eligibility
Clark W* 1 4.4%
McGwire* still has 13 years of eligibility
Raines* still has 14 years of eligibility

So the HOF elections should be left in the hands of a handful of number crunchers? We'd like to believe that this community and the HOM community are somehow better than the average fan, but that just isn't the case. The BBWAA represent the fans at large. A HOFer would be a player that if you were to ask the average fan whether or not they belong in the HOF, the answer would be yes. The more borderline and obscure players would be better suited to a retooled Veteran's Committee.

The thing is, the BBWAA is perfectly capable of identifying the no-brainers. That's about all they tend to elect. They still manage an occasional clunker or two (Sutter, Rice's impending election). But, basically their only function is to wave in the obvious picks. Well, heck, anyone could do that. What's really needed is an electorate that has a better idea where the Hall borderline is so they can get the right guys elected before they're dead. Right now, they're missing A LOT of deserving players.

And where exactly is that Hall borderline? Your idea of where that line is is different from someone else's idea of where that line is. There are people out there who feel that too many people get into the Hall of Fame. There are others who feel that every player who had a good 7 year peak should be in. There's no consensus as to where the line should be drawn.

[dgarza]

So are we or are we not running mock VC ballots as well? Like last time?
Obviously, VC ballots would take care of those dropped under normal rules.

[DoubleX]

Written ballots will take forever and I don't really know how much it will ultimately differ from the BBFHOF. If we are going to stick to written ballots, let's not post the voting results of the last round. Just tell us who is still on the ballot (received 5%) and who is newly eligible. Also, encourage everyone to vote without looking at the ballots of others.

Or why not just say in the poll question that everyone must also post their ballot in the thread. That way we can still have easy tabulation and at least 95% of the voters will probably adhere to this.

We could try that and it would be easier. I'd also include the instruction to vote for no more than 10 in the poll question. Nevertheless, I imagine will still get voters that will just vote and either ignore or just bypass the instructions, plus posting the ballot is a little redundant given that votes are made public anyway, but I suppose it might cause people to pause and think a little longer.

So are we or are we not running mock VC ballots as well? Like last time?
Obviously, VC ballots would take care of those dropped under normal rules.

If someone else wants to run the VC, that's fine by me. If a player is dropped from these elections, it will be assumed that they are going to the VC, whether we run it or not.

[Freakshow]

Someone the majority of people out there recognize as one of the best in the game.

So the HOF elections should be left in the hands of a handful of number crunchers? We'd like to believe that this community and the HOM community are somehow better than the average fan, but that just isn't the case. The BBWAA represent the fans at large. A HOFer would be a player that if you were to ask the average fan whether or not they belong in the HOF, the answer would be yes. The more borderline and obscure players would be better suited to a retooled Veteran's Committee.
That's nice and democratic and all. But electing players to the HOF calls for specialized knowledge. The average fan or the average writer does not possess the qualifications we should be expecting from the voters. An elite electorate, with the requisite knowledge and interest in baseball's history, as well as statistical analysis, is what is needed.

The voters here and at the HOM are much closer to this ideal of a HOF voter than the "ink-stained wretches" of the BBWAA. We are much more than number-crunchers; we also have a passion for the subject at hand.

And where exactly is that Hall borderline? Your idea of where that line is is different from someone else's idea of where that line is. There are people out there who feel that too many people get into the Hall of Fame. There are others who feel that every player who had a good 7 year peak should be in. There's no consensus as to where the line should be drawn.
I can tell you exactly where the borderline is: 228. The HOF is self-defining. At this moment the standard is the best 228 players since 1876 and who last played before 2003, excluding banned players and those who made a bigger contribution as a non-player. This is reality, the actual definition established by the NBHOFM. The great majority of those 18 I listed previously are among the top 228, IMO.

[jjpm74]

I can tell you exactly where the borderline is: 228. The HOF is self-defining. At this moment the standard is the best 228 players since 1876 and who last played before 2003, excluding banned players and those who made a bigger contribution as a non-player. This is reality, the actual definition established by the NBHOFM. The great majority of those 18 I listed previously are among the top 228, IMO.

What is the NBHOFM? Is this an actual governing body of the existing HOF or is it one of the many attempts by knowledgeable fans to improve the HOF? If it's the latter, that's a nice number and all, but there are many people out there that feel differently.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm guessing NBHOFM stands for National Baseball Hall Of Fame and Museum

[Freakshow]

I'm guessing NBHOFM stands for National Baseball Hall Of Fame and Museum
Exactly. Thanks, Erik.

[Paul Wendt]

The BBWAA represent the fans at large. A HOFer would be a player that if you were to ask the average fan whether or not they belong in the HOF, the answer would be yes. The more borderline and obscure players would be better suited to a retooled Veteran's Committee.

In a new thread, BBWAA experts, representatives, or what? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77085),
I have quoted this and interpreted it and replied to it; and I have quoted Freakshow #89.

[Freakshow]

If someone else wants to run the VC, that's fine by me. If a player is dropped from these elections, it will be assumed that they are going to the VC, whether we run it or not.
I ran 25 VC elections (1987-2011) the last time. I'm passing the torch to someone else, with the adviso they read some of the earlier threads in that project to be aware of potential pitfalls. Like, don't require 75% for election.

Intro thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57472)
1987 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57498)
1988 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57838)
1989 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58135)

[DoubleX]

So I'll get this restarted at some point. I'm in the middle of law school finals, so it might be a few days. I'm now thinking that we'll keep the poll, as it's just less work, and this is meant to encompassing of baseball-fever, so we will get some hit and run voting. I'd rather have as big an electorate as we can get though, rather than scaring all but maybe 15 people off. I'll encourage people to post their ballots and include that in the instructions, as well as a note about voting for no more than 15 (10 later). But I'm not going to track people down if they don't enforce the ballot. So just to be clear, this election was like a test run, and here are the rules (speak now, or forever hold your piece):

- 15 votes in at least the first 5 elections, we'll revisit then whether to keep it at 15 or go to 10.
- 1 vote needed to stay on the ballot for first five elections, well revisit then whether to keep it at 1 or go to 5%. The first election will not have a set drop rule, but for anyone not receiving a vote, there will have to be an expressed desire to keep them on the ballot.

[Brad Harris]

So I'll get this restarted at some point. I'm in the middle of law school finals, so it might be a few days. I'm now thinking that we'll keep the poll, as it's just less work, and this is meant to encompassing of baseball-fever, so we will get some hit and run voting. I'd rather have as big an electorate as we can get though, rather than scaring all but maybe 15 people off. I'll encourage people to post their ballots and include that in the instructions, as well as a note about voting for no more than 15 (10 later). But I'm not going to track people down if they don't enforce the ballot. So just to be clear, this election was like a test run, and here are the rules (speak now, or forever hold your piece):

- 15 votes in at least the first 5 elections, we'll revisit then whether to keep it at 15 or go to 10.
- 1 vote needed to stay on the ballot for first five elections, well revisit then whether to keep it at 1 or go to 5%. The first election will not have a set drop rule, but for anyone not receiving a vote, there will have to be an expressed desire to keep them on the ballot.

Law school finals? Golly...I thought it was something important. ;)

Behind you all the way here, XX!