BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1904

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

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 first five elections (and perhaps longer if necessary):

Voting Rules: For at least the first five elections, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates (the number will be eventually be cut to 10). A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. For the first five elections, a player must receive at least one vote to appear on the next ballot, though extra considerations may be made for players not receiving a vote in the first election. After the first five elections, players will need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot.

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.
- Early Election Modifications: To be eligible for the first election, players must have played at least 7 seasons between 1871 and 1896. The next four elections will have an 8 year rule. Players from before this period, or who do not meet the 7 year requirement, or who are no longer eligible for the current election, will be eligible for the Veterans/Pioneers Committee, provided their last appearance was no later than 20 years prior to the current election. Players eligible in the first election will be eligible for 15 years, regardless of when they retired, and provided they meet the minimum support requirements. The 5% rule is not in effect for the first five elections. During this time, players need to receive at least one vote to remain on the ballot (or at least one vote in the first two elections to make the third).

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


1904 Guide
There are 47 candidates on the 1903 ballot. First time eligible players last played in 1899.

First Timers (12)
Frank Dwyer
John Grim
Arlie Latham
Ed McKEan
Bid McPhee
Billy Rhines
Jake Stenzel
Jack Stivetts
Jack Taylor
Mike Tiernan
Tommy Tucker
Farmer Vaughn

Holdovers (35)
Player Year of Eligibility High Support Previous Year’s Support
Ross Barnes 4th 61.54% 61.54% (1903)
Charlie Bennett 4th 50.00% 50.00% (1903)
Pete Browning 4th 50.00% 50.00% (1903)
Oyster Burns 4th 7.69% 7.69% (1903)
Bob Caruthers 4th 50.00% 50.00% (1903)
Charlie Comiskey 4th 11.54% 11.54% (1903)
Larry Corcoran 4th 7.69% 7.69% (1903)
Bob Ferguson 4th 8.33% 7.69% (1903)
Jack Glasscock 4th 57.69% 57.69% (1903)
George Gore 4th 57.69% 57.69% (1903)
Mike Griffin 2nd 3.85% 3.85% (19030
Ned Hanlon 4th 7.69% 7.69% (1903)
Paul Hines 4th 69.23% 69.23% (1903)
Charley Jones 4th 3.85% 5.00% (1901)
Denny Lyons 3rd 3.85% 4.17% (1902)
Bobby Mathews 4th 3.85% 4.17% (1902)
Tommy McCarthy 4th 3.85% 5.00% (1901)
Jim McCormick 4th 7.69% 7.69% (1903)
Cal McVey 4th 26.92% 26.92% (1903)
Levi Meyerle 4th 3.85% 4.17% (1902)
Tony Mullane 4th 50.00% 50.00% (1903)
Tip O’Neill 4th 7.69% 8.33% (1902)
Dave Orr 4th 3.85% 8.33% (1902)
Lip Pike 4th 19.23% 19.23% (1903)
Hardy Richardson 4th 50.00% 50.00% (1903)
Al Spalding 4th 50.00% 50.00% (1903)
Joe Start 4th 46.15% 46.15% (1903)
Harry Stovey 4th 61.54% 61.54% (1903)
Ezra Sutton 4th 46.15% 46.15% (1903)
Sam Thompson 2nd 57.69% 57.69% (1903)
John Ward 4th 57.69% 62.50% (1902)
Mickey Welch 4th 26.92% 26.92% (1903)
Deacon White 4th 69.23% 69.23% (1903)
Will White 4th 3.85% 4.17% (1902)
George Wright 4th 53.85% 53.85% (1903)


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (15)
Player 1903 Support
Paul Hines 69.23%
Deacon White 69.23%
Ross Barnes 61.54%
Harry Stovey 61.54%
Jack Glasscock 57.69%
George Gore 57.69%
Sam Thompson 57.69%
John Ward 57.69%
George Wright 53.85%
Charlie Bennett 50.00%
Pete Browning 50.00%
Bob Caruthers 50.00%
Tony Mullane 50.00%
Hardy Richardson 50.00%
Al Spalding 50.00%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (10)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1

Players Elected by Position
Catcher (1): Buck Ewing
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (0):
Third Base (0):
Shortstop (0):
Left Field (1): Jim O'Rourke
Center Field (0):
Right Field (1): King Kelly
Pitcher (4): John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Charley Radbourn

Players Elected by Year
1901: Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902: Cap Anson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903: Pud Galvin

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26

Links to Past Elections
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)

[Sockeye]

Mickey Welch

[AG2004]

Mickey Welch

Still no position players?

What, exactly, is your standard for a position player to be worthy of your ballot?

[jjpm74]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

Left off Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Cal McVey this go around. I may eventually vote for Bid McPhee if he sticks in there long enough.

[Paul Wendt]

McPhee knocks long lost brother McVey off the bottom of the ballot (but this list of 15 is in alphabetical order)

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Ferguson
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Mike Griffin
Paul Hines
Bid McPhee
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

[Paul Wendt]

OK, George Wright has three votes (and someone owes a posted ballot).
23 players have 1 or 2 votes out of 4. You can count most of the twos on pages #4 and #5 whose intersection is ten.
You all have your work cut out for you.
Good luck.

[DoubleX]

Can someone explain to me why McPhee is generally regarded as a much superior candidate to Ed McKean? Is it the whole no glove thing?

McPhee had the longer career, but McKean did manage a pretty impressive 7600 PAs himself, has an 8 point advantage over McPhee in OPS+, played the more demanding position, SS, and put up respectable counting totals for the era and his position. Moreover, McPhee hit below the league average for his career, while McKean was a .300 hitter for his career. Further, McKean's OPS+ in his top 5 seasons is is 131, while McPhee's is 120. So McKean has a decided advantage in peak performance (heck, McPhee's best year in OPS+ doesn't even pass McKean's 131 5-year average).

I imagine that McPhee will get decent to good support here, while McKean will likely get scant support, but I frankly don't see how they're all that different and I think an argument could be made for McKean being the better player.

I went with:

Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Ed McKean - Strategic Vote
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Mickey Welch
Deacon White

[jalbright]

I went with 14 this time:

Bennett
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
McPhee
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
D. White
Wright

[Paul Wendt]

Can someone explain to me why McPhee is generally regarded as a much superior candidate to Ed McKean?
The Bill James letter grades express a consensus on these two: Bid McPhee A+, Ed McKean F.

Many observers think McKean and Bill Joyce carried iron gloves. (Joyce's big bat reaped no votes last year.) McPhee was a legendary fielder without a glove and at last with one.
McPhee was a good batter. Not so good as Dunlap --who was?-- but Dunlap didn't play long. Much better than Pfeffer, the other whiz at second base.

A few colored ballplayers have achieved a measure of renown among the white race and it is remarkable how many of them have played the second sack. Does anyone know why? There was the pioneer Bud Fowler who must have started two leagues and a dozen clubs. Now Sol White has collected three of them together in the the infield of the Philadelphia Giants: himself, Frank Grant, and Bill Monroe.

[Paul Wendt]

George Wright has 5 (and two people owe posted ballots).
Several players have 4 out of 7.

There are 71 votes. One person has bravely, overtly cast a single vote. 15+15+15+14+1 = 60.
The two people who owe posted ballots have cast 11 votes total.
This report is subject to clerical error and it is one that I shall not repeat for at least one week.

[Brooklyn]

Bowning, Hines, Mullane, Spalding, Thompson, Welch, White

[Freakshow]

1904 Ballot: McPhee replaces Galvin

Barnes
Bennett
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
McPhee
McVey
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Ward
D.White
Wright

[NineWorldSeries]

Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Charlie Comiskey
Ned Hanlon
Bid McPhee
Tony Mullane
Al Spalding
Sam Thompson
Mickey Welch
George Wright

[Freakshow]

With the poll up for less than three hours, the obstructionists are already pretty much assured of carrying the election.

Every candidate has missed at least four ballots. Assuming the same number of ballots as last election (26), for one of those four currently at 60% to be elected they would need to be named on 14 of the next 16 ballots (87.5%).

Next election, 1905, also looks like a shutout. Hamilton and Rusie make the 1906 election the next election to expect any inductees.

[jjpm74]

With the poll up for less than three hours, the obstructionists are already pretty much assured of carrying the election.


Hopefully that won't continue. If it does, people will lose interest in this project.

As it stands, it seems that about 30% of the people voting will not support anyone who isn't already in the HOF or listen to any arguments in support of anyone outside regardless of how strong a case they might have. A few also only seem to apply 2008 standard benchmarks to 19th century players completely discounting things like a shorter schedule, platooning roles in the 19th century, the fact that the home run was an anomaly, etc...

I'm not sure how worthwhile this project is in its current state.

[leecemark]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

Left off Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Cal McVey this go around. I may eventually vote for Bid McPhee if he sticks in there long enough.

-Hines was one of the closest to election last time. Unless you changed your mind and decided he doesn't belong he is a poor choice for leavign off.

[leecemark]

Ross Barnes, 2B (1871-1879) - 4th 5 45.45%
Charlie Bennett, C (1878, 1880-1893) - 4th 7 63.64%
Bob Caruthers, SP/RF (1884-1893) - 4th 4 36.36%
Paul Hines, CF (1872-1891) - 4th 6 54.55%
Bid McPhee, 2B (1882-1899) - 1st 5 45.45%
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879) - 4th 2 18.18%
Tony Mullane, SP (1881-1884, 1886-1894) - 4th 7 63.64%
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) - 4th 5 45.45%
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886) - 4th 6 54.55%
Harry Stovey, LF/1B (1880-1893) - 4th 6 54.55%
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) - 4th 6 54.55%
Sam Thompson, RF (1885-1898) - 2nd 6 54.55%
John Ward, SS/SP (1878-1894) - 4th 6 54.55%
Deacon White, 3B/C (1871-1890) - 4th 7 63.64%
George Wright, SS (1871-1882) - 4th

[leecemark]

Mickey Welch

--If I needed another reason not to vote for Welch.....

[jjpm74]

-Hines was one of the closest to election last time. Unless you changed your mind and decided he doesn't belong he is a poor choice for leavign off.

I left off Hines because looking at the previous elections, it looked like Wright was the candidate most likely to gain support in this election and I needed to make room for him somewhere since no one is getting elected.

[Freakshow]

I left off Hines because looking at the previous elections, it looked like Wright was the candidate most likely to gain support in this election and I needed to make room for him somewhere since no one is getting elected.
Well, DoubleX provides the list of leading holdovers form the last election. There's Hines at the top of the list.

[Freakshow]

--If I needed another reason not to vote for Welch.....
OTOH, if we elect Welch maybe he'll leave this project.:crossfingers:

[jjpm74]

Well, DoubleX provides the list of leading holdovers form the last election. There's Hines at the top of the list.

Corcoran was intended as a save vote for me, but doesn't need my save vote. If DoubleX sees this and has the ability to, maybe he could eliminate my vote for Corcoran and add Hines.

[Brooklyn]

With the poll up for less than three hours, the obstructionists are already pretty much assured of carrying the election.

.

Are we sure it is obstructionism and not just differing opinions on who is a HOFer? Ignoring Sockey's 1 vote, there have been 115 votes cast by 10 people, or 11.5 per person. that seems like a pretty healthy amount of votes. No one is getting elected because people have different opinions of a HOFer, and the votes are spread. I don't think that is a bad thing. If someone gets the support, even if he isn't on my ballot, great. But I don't see why more is necessarily better.

I do think we'll get more people elected as we move out of the 19th century careers, and the standards become easier to judge

[DoubleX]

Corcoran was intended as a save vote for me, but doesn't need my save vote. If DoubleX sees this and has the ability to, maybe he could eliminate my vote for Corcoran and add Hines.

As sympathetic as I am to you, I'd rather not make a policy of editing ballots after the fact barring some kind of mistake (such as selecting the wrong player or going over the vote limit).

[Paul Wendt]

Are we sure it is obstructionism and not just differing opinions on who is a HOFer? Ignoring Sockey's 1 vote, there have been 115 votes cast by 10 people, or 11.5 per person. that seems like a pretty healthy amount of votes.
If you don't count Sockeye the average is 13+ votes in public, 8+ votes in private.


Here I have updated #10 and provide the data that makes it easier for someone else to track.

numbers of votes on 9 posted ballots, in order [errorprone clerical work by me]
_1 15 15 15 14 ; 7 15 10 15

sum = 107 votes cast by 9 people in public (average 11.9)

grandsum = 141 votes cast by 13 people (average 10.8) [errorprone]

=> 34 votes cast by 4 people in private (average 8.5)


At least the group should track these statistics. I understand why DoubleX will not take on the details that underly them. At least the group should monitor whether the private voters include someone "just passing by" who has cast a "vote for one".

[Brooklyn]

If you don't count Sockeye the average is 13+ votes in public, 8+ votes in private.


Here I have updated #10 and provide the data that makes it easier for someone else to track.

numbers of votes on 9 posted ballots, in order [errorprone clerical work by me]
_1 15 15 15 14 ; 7 15 10 15

sum = 107 votes cast by 9 people in public (average 11.9)

grandsum = 141 votes cast by 13 people (average 10.8) [errorprone]

=> 34 votes cast by 4 people in private (average 8.5)


At least the group should track these statistics. I understand why DoubleX will not take on the details that underly them. At least the group should monitor whether the private voters include someone "just passing by" who has cast a "vote for one".

I'm not sure if you realize that this is a public poll. If you click on one of the vote totals, you can see who voted for each player. While this is a little more work then reading the posts to see who each poster voted for, you can get an exact analysis of how many players are showing on each ballot

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Bid McPhee
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Montgomery Ward
Deacon White

[Erik Bedard]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Paul Hines
Bid McPhee
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Montgomery Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

Apparently my vote pushed White up to 75%. If one other person had voted for Bennett, Stovey, Mullane, and Hines, they would also be in line for election.

[DoubleX]

White is just over the line right now. Hopefully future voters will pause to consider voting for White, if they haven't already, before casting their ballots. Bennett, Hines, and Mullane are all over 70% as well, though I wouldn't be too hopeful for their election this time around.

EDIT: The good news with White is that I count 6 voters out there who voted for White in 1903 but haven't voted yet this year. So if they call vote for White again, that would bring White's total to 19 votes. The bad news is that last time we received 26 total votes, and 19 out of 26 would just miss election. So some converts may be needed, or less total votes with all the White supporters returning.

[jjpm74]

Nevermind. Figured it out.

[Brad Harris]

I have manipulated my ballot every election because of the eligibility rules. This election, I dropped most of the players who were between say 10 and 45% in favor of adding all the 50%+ players I hadn't made room for in the past (largely pre-NL players). I accidentally left Lip Pike off my ballot this time though so I hope at least one other person votes for him. My hope is that by the time the "one vote and he stays" rule runs out, we'll have inducted enough people that the 15-player max isn't what's going to keep guys like Pike and Charley Jones from remaining on the ballot.

[Freakshow]

DoubleX suggested I post this proposal for discussion.

I have a suggestion we should adopt as a refinement to the simple eligibility rules currently in place. It's similar to the rule apopted by the Hall of Merit for Negro leaguer's eligibility.

In the deadball era you would often get managers and coaches who would continue to play one game or a few games each year after their playing career had essentially ended. Clark Griffith, Hughie Jennings, John McGraw, Kid Gleason, Hugh Duffy, Fred Clarke, Deacon McGuire, Bobby Wallace, Harry Davis, are some cases where you see this. This results in their eligibility coming much later than their peers’ and much later than seems reasonable.

Take Griffith, for example. His career essentially was over in 1907. If we use the simple eligibility rule he will be eligible for the ballot in 1919, due to playing in one game in each season 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1914. I have a proposed rule that makes for a simple solution.

If a player turns 45 (or older) in the year of the election and did not play any games that year, he is eligible.

This is easy to research via BB-Ref. For example, the 1905 election. Players born in 1860 turn 45 that year, so anyone born in 1860 or earlier but played after 1900 you would make eligible by this rule. Looking at the BB-Ref page of players born in 1860 we see Latham, Thompson and Zimmer playing after 1900. The first two we already have on the ballot, so what about Chief? I’m saying that since he didn’t play in 1905 (or 1904, for that matter) that we should make him eligible for the 1905 election based on his age.

Checking the next few years for age-eligible players:
Born 1861 for 1906 ballot – nobody
1862 for 1907 – Dummy Hoy turns 45, but he retired in 1902 so he’s eligible by the simple rule.
1863 for 1908 – Deacon McGuire turns 45 and last played in 1908 (last regular in 1905); make him eligible in 1909 rather than 1917. Jimmy Ryan turns 45, but he retired in 1903 so he’s eligible by the simple rule.
1864 for 1909 – Jimmy McAleer turns 45 and last played in 1907 (last regular in 1898); make him eligible now rather than in 1912.
1865 for 1910 – Patsy Donovan turns 45 and last played in 1907 (last regular in 1904); make him eligible now rather than 1912. Bobby Lowe turns 45 and last played in 1907 (last regular in 1904); make him eligible now rather than 1912.
1866 for 1911 – Kid Gleason turns 45 and last played in 1908 (last regular in 1906); make him eligible now rather than 1917. Lave Cross turns 45 and last played in 1907 (last regular in 1906); make him eligible now rather than 1912.
1867 for 1912 – Cy Young turns 45 and last played in 1911; make him eligible now rather than 1916.
1868 for 1913 – Frank Bowerman turns 45 and last played in 1909 (last regular in 1908); make him eligible now rather than 1914.
1869 for 1914 – Clark Griffith turns 45 and last played in 1914 (last regular in 1906); make him eligible in 1915 rather than 1919. Hughie Jennings turns 45 and last played in 1912 (last regular in 1902); make him eligible now rather than 1917. Jack O’Connor turns 45 and last played in 1910 (last regular in 1903); make him eligible now rather than 1915.
1870 for 1915 - Bill Dahlen turns 45 and last played in 1911 (last regular in 1909); make him eligible now rather than 1916. Heinie Peitz turns 45 and last played in 1913 (last regular in 1905); he should already be eligible in 1911. Joe Sugden turns 45 and last played in 1912 (last regular in 1905); he should already be eligible in 1910.
1871 for 1916 – Fielder Jones turns 45 and last played in 1915 (last regular in 1908); he should already be eligible in 1913.
1872 for 1917 – Fred Clarke turns 45 and last played in 1915 (last regular in 1911); make him eligible now rather than 1920. Cy Seymour turns 45 and last played in 1913 (last regular in 1910); make him eligible now rather than 1918.
1873 for 1918 – Harry Davis turns 45 and last played in 1917 (last regular in 1911); make him eligible now rather than 1922. Bobby Wallace turns 45 and last played in 1918 (last regular in 1912); make him eligible in 1919 rather than 1923.
1874 for 1919 – Nap Lajoie turns 45 and last played in 1916; make him eligible now rather than 1921. Honus Wagner turns 45 and last played in 1917; make him eligible now rather than 1922.

I think doing this raises the level of sophistication of the project. We’re not hog-tied to a simplistic rule; rather we can handle special cases like Deacon McGuire, making him eligible eight years sooner; four years, rather than 12 years removed from his last year of regular play. It appears like we’re really digging when it’s actually pretty easy to figure out.

Note that this isn’t really premature eligibility; no player has ever come back and added much value after missing a year in his mid 40’s. Also, it’s a more humane treatment; if this were actually 1905 it would be the right thing to do and perfectly logical to make Chief Zimmer eligible for the Hall.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm not sure if you realize that this is a public poll. If you click on one of the vote totals, you can see who voted for each player. While this is a little more work then reading the posts to see who each poster voted for, you can get an exact analysis of how many players are showing on each ballot
I am not reading the thread to see whom anyone supports (although I have memorized Sockeye's last two cycles!), only to count the numbers of votes by people who have posted their ballots, in order to subtract that from the total numbers. Even that work is a little bit errorprone.

I was the third to post a 1904 ballot and the fourth to vote in the poll. One person had cast only a single vote, so it was not too much work to look at the detail report and see whom beyond George Wright (alone with three votes) the covert voter had supported. But after a baker's dozen votes are in, even to identify the tags of the four covert voters is too much work of the wrong kind for me. If they were capitalized names like "Bill Burgess" I would probably be able to recognize the four out of thirteen that have not posted their ballots, because I skim those and I learn proper names quickly. Others may be able to skim the detail report and recognize the tags of covert voters quickly.

The underlying data that I previously posted is not crucial. This is the point.
> Ignoring Sockey's 1 vote, there have been 115 votes cast by 10 people,
> or 11.5 per person. that seems like a pretty healthy amount of votes.
If you don't count Sockeye the average is 13+ votes in public, 8+ votes in private.
There is a big difference between 13+ (or 11.5) and 8+ votes per ballot. I can't afford to provide more info because I can't skim the details and recognize the tags of the four people who voted covertly. But I do wonder whether it includes some passer-by who cast a vote for one, maybe didn't even read the instructions.

(The number of covert voters may now be more or less than four. 34 votes / 4 voters = 8.5 is my errorprone count and my reliable calculation a couple days ago.)

[jjpm74]

I like Dan's idea. It makes a lot more sense than waiting in some cases a decade or more because a player showed up in one or two isolated games after their career was over.

[Paul Wendt]

I agree with Dan and jjpm.
From a modern perspective as designers, this is a wrinkle caused by very different underlying economic conditions. Smaller rosters, especially on road trips, and heavy reliance on recent star players as managers and coaches. So the manager or (by late aughts and teens) coach would get into a few games.

By the way Dan Freakshow just announced the results of Ultimate Quest 1870s/80s (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1202955&postcount=25). That was a "vote for five" with six winners because of a tie.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm with Freakshow et al. on this one.

[Brad Harris]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Deacon White

Oh, and I support Dan's idea 100%!

[DoubleX]

I like Freakshow's idea (provided he or someone else helps me keep on top of players who would come under this rule). One thing I propose though, that a player is not eligible under this rule until he misses at least one entire season. Thus if a player keeps appearing in a game or two for a couple of seasons at the end of his career, then misses a season or two, then has another brief appearance, his eligibility will clock to the last season before he missed an entire season.

To illustrate, take Player A:

1901: 352 ABs
1902: 73 ABs
1903: 12 ABs
1904: 5 ABs
1905: 6 ABs
1906: 2 ABs
1907: DNP
1908: 2 ABs
1909: DNP
1910: 3 ABs

Player A's eligibility will clock back to 1906, regardless of age, even though he was pretty much done by 1902. The subsequent reappearances after the first off year would not change his eligibility.

[jjpm74]

2008 JJPM74 says: I think that would unneccessarily complicate things. How do you handle a guy like Minnie Minoso, then?

[DoubleX]

I think that would unneccessarily complicate things. How do you handle a guy like Minnie Minoso, then?

I thought the point of these rules was to address issues inherent in the game during this era, which others have mentioned above. By the time we first get to Minoso (well over a year from now if this project keeps going), we could probably go back to the traditional rule, being that a player who has played 10 years is eligible if last played 5 or more years ago. So this rule is really just era specific, same as we've lowered the eligibility requirements from 10 to 8 and 7 to account for the circumstances of the era. So here is what would happen for Minoso: He would first become eligible in 1969. He would cease being eligible in 1976 due to playing that year (assuming he's not already elected). He would then though not be eligible again until 1985 because he appeared again in 1980, which is less than five years after his 1976 appearance.

Also, while we're discussing rule tinkering, I'm pretty sure we'll implement the 5% rule starting next year, but I'm thinking there will be an exception: Players receiving at least one vote in their first year of eligibility will stay on the ballot, and will be subject to the 5% rule starting in their second year. This may help guard against a problem the BBWAA has encountered in prematurely dismissing players with potentially decent arguments, perhaps due to a strong field (or in the BBWAA's case - ignorance).

I'm also considering keeping the voting limit at 15 votes to facilitate election. , but I'm not sure on this one yet. Comments/suggestions from all are appreciated.

[jjpm74]

Until the ballots start to thin out, I think it's good to keep the number at 15. When you start seeing more short ballots than long ballots from participants, that might be a good time to pare down to 10.

[Freakshow]

Comments and clarifications.

--I have no problem with being the point man on tracking cases of special eligibility for this project.
--Once a player is eligible he should stay eligible even if he comes back and plays regularly. I'm unaware of any great player who was retired for 5 years and then returned and significantly added to his value. For a player like Minoso, those post-career stunts in 1976 and 1980 should have no effect on his continuing eligibility, since they should have no effect on our evaluation of his case for the Hall. Among players in this era, Fielder Jones and Heinie Peitz came back and played briefly more than five years after retiring. These later appearance should be ignored and their eligibility should continue.
--The "eligible at age 45" rule has no effect on the "5 year wait" rule. Players younger than 45 have to be inactive for five years.

Player A in Mike's example would be eligible in 1915, unless he reached age 45 before that.
If he turned 45 in 1911, 12, 13, or 14 he would be eligible that year.
If he turned 45 in 1910 he would be eligible in 1911, since he was active in 1910.
If he turned 45 in 1909 he would be eligible that year.
If he turned 45 in 1908 he would be eligible in 1909, since he was active in 1908.
If he turned 45 in 1907 he would be eligible that year.

For example, Deacon McGuire ended his career like this:
Year age G
1907 43 7
1908 44 2
1909 45 -
1910 46 1
1911 47 -
1912 48 1

Born November 1863, he turned 45 in 1908. He was active that year and the rule says you have to be inactive. In 1909 he doesn't play so we make him eligible. We ignore his games in later years 1910, 1912.

Under the original simple rule he is first eligible in 1917, which is silly.

[BlueBlood]

Barnes
Bennett
Browning
Caruthers
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
McPhee
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Thompson
White
Wright

The newly eligible McPhee replaces the recently elected Galvin.

[TheSlaff]

Barnes
Gore
Hines
McPhee
McVey
Mullane
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
D. White
Wright

[Paul Wendt]

Cal McVey seems to have a lock on precisely 20th place.

[DoubleX]

Given that next year is our last year under the modified rules, I want to go over how I see the rules adjusting after that:

1) Eligibility: The 10-year eligibility requirement will go into effect. We'll also implement Freakshow's proposal to allow a player to be eligible once he is 45, provided that he has not played for at least an entire year. Thus, if a player is 45 or older and keeps appearing in successive years, even if just a few ABs each year, his eligibility will not clock until he misses at least one full year. Thereafter, he will eligible regardless if he plays again.

2) Modified 5% Rule: 5% rule will go into effect. However, given the relative strength of the ballot and the relative smallness of the electorate, I am inclined for the time being to allow players receiving at least a vote in their first year to remain on the ballot even if below 5%. Thus, in the first year, you must get at least a vote, and then maintain 5% thereafter.

3) Ballot Size: It wasn't my plan to diverge so much from the BBWAA, but I'm actually liking the 15 votes ballot. Given that we are a relative small electorate, each vote has a lot of weight, and thus it could really frustrate the process if we reduce the ballot to 10 (even with 15, we're struggling to elect 1 or 2 players). So I'm going to leave the 15 votes in place indefinitely, at least until it appears that the majority of voters are regularly voting for fewer than 10 candidates. Plus, 15 votes, 15 years, has a nice symmetry to it.

So unless there are objections, those will be the rules beginning in 1906.

[Freakshow]

For the next election, 1905, these are the player I have as being newly eligible:

Jack Clements-C
Frank Killen-P
Jouett Meekin-P
Patsy Tebeau-1B/3B
Chief Zimmer-C (age 45)

These are players who last played in 1900 or who turn 45 in 1905 and are inactive.

[jalbright]

For the next election, 1905, these are the player I have as being newly eligible:

Jack Clements-C
Frank Killen-P
Jouett Meekin-P
Patsy Tebeau-1B/3B
Chief Zimmer-C (age 45)

These are players who last played in 1900 or who turn 45 in 1905 and are inactive.

No newbies will be making my 1905 ballot if there's nothing better than them.

[Paul Wendt]

Remember, the National League cut four teams before the 1900 season and the Americans declared independence in the fall. There were not many who played their first games or their last major league games that year.

Zimmer was president of the players association. I believe there are some here who will never vote for him.

[DoubleX]

Just to let everyone know, Freakshow will be in charge of compiling the list of newbies for each election. He'll post the list in the prior elections just for notice and general comment, and in the unlikely event he missed someone.

Thanks Dan for helping out. It's really appreciated.

EDIT: Actually, Dan, should Zimmer be eligible? He played with some regularity without break up until 1903 (when he had 118 ABs). I thought your rule was more for guys who stuck around, perhaps as player-managers, and made maybe just a small handful of appearances (perhaps after not playing for some time). So I would think regardless of age, Zimmer shouldn't be eligible until 1908. For whatever reason, Zimmer chose to keep playing with some regularity until 1903, so I think it would be unfair to give him expedient consideration over someone who might be younger, but retired in 1900. For example, Zimmer had over 100 ABs in each of his last two years, while Jack Clements, also eligible for this election, had just 54 combined in his last two. It doesn't make sense that we would then make Clements wait 5 years but only 2 for Zimmer.

It's my preference that a player cannot be eligible until 5 years after he is done playing continuously, regardless of age. I don't think age should be a reward for a player choosing to continue playing, especially on a somewhat regular basis, as is the case here.

So for example, if Zimmer did not play at all in 1904, but came back for a brief appearance in 1905, he would still first be eligible in 1908 (though if he was not yet 45, I would delay eligibility until his last appearance).

Here's another example which is how I thought this new rule was meant to be implemented. Arlie Latham. Latham played continuously until 1896, though just 35 ABs in 1896. He then had 6 ABs in 1899 and 4 more in 1909. Latham would be first eligible in 1901, despite the subsequent appearances, if he was 45 or older in 1901. However, he was 41 in 1901, so he would not qualify. So his eligibility dated to his 1899 appearance, even though it was brief (note, even though he was only 44 when becoming eligible, we do not delay his eligibility until 1909 because in a 1904 context, we would have no idea he'd reappear in 1909).

Does this make any sense? To summarize:

- Eligibility starts from the last of continuous years, regardless of age. Players who choose to stick around, should not be rewarded with expedited voting.
- If a player takes a year or more off then appears again, even just briefly, eligibility will date until their last year of appearance if they are under 45 at the time of election. If they are over 45, then it will date to the later of either to their last continuous year, or their last year played in which they were younger than 40.

[Paul Wendt]

Think of it the other way around.

The annual election is midnight on New Year's Eve.

Everyone is eligible at 45 unless he played in the majors that year.

Anyone who has been out of the majors five seasons is eligible.

Everyone has one continuous term of eligibility that ends when he leaves the top of the ballot (elected with 75%), or leaves the bottom (killed with less than 5% or one vote), or expires on the ballot (15 years at 5 to 75%).

[DoubleX]

The annual election is midnight on New Year's Eve.

Everyone is eligible at 45 unless he played in the majors that year.

I don't really like that rule though because it rewards someone, like Zimmer for hanging around until an older age, by expediting the period of consideration. Why should we consider Zimmer, who played with some regularity until 1903, any sooner than a player that was essentially done by 1898 but made a couple of appearances until 1900?

I thought the point of this age rule was to take care of players that made some very brief and sporadic appearances after they were essentially done playing. That's not the case with Zimmer who wasn't done playing until 1903, so I think he should be treated the same as anyone else that played until 1903.

As of right now, I don't think I'll be including Zimmer on the next ballot. I think the 45 year rule will be more of a subjective element, such as if the player was essentially done, like Arlie Latham, and then made a very brief appearance a few years later.

In other news, both White and Hines have now fallen below the 75% threshold, so we might not elect anyone this time around.

[Erik Bedard]

What if we say the "period of consideration" is from a player's debut until he turns 45? Because people are definitely considering players' HoF credentials while they're playing.

[BlueBlood]

Ugh. Hines and White just fell below the threshold. Another ballot, another complete waste of time. Boy, I sure can't wait to submit the same 15 names again and await the same results. :crossfingers:

[Freakshow]

I don't really like that rule though because it rewards someone, like Zimmer for hanging around until an older age, by expediting the period of consideration. Why should we consider Zimmer, who played with some regularity until 1903, any sooner than a player that was essentially done by 1898 but made a couple of appearances until 1900?

I thought the point of this age rule was to take care of players that made some very brief and sporadic appearances after they were essentially done playing. That's not the case with Zimmer who wasn't done playing until 1903, so I think he should be treated the same as anyone else that played until 1903.

As of right now, I don't think I'll be including Zimmer on the next ballot. I think the 45 year rule will be more of a subjective element, such as if the player was essentially done, like Arlie Latham, and then made a very brief appearance a few years later.
My concluding paragraph from #32:

Note that this isn’t really premature eligibility; no player has ever come back and added much value after missing a year in his mid 40’s. Also, it’s a more humane treatment; if this were actually 1905 it would be the right thing to do and perfectly logical to make Chief Zimmer eligible for the Hall.
Look at it like this: Why should a player like Zimmer be penalized for being good enough to play into his 40's? A player who washes out at 30 is rewarded, gaining eligibility much earlier in his life.

I could see where we might be concerned if there was some likelihood of a player retiring and then returning after age 45 and significantly altering our image of his career. I know of no case in history like this for any HOFer or good candidate.

The huge benefit of stating the eligibility rule straight-forwardly and not subjectively (as Paul does just above) is it's simple and fair. In the Hall of Merit I was in charge of the New Eligible lists. We employed a subjective element there that occasionally raised objections. So, I think there is benefit in this Special Eligibility rule's simplicity - anybody can go to BB-Ref and figure it out themselves.

It's true, as you say, that the main point of the age 45 rule is "to take care of players that made some very brief and sporadic appearances after they were essentially done playing." I think it's desirable for the rule to be simple and consistently applied. If this "expedites" eligibility for guys who played regularly into their 40's (Zimmer, Young, Lajoie, Wagner, etc.), well so what? If the HOF had rational rules I think it would have adopted this sort of age-based eligiblity. I see no logical reason for a retired player having to wait past age 45 to be eligible.

[jjpm74]

If the HOF had rational rules I think it would have adopted this sort of age-based eligiblity. I see no logical reason for a retired player having to wait past age 45 to be eligible.

Don't they actually have a rule like this in place for managers?

[DoubleX]

I'm going to have to think about this, but like I said, I'm really only in favor of the age rule for players that essentially stopped playing then came back briefly sometime later. Zimmer played straight through 1903, and with some regularity to boot, and thus I think he should be treated like anyone else that played straight through 1903. I know we're not supposed to know this in 1905, but Zimmer lived until 1949, so there is no danger in him perhaps missing his chance in 1908 when he's 47/48 years old (as a sidenote, he was born in November, so depending on when the election is conducted, he might not be 45 in 1905 anyway). Even with the diminished life expectancy of the early 20th century, if Zimmer was fit enough to play professional baseball into his early 40s, he probably had a good chance for good health and longevity by the standards of the day.

Moreover, time can theoretically make a difference in perception. Of course it doesn't really effect us because we're looking at all these elections from over a century into the future anyway. But if we were back in 1905, our perception could be different between 2 years and 5 years from when a player retired. Take Mark McGwire for example - if he was up for election 2 years after he retired, he'd be a shoe in. Time can change perception, and thus I think it would be unfair to treat Zimmer in one manner yet everyone else who played continuously until 1903 in a different manner. They should all be subject to the same standards and period of reflection.

Anyway, my basic stance here is that if a player played continuously up until a certain year, he be treated the same as anyone else that played until that year, regardless of age. If Zimmer came back sometime later, I might treat it differently.

Dan, I really hope I don't offend you on this, because I really appreciate your help in putting together the newly eligible players, but on this point, I think I'm going to disagree and will most likely leave Zimmer off the ballot until 1908, same as everyone else that played continuously until 1903.

[Freakshow]

Dan, I really hope I don't offend you on this, because I really appreciate your help in putting together the newly eligible players, but on this point, I think I'm going to disagree and will most likely leave Zimmer off the ballot until 1908, same as everyone else that played continuously until 1903.
Mike, I understand it's your call. I think you're overlooking the benefit of having a consistent age 45 rule. If you want to treat every player on a case by case basis, that's your prerogative, but you're only making extra work for yourself and leaving yourself open to challenges of arbitrary decisions on eligibility.

You also said, But if we were back in 1905, our perception could be different between 2 years and 5 years from when a player retired. Or between 5 years and 6 years, or any other arbitrary time period. That has little relevancy, as far as I can see. In addition, if we were back in 1905, 45 was considerably closer to death than it is today, as you said. I think the general attitude would be, What are you waiting for, get him on the ballot.

Another note about Zimmer is he was done as a player-only in 1902. In 1903, the Phillies named him their manager. He played himself in about a quarter of their games, as their 3rd string catcher.

[DoubleX]

Dan, you mention consistency as part of why we should adopt the 45 year old rule across the board. Well I believe consistency is why we should make every player wait the same five years from the last year of continuous play. In some ways, picking 45 is just as arbitrary as choosing to wait 5 years, but we pick these numbers for simplicity and consistency, and I believe in this case keeping the 5 years consistent is more important. To judge one player after only two years and the rest after five, just doesn't seem consistent.

Also, Zimmer may have been manager in 1903, but he still managed 118 ABs, which is not that insignificant of a number. Compare that to Jack Clements who hadn't had more than 42 ABs since 1898. So if your point is that Zimmer was really done by 1902, then it could be said that someone like Clements was done by 1898, meaning he'd be waiting 7 years. When we start looking at ABs, we get into a subjective area, that's why I feel it's just better, for consistency's sake, to stick to 5 years after the last year of continuous play. If the player appears again down the road, their eligibility will be clocked to the later appearance unless they were 40 or older in their last year of continuous play (in which case they would receive the benefit of the 45 year old rule, but still have to wait five years).

In sum, I just don't want to expedite eligibility because of age. For consistency's sake, I believe all players should have to wait 5 years.

[Freakshow]

I'm not clear on how you intend to apply the rule. Can you give a few specific examples?

[leecemark]

--Zimmer will be lucky to be anything but one and done whether he hits the ballot now or 5 years from now. The only purpose he serves here is to establish a precedent.

[BlueBlood]

I'll certainly vote for Zimmer. He changed our HoF, FOREVER!

[Freakshow]

--Zimmer will be lucky to be anything but one and done whether he hits the ballot now or 5 years from now. The only purpose he serves here is to establish a precedent.
Mike says he's not eligible yet. Precedent set: the age 45 rule will be applied subjectively.

[Paul Wendt]

So Deacon McGuire will be 1913 because he played in every season through 1908. If he had not played in a 1907 game he would be 1911, despite playing games in even-numbered years.

Dan would make him 1909 because he is 46 years old and did not play a game that season. If he had not played in 1907 he would be 1909 anyway because he was only 44 years old in 1907.
Don't they actually have a rule like this in place for managers?
MANAGERS AND UMPIRES
>> http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/vetcom_manager_rules.jsp
Eligible candidates must be selected from Baseball Managers and Umpires who have been retired from organized Baseball as Managers or Umpires for at least five (5) years prior to the election. If the candidate is 65 years old at the time of retirement, the waiting period is reduced to six (6) months. If the candidate reaches the age of 65 during the five-year waiting period, the candidate becomes eligible six months after the candidate's 65th birthday.
<<

EXECUTIVES AND PIONEERS
>> http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/vetcom_executive_rules.jsp
Eligible candidates must be selected from Baseball Executives who have been retired from organized Baseball as an Executive for at least five (5) years prior to the election, as well as active candidates age 65 or older.
<<
That's what it says, which implies retire at 64 and wait until age 69.
What it means in practice?

[Brad Harris]

I'll certainly vote for Zimmer. He changed our HoF, FOREVER!
:laugh :laugh :laugh

[Freakshow]

So Deacon McGuire will be 1913 because he played in every season through 1908. If he had not played in a 1907 game he would be 1911, despite playing games in even-numbered years.

Dan would make him 1909 because he is 46 years old and did not play a game that season. If he had not played in 1907 he would be 1909 anyway because he was only 44 years old in 1907.
OK, how about Griffith and Gleason?

[DoubleX]

Deacon McGuire is a good example of how I envision the age rule. McGuire played continuously until 1908 when he was 44, though appeared just briefly in 1907 and 1908. He then briefly appeared again in 1910 and 1912. We will chart his eligibility to 1908, his last year of continuous play, and he will first be eligible in 1913, as Paul said.

Now this is where the age rule would come in. Say he was 38 in 1908, then came back in 1910. Given that he was less than 40 in 1908 (and thus would be less than 45 in 1913), and given that he appeared again before 5 years elapsed until the 1913 election, he would not be eligible for the 1913 election. He would instead be eligible in 1915, five years after his 1910 appearance, given that he was 40 in 1910. Had he been younger than 40 in 1910, his eligibility would then clock to 1912, his last appearance.

Clark Griffith might better illustrate this. He played continuously until 1907 when he was 37, though only appeared briefly in 1907. He then appeared briefly again in 1909 at age 39, though he turned 40 that year, and then very briefly again from 1912-1914. So Griffith's eligibility will date to 1909, because he was for intents and purposes 40 that year, and he will first be eligible in 1914. So the age rule would cause us to ignore his very brief appearances in 1912-1914.

So in general, eligibility will clock to the season in which the player last appeared, regardless of how briefly the played. The age rule will come into effect for players that missed at least an entire year of play, and subsequently briefly played again at age 40 or older. If this is too complex or odorous, my preference would then be to simply go back to the standard rule that players is eligible from his last year of appearance (unless he appeared again 5 years after his previous appearance). I'm looking for consistency here too, and that's why I think I'm pretty strongly against letting someone like Chief Zimmer be eligible after two years while everyone he's up against would only have to wait 5 years. Regardless, every player should have to wait 5 years.

[Freakshow]

Clark Griffith might better illustrate this. He played continuously until 1907 when he was 37, though only appeared briefly in 1907. He then appeared briefly again in 1909 at age 39, though he turned 40 that year, and then very briefly again from 1912-1914. So Griffith's eligibility will date to 1909, because he was for intents and purposes 40 that year, and he will first be eligible in 1914. So the age rule would cause us to ignore his very brief appearances in 1912-1914.
Griffith also made an appearance as a pinch runner in 1910. If I understand the rule, this would have no effect on the above analysis, since he was already past his 40th birthday when he made that appearance.

Another case is Jennings. His career ended like this:
Year age G
1902 33 78
1903 34 6
1907 38 1
1909 40 2
1912 43 1
1918 49 1

While 1908 eligibility could be seen as logical, that game in 1907 restarts the clock, since he was younger than 40, right? So he's eligible in 1912, ignoring the appearances in his 40's, right?

[DoubleX]

While 1908 eligibility could be seen as logical, that game in 1907 restarts the clock, since he was younger than 40, right? So he's eligible in 1912, ignoring the appearances in his 40's, right?

He would be eligible in 1914. If he's eligible in 1912, he'd be 43 there, less than 45. Eligibility would trace back to his last non-continuous year that he was 40 or older, which was 1909.

As another matter, what do people think about shortening the elections to 5 days? The voting is generally done by the 5th day anyway and with so many years ahead of us, it would speed up the process a little.

[Paul Wendt]

He would be eligible in 1914. If he's eligible in 1912, he'd be 43 there, less than 45. Eligibility would trace back to his last non-continuous year that he was 40 or older, which was 1909.

As another matter, what do people think about shortening the elections to 5 days? The voting is generally done by the 5th day anyway and with so many years ahead of us, it would speed up the process a little.
The one-week cycle may have advantages such as some people (BBF passersby? any regulars) have free time only on weekends. At least for a few more years I would make the poll always overlap a weekend in hopes of catching a few extra people both on- and off-weekend.

I would probably try something like 2-3 days for the thread before the poll opens plus 4-5 days for the poll where 2-3 and 4-5 gives me (you) one day slack. In practice any "one week" cycle could be shorter than six or longer than eight to give more slack when really necessary.

add: Evidently no one needs to close the poll; that deadline is set in advance and automated. For example to overlap the weekend it could be Monday evening Pacific time every week. Then the slack would cover starting the thread (MTWTh, aiming for M night or T day) and starting the poll (TWTh, aiming for W night). This is only an example.

[jjpm74]

I'd do it as you've been doing it and keep it at a week so you can catch everyone who might be interested.

[Paul Wendt]

Zimmer was president of the players association. I believe there are some here who will never vote for him.
In one notice, Chicago Tribune 1900-10-05 p9, the organization is termed "Players Protective union" (small 'u'). Zimmer calls it "the union" in a quotation.

[DoubleX]

I've figured out a way to more simply state the age rule:

"For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older."

This is how it would apply to some of the players mentioned:

Zimmer: He played continuously until 1903 when he turned 43. His first inactive year at 45 or older was 1905, but 5 years after his last year of continuous play is 1908. Given that 1908 is later than 1905, he is eligible in 1908.

Griffith: He played continuously until 1907 when he turned 37. Then appeared again in 1909 when he turned 39, and then 1912-1914, turning 45 in the last year. 5 years after his last year of continuous play is 1912, but since he subsequently played beyond age 40, his eligibility starts his first inactive year at age 45 or older which is 1915 when he turned 46. This is because he appeared at age 45. As a sidenote, had Griffith not appeared in 1912, he would have been eligible that year, being 5 years after his last year of continuous play.

McGuire: He played continuously until 1908 when he turned 45. He subsequently briefly appeared in 1910 and 1912. His first inactive year at age 45 or older was 1909, but 5 years after his last continuous year is 1913. 1913 is later than 1909, so he is first eligible in 1913.

[AG2004]

My ballot

Ross Barnes
Bob Ferguson
Paul Hines
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Deacon White
George Wright

Sutton is a newcomer to my ballot. He seems similar to Galvin in many ways - a player with long career who was sometimes great, yet not consistent on a year-by-year basis. If Galvin is the lower standard for pitchers, then it seems to me that Sutton would be the lower standard for position players.

Also, Sutton is arguably the best third baseman ever to play the game. I would say Collins' peak has been superior to that of Sutton's, but the leader of the Boston Americans still lags behind in career value. If he maintains a good level of play for two more seasons, however, I may have to declare Collins the best to have ever played the position.

[Paul Wendt]

Congratulations to Paul Hines and Deacon White.

Next year I will think about what I think about the other candidates.
There is only one (McVey) with 4<x<10 votes, nineteen at 10-19 votes, which is odd.

[Paul Wendt]

Doubly quoting myself,
> Zimmer was president of the players association.

In one notice, Chicago Tribune 1900-10-05 p9, the organization is termed "Players Protective union" (small 'u'). Zimmer calls it "the union" in a quotation.
The Baseball Players Protective Association.
Second meeting, New York 1900-07-29
160 members present, constitution and by-laws adopted, officers elected:
"Chief" Zimmer, president; Hugh Jennings, Secretary; William Clarke (Boileryard), Treasurer
--NYTimes 07-30 p5