BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1905

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates (the number may 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, with the exception of first time eligible players, who will need at least 1 vote to appear on the next 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).
- Age Exception: 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.

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


1905 Guide
There are 39 candidates on the 1905 ballot. First time eligible players last played in 1900.

First Timers (4)
Jack Clements
Frank Killen
Jouett Meekin
Patsy Tebeau

Holdovers (35)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ross Barnes 5th 68.00% 68.00% (1904)
Charlie Bennett 5th 64.00% 64.00% (1904)
Pete Browning 5th 54.17% 52.00% (1904)
Bob Caruthers 5th 44.00% 50.00% (1903)
Charlie Comiskey 5th 8.00% 11.54% (1903)
Larry Corcoran 5th 8.00% 8.00% (1904)
Frank Dwyer 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1904)
Bob Ferguson 5th 8.00% 8.00% (1904)
Jack Glasscock 5th 40.00% 57.69% (1903)
George Gore 5th 56.00% 56.00% (1904)
Mike Griffin 3rd 4.00% 4.00% (1904)
Ned Hanlon 5th 4.00% 7.69% (1903)
Charley Jones 5th 8.00% 8.00% (1904)
Denny Lyons 4th 4.00% 4.17% (1902)
Bobby Mathews 5th 8.00% 8.00% (1904)
Jim McCormick 5th 8.00% 8.00% (1904)
Ed McKean 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1904)
Bid McPhee 2nd 56.00% 56.00% (1904)
Cal McVey 5th 32.00% 32.00% (1904)
Levi Meyerle 5th 4.00% 4.17% (1902)
Tony Mullane 5th 60.00% 60.00% (1904)
Tip O’Neill 5th 4.00% 8.33% (1902)
Dave Orr 5th 4.00% 8.33% (1902)
Lip Pike 5th 16.00% 19.23% (1903)
Hardy Richardson 5th 52.00% 52.00% (1904)
Al Spalding 5th 48.00% 50.00% (1903)
Joe Start 5th 52.00% 52.00% (1904)
Harry Stovey 5th 68.00% 68.00% (1904)
Ezra Sutton 5th 48.00% 48.00% (1903)
Sam Thompson 3rd 64.00% 64.00% (1904)
Mike Tiernan 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1904)
John Ward 5th 60.00% 62.50% (1902)
Mickey Welch 5th 40.00% 40.00% (1904)
Will White 5th 4.00% 4.00% (1902)
George Wright 5th 56.00% 56.00% (1903)


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (12)
Player 1903 Support
Ross Barnes 68.00%
Harry Stovey 68.00%
Charlie Bennett 64.00%
Sam Thompson 64.00%
Tony Mullane 60.00%
John Ward 60.00%
George Gore 56.00%
Bid McPhee 56.00%
George Wright 56.00%
Pete Browning 52.00%
Hardy Richardson 52.00%
Joe Start 52.00%

Holdovers Dropped in Last Election (2)
Player Reason
Oyster Burns Lack of Support
Tommy McCarthy Lack of Support


Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (12)
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
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4
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
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 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 (1): Paul Hines
Right Field (1): King Kelly
Utility (1): Deacon White
Pitcher (4): John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Charley Radbourn

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903 (1): Pud Galvin
1904 (2): Paul Hines, Deacon White

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25

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)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)

[Sockeye]

Mickey Welch

[Brad Harris]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
George Gore
Charley Jones
Bid McPhee
Cal Mcvey
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
George Wright

[jjpm74]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Bid McPhee
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
George Wright

Maybe next time if there's room:

Cal McVey
Al Spalding

EDIT: Can someone explain how you get to the list of who retired each year on BBref? I'm missing it somehow but know its there somewhere.

[Brooklyn]

Browning, Mullane, Spalding, Thompson, Welch

[Paul Wendt]

EDIT: Can someone explain how you get to the list of who retired each year on BBref? I'm missing it somehow but know its there somewhere.
On every player page several fields of vital data are linked to lists.

Select the birth year or death year (eg, '1915') or the term 'Debut' or 'Final Game'. Those four are linked respectively to the lists of players born, died, debuted or finaled in the same year as the given player, but all the lists by year are linked together --not only those four lists but also 'Final year' and 'Transactions' and 'Amateur Draft'.
Final Game is the last major league game played and Final Year is the year of that game.

There are similar features for birth and death day ('February 5'), state if USA ('IL'), and country if not USA ('Ireland') and for the terms 'Born' and 'Died'.

[jjpm74]

That did the trick. Thanks, Paul!

EDIT: I see Childs, Hamilton and Rusie are coming onto the ballot next year!

[jalbright]

Bennett
Glasscock
Gore
McPhee
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
Wright

[BlueBlood]

We elected Deacon White and Paul Hines, I have replaced them with Jim McCormick and Ezra Sutton.

Barnes
Bennett
Browning
Caruthers
Glasscock
Gore
McCormick
McPhee
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Wright

[Brad Harris]

That did the trick. Thanks, Paul!

EDIT: I see Childs, Hamilton and Rusie are coming onto the ballot next year!

They're no Mickey Welch. :laugh

[DoubleX]

My ballot:

Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Jim McCormick
Bid McPhee
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Mickey Welch

I dropped Ed McKean in favor of Bid McPhee, though I still think McKean is a better candidate than most give him credit for. I also added Bob Caruthers and Jim McCormick to my ballot. I also strongly considered adding Ross Barnes, which often means that I will eventually add him. I didn't quite yet, because I still see him as something more of a pioneer, but I am rethinking it, so he will likely appear on my ballot at some point if he's not elected.

I have a feeling though, that this could be our first year without electing someone.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Bid McPhee
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson

In my vooting, I seemed to have missed Ward this time. A mistake is a mistake.

[Paul Wendt]

My prediction is that we elect Stovey. Anyone else?

Probably this is the last year for Mike Griffin on the ballot. Before he goes let me say a few words about this great defensive centerfielder and leadoff man who never had a bad year. He was the captain of the Brooklyn Bridegrooms, under contract to manage the team in 1899, when the Brooklyn and Baltimore owners traded half of their holdings with each other. (So four men owned 40%, 40%, 10%, and 10% of both clubs.) Incumbent Baltimore manager Ned Hanlon was one of the 10% owners. What they worked out is that Hanlon moved to Brooklyn with most of the better Orioles players and led that team. In modern terms he was the field manager, GM, and minority owner; and the Baltimore GM too. Baltimore's biggest gate attraction John McGraw remained there with Wilbert Robinson, his partner in a popular hangout, and he led that team as captain and manager. So Brooklyn demoted Griffin and tried to cut his salary. He refused to play at the reduced rate --presumably $2400, the ceiling for all but captains and managers, maybe $3000, the ceiling for captains. He did play again and he sued for his 1899 salary, winning that case a year or two later.

Among the non-pitchers now on our ballot, Griffin is fifth by career WARP1 behind McPhee, Glasscock, Ward, and Richardson. (WARP1 is Clay Davenport's measure of a player's impact in his own time and place, denominated in games.) That rating includes some bias in Griffin's favor, relative to those earlier players: a moderate advantage over McPhee and a big advantage over the others because he played entirely in the 140-game era. By WARP3 he is ninth behind McPhee, Glasscock, Gore, Richardson, Ward, Thompson, Bennett, and Sutton. (WARP3 is D's measure of a player's impact adjusted for league quality and schedule length, still denominated in games.) That is close to a couple of non-HOF outfielders coming soon, who were his contemporaries: Ryan 86, Van Haltren 82, Griffin 77 --in roughly 9000, 9000, 7000 plate appearances.
Mike Griffin was a star player who should not be forgotten.

[Erik Bedard]

My first ballot below 15 names (13):

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
George Gore
Bid McPhee
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
George Wright

[jjpm74]

My prediction is that we elect Stovey. Anyone else?


I'm predicting Sam Thompson, Harry Stovey and Charlie Bennett.

[Freakshow]

1905 Ballot: Caruthers and Thompson replace Hines and White

Barnes
Bennett
Caruthers
Glasscock
Gore
McPhee
McVey
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
Wright

[DoubleX]

Is everyone ok with my listing Deacon White as a utility player? My preference is to list a player only once when listing by position, so I figured if we have someone like White that can't be pigeon-holed in one position, I'll list them as utility players.

[Paul Wendt]

As I said earlier I think you should list him as a catcher. On the other hand, yes I am ok with it. This isn't the BBF HOF, after all!

Jim O'Rourke is closer to my idea of a utility player. He settled at leftfield for the last six years of his very long career. Before then he played about 2 fse in leftfield. Take a look.

Measuring his fielding games in full seasons equivalent, rounding to nearest 0.1 seasons:
Jim O'Rourke
6.4 LF
5.5 CF
2.6 1B
2.3 C
2.2 RF (outfield sum 14.0)
1.6 3B
1.0 SS
(sum 20.6, third to Anson and Rose)

He played center about 15 years before he played left

Here is O'Rouke's year-by-year record 1872-1893 listing one fielding position only for those seasons he played essentially one season.
(dnp) ** ** 1b -- cf -- cf --
-- -- cf ** -- cf ** ** -- lf
rf lf lf --

** O'Rourke played some catcher almost every year. In these five seasons he played 15-35% of team games as catcher.
-- multiple positions not including much catcher

[AG2004]

Why is Sam Thompson getting so much support?

I decided to compute adjusted win shares for outfielders. For seasons from 1892 onwards, as well as for the 1890 PL and 1891 NL, the adjustment was

Win Shares*(154/Games Scheduled).

For seasons up to 1889, as well as for the 1890 NL, 1890 AA, and 1891 AA, the adjustment was

Win Shares*(140/Games Scheduled).

Van Haltren's win shares during the seasons in which he pitched were not adjusted.

The reason for using the higher total for 1892-1899 is because there were 12 major league teams instead of 16. With contraction to 12 teams, the total number of win shares available reduces by 25%, and the total number of players will also go down by 25%. However, the worst players are the ones who drop out, and, since they were the worst players, they earned fewer than 25% of the win shares in the year before contraction. This means that the remaining players had earned more win shares in the 16-team situation than were available in the 12-team situation. Some adjustment is needed to counterbalance this problem.

The 1890 PL drew the cream of the crop from both the NL and the AA, while the 1891 NL was much stronger than the 1891 AA. Thus, there's some added value for league strength in those cases.

Here's a listing of outfielders by adjusted win shares. An asterisk indicates a player active during the 1905 season.

*Jesse Burkett 423-117-161
Jim O'Rourke 423-100-153 (No NA credit included)
Ed Delahanty 390-113-173
Billy Hamilton 368-110-170
Paul Hines 362-107-167 (No NA credit included)
*Hugh Duffy 322-101-158
*Joe Kelley 318-103-156
George Gore 322-109-146
George Van Haltren 368-87-135
*Willie Keeler 316-95-145
Harry Stovey 314-93-132
Jimmy Ryan 341-88-135
Tip O'Neill 311-92-132
Pete Browning 266-98-143
*Fred Clarke 279-98-136
Charley Jones 242-97-143 (blacklisted for two years mid-career)
Mike Tiernan 275-86-130
Sam Thompson 259-91-128
Mike Griffin 266-83-121
Dummy Hoy 269-83-108

King Kelly was not included because he played only 52% of his games in the outfield; he played catcher at some point during 40% of his games, and that affects his win share totals. His win share line is 358-100-142. [Kelly also suffers from the fact that we have no SB figures from the first few seasons of his career.]

Thompson appears to be, at best, the 17th best outfielder to have ever played major league base ball. If we include Kelly as an outfielder, Thompson goes down to 18th, at best. There are a outfielders in mid-career, such as Elmer Flick, Jimmy Sheckard, Sam Crawford, Roy Thomas, and Fielder Jones, who might record greater records than Thompson when their careers end.

Thompson is not even close to being the best right fielder in the history of the game. He was, at best, the 9th best outfielder of the 1890s. What makes Thompson worthy of being elected?

Also, how large of a Hall do we really want? If we elect Thompson, we would have about 20 or 25 outfielders per 30 year period. At that rate, and expanding it to cover all positions, we would end up with 300 to 400 players a century from now. Delahanty, Burkett, and Hamilton would be worthy inductees when they become eligible. Thompson is nowhere near as worthy as them; he is nowhere near as worthy as Hines or O'Rourke, who are in the Hall.

Thompson would represent a substantial lowering of the Hall of Fame's standards. Why should he be elected?

[Brad Harris]

Thompson would represent a substantial lowering of the Hall of Fame's standards. Why should he be elected?

Even without credit for two of his missing prime seasons, Jones is better than Thompson. Considering this is his last election in which to remain on the ballot with just a single vote, I'd ask someone with an open spot to strongly consider adding the major's first longball star.

[Paul Wendt]

I decided to compute adjusted win shares for outfielders. . . . Van Haltren's win shares during the seasons in which he pitched were not adjusted.
That is ok with me. He was a mediocre pitcher, punching the clock from the perspective of ranking the outfielders we have seen.

Here's a listing of outfielders by adjusted win shares. An asterisk indicates a player active during the 1905 season.
. . .
*Hugh Duffy 322-101-158
*Joe Kelley 318-103-156
George Gore 322-109-146
George Van Haltren 368-87-135
*Willie Keeler 316-95-145
Harry Stovey 314-93-132
Jimmy Ryan 341-88-135
. . .
Sam Thompson 259-91-128
How do you combine these numbers to put the list in order? The first number suggests why Van Haltren and Ryan might get strong support and the second number suggests why many of us like George Van Haltren and Sam Thompson. My thought has been that I might not vote for the Orioles(*) but I have considered them greater players than George Gore. The second and third numbers suggest why.

--
There is a lot of information on Charley Jones at the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/charley_jones_lip_pike). (Beginning last summer I was the main source.)
Here there is some different information from me in the thread for discussion of Keltner Lists (Charley Jones, posts 66, 68) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1204099#post1204099))

[NineWorldSeries]

Browning
Caruthers
Comiskey
Hanlon
McPhee
Mullane
Spalding
Thompson
Welch
Wright

[KCGHOST]

Browning
Glasscock
Gore
McPhee
Wright
Ward
Tiernan
Thompson
Stovey
Mullane
Richardson

[AG2004]

How do you combine these numbers to put the list in order? The first number suggests why Van Haltren and Ryan might get strong support and the second number suggests why many of us like George Van Haltren and Sam Thompson. My thought has been that I might not vote for the Orioles(*) but I have considered them greater players than George Gore. The second and third numbers suggest why.



It's just a very rough estimate of where they might fall, and nothing more. I haven't thought about official rankings, so I can't be more specific.

There are thirteen outfielders whose numbers in all three categories exceed those of Thompson. Two others - Ryan and Van Haltren - have higher numbers in the career and five-consecutive-seasons categories, and they aren't too far behind in when it comes to best three seasons. Jones is ahead of Thompson in both of the peak categories, and, with any reasonable credit for his years on the blacklist, would move ahead of him in career value as well.

If Thompson, then why not Jones or O'Neill or Browning? Thompson has more votes than Stovey or Gore. If Thompson, then why not Stovey or Gore?

So far, 14 voters have cast ballots. 13 of them have listed Thompson, the sole exception being Sockeye. I don't understand how Sockeye can set his standard for position players as high as he does -- he still hasn't explained his belief that Brouthers and Connor are bad HOF choices beyond the statement that they weren't as good as Anson -- but at least he's consistent in that category. To the others, how many members should the HOF have a century from now, and, given that response, what is the case for Thompson instead of some other outfielders on the ballot?

[DoubleX]

Jim O'Rourke is closer to my idea of a utility player. He settled at leftfield for the last six years of his very long career. Before then he played about 2 fse in leftfield. Take a look.

O'Rourke did play around the diamond, but the vast majority of his games were spent in the OF. This will be the case for a number of players, so I think it's appropriate to just list them in the OF position the spent the most games.

[DoubleX]

This thread is teetering on the brink of falling to the second page...

Dan (sorry, my PM box is full), for next year's newbies I got:

Ted Breitenstein
Cupid Childs
Nig Cuppy
Billy Hamilton
Pink Hawley
Joe Quinn
Amos Rusie
Elmer Smith
Gus Weyhing

Tommy Dowd, Kid Carsey, and Bert Cunningham also meet eligibility requirements and played relatively significantly, but neither were very good. Did I miss anyone?

[Freakshow]

This thread is teetering on the brink of falling to the second page...

Dan (sorry, my PM box is full), for next year's newbies I got:

Ted Breitenstein
Cupid Childs
Nig Cuppy
Billy Hamilton
Pink Hawley
Joe Quinn
Amos Rusie
Elmer Smith
Gus Weyhing

Tommy Dowd, Kid Carsey, and Bert Cunningham also meet eligibility requirements and played relatively significantly, but neither were very good. Did I miss anyone?
After the drought in 1905, the next election has a bumper crop. Three names you omitted, nobody good.

1906
Ted Breitenstein-P
Kid Carsey-P
Cupid Childs-2B
Bert Cunningham-P
Nig Cuppy-P
Tommy Dowd-RF
Billy Hamilton-CF
Pink Hawley-P
Al Maul-P
Morgan Murphy-C
Joe Quinn-2B
Amos Rusie-P
Pop Schriver-C
Elmer E. Smith-LF
Gus Weyhing-P

[DoubleX]

Thanks Dan. Some of these guys might not make the ballot. I almost positive I won't put Murphy on unless someone makes a decent case for him (just 2150 PAs, 53 OPS+).

Elmer Smith is a somewhat interesting candidate that might deserve more consideration that one might think. 126 OPS+ in 5400 PAs and 113 ERA+ in 1200 IP (though most of that was in the AA).

Also, as a general reminder to everyone, next year we will have the 5% rule, though 1st year eligible players will need just 1 vote to move on. We'll also stay with the 15 vote ballot for the time being.

[jjpm74]

Pop Schriver and Morgan Murphy hit the 10 year minimum. Outside of that, I can't see anyone voting for them.

[DoubleX]

Not everyone who makes eligibility will make the ballot. As we move along, we'll have more and more mediocre players making the bare minimum eligibility requirements, and it would seem a waste of time and space to include them.

[Paul Wendt]

Also, how large of a Hall do we really want? If we elect Thompson, we would have about 20 or 25 outfielders per 30 year period. At that rate, and expanding it to cover all positions, we would end up with 300 to 400 players a century from now.
I'm not sure. Will two or three or four major leagues of eight teams gain a foothold, perhaps the new American Association and the Pacific Coast League? If so should the number of great players we honor increase by a factor of two, three, or four?

After the old American Association played a few seasons, fans thought of two leagues as normal. After a few seasons of the consolidated 12-club league, fans thought of that as normal. After a few seasons of the American League, fans think of two leagues as the norm again. But we should try to transcend the thinking of most fans. Should we recognize more players from the 1880s (1882-1891) than from the seventies or nineties because there were two healthy big leagues most of the time?
Of course National Leaguers think we should not, but we should still recognize Thompson because he played well in their league, so they rate him above O'Neil and Browning and Stovey.

I believe you overestimate the number of outfielders we are likely to elect including Thompson, because many voters do not see George Gore as his superior --or Mike Griffin as his equal. I have not yet voted for Thompson or for Stovey. Probably I support honoring more players than most of us do; more than fifteen players seem worthy. This year I might add outfielders Stovey and Charley Jones in place of Paul Hines, whom we elected, and Griffin.

[DoubleX]

If Thompson, then why not Jones or O'Neill or Browning? Thompson has more votes than Stovey or Gore. If Thompson, then why not Stovey or Gore?

My guess would be because Thompson has a nicer combination of counting stats, rate stats, and longevity than others. Plus he played his entire career in the NL rather than one of the other now-defunct leagues, so that could go in his favor as well.

Right now I'm not too worried about electing too many OFers. Naturally, because of emphasis placed on hitting, we could end up with a swell of OFers. So far though, we've elected the same number of total OFers as we have 1Bman. I'm more concerned about when we'll elect our first middle IFer or 3Bman (not counting Deacon White). McPhee could be our first middle IFer this year, but we might not elect a SS or 3Bman for some time. Glasscock and Sutton are within striking distance, but they both probably need some good impassioned arguments to get them over the hump.

[Paul Wendt]

Elmer Smith is a somewhat interesting candidate that might deserve more consideration that one might think. 126 OPS+ in 5400 PAs and 113 ERA+ in 1200 IP (though most of that was in the AA).
Elmer Smith did most of his good work when the AA was strong. Unfortunately he did most of his work in only two seasons and he is one of many who seemed to burn out early. He became a strong batter, good enough to make it back to the big league for a second career. Good enough to be the Pirates heaviest hitter, better than Van Haltren or Beckley. Give him credit for that. But he did not last so long.

[Paul Wendt]

dupli cate

[AG2004]

I believe you overestimate the number of outfielders we are likely to elect including Thompson, because many voters do not see George Gore as his superior --or Mike Griffin as his equal. I have not yet voted for Thompson or for Stovey. Probably I support honoring more players than most of us do; more than fifteen players seem worthy. This year I might add outfielders Stovey and Charley Jones in place of Paul Hines, whom we elected, and Griffin.


The main problem I have with Thompson over Gore is that Thompson is so much worse than the OF/1B that are currently in the Hall that his induction would open the floodgates to so many players, now and in the future. Why, for example, should Thompson be included and Tip O'Neill be snubbed? I haven't seen any voters for Thompson answer that question. Nor have I seen them answer why Thompson over Jones, or Thompson over Browning.

Gore is the best outfielder on this year's ballot. If we want to determine where our standards fall, he's the first case we ought to be discussing. Burkett, Delahanty, and Hamilton meet our current standards for induction. If Gore goes in, then Duffy, Kelley, and Keeler would then have good cases for induction, but Gore's induction wouldn't provide justification for any other outfielders on our ballot. If Thompson goes in, then Gore, Stovey, O'Neill, Browning, and Jones all deserve to go in. Thompson's induction would drastically lower the Hall's current standards, and that's why I'm taking a stand on his inclusion.

[AG2004]

My Ballot

Ross Barnes
Bob Ferguson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Wright

Since I've criticized the votes for Thompson, I'll explain why Ferguson appears here. He meets my third standard for induction: an important and permanent influence on the game's development. Both his tenure as leader of the NAPBBP (1872-75) and his status as base ball's first switch hitter contribute to his meeting this standard. I am not aware of any similar contributions from Thompson.

[jjpm74]

My Ballot

Ross Barnes
Bob Ferguson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Wright

Since I've criticized the votes for Thompson, I'll explain why Ferguson appears here. He meets my third standard for induction: an important and permanent influence on the game's development. Both his tenure as leader of the NAPBBP (1872-75) and his status as base ball's first switch hitter contribute to his meeting this standard. I am not aware of any similar contributions from Thompson.

I thought we were focusing on players. Why does half of your ballot include contributors? Contributors do not deserve the same consideration as players. There will be a separate committee set up for them.

[leecemark]

--They are all players. Some may have additional, off field qualifications, but they were players first and foremost. All but Ferguson are on my ballot. OTOH I do have the full 15 so they don't stand out as much as a group.

[Freakshow]

--They are all players. Some may have additional, off field qualifications, but they were players first and foremost. All but Ferguson are on my ballot. OTOH I do have the full 15 so they don't stand out as much as a group.
DoubleX needs to clarify the criteria we are using for our voting basis. I thought he posted somewhere that we were only considering their contribution as players. Is that right? Are we to disregard "additional, off field qualifications" in evaluating their worth?:noidea

[leecemark]

--Regardless of what the official criteria may be I always use my own judgement in casting votes in any of these projects. Assuming a player meets the minimum requirements (as all the above players do) and were primarily players then my ballot considers their full contribution. Really I don't think you can dicate the exact method each voter follows to arrive at their choices. If you take a look at the ballots cast you'll see that some VERY different criteria are obviously in play. Which is hardly disimilar from the bodies who actually make these decisions for Cooperstown:).

[DoubleX]

DoubleX needs to clarify the criteria we are using for our voting basis. I thought he posted somewhere that we were only considering their contribution as players. Is that right? Are we to disregard "additional, off field qualifications" in evaluating their worth?:noidea

It's a tricky and very subjective thing. I would urge voters to only consider what a player did as a player. That may include contributions while a player, and may even include the fact that they were a player-manager, as that is something that impacted them as a player. To the extent you want to consider off the field elements, that becomes very subjective, but again, it is the Hall of Fame, so subjectivity is an unavoidable element in my opinion. Thus the perception of a player, his perceived status in the game, is something that can be considered, but I would strongly urge limiting it to the player's actual playing career.

Hope that helps a little.

This election ends in a few hours and Thompson and McPhee are just clinging on. Stovey has dropped below the line and Mullane looks to be a few votes short as well. I'm pleased though that we are still progressing with candidates, showing that we don't just dig in and that's it for a player for the next 15 years.

[jjpm74]

Bob Ferguson and Charlie Comiskey were mediocre players. Their continued support is obviously focused on whay they did off the field. There are a lot of players that had better playing careers than those two. Al Spalding was a pitcher in an era where there were a total of 10 professional pitchers and happened to play on a good team. His impact comes from what he did off the field. If these players are going to continue to have support, then I want the option to vote for Doc Adams and Dickey Pearce on the next ballot since they also played baseball and weren't just contributors.

[John Shoemaker]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Mickey Welch
George Wright

[Captain Cold Nose]

Wait until next year.

[Erik Bedard]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Mickey Welch
George Wright

:disbelief:

[Freakshow]

Wait until next year.
John Shoemaker decided to be a sniper; he voted for both McPhee and Thompson in 1904, not this year.:hide:

[bambambaseball]

How come so few are getting elected? In your other project most of these guys are elected already. That also needs 75% to get elected. It doen't make any sense. There are more than 15 guy on there who should be elected.

[Paul Wendt]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Bob Ferguson
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Bid McPhee
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
George Wright

These are my first votes for Caruthers and Stovey.

This makes Stovey the second outfielder on my ballot but that may not be a permanent status. Privately I answered Classic's plea and said that I would certainly vote for Charley Jones if I were his second vote. In fact "rsuriyop" is voting for some unpopular candidates including Jones.

My ballot is influenced by
Jones 2, Ferguson 1, Griffin 0
=> now 2, 2, 0

Regarding all of the second-tier outfielders on the ballot:
Pike, Jones, Browning, Stovey, Thompson, and Griffin
- none is in my top 13
... perhaps to be continued. 4:00 is a very bad time.

3:47 at BaseBall-Fever but 4:00 on the wall clock here!

[DoubleX]

Bid McPhee did just sneak in. And to think that I almost didn't vote for him this year.

Thompson was looking really strong heading into the last day, but the final votes were not kind to Thompson. Stovey faded as well down the stretch.

The next election will be up either late tonight or tomorrow.

[jjpm74]

I was starting to wonder if we'd ever elect a middle infielder.

The one thing I don't get is how people are arriving at their choices. It seems like a few are just picking names out of a hat looking at the vote dispersal. :noidea

[jjpm74]

How come so few are getting elected? In your other project most of these guys are elected already. That also needs 75% to get elected. It doen't make any sense. There are more than 15 guy on there who should be elected.

I'm assuming you're referring to the BBFHOF elections? The BBFHOF elections have been going on for a long time and some candidates sat on ballots for many cycles before being elected.

While a few people seem to be here just to obstruct the process, someone has been elected every election so far. Be patient. We'll end up with a nice amount of players getting in eventually in this project. Think about how the real HOF elections have played out the past 30 years. ;)

[Paul Wendt]

These are my first votes for Caruthers and Stovey. This makes Stovey the second outfielder on my ballot but that may not be a permanent status.
. . .
Regarding all of the second-tier outfielders on the ballot:
Pike, Jones, Browning, Stovey, Thompson, and Griffin
- none is in my top 13
So none will have my vote in 1906 unless it is Jones to keep him on the list (Griffin will be dropped now). In the outfield I expect to vote for Gore and Hamilton only.

(Freakshow:) DoubleX needs to clarify the criteria we are using for our voting basis. I thought he posted somewhere that we were only considering their contribution as players.
I interpret it as contributions during their playing careers. So I say "Comiskey yes, Hanlon no" --meaning their roles as managers of the St Louis Browns and Baltimore Orioles, and developers of the aggressive style and advanced teamwork that are now so much a part of the national game. Comiskey's work in Ban Johnson's great league, first in the nineties and now as the major American League, should not be considered here (and in fact I am not voting for him).

(jjpm74:) The one thing I don't get is how people are arriving at their choices. It seems like a few are just picking names out of a hat looking at the vote dispersal.
Among the fifteen on my ballot, only Barnes and Spalding lost two votes while six others gained two votes: Caruthers, Glasscock, Gore, McPhee, Start, and Sutton. That cannot happen many times without electing a few of them.

Without looking at the particular voters last year and this, the only one that really seems odd is Ross Barnes, down 3. Maybe some of us looked closely at Bid McPhee only after his strong showing last year, and decided that he should be the first secondbaseman honored. Maybe they will now support Barnes again.

[jalbright]

How come so few are getting elected? In your other project most of these guys are elected already. That also needs 75% to get elected. It doen't make any sense. There are more than 15 guy on there who should be elected.

I'm assuming you're referring to the BBFHOF elections? The BBFHOF elections have been going on for a long time and some candidates sat on ballots for many cycles before being elected.

While a few people seem to be here just to obstruct the process, someone has been elected every election so far. Be patient. We'll end up with a nice amount of players getting in eventually in this project. Think about how the real HOF elections have played out the past 30 years. ;)

We'll probably get less in this project than in the BBF HOF project for one simple reason: in the other project, we have no eligibility period. That 15 year restriction will cost a few players a spot. It may be fairly even given that they're only in competition with more contemporary players, but I will be surprised if the overall effect of the different rules isn't to reduce the number of inductees. Also, the click and forget it nature of voting in this project seems to draw a crowd more similar to the average fan, which may not be the best thing for close to the borderline old time candidates.