BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1906

[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.
- 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.


1906 Guide
There are 45 candidates on the 1906 ballot; 32 holdovers and 13 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1901.

First Timers (13)
Ted Breitenstein
Kid Carsey
Cupid Childs
Bert Cunningham
Nig Cuppy
Tommy Dowd
Billy Hamilton
Pink Hawley
Joe Quinn
Amos Rusie
Pop Schriver
Elmer Smith
Gus Weyhing

Holdovers (32)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ross Barnes 6th 58.33% 68.00% (1904)
Charlie Bennett 6th 62.50% 64.00% (1904)
Pete Browning 6th 50.00% 52.00% (1904)
Bob Caruthers 6th 58.33% 58.33% (1905)
Charlie Comiskey 6th 12.50% 12.50% (1905)
Larry Corcoran 6th 4.17% 8.00% (1904)
Bob Ferguson 6th 8.00% 8.00% (1904)
Jack Glasscock 6th 50.00% 57.69% (1903)
George Gore 6th 66.67% 66.67% (1905)
Ned Hanlon 6th 8.33% 8.33% (1905)
Charley Jones 6th 12.50% 12.50% (1905)
Denny Lyons 5th 4.17% 4.17% (1902, 1905)
Bobby Mathews 6th 4.17% 8.00% (1904)
Jim McCormick 6th 8.33% 8.33% (1905)
Ed McKean 3rd 4.17% 4.17% (1905)
Cal McVey 6th 29.17% 32.00% (1904)
Levi Meyerle 6th 4.17% 4.17% (1902, 1905)
Tony Mullane 6th 66.67% 66.67% (1905)
Tip O’Neill 6th 4.17% 8.33% (1902)
Dave Orr 6th 4.17% 8.33% (1902)
Lip Pike 6th 33.33% 33.33% (1905)
Hardy Richardson 6th 58.33% 58.33% (1905)
Al Spalding 6th 41.67% 50.00% (1903)
Joe Start 6th 62.50% 62.50% (1905)
Harry Stovey 6th 70.83% 70.83% (1905)
Ezra Sutton 6th 62.50% 62.50% (1905)
Sam Thompson 4th 70.83% 70.83% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 3rd 4.17% 4.17% (1905)
John Ward 6th 62.50% 62.50% (1902, 1905)
Mickey Welch 6th 33.33% 40.00% (1904)
Will White 6th 4.17% 4.17% (1905)
George Wright 6th 62.50% 62.50% (1905)


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (14)
Player 1905 Support
Harry Stovey 70.83%
Sam Thompson 70.83%
George Gore 66.67%
Tony Mullane 66.67%
Charlie Bennett 62.50%
Joe Start 62.50%
Ezra Sutton 62.50%
John Ward 62.50%
George Wright 62.50%
Ross Barnes 58.33%
Bob Caruthers 58.33%
Hardy Richardson 58.33%
Pete Browning 50.00%
Jack Glasscock 50.00%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (2)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Frank Dwyer Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1904)
Mike Griffin Lack of Support 3 4.00% (1904)


Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (13)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1871-1897
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1882, 1884-1894
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1878-1893
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 1 Third Base/Catcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (1): Buck Ewing
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (1): Bid McPhee
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
1905 (1): Bid McPhee

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24

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)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)

[DoubleX]

A few notes:

- 5% rule is now in effect, though first year eligible players only need to receive one vote to make it to next year.

- I'm guessing we'll see at least a few holdovers drop due to the 5% rule, and that might help facilitate elections down the line as voters will be less inclined to support personal favorites and consider stronger candidates.

- You may notice that I've added a Primary Team column to the elected players. Let me know if you disagree with any of the designations, as there are a few close calls in there. It does appear though that we thus far have a NY bias.

[Freakshow]

1906 Ballot: Rusie and Hamilton replace McPhee (elected) and Thompson (he'll be back).

Barnes
Bennett
Caruthers
Glasscock
Gore
Hamilton
McVey
Richardson
Rusie
Spalding
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Ward
Wright

[leecemark]

--Newcomers Hamilton and Rusie make my ballot. Cupid Childs is also certainly worthy of consideration. Not sure he would make my top 15 anyway, but he surely won't while Ross Barnes is on the outside looking in. Childs was a very good player, but Barnes was a great one.

Ross Barnes, 2B (1871-1879) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
Charlie Bennett, C (1878, 1880-1893) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
Bob Caruthers, SP/RF (1884-1893) - 5th Year 3 100.00%
George Gore, CF (1879-1892) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
Billy Hamilton, CF (1888-1901) - 1st Year 3 100.00%
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879) - 6th Year 2 66.67%
Tony Mullane, SP (1881-1884, 1886-1894) - 6th Year 2 66.67%
Amos Rusie, SP (1889-1898, 1901) - 1st Year 3 100.00%
Pop Schriver, C (1886, 188-1901) - 1st Year 0 0%
Elmer Smith, LF/SP (1886-1889, 1892-1901) - 1st Year 0 0%
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) - 6th Year 2 66.67%
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
Harry Stovey, LF/1B (1880-1893) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
Sam Thompson, RF (1885-1898) - 4th Year 2 66.67%
John Ward, SS/SP (1878-1894) - 6th Year 3 100.00%
George Wright, SS (1871-1882) - 6th Year 2 66.67%

[Paul Wendt]

Amos Rusie was a high impact player, who could be the biggest star on a champion team and whose team could never be taken lightly. In that I put him third to Spalding and Caruthers but only because Spalding could pitch every game in his prime and because Caruthers was a first-rate batsman who could help when not pitching. Purely as a pitcher Rusie was the best we have seen save Clarkson, and he was just young enough or strong enough to make the transition when they moved the pitcher back to the center of the diamond.

Spalding, Caruthers, and Rusie will be the three pitchers on my ballot.

Billy Hamilton was another impact player. He was fast enough to track down as many fly balls as all but the very best outfielders like Fogarty and Griffin and McAleer, and fast enough to steal more bases than anyone. By the time he came to the major leagues, they settled on granting first base on a hit by pitched ball, or on four called balls, and he was one of the first to build a career around getting to first base either way, by a safe hit or a free pass. Roy Thomas and Fielder Jones are a lot like Hamilton but was more dangerous; even in this time he would be a great run-producer. Imagine him on the Tigers with Sam Crawford and young Cobb.

Gore and Hamilton will be the two outfielders on my ballot.

There are ten or eleven of the "ins" who I put ahead of Pike, Jones, Stovey, Browning, Thompson, and Tiernan. And the departed Mike Griffin. So I'll think about them in the next slow year.

Wright, Spalding, Barnes, and Ward are still here from my preliminary ballot (vote for ten). Fifteen years ago we would have elected them quickly, when everyone remembered Harry Wright's Red Stockings and Johnny Ward's Players' League dominated the news.

[DoubleX]

I went with:

Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Billy Hamilton
Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Amos Rusie
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Mickey Welch

I had to make a tough cut at the end to get both Hamilton and Rusie on my ballot and Pete Browning was the one to go. I would have dropped Jim McCormick but if last year's election indicates anything, it's that McCormick will need my vote to stay on the ballot. Childs will probably eventually make my ballot. I considered Ed McKean again, and I think he's more worthy that people think, but he could be slated to the drop pile this year.

Also - Gore, Mullane, Stovey, and Thompson, all came pretty close to election last time. I urge anyone who hasn't been voting for any of these players, to give them some extra consideration going forward, particularly if you're not voting a full ballot. A non-vote is essentially a vote against.

[jjpm74]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Billy Hamilton
Charley Jones
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
George Wright

Amos Rusie will either have to get in without my support or wait in line behind Mullane. I'm not adding any pure pitchers to my ballot until we have a full compliment of fielders. The HOF is already over full with pitchers. If no SS or 3B gain ground this round, I may drop support for Mullane as well.

[Brad Harris]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Billy Hamilton
Charley Jones
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Amos Rusie
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
George Wright

Jones and Pike are not among the 15 best as I have them listed, but in the interest of seeing them avoid being dropped from the ballot I made room.

[Sockeye]

Mickey Welch

[Paul Wendt]

Again there is one vote for Bob Ferguson here. I hope Charley Jones and Cupid Childs stay on the ballot without my help. (Three people voted for Jones last year and Childs is in the BBF Hall of Fame.)

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Bob Ferguson
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Billy Hamilton
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Amos Rusie
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
George Wright

I hope supporters of endangered candidates will say a few paragraphs in their favor, as others have done for Ferguson, Griffin(dropped), and McKean.

Last year I contributed a lot of information on Charley Jones to "Charley Jones and Lip Pike" at the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/charley_jones_lip_pike). --and some on Lip Pike this year, I see.
Also some on Charley Jones in Discussion of AG2004's Keltner Lists (#66, #68) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=63897&page=3). And of course see AG2004's Keltner Lists (#120, Charley Jones) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=63886&page=5).

[jalbright]

Bennett
Childs
Glasscock
Gore
Hamilton
Mullane
Richardson
Rusie
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
Wright

[KCGHOST]

Browning
Glasscock
Gore
Hamilton
Mullane
Richardson
Rusie
Spalding
Stovey
Thompson
Tiernan
Ward
Wright

[NineWorldSeries]

Browning
Caruthers
Comiskey
Hamilton
Hanlon
Mullane
Rusie
Spalding
Thompson
Welch
Wright

[PVNICK]

Bennett
Browning
Caruthers
Glasscock
Gore
Mullane
Spalding
Stovey
Thompson
Ward
Welch
Wright

[PVNICK]

forgot to add:
Childs
Hamilton
Rusie

[DoubleX]

Mickey Welch

Are you even open to arguments in favor of other candidates, or have you closed your mind to everyone save those that reached arbitrary milestones that meant very little from the perspective of the very early 20th century?

[Freakshow]

Are you even open to arguments in favor of other candidates, or have you closed your mind to everyone save those that reached arbitrary milestones that meant very little from the perspective of the very early 20th century?
Do you seriously expect him to have a rational defense for his ballot?:thumbsdown:

[Brad Harris]

Do you seriously expect him to have a rational defense for his ballot?:thumbsdown:
To the same extent that he expects it to be counted, yes.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm adjusting my voting procedures. Instead of using who's in the 2008 HoF as a measuring stick, I'm instead going to use who's in the 1906 HoF. I think that the Hall will keep its legitimacy best if we limit induction only to those who were truly the best players of their day.

My ballot:

Ross Barnes
Billy Hamilton
Amos Rusie
Al Spalding
Harry Stovey
John Montgomery Ward
George Wright

Ezra Sutton was close to making my ballot.

[leecemark]

--Sutton originally made my ballot because he was the best thirdbaseman in baseball history - even though his resume would not look as good at another position (excepting SS/C). That title has passed to Jimmy Collins now, although Collins is not yet eligble for election. If Ezra doesn't make it this time I may drop him next ballot.
--We still haven't elected a SS. George Wright is the best eligible player from that position. John Ward is also on my ballot and I'd call him mostly a SS, but its truely his combioned achievements that make him worthy of the honor. Several not yet eligible SS have probably surpassed these gentlemen for best SS honors, with George Davis and Bill Dahlen at least arguably more deserving and Honus Wagner well on his way to best ever status i- f not having already achieved it.

[DoubleX]

I'm adjusting my voting procedures. Instead of using who's in the 2008 HoF as a measuring stick, I'm instead going to use who's in the 1906 HoF. I think that the Hall will keep its legitimacy best if we limit induction only to those who were truly the best players of their day.

I think that's a good way to look at it. Regardless of what your personal standards might be, the Hall's actual standards are only as good as those that have been enshrined, and those are the standards that should followed, for better or worse, IMO. We're still at a very early juncture though, so I think it's too early to think we've set clear standards for what constitutes a Hall of Famer. Though, I do think that so far our standards are pretty high. We've done a good job at electing the top tier guys for the most part, but we've had more difficulty when strong candidates with whom there might be some debate.

Also, and since Mark mentioned him, I am a little surprised that we haven't elected Ward yet.

[Paul Wendt]

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.
Recently a leading runner-up, Barnes is outside the Top Fifteen at the moment.

[leecemark]

--I don't think we should have elected McPhee ahead of Barnes. I surely can't imagine voting for another secondbaseman for a long time without Barnes making it first. Nap Lajoie is as big a star as anybody in the game right now and he isn't as dominating a player as Ross Barnes was. He is pretty close and virtually certain to have a longer career so I expect we'll elect him someday, but at this point he is no match for Barnes. Barnes may have had the best peak of ANY player in baseball history and he is losing traction with our voters?

[AG2004]

Mickey Welch


What a giant surprise.

Billy Hamilton's OBP of .455 is the second-highest in base ball history, and the highest of anybody with over 5000 PAs. Hamilton's batting average of .344 is the second-highest of any player whose career is over, and the highest of anyone yet eligible for the Hall of Fame. Hamilton is also the all-time leader in career stolen bases. How can you say that Hamilton is not worthy of the Hall? Is he not at least as good as the average position player currently in the hall? With the exception of Anson, have any position players met your standards? And what are your standards for position players? You've never answered that last question.

I also see that you left Amos Rusie off your ballot. Mickey Welch's career ERA+ of 114 is fifteen points lower than Rusie's 129. Welch led his league in winning percentage once, and once tied for the league lead in saves, with two. That's all Welch ever led in. Rusie led the league in wins once, ERA twice, strikeouts five times, and shutouts four times. With the exception of 1895, when he went 23-23 for a 66-65 team, and a token appearance in 1901, Rusie's winning percentage was always much better than his team's. The speed of Rusie's pitching also led baseball officials to move the pitching distance to the present 60'6". What does Welch have that Rusie doesn't?

Could you explain why Rusie and Hamilton aren't on your ballot?

[jjpm74]

Not that it matters much, but unless I'm missing something, Elmer Smith never pitched in a single game in the majors.

[jjpm74]

What a giant surprise.

Billy Hamilton's OBP of .455 is the second-highest in base ball history, and the highest of anybody with over 5000 PAs. Hamilton's batting average of .344 is the second-highest of any player whose career is over, and the highest of anyone yet eligible for the Hall of Fame. Hamilton is also the all-time leader in career stolen bases. How can you say that Hamilton is not worthy of the Hall? Is he not at least as good as the average position player currently in the hall? With the exception of Anson, have any position players met your standards? And what are your standards for position players? You've never answered that last question.

I also see that you left Amos Rusie off your ballot. Mickey Welch's career ERA+ of 114 is fifteen points lower than Rusie's 129. Welch led his league in winning percentage once, and once tied for the league lead in saves, with two. That's all Welch ever led in. Rusie led the league in wins once, ERA twice, strikeouts five times, and shutouts four times. With the exception of 1895, when he went 23-23 for a 66-65 team, and a token appearance in 1901, Rusie's winning percentage was always much better than his team's. The speed of Rusie's pitching also led baseball officials to move the pitching distance to the present 60'6". What does Welch have that Rusie doesn't?

Could you explain why Rusie and Hamilton aren't on your ballot?

I predict it will be about 10 years before he votes for anyone other than Welch and about 20 years before he votes for a position player. ;)

[DoubleX]

Somewhat interesting tidbit I came across while reading Barnes' bio at baseball-reference - this was Cap Anson's all time team as of January, 1918:

C: Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1B: Cap Anson (how modest - couldn't even toss a bone to Brouthers or Conner?)
2B: Fred Pfeffer
3B: Ned Williamson
SS: Ross Barnes
OF: Bill Lange, George Gore, Jimmy Ryan, Hugh Duffy

SP: Amos Rusie, John Clarkson, Jim McCormick

Some interesting picks. Pfeffer and Williamson got no support from us. Lange didn't make the ballot (just a 7 year career when 8 was needed). McCormick is almost certainly never getting in and will be lucky to just stay on the ballot for a few more years (I really don't understand the huge disparity in support between Mullane and McCormick - Mullane was better, but was he really that much better?). Gore has good support, but there's no guarantee that we'll elect him.

Anson of course had his biases, but perhaps this also illustrates that we really can't replicate the perspective of back then of who were stars in their day. Anson might have a bias, but if he felt this way about these players, it probably means there was popular sentiment out there that these were strong players, it's doubtful that if were actually voting in the early 1900s we would have have been so dismissive with some of these guys.

[Paul Wendt]

Somewhat interesting tidbit I came across while reading Barnes' bio at baseball-reference - this was Cap Anson's all time team as of January, 1918:

2B: Fred Pfeffer
3B: Ned Williamson
SS: Fred Pfeffer
Did he really name Pfeffer twice?
Or is one of them Barnes? - (why else in the Barnes biography?)
Gore has good support, but there's no guarantee that we'll elect him.
no guarantee we will elect Duffy or Ryan either

Note, all but Ewing and Rusie played for Anson as Chicago White Stockings manager. (If Barnes then we have one teammate of Anson under Spalding.)

Williamson was one of the best, in both halves of the inning, I think everyone who saw him agreed.

[DoubleX]

Did he really name Pfeffer twice?
Or is one of them Barnes? - (why else in the Barnes biography?)

That was a mistake. I corrected SS to be Barnes.

[Brooklyn]

Browning, Hamilton, Mullane, Spalding, Thompson, Welch

[KCGHOST]

Not that it matters much, but unless I'm missing something, Elmer Smith never pitched in a single game in the majors.

Elmer Ellsworth Smith did pitch some in the the 1880's and 1890's. Elmer John Smith, who played in the 1910's and 1920's did not. Baseball-Reference has both of them. I don't know why retrosheet does not.

[Brad Harris]

McCormick is almost certainly never getting in and will be lucky to just stay on the ballot for a few more years (I really don't understand the huge disparity in support between Mullane and McCormick - Mullane was better, but was he really that much better?).
The voters certainly seem to think so.

Of the 9 people with Mullane on their ballot, but not McCormick, 5 don't have full ballots so those people apparently draw the line between what a Hall-of-Famer is and isn't below Mullane but above McCormick. The 4 people who voted for Mullane, but not McCormick and have a full ballot must feel at least that Mullane is the better candidate, whether they think McCormick is worthy or not. I did not vote for Mullane this time because I factored electability and the ability of lesser candidates to stay on the ballot into my thought process. However, you can count me with the first group, I draw the line between the two. The disparity doesn't have to be "huge," it just has to exist.

Considering this is the 1906 ballot, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we're considering the greatest players of the 19th century and we have voters who aren't voting for a shortstop or a third baseman. Our outfielders consist only of King Kelly, Paul Hines and Jim O'Rourke. Are those really the only 19th Century outfielders worthy of honoring? If you disagree that our inductees are the greatest eligible players at their position (McPhee at second?) then you ought to be stumping for whomever you feel was better (Barnes?).

Frankly, the imposition of personal standards over the collective standards of the Hall as it now exists in 1906 is a strong argument for the disenfranchisement of certain ballots, IMHO. There's a difference between the belief a selection or two was a mistake and the advocacy of a completely impractical and unrealistic mindset. The purpose of this project should include the arrival at a reasonable consensus on the candidates rather than humoring certain individuals. In other words, electing the best candidates is more important than giving people the privilege of voting.

[Freakshow]

Do you seriously expect him to have a rational defense for his ballot?:thumbsdown:
To the same extent that he expects it to be counted, yes.
We've almost never required votes on BBF polls to be rational. And it seems the "commissioner" of this project is content to indulge such misbehavior.:sigh:

[DoubleX]

We've almost never required votes on BBF polls to be rational. And it seems the "commissioner" of this project is content to indulge such misbehavior.:sigh:

I don't want to indulge, but questionable voting is an unfortunate part of the process and building a consensus. There's always going to be a small handful of obstinate voters out there who go by the beat of their own drum and refuse to look at the bigger picture. It's like that with the BBWAA and it's like that in political elections as well. Ideally, I would like to build a large enough electorate where the impact of such rogue voting can be diluted. That might not occur, however, until we get to more recent times with more familiar names.

Also, as a practical matter, it would just be too time-consuming and annoying to screen voters then potentially discount votes after the fact. One option would be to remove the poll and just have people post ballots, but as much as I enjoy this project, I don't have the time or motivation to keep track of the results, nor be the person that subjectively decides whose vote will count and whose vote will not.

If you remove say Sockeye's vote,which is really the only blatantly questionable vote, it wouldn't have made much of a difference thus far anyway. For example, Bid McPhee would have still been elected by himself last year, while Harry Stovey and Sam Thompson still would have needed at least one more vote to get in.

My suggestion is if you feel strongly about a player, present the case. The more conversation there is about the player, the more you'll get people thinking about the player, and I believe most of the voters here aren't nearly as obstinate as Sockeye.

Finally, we've elected 13 players in five years, and have elected a player each year. That's not bad (though could be better considered the expanded voting). That's the same number the actual Hall elected in its first 5 years (not counting VC inductees), and that was with a much greater period of reference as well as no eligibility rules making guys like Ruth and Gehrig wait. I have a feeling that if we started in 1936, we probably would have elected more than 13 in five years.

[jjpm74]

If you remove say Sockeye's vote,which is really the only blatantly questionable vote, it wouldn't have made much of a difference thus far anyway. For example, Bid McPhee would have still been elected by himself last year, while Harry Stovey and Sam Thompson still would have needed at least one more vote to get in.


Actually, had you discounted his vote, both those guys would have had 75% of the vote and been elected.

It's also very clear what his standards are:

300 wins
3000 hits
400 home runs

So you could pretty much predict the next 10 elections as he will be voting only for Mickey Welch in the next 9 of them.

[DoubleX]

Actually, had you discounted his vote, both those guys would have had 75% of the vote and been elected.

I get them as having 73.91% had Sockeye's vote not counting. They would have received 17 out of 23 total votes (instead of 24).

Those standards are fine and dandy, but they mean almost nothing in the context of 20th Century, and I wish Sockeye would be open to seeing that. If 400 homeruns is his benchmark, isn't that unfairly prejudicing players from eras, such as the era we're looking at, where homeruns were a much rarer, and the style of play wasn't conducive to massive homeruns anyway. It's just unrealistic and unfair to blanketedly apply these standards without taking into account the era. Sockeye I hope you are reading this.

I have to admit, the more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps I will discount voters that refuse to adopt the appropriate perspective. If you want to be obstinate, that's fine, but do so while trying to at least empathize with the appropriate era considerations. This project isn't about applying arbitrary values that have some meaning today to a time when they had none. So Sockeye, this may be the last election where we will entertain your approach.

[AG2004]

Considering this is the 1906 ballot, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we're considering the greatest players of the 19th century and we have voters who aren't voting for a shortstop or a third baseman. Our outfielders consist only of King Kelly, Paul Hines and Jim O'Rourke. Are those really the only 19th Century outfielders worthy of honoring?


No. However, Billy Hamilton is just in his first year of eligibility, while Delahanty and Burkett haven't made it onto the ballots yet.

The 1870s/1880s had a better crop of first basemen than outfielders. The reverse is true for the 1890s: the first basemen were weak, while the outfielders were relatively strong.

Third base might have had a weaker field than the others, and I suppose some people were waiting to see if Ezra Sutton would be surpassed by John McGraw or Jimmy Collins. I'd say that Collins has finally surpassed Sutton as the best at his position.

At shortstop, Dickey Pearce (if he hadn't been relegated to an as-yet-unformed Pioneers Committee) and George Wright would be worthy honorees. However, the 1880s was a bit weak at that position. Jack Glasscock was arguably the best shortstop of that era (Ward had just half a career there), but I think there were four shortstops of the 1890s who were better: Dahlen, Davis, Jennings, and Long (in alphabetical order).

I'd ask those without shortstops and third basemen on their ballot if they're just waiting for Collins or someone in the Dahlen/Davis/Jennings trio to become eligible so that they can vote for at least one of them. After all, some 19th-century stars are still playing in the major leagues.

[Erik Bedard]

I have two shortstops on my ballot, Ward and Wright. I wavered on Sutton, who had a long career, but was never really truly great, at least not enough so to warrant a spot on my ballot.

[Brad Harris]

No. However, Billy Hamilton is just in his first year of eligibility, while Delahanty and Burkett haven't made it onto the ballots yet.
MadHatter and wardawg, both of you have short ballots. Curious why you're not voting for Hamilton?


Double X,
The question of the Welch ballot isn't one of eccentricity, difference of opinion on player valuation, or even strategic voting...it's a question of someone blatantly refusing to abide by the spirit of the project. To my way of thinking it's a privilege to participate in these kinds of projects and anyone who doesn't like how a project is run is free to disengage themselves from it.
I'm sorry, but people who vote for president because he has a hot wife shouldn't be allowed in a voting booth either. It may be part of the process, but fortunately, in this kind of forum, it doesn't have to be.

[Brooklyn]

I have to admit, the more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps I will discount voters that refuse to adopt the appropriate perspective. If you want to be obstinate, that's fine, but do so while trying to at least empathize with the appropriate era considerations. This project isn't about applying arbitrary values that have some meaning today to a time when they had none. So Sockeye, this may be the last election where we will entertain your approach.


I'm really not for discounting votes. What gives someone the power to do that? Discounting votes is really just giving a few people the power to impose their will - if they don't agree with someone's vote, they can disregard it. How is that a democratic process?

There has been a lot of talk about not electing enough people, and to quote Classic, "electing the best candidates is more important than giving people the privilege of voting". Why is it so important to elect people? If a player doesn't have the consensus, then I don't think he should be a HOFer. I look at the HOF as an elite club, and players elected should be thought of by all (most) to be at that elite level. I think it is good that players that are border line are not getting an easy pass into this Hall. To me that means this process is working.

Of course, a non-vote is not necessarily a vote against a player, but someone can leave a name off the ballot because they don't know enough about them. After all, this was a long time ago, and none of us saw any of these players play. That is what these discussions are for. Posters can state their case for or against. But if people disagree or choose not to listen, that should be their prerogative.

As for the number being elected, we've had 13 players elected in 5 elections, or 2.6 per year. Extrapolate that out to 108 years of elections, and we'd have 281 people in our Hall. That is quite a bit more then players in the real Hall, especially if you discount the Negro League players. As a small hall guy, I certainly don't think we are electing too slow. If anything, on the contrary. We need to set a standard that later players will be judged by. And by no means to I want to set that standard too low.

I understand that this is 1906, and we can only use what we know at that time. Someone commented that we haven't elected a shortstop yet, and it is unreasonable to not elect the best short stop to date. But since we started this project so early, it is reasonable to assume that a voter in 1906 might be thinking, "the game is young, maybe we haven't seen a shortstop who will stand the test of time", and rather votes on the merits of the player against other positions, not just against his own. That is the same argument I have against Bill Mazeroski, for example. A common sentiment was that he should be included because he is the best defensive second basemen ever. Well, what happens if someone comes along that is better? Do we pull Maz out? Maz should make it if you think his skills were good enough to be in, not because he was the best at something. Being the best will change over time, but if he meets your standard, that shouldn't change. For me, Maz doesn't. And the shortstops we've seen so far don't either - I won't vote for them simply because they are the best to date. Unless I can also un-vote for them when someone else comes along that is better.

Back to the Sockeye issue, he has the right to vote as he sees fit. But I do believe he also has a responsibility to explain his voting. If he does that, even if others don't agree with it, he has the right to an opinion on what is a HOFer and a right to vote with that opinion.

[AG2004]

I predict it will be about 10 years before he votes for anyone other than Welch and about 20 years before he votes for a position player. ;)

I think it'll be just five years. Kid Nichols pitched his last game on May 18, and he's not going to be coming back next year. Sockeye is not going to leave a 361-game winner off his ballot, especially one with a .634 winning percentage and a 140 ERA+.

If Sockeye is using a 3000-hit standard, as some allege, he might vote for another position player within the next decade. Jake Beckley is just 94 hits away from reaching that milestone, and he just might get it before he retires. Beckley isn't anywhere near as good as the people we've elected, nor is he anywhere near as good as Hamilton or Delahanty. But Sockeye might vote for him anyway. It almost makes me wish that Beckley won't get those 94 hits.

[Brad Harris]

I'm really not for discounting votes. What gives someone the power to do that? Discounting votes is really just giving a few people the power to impose their will - if they don't agree with someone's vote, they can disregard it. How is that a democratic process?
The point of the project is to identify and honor the best players in the game's history, not to provide a "democratic process" for people to express their opinions. That we are invited to participate is a privilege, not a right.

There has been a lot of talk about not electing enough people, and to quote Classic, "electing the best candidates is more important than giving people the privilege of voting". Why is it so important to elect people? If a player doesn't have the consensus, then I don't think he should be a HOFer. I look at the HOF as an elite club, and players elected should be thought of by all (most) to be at that elite level. I think it is good that players that are border line are not getting an easy pass into this Hall. To me that means this process is working.
It's important to elect people - not just any people, of course - because that's what a Hall of Fame is established for. As for our process working, you'll get no arguments here (though I might define "borderline" differently.)

Of course, a non-vote is not necessarily a vote against a player, but someone can leave a name off the ballot because they don't know enough about them. After all, this was a long time ago, and none of us saw any of these players play. That is what these discussions are for. Posters can state their case for or against. But if people disagree or choose not to listen, that should be their prerogative.
It is still a de facto vote against. There is no "maybe" column. A player either receives a vote for or he does not. And people have the prerogative to put their hand in an open flame too. That doesn't make it advisable.

As for the number being elected, we've had 13 players elected in 5 elections, or 2.6 per year. Extrapolate that out to 108 years of elections, and we'd have 281 people in our Hall. That is quite a bit more then players in the real Hall, especially if you discount the Negro League players. As a small hall guy, I certainly don't think we are electing too slow. If anything, on the contrary. We need to set a standard that later players will be judged by. And by no means to I want to set that standard too low.
We're beginning the process which means we have a larger field than usual to consider. (Just look at the number of 6th-ballot candidates in this election.) We should be electing a few more than average in these early elections. The fact that we're not electing is forcing some of us to not support the best candidates we can because we don't want to see guys lower down in our consideration set dropped from the ballot before we get to give them a closer look.

I understand that this is 1906, and we can only use what we know at that time. Someone commented that we haven't elected a shortstop yet, and it is unreasonable to not elect the best short stop to date. But since we started this project so early, it is reasonable to assume that a voter in 1906 might be thinking, "the game is young, maybe we haven't seen a shortstop who will stand the test of time", and rather votes on the merits of the player against other positions, not just against his own.
No, that is not reasonable. We've had a professional game for more than 35 years. The game is only still "young" if you're looking at it from the vantage point of a century later. I would expect us to be considering a player at each position for each decade...something closer to that than to a player at each position for a quarter-century.

That is the same argument I have against Bill Mazeroski, for example. A common sentiment was that he should be included because he is the best defensive second basemen ever. Well, what happens if someone comes along that is better? Do we pull Maz out? Maz should make it if you think his skills were good enough to be in, not because he was the best at something. Being the best will change over time, but if he meets your standard, that shouldn't change. For me, Maz doesn't. And the shortstops we've seen so far don't either - I won't vote for them simply because they are the best to date. Unless I can also un-vote for them when someone else comes along that is better.
Maz is the best-to-date after 130+ years of professional baseball. How many more years have to pass with his going unsurpassed before that's a legitimate argument for you? Sure, that makes more sense in 1906, but that's not a reason, by itself, not to vote for a guy. (Maz has plenty of other deficiencies as a candidate.) No one here has advocated electing the player with the best curveball or the best bunter "to date". We're talking about the best players of the last 2-3 generations.

Back to the Sockeye issue, he has the right to vote as he sees fit. But I do believe he also has a responsibility to explain his voting. If he does that, even if others don't agree with it, he has the right to an opinion on what is a HOFer and a right to vote with that opinion.[/QUOTE]

[PVNICK]

I jumped back in recently, so forgive me if I missed something but are we voting as if we are in the present or imaging that it is 1906? Becaase for me a player like Ross Barnes is one of the first five guys if you voted in 1880 or 1885 but from the present perspective he seems more like a player with two phenomenal years (post 1876) who faded fast.

[Brooklyn]

It is still a de facto vote against. There is no "maybe" column. A player either receives a vote for or he does not. And people have the prerogative to put their hand in an open flame too. That doesn't make it advisable.




That is what I was saying. I only meant that in one individual's head, "no" votes could change to "yes" votes with more education. But I'd prefer people to put their "maybes" in the "no" column then the "yes" column until they are sure



No, that is not reasonable. We've had a professional game for more than 35 years. The game is only still "young" if you're looking at it from the vantage point of a century later. I would expect us to be considering a player at each position for each decade...something closer to that than to a player at each position for a quarter-century.



A player each position each decade is not unreasonable, but not every decade or era has to be covered by every position, as there will be some decades that haev multiple players at the same position. It comes back to where your HOF line is. If the player falls below it, they should get a vote, even if they were the best at their position.


Maz is the best-to-date after 130+ years of professional baseball. How many more years have to pass with his going unsurpassed before that's a legitimate argument for you? Sure, that makes more sense in 1906, but that's not a reason, by itself, not to vote for a guy. (Maz has plenty of other deficiencies as a candidate.) No one here has advocated electing the player with the best curveball or the best bunter "to date". We're talking about the best players of the last 2-3 generations.



"Maz has plenty of other deficiencies as a candidate" - that was exactly my point. Many people are saying that despite those deficiencies, he should be elected because he was the best ever defensively. If you think Maz had enough offensive, baserunning, leadership, et., skills to complicate his level of fielding, then by all means elect him. But don't elect him because he was the best at one aspect of the game.

[jjpm74]

I jumped back in recently, so forgive me if I missed something but are we voting as if we are in the present or imaging that it is 1906? Becaase for me a player like Ross Barnes is one of the first five guys if you voted in 1880 or 1885 but from the present perspective he seems more like a player with two phenomenal years (post 1876) who faded fast.

We're supposed to be approaching this from the perspective that it is 1906. Unfortunately, some people are approaching it from the perspective that it is 2008 and are applying the same standards to this that they do to every other project.

On sockeye, if he has an actual methodology that makes sense, then I'm all for him participating, but I doubt he does. In my pitcher project, he only voted for the 300 game winners then filled his ballot with guys no one voted for to get to the 15 person minimum. IMO he's an obstructionist who doesn't like to play by the rules. If you notice, no one else is being called into question even though there is a great amount of disagreement as to who actually belongs in the HOF.

[DoubleX]

I'm really not for discounting votes. What gives someone the power to do that? Discounting votes is really just giving a few people the power to impose their will - if they don't agree with someone's vote, they can disregard it. How is that a democratic process?

I generally agree and that's why I've been reluctant to adopt such a measure. But Classic and others are right - votes like Sockeye's defeat the spirit of this project. As hard as it might be, we're supposed to approach this project from the perspective of 1906, judging by appropriate standards for that era, while oblivious of what the future holds. Sockeye is using arbitrary benchmark standards that have little relevance and meaning in 1906. He's retroactively applying future standards. That's not what we're supposed to be doing here.

Imagine if one of us had a time machine, went in the future and saw by 2075, 20 players have hit a 900 homeruns, then came back in time to now and automatically disqualified everyone that hit 500 or 600 homeruns just because they didn't reach a benchmark that has yet to mean anything. In sum, Sockeye's approach lacks the appropriate perspective, it punishes players who were bona fide stars in their time because they did not meet some yet to ascertained future standard. The effect is to undermine the spirit of this project and the fun that the rest of derive from this project.

[Brooklyn]

I generally agree and that's why I've been reluctant to adopt such a measure. But Classic and others are right - votes like Sockeye's defeat the spirit of this project. As hard as it might be, we're supposed to approach this project from the perspective of 1906, judging by appropriate standards for that era, while oblivious of what the future holds. Sockeye is using arbitrary benchmark standards that have little relevance and meaning in 1906. He's retroactively applying future standards. That's not what we're supposed to be doing here.

Imagine if one of us had a time machine, went in the future and saw by 2075, 20 players have hit a 900 homeruns, then came back in time to now and automatically disqualified everyone that hit 500 or 600 homeruns just because they didn't reach a benchmark that has yet to mean anything. In sum, Sockeye's approach lacks the appropriate perspective, it punishes players who were bona fide stars in their time because they did not meet some yet to ascertained future standard. The effect is to undermine the spirit of this project and the fun that the rest of derive from this project.

Fair enough. I would like to hear from him what his methods are. He has seemed reluctant to respond to that question.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm adjusting my voting procedures. Instead of using who's in the 2008 HoF as a measuring stick, I'm instead going to use who's in the 1906 HoF. I think that the Hall will keep its legitimacy best if we limit induction only to those who were truly the best players of their day.

My ballot:

Ross Barnes
Billy Hamilton
Amos Rusie
Al Spalding
Harry Stovey
John Montgomery Ward
George Wright

Ezra Sutton was close to making my ballot.
This is a reasonable position, I believe. It is now an open question how far, wide, and deep we will cast the net and it appears that Erik Bedard has been persuaded by AG2004.

Cross out Stovey and you have the first six on my own ballot. Along the lines AG and Erik suggest, Stovey would never get my vote, for he is behind Start, Gore, Bennett, Caruthers, and at least four others. I would draw the line after some or all of these four and I would vote for 8-10 men this year.

--
Brooklyn is voting for three pitchers and three outfielders which seems unreasonable to me. We have four and three of those now, yet the next six devotees of our national game, and the only ones worth supporting, are pitchers and outfielders? Really?

But Brooklyn seems generally reasonable so I am interested to know his reasoning here.

Pitchers, maybe. The managers seem to be using more and more pitchers. Even McGraw with his Iron Man and the great Mathewson relies on other men to at least one-third of the games. Clarke and Chance are using five or six men to work from the mound.

But outfielders? Why is that a man organizing a team always looks to hire the "ins" before the "outs"? Because those positions are more important and it is easier to pick up outfielders who will do.

Brooklyn, do you know any of the crack colored clubs? I have seen them tour without a centerfielder or rightfielder, using extra pitchers and catchers there. No man would use pitchers and catchers at thirdbase and shortstop.

[BlueBlood]

Deacon White and Paul Hines were elected in 1904, so I replaced them in 1905 with Jim McCormick and Ezra Sutton. This gave me a ballot of 15.

In 1905, Bid McPhee was elected. This gave me a ballot of 14 afterwards.

1906 presents me with three candidates that I see fully worthy of the Hall of Fame: Childs, Hamilton and Rusie. This gives me a ballot of 17. In order to fit the requirements, I have removed Jim McCormick and Ezra Sutton for the time being.

Barnes
Bennett
Browning
Caruthers
Childs
Glasscock
Gore
Hamilton
Mullane
Richardson
Rusie
Start
Stovey
Thompson
Wright

[jalbright]

The killer aspect of ballots like Sockeye's lies in the requirement of 75% to induct. That means 1 no vote requires 3 yes votes to override it.

[BlueBlood]

Guess we can call ours the Hall of the Very Famous and throw a party for all 51 inductees by the time this project ends. :highfive:

[jalbright]

We're supposed to be approaching this from the perspective that it is 1906. Unfortunately, some people are approaching it from the perspective that it is 2008 and are applying the same standards to this that they do to every other project.

With all due respect, I can't unring a bell and ignore what I in fact know. In an ideal world, yes, I could do so, and maybe even if I devoted way more time to this project than I am willing to, I could come close to doing what you suggest. However, I have grown quite used to my own definition of a HOFer, and I don't intend to change it simply for this project. If the other participants prefer I withdraw because of that stance, I will do so.

[BlueBlood]

I'm guilty of the same and I imagine others are as well. With a 15 vote maximum, it hasn't really affected anything yet but Sutton is a candidate that I wouldn't put into my own Hall of Fame. I voted for him in the last election to help move the process along but knowing what I know, I wouldn't put him amongst the all-time best at his position whereas he'd surely receive my vote in 1906.

[DoubleX]

1906 presents me with three candidates that I see fully worthy of the Hall of Fame: Childs, Hamilton and Rusie. This gives me a ballot of 17. In order to fit the requirements, I have removed Jim McCormick and Ezra Sutton for the time being.

You might not get another crack at McCormick. I almost dropped him this time as well, but kept him on because he only had 2 votes last time (one being mine, the other apparently being yours), and if we get more than 20 votes, as we have been, and McCormick doesn't attract another supporter, he won't make the 5% cutoff.

[BlueBlood]

No big deal, really. With support as low as that, it's not like he would've ever made it close to the induction threshold.

[jjpm74]

With all due respect, I can't unring a bell and ignore what I in fact know. In an ideal world, yes, I could do so, and maybe even if I devoted way more time to this project than I am willing to, I could come close to doing what you suggest. However, I have grown quite used to my own definition of a HOFer, and I don't intend to change it simply for this project. If the other participants prefer I withdraw because of that stance, I will do so.

Are you applying 2008 HOF standards to these players? Your ballot seems to be pretty in line with what a typical 1906 ballot probably would have looked like. In other words, I don't think you're applying 2008 benchmarks as the person called into question has been doing. :cap:

[jjpm74]

No big deal, really. With support as low as that, it's not like he would've ever made it close to the induction threshold.

I think a lot of us are in the same boat as you at this point. I currently have Lip Pike on my ballot, but if the room doesn't stay for him, he will be the first to go and also doesn't have a very good shot. Ditto on Charley Jones who I voted for to keep him on the ballot.

[Erik Bedard]

I had been voting for Pike, but he was one of my cuts when I shifed to my more elite ballot. If the standards go down quite a bit (i.e. someone like Van Haltren gets elected), he will without a doubt return provided he's still on the ballot.

[jalbright]

Are you applying 2008 HOF standards to these players? Your ballot seems to be pretty in line with what a typical 1906 ballot probably would have looked like. In other words, I don't think you're applying 2008 benchmarks as the person called into question has been doing. :cap:

Maybe my ballot seems appropriate, but I'm simply using the standards I use in every other one of these projects. Of course, I do try to account for different circumstances, while in my exposure to the voter in question seems to me to be something he consistently fails to do. However, I'm not at all trying to imagine myself in 1906 or whatever with no knowledge of how large the Hall actually is, as that heavily influences my choices as to who is worthy and who is not. As I see it, the problem with the ballot in question is that he is trying to go back in time and redefine things as he thinks they should be.

[Brooklyn]

--
Brooklyn is voting for three pitchers and three outfielders which seems unreasonable to me. We have four and three of those now, yet the next six devotees of our national game, and the only ones worth supporting, are pitchers and outfielders? Really?

But Brooklyn seems generally reasonable so I am interested to know his reasoning here.

Pitchers, maybe. The managers seem to be using more and more pitchers. Even McGraw with his Iron Man and the great Mathewson relies on other men to at least one-third of the games. Clarke and Chance are using five or six men to work from the mound.

But outfielders? Why is that a man organizing a team always looks to hire the "ins" before the "outs"? Because those positions are more important and it is easier to pick up outfielders who will do.

Brooklyn, do you know any of the crack colored clubs? I have seen them tour without a centerfielder or rightfielder, using extra pitchers and catchers there. No man would use pitchers and catchers at thirdbase and shortstop.

The pitchers and outfielders are what is left of my ballot after having some of my other position players voted in during earlier election.

I voted for Brouthers at 1B and Deacon White at 3B / C when they were both elected. You can also take me at my word that I would have voted for Anson, Connor and Ewing in 1902, but I missed that election. Including those three, to date I have supported 7 pitchers, 5 outfielders, 3 first basemen, 1 catcher and 1 catcher / 3B.

I'm glad you prompted me to go through this exercise of adding up my votes. I'd agree that 7 pitchers out of 17 total players I support is a little out of whack, but not terrible. I also know that I am definitely shy in the support of middle infielders, which I will continue to visit with each election.

My issue with the middle infielders has been that their careers have either been too short of not overwhelming enough for me to support. Baseball is still in its infancy, and I find it hard to believe that we won't have players coming up that can combine a high standard and longevity. I really don't want to set the standard too low, so we'll have to match that standard in later years. My thoughts are that this should be an elite fraternity, and I'd rather err on the side of not having players miss rather than electing too many. We are at a time when we are setting the standard of what it means to be a HOFer, for future generations to follow. I don't think we should take that responsibilty lightly.

Of course, if it proves out that I'm wrong and more players don't come along, I would re-think some of these non-picks. There are several players that I'm on the fence on, so I'm holding them off my ballot for now. Each player can stay on the ballot 15 years - think what we'll know in 1915 that we didn't know in 1901. We'll have 15 more years of players to look at and compare to, and I think that extra knowledge will be helpful. I very well may add some of my bubble players as their eligibility winds down, but I don't see the need to elect them now. The game is changing, and I'd like to have the knowledge of what has changed and how the players of yesterday compare with the players of today. Of course, they very well may get elected without my support, and I'm OK with that. And if they do, and many years from now my ballot history is looked at, I may continue to field questions regarding my lack of infielders, since many will get elected before I got around to making a final decision on them.

Of the current middle infielder candidates, Glasscock and Ward are currently the players I'm closest to pulling the trigger on. I'm also intrigued by Ross Barnes and George Wright. They were both HOF caliber players at their peack, but neither were able to play all that long. I'd like to see what the middle infielders of today's game can do before making a decision on these two. (Of course, I am supporting another short career guy, Al Spalding, but I think he is a special case)

My further issue with Barnes is that he couldn't play under the 1877 rules change. Prior to that time, hits that started fair and rolled foul were considered in play. He had tremendous batting averages due to his ability to bunt for "fair-foul" hits, but when the rules changed, he was nothing special. I don't believe he would have prospered under the modern game that we know. I do give him credit for taking advantage of the rules that were in place while he played, but I view this similarly to not giving credit to players for high batting averages when walks were counted as hits. Barnes was effectively out of the game before he was 30.

The other middle infielder that is currently receiving at least 50% of the vote that I haven't supported is Hardy Richardson Richardson looks very good as a pure 2bmen. He doesn't look as good as a pure outfielder. He split time between the two, with the slight majority being in the infield. I'll continue to look at him through the years; I'm not sure he'll get my support, though.

[Paul Wendt]

That was a mistake. I corrected SS to be Barnes.
Thanks.

Barnes played shortstop 1867-1870, half of 1871 (George Wright, broken leg), 1879 and 1881. That does not include his time as Anson's teammate under Spalding, 1876 and half of 1877, but he was probably Anson's first pro shortstop.

In what sense? Barnes and Spalding were stars of the Rockford IL team in 1870 --a professional team like the Cincinnati Red Stockings. Rockford visited Marshalltown IA, beat the local team of course, and recruited Adrian Anson to join them next season. Anson did, but Harry Wright spirited Barnes and Spalding to Boston meanwhile.

At the same time, Anson's choice suggests that he was not personally fond of Bill Dahlen, his last shortstop.
Joe Quinn, 1B (1884-1886, 1888-1901) - 1st Year
Quinn played 2B almost exclusively including three seasons with Boston champions.
He was the first person born in Australia to play in the major leagues, 102 years before the second one (Craig Shipley 1986). The difference is that Australia now "produces" baseball players, lots of them, and some who are "imported" by major league clubs.

[jjpm74]

My issue with the middle infielders has been that their careers have either been too short of not overwhelming enough for me to support. Baseball is still in its infancy, and I find it hard to believe that we won't have players coming up that can combine a high standard and longevity. I really don't want to set the standard too low, so we'll have to match that standard in later years. My thoughts are that this should be an elite fraternity, and I'd rather err on the side of not having players miss rather than electing too many. We are at a time when we are setting the standard of what it means to be a HOFer, for future generations to follow. I don't think we should take that responsibilty lightly.


I agree that we should set high standards. Where I disagree is how the standards should be set. Why should the same standards be set for every fielder whether they are an Outfielder, a middle infielder, a catcher or a first baseman? People delineate pitchers from fielders. Why shouldn't we delineate middle infielders from outfielders? IMO, 2B and SS are defensive positions and defense should be the emphasis with offense, while important, not weighted quite as heavily as it is with corner infielders and outfielders. This is why a supported Bid McPhee. He is the best defensive second baseman to this point in history. Catcher is a part time position because of the taxing demands of the position. This is why Charlie Bennett gets heavy support even though his counting numbers wouldn't even come close for an outfielder. Bennett was one of the best offensive and defensive catchers of his day and set records many wouldn't be able to touch had the role of catcher not gone to a more full time specialized position with protective equipment.

[jalbright]

Brooklyn said the following:
Of the current middle infielder candidates, Glasscock and Ward are currently the players I'm closest to pulling the trigger on. I'm also intrigued by Ross Barnes and George Wright. They were both HOF caliber players at their peack, but neither were able to play all that long. I'd like to see what the middle infielders of today's game can do before making a decision on these two. (Of course, I am supporting another short career guy, Al Spalding, but I think he is a special case)

Wright played seven years before 1871, and then played to 1882, when he was 35. He really didn't have a short career--only one in which about 40% (7 years of 18) of his career wasn't recorded in the fashion we have become accustomed to with the advent of baseball encyclopedias (print or on line). For more on Wright, see this post. (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361608&postcount=98)

[Brooklyn]

Brooklyn said the following:


Wright played seven years before 1871, and then played to 1882, when he was 35. He really didn't have a short career--only one in which about 40% (7 years of 18) of his career wasn't recorded in the fashion we have become accustomed to with the advent of baseball encyclopedias (print or on line). For more on Wright, see this post. (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361608&postcount=98)

I did not know that, thanks for the additional info on Wright. Do you have a source where his pre-1871 stats are shown? I'm not that familiar with pre-1871 baseball (actually not that familiar with pre-1876). Was it considered at a major league level?

[jjpm74]

I did not know that, thanks for the additional info on Wright. Do you have a source where his pre-1871 stats are shown? I'm not that familiar with pre-1871 baseball (actually not that familiar with pre-1876). Was it considered at a major league level? Wright's pre-1871 play came at a professional level of play, but there was no organized league at that point.

[jalbright]

I did not know that, thanks for the additional info on Wright. Do you have a source where his pre-1871 stats are shown? I'm not that familiar with pre-1871 baseball (actually not that familiar with pre-1876). Was it considered at a major league level?

What statistics there are are best found in Marshall Wright's book, The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870. A summary of Wright's pre 1871 data can be found in this post: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=361586&postcount=89

Let's simply say that the National Association before 1871 contained the best ballplayers in the country at the time. It wasn't as good as the 1871-1875 version, which in turn wasn't quite as good as the 1876 National League and after. However, Wright was quite dominant, which a HOFer should be against lesser competition. Wright played against the best of his time, and, really, should his year of birth be held against him given the length and breadth of dominance he did have?

I have much more difficulty with Barnes because while he was as good as they come for five or six years, he wasn't much at all the rest of his career, and while injuries/illness are a part of that, seasons were short (thus making the possibility of a fluke higher), and he did not prosper after the end of the fair/foul rule.

[TheSlaff]

Barnes
Bennett
Caruthers
Gore
Hamilton
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Rusie
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
Wright

[DoubleX]

Dan, this is my preliminary list of newbies for the next election. Any additions needed?

Steve Brodie
Bones Ely
Dummy Hoy
Charlie Irwin - Might not include him
Wilbert Robinson
Franke Foreman - Might not include him

[leecemark]

--Next year may be an opportunity to elect a few backloggers. Hoy is the only one who might even get a vote (well perhaps Robinson) and he won't get mine.

[DoubleX]

RE the voting situation...

Classic did a good job convincing me that the spirit of this election needs to be honored. Our electorate is too small to have one or two voters go by their own rules and undermine the rest of us. It's obviously impossible for us to replicate what it would have been like to have been in 1906 voting, we'd obviously have a very different perception of the game and its stars, but we can do our best to try to apply meaningful standards for the era we're looking at. Votes that seem to blatantly run afoul of that, and appear to be applying an arbitrary standard from baseball's long cumulative history or that has more meaning in a future era, that has little relevance to the era we're looking at, will likely be discounting going forward.

I am extremely loathe to discount votes, but I think in extremely rare and blatant cases, in which there is a strong sentiment that the process is being undermined, I will consider discounting votes. With that in mind, I have PMed Sockeye appraising him of the discussions in this thread and of this position in respect to his ballot.

[jjpm74]

--Next year may be an opportunity to elect a few backloggers. Hoy is the only one who might even get a vote (well perhaps Robinson) and he won't get mine.

I'm going to make sure Hoy gets at least one vote. ;)

[jjpm74]

Dan, this is my preliminary list of newbies for the next election. Any additions needed?

Steve Brodie
Bones Ely
Dummy Hoy
Charlie Irwin - Might not include him
Wilbert Robinson
Franke Foreman - Might not include him

I wouldn't waste the space on Irwin or Foreman. Neither one had a career that amounted to much and neither one is known for having accomplished something special during their playing career or after.

[AG2004]

Wright played seven years before 1871, and then played to 1882, when he was 35. He really didn't have a short career--only one in which about 40% (7 years of 18) of his career wasn't recorded in the fashion we have become accustomed to with the advent of baseball encyclopedias (print or on line). For more on Wright, see this post.

I did not know that, thanks for the additional info on Wright.

Joe Start also had a substantial pre-1871 career.

Start was with Enterprise (of Brooklyn) in 1860 and 1861, but Enterprise was a relatively minor club. He joined the Atlantics (also of Brooklyn) in 1862, and remained with them through 1870. The Atlantics were one of the major teams of the decade. They went undefeated in 1864 and 1865, and, in 1869, finished with the second-best record of professional ballclubs.

In 1865, Start led the NABBP in both runs and runs per game. In 1868, Start also led the NABBP in hits and hits per game, but not all the teams kept records of hits.

Not all NABBP clubs played similar schedules, so league leadership isn't necessarily the best measure of a player's ability. Start, however, also led the Atlantics in runs in 1866, 1868, and 1869, and in runs per game each year from 1866 to 1869. Start also led the team in hits and in total bases in 1869.

Start had a great peak - but it doesn't show up in most reference works because it was during the latter half of the 1860s. His nine seasons with the Atlantics from 1862 to 1870 probably should count towards his totals, since the Atlantics were one of the top teams in the game during that period. The combination of career length and peak make him worthy of honor.

[AG2004]

My ballot

Ross Barnes
Cupid Childs
Bob Ferguson
Billy Hamilton
Amos Rusie
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Wright


I believe that Childs was a better player than McPhee overall, as his peak value offsets McPhee's career advantage. Players at second, short, and third were not, in general, as durable as outfielders, perhaps because they had to put in a greater effort during each game, or perhaps because they could be involved in collisions in the bases while playing defense as well as while on offense.

Childs' win share profile is similar to that of Jimmy Collins, who I believe has just edged out Sutton as the best third baseman of all time. (There has been some support for Glasscock, but he isn't quite as good as McPhee. Both had similar five-year peaks, but McPhee had more career value. In my view, McPhee's inclusion doesn't make the case for Glasscock's.) When we conmpare infielders to each other, Childs has a case for inclusion.

[DoubleX]

Billy Hamilton and Amos Rusie are in line for election right now (though a surge of late votes could do them in, just as Stovey and Thompson were done in at the end last time.

More notably though, with the 5% rule now in effect, this looks to be a year of mass exodus. Unless something changes before the closing, the following 11 holdovers will dropped from the ballot:

Charlie Comiskey
Larry Corcoran
Ned Hanlon
Denny Lyons
Bobby Mathews
Ed McKean
Levi Meyerle
Tip O'Neill
Dave Orr
Mike Tiernan
Will White

Nig Cuppy is also under 5%, but given that it's his first year and he received a vote, he'll be on the 1907 ballot.

[Paul Wendt]

Dan, this is my preliminary list of newbies for the next election. Any additions needed?
. . .
Frank Foreman - Might not include him

I have noticed a few things about him, from newspapers around 1900. This is from memory.

"Brownie" Foreman - I interpreted that as a reference to Frank but I see baseball-reference lists his brother John under that name.
"Monkey" Foreman - the nickname listed for Frank.
My interpretation is that the Foremans were dark white men.
At this distance "Nig" is offensive and taboo; Brownie and Monkey are not.

Frank Foreman was considered one of the great coachers in the major leagues. At the time that meant third-base or first-base coach. Arlie Latham was the first man hired to be a coach rather than at least a substitute player, midseason 1900. Entertaining the fans and distracting the pitcher were important aspects of the job, perhaps the two most important. ("The Freshest Man on Earth")

Foreman trained/coached baseball players at Penn State in the spring at least once. Certainly the university or the players hired him because they thought he would be a useful instructor. Otherwise I don't know how nearly he approached the Latham end of the coaching spectrum. The Monkey nickname might refer to entertaining "antics" in the coachers box but Brownie for his brother seems to me strong support for the other interpretation.

[DoubleX]

At this distance "Nig" is offensive and taboo; Brownie and Monkey are not.

I'm embarrassed to say that I hadn't even thought about the connotations with Cuppy's name. You think I should drop the nickname and just list him as George Cuppy for the next election? If his nickname is short for what you are suggesting it is short for, I'd rather not use that nickname, even if that is how he is predominantly known.

Also if Monkey was used in a racially derogatory sense, that too would be unacceptable. Remember when Howard Cosell got in trouble for saying "look at that little monkey go" in reference to a football player on MNF?

[jjpm74]

I'm embarrassed to say that I hadn't even thought about the connotations with Cuppy's name. You think I should drop the nickname and just list him as George Cuppy for the next election? If his nickname is short for what you are suggesting it is short for, I'd rather not use that nickname, even if that is how he is predominantly known.

Also if Monkey was used in a racially derogatory sense, that too would be unacceptable. Remember when Howard Cosell got in trouble for saying "look at that little monkey go" in reference to a football player on MNF?

HIs actual name was George Koppe.

The nickname Nig was applied to any of a number of players who had a dark complexion in his era and has racist undertones.

Also bare in mind that the nickname dummy was applied to someone hard of hearing in this same era, but that unlike many players who did not like the nickname, Dummy Hoy was quoted many times as having embraced it.

[leecemark]

--Obviously these nicknames would be unacceptable in the present day and probably were not flattering in their own time. I don't think we should rewrite history to match modern day sensitivities though. If a player was so widely known by a nickname that he is consistently referred to that way in all the references that is the way he should be listed here. "Dummy" Hoy would not be an acceptable public nickname now, but Hoy signed autographs that way when he was around. I don't even know what "Chief" Myers real name might be and that was a racially motivated nickname given to most players of Native American descent. "Dizzy" Dean probably wouldn't fly as the most commonly used moniker for Jerome either, although it might still be a clubhouse nickname.
--Using the names these players were actually known as and accepted as their own is not endorsing the mindset that created them. Lets not toss history out the window in the name of political correctness. Particularly since we are supposed to be putting ourselves into a contempory mindset where PC had yet to be conceived:).

[Freakshow]

Dan, this is my preliminary list of newbies for the next election. Any additions needed?

Steve Brodie
Bones Ely
Dummy Hoy
Charlie Irwin - Might not include him
Wilbert Robinson
Franke Foreman - Might not include him
You, that's pretty much it. A lean year, with Hoy the pick of the litter.

I would ask for a special exemption for Win Mercer. He was a very good pitcher for bad teams, a strong "Cy Young" candidate in 1897, and an excellent hitting pitcher. He played nine years and was still going strong when he died after the 1902 season at age 28. He was suffering from "pulmonary troubles" and depression related to that when he took his life.

My list:

Steve Brodie-CF
Bones Ely-SS
Frank Foreman-P
Dummy Hoy-CF
Charlie Irwin-3B
Win Mercer-P (d. 1/12/03)
Wilbert Robinson-C

[DoubleX]

I hadn't realized Mercer's career was cut short due to death. I suppose since he played 9 years, an exception can be made. I was planning on having such an exception anyway when Addie Joss becomes eligible.

So I can include Mercer on the ballot, though his career wasn't particularly impressive. Just 106 ERA+ in 2470 IP, lost 33 more games than he won, only a couple of times among the league leaders in ERA, ERA+, IP. So I don't really think his performance strongly merits an exception, but perhaps the precedent would be good to set someone like Joss up later.

EDIT: I don't think I'm going to include Irwin or Foreman.

[jjpm74]

Next election might be a good time to catch up on some of the backlog as the year after Ed Delahanty, George Van Haltren and Jimmy Ryan become eligible the year after.

[jjpm74]

Ed Delahanty died in 1903. Shouldn't he have become eligible in 1904? I thought players who died suddenly didn't have to wait 5 years for eligibility.

EDIT:

I hadn't realized Mercer's career was cut short due to death. I suppose since he played 9 years, an exception can be made. I was planning on having such an exception anyway when Addie Joss becomes eligible.


Mercer played on really bad teams. If you neutralize his stats, he's on par with a pitcher like Gus Weyhing.

[Paul Wendt]

Just in case anyone doesn't know, baseball-reference provides search for any part of a person's names.
Nig at baseball-reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?search=nig&Search+for+Player.x=0&Search+for+Player.y=0)

I'm embarrassed to say that I hadn't even thought about the connotations with Cuppy's name. You think I should drop the nickname and just list him as George Cuppy for the next election? If his nickname is short for what you are suggesting it is short for, I'd rather not use that nickname, even if that is how he is predominantly known.

Also if Monkey was used in a racially derogatory sense, that too would be unacceptable. Remember when Howard Cosell got in trouble for saying "look at that little monkey go" in reference to a football player on MNF?

DoubleX,
I tried three versions of that sentence and finally made it much much shorter. (You had named Cuppy in the preceding message and Foreman recently, and I had noted those Frank Foreman tidbits in the newspaper only this week.) A longer version says that it's clear to me that Nig is taboo in American English today, and it would be offensive where Brownie or Monkey might not be. But I don't know that was true 100 years ago. I'm not sure there would have been a difference.

On the other hand, I don't know that Cuppy used the name Nig and I do know that the Boston Globe, or Tim Murnane, called him George Cuppy when he was here in 1900-1901. (Always George? I can't say that. But I recall noticing essentially, they don't call him Nig Cuppy.) I also know that many of the use names in our baseball databases are poorly researched, and it isn't an active subject for the SABR Biographical Research Cmte now, maybe not in these two decades.
I know too that Dummy Hoy and Chief Meyers used those names themselves. jjpm mentioned Hoy. John Tortes Meyers signed "Chief" in his communications with Larry Ritter.

For Frank Foreman, "Monkey" is not listed as a primary use name but merely a nickname. Compare Nig Cuppy and Monkey Foreman with Babe and Bambino for George Herman Ruth --or Arlie and The Freshest Man on Earth for Walter Arlington Latham. "Hoover" for Brooks Robinson is another mere nickname, one that I know although it is not listed in the database.

jjpm,
Do you know something about nicknames professionally?

[DoubleX]

Ed Delahanty died in 1903. Shouldn't he have become eligible in 1904? I thought players who died suddenly didn't have to wait 5 years for eligibility.

That's a good question. That probably should be the rule and Delahanty should have been eligible in 1904. But given now that we missed Delahanty's death and we've waited 5 years for Mercer, perhaps we should just keep the five year rule in effect?

[jjpm74]

jjpm,
Do you know something about nicknames professionally?

Not really. The focus of my masters thesis was on the Gilded Age; more specifically, the working class during that time so I know quite a bit about that particular period in history. The nickname Nig may have been tolerated by the person but it was even back then intended as a derogatory nickname.