UQFC - Top 41-60 Candidates

[BlueBlood]

Once again, help us come up with a 1-100 list of the best eligible candidates for Cooperstown. Vote "yes" "maybe" or "no" next to these 20 names.

Wally Berger
Bobby Bonds
Ken Boyer
Pete Browning
Cupid Childs
Wilbur Cooper
Gavy Cravath
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Jim Kaat
Charlie Keller
Tommy Leach
Cal McVey
Graig Nettles
Dickey Pearce
Dan Quisenberry
Jimmy Ryan
Wally Schang
Jimmy Sheckard
Ezra Sutton

[BlueBlood]

Wally Berger - No
Bobby Bonds - No
Ken Boyer - Yes
Pete Browning - Yes
Cupid Childs - Yes
Wilbur Cooper - Yes
Gavy Cravath - No
Jack Glasscock - Yes
George Gore - Yes
Jim Kaat - No
Charlie Keller - Maybe
Tommy Leach - No
Cal McVey - No
Graig Nettles - No
Dickey Pearce - No
Dan Quisenberry - Maybe
Jimmy Ryan - No
Wally Schang - Maybe
Jimmy Sheckard - No
Ezra Sutton - Yes

[Brad Harris]

41. Ezra Sutton
42. Dan Quisenberry
43. George Gore
44. Wally Schang
45. Cupid Childs
46. Wilbur Cooper
47. Ken Boyer
48. Charlie Keller
49. Cal McVey
50. Jack Glasscock
51. Graig Nettles
52. Dickey Pearce
53. Jimmy Sheckard
------------------------------ above this line is "YES", below is "NO"
54. Bobby Bonds
55. Wally Berger
56. Gavy Cravath
57. Tommy Leach
58. Jim Kaat
59. Jimmy Ryan
60. Pete Browning

[Freakshow]

Here's my take:

Wally Berger - No
Bobby Bonds - M
Ken Boyer - Yes
Pete Browning - M
Cupid Childs - Yes
Wilbur Cooper - M
Gavy Cravath - M
Jack Glasscock - Yes
George Gore - Yes
Jim Kaat - M
Charlie Keller - Yes
Tommy Leach - Yes
Cal McVey - Yes
Graig Nettles - M
Dickey Pearce - Yes
Dan Quisenberry - No
Jimmy Ryan - M
Wally Schang - M
Jimmy Sheckard - Yes
Ezra Sutton - Yes

[leecemark]

Wally Berger - maybe
Bobby Bonds - maybe
Ken Boyer - maybe
Pete Browning - no
Cupid Childs - no
Wilbur Cooper - maybe
Gavy Cravath - maybe
Jack Glasscock - maybe
George Gore - yes
Jim Kaat - no
Charlie Keller - maybe
Tommy Leach - yes
Cal McVey - yes
Graig Nettles - maybe
Dickey Pearce - yes
Dan Quisenberry - maybe
Jimmy Ryan - maybe
Wally Schang - maybe
Jimmy Sheckard - maybe
Ezra Sutton - yes

[jjpm74]

Wally Berger No
Bobby Bonds No
Ken Boyer Yes
Pete Browning No
Cupid Childs Maybe
Wilbur Cooper Maybe
Gavy Cravath No
Jack Glasscock Maybe
George Gore Maybe
Jim Kaat No
Charlie Keller No
Tommy Leach No
Cal McVey No
Graig Nettles No
Dickey Pearce Yes
Dan Quisenberry Yes
Jimmy Ryan No
Wally Schang No
Jimmy Sheckard No
Ezra Sutton Yes

[jalbright]

Wally Berger--maybe
Bobby Bonds--no
Ken Boyer--yes
Pete Browning--no
Cupid Childs--yes
Wilbur Cooper--yes
Gavy Cravath--no
Jack Glasscock--yes
George Gore--yes
Jim Kaat--no
Charlie Keller--yes
Tommy Leach--yes
Cal McVey--no
Graig Nettles--maybe
Dickey Pearce--maybe
Dan Quisenberry--yes
Jimmy Ryan--no
Wally Schang--no
Jimmy Sheckard --no
Ezra Sutton--yes

[JDD]

Wally Berger
Bobby Bonds
Ken Boyer..........................yes
Pete Browning....................yes
Cupid Childs
Wilbur Cooper
Gavy Cravath
Jack Glasscock..................maybe
George Gore
Jim Kaat............................yes
Charlie Keller
Tommy Leach.....................yes
Cal McVey
Graig Nettles
Dickey Pearce
Dan Quisenberry
Jimmy Ryan
Wally Schang
Jimmy Sheckard
Ezra Sutton

Everyone else is a no for me.

[Freakshow]

Assembling #61-80. These 20 were all winners in Round 1 and received at least 10% support in Round 2:

Tommy Bridges
George J Burns
Mike Donlin
Bob Elliott
Frank Howard
Tommy John
Bob Johnson
Fielder Jones
Herman Long
Thurman Munson
Don Newcombe
Tony Oliva
Urban Shocker
Reggie Smith
Lee Smith
Luis Tiant
Bobby Veach
Mickey Vernon
Bucky Walters
Jim Wynn

Assembling #81-100. There were 10 remaining Round 1 losers that were voted into the Top 100:

Norm Cash
Dave Concepcion
Steve Garvey
Elston Howard
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Lefty O'Doul
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Bret Saberhagen

In addition to this there were 10 Round 1 winners who received <10% support in Round 2:

David Cone
Lave Cross
Jack Fournier
Ted Kluszewski
Dolf Luque
Buddy Myer
Billy Pierce
Al Rosen
Cy Seymour
Roy Thomas

[Freakshow]

Assembling #101-120. There were 14 also-rans in the poll to decide the Top 100 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77847):

Sal Bando
Vada Pinson
Hippo Vaughn
Rusty Staub
Maury Wills
Sparky Lyle
Johnny Kling
Jack Quinn
Lon Warneke
Johnny Pesky
Babe Adams
Dummy Hoy
Mike Tiernan
Ed Konetchy

In addition there were 6 other Round 1 losers who received at least 35%support from the voters but did not make the ballot in Round 2:

Harry Davis
Cy Williams
Firpo Marberry
Dick Bartell
Dom DiMaggio
Harold Baines

[BlueBlood]

Great works. Looks like it will be a breeze to get through this as you've organized it so well. Frankly though, a lot of the guys near the bottom were able to get in because they only needed to jump over a tiny hurdle. I'm sure by the time we get to 80-100 nearly every vote will read "no"...

[Freakshow]

Great works. Looks like it will be a breeze to get through this as you've organized it so well. Frankly though, a lot of the guys near the bottom were able to get in because they only needed to jump over a tiny hurdle. I'm sure by the time we get to 80-100 nearly every vote will read "no"...
Oh, I don't know. We all have our idiosyncratic candidates that others just don't "get" (unless you're a small-hall kind of guy). Just eyeballing it, in that last group I have at least four or five Maybes, guys that have a case and are clearly better than the HOF mistakes.

EDIT: I also notice that at least three members of the Hall of Merit haven't appeared yet, Charley Jones, Dave Stieb and Willie Randolph. That should be fixed.

[Paul Wendt]

Great works. Looks like it will be a breeze to get through this as you've organized it so well. Frankly though, a lot of the guys near the bottom were able to get in because they only needed to jump over a tiny hurdle. I'm sure by the time we get to 80-100 nearly every vote will read "no"...
Maybe, if "nearly every" is less than "almost every". :)

Actually, I wonder whether the scores should fall to low numbers.
BLueBLood,
Yesterday I wrote that I would not liberalize my provisional ballot #21-40 but I would use the same standard throughout. It is stricter than my voting for BBFHOF and stricter than I would vote on the veterans committee --especially if they include maybe votes that count only 1/4! It is more like what I would advocate on the veterans committee.

Now I wonder whether it is important or even valuable to be consistent from round to round. If this batch is fixed at ranks 41-60, not to move further up or down based on their scores in comparison with other batches, then it may be best to vote them relative to each other. That will provide a truer ranking as well as, especially at the end where there will otherwise be a crowd with 0 to 3 points even if 15 people vote.

- I do see a point in listing this batch #41-60 rather than ranking all 21-100 or more according to their scores. These batches are loosely defined by the votes of more people, maybe that shouldn't be overruled.
- Even so, there may be a reason to vote consistently from batch to batch. Someone else, not BB, may want to use the scores to reorder all of #21-100 privately, or for some other purpose.

[Erik Bedard]

Wally Berger - No
Bobby Bonds - No
Ken Boyer - Maybe
Pete Browning - No
Cupid Childs - Maybe
Wilbur Cooper - Maybe
Gavy Cravath - Yes (one of my two personal idiosyncratic candidates; Lip Pike is the other)
Jack Glasscock - Maybe
George Gore - Maybe
Jim Kaat - No
Charlie Keller - Maybe
Tommy Leach - No
Cal McVey - Maybe
Graig Nettles - No
Dickey Pearce - Yes
Dan Quisenberry - Yes
Jimmy Ryan - Yes
Wally Schang - No
Jimmy Sheckard - Yes
Ezra Sutton - Maybe

[BlueBlood]

Paul, believe me, I've been absolutely struggling with which way to go and I read you loud and clear. I'm leaning towards these players having no upward (or inversely, downward) mobility from one block to the next. One, it respects their level of major supporters as reflected in the previous polls. Rice & Hodges are examples of guys making waves in the real-life Veteran's/BBWAA ballots at the moment and that's greatly do to them having supporters in the right places and a lot of name recognition. It would be sort of odd to have them drop out of the top 40 and then possibly be elected to Cooperstown in the future, especially Rice who I feel is inevitable for next year.

Also, if we ignore the groups and allow the lists to covalently bond with one another, it defeats the purpose of dividing these guys into groups to begin with other than to attract the people that don't want to vote for 100+ candidates all at once.

I'd like to hear a few other opinions on this before making a decision here. Certainly, Freakshow's thoughts are of the utmost importance although considering that he's put together these groupings, I think he feels the blocks of 20 should remain intact.

As for how you'd like to vote, I'd go with being consistent from one block to the next. If these sets of 20 do end up remaining together, then it would make sense to be consistent. I know that for the process of ranking and effecting the list, one would be inclined to change your standards from one block to the next in order to greatly affect the rank of those especially in order to inflate the players you feel most strongly about. But that would go against the will of the group. So, my wish is that everyone keeps the same line of thought throughout these threads of "Who do I want in the Hall, don't want or might want?" and applies the same criteria throughout.

[Freakshow]

Paul, believe me, I've been absolutely struggling with which way to go and I read you loud and clear. I'm leaning towards these players having no upward (or inversely, downward) mobility from one block to the next. One, it respects their level of major supporters as reflected in the previous polls. Rice & Hodges are examples of guys making waves in the real-life Veteran's/BBWAA ballots at the moment and that's greatly do to them having supporters in the right places and a lot of name recognition. It would be sort of odd to have them drop out of the top 40 and then possibly be elected to Cooperstown in the future, especially Rice who I feel is inevitable for next year.

Also, if we ignore the groups and allow the lists to covalently bond with one another, it defeats the purpose of dividing these guys into groups to begin with other than to attract the people that don't want to vote for 100+ candidates all at once.

I'd like to hear a few other opinions on this before making a decision here. Certainly, Freakshow's thoughts are of the utmost importance although considering that he's put together these groupings, I think he feels the blocks of 20 should remain intact.

As for how you'd like to vote, I'd go with being consistent from one block to the next. If these sets of 20 do end up remaining together, then it would make sense to be consistent. I know that for the process of ranking and effecting the list, one would be inclined to change your standards from one block to the next in order to greatly affect the rank of those especially in order to inflate the players you feel most strongly about. But that would go against the will of the group. So, my wish is that everyone keeps the same line of thought throughout these threads of "Who do I want in the Hall, don't want or might want?" and applies the same criteria throughout.
I think we're on the same wave length. Yes, voters should be consistent from one block to the next. That way, we can draw a conrast between how the polls in the project rated players and how we see them outside the project's constraints. We can speculate as to why certain "more worthy" players fell to lower groups and why certain "less worthy" players made it to higher groups. By staying consistent from block to block, we can identify these odd cases.

I also want to tweak that last block of #101-120 to get the Hall of Merit guys into it. I also will produce a #121-140 block. Here's why: I had the idea at the beginning of the UQFC to produce The Hall of Very Good. I would define it like this: Given that it's safe to say that there are 40 players outside the Hall who deserve to be in (ahead of the 40 worst HOFers), then the next 100 candidates after those 40 comprise the HOVG - the guys on the doorsteps that most of us wouldn't quite put in.

BlueBlood has given us a project to get there and I thank him for doing it. Where does that leave the remaining 123 Round 1 losers? How about the Hall of :banghead:

[leecemark]

--The fact that a guy made the HOM doesn't really change that they got no support from our electorate. I'd put them in the 121-140 grouping if you want to include them. If they were simply oversights that would still be reflected in their yes/maybe scores.

[BlueBlood]

Ha! Mark said exactly what was on my mind over that issue. Nobody supported those guys and I don't see why a project from another site should affect this one. Put the guys in 121-140 if you must since that's the first area where we have nothing established.

[Paul Wendt]

As for how you'd like to vote, I'd go with being consistent from one block to the next. If these sets of 20 do end up remaining together, then it would make sense to be consistent. I know that for the process of ranking and effecting the list, one would be inclined to change your standards from one block to the next in order to greatly affect the rank of those especially in order to inflate the players you feel most strongly about. But that would go against the will of the group.

Everyone would need to do it. More than what you emphasize, in order to differentiate the 15 or 18 Nos that we may anticipate on some ballots in later rounds.

I accept the conclusion.

[Paul Wendt]

Ha! Mark said exactly what was on my mind over that issue. Nobody supported those guys and I don't see why a project from another site should affect this one. Put the guys in 121-140 if you must since that's the first area where we have nothing established.

I agree with putting them in 121-140 although I know that first round support in this project is a fatally local measure for the purpose of eventually determining #60 or #120, or filling the Hall of Very Good.

The design here was a uniform "vote for six" from every decade 1870s to 1950s although we know the 1870s and 1880s provide more strong candidates (or many more medium candidates choose your own terminology). The scores for candidates from different polls in any round have little comparative value and for also-rans and low honorable mentions we made no other comparison. High honorable mentions in each round advanced to comparison with their colleagues from a neighboring poll, as did winners.

[Freakshow]

Ha! Mark said exactly what was on my mind over that issue. Nobody supported those guys and I don't see why a project from another site should affect this one. Put the guys in 121-140 if you must since that's the first area where we have nothing established.
True that. Makes sense.

Paul makes a good point, too, that some legitimate candidates suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous competition in the more overlooked eras.

[dgarza]

Wally Berger - MAYBE
Bobby Bonds - MAYBE
Ken Boyer - YES
Pete Browning - YES
Cupid Childs - MAYBE
Wilbur Cooper - MAYBE
Gavvy Cravath - YES
Jack Glasscock - NO
George Gore - YES
Jim Kaat - NO
Charlie Keller - NO
Tommy Leach - NO
Cal McVey - YES
Graig Nettles - NO
Dickey Pearce - NO
Dan Quisenberry - YES
Jimmy Ryan - YES
Wally Schang - NO
Jimmy Sheckard - NO
Ezra Sutton - NO

[Paul Wendt]

This group 41-60 seem to me much stronger than 61-80, maybe stronger than 21-40.

Everyone knows we have 1 pitcher in the first twenty.
We now have 8 pitchers in the first sixty.
The count is 1 4 3 7 5 5 in the six groups that provisionally cover #1-120.


bold - Yes (certainly in the top 40)
underline - Maybe
plain - No

Wally Berger
Bobby Bonds
Ken Boyer
Pete Browning
Cupid Childs
Wilbur Cooper
Gavy Cravath
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Jim Kaat
Charlie Keller
Tommy Leach
Cal McVey
Graig Nettles
Dickey Pearce
Dan Quisenberry
Jimmy Ryan
Wally Schang
Jimmy Sheckard
Ezra Sutton

Gore is #11-15 on my list.
Glasscock and perhaps Sutton are in the top twenty.
FWIW tonight 33 players are "certainly in [my] top 40" eligible for the Ultimate Quest

[henrich]

Wally Berger no
Bobby Bonds maybe
Ken Boyer yes
Pete Browning maybe
Cupid Childs no
Wilbur Cooper no
Cravath no
Glasscock maybe
Gore no
Kaat yes
keller no
Leach maybe
McVey no
Nettles yes
Pearce no
Quisenberry no
Ryan maybe
Schange maybe
Scheckard no
Sutton no

[Colorado Express]

Wally Berger - NO
Bobby Bonds - NO/borderline MAYBE
Ken Boyer - MAYBE
Pete Browning - NO/borderline MAYBE
Cupid Childs - NO
Wilbur Cooper - NO
Gavy Cravath - NO
Jack Glasscock - NO
George Gore - NO
Jim Kaat - NO/borderline MAYBE
Charlie Keller - NO
Tommy Leach - NO
Cal McVey - NO
Graig Nettles - NO
Dickey Pearce - NO
Dan Quisenberry - NO/borderline MAYBE
Jimmy Ryan - NO
Wally Schang - NO
Jimmy Sheckard - NO
Ezra Sutton - NO

[BlueBlood]

This will be a week old tomorrow, so this is your LAST CHANCE to submit ballots.

[BlueBlood]

RESULTS:

41. Ken Boyer - 9 (75%)
- (8 Yes, 4 Maybe)

42. George Gore - 7.5 (62.5%)
- (7 Yes, 2 Maybe)

43. Ezra Sutton - 7.25 (60.4%)
- (7 Yes, 1 Maybe)

44. Dickey Pearce - 6.25 (52.1%)
- (6 Yes, 1 Maybe)

45. Jack Glasscock - 6.25 (52.1%)
- (5 Yes, 5 Maybe)

46. Dan Quisenberry - 5.75 (47.9%)
- (5 Yes, 3 Maybe)

47. Tommy Leach/Cal McVey - 5.25 (43.75%)
- (5 Yes, 1 Maybe)

49. Cupid Childs - 5 (41.7%)
- (4 Yes, 4 Maybe)

50. Wilbur Cooper - 4.5 (37.5%)
- (3 Yes, 6 Maybe)

51. Jimmy Sheckard - 4.25 (35.4%)
- (4 Yes, 1 Maybe)

52. Charlie Keller - 4 (33.3%)
- (3 Yes, 4 Maybe)

53. Pete Browning/Graig Nettles - 3.75 (31.3%)
- (3 Yes, 4 Maybe)

55. Gavy Cravath/Jimmy Ryan - 2.75 (22.9%)
- (2 Yes, 3 Maybe)

57. Jim Kaat - 2.25 (18.8%)
- (2 Yes, 1 Maybe)

58. Wally Schang - 2 (16.7%)
- (1 Yes, 4 Maybe)

59. Bobby Bonds - 1.25 (10.4%)
- (5 Maybe)

60. Wally Berger - 1 (8.3%)
- (4 Maybe)


If we were allowing for upward/downward mobility between groups:

21. Lou Whitaker
22. Ken Boyer
23. Charlie Bennett
24. Larry Doyle/Carl Mays/Wes Ferrell
27. Bob Caruthers/Darrell Evans
29. Joe Start
30. George Gore
31. Ezra Sutton
32. Bill Freehan
33. Vern Stephens
34. Dave Parker
35. Dickey Pearce
36. Jack Glasscock
37. Tony Mullane/George Van Haltren
39. Dan Quisenberry
40. Will Clark
41. Tommy Leach/Cal McVey
43. Heinie Groh
44. Cupid Childs
45. Keith Hernandez
46. Jim Rice
47. Albert Belle
48. Wilbur Cooper
49. Dwight Evans
50. Jimmy Sheckard
51. Charlie Keller
52. Pete Browning/Graig Nettles
54. Gil Hodges
55. Gavy Cravath/Jimmy Ryan
57. Jim Kaat
58. Wally Schang
59. Bobby Bonds
60. Wally Berger