pRE-1943 Vets poll

[Appling]

I thought I would re-state this thread in the form of a POLL:

Of the ten players nominated (whose careers began before 1943)
who would get your vote for the Hall of Fame? Choose up to four players.

I don't know why or how these ten were nominated, but I suspect the Vet Committee may consider this the last chance for all of them.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I thought I would re-state this thread in the form of a POLL:

Of the ten players nominated (whose careers began before 1943)
who would get your vote for the Hall of Fame? Choose up to four players.

I don't know why or how these ten were nominated, but I suspect the Vet Committee may consider this the last chance for all of them.

Opps, four. I'll fix my votes. Dahlen, Magee, Mays and White.

The next time pre-1943 players come up for vote is 2013.

[KCGHOST]

Dahlen and White for me. To me Dahlen is the litmus test for this vote. If he doesn't get in and someone else does it will, once again, demonstrate the inability of the HoF to put together a qualified electorate.

[jjpm74]

Dahlen, White, Mays, Gordon.

I accidentally hit enter before I had a chance to uncheck the other 4. Sorry for the confusion.

[PVNICK]

Dahlen, Magee, Mays and White. Gordon is close but his career is too short, ended too fast and he missed only 44 and 45 so I don't think there can be much of a "war credit" type argument.

[Brad Harris]

I voted for Dahlen, Gordon, Magee and White but I feel equally strongly about Ferrell, Mays and Walters. I just had a tough time deciding which of those three pitchers would be the 4th spot on my ballot (instead of Magee).

[BlueBlood]

I think Mays & Ferrell are both Top 40 pitching cases and that slots them a little higher than some people like White and Magee. My votes went to those impressive SPs, Dahlen & Gordon.

[Brad Harris]

BTF rates them (1) Ferrell, (2) Walters, (3) Mays.

[BlueBlood]

Five Year Peak In Win Shares

1. Mays - 140
2. Walters - 132
3. Ferrell - 129

Three Year Peak In Win Shares

1. Walters - 102
2. Ferrell - 95
3. Mays - 92

Win Shares Per Season (43 Starts)

1. Ferrell - 30.25
2. Mays - 29.46
3. Walters - 29.10

Career Win Shares

1. Walters - 258
2. Mays - 256
3. Ferrell - 233


If I was to have any of them pitching for my team, I'd want it to be Mays. His five year peak shows a consistent run of greatness while he's worth more per season than Walters. Walters comes out last for me because his five year peak is barely more than Ferrell's who is worth an extra 1.15 Win Shares every season. Either way, they're all pretty similar with negligible differences and would give the same results to most teams. I'd say these are certainly the three best pitchers not in the Hall Of Fame that aren't from the 19th century or are still eligible via BBWAA (Blyleven).

[henrich]

Thanks for posting-should be interesting to see the results.

[dgarza]

My top 4 (but not only supported) : White, Magee, Stephens, & Gordon

[STLCards2]

I would put in Ferrell, Magee, Dahlen, and for sure - three of the worst HOF snubs in history. I would also put in White and Gordon. Really, Mays, walters, and Stephens wouldn't embarrass the HOF either.

On Mays: Mays is a borderline/in guy without considering how great the defenses behind him were - his ERA+/IP numbers are no better than guys like Dave Stieb or Bret Saberhagen. People love to dog Whitey Ford, Jim Palmer, Mordecai Brown, etc (for good reason), but pay no attention to how defenses affected most other pitchers. Mays is bordelrine/out factoring in the huge support he got. It has nothing to do with the alleged game fixing, or the other famous little incident.

On Ferrell. We Ferrell was a very good pitcher - very good. He was arguably the second or third best pitcher in the AL for a 6-7 year run. Ferrell's pitching numbers are not good enough by themselves to be a HOFer (even though in their own right, aren't too far off May's numbers- whom everybody is apparantly in love with).

However, Wes Ferrell created over 100 runs above that of an average pitcher over the course of his career. To put that into perspective, that is more runs created by his bat, than the following pitchers saved with only their arms:

Jim Hunter
Rube Marquard
Jack Chesbro
Chief Bender
Waite Hoyt
Burleigh Grimes
Rollie Fingers
Jesse Haines

and more than the following non- HOF pitchers:

Jack Morris
Jim Kaat
Jamie Moyer
Fernando Valenzuala

In other words, Ferrell was a more productive hitter, than these HOF/borderline HOF guys were productive pitchers. That's right, I'll say it again...Wes Ferrell had more production as a hitter only than Catfish Hunter had as a pitcher.:shhh:

Combine Ferrell's run prevention with his runs created, Ferrell is far an away better than Carl Mays, Bucky Walters, or any other non-HOF pitcher not named Blyleven.

Ferrell is way over the HOF line, and it isn't even particularly close.

[jaxxr]

No Lefty O'Doul, fourth best career BA ever .349, on the list ?

I selected Bill Dahlen, could see Gordon or Ferrell as qualified.

The HOF is probably a bit diluted already, and if any or all of the listed did not get in, that would be fine as well.

Over the last 50 years or so, none of these very good ballplayers have made a fine defensive play, got a base hit, or threw a shutout.
They have the same stats which the regular process, previously had found not worthy of HOF inclusion.
A true HOF player should be quite obvious, very minor debate involved. It seems a bit "odd" you might have to search out, dig up, re-discover players who are famous enough or good enough to supposedly be HOF material.

The "comparable" guy is in, so this guy deserves to be in, type of reasoning is very harmfull to the HOF. If one compares, adjusts, normalizes, rationalizes long enough, almost evey ballplayer with ten seasons, will, by a domino effect, be about as good as......., and be HOF quality.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No Lefty O'Doul, fourth best career BA ever .349, on the list ?

I selected Bill Dahlen, could see Gordon or Ferrell as qualified.

The HOF is probably a bit diluted already, and if any or all of the listed did not get in, that would be fine as well.

Over the last 50 years or so, none of these very good ballplayers have made a fine defensive play, got a base hit, or threw a shutout.
They have the same stats which the regular process, previously had found not worthy of HOF inclusion.
A true HOF player should be quite obvious, very minor debate involved. It seems a bit "odd" you might have to search out, dig up, re-discover players who are famous enough or good enough to supposedly be HOF material.

The "comparable" guy is in, so this guy deserves to be in, type of reasoning is very harmfull to the HOF. If one compares, adjusts, normalizes, rationalizes long enough, almost evey ballplayer with ten seasons, will, by a domino effect, be about as good as......., and be HOF quality.


O'Doul had a short career. He may be a better finalist choice than Reynolds, but the rest have as strong if not stronger arguments.

I for one am a firm believer in fixing mistakes of the past, which largely happened because voting when these players were eligible at first was kind of haphazard. That's not their fault. And I also believe in not ignoring history simply because it is history.

I don't see any so and so's in, so so and so should also be in discussion going on, so that criticism is not apt.

[jaxxr]

" voting when these players were eligible at first was kind of haphazard."

I was not aware of that, I am certainly open-mined enough to reconsider my somewhat neutral feelings towards Dahlen, also Gordon and Ferrell as well.

How has the voting become less disorderly, aimless, or haphazard, as it was in the past. Is it now much more orderly, systematic and accurate ?

I realize the Vet group was once made up largely, with past ballplayers, who were sometimes accused of showing favoritism in their votes. I would assume some feel that professional sportswriters or baseball historians are more qualified, or at least less biased, than former baseball players. I also assume some would feel peer evaluation is the better measure.

[dgarza]

The HOF is probably a bit diluted already, and if any or all of the listed did not get in, that would be fine as well.
I think Deacon White is a top 10 catcher or thirdbaseman. Eaither way, he would be no less than a solid HOFer.


They have the same stats which the regular process, previously had found not worthy of HOF inclusion.
Not if you include more advanced stats, measures, metrics.

A true HOF player should be quite obvious, very minor debate involved. It seems a bit "odd" you might have to search out, dig up, re-discover players who are famous enough or good enough to supposedly be HOF material.
I don't find it all that odd. And I'm not sure these players are really being re-discovered. Their names are fairly familiar.

The thing is, voters are not static throughout history. So it's not like the same old guys are going over the same old ground, looking for something they missed. You're getting new perspectives, so what is "obvious" to one generation or "school" is not to another.

[Captain Cold Nose]

" voting when these players were eligible at first was kind of haphazard."

I was not aware of that, I am certainly open-mined enough to reconsider my somewhat neutral feelings towards Dahlen, also Gordon and Ferrell as well.

How has the voting become less disorderly, aimless, or haphazard, as it was in the past. Is it now much more orderly, systematic and accurate ?

I realize the Vet group was once made up largely, with past ballplayers, who were sometimes accused of showing favoritism in their votes. I would assume some feel that professional sportswriters or baseball historians are more qualified, or at least less biased, than former baseball players. I also assume some would feel peer evaluation is the better measure.

There are some threads of recent vintage discussing that. Paul Wendt has done a good job of discussing problems of past voting, as well as Freakshow, Classic, and a few others. The problem with a lot of the players on the ballot, like Dahlen and Magee, is they never stood a chance.

Everyone has their views and criteria on what makes a HOF'er. By holding more focused elections such as this one it should lead to closer examination on these players who fell through the cracks due to whatever issues caused them to be missed.

[Paul Wendt]

White and Dahlen, duh, both among the 100 greatest players.

Magee and Gordon, over Ferrell, Mays, Walters tentatively in that order.
Magee and Gordon over Stephens.

Yes this depends on granting war credit to Joe Gordon, if and when you weigh a career count such as homeruns, games, win shares.


Vernon or Reynolds will be a poor choice.

- Vernon, better than Bill Buckner but not as good as Tony Perez in my opinion.

- Reynolds, not the best of the Yankees staff before Whitey Ford.

WS inn ERA+ pa OPS+
176 2439 115 995 49 : Eddie Lopat
170 2492 110 981 18 : Allie Reynolds
113 1819 105 718 25 : Vic Raschi

Those five career statistics are Win Shares, innings, adjusted ERA, plate appearances, adjusted OPS.

[Freakshow]

WARP3 data for these players agrees with Paul's assessment.

Career: Top 5 seasons
55.5: 8.0-7.7-6.9-6.2-5.6 Eddie Lopat
54.7: 7.5-7.2-6.9-5.0-4.8 Allie Reynolds
37.5: 6.6-6.5-6.3-5.6-4.7 Vic Raschi

[jaxxr]

I do find this post enlightning, I am gaining a little more perspective, I think so at least, on some views.

One concept, probably relevant herein, is that of "fame" itself . Very subjective indeed. The HOF is not a summary of the best stats, the 500 HR guys, the highest career BAs, the most win shares, the most popular players, nor the very best single season marks.
It is something of an unclear blend of everthing.

The actual stats of those listed players have not really changed one bit,
the interpretation or the percentage weighting or the combinations, have changed. Absolutely nothing done as a player has changed, only the perceptions, methods, and analysis have changed.

The evaluation frame of reference has changed,
every season completed since, has added new stats, new benchmarks, new evaluation methods, and has added to the base of men with whom to compare with.

Although very dependant on the audience, be it casual fans, ardent baseball buffs, or expert baseball historians and statisticians, but....an important query I believe, and one which I am not sure about..............
Their level of fame, has it changed ?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I do find this post enlightning, I am gaining a little more perspective, I think so at least, on some views.

One concept, probably relevant herein, is that of "fame" itself . Very subjective indeed. The HOF is not a summary of the best stats, the 500 HR guys, the highest career BAs, the most win shares, the most popular players, nor the very best single season marks.
It is something of an unclear blend of everthing.

The actual stats of those listed players have not really changed one bit,
the interpretation or the percentage weighting or the combinations, have changed. Absolutely nothing done as a player has changed, only the perceptions, methods, and analysis have changed.

The evaluation frame of reference has changed,
every season completed since, has added new stats, new benchmarks, new evaluation methods, and has added to the base of men with whom to compare with.

Although very dependant on the audience, be it casual fans, ardent baseball buffs, or expert baseball historians and statisticians, but....an important query I believe, and one which I am not sure about..............
Their level of fame, has it changed ?

In the context of their own time, I wouldn't think so. When those eras the players were active in are discussed, their names come up. They may not be immortals the scale of Cobb, Wagner, Gehrig, Williams, etc. But the HOF has always been more than just the elite of the elite.

[dgarza]

Their level of fame, has it changed ?Fame with a capital "F"? That changes everyday for everybody. Remember 4 Non Blondes?

[jaxxr]

Sorry to say,
I do not remember the 4 non-blondes

were they perhaps, Rogers Hornsby, Jim Bottomly, Jack Fournier, and Travis Jackson ?

[Brad Harris]

In the context of their own time, I wouldn't think so. When those eras the players were active in are discussed, their names come up. They may not be immortals the scale of Cobb, Wagner, Gehrig, Williams, etc. But the HOF has always been more than just the elite of the elite.
At least since its second year of operation, thanks Landis and the Centennial Commisison.

[STLCards2]

Remember 4 Non Blondes?

...and I said "Hey, what's going on?":)

[Paul Wendt]

J.W.,
Here is one "Vets" poll. You might make a companion formal poll. It would be a pain to check that people cast no more than four votes but we have a tradition of the honor system that works fairly well, I believe.
(There is also another thread with "Vets" in the title that may interest you.)

Everyone,
I have sometimes mentioned the importance of meeting in person and learning from discussion which candidates are viable, even establishing a consensus before voting. With 23 ballots cast in this poll, Bill Dahlen is the only one of ten candidates with more than 56% expressed support. The number of votes cast per ballot is 3.65(?), suggesting that almost everyone cast 4 votes and there is much latent but uncoordinated support for the other nine candidates.

[J W]

OK - I deleted the other thread and I'll put up the Post-WWII Vet's poll.

In the meantime, here are my choices:

Bill Dahlen - easy choice
Joe Gordon - edged out Sherry Magee for my last spot
Carl Mays - I've always stumped this guy
Deacon White - terrific 19th century selection

[leecemark]

White, Dahlen, Ferrell, Gordon. If not limited to 4 I would have checked Magee as well.