BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1916 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1916

DoubleX

08-27-2008, 11:04 AM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. 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.
-Blank Ballots: A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. This option is not to be taken lightly and it is strongly urged that it be used only after the utmost consideration, as non-votes are essentially votes against. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

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. Players need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot, with an exception for first-year 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 . If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he had a minimum of 3000 ABs or 1500 IP, though extra scrutiny will be applied. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- 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 one week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

1916 Guide
There are 32 candidates on the 1916 ballot - 20 holdovers and 12 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1911 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (12)
Kitty Bransfield
Wid Conroy
Bill Dahlen
Patsy Dougherty
Topsy Hartsel
Charlie Hemphill
Freddy Parent
Deacon Phillippe
Harry Steinfeldt
Jesse Tannehill
Roy Thomas
Cy Young

Holdovers (20)

Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ginger Beaumont 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1915)
Jake Beckley 5th 56.00% 73.91% (1913)
Cupid Childs 11th 36.00% 56.52% (1913)
Lave Cross 5th 12.00% 30.43% (1912)
Hugh Duffy 6th 48.00% 65.22% (1912)
Elmer Flick 2nd 60.00% 60.00% (1915)
Clark Griffith 2nd 32.00% 32.00% (1915)
Hughie Jennings 3rd 44.00% 50.00% (1913)
Fielder Jones 4th 8.00% 11.54% (1914)
Addie Joss 2nd 52.00% 52.00% (1915)
Willie Keeler 2nd 64.00% 64.00% (1915)
Joe Kelley 4th 36.00% 50.00% (1914)
Sam Leever 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1915)
Herman Long 8th 32.00% 56.52% (1913)
John McGraw 6th 36.00% 47.83% (1912)
Jimmy Ryan 9th 20.00% 48.00% (1908)
George Stone 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1915)
Mike Tiernan 13th 8.00% 26.92% (1914)
George Van Haltren 9th 52.00% 69.57% (1912)
Vic Willis 2nd 36.00% 36.00% (1915)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (5)

Player 1915 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Willie Keeler 64.00% 1
Elmer Flick 60.00% 1
Jake Beckley 56.00% 4
Addie Joss 52.00% 1
George Van Haltren 52.00% 8

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)

Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Jake Beckley 73.91% (1913) 2
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 3 1915
George Van Haltren 69.57% (1912) 3

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (13)

Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Larry Corcoran End of Eligibility 15 18.18% (1909)
Bill Dinneen Lack of Support 2 3.85% (1914)
Charley Jones End of Eligibility 15 34.78% (1913)
Jim McCormick End of Eligibility 15 40.00% (1910)
Cal McVey End of Eligibility 15 56.52% (1909)
Jack O’Connor Lack of Support 2 3.85% (1914)
Lip Pike End of Eligibility 15 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson End of Eligibility 15 69.57% (1913)
Claude Ritchey Lack of Support 2 3.85% (1914)
Joe Start End of Eligibility 15 65.22% (1912)
Ezra Sutton End of Eligibility 15 62.50% (1905)
Mickey Welch End of Eligibility 15 53.85% (1914)
Jimmy Williams Lack of Support 2 7.69% (1914)

Last Year of Eligibility (10)

Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)

Player High Support

Hall of Famers

Players Elected (34)

Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1871-1897 27
Ross Barnes 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1905 16
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (AL) 1895-1908 14
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1879-1892 14
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1878-1893 16
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10
Al Spalding 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (3): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Deacon White
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (2): Ross Barnes, Bid McPhee
Third Base (1): Jimmy Collins
Shortstop (4): George Davis, Jack Glasscock, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (4): Jesse Burkett, Ed Delahanty, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (4): Pete Browning, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
Right Field (2): King Kelly, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (11): Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Rube Waddell

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
1906 (2): Billy Hamilton, Amos Rusie
1907 (5): Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Sam Thompson, John Ward, George Wright
1908 (2): Ed Delahanty, Tony Mullane
1909 (3): Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore
1910 (1): Jesse Burkett
1911 (3): Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock, Kid Nichols
1912 (0):
1913 (2): Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity
1914 (1): George Davis
1915 (2): Al Spalding, Rube Waddell

First Balloters (17)

Player Year Elected
Cap Anson 1902
Dan Brouthers 1901
Jesse Burkett 1910
John Clarkson 1901
Jimmy Collins 1913
Roger Conner 1902
George Davis 1914
Ed Delahanty 1908
Buck Ewing 1902
Billy Hamilton 1906
Tim Keefe 1901
Jim O’Rourke 1901
Joe McGinnity 1913
Kid Nichols 1911
Charley Radbourn 1901
Amos Rusie 1906
Rube Waddell 1915

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 17
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 8
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 15 – Al Spalding
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.27
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903, 1914)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 23.33
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 8
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Boston Red Stockings, Buffalo Bisons, Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings), Philadelphia Phillies - 3
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Al Spalding – 8 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.15 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Jake Beckley – 73.91%

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22
1910: 25
1911: 25
1912: 23
1913: 23
1914: 26
1915: 25

Links to Past Elections (10)
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)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)

Brad Harris

08-27-2008, 11:16 AM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
John McGraw
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis
Cy Young

Paul Wendt

08-27-2008, 11:18 AM

without markup, yet

LF CF RF
O'Rourke -cf-u Hines Kelly -c
Stovey -1b Hamilton Thompson
Delahanty Browning -lf
Burkett Gore

3B SS 2B 1B
Collins Ward -p-o-2 McPhee Anson -3b
Wright Barnes -ss Brouthers
Glasscock Connor
Davis -3b
P
Clarkson
Keefe
Radbourn
Galvin
Rusie C
Mullane Ewing -u
Caruthers -of White -3b
Nichols Bennett
McGinnity
Spalding
Waddell

Brooklyn

08-27-2008, 11:24 AM

Beckley
Dahlen
Joss
Keeler
Young

leecemark

08-27-2008, 11:49 AM

--I am also down to a 5 man ballot, but only the new new guys - Young and Dahlen - in common with Brooklyn's. The others are Griffith, Jennings and Flick. Still open minded on Keeler, Willis and Kelley, but nobody has put forth a convincing case for me so far. I suppose there may even be a few more I could support with a really compelling supporter delivering the goods.

Freakshow

08-27-2008, 11:54 AM

Waddell and Spalding were elected; McVey, Pike, Richardson, Start and Sutton were rejected. Added are newbies Dahlen and Young; returnees Duffy, Tiernan, Cross and Long; and first-timer Griffith.

Beckley
Childs
L. Cross
Dahlen
Duffy
Flick
Griffith
Jennings
Keeler
J. Kelley
Long
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Young

PVNICK

08-27-2008, 12:07 PM

Beckley
Childs
Cross
Dahlen
Flick
Keeler
Long
McGraw
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Young

Willis is real close. Kelley and Jennings were great in the mid 90s but especially Jennings that's it. I could easily make the same argument about McGraw, but wrongly or not that Oriole team was perhaps the best of the era and McGraw seems as though he was the "leader."

leecemark

08-27-2008, 12:21 PM

--Jennings and Kelley also went on to managerial careers, as did catcher Wilbert Robinson. I don't know that McGraw was regarded as especially the leader of the team at that time. Actually, Ned Hanlan probably didn't need that much help leading the team. McGraw and Jennings were both significantly better players than Keeler (annother teammate), although Keeler did go on to a much longer career. Kelley OTOH was better at his pak and probably had a better career than Keeler. What Wee Willie had was; a) a memorable nickname, b) a notable catch phrase ("hit em where they ain't"), c) sticking around a little longer as a regular player and d) finishing with a long tenure in NYC.

PVNICK

08-27-2008, 12:37 PM

Perhaps the McGraw thing is just something I assumed or that became part of McGraw's backstory based on his managerial career.

KCGHOST

08-27-2008, 01:05 PM

Beckley
Childs
Dahlen
Duffy
Flick
Griffith
Joss
Keeler
J. Kelley
McGraw
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Young

philkid3

08-27-2008, 01:09 PM

My Ballot
Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Hughie Jennings
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
John McGraw
Mike Tiernan
Cy Young

Had a 10-player list after the last ballot, and Young and Dahlen are the only people added this year. Both shoot immediately to the top of my queue. I strongly considered dropping McGraw, Tiernan, Kelley and maybe Long. If their support doesn't improve, I'll concede to my peers probably and drop them, but for now I'm voting for them at least one more time.

Looks like we might actually have a chance at a largish class this year. That would be nice.

Five guys I find reason enough to at least consider who I'm interested in hearing arguments for or against:
1. Addie Joss
2. Ginger Beaumont
3. Clark Griffith
4. Roy Thomas
5. Vic Willis

I find the Joss vs. Griffith arguments very interesting, but, frankly, they're so far causing me to lean towards voting for neither.

X, will you be reconsidering shrinking the ballot in the future, or is 15 now permenant?

BlueBlood

08-27-2008, 01:22 PM

1. Beckley
2. Childs
3. Dahlen
4. Duffy
5. Flick
6. Joss
7. Keeler
8. Kelley
9. Jennings
10. Van Haltren
11. Willis
12. Young

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Eleven (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Nine (1908 onward) - George Van Haltren
Six (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
Five (1912 onward) - Jake Beckley
Three (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
Two (1915 onward) - Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Vic Willis
One (1916) - Bill Dahlen, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley, Cy Young

jjpm74

08-27-2008, 01:29 PM

Jake Beckley
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Deacon Phillippe
Jimmy Ryan
Roy Thomas
George Van Haltren
Cy Young

Only 3 of these players were on my ballot last year: Jake Beckley, Addie Joss and Elmer Flick. Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren and Jimmy Ryan have now made my ballot. We've set enough of a precedent that any better than average outfielder will probably make it. Whether or not I include them again next year depends on whether or not they gain or lose ground in this election. Joe Kelley, Elmer Flick and Willie Keeler are a tier above those three and 2 of them appear on my ballot for the first time. Roy Thomas was one of the best outfielders of his generation and hopefully some others will take a closer look at him. He's probably better than Ryan, Van Haltren and Duffy all of whom get a nice amount of support around here.

Beckley, Dahlen and Young should all hopefully make it in this go around. Beckley probably should have been a 1st ballot buy given how great he was to this point in history and how many top all time lists he topped.

Addie Joss is on my ballot, but possibly for the last time unless I start seeing more support and a more compelling argument for his case. He wasn't full time enough in his prime. Deacon Phillippe gets a free pass from me this round. He's unlikely to get one next round.

Next year, I only see Kid Gleason and on the horizon and he is an extreme outlier at best. Looking at the next several years, it doesn't look like we'll see many solid candidates popping up. The next few years may be a good time to get some of the holdouts elected and make some room on the ballots.

jjpm74

08-27-2008, 01:38 PM

Five guys I find reason enough to at least consider who I'm interested in hearing arguments for or against:
1. Addie Joss
2. Ginger Beaumont
3. Clark Griffith
4. Roy Thomas
5. Vic Willis

I think that his SABR Bio (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=14136&bid=935) sums up his ability better than I ever could. The only thing not covered there (only glazed over) was the fact that he was the best defensive outfielder in the deadball era and to this point in history, no one's come close to him defensively.

philkid3

08-27-2008, 02:52 PM

You know what, I think I've unfairly forgotten about Jimmy Ryan. I had him close at one point and then dropped him with the intentions of keeping him close and then he just sort've faded away. Looking now, he deserves more support than that. He was 4th in home runs at one point, and he comes out looking like a borderline guy at worst in measures like WARP.

Jimmy Ryan will probably be on my next ballot.

jalbright

08-27-2008, 03:01 PM

1. Childs
2. Dahlen
3. Duffy
4. Flick
5. Keeler
6. Kelley
7. Long
8. Van Haltren
9. Willis
10. Young

philkid3

08-27-2008, 04:06 PM

Baseball Prospectus just ran a guide to the veteran's committee ballot yesterday that included Dahlen. Not that it looks like anyone needs convincing or that anyone will be made unconvinced, but here it is anyway:

Bad Bill Dahlen
Playing Career: 1891-1911
Position: Shortstop
Not to be confused with: Babe Dahlgren, Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
Career rates: .272/.358/.382, .267 EqA
Translated rates: .248/.341/.431
WARP3 Peak/Career: 10.4 (1896), 127.9 (64th all time, ninth among shortstops)
In a nutshell: A top fielder, Dahlen also had great power for a shortstop of the day, notwithstanding low batting averages and his intentionally getting thrown out of a lot of ballgames. Imagine a version of Khalil Greene with the patience to take 75 walks a year and a really difficult attitude.
Your easy argument for: Dahlen gets lost in the shadow of his National League contemporary Honus Wagner, but along with the Flying Dutchman he was one of the few two-way shortstops of the period. In Dahlen's first two seasons with the New York Giants, the club won 106 and 105 games, picking up two pennants and a World Series win. Manager John McGraw identified Dahlen as the reason why, and spent the rest of his life saying that trading for Dahlen (with two players and $6,000 going to Brooklyn) had been the best move of his career.
Your easy argument against: He was "Bad" for a reason, and not just because he made a record 975 errors at short. We can chalk that up to tremendous range and tiny gloves. No, Dahlen was bad because he liked to drink and he liked the horses, and if there was a good race on or a bottle calling, he might pick a fight with an umpire so he could get tossed and head for the track. You don't see Derek Jeter doing that.

After his playing career ended, Dahlen went back to Brooklyn and was the club's last manager before Wilbert Robinson's 18 years at the helm. Dahlen's teams were indifferent, reflecting his managerial temperament. At the end of the 1913 season, his fourth, it was widely rumored that Dahlen would not be coming back. As Dahlen left the park one day, a beat writer tried to get his attention. "Well, Bill," he said, "I hear you're losing your job." "I dunno," Dahlen grumbled, "but you ain't gonna get it, you slob." Those might have been his last words as a professional.

leecemark

08-27-2008, 04:29 PM

Paul Wendt

08-27-2008, 04:36 PM

I think that his SABR Bio (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=14136&bid=935) sums up his ability better than I ever could. The only thing not covered there (only glazed over) was the fact that he was the best defensive outfielder in the deadball era and to this point in history, no one's come close to him defensively.
That must be the biography of Fielder Jones!
He may be the best outfielder any of us has seen. Old-timers will speak up for McAleer and Fogarty but neither one had the batting skill for a long major league career. But it's hard to imagine anyone was much better than Tris Speaker or Max Carey. Try to see those two while they are young.

Speaking of age, does anyone remember major leaguers in their forties? Who has done it since White and Anson and O'Rourke? Many ballplayers are over the hill at 30 but Rhody Wallace is 43 and he might never retire. With the new fashion for hiring old favorites to stay on as "coaches" someone might remain in uniform until he is infirm, taking a turn on the field when the team is short.

Lajoie and Wagner are 42. The Frenchman may be repaying a feeling of debt to Mack, or does he enjoy the Philadelphia fans? He doesn't need the money; he can be a success at business back in Woonsocket any time. The Dutchman can stay with the Pirates as long as he wants. Probably he can play as long as they are losing games by the bushel and Dreyfuss has no pennant race to sell; that is what will finally push the Great Wagner to the coaches box.

Paul Wendt

08-27-2008, 05:10 PM

dgarza

08-27-2008, 05:41 PM

Jake Beckley
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Hugh Jennings
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis
Cy Young

1. Cy Young
2. Willie Keeler
3. Hugh Duffy
4. Elmer Flick
5. Vic Willis
6. George Van Haltren
7. Jake Beckley
8. Addie Joss
9. Joe Kelley
10. Jimmy Ryan
11. Bill Dahlen
12. Mike Tiernan
13. Hugh Jennings

Paul Wendt

08-27-2008, 06:01 PM

Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren and Jimmy Ryan have now made my ballot. We've set enough of a precedent that any better than average outfielder will probably make it.
How so?
After electing Thompson, Stovey, and Browning we have elected Gore, Delahanty, and Burkett. Younger than Stovey, Thompson, and Browning --or with debuts later than Stovey, Browning, and Thompson (different order)-- we have elected Hamilton, Delahanty, and Burkett.

How does it seem that we will elect more than Keeler and Flick, probably followed by Clarke, Crawford, Magee, Cobb, and Speaker?

philkid3

08-27-2008, 06:23 PM

Wow, we've got an outside chance at a six person class.

I mean, I'll be surprised if it's more than four, but that's kind've interesting.

DoubleX

08-27-2008, 07:26 PM

Wow, we've got an outside chance at a six person class.

I mean, I'll be surprised if it's more, but that's kind've interesting.

I think at least five of the six will eventually make it, but I'd be surprised if all six make it this year. Young and Dahlen look to be virtual locks at this point. I'm a little surprised that Dahlen has had such strong support given that there was less enthusiasm for George Davis. The difference between them is pretty small, IMO, and it might be one of those cases where people are eager to support Dahlen in an effort to somehow right a wrong, though I urge people to try to be beyond that (in this case though, Dahlen does belong).

The holdovers challenging for a spot or not so clear cut. I think Keeler stands a good chance given that he led all players returning from the 1915 ballot, and in his first year no less. He may have been squeezed off a number of ballots last time due to the sheer number.

Flick is looking pretty good right now also, but you never know as the votes trickle in. People might not like his short career and poor defense, but we've already elected similar players. Flick appears to me to be well within the corner OF standards we've created.

Van Haltren is under the line right now, and while he might flirt with 75%, I expect he'll finish below again. He might be the next Hardy Richardson, a guy who is perpetually very close, but can't get over that final hump. This is probably because like Richardson, it is hard to make a really convincing argument to convince the non-supporters and separate Van Haltren from the likes of Ryan and Duffy.

Beckley I'm guessing will succumb at the 11th hour as he has twice already, perhaps coming up just a vote short as he has twice already. In this respect, I urge people not voting for Beckley to reconsider. If you're on the fence with Beckley and are not actually against his induction, consider voting for him, because not voting is a vote against him. Non-votes in general are by their nature, pretty selfish acts, IMO, because just one can weigh so heavily against many supporters, and I hope people are definitively against a player's induction when they decide to leave him off their ballot. If you supported someone like Barnes or Spalding, guys who annually came up just short, I think you can appreciate the gesture of having others relent in voting against a player and instead voting as a gesture of deference to his many supporters.

DoubleX

08-27-2008, 07:33 PM

--Regarding Van Haltren, Duffy and Ryan - I can't see where one of them stands out fromthe others. I couldn't vote for one and not the others and I prefer none of the above to all of the above. Let that trio in and the standard for outfielders going forward is way too low. Kelley is better than any of them and he is a borderliner for me (current looking up at the line).

I can't see much separation in them either and I can definitely understand that if you're not voting for one, you're not voting for all. All three are borderline for me, with Van Haltren and Ryan just barely over, and Duffy just under. What I haven't understood since Duffy appeared on the ballot though, is how Duffy consistently gets significantly more support than Ryan.

I posted these numbers a few elections ago, and I think it supports the fact that Ryan is arguably the best of the three (though barely), while Duffy is arguably the worst, particularly when you consider that Duffy by far spent the least amount of time in CF:

Career OPS+
1) Ryan: 123
2) Duffy: 122
3) Van Haltren: 121

5-Year Peak OPS+
1) Ryan: 148
2) Duffy: 139
3) Van Haltren: 137

10-Year Peak OPS+
1) Ryan: 134
2) Van Haltren: 132
3) Duffy: 129 (and this is counting 2 seasons where he had less than 300 ABs, remove those two seasons and it's 125)

No. of Seasons above 140 OPS+
1) Ryan: 4 (Peak 174)
2) Duffy: 2 (Peak 172)
3) Van Haltren: 0 (Peak 139)

Plate Appearances
1) Ryan: 9106 (Let's see, he has the highest OPS+ and the most PAs)
2) Van Haltren: 8979
3) Duffy: 7827

Hits
1) Van Haltren: 2532
2) Ryan: 2502
3) Duffy: 2282

Homeruns
1) Van Haltren: 161
2) Ryan: 118
3) Duffy: 106

RBI
1) Duffy: 1302
2) Ryan: 1093
3) Van Haltren: 1014

Stolen Bases
1) Van Haltren: 583
2) Duffy: 574
3) Ryan: 418

Games in CF
1) Van Haltren: 1372
2) Ryan: 956
3) Duffy: 676

Looking at these numbers, can people voting for Van Haltren and Duffy and not Ryan explain why they're not voting for Ryan? It doesn't make sense to me. I find Duffy in particular confusing given that his career was shorter, his peak and career rates lower, and he played much less in CF.

BlueBlood

08-27-2008, 10:20 PM

First off, Ryan doesn't have the best five year peak. Via Win Shares it's Duffy. Also, this is my biggest gripe against Ryan:

Win Shares Per 162:

1. Van Haltren: 28.08
2. Duffy: 27.51
3. Ryan: 25.44

He trails the others by a wide margin in season-to-season value.

philkid3

08-27-2008, 11:25 PM

Wait, what am I unaware of that credits Van Haltren with 161 home runs?

dgarza

08-27-2008, 11:36 PM

Wait, what am I unaware of that credits Van Haltren with 161 home runs?He must have confused the stat columns. Van Haltren has 161 triples, but only 60-something HRs.

philkid3

08-28-2008, 12:21 AM

The las ballot submitted delivered a blow to quite a few people.

BlueBlood

08-28-2008, 11:44 AM

Freakshow

08-28-2008, 12:28 PM

But, if we look on the bright side, Dahlen, Flick, Keeler and Young are now all well ahead of the pace with Beckley still a posibility. Electing four, potentially five, is a pretty big boon to this project.
No! We must maintain high standards! This isn't the Hall of Very Good, ya know, and....:rant:

Oh, Mullane, Browning, Thompson and Stovey are already in? Never mind. :hide:

Oh, and the Hall of Merit guys would laugh that we chose those four ahead of Sutton, Start, Richardson and McVey. Wait, I'm a "Hall of Merit guy". :laugh

Freakshow

08-28-2008, 12:42 PM

Next year, I only see Kid Gleason and on the horizon and he is an extreme outlier at best. Looking at the next several years, it doesn't look like we'll see many solid candidates popping up. The next few years may be a good time to get some of the holdouts elected and make some room on the ballots.
Gleason's already been eligible, now gone to the VC. I see Fred Clarke eligible in 1917 by the age rule, along with Cy Seymour. Jack Powell might also be worth a look.

In 1918, the new headliners are Jimmy Sheckard and Johnny Kling.

In 1919, Frank Chance and Mike Donlin are the best of the newbies.

So, yeah, not a lot on the immediate horizon.

BlueBlood

08-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Is there any way we can incorporate Negro League players five years after they retire?

DoubleX

08-28-2008, 05:00 PM

Is there any way we can incorporate Negro League players five years after they retire?

I think we're going to save the Negro Leaguers for the VC.

TheSlaff

08-29-2008, 04:58 AM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
John McGraw
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis
Cy Young

Erik Bedard

08-29-2008, 05:20 AM

leecemark

08-29-2008, 06:46 AM

No! We must maintain high standards! This isn't the Hall of Very Good, ya know, and....:rant:

Oh, Mullane, Browning, Thompson and Stovey are already in? Never mind. :hide:

Oh, and the Hall of Merit guys would laugh that we chose those four ahead of Sutton, Start, Richardson and McVey. Wait, I'm a "Hall of Merit guy". :laugh

--I've actually toughened up my standards a little in response to our opening the door to some marginal guys. I don't think we've admitted enough "mistakes" yet that they can be considered the standard yet. The Browning/Thompson standard would lead to us selecting at least 100 outfielders:noidea which shoud translate into at least a 300 man Hall. A few more such entries and I'll have to accept that os our standard and open my ballot back up. I don't want to help us get to that point though.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 06:53 AM

I'm loosening my standards from here on out to comply with those of the general majority.

Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Vic Willis
Cy Young

--As I indicated above, I am going the opposite way. I don't know that your ballot actually reflects that sentiment either. Two very popular marginal guys didn't make it. You actually went with the 2 less popular of the three headed pretty good outfield trio:cap: Of your guys I'm voting for Dahlen, Flick, Griffith and Young (anybody who doesn't vote for Young should be disenfranchised:eek:). Three of them are on pace for election. Griffith I think I may drop and wait to vote for him in the VC so as not to give the Joss supporters that comparison (which Griffith wins IMO) to work with. Keeler looks like he will be elected without by help. Ryan definately and Duffy probably have no chance. I could still be persuaded on Willis or Kelley, but not while I'm playing Mr High Standards:cap:. Neither would lower the quality of our Hall, but they wouldn't enhance it either.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 07:30 AM

I could still be persuaded on Willis or Kelley, but not while I'm playing Mr High Standards:cap:. Neither would lower the quality of our Hall, but they wouldn't enhance it either.

I was just thinking the same thing about Kelley. He fits pretty snuggly into the standard of OFers we've set. With guys like Stovey, Browning, Gore, and Thompson elected, I think it's hard to argue that Kelley doesn't fit in. When I think of those guys being in, it's a real shame and very puzzling that we didn't get Hardy Richardson in.

Mark, just as a general question, how do you feel about not voting for players you feel would fit in, like Kelley? Do you actually object to Kelley not being in? I ask because non-votes are votes against. As such, I do think that if voters aren't affirmatively against a player, and feel the player fits within our Hall, it is appropriate to vote for those players out of deference rather than voting against.

Also, don't drop Griffith just because of the Joss comparisons. Griffith vs. Willis comparison is probably good too. Willis had a slightly lower ERA+, but more IP and was much more of a workhorse.

Anyway, it's looking pretty good that we'll elect at least three players - Dahlen, Keeler, and Young. Beckley is likely to come up just short, again. With some weak ballots coming up, perhaps he'll get the one or two converts he needs. Though to get elected, he might just need an election where one or two of his non-supporters fail to vote. Flick is looking to be close. If I had to guess, he'll get in this time, making it 4.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 07:46 AM

Paul Wendt

08-29-2008, 08:08 AM

I was just thinking the same thing about Kelley. He fits pretty snuggly into the standard of OFers we've set. With guys like Stovey, Browning, Gore, and Thompson elected, I think it's hard to argue that Kelley doesn't fit in. When I think of those guys being in, it's a real shame and very puzzling that we didn't get Hardy Richardson in.

Mark, just as a general question, how do you feel about not voting for players you feel would fit in, like Kelley? Do you actually object to Kelley not being in? I ask because non-votes are votes against. As such, I do think that if voters aren't affirmatively against a player, and feel the player fits within our Hall, it is appropriate to vote for those players out of deference rather than voting against.
XX,
Earlier you suggested that a No is self-centered because it has three times the weight of a Yes. Someone who votes No is balancing, effectively canceling three Yes votes. Someone who votes Yes is generously canceling only 1/3 of one No vote. I think the designer chose the 75% rule (really, I know, he chose to follow a certain model that seems compelling and specifies 75%); the participants shouldn't think of casting one way or the other as selfishly or generously overweighing or underweighing their own opinions. In other words, the motivation for 75% seems to be conservativism; purposefully arranging for one No to cancel three Yes.

Also, don't drop Griffith just because of the Joss comparisons.
I agree. Just ignore those arguments if they get to be tedious.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 08:32 AM

--I disagree with your view on non-votes. Such a philosphy could, if practiced by a significant number of paricipants, change our standard for election from 75% yes to 50% yes and 25% okay if you say so:). I did go along with adding some gray area guys towards the end of the BBFHOF project as it wound (or is winding to be more accurate), but I prefer not to do so in the early stages of a project where we are still in the standards setting phase. Once we've firmly established that we will, in fact, have a large Hall (assuming we do) then I would be more inclined to vote for gray area guys.

The thing is though that we are such a small electorate that a single non-vote for a player can be really damaging. All I ask is that if you are not voting for a player, that you believe that player doesn't belong. If you're ambivalent to whether a player belongs or not, consider voting for that player, because your non-vote weighs heavily against his supporters. Non-votes are inherently very selfish acts in this project, and I ask that they not be taken lightly. For instance, if you were ambivalent to Beckley (which I know you're not, I'm just using this as an example because he has been very close), I would ask that you vote for him. Is it fair that your ambivalence is essentially canceling out 3 votes in support of him and keeping him out of the Hall? Wouldn't you have wanted me, as ambivalent to someone like Ross Barnes, to vote for him, instead of letting my ambivalence effectively cancel out his supporters and keep him out of the Hall? I just think it's very unfair and selfish that one person's ambivalence here can have such a profound effect and make the difference. That's why I ultimately voted for Barnes - I was on the fence, but I didn't want my ambivalent non-vote to be the reason he didn't get elected.

--My concept of the Hall for better or worse is find the most deserving guys to match the actual size of the Hall. I would be fine with a Hall of 100 (clearly NOT what we are working on here) or 300 (or even 500 I suppose) if that is the standard we ultimately set. Until our standards become clear I'll stick with my long held view on what the Hall should look like.

The size of the real Hall should be completely irrelevant here, though re-reading your post, I'm not sure whether you were comparing this to the real Hall or making a conjecture of what this Hall will be. Either way, we're creating our own Hall and standards as if the actual Hall does not exist. If we did use the real Hall as a size guide, it would further my suspicions that we are having difficulty putting aside what we know and that we are not looking at this strictly in the context of the time. We're rallying around borderline players that aren't in the real Hall (Mullane), in an effort to right some wrong, while being reluctant around similar borderline players in the Hall (Beckley, Welch). It's counter to how I envisioned this project.

XX,
Earlier you suggested that a No is self-centered because it has three times the weight of a Yes. Someone who votes No is balancing, effectively canceling three Yes votes. Someone who votes Yes is generously canceling only 1/3 of one No vote. I think the designer chose the 75% rule (really, I know, he chose to follow a certain model that seems compelling and specifies 75%); the participants shouldn't think of casting one way or the other as selfishly or generously overweighing or underweighing their own opinions. In other words, the motivation for 75% seems to be conservativism; purposefully arranging for one No to cancel three Yes.

Some threshold is needed. I'm not comfortable with electing just the top 3 vote getters for example. I don't want to be electing players for the sake of electing, or denying players because we've already met our threshold for that year. 75% seemed convenient because it parallels the real Hall, and at the end of the day, I'd like for us to be able to compare this project to the real Hall (though I don't want to real Hall to be a factor in electing players here). It also gives some standard for being a Hall of Famer, in that if you meet this level, you're a Hall of Famer. Whereas if we seek to elect a certain amount every year, we could have a players elected with over 90% and players elected with around 60% in order to meet the threshold, and that would appear to give a much more ambiguous standard of a Hall of Famer.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 08:57 AM

As a sidenote, I think had the real Hall started in 1901 like this, it would be a lot larger. This is because it would have been easier to gain perspective on the players of this period just five years removed from their careers, and a lot of players would have been helped simply by the romanticism of how the game was covered at the time as well. It was much more difficult for a flawed VC several decades in the future to accurately pinpoint the Hall of Famers of this period.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 09:05 AM

--Mike, this is at least the second time you've referred to not voting for a player with strong support as "selfish". I don't think I'm especially sensitive, but I am somewhat offended by the way you are phrasing that. I am voting for everyone I feel fairly certain belongs. I am not voting for anyone I do not feel that way about. That does, of course, mean that I am valuing my own opinion over that of others, but "selfish" is a rather derogatory way to describe that. Your ballot should only reflect your (informed) opinion of a player. The obligation to guys with popular support you aren't voting for should be to review why you find them unworthy. Maybe you have underrated them and should add them to your ballot. Changing it simply because others are voting for him does not seem like a desirable approach thoug.
--If you want the view of a simple majority to carry the day then lower the threshold for election to 50%. That would be a more honest way of achieving your aim than trying to make voters feel guilty about not voting for players at that level of support. Campaign as hard as you want for your candidates, but lets leave the mudslinging to politicians:).

Erik Bedard

08-29-2008, 09:22 AM

--As I indicated above, I am going the opposite way. I don't know that your ballot actually reflects that sentiment either. Two very popular marginal guys didn't make it. You actually went with the 2 less popular of the three headed pretty good outfield trio:cap: Of your guys I'm voting for Dahlen, Flick, Griffith and Young (anybody who doesn't vote for Young should be disenfranchised:eek:). Three of them are on pace for election. Griffith I think I may drop and wait to vote for him in the VC so as not to give the Joss supporters that comparison (which Griffith wins IMO) to work with. Keeler looks like he will be elected without by help. Ryan definately and Duffy probably have no chance. I could still be persuaded on Willis or Kelley, but not while I'm playing Mr High Standards:cap:. Neither would lower the quality of our Hall, but they wouldn't enhance it either.

I'm definitely not voting for guys just because other people are. What I'm doing is seeing that the project, despite my efforts, is moving away from a truly elite Hall, and towards what the Cooperstown Hall is doing. So, I'm adjusting my standards to fit that. For example, I think Van Haltren is clearly the worst of the Duffy/Ryan/GVH trio, and so I'm not voting for him, even though others are.

jalbright

08-29-2008, 09:24 AM

Some threshold is needed. I'm not comfortable with electing just the top 3 vote getters for example. I don't want to be electing players for the sake of electing, or denying players because we've already met our threshold for that year. 75% seemed convenient because it parallels the real Hall, and at the end of the day, I'd like for us to be able to compare this project to the real Hall (though I don't want to real Hall to be a factor in electing players here). It also gives some standard for being a Hall of Famer, in that if you meet this level, you're a Hall of Famer. Whereas if we seek to elect a certain amount every year, we could have a players elected with over 90% and players elected with around 60% in order to meet the threshold, and that would appear to give a much more ambiguous standard of a Hall of Famer.

Shortly after my term as project manager of the BBF HOF ends (by November), I'm planning on doing a MVP style voting project that takes a set number each year. The major flaw with "top three vote getters" in this format is that there's no distinction between guys the vast majority of us think are just over the line versus guys who a large portion of us feel is the best available. When you rank them, it addresses that problem. Further, it alleviates several problems in running a project like this, starting with the 75% issue. If we finish my intended new project, we'll certainly be able to stack the results against Cooperstown, because it's going to be designed to do so. You won't have to worry about setting standards, because you'll be ranking the top "x" candidates eligible, which becomes the standard.

BTW, I have to agree that calling "no" votes "selfish" is inflammatory rhetoric at best, which a lawyer like yourself should certainly appreciate. Please refrain from such terminology in the future. Thanks.

Freakshow

08-29-2008, 09:42 AM

leecemark

08-29-2008, 10:02 AM

I'm definitely not voting for guys just because other people are. What I'm doing is seeing that the project, despite my efforts, is moving away from a truly elite Hall, and towards what the Cooperstown Hall is doing. So, I'm adjusting my standards to fit that. For example, I think Van Haltren is clearly the worst of the Duffy/Ryan/GVH trio, and so I'm not voting for him, even though others are.

--I think we are moving toward a Hall much larger than Cooperstown. Maybe that is not a bad thing. I'm willing to get onboard with a 300 or even 500 person Hall if that is what the consensus turns out to be. I just don't wnat us to get into a situation where we have a bunch of marginal candidates from the earlier days and then are faced with two choices; a huge Hall or tougher standards for more modern players.
--The latter is where Cooperstown is now - except that they also shafted the 19th century stars (and got some of the wrong ones to boot:noidea). I think we may have missed a few first generation players too and I'd like to address that in the VC - maybe anyway, depending on what we do going forward in the general elections. Again, a big Hall is okay with me I just want to make sure that if we go in that direction we are all understanding that our standards are different - and lower than the real Hall. Well I should say our median will be lower. Hopefully we won't match the truely awfull quality of Cooperstown's worst mistakes.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 11:06 AM

BTW, I have to agree that calling "no" votes "selfish" is inflammatory rhetoric at best, which a lawyer like yourself should certainly appreciate. Please refrain from such terminology in the future. Thanks.

It's not meant to be inflammatory in the least, and it very much includes my own non-votes as well. Non-votes, by their nature in this project, are selfish acts because of the profound effect they have. Each one of us is guilty of this, I just ask that people who might be on the fence with a candidate or ambivalent take a second to consider that their non-vote has a much more profound effect than an affirmative vote. There is other way to describe it, IMO, and selfishness is an inherent byproduct of this project, particularly because of its size. If a person is ambivalent to a candidate, and there are 15-20 people who feel strongly about that candidate, how else would you describe a non-vote which essentially wipes out three fervent supporters? Does that not seem selfish to let one's ambivalence be so decisive? By not voting, an ambivalent voter is in effect making a decision, and a significant one at that, thus going against their ambivalence.

In sum, non-votes are in effect votes, they are votes against, and they have lot more power than votes for. So all I ask is that just as a person is very thoughtful when voting for players, also be very thoughtful in not voting/voting against players. If you're ambivalent or on the fence, voting for a player has less repercussions than voting against, in that you're not letting your ambivalence stand starkly in the way.

--Mike, this is at least the second time you've referred to not voting for a player with strong support as "selfish". I don't think I'm especially sensitive, but I am somewhat offended by the way you are phrasing that. I am voting for everyone I feel fairly certain belongs. I am not voting for anyone I do not feel that way about. That does, of course, mean that I am valuing my own opinion over that of others, but "selfish" is a rather derogatory way to describe that. Your ballot should only reflect your (informed) opinion of a player. The obligation to guys with popular support you aren't voting for should be to review why you find them unworthy. Maybe you have underrated them and should add them to your ballot. Changing it simply because others are voting for him does not seem like a desirable approach thoug.
--If you want the view of a simple majority to carry the day then lower the threshold for election to 50%. That would be a more honest way of achieving your aim than trying to make voters feel guilty about not voting for players at that level of support. Campaign as hard as you want for your candidates, but lets leave the mudslinging to politicians:).

Mark, my apologies for offending. I did not mean it personally, as meant to describe the general act of non-voting as selfish, and did not mean to describe it to your or anyone in particular. We're all guilty of it because non-votes, particularly when a person is on the fence with a player, are by the nature in this project, selfish. There is no other way, IMO to describe it given that a non-vote has the effect of negating 3 affirmative votes. I used your posts as a leaping off points, and didn't meant to attack you personally. I know you put a lot of thought in your positions, though for some reason, I find myself disagreeing with you more than usual in this project (which is actually a surprise to me given that we're usually of very similar opinions).

Also, I think you've misunderstood me here. I'm not asking people to change votes, I'm just asking they be as sure in the players they are not voting for as the players they are voting for. This was not aimed at you personally, but a general statement about the process. There are two ways to vote here, vote for or vote against - non-votes are effectively affirmative votes against. If someone is on the fence with a player, why vote against? Is that fair given the profound impact of a vote against? If a person does not object to the player being in, why not vote for the player so as to remove the significant obstacle of a non-vote? This is how non-votes can become especially selfish, IMO. Basically, if you're on the fence with a player, it's much more unfair to not vote for the player/vote against the player, than to vote for the player. You're (a general "you're") essentially saying your personal indecisiveness is worth the opinion of three fervent supporters, and that can be the difference in the end. How is that not selfish? A vote for in that situation has much less impact than a vote against, and it better lets the actual supporters/opponents of that candidate decide the outcome. Basically, outcomes should not be decided one voter's ambivalence, it's unfair - they should be decided by the actual supporter and opponents, and a vote for much better facilitates that.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 11:24 AM

--The flip side of that are the ambivelent votes for. I seriously doubt that evry yes vote is a strong commitment to the worthiness of a particular player. We've got more lenient voters who say yes to those they are on the fence with and stricter voters who say no. Most of us actually do a little of both. Or even go back and forth on a player, putting him on and then taking him off or leavinghim off and later putting him on. I better could see it your way if all the yes voters for a 50% guy were strongly commited and joining in on making a case for him. Most are just clicking the box next to the name and continuing on their way. Van Haltren, for example, has had the questioned raised by several people, including both of us, as to why he should stand out from a pack of very similar outfielders. There has not exactly been been a stampede of GVH supporters coming forward with an explanation as to why him and not Duffy or (especially) Ryan. Unless that question can be convincingly answered I see no reason to hop on the bandwagon (a wagon which is rolling much slower in the last couple elections anyway - maybe because there is no good answer to the question).

Freakshow

08-29-2008, 11:36 AM

Non-votes, by their nature in this project, are selfish acts because of the profound effect they have. Each one of us is guilty of this, I just ask that people who might be on the fence with a candidate or ambivalent take a second to consider that their non-vote has a much more profound effect than an affirmative vote. There is other way to describe it, IMO, and selfishness is an inherent byproduct of this project, particularly because of its size. If a person is ambivalent to a candidate, and there are 15-20 people who feel strongly about that candidate, how else would you describe a non-vote which essentially wipes out three fervent supporters? Does that not seem selfish to let one's ambivalence be so decisive? By not voting, an ambivalent voter is in effect making a decision, and a significant one at that, thus going against their ambivalence.
This is why I'm usually a full ballot voter in these 75% super majority elections. I try to be a counterbalance to the small-hall voters, with the knowledge it takes three of me to balance one of them. It's more fun, to me, to elect guys and not be a stumbling block. There is always a gray area on the margins of any HOF, so when in doubt pull the lever.

In my experience, there are much better ways to decide elections. I try to avoid having the results in projects I run depend on a super majority system such as used by the HOF.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 11:38 AM

I just want to clarify that this is mostly a philosophical conversation, and I never meant to attack anyone. I apologize if I seemed over-zealous.

All I ask of voters is this: At the moment you are voting, try not to be ambivalent. If in the event you cannot make a decision, I think its selfish to then default on the side of voting against. I think some people might think that when ambivalent, not voting is the innocuous thing to do, as if it's not participating; but they may fail to realize that not voting is actually voting for something, it's voting against that player, and it's impact is far more profound than any vote for. So what I ask is that anyone who is ambivalent when going to vote, take a moment to realize how profound an effect a non-vote would have, and then make a decision. If you make a decision and decide that a player is not worthy, that's fine by me, I just don't want ambivalence dictating outcomes by people defaulting to non-voting. I don't want to see players come within a vote or two of election and not get in because a person was ambivalent and decided not to vote. If a person really can't decide, then for the timebeing, a vote for the player is the lesser of two evils, IMO, because it's impact is not as great as a non-vote would be.

Basically, I just don't want non-votes to be the default option for ambivalence, because a non-vote is not at all ambivalent, it is a profound statement against.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 11:46 AM

This is why I'm usually a full ballot voter in these 75% super majority elections. I try to be a counterbalance to the small-hall voters, with the knowledge it takes three of me to balance one of them. It's more fun, to me, to elect guys and not be a stumbling block. There is always a gray area on the margins of any HOF, so when in doubt pull the lever.

In my experience, there are much better ways to decide elections. I try to avoid having the results in projects I run depend on a super majority system such as used by the HOF.

I take a similar approach. Take Mike Tiernan for example, I'm really on the fence with him. I don't really support him, but I don't object to him either. However, if I don't vote for him, I'm effectively stating that I do object to him, and that's not how I really feel. And the effect of me not voting for him, and thereby actively objecting to him, has more of an impact than if I voted for him. So by voting for him, I'm removing the obstacle of my ambivalence/apathy and letting his true supporters and opponents decide his outcome.

I know you would change the voting here if you could, and perhaps we will adopt some other system in the VC. Here though, I wanted to maintain as many practical parallels to the real Hall as possible. We already have a number of election projects here where we've made our own rules, I wanted this to achieve a slightly different purpose, and following the BBWAA's rules was a large part of that, IMO.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 11:47 AM

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 11:57 AM

--I suggest that if you are not sure a player should be in our Hall, do some more research. If you still are not sure, then don't vote for him. If we miss on a player we can always add him later. If we add a player who lowers the standard of the Hall we are stuck with them forever. Thus ends my part in this discussion (at least for this year:D).

If you're unsure because you don't have enough knowledge, that's one thing. It's imperative to this project that people try to be informed when voting. If you've done that and are on the fence with whether they should be in or not, why should not voting for the player be the default answer? That's what I don't understand here. If you're ambivalent, voting for much more accurately reflects your ambivalence than voting against. Again, non-votes are affirmative votes against. If you're truly ambivalent, voting for a player better allows the player's true supporters and opponents to decide his outcome. Voting against, when you might not even be against, does a lot more to decide the outcome than voting for. Voting against gives a lot of power to an ambivalent voter, and that's not how it should be. An ambivalent voter is not voting because they are ambivalent, but in not voting they aren't ambivalent at all, they are affirmatively voting against. So again, voting for better reflects the voter's ambivalent state because it has 1/3 less impact on the process and let's the true advocates better decide the outcome.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 12:07 PM

--if you want the true advocates to carry the day we would need to go to weighted ballots. There are a huge number of gray area guys. Honestly there might be 150 or (probably) less players who most of us (much less 75%) strongly believe belong in the Hall of Fame. There are at least twice that many - more likley three times as many who some of us believe belong in the Hall. Should I vote for a GVH because a dozne people sort of kind of think he should be in the Hall. Again, I am willing to be persuaded on many gray area guys. That persuasion must come in the form of convincing advocates though and not just people clicking a box.
--Is the ANYONE here who thinks George Van Haltren is one of the 15 best Cfers or 150 best players in baseball history? Does he do something beyond his numbers that makes him a player we should immortalize for future generations? I think these are fair questions to ask before punching his ticket.
P.S. It is incredibly easy to drag me back into an argument even after I've said I had said all I had to say:).

PVNICK

08-29-2008, 12:09 PM

I would fall on the Leecemark side of the argument. Otherwise in theory players would get in with 5 definite yes votes 5 definite nos and 10 eeehs.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 12:17 PM

--I would like to suggest that we make the VC a place where the true advocates do rule the day and we elect the people who the committee thinks most deserving and not just not objectionable. If we are going to vote every 5 years, which I'm not sure is the plan, then we might used weighted ballots and induct the two most strongly supported player plus two contributors. Or whatever interval of years and number of players seems best to get a reasonable number of selections.
--Do overs under the same format with mostly the same voters could be an even most frustrating process than the first 15 years with many of these players. I'd be more inclined to bow to the will of the majority in the case of a player who was at the top of alot of ballots than one who is simply on them. If my favorite example/whipping boy GVH was considered the 2nd or 3rd best available candidate by a significant portion of our electorate that would carry more weight with me than being considered one of the 15 best candidates by 50 -or even 74.9 - percent of our voters. I assume many of that latter group of voters would fall into the ambivelent camp:).

philkid3

08-29-2008, 12:30 PM

--I think we are moving toward a Hall much larger than Cooperstown. Maybe that is not a bad thing. I'm willing to get onboard with a 300 or even 500 person Hall if that is what the consensus turns out to be. I just don't wnat us to get into a situation where we have a bunch of marginal candidates from the earlier days and then are faced with two choices; a huge Hall or tougher standards for more modern players.
I think a lot of that may be some people who just have trouble accurately assessing 19th century players, and so they give several players the benifit of the doubt. I'd like to think I'm above that, but I'm probably not.

As a result, though, I'm not going to be voting on the standard of those players, I'll be voting on the standard of players who I think are more easily assessed and who played the majority of their careers after 1901. I have very little problem with tougher standards for more modern players. It makes the Hall imperfect, but it's better than the former option you list, and I don't think we're going to avoid both options.

I don't think we'll necessarily have a large hall, just a wealth of old players. And it might be easier for me to be fine with that than you because pre-1901 just is not my specialty. At all.

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 12:35 PM

Should I vote for a GVH because a dozne people sort of kind of think he should be in the Hall. Again, I am willing to be persuaded on many gray area guys. That persuasion must come in the form of convincing advocates though and not just people clicking a box.

No you shouldn't if you feel he doesn't belong. If you feel he doesn't belong, then the appropriate and fair thing to do is not vote for him, thereby voting against. You've made your decision, nothing wrong with that. But I'm talking about the times when people aren't affirmatively for or against a player being inducted. In those situations why should not voting be the default? If the person is neither for or against, why is voting against the fair outcome? In not voting that person is essentially being against that player, and that has a much more profound effect on the process than if that person voted for the player. If one is ambivalent to a player, it would seem to me that the more fair thing to do is vote for, and let the process play out - why should actively voting against be the answer for ambivalence? In instances of ambivalence, voting for a player actually better reflects the ambivalence because it has a less significant effect on the process. Not voting doesn't accurately reflect your ambivalence, it says you are against a player, and in doing so, you're negating three votes for. I say let the people who have actually decided to be against the player's induction be the people are who negating the votes for, not the ambivalents.

I would fall on the Leecemark side of the argument. Otherwise in theory players would get in with 5 definite yes votes 5 definite nos and 10 eeehs.

Perhaps, but in reality, are there really that many eeehs out there? I think most of us are pretty decisive in when making a decision to vote or not vote for a player. I'm just addressing the rare instances where we might not be that decisive or feel that strongly either way.

--I would like to suggest that we make the VC a place where the true advocates do rule the day and we elect the people who the committee thinks most deserving and not just not objectionable. If we are going to vote every 5 years, which I'm not sure is the plan, then we might used weighted ballots and induct the two most strongly supported player plus two contributors. Or whatever interval of years and number of players seems best to get a reasonable number of selections.

I still haven't decided what to do about the logistics of the VC. That's something that should probably be sorted out soon. I'm still leaning towards every 5 years, but I'd also be open now to every other year as well. Regardless, I don't anticipate starting before 1920. I would also like the VC to actually achieve something, which means electing players. But I don't want to elect players for the sake of electing players.

philkid3

08-29-2008, 12:35 PM

On the note of ambivilence, I'm very aware I'm voting against a player I'm not sold on. They've got 15 years, and if I'm wishy washy on a player I want to use as much of those 15 years as I can to think about them. I don't want to rush in to saying yes to a player I'm not certain isn't a Hall of Famer.

If I'm not sure about a guy, he's not going to be on my ballot and I very much am hoping that 1) I keep him out with my vote and 2) the people who want him in never stop voting for him just because I'm not. I hope I keep him out because I want us to have a chance to keep thinking about him, but I want people to keep supporting him because I want to continually gague is support and so that, if I come around, he gets in.

That said, if a player is getting heavy support and I'm ambivilent when his time is running out, then there's a good chance I'll vote for him. Our trio of outfielders are likely in that group (there's a chance I'll drop Duffy next year and then wait and revisit him near the end of his run on the ballot). I'm not sure they're Hall of Famers now, and so I'm not voting for them now. If my opinion on them never changes but everyone else supports them, then by their 15th ballot or sooner, I probably will vote for them.

We've got plenty of time to think on these players. I see no reason to rush to vote for someone early if you're not sure about them.

philkid3

08-29-2008, 12:41 PM

DoubleX

08-29-2008, 12:43 PM

You guys make a good point in that we have a number of opportunities to consider a player, so I can cut the ambivalent people some slack there as they take their time to make up their mind. But at some point, if they can't come to a decision on a player, voting against should no longer be the default.

Anyway, we should move on. I'd like to start a discussion on Joe Kelley. He is someone I vote for but don't feel that passionately about. He is, IMO, a better candidate than our CF trio, and he does fit within the standards of corner OFers which we've already set. One could argue that we shouldn't compound past mistakes with more mistakes, but I'd say we haven't made past mistakes, we've set a clear standard for corner OF, which might be less than desirable for some, but it's our standards none the less, and Kelley appears to fall comfortably within those standards. To set standards, marked by the election of a number of players (rather than just one or two outliers), which is the case here for corner OF, the mistake would not be in electing similar players, the mistake would be in not electing those players. What good are the standards if we ignore them?

Windy City Fan

08-29-2008, 01:22 PM

I am someone who if I am undecided vote no most of the time. As Philkid said, we have 15 years to make up our minds on these players. To use a few current examples in this project. I am ambivilent towards Beckley and Kelley. I'm open to the possibility that they are HOF players, however currently I think they fall a little short of greatness. To me their impressive (by 1915 standards) counting stats are a product of being the first generation of stars to play in an expanded schedule, and not the result of being truly great players. Its possible someone could convince me to change my mind (where as it would be impossible to change my mind on someone like say Sammy Sosa in another thread/project I'm participating in), but I have yet to hear that argument. So I will continue to vote no until/if someone can convince me otherwise.

That is my definition of ambivilent. There are very few if any player that I can't decide yeah/nay on. I think voting for someone merely because you don't object to them isn't the right mentality to have and leads to watered down standards.

BlueBlood

08-29-2008, 01:45 PM

Next year is pretty much us playing catch up, so I plan to have lengthy arguments for most of the players I support. Time wise, I'll defnitely start my way with Beckley and work my way down since the ones closer to 75% are in more urgent need of support since some may cast their ballots before reading arguments in support of or against.

leecemark

08-29-2008, 02:15 PM

leecemark

08-29-2008, 02:32 PM

--The more I think about it the more I believe that people should have no "default" yes/no to borderline players or tha we need both approaches in out mix. Its the borderline guys who make this project interesting. If most of us either accepted or rejected them all then this would be pretty boring.
--The no brainers on either side of the line relaly aren't worth discussing. Cy Young debuted this year. He is probably the best player ever to appear before out electorate and he has be the subject of zero discussion (while receivign 100% of the vote). Ditto for the guys none of us support. They may get a little discussion generated by somebody who thinks they deserve better than one and done, but by year 2 they are gotten and soon enough (if not then) off the ballot.
--Its the guys near the border of the Hall who we need to be discussing. Generally these players will have 20-50 percent true believers whose job it is to convince undecided voters to vote yes. If a player starts with 50% true believers and has even a modest advocate or two he will probably get the 75% he needs eventually. If its even 30-40% true beleivers and a good advocate or two takes up the case his chances are pretty good (assuming there aren't already a block greater than 25% firmly opposed). But if the true believers are 20 or 25% - and that may be true even if the candidate debuts over 50% - then the task of getting MOST of a players support from the undecided camp is - and should be - very difficult. If most voters don't strongly believe in a candidate then he probably shouldn't make it.

philkid3

08-29-2008, 02:49 PM

--I always assume that arguements made in this year's thread won't have any impact till next year's voting. Most voters (usually myself included) vote first and read later. Well hopefully they are reading the thread at least after voting:). Quite a few of our voters seldom or never actually participate in the discussion, but I'd like to believe they are at least following it.

I really want people to post their arguments. I don't necessarily respect my own opinion and research above the rest of the crowd, so I'm hesitant to to so, but I want everyone else to. I only vote for the people my mind is made up on, and then I read the thread to see as many arguments as I can to take with me in to the next year's voting.

I brought up a player once and someone basically said it was too late in the voting process to make a difference, but I wasn't asking about it for that ballot. I was asking for it for future ballots.

Paul Wendt

08-29-2008, 05:02 PM

I'd like to start a discussion on Joe Kelley. He is someone I vote for but don't feel that passionately about. He is, IMO, a better candidate than our CF trio, and he does fit within the standards of corner OFers which we've already set. One could argue that we shouldn't compound past mistakes with more mistakes, but I'd say we haven't made past mistakes, we've set a clear standard for corner OF, which might be less than desirable for some, but it's our standards none the less, and Kelley appears to fall comfortably within those standards. To set standards, marked by the election of a number of players (rather than just one or two outliers), which is the case here for corner OF . . .
(my emphasis)

How can we say now that Stovey and Thompson are not one or two outliers? We have only three entirely clear corner OFs --Thompson, Delahanty, Burkett-- and only three others listed as corner OFs --O'Rourke, Kelly, Stovey.
(layout by fielding position (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1296379&postcount=3))
(Browning may be a dis-honorary "corner" for his time there and his poor fielding. On the other hand O'Rourke played mainly corner OF at ages 22, 28, 32-33, and 37-plus.)

Are you reasonably anticipating the elections of Keeler and Flick and roughly equating them with the one or two maybe-outliers?

Paul Wendt

08-29-2008, 05:10 PM

Joe Kelley was a great player for four seasons, 1894-97, his best four both by OPS+ and by playing time. He also played 95% in 1899; unfortunately for him and his teams, he never surpassed 90% otherwise. Unfortunately for his stature now, those best four seasons were four of the five 132-game schedules, followed by two at 154. That obscures both high quality and peaked shape from anyone who doesn't look at rates or normalized counts.

By the way, he was simply a corner outfielder, always at left, only in those five "every day" seasons and in his last season as a regular player, 1906 (under Hanlon again). In those six seasons he played about 800 games with only 13 appearances scattered at five other positions

Willie Keeler played RF almost purely for 16 years, 1894-1909, and he played at least 90%(?) of games until the last three, when he was also mediocre at best. It would be a stretch to call 1894-1897 his four best seasons --Keeler was more a "prime" than a "peak" player-- but his record suffers moderately from the coincidence with "short" schedules that nails Kelley.

After the ownership merger of Baltimore and Brooklyn in 1899, manager/GM Ned Hanlon took Kelley and Keeler to Brooklyn for the A team. They played LF and RF "every day" as they had in Baltimore, and they led the Superbas in batting at 134 and 138. Keeler played was the everyday RF for three more seasons in Brooklyn, then signed with the original Highlanders/Yankees just in time, before the 1903 Peace.

Joe Kelley moved to the American League in 1902, back to Baltimore where McGraw and Robinson were part-owners and where he had "married money". He was another leader type, like McGraw and Jennings, all with ambitions to be the Ned Hanlons of their own major league teams. After Cincinnati and New York combined to take over the Baltimore club and secure its players (mid-1902), they made Kelley the manager in Cinci, McGraw in New York.

During three full seasons as manager of the Reds, Kelley played 105-123-90 of 141-157-155 games (318 of 453 in sum, 70%). Then 129 of 155 (83%) in a final season under Hanlon. He was no longer a good player. Maybe he had played less partly because he was managing --sometimes getting the sideline/bench perspective, or traveling for new players, or taking more recovery or rest time. (I speculate. After early 1903 my main source is season playing records.)

In the 1900s both Brooklyn NL and New York AL wanted to make Keeler captain, iirc. He didn't want to be captain, iirc. He was popular there, a Brooklyn boy.

P.S.
Hugh Jennings was a superb player for four seasons, missing perfect coincidence with Kelley and with 132-game schedules by one. The two of them and Keeler were three giant steps to making the Orioles a superb team those five years.

DoubleX

08-30-2008, 08:10 AM

Here's who I have eligible for the next election. I might be missing some age guys (Fred Clarke, BTW, will be eligible in 1918):

George Brown
Lou Criger - Probably won't appear on ballot
Bob Ewing
Matty McIntyre
Barney Pelty - Probably won't appear on ballot
Jack Powell
Joe Sugden - He was actually eligible in 1910. Doesn't really matter as he likely won't be on the ballot anyway.
Lee Tannehill - Probably won't appear on ballot
Harry Wolverton - Probably won't appear on ballot.

This could very well be the weakest class we've had to date, and might be a year where we get in a player or two that has been lingering for a while (my guess is that could be the year for Beckley).

EDIT: Technically, we could probably make Fred Clarke eligible in 1917, as it is the year of his 45th birthday. I'm not sure what the exact rule should be here, whether the player must be 45 to be eligible or whether he should be turning 45 that year.

jjpm74

08-30-2008, 08:36 AM

IMO, the rule should be already 45 not turning 45. I'm in favor of holding off on Fred Clarke until 1918.

jjpm74

08-30-2008, 08:56 AM

DoubleX

08-30-2008, 08:56 AM

I'm surprised no one caught this sooner, but I was a year off with Mike Tiernan for about 10 years. He's actually in his 13th year of eligibility, not 12th.

DoubleX

08-30-2008, 09:07 AM

IMO, the rule should be already 45 not turning 45. I'm in favor of holding off on Fred Clarke until 1918.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted. It's easier to deal with. I don't want to have to bother looking up actual birthdates. Plus, the rule as phrased would appear to be already 45, so we'll stick with that :).

In response to your next post, the next few years on the whole are pretty lean until we get to 1921, which should have three first balloters. 1917 is just terrible. In 1918, I see only Clarke getting in. I can see Sheckard getting decent support. In 1919, Chance will be a very interesting candidate and will real test how we value player/managers. In 1920, I'd like to think Roger Bresnahan will get in, but I think it could take a number of years.

The next few years will be the best shot for the holdovers. If Beckley doesn't make it this year (which I'm guessing he won't), one would think he has a strong chance at making it soon. Duffy has surged in support to 70% right now, so he's in good position, and Van Haltren consistently receives strong support, so he has a good shot too (though I think he could be this generation's Hardy Richardson). Beyond that, I'd say Joss has a decent shot given where he is, and I can see people getting behind Kelley, Willis, and perhaps Griffith and Jennings, in leaner years.

At the very least, this year is looking like a good year for elections. It's looking likely that we'll elect at least 3 (I'm happy with the way Keeler has shot up this year), and I think Flick, despite being close right now, has a good shot too.

Paul Wendt

08-30-2008, 09:10 AM

EDIT: Technically, we could probably make Fred Clarke eligible in 1917, as it is the year of his 45th birthday. I'm not sure what the exact rule should be here, whether the player must be 45 to be eligible or whether he should be turning 45 that year.
I think we are voting at the end of the year. Same as the BBWAA, but we date our elections one year earlier. What we call 1917 is what they would call 1918, vote by mail in December 1917.

That is how we date the five-year wait. The waiting players have completed their fifth year out of major league play in the fall.

EDIT: With postmark deadline December 31 and announcement of official results in January there is no need to check birth months and days, not that that is a challenge.

Freakshow

08-30-2008, 11:20 AM

Paul is absolutely right. Clarke has already turned 45 before the 1917 election, so he is eligible. And, like he said, the election is at the end of the year, anyone born in 1872, inactive for five years since his last consecutive season played, and inactive in 1917 is eligible.

This is how the age rule has always been applied to this point in time. To make Clarke wait until 1918 is changing procedure. On top of that, the guy has made nothing but token appearances in three of the past six seasons, not playing at all in the other three.

leecemark

08-30-2008, 12:53 PM

Looking ahead the next 5 years, there are some interesting candidates that will become eligible, but very few who are likely to win over the small hall guys to their cause until 1921:

1917--no one
1918--Fred Clarke, Johnny Kling, Cy Seymour, Jimmy Scheckard
1919--Frank Chance, Mike Donlin
1920--Roger Bresnahan, George Mullin, Hooks Wiltse
1921--Nap Lajoie, Joe Tinker, Mordecai Brown, Christy Matthewson
Frank Chance's case rests on whether we're voting on him as a player or as a player/manager. As a player alone, he doesn't quite make it. - he WAS player-manager of his generation's greatest dynasty. Can't see not giving him credit for that.
Fed Clarke is the closest thing to a sure thing we'll have until Nap and Christy's class come into the picture in 1921. Hopefully we can use the next 4 years to focus on the players who have been continually getting support but not quite enough to win over the super majority:

Jake Beckley (73.91%) - never great, but does have the counting stats. He'll have to make it without me.

Cupid Childs (56.52%) - peak candidate whose peak wasn't all that great?

Lave Cross (30.43%) - pass
Hugh Duffy (65.22%) - his BA record season makes him an early day Maris of a candidate

Clark Griffith (32%) - voting for him now, but really he may be a better choice as a contributor than as a player

Hughie Jennings (50%) - at his best the best player on the ballot. the question is was that peak long enough to overcome his lack of career numbers?

Addie Joss (52%) - very nice peak, but not even close to all time great and his career numbers are well below standards

Joe Kelley (50%) - best of the backlog outfielders? The closest to being added to my ballot anyway.

Herman Long (56.52%) - had my vote for a few years before better candiates Dahlen and Jennings pushed him off. Unlikely to return unless sombody steps forward with a convincing case for him

John McGraw (47.83%) - also had a few years on ballot, but his managerial career now outshines his playing one. He'll make it as a contributor.

Jimmy Ryan (48%) - as good or better than Van Haltren and Duffy, but lacks the name recognition. The trio is all or none for me and I think we are better off with none.

Mike Tiernan (26.92%) - pass

George Van Haltren (69.57%) -still waiting for somebody to explain his appeal

Vic Willis (36%) - reasonable candidate who apparently lacks a good press agent. I'm prepared to listen if somebody steps forward for him, but don't like him enough to take on the job myself.A

ll of these players have recieved a high support of at least 25% but not been elected (I have faith that Keeler and Flick will get elected this year so I left them off the list). Maybe their supporters can give some reasons why we might want to vote for them. I only have about 1/2 of them on my ballot and am open to persuasion as long as the line of reasoning isn't "vote for me because I have a lot of support already."

It'd be nice to get a few of these guys elected. A year where we elect no one is a wasted year, IMO. I'm hoping we avoid a repeat (or 3 peat) of 1912.

--Comments above in bold. I don't hold with the view that we need to elect someone every year. Years with no outstanding new candidates are a good opportunity to campaign for your favorite backlog players. If 75% of us are convinced they should join the immortals then good job.
--Hughie Jennings is the player I like best of the backlog and I'm not sure I want him in bad enough to go into all out campaign mode. He was a great player for about 4 years, but injuries wreaked his career. He isn't quite at the Ross Barnes level of dominance to get me breaking out the banners and knocking on doors to get out the vote.

Paul Wendt

08-30-2008, 01:59 PM

It's good to see the Pirate pitchers Jesse Tannehill, Deacon Phillippe, and Sam Leever on the ballot together. What a team that was. The National League made a habit of repeat winners until the last few years. Suddenly we have the Braves, Phillies and Dodgers!

If you check out the pitchers records at baseball-reference, begin with Tannehill and page down to "Similar Pitchers". Fred Clarke had this trio with Jack Chesbro for three seasons, Rube Waddell for the first one, Ed Doheny for the next two. Phillippe and Leever remained with the team for its third championship season 1903 while Tannehill and Chesbro moved to the original Yankees.

A recent comment on Fred Clarke by Brock Hanke (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_the_hall_of_merit_by_position_left_fielder s_ballot/P0/#2912407) (point 7) is interesting. He gives Clarke a lot of credit for "the very best control pitching staff of all time".

Paul Wendt

08-30-2008, 02:21 PM

Commonly I have cast one vote for a player who seems likely to be soon forgotten. If many others have voted, it is usually someone without any votes who would otherwise drop of the ballot at once. This year,
Topsy Hartsel gets my vote.
Hartsel was a supreme leadoff man for most of last decade, a poor man's Roy Thomas for reaching base and scoring runs, with more long hits. Of course he wasn't the same fielder, but a Philadelphia boy could go to either ballpark and see a master at working the pitcher. Five times for Connie Mack, Topsy was the best in Ban Johnson's circuit at reaching first base on balls, while Roy Thomas led the National League seven times for the Phillies.

Topsy Hartsel was the hottest property in the game back in 1900. He played in Ban Johnson's league and showed his talent plain for all to see, so John Brush signed him to finish up with Cincinnati after the close of the minor league's season. He took them by storm; like Barrett and Crawford in '99 he had them eager for next spring. But Jim Hart had a deal with the Americans, permitting Comiskey to play on the South Side of Chicago in exchange for his choice of all the AL players at the end of the season. He chose Hartsel!

Paul Wendt

08-30-2008, 02:35 PM

Among the newcomers Bill Dahlen and Cy Young were stars of the first rank, Roy Thomas the second, Topsy Hartsel the third. They get my votes.

I don't support so many pitchers as most do, but I go for leadership as in Clark Griffith's tireless work recruiting players for the American League, not only the White Stockings. He was also an officer of the players union and the one who organized production of another baseball to break the Spalding monopoly.
Most of the managers who play have been fielders but Griffith took his turn on the mound and otherwise remained on the sidelines, a hybrid of the player and the bench manager. As he helped build the league in '01 and the Chicago team in '02, he was Ban Johnson's man to take the helm and put together the invaders of New York in '03.

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
Bill Dahlen
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Topsy Hartsel
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
John McGraw
Roy Thomas
Cy Young

(I have noticed that a few of you are voting for all the "big four" of the Orioles. By adding Willie Keeler and Joe Kelley, I have adopted that fashion this year.)

DoubleX

09-01-2008, 11:20 PM

philkid3

09-01-2008, 11:43 PM

I'm convinced by Freakshow and Paul Wendt's arguments and Fred Clarke will appear on next year's ballot.

Also, what team should be listed as Cy Young's primary team? Strong arguments could be made for both the Cleveland Spiders and the Boston Red Sox. Right now, I'm leaning slightly in favor of the Spiders.

I'm also likely to put Willie Keeler with the Highlanders, unless there is strong sentiment that he should be with the Old NL Baltimore Orioles. He spent the most time with the Highlanders, but had more good years with the Orioles.

Dahlen will be with the Cubs and Flick if elected will be with the Cleveland Naps. In the unlikely event Jake Beckley is elected this time around, I'll likely list him with the Pirates, unless people feel the Reds would be more appropriate.

Where are we listing players with their primary teams? And as players become less clear, will there be more discussion of where they should be listed?

I do think we should give some consideration as to whether or not a team is already represented. It would be cheating to think of how many Red Sox will be in and go with Young on the Spiders, but how many Red Sox and Spiders do we currently have in? That could matter.

Other than that, I say Cleveland.

leecemark

09-02-2008, 06:13 AM

Red Sox for Young
Orioles for Keeler

DoubleX

09-02-2008, 08:53 AM

Where are we listing players with their primary teams? And as players become less clear, will there be more discussion of where they should be listed?

I do think we should give some consideration as to whether or not a team is already represented. It would be cheating to think of how many Red Sox will be in and go with Young on the Spiders, but how many Red Sox and Spiders do we currently have in? That could matter.

Other than that, I say Cleveland.

In the first post you can find which teams the Hall of Famers represent if you scroll over the main Hall of Famer list.

I'm not really for listed a player with a team based on how many are already listed. Good teams will have lots of players and that should deserve commemoration.

I'm still torn though on both Young and Keeler.

leecemark

09-02-2008, 10:32 PM

We've elected 34 players so far. I break them down like this;

Inner Circle: 1 (Anson)
Obvious Small Hall: 6
Solid Real Hall: 17
Marginal Real Hall: 8
Marginal Large Hall: 2 (Browning and Glasscock)
Obvious Mistakes: 0
--Inner Circle would be guys who are either arguably the best ever at their position or of their generation
--Small Hall would be guys that would be likley first ballot in the real Hall.
--Real Hall means roughly the actual size of Cooperstown
--Large Hall is undetermined in size, but would include anyone who has a reasonable case for induction (350, 400, 500?)

--Cy Young will be the second Inner Circle player we've seen so far. Dahlen will join the solid real Hall crowd. Keeler and Flick will join the marginal real Hall squad. Jennings, Kelley, McGraw, Griffith and Willis are also marginal real Hall types with a shot at election on our current ballot. Jennings, McGraw and Griffith I would support at least as combination candiates when they reach the VC and possibly just as players.
--Beckley, Childs, Cross, Duffy, Joss, Long, Ryan and Van Haltren would join Browning and Glasscock in the marginal large hall category that I'd prefer not to see expand. I suppose some might put Mullane and Thompson on that bottom rung to. Either way I'll be resisting adding guys who water down the standards.

Paul Wendt

09-02-2008, 11:22 PM

I'm still torn though on both Young and Keeler.

Cleveland and Baltimore

Paul Wendt

09-02-2008, 11:33 PM

--Cy Young will be the second Inner Circle player we've seen so far. Dahlen will join the solid real Hall crowd [seventh]. Keeler and Flick will join the marginal real Hall squad. Jennings, Kelley, McGraw, Griffith and Willis are also marginal real Hall types with a shot at election on our current ballot. Jennings, McGraw and Griffith I would support at least as combination candiates when they reach the VC and possibly just as players.
Young and Dahlen are the only solid Cooperstown Hall of Famers in that paragraph?
You must be saving scads of extra places in the real Hall for personal favorites.

leecemark

09-03-2008, 05:54 AM

--Solid real Hall types would consist of perhaps the top 150 players in baseball history. I like Jennings the best of the rest and I think he probably falls outside that group. Great player, but for a very short time. Marginal real Hall players would be the next 150 or so (extending out to around 300 players - the lesser, but not outright mistakes, who have been inducted and the best of those not inducted (including those not yet eligible). Marginal big Hall players might be anybody in the top 500.

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 08:32 AM

Looks like Beckley is going to come up just short again (won't someone throw him a bone?).

Also, how Vic Willis that different than Tony Mullane?

Brad Harris

09-03-2008, 08:36 AM

On pace to elect four, even without Beckley. That's pretty darn good.

leecemark

09-03-2008, 08:45 AM

--Willis isn't THAT different from Mullane. You could make a case that he is better even, depending on what you choose to emphasis. Mullane is almost certainly our weakest pitching selection though and beng in the same class as him should not be a singular reason for induction. The marginal class is large and unless we end up with a very large hall some will make it and some won't.
--Mullane was a flashy, popular player, while Willis was more of a blue collar grinder. The Apollo of the Box has more of a cult following. More of a hook for the voters if you will. Also, as mentioned previously, there is a high level of sympathy for the best players outside the real Hall (Mullane) and much less so for the lower level members of Cooperstown (Willis). We can try and overcome this bias, but many of us have argued for Mullane in other projects and have an emotional connection to him and his case for the Hall. Willis has no such following.

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 09:05 AM

Willis isn't THAT different from Mullane. You could make a case that he is better even, depending on what you choose to emphasis. Mullane is almost certainly our weakest pitching selection though and beng in the same class as him should not be a singular reason for induction. The marginal class is large and unless we end up with a very large hall some will make it and some won't.

I'm trying to appeal to those that voted for Mullane but haven't yet voted for Willis. They must be out there given that Mullane was elected and Willis is at 40% right now. So I think people who voted to elect Mullane, should give Willis some deep thought.

--Mullane was a flashy, popular player, while Willis was more of a blue collar grinder. The Apollo of the Box has more of a cult following. More of a hook for the voters if you will. Also, as mentioned previously, there is a high level of sympathy for the best players outside the real Hall (Mullane) and much less so for the lower level members of Cooperstown (Willis). We can try and overcome this bias, but many of us have argued for Mullane in other projects and have an emotional connection to him and his case for the Hall. Willis has no such following.

I think that's probably the case again here. Switch the two around and I think Mullane struggles to get in while there would be a lot of sympathy for Willis. If this was the real Hall, I imagine people like us going on in the future about how guys like Welch and Willis weren't elected and how Mullane is a questionable election. I feel like in righting some wrongs we might create new wrongs.

Captain Cold Nose

09-03-2008, 09:05 AM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis
Cy Young

AG2004

09-03-2008, 09:51 AM

Where are we?

Catchers - The line between in and out is somewhere below Bennett, but it's a little difficult to say how far below. Bresnahan is better than any rejected catcher, but I don't know if he's superior to Bennett. We don't know which side of the in/out line he belongs on.

Outfielders - Starred players are in; others are out. Schedule length-adjusted win share lines follow.

*Stovey 314-93-132
*Thompson 261-91-128
O'Neill 224-91-139
Griffin 266-83-121
C. Jones 242-97-143 (108)

For Jones, the 108 refers to any span of five consecutive calendar years; the 143 refers to any span of five consecutive seasons in which he was permitted to play (and thus skips over 1881 and 1882).

There's definitely a line between Thompson and Griffin. Jones apparently didn't get credit for blacklisted seasons. Had he voluntarily retired from the game for those two years, he would fall below Thompson. The Thompson-O'Neill comparison indicates the career-peak balance. 260 win shares is enough for a Thompson-like peak, but not enough for a Griffin-like one.

Thus, Roy Thomas' adjusted line of 269-89-137 would presumably get him in just over the Thompson line. Tiernan's 278-87-133 might also get him in. If the voters were to reject both of them, Thompson's election would definitely be a mistake.

Infielders - Same system as above.

*McPhee 342-75-116
*Collins 292-95-138
*Glasscock 308-87-114
Richardson 288-86-133
Sutton 233+NA-93+-128
Childs 263-98-139 (still eligible)

Ward isn't listed; as half shortstop, half pitcher, and major short-term contributor, he is one of a kind. Sutton and Richardson were better players than Glasscock; with NA credit, Sutton surpasses Glasscock in all three categories. From this viewpoint, Glasscock looks like a mistake. Childs' case would establish the desirable career/peak balance. His peak is at Jimmy Collins' level, but did he play long enough?

Infield/outfield balance - This is a big, big problem. Childs has similar career value to Thompson, but a higher peak. Sutton has similar peak value, but a longer career. Come to think of it, Sutton was probably superior to Stovey, also.

I recall asking people several times for a defense or justification of Thomspon, but I never received it. Thompson had high RBI totals, but, with Billy Hamilton leading off, and Ed Delahanty on the team, he should have had high RBI totals. Without those RBI totals, Thompson didn't have much of a case.

Levels of play that were acceptable for outfielders are not necessarily enough for infielders. I would say that at least one of these two positions holds:

*The elections of Glasscock and Thompson were mistakes.
*The omissions of Richardson and Sutton were mistakes.

For now, I'll treat the omissions as mistakes.

Pitchers - The Hall selected six pitchers from the 1880s, and they were the best six from the decade. Caruthers and Mullane are in; Welch and McCormick are out. That gives us a good idea of where the line is.

Joe Start - Either a mistake of omission, or a problem of unclear directions. Some voters may have looked only at his play from 1871 onwards, based on the dates listed on the voting form and a relative lack of information regarding his earlier years. Start was perhaps the greatest player in base ball during the middle and late 1860s, so he does have a high peak, and his play in the 1860s would also give him a long, long career. Without that decade, Start does not look quite as good. Some people who voted against him may have believed that his earlier stardom would put him under the jurisdiction of the proposed VC, and that he should not have been included here. I don't know the reasons why he wasn't elected here, but he should be admitted by the VC.

AG2004

09-03-2008, 10:04 AM

My ballot

Cupid Childs
Bill Dahlen
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Hugh Jennings
Fielder Jones
Wille Keeler
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
Roy Thomas
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis
Cy Young

For now, I'm using Thompson as the standard for position players.

----

Here's some good investment advice: buy war bonds issued by the Russian Empire.

The Western Front in the European War is at a standstill, with a massive loss of morale in both France and Germany. Britain's great losses at the Somme weakened its military strength, and, after the events of this most recent Easter, it has to shift even more of its military to Ireland. The forces of the Dual Monarchy were crushed by Brusilov's genius this past summer, which means Russia is the only major power to have accomplished something successful in the war during the past year.

Times are ripe for socialist or communist uprisings in France and Germany, so I wouldn't get involved there. Russia lacks something all the other great powers have: a proletariat. Peasants want possession of the land they work. While they may rebel against landholders, they will not accept the imposition of the state as a new landlord, so no uprising will gain their support. There are plenty of industrial workers elsewhere to overthrow the governments of England or France or Germany, but the numbers just aren't there in Russia. Communists may take control in Western Europe, but there is no chance of there seizing power in Russia. It has the most stable government of any of the European powers.

The Russian Empire would be a good place to invest during the next few months. Remember - you heard this advice here first! Be sure to thank me when the roubles come rolling in!

jjpm74

09-03-2008, 10:52 AM

Fielder Jones

I was wondering if you could provide more info on Fielder Jones? I know he was great defensively. What else does he have going for him? I was close to adding him to my ballot this year, but don't know enough about him.

leecemark

09-03-2008, 11:12 AM

Infield/outfield balance - This is a big, big problem. Childs has similar career value to Thompson, but a higher peak. Sutton has similar peak value, but a longer career.

--The problem I have with Childs is he is mostly a peak candidate, but his best - by far - season was in a very weak league. The Players League of 1890 actually pulled much (most?) of the best players from both the NL and AA. It was the best league of that season. The AA was clearly the worst.
--The third best league of 1890 is a league which I regard as marginally a major league - maybe a half step up from the UA, which was not a major league at all IMO (Dunlap is much like Childs in this). Childs never came close to matching his 1890 numbers again, although he di dhave some other very good ones. Had the Players League not existed or if he had put those number up in that league or if he had matched ro coem close to matching them in a better league he would have my vote. As it is he is clearly below my in/out line.

Paul Wendt

09-03-2008, 07:08 PM

Where are we?

Outfielders - Starred players are in; others are out. Schedule length-adjusted win share lines follow.
. . .
Thus, Roy Thomas' adjusted line of 269-89-137 would presumably get him in just over the Thompson line. Tiernan's 278-87-133 might also get him in. If the voters were to reject both of them, Thompson's election would definitely be a mistake.
. . .
I recall asking people several times for a defense or justification of Thomspon, but I never received it. Thompson had high RBI totals, but, with Billy Hamilton leading off, and Ed Delahanty on the team, he should have had high RBI totals. Without those RBI totals, Thompson didn't have much of a case.

We elected Sam Thompson without my support and I am voting for Roy Thomas now.

As devil's advocate, I posted in 1917 some points for Thompson and against Thomas (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1302863&postcount=25).