BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1920

[DoubleX]

Below are the master ballots for the players and pioneer players. Classic will be running the contributor election in a separate thread (he PMed and said he'll get that up in the next few days).

First here's how the process will work: We will whittle down the 40 player master ballot into a 15 player final ballot. Because the pioneers ballot is much shorter, it is in final ballot form, but I ask that we refrain from voting on the pioneers until we on the players final ballot in order to have some conversation. Each of the 12 VC members must submit a list of who they believe are the 15 most qualified players on the master ballot, regardless of whether they would actually vote for each player to be in the Hall (and they don't need to be any kind of order). All players named by 50% of the voters will appear on the final ballot. We will then have a simple yes/no vote to elect players to the Hall from the final ballot. Conversation throughout is very much encouraged. Also, unlike the regular elections, pre-1871 experience for players on the regular players ballot may be considered.

Also, anyone is free to contribute to the conversation, but ultimately only the 12 VC members votes will be counted. The VC may expand in later elections though.


Players Master Ballot
Tommy Bond
Charlie Buffinton
Jack Burdock
Oyster Burns
John Clapp
Charlie Comiskey
Larry Corcoran
Abner Dalrymple
Fred Dunlap
Frank Dwyer
Bob Ferguson
Silver Flint
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Mike Griffin
Ned Hanlon
Charley Jones
Silver King
Arlie Latham
Denny Lyons
Bobby Matthews
Tommy McCarthy
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Levi Meyerle
Tip O'Neill
Dave Orr
John Peters
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jack Rowe
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Will White
Jim Whitney
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson
Tom York

Pioneer Players Final Ballot
Asa Brainard
Bill Craver
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Cherokee Fisher
Wes Fisler
George Hall
Andy Leonard
Fergy Malone
Dick McBride
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Charlie Smith
Jimmy Wood
Harry Wright
George Zettlein

[leecemark]

Tommy Bond
Charley Jones
Denny Lyons
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey - definately support
Levi Meyerle
Dave Orr
Lip Pike - definatley support
Hardy Richardson - definatley support
Joe Start - definately support
Ezra Sutton - definately support
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch - definately support
Ned Williamson

[jjpm74]

My 15 choices:

Tommy Bond
Larry Corcoran
Dave Foutz
Charley Jones
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Levi Meyerle
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson

[DoubleX]

My 15:

Fred Dunlap
Dave Foutz
Charley Jones
Denny Lyons
Bobby Matthews - Last man
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Levi Meyerle
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch

I really struggled with my last choice, ending up just giving it to Matthews based on his impressive volume of work. Others I strongly considered: Mike Griffin, Will White, Oyster Burns, Silver King Tommy Bond, Tip O'Neill, and Jack Rowe.

[jjpm74]

Chances are good that there will be a great deal of disagreement as to who should make up the bottom half of the 15 player ballot. How do you plan on dealing with situations where we have 7-8 players with almost the same amount of support vying for slots 13 and 14? Obviously many of those players are unlikely to make the second cut. What about a rule where in the event of ties or close calls (1 away from the next lowest choice) for the bottom few spaces we shorten rather than lengthen the round 2 ballot? IMO a 12 person ballot with 12 players more agree on than don't agree on is more discussion worthy than a ballot where we have 17 players, the bottom 5 of which there's a great bit of disagreement on.

[DoubleX]

I thought about that situation and came up with different ideas about how to break ties, but I decided it's probably best not to complicate this process any further. Right now, I'm inclined to keep everyone in the event of a tie. I might rethink that though if there is a large number, but we'll see how it plays out for the time being.

[leecemark]

--For practical purposes the bottom of the ballot is meaningless, whether he be #12 or 25. We might elect as many as half a dozen players, but we aren't going to be adding 15.

[Paul Wendt]

--For practical purposes the bottom of the ballot is meaningless, whether he be #12 or 25. We might elect as many as half a dozen players, but we aren't going to be adding 15.
Hoping for some valuable participation, 12 may be much better than 25.

[Freakshow]

Should be in:
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Start
Sutton

Could get my vote:
Jones
McCormick
Tiernan
Welch
Williamson

Ballot filler:
Bond
Dunlap
Ferguson - last man
Griffin
O'Neill

[jjpm74]

Ferguson - last man


Isn't Ferguson more of a contributor than a player?

[Paul Wendt]

Fred Dunlap
Mike Griffin
Charley Jones
Arlie Latham
Denny Lyons
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Dave Orr
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson

[Freakshow]

Isn't Ferguson more of a contributor than a player?That's DoubleX's call. For our purposes, my understanding was the VC is to consider player's other contributions combined with his playing. If Ferguson is to be considered as a player, I'm adding in his non-playing contributions in considering his case. If this is wrong, DoubleX should let us know.

[leecemark]

--Perhaps we can list 15, but the number who actually make the ballot would be those listed by half of us. That will possibly be more than 15, but probably less than 15. It would also eliminate the players who would be just taking up space. If you can't get 50% when we have to vote for 15 you sure aren't going to get 75% when most (all?) ballots will be smaller.

[jjpm74]

That's DoubleX's call. For our purposes, my understanding was the VC is to consider player's other contributions combined with his playing. If Ferguson is to be considered as a player, I'm adding in his non-playing contributions in considering his case. If this is wrong, DoubleX should let us know.

I was under the impression that doublex was double dipping and cross posting player/contributors so that they could be elected twice; once as a player and once as a contributor for the guys like McGraw. If we are to consider on and of the field contributions for players, please remove Foutz and add Ferguson to my list, please.

[DoubleX]

I was under the impression that doublex was double dipping and cross posting player/contributors so that they could be elected twice; once as a player and once as a contributor for the guys like McGraw. If we are to consider on and of the field contributions for players, please remove Foutz and add Ferguson to my list, please.

You can consider whatever here. Though, Ferguson will likely be on the contributors ballot and if you feel it's more appropriate to elect him as a contributor, than save your vote for there.

Double dipping will only occur if a person was elected as a player in the regular election. This is because that election focuses exclusively on a person's playing career, and thus does not focus on contributions the person might have made as a non-player. If there is a rare event where person could be independently inducted as a player and a contributor, I don't want to stand in the way.

[DoubleX]

--Perhaps we can list 15, but the number who actually make the ballot would be those listed by half of us. That will possibly be more than 15, but probably less than 15. It would also eliminate the players who would be just taking up space. If you can't get 50% when we have to vote for 15 you sure aren't going to get 75% when most (all?) ballots will be smaller.

I was thinking the same thing. I hate to adjust the rules as we go, but I'm thinking we might do this to make things easier. Anyone named on 6 ballots will be on the final ballot.

EDIT: I want to throw in some advocacy for Ed McKean. I think we were too dismissive of him in the regular election, and with our standards clearly since expanding, I think he has a good argument for election. He had a 114 OPS+, while playing over 1550 games at SS. That's pretty impressive for his position and era. He had good counting numbers as well: 2000+ hits, 1100+ RBI, 1200+ runs, and 300+ SBs, again all pretty impressive considering his position and era. He wasn't great defensively, but given our expanding standards with Van Haltren and Duffy, I think McKean did enough offensively as a SS for long enough, to merit serious consideration.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Tommy Bond
Larry Corcoran
Charley Jones
Arlie Latham
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Dave Orr
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson

[henrich]

Players Master Ballot
Tommy Bond
Charlie Buffinton
Jack Burdock
Oyster Burns
John Clapp
Charlie Comiskey
Larry Corcoran
Abner Dalrymple
Fred Dunlap
Frank Dwyer
Bob Ferguson
Silver Flint
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Mike Griffin
Ned Hanlon
Charley Jones
Silver King
Arlie Latham
Denny Lyons
Bobby Matthews
Tommy McCarthy
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Levi Meyerle
Tip O'Neill
Dave Orr
John Peters
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jack Rowe
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Will White
Jim Whitney
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson
Tom York


1. Mickey Welch
2. Jim McCormick
3. Ezra Sutton
4. Joe Start
5. Jack Rowe
6. Mike Tiernan
7. Hardy Richardson
8. Lip Pike
9. Ed McKean
10. Charlie Commiskey
11. Larry Corcoran
12. Ned Williamson
13. Cal McVey
14. Tommy McCarthy
15. Oyster Burns

I'm really good with the first 10 on my list, after that I don't have a lot of conviction with this group. If someone wants to persuade me I'm open to changing these picks.

Also, I'm not sure I'm one of the 12 allowed to vote here. So, if I'm not, then nevermind:)

If I am these are my picks to go on the ballot, but that doesn't mean I will vote for all of them either.

Thanks.

[BlueBlood]

Tommy Bond
Charlie Buffinton
Charley Jones
Silver King
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Tip O'Neill
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson

Only hard one was Bobby Matthews who had a great deal of career value since he's fifteenth all time in innings pitched. Just someone who is 100% clearly under the line whereas the fifteen I listed at least have some sort of window through which I can be persuaded.

[DoubleX]

Also, I'm not sure I'm one of the 12 allowed to vote here. So, if I'm not, then nevermind:)

If I am these are my picks to go on the ballot, but that doesn't mean I will vote for all of them either.

My apologies, but the 12 were set a few weeks ago. Your input is certainly welcome though and at some point we'll probably expand from 12, and your participation will definitely be noted if we do that.

[dgarza]

Some tough cut towards the end, but here are my 15 :

Tommy Bond
Silver King
Denny Lyons
Bobby Matthews
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Levi Meyerle
Tip O'Neill
Dave Orr
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Mike Tiernan
Will White
Mickey Welch

[henrich]

My apologies, but the 12 were set a few weeks ago. Your input is certainly welcome though and at some point we'll probably expand from 12, and your participation will definitely be noted if we do that.

No problem at all. I must have missed it when school got back in session and I disappeared for awhile-it's tax season for teachers if you take my meaning:)

[jalbright]

Been supporting all along:
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Goes in one way or another (contributor or player):
Dickey Pearce
Harry Wright

could support as a combo type:
Al Reach

shaky possibles
Cal McVey
Mickey Welch
Lip Pike
Charley Jones

ballot fillers
Tommy Bond
Mike Tiernan
Fred Dunlap
Bobby Mathews
Jim McCormick

[DoubleX]

Been supporting all along:
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Goes in one way or another (contributor or player):
Dickey Pearce
Harry Wright

could support as a combo type:
Al Reach

shaky possibles
Cal McVey
Mickey Welch
Lip Pike
Charley Jones

ballot fillers
Tommy Bond
Mike Tiernan
Fred Dunlap
Bobby Mathews
Jim McCormick

Jim, Pearce, Wright, and Reach are on the separate pioneers ballot. We're only naming 15 from the 40 person players ballot right now. So could you substitute three more players?

[jalbright]

Jim, Pearce, Wright, and Reach are on the separate pioneers ballot. We're only naming 15 from the 40 person players ballot right now. So could you substitute three more players?

Alright, but it's contributor types or pure ballot filler: Griffin, Hanlon and Commiskey.

[DoubleX]

Alright, but it's contributor types or pure ballot filler: Griffin, Hanlon and Commiskey.

That's fine, just keep in mind that we'll be having a contributors ballot as well.

[jalbright]

I know. Personally, fifteen from that list is too many. Ten would have been more than adequate.

[AG2004]

My list of 15 follows. Players within each category have been listed in alphabetical order.

Catchers
1. Cal McVey

There's not much of an issue here.

2B/3B/SS

1. Levi Meyerle
2. Hardy Richardson
3. Ezra Sutton
4. Ned Williamson

Sutton and Richardson are easy choices. Meyerle was great during the NA years, but his career was short, with just nine seasons at the top level of play (1869-1877). 1884 doesn't count, as the UA was a farce. I had voted for Ferguson in the early years, but he doesn't meet HOF standards without extra credit as head of the NA and inventor of switch hitting. He would be better off as a contributor.

Season-adjusted win share lines for some players follow: Lyons, 205-82-127; Williamson, 245-81-109; McKean, 240-77-105; Dunlap, 197-82-129. Dunlap gets a discount for his play in 1884. His career was short, and he had only four seasons with at least 20 win shares after schedule length adjustments and the UA discount. Lyons has very low career value.

McKean's case would be better if he weren't the worst defensive shortstop to ever play 5000 innings at the position. He had 3.28 DWS per 1000 innings at the position, and that's bad. (Phil Lewis was worse, but he lasted just four seasons.) Furthermore, McKean was only the fifth best shorstop of the 1890s. Williamson, on the other hand, was highly regarded. When the 1894 Reach Guide listed old-timers' comments on the best base ball player ever, Williamson led with 2.5 votes out of 11. I'll take him above McKean.

First Basemen/Outfielders
1. Mike Griffin
2. Charley Jones
3. Tip O'Neill
4. Lip Pike
5. Joe Start
6. Mike Tiernan

Start is the best player on the entire ballot, and the only first baseman here. Each of the five outfielders listed here has an argument for being better than Thompson, so all of them make the cut. I can't see any other listed outfielder as getting close to the Thompson line.

Pitchers
1. Tommy Bond
2. Dave Foutz
3. Jim McCormick
4. Mickey Welch

Bond had a short career, but his win share peak is equal to the peaks of our 1880s pitchers. Furthermore, the peak may understate his ability, as we have no win share numbers for 1875, when Bond's ERA+ was 162, and the short seasons limited the number of times that Bond could pitch. There were many pitchers of the 1880s who appeared in over 60 games per season; since the 1877 and 1878 seasons were just 60 games long, Bond's totals were therefore limited.

McCormick and Welch both have high career win shares totals. Their peaks are comparable to those of all the remaining candidates except Silver King, so they get in. (McCormick loses some of his peak due to the UA discount.)

Foutz' win share line is 292-138-199; King's, 263-159-216. However, when Foutz moved to Brooklyn, he was a part-time pitcher during his first season, and was a position player afterwards. That first year in Brooklyn was his fifth in the majors, so Foutz' run of five best seasons can only include 4.5 as a pitcher. I don't know why Foutz' debut in the majors came at such a late age; it is possible there are undocumented years before that, but I can't give him credit for pre-MLB play.

Taking that positional shift into account closes the gap in five-year peaks. The difference between the two players comes down to Foutz' extra career value against King's one monster season. I'll take Foutz.

Williamson edged out Silver King for the fifteenth position overall. I wish I could have supported more infielders here, but the 1880s was a poor decade for great players at second, third, or short. As many more came along in the 1890s, I would expect more infielders to make my first-round ballot in the 1925 and 1930 elections.

[DoubleX]

Still waiting on Classic, philkid, and Windy City Fan, to get their ballots in. As soon as they do we'll have the final player voting as well as the pioneer voting.

Through 9 ballots though, here are the totals (everyone who receives at least 50% support/6 votes, will be on the final ballot):

Jim McCormick - 9
Cal McVey - 9
Lip Pike - 9
Hardy Richardson - 9
Mike Tiernan - 9
Mickey Welch - 9
Charley Jones - 8
Joe Start - 8
Ezra Sutton - 8
Tommy Bond - 7
Ned Williamson - 6

Ed McKean - 5
Levi Meyerle - 5
Fred Dunlap - 4
Mike Griffin - 4
Denny Lyons - 4
Tip O'Neill - 4
Dave Foutz - 3
Bobby Matthews - 3
Dave Orr - 3

Silver King - 2
Charlie Buffinton - 1
Charlie Comiskey - 1
Larry Corcoran - 1
Bob Ferguson - 1
Ned Hanlon - 1
Arlie Latham - 1
Will White - 1

[Windy City Fan]

Bobby Matthews
Tommy McCarthy
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Mickey Welch
Charlie Comiskey
Larry Corcoran
Charley Jones
Tip O'Neill

[Brad Harris]

Tommy Bond
Fred Dunlap
Mike Griffin
Charley Jones - definite vote
Denny Lyons
Bobby Matthews
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey - definite vote
Dave Orr
Lip Pike - definite vote
Hardy Richardson - definite vote
Joe Start - definite vote
Ezra Sutton - definite vote
Mike Tiernan
Ned Williamson

[philkid3]

It was very hard to expand this to 15, but here we go:

Tommy Bond
Charlie Comiskey
Fred Dunlap
Charley Jones
Silver King
Denny Lyons
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Ned Williamson

[DoubleX]

It was very hard to expand this to 15, but here we go:

15 was more of a forward looking number. I'm assuming down the road, we'll have a much more competitive pool of players to pick from.

I think that's every now. I'll post the final ballot tomorrow. It will consist of everyone who was named on at least 50% of the first round ballots.

[DoubleX]

We're ready for final voting. It's a simple yes/no vote, no limit on how many players you may vote for, and anyone with at least 75% support will be elected.

From our original players ballot, every player who was named on at least half the ballots is on the final ballot (in parentheses is how many votes they received in the first round):

Final Players Ballot
Tommy Bond (10)
Fred Dunlap (6)
Charley Jones (11)
Denny Lyons (6)
Jim McCormick (12)
Ed McKean (6)
Cal McVey (12)
Lip Pike (12)
Hardy Richardson (12)
Joe Start (11)
Ezra Sutton (11)
Mike Tiernan (12)
Mickey Welch (11)
Ned Williamson (8)

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Asa Brainard
Bill Craver
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Cherokee Fisher
Wes Fisler
George Hall
Andy Leonard
Fergy Malone
Dick McBride
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Charlie Smith
Jimmy Wood
Harry Wright
George Zettlein

And just for completeness, here are the full results from the first round for the players:

12 Votes: Jim McCormick, Cal McVey, Lip Pike, Hardy Richardson, Mike Tiernan

11 Votes: Charley Jones, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Mickey Welch

10 Votes: Tommy Bond

8 Votes: Ned Williamson

6 Votes: Fred Dunlap, Denny Lyons, Ed McKean

5 Votes: Mike Griffin, Bobby Mathews, Levi Meyerle, Tip O'Neill

4 Votes: Dave Orr

3 Votes: Charlie Comiskey, Silver King

2 Votes: Larry Corcoran, Bob Ferguson, Dave Foutz

1 Vote: Charlie Buffinton, Ned Hanlon, Arlie Latham, Will White

[jalbright]

So, are we voting in this thread? If so, here's my initial take:

Final Players Ballot
Tommy Bond (10)
Fred Dunlap (6)
Charley Jones (11)--close, but a shortish career
Denny Lyons (6)
Jim McCormick (12)
Ed McKean (6)
Cal McVey (12)--close, but a voluntarily shortened career.
Lip Pike (12)--short career hurts
Hardy Richardson (12)--yes
Joe Start (11)--yes
Ezra Sutton (11)--yes
Mike Tiernan (12)
Mickey Welch (11)--we've been through this one.
Ned Williamson (8)

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Asa Brainard
Bill Craver
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Cherokee Fisher
Wes Fisler
George Hall
Andy Leonard
Fergy Malone
Dick McBride
Dickey Pearce--yes
Al Reach--I think of him more as a contributor, but I think I could support him either way
Charlie Smith
Jimmy Wood
Harry Wright--I think of him more as a contributor, but he belongs one way or another
George Zettlein

Only those with an explicit yes get my vote, but I'll listen to presentations for others. For those without comments, I haven't seen enough to really put them on my radar. That may be because the case is weak IMO, or simply because I have missed something. I'd say most are in the former category, but there could be some in the latter.

[BlueBlood]

Final Players Ballot
Jim McCormick
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Dickey Pearce

I'm open to persuasion regarding Cal McVey. More information regarding the quality of his early years could put him over the top.

I believe Cummings' story that he invented the curveball as his SABR biography outlines this pretty well. Now, it might have been invented a little after him by someone else that hadn't heard of Cummings' invention, but I really think he does have a strong claim to this pioneer attribute.

Pike was one of the best players in baseball before the organization of the formal leagues in 1871 and he was great after that.

Richardson, Start & Sutton are all no-brainers. Their peaks were strong and they all had lengthy careers at their position. All are arguably the best at their position of their era.

McCormick is just narrowly over my pitching line but I'm not going to stress him too much either way. There's no real argument for him other than the stats themselves, so it depends what metrics help get a pitcher in or keep them out of your personal Hall.

[leecemark]

Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mickey Welch

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Dickey Pearce


--Reach and Wright I'll vote for as contributors next time we meet. Their playing careers don't get it done for me though. I would suggest that if Pearce is the only man to be elected in this "pioneer player process" that we simplify things by listing him as simply a player. A separate category
for one man isn't going to make much sense.

[DoubleX]

So, are we voting in this thread? If so, here's my initial take:

Yes, voting here. So I take it this is not your official vote?

--Reach and Wright I'll vote for as contributors next time we meet. Their playing careers don't get it done for me though. I would suggest that if Pearce is the only man to be elected in this "pioneer player process" that we simplify things by listing him as simply a player. A separate category for one man isn't going to make much sense.

If Pearce is the only one to be elected from this group, then I agree, we'll drop the distinction. Depending how this election plays out, this may be the only one where we'll have a separation pioneer ballot, and in future we'll just include any pioneers with contributors.

[Windy City Fan]

I think it would be wise for us to take time to discuss or at least examine each player on the ballot closely before casting our final ballots. We're in no hurry since these elections take place every 5 "years". So since we have no major time constraints and a relatively small ballot to consider, we can take a closer look at each player's case.

We could each do a post on one or two players on the ballot with their best case argument for the hall and debate it from there. I'd be happy to post for Lip Pike and/or Cal McVey if others are willing to take on some of the other players on the ballot.

[leecemark]

--The players at least of been discussed at length already. I'm certainly willing to put forth a little justification for the players I am voting for though and am willing to listen on the others.
--Ezra Sutton was the best 3B of the first 2 decades of major league baseball. In 18 seasons he put up a 119 OPS+. Perhaps never a real superstar, but many seasons at an al star level. I supported him for most of the time in was on the ballot and definately support him now. He is easily within established standards for our Hall and would be a strong represenative at at underepresented position.
--Cal McVey was one of the greatest hitters of the 1870s. He led the league in OPS once and was top 4 five other times - finishing with a 152 OPS+. McVey was versatile enough to play wherever his teams needed him, serving regularly at catcher, 1B, 3B and the outfield in various seasons - and even pitching (although not very successfully) when called upon.
--Although only 21 when the NA was formed, McVey was already an established star. He was a member of the original Red Stockings at 19 and posted a 177 OPS+ inhis "rookie" season in the 1971 NA. He has to get some credit for that pre-NA play. McVey left the NL after 1879 and moved to California where he served as player-manager of at least one team. Details are scetchy on his post-NL career, but he deserves at least some minimal consideration. He was definately still a star when he moved west.
--Although 29 when the NA was formed Joe start had a long career as a good player. he woldn't make the grade based solely on his NA/NL record, but he was one of the gae's biggest stars in the mid-late 1860s. That alone wouldn't get my vote either, but the combination makes for a compelling candidate.
--Hardy Richardson didn't have the peak of Ross Barnes or the career of Bid McPhee - but he did have a much higher peak than McPhee and a significantly longer career than Barnes. Old True Blue ranks as the 3rd best 2B of the 19th century, just ahead of Cupid Childs, for me. He was on and off my ballot in the general election several times, but based on our established standards is now a glarign ommission.
--Lip Pike was one of the great hitters of the NA - 4 times finishing 2nd in OPS and 4th another time. Like Start, Pike was an established stat before the NA formed -and he leaves a stronger, if shorter record in organized ball to confirm it. Pike was also widely regarded as the fastest man in baseball. He is clearly superior to VanHaltren/Duffy. With minimal consideration for his play in the 60s he is a better hitter than Thompson and Browning (and a better fielder as well).
--Dickey Pearce was even more highly regarded as a player than Start and Pike in the 1860s. At a time with defense was probably - and rightly considering conditions - regarded as highly as hitter Pearce was famed as a defensive wizard. He "invented" the modern SS position. Moving in from a rover spot similar to the 10th man in slow pitch softball to become the key man in the infield. He is also given credit for inventing the bunt. I don't know whether he was really the first to do either of those things, but he was apparently the man who popularized them anyway.
--Mickey Welch was a good pitcher for a pretty long time and won 300 games :).

[DoubleX]

I think it would be wise for us to take time to discuss or at least examine each player on the ballot closely before casting our final ballots. We're in no hurry since these elections take place every 5 "years". So since we have no major time constraints and a relatively small ballot to consider, we can take a closer look at each player's case.

We could each do a post on one or two players on the ballot with their best case argument for the hall and debate it from there. I'd be happy to post for Lip Pike and/or Cal McVey if others are willing to take on some of the other players on the ballot.

I do think that's a good idea, but the election has been going for several days, and the preliminary thread to create a master ballot was started a couple of weeks ago. Ideally, the discussion would occur while we're putting together the master ballot and then through the first round of voting.

This is also the guinea pig of this process. Hopefully things will be a little more streamlined and clear next time. I envision that this will be a three step process:

1) I'll post a suggested list of players and give at least a few days for suggested additions. The product will be the master ballot (I'm thinking as the pool of players expands, I'll probably cap the master ballot at 50 or 60 players).

2) We have our first round vote with each of us listing our top 15 players. All players appearing on at least half the ballots will be on the final ballot.

3) We have our final vote and any player with at least 75% support is elected.

[jalbright]

Yes, voting here. So I take it this is not your official vote?

If I can change it, it is. If not, then, no, it isn't. I figure you want to allow for changes to foster discussion, but that's an assumption on my part.

[DoubleX]

If I can change it, it is. If not, then, no, it isn't. I figure you want to allow for changes to foster discussion, but that's an assumption on my part.

Changes are fine, as long as people keep me posted as to their changes. I was confused because it seemed unclear as to whether or not you were actually voting for some of the players, as you seemed to be leaving the door open on a few.

It would actually make things a little easier for me that when people are submitting their "official" vote, they simply list who they are supporting.

[BlueBlood]

I might not keep my votes for Al Reach or Harry Wright in the pioneer players category. I support them more as contributors and actually would hope that this category disappears after this election. Pioneer players reflect those that brought about crucial new elements to the game or were some of the absolute best in baseball pre-1871. Having the special category this time around is fine because it gives these players more of a chance since their contributions and playing quality aren't as well documented. However, future elections will deem the category itself completely useless since we'd be talking about the same pool of players in 1925, and frankly, if they aren't elected this time by us, I'm not sure what would change afterward since, again, they're weighted not on a statistical basis, so it's pretty cut & dry.

I agree that anyone inducted via this field should have full player designation and be lumped in with the other player inductees. This is a special one-time process that should disappear entirely soon after. Think of it as a temporary detour to the same destination.

Also, for contributors, can we divide them up into the following categories?

Contributors
Managers
Owners

I don't mind having the same ballot used for all of them, but they should be given different designations for reference's sake.

[jjpm74]

I'd like a separate thread for the final vote, please. This thread's too confusing.

[DoubleX]

I'd like a separate thread for the final vote, please. This thread's too confusing.

I think we already have enough threads.

So far just two ballots have been submitted, we need 10 more (including mine).

[Brad Harris]

Final Players Ballot
Charley Jones
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Harry Wright

[jjpm74]

I think we already have enough threads.

So far just two ballots have been submitted, we need 10 more (including mine).

It'd help if you posted the final ballot.

[leecemark]

see post 34

[jjpm74]

My ballot:

Tommy Bond (10) No
Fred Dunlap (6) No
Charley Jones (11) Yes
Denny Lyons (6) No
Jim McCormick (12) Yes
Ed McKean (6) Yes
Cal McVey (12) Yes
Lip Pike (12) Yes
Hardy Richardson (12) Yes
Joe Start (11) Yes
Ezra Sutton (11) Yes
Mike Tiernan (12) Yes
Mickey Welch (11) Yes
Ned Williamson (8) No

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Asa Brainard No
Bill Craver No
Jim Creighton Yes
Candy Cummings Yes
Cherokee Fisher No
Wes Fisler No
George Hall No
Andy Leonard No
Fergy Malone No
Dick McBride Yes
Dickey Pearce Yes
Al Reach Yes
Charlie Smith No
Jimmy Wood No
Harry Wright Yes
George Zettlein No

[jalbright]

I'm open to some changes, but here's what I've got right now:

Richardson
Start
Sutton
======================
Pearce

[philkid3]

I should be comfortable with my ballot by the time the playoffs are done today.

[dgarza]

Players Ballot
Tommy Bond
Charley Jones
Denny Lyons
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch


Pioneer-Players Ballot
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Harry Wright

[AG2004]

My ballots

PLAYERS
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

My test for players: Do I clearly prefer the player in question to both Thompson and Beckley? If I have doubts, I'll leave the player off the ballot.

PIONEERS
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Dick McBride
Dickey Pearce

Creighton changed the sport's main battle from one between the hitter and the fielder to one between the hitter and the pitcher. His play in the Excelsiors' east coast tour in 1860 helped to spread the game. Although a ballclub had existed in Philadelphia prior to that date, it had played the Massachusetts game; Creighton's performance led it to adopt the New York game instead. He also invented the "speedball" and the "dew-drop," or changeup.

Cummings, more likely than not, invented the curveball. Without a doubt, he introduced it to high-level baseball. [The SABR biography of Cummings was key to my adopting this position.]

McBride? Reach has been listed on some ballots, but, looking at the records we have from the late 1860s, McBride was the offensive leader on those Philadelphia clubs. He also had a lot of value as a pitcher. He had faded some by the time the NA started, but he did have a lengthy career as a pitcher of that era. The offense-defense combination gets him in here.

Pearce really doesn't need a comment.

Al Reach and Harry Wright deserve induction as contributors; their records as players aren't that impressive.

[DoubleX]

My ballot:

Players
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch

I really struggled on Jones, but ultimately, he just missed.


Pioneer-Players
Dickey Pearce

EDIT: Given the decision to in future incorporate pioneer-players as contributors, rather than a sub-set of players, I have removed Creighton from my ballot. Pearce is the only one I really felt comfortable giving a players distinction (as discussed above, players elected via the pioneers/players ballot will be listed as players). There are others I'd likely vote for under a contributor distinction (and that seems to be the direction we're going with them).

[jjpm74]

For those of you only voting for Dickey Pearce under the pioneer ballot, are you taking the climate and attitude of the era into consideration? There are two others who were considered legends in this time: Jim Creighton and Candy Cummings. League quality was very primitive in this era, so we should be going more on impact than actual statistical analysis especially since for every 1 game statistics were counted for, these players played about 6 or 7 that weren't. The era was one of barnstorming and going where the money was. Not on compiling statistics. Statistically, Pearce outshined everyone in this era, but what does that mean, exactly? It was an amateur era; the type of game being played wasn't even established yet, let alone any significant rules.

Jim Creighton stood out against all others as the pitcher who defined the role of pitcher. Before him, the game was one of fielder vs. hitter. It wasn't until he established a snap throw (fast ball) and primitive curve ball that someone who could be called a specialized pitcher would exist in the game. For this reason, he defined the role of pitcher, hence the idea of pioneer. Career length is a modern bias that shouldn't be considered here. Only a small handful of people had the money and good fortune to play base ball for more than a few years in this era.

Candy Cummings was a pitcher who at the time was believed to have developed a pitch that significantly changed baseball forever. Hence, the pioneer status.

Dickey Pearce and Joe Start were supposedly great players, but they were great in an era when very few people were considering making a career out of any type of sport, let alone one that was still in its infancy. Joe Start should be rewarded more for his longevity, but he also fits as a pioneer to a degree in that he established modern positioning for first basemen.

[jjpm74]

Pearce is the only one I really felt comfortable giving a players distinction. There are others I'd likely vote for under a contributor distinction (and that seems to be the direction we're going with them).

Pioneers are people who were the first to do something. Creighton, Cummings, Start all were the first at something significant on the playing field. They are pioneers. not contributors.

[DoubleX]

Pioneers are people who were the first to do something. Creighton, Cummings, Start all were the first at something significant on the playing field. They are pioneers. not contributors.

Umm, that's really not how I see it all. I see the pioneer more as players during the very early years of the professional game and were part of the proliferation of the game. Plus, as discussed above and first suggested by Leecemark I believe, people elected as pioneer players will simply have a players distinction when elected, thus emphasizing the playing aspects over the innovative aspects of their careers. Moreover, under the way you've described it, I don't see why they can't be described as contributors, as if their claim to fame is being the first something significant on the playing field, that would seem to better under a contributor designation. I've talked with Classic on this, and we've both agreed that likely starting with the next election, the remaining pioneers will be put into the contributors pile. I think that's perfectly fine as there is no one type of contributor.

I admit though, I should have voted for Jim Creighton and I've added him to my ballot.

[jjpm74]

Umm, that's really not how I see it all. I see the pioneer more as players during the very early years of the professional game and were part of the proliferation of the game. Moreover, under the way you've described it, I don't see why they can't be described as contributors, as if their claim to fame is being the first something significant on the playing field, that would seem to better under a contributor designation. I've talked with Classic on this, and we've both agreed that likely starting with the next election, the remaining pioneers will be put into the contributors pile. I think that's perfectly fine as there is no one type of contributor.

I admit though, I should have voted for Jim Creighton and I've added him to my ballot.

Why don't we just do that this election? There seems to be a great deal of confusion over what a pioneer is. By definition, it is someone who did something first/defined something for future generations. The designation has little to nothing to do with playing early baseball (which was very primitive by even 1870s standards) or contributing outside of that one distinction.

[DoubleX]

Why don't we just do that this election? There seems to be a great deal of confusion over what a pioneer is. By definition, it is someone who did something first/defined something for future generations. The designation has little to nothing to do with playing early baseball (which was very primitive by even 1870s standards) or contributing outside of that one distinction.

They're listed as Pioneer-Players on the ballot, so you'd have notice right then, plus the discussion earlier to list anyone elected through that ballot as players. It's an imperfect process with kinks to be worked out, this might be one of them.

[leecemark]

--Creighton was dead at 21. Its virtually impossible for him to have put up a Hall of Fame career at such a young age. Would you vote for Doc Gooden if he had dropped dead in 1986?

[BlueBlood]

My ballot (post #36) has just been modified. I have removed Wright & Reach as I seem them more fit to be elected into the Contributor's wing rather than as players.

[jjpm74]

Double post

[jjpm74]

--Creighton was dead at 21. Its virtually impossible for him to have put up a Hall of Fame career at such a young age. Would you vote for Doc Gooden if he had dropped dead in 1986?

Nathan Hale was hanged at age 21 and today is hailed as a national hero. What does Creighton's age or the length of his career have to do with anything? Creighton was baseball's first superstar. As such, he more than deserves a place in Cooperstown as a pioneer of the game. What did Doc Gooden do that made him a pioneer of the game? You listed Larry Doby early in another project and cited his pioneer status as a reason. Would you have considered him important had he spent his pre-MLB years in the minor leagues instead of the Negro Leagues?

[leecemark]

--The "pioneer-player" category is basically a backdoor to consider players whose best years (or in some cases entire careers) were prior to 1871, the cutoff for players considered in our general elections. Creighton absolutely does not have the accomplishments to make it as a player. If you want to make a case for him as a contributor - non-laying status - next time we meet then I'll be willing to listen.
--Of course that is probematic as well since he didn't do anything off the field worth considering. He was an exciting and talented young player who was the best pitcher in the game for a couple years. That is basically what Gooden was - against vastly better competition. Neither is a Hall of Famer based on that.

[jjpm74]

--The "pioneer-player" category is basically a backdoor to consider players whose best years (or in some cases entire careers) were prior to 1871, the cutoff for players considered in our general elections. Creighton absolutely does not have the accomplishments to make it as a player. If you want to make a case for him as a contributor - non-laying status - next time we meet then I'll be willing to listen.

I already made my case for him. I was hoping people would approach this end of the project with an open mind and that we'd end up with something closer to what the Japanese Hall of Fame is like instead of just having everyone push the same candidates they do in every single project. That's not going to happen with people attempting to use virtually non-existent statistics to try to weigh the playing careers of amateurs and barn stormers. If we're honestly attempting to compare players from this era to later eras and looking at their playing careers with no regard for context or league quality, or their impact on the game, please state that so I can go back and change all my pioneer players that are yes's to no's. :rolleyes:

[leecemark]

--I'm not using stats of any kind here - unless age is a stat. I am simply saying that Creighton was a player and did not contrubute anything outside the lines. Nobody can accomplish enough as a player by the age of 21 to have a Hall of Fame career. They simply don't have enough time to do so.
--I wonder how much Creighton's fame is actually based on his early death - from an injury suffered on the ballfield. Playing in a time where there were stats it us easy to for such a man to go from great player to legend to mythological figure. All we have are stories and those tales no doubt grew taller with time. Perhaps that IS enough to make him worhty of our hall, but I'm not able to make such a leap at this time.

[Paul Wendt]

(Please count this ballot if I don't get back before the unk deadline.)

Final Players Ballot
Fred Dunlap (6)
Charley Jones (11)

Cal McVey (12)
Lip Pike (12)
Hardy Richardson (12)
Joe Start (11)
Ezra Sutton (11)
Mike Tiernan (12)
Mickey Welch (11)
Ned Williamson (8)

Final Pioneer-Players Ballot
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings

Dick McBride
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach

Jimmy Wood

[philkid3]

Players
Charley Jones
Ed McKean
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch

Pioneers
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Dickey Pierce
Harry Wright

[Windy City Fan]

As it stands now, I'm definately voting for Start, Pike, McVey, and Welch.

I know by our "expanded standards" Sutton, McKean, Jones, and Richardson are easily worthy of election, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the "expanded standards". Part of me says its still early in the process and we can still tighten up our standards a bit. I also think that the bottom rung players were elected without my support, so future marginal candidates can get in without my support as well.

[jjpm74]

As it stands now, I'm definately voting for Start, Pike, McVey, and Welch.

I know by our "expanded standards" Sutton, McKean, Jones, and Richardson are easily worthy of election, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the "expanded standards". Part of me says its still early in the process and we can still tighten up our standards a bit. I also think that the bottom rung players were elected without my support, so future marginal candidates can get in without my support as well.

I see no mention of any pioneer-players. If you're looking for more info on them, Creighton can use your support for reasons I outlined in above posts.

[DoubleX]

I know by our "expanded standards" Sutton, McKean, Jones, and Richardson are easily worthy of election, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the "expanded standards". Part of me says its still early in the process and we can still tighten up our standards a bit. I also think that the bottom rung players were elected without my support, so future marginal candidates can get in without my support as well.

Fair enough, but I'd ask you reconsider on at least Sutton. It's now 1921, we're looking back on 50 years of baseball history and we've elected just one 3Bman to represent half a century of baseball, and no one who played exclusively in the 19th Century. Until Collins came around, Sutton was the best, and other than Frank Baker and maybe Heinie Groh, I don't know if there's been anyone else better than Sutton, particularly from that first 30 year window.

[Freakshow]

Tommy Bond (10)
Charley Jones (11)
Jim McCormick (12)
Cal McVey (12)
Lip Pike (12)
Hardy Richardson (12)
Joe Start (11)
Ezra Sutton (11)
Mike Tiernan (12)
Mickey Welch (11)
Ned Williamson (8)

Jim Creighton
Dick McBride
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Harry Wright

[AG2004]

--I'm not using stats of any kind here - unless age is a stat. I am simply saying that Creighton was a player and did not contrubute anything outside the lines. Nobody can accomplish enough as a player by the age of 21 to have a Hall of Fame career. They simply don't have enough time to do so.
--I wonder how much Creighton's fame is actually based on his early death - from an injury suffered on the ballfield. Playing in a time where there were stats it us easy to for such a man to go from great player to legend to mythological figure. All we have are stories and those tales no doubt grew taller with time. Perhaps that IS enough to make him worhty of our hall, but I'm not able to make such a leap at this time.

For the record, Creighton's fame was increased by his death, but he was already well-known by that time. I admit the career totals are not there, but that's not the primary reason I voted for him.

Creighton invented the fastball and changeup pitches. Furthermore, by introducing the wrist snap, Creighton turned the pitcher into a major factor in the game. Those innovations within the field of play had a gigantic impact, and that's why I'm voting for him.

-----
OOC note from 2008: John Thorn wrote a biography of Creighton for SABR's Baseball Biography Project. It can be found at:

http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=16900&bid=770

I'll quote the first two paragraphs below:


James Creighton was the greatest pitcher of his day. Famous principally for his exploits on behalf of the champion Excelsiors of Brooklyn in the years 1860 to 1862, he possessed an unprecedented combination of speed, spin and command that virtually defined the position for all those who followed. Prior to Creighton, pitchers had been constrained by the rule that "the ball must be pitched, not thrown, for the bat." This meant that (a) the ball had to be delivered underhand, in the stiff-armed, stiff-wristed manner borrowed from cricket's early days and (b), in the absence of called strikes, an innovation of 1858, or called balls, which came into the game six years later, the ball had to be placed at the batter's pleasure: the infant game of baseball was designed to display and reward its most difficult skill, which was neither pitching nor batting, but fielding.

The 1850s did produce some pitchers who tried to deceive batters with "headwork"-which meant changing arcs and speeds, and sometimes bowling wide ones until the frustrated batter lunged at a pitch. (The latter tactic produced such incredible, documented pitch totals as that in the second Atlantic-Excelsior game of 1860, when the Atlantics' Matty O'Brien threw 325 pitches in nine innings, Creighton 280 in seven.) On balance, however, the pioneer pitcher and batter were collaborators in putting the ball in play rather than the mortal adversaries they have been ever since Creighton added an illegal but imperceptible wrist snap to his swooping low release.

That's an important change in the game, and Creighton deserves credit for his pioneering role in making the change.

[Paul Wendt]

John Thorn is also a good source on Dock Adams (as he spells it).

John Thorn, "Doc Adams (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=639&pid=16943)" (SABR Bioproject)
John Thorn, "Four Fathers of Baseball (http://thornpricks.blogspot.com/2005/07/four-fathers-of-baseball.html)" (Thorn Pricks)

[jalbright]

AG2004 posted this:

For the record, Creighton's fame was increased by his death, but he was already well-known by that time. I admit the career totals are not there, but that's not the primary reason I voted for him.

Creighton invented the fastball and changeup pitches. Furthermore, by introducing the wrist snap, Creighton turned the pitcher into a major factor in the game. Those innovations within the field of play had a gigantic impact, and that's why I'm voting for him.

-----
OOC note from 2008: John Thorn wrote a biography of Creighton for SABR's Baseball Biography Project. It can be found at:

http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=16900&bid=770

I'll quote the first two paragraphs below:


James Creighton was the greatest pitcher of his day. Famous principally for his exploits on behalf of the champion Excelsiors of Brooklyn in the years 1860 to 1862, he possessed an unprecedented combination of speed, spin and command that virtually defined the position for all those who followed. Prior to Creighton, pitchers had been constrained by the rule that "the ball must be pitched, not thrown, for the bat." This meant that (a) the ball had to be delivered underhand, in the stiff-armed, stiff-wristed manner borrowed from cricket's early days and (b), in the absence of called strikes, an innovation of 1858, or called balls, which came into the game six years later, the ball had to be placed at the batter's pleasure: the infant game of baseball was designed to display and reward its most difficult skill, which was neither pitching nor batting, but fielding.

The 1850s did produce some pitchers who tried to deceive batters with "headwork"-which meant changing arcs and speeds, and sometimes bowling wide ones until the frustrated batter lunged at a pitch. (The latter tactic produced such incredible, documented pitch totals as that in the second Atlantic-Excelsior game of 1860, when the Atlantics' Matty O'Brien threw 325 pitches in nine innings, Creighton 280 in seven.) On balance, however, the pioneer pitcher and batter were collaborators in putting the ball in play rather than the mortal adversaries they have been ever since Creighton added an illegal but imperceptible wrist snap to his swooping low release.

That's an important change in the game, and Creighton deserves credit for his pioneering role in making the change.

To me, that's a nice argument for Creighton as a pioneer, not as a player.

[jjpm74]

To me, that's a nice argument for Creighton as a pioneer, not as a player.

Right, which is the designation of these early baseball people and why he has as many votes as he has.

If we're voting on them as players, none of them deserve election given how primitive baseball was before 1871.

[DoubleX]

So we're just waiting on Windy City Fan and then we'll be done. To remove all the confusion in the future, we will merge pioneers into the contributors ballot.

The pioneer-player distinction was meant to be something of a compromise as people had expressed dissatisfaction that we were not considering playing careers of pre-1871 players (most notably Dickey Pearce). It was my preference all along to consider them as contributors due to the developing nature of the game during that time, but somewhere along the line, I felt like there was sentiment to put these players in a different context. That seems to be a major point of contention now, so hopefully all the confusion will be gone by just labeling all of these people contributors in the future. They will just be another breed of contributors, just as there are managers, executives, writers, and innovators, there will also be pioneer players.

[leecemark]

--Creighton clearly does not belong as a player and that does not require a league quality (although he wasn't really in a league to begin with) adjustment to determine. He simply did not play long enough. Whether he deserves consideration as a pioneer depends on whether he invented a new pitching style that changed the game - or whether he was simply better at it than anybody else playing at the time.
--Bruce Sutter, for example, is often credited with inventing the split finger fastabll. This is easily proven false. Sutter was simply the first pitcher to make the pitch the cornerstone of his success. If Creighton merely adopted a ptiching style others were experimenting with and did it better than they did he comes up a little short for me. Or maybe he does anyway. Assuming he comes up short this year, I'll be willing to reconsider in 1925

[jjpm74]

--Creighton clearly does not belong as a player and that does not require a league quality (although he wasn't really in a league to begin with) adjustment to determine. He simply did not play long enough. Whether he deserves consideration as a pioneer depends on whether he invented a new pitching style that changed the game - or whether he was simply better at it than anybody else playing at the time.


It seems that most (all?) people arguing his case already agree with this already, so why it it being stated yet again?

[Windy City Fan]

Fair enough, but I'd ask you reconsider on at least Sutton. It's now 1921, we're looking back on 50 years of baseball history and we've elected just one 3Bman to represent half a century of baseball, and no one who played exclusively in the 19th Century. Until Collins came around, Sutton was the best, and other than Frank Baker and maybe Heinie Groh, I don't know if there's been anyone else better than Sutton, particularly from that first 30 year window.

Sutton is the one I've wrestled with the most. Him being the best (or second best depending on how you categorize Deacon White) third baseman from the start of baseball till Jimmy Collins is a compelling reason to look at him, but its not enough to seal the deal for me.

Looking at his stats and the info I could find, he seems like an above average hitter with good hands and average range on the infield. While he comes close, I just can't pull the trigger on him. If someone can present an argument that goes beyond "he was the best third baseman of the 19th century" I am more than willing to reconsider my vote in future elections.

That said, I am voting for...

Players
Joe Start
Lip Pike
Cal McVey
Mickey Welch

Pioneers
Candy Cummings
Dickey Pierce
Harry Wright

[DoubleX]

All the votes are in. A player needed 9 votes to meet the 75% election threshold. Six players met that threshold, plus one pioneer-player. Here are the full results:

Players
Hardy Richardson - 11
Joe Start - 11
Cal McVey - 10
Ezra Sutton - 10
Lip Pike - 9
Mickey Welch - 9

Charley Jones - 7
Mike Tiernan - 7
Jim McCormick - 6
Ed McKean - 4
Tommy Bond - 2
Fred Dunlap - 1
Denny Lyons - 1
Ned Williamson - 1

Pioneer-Players
Dickey Pearce - 12

Jim Creighton - 8
Candy Cummings - 8
Harry Wright - 6
Al Reach - 5
Dick McBride - 4


Couple thoughts: 1) Even though we did elect a large number this time, I do not think that will be a regular occurrence. Given this is our first election, we're probably working with our largest backlog of deserving players, plus, we're also trying to make up for how the regular election standards have evolved. In the future, I anticipate we'll elect more through the regular process and rely on this process less. There's also the fact that some of these players benefited here from having the pre-1871 portions of their careers factored in. Plus, with elections being pretty infrequent, it's not that terrible to elect a number at once. 2) I think the confusion with classifying the pioneer-players explains why just one was elected. In the future, we'll include this group in the contributors ballot.


EDIT: Looking back through the regular elections at players who heldover for at least a year, the following players will be eligible and added to the VC master ballot in 1925:

Nig Cuppy
Duke Farrell
Dummy Hoy
Brickyard Kennedy
Herman Long (if not elected)
Jimmy McAleer
Jimmy Ryan (if not elected)
Wilbert Robinson
Chief Zimmer

Suggested additions are welcome.

[leecemark]

--I think we got all the right guys. Well we got eveybody I voted for and nobody I didn't anyway:happy:.

[jjpm74]

Yay for Lipman Pike! :applaud:

[BlueBlood]

Jim McCormick: 118 ERA+ in 4275 IP
Mickey Welch: 114 ERA+ in 4802 IP

Top 5 ERA+ Seasons - McCormick: 170/134/128/127/123
Top 5 ERA+ Seasons - Welch: 164/141/134/121/114

Just something to keep in mind.

[DoubleX]

Jim McCormick: 118 ERA+ in 4275 IP
Mickey Welch: 114 ERA+ in 4802 IP

Top 5 ERA+ Seasons - McCormick: 170/134/128/127/123
Top 5 ERA+ Seasons - Welch: 164/141/134/121/114

Just something to keep in mind.

I'm actually pretty surprised that Welch made it given some of the resistance he faced while on the regular ballot. He could now be benefiting from our standards being wider than some had originally anticipated. He could also be benefiting from a greater appreciation of reaching 300 wins than we might have had 5-10 years ago.

With Welch and Mullane both in, attention should shift to McCormick. That's part of how the process works, one opens the for another. He didn't fair too badly here, getting 50%, but I have a feeling some of those who aren't supporting him will draw the line at Welch.

Also keep in mind that McCormick's second best ERA+ season was greatly aided by pitching 210 innings in the Union Association with a 211 ERA+. He still managed to pitch 359 innings in the NL that year, but with just a 110 ERA+. If you compare their top 5 NL ERA+ seasons, the comparison looks like this:

McCormick: 170/128/127/123/118; Avg = 133.2; IP = 2195
Welch: 164/141/134/121/114; Avg = 134.8; IP = 2276

The slight edge between ERA+ and IP goes to Welch, but it is extremely close, that with Welch in, McCormick would appear to deserve serious consideration as well. What might set him back though is that Welch did pitch about 530 more innings (though that could be just one season back then), Welch did pitch entirely in the NL and in NY (we've elected a lot of former Giants), and he has a lot more wins. I'm a person who believes that part of what the Hall celebrates are those rare milestones that only a few players reach. Some milestones are hard to achieve, as evidence by the fact that so few achieve them. Sure, some may have been better than others in achieving those milestones, but the fact a player can reach it does say something about that player, IMO. Good longevity and consistency in itself can be a rare feat that sometimes is worth acknowledging.

[jalbright]

With Welch and Mullane both in, attention should shift to McCormick. That's part of how the process works, one opens the for another. He didn't fair too badly here, getting 50%, but I have a feeling some of those who aren't supporting him will draw the line at Welch.

So, the downward spiral should continue? No thanks. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Welch, and I certainly won't change for McCormick. If he's to get in, it will definitely be without any help from me.

[DoubleX]

So, the downward spiral should continue? No thanks. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Welch, and I certainly won't change for McCormick. If he's to get in, it will definitely be without any help from me.

Not saying it should continue, and I expect it won't in this case, but our standards are undeniably evolving as certain players are elected. As that happens, it's often natural to start scrutinizing another player very similar to an elected player. In this case, McCormick leaping from Mullane and Welch.