BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1925 Final

[DoubleX]

This thread is for the final round of voting for 1925. Anyone is free to participate in discussion and submit ballots, but only the 12 members of the VC will be counted. A player must receive at least 75% support to be elected and voters can vote any number of candidates on the ballot.

Ballot
Tommy Bond
Candy Cummings
Fred Dunlap
Dave Foutz
Mike Griffin
Charley Jones
Silver King
Herman Long
Tip O'Neill
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan

[jalbright]

A one name ballot for me: Herman Long

[dgarza]

Once again, we can vote up to how many?

[DoubleX]

Once again, we can vote up to how many?

You can vote for as many as you like here. It's really just a simple yes or no process with each candidate on the final ballot.

[jjpm74]

Tommy Bond--No
Candy Cummings--Yes
Fred Dunlap--No
Dave Foutz--No
Mike Griffin--No
Charley Jones--Yes
Silver King--No
Herman Long--Yes
Tip O'Neill--No
Jim McCormick--Yes
Ed McKean--Yes
Jimmy Ryan--Yes
Mike Tiernan--Yes

[leecemark]

--I also have a one man ballot and it is also Herman Long.
--I could be persuaded on Jimmy Ryan. He is similar enough to Van Haltren and Duffy that I added him to my ballot out of fairness his last couple years on the ballot. I never supported the other two though and would rather regard them as mistakes than standard setters. So Ryan misses out on my vote. None of the others are close enough that there is any chance of swaying me for this years election.

[DoubleX]

My ballot:

Candy Cummings - He had a pretty impressive post-1871 career, with a 120 ERA+ in 2150 IP, combine that with his pre-1871 career and his popularizing of the curveball as a player, and I think it's enough to elect him as a player.

Dave Foutz - Great two way player (pitching and hitting).

Charley Jones - I left him off my ballot last time after really struggling with him, and he ended up being one vote short. He makes my cut this time, barely though.

Jim McCormick - I can see how the line is drawn here, but he's really not too far off from elected contemporaries Mullane and Welch.

Ed McKean - Not quite defensively what you want from a SS, but one of the very best offensive shortstops we've seen thus far, a 114 OPS+ and counting numbers more indicative of a shortstop 20 years later.

Jimmy Ryan - I still don't get how Van Haltren and Duffy were elected and Ryan, who I believe has a good argument for being the best of the three, wasn't. I hope the VC corrects this oversight.

Mike Tiernan - I think he fits in with the standards we've set in the OF.

[dgarza]

You can vote for as many as you like here. It's really just a simple yes or no process with each candidate on the final ballot.Thanks. With so many voting threads going on, I stopped memorizing many things.

[dgarza]

Tommy Bond
Candy Cummings
Charley Jones
Silver King
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Tip O'Neill
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan

[jjpm74]

For those supporting Herman Long but no one else, what makes hims stand out above all these other players?

Long was an excellent defensive player with an average to below average bat. Despite playing in an offensive era and an offense heavy ballpark, he still only managed a 94 OPS+ and his career is on the short side at 13.40 seasons.

What makes him stand out over Charley Jones and Jimmy Ryan, both of which were much more productive with the bat and were good fielders (albeit at positions that weren't as demanding defensively)? Are you placing that much weight in his position?

[DoubleX]

For those supporting Herman Long but no one else, what makes hims stand out above all these other players?

Some of it may have to do with a belief that shortstops are underrepresented in the Hall. That was the case for a while, but I don't believe it is any longer. We've elected 7 shortstops, which is tied with LF and CF for the most elected at any position (not counting pitcher). The middle IF in general is pretty well represented as 2B has 5 representatives, same as 1B and RF. The two positions we've really ignored are C and 3B (especially).

[BlueBlood]

My ballot:

Candy Cummings
Jim McCormick


- Cummings & McCormick need 5 of the remaining 6 ballots in order to be inducted. I encourage everyone to read the SABR bio on Cummings as it puts the facts to light that he really was the guy that first invented the curveball. Think of him as another innovative player inductee like Dickey Pearce. For what it's worth, I think McCormick is much closer to the crop of pitchers we've elected than Ryan is to George Van Haltren or Hugh Duffy. Both have the strongest solely player arguments here.

- Ryan, Jones, Tiernan, McKean & Long now need to appear on all of the remaining 6 ballots in order to be inducted.

- Everybody else is out of the running unless some ballots are edited.


Tally:

Cummings/McCormick - 4 (must be on every remaining ballot excepting one in order to reach 9)
Jones/Long/McKean/Ryan/Tiernan - 3 (must be on every remaining ballot in order to reach 9)
Bond/Foutz/King/O'Neil - 1 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to two changed ballots in order to reach 9)
Dunlap/Griffin - 0 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to three changed ballots in order to reach 9)

[Paul Wendt]

My ballot:

Candy Cummings - He had a pretty impressive post-1871 career, with a 120 ERA+ in 2150 IP, combine that with his pre-1871 career and his popularizing of the curveball as a player, and I think it's enough to elect him as a player.
pre-1872

My ballot
Griffin
Jones
Long
Ryan

[BlueBlood]

Cummings/Jones/Long/McCormick/Ryan - 4 (must be on every remaining ballot in order to reach 9)
McKean/Tiernan - 3 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to one changed ballot in order to reach 9)
Bond/Foutz/King/O'Neil/Griffin - 1 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to three changed ballots in order to reach 9)
Dunlap - 0 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to four changed ballots in order to reach 9)

Down to five honorable men. They all must sweep the rest of the electorate and go 5 for 5.

[jjpm74]

The results of the 1925 Contributor election are official and can be found here:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1350072&postcount=25

[KCGHOST]

Long
McKean
Ryan
Tiernan

[BlueBlood]

Long/Ryan - 5 (must be on every remaining ballot in order to reach 9)
Cummings/Jones/McCormick/McKean/Tiernan - 4 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to a changed ballot in order to reach 9)
McKean/Tiernan - 3 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to two changed ballots in order to reach 9)
Bond/Foutz/King/O'Neil/Griffin - 1 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to four changed ballots in order to reach 9)
Dunlap - 0 (must be on every remaining ballot in addition to five changed ballots in order to reach 9)

Down to two potential inductees. They need to go 4 for 4 though.

[jjpm74]

I honestly don't see it as a big deal if no one gets elected this go around. During the last VC election, there were special circumstances. This go around, no candidate really pops out as a clear oversight by the general voting population. Long and Ryan are close, but neither one is what I'd consider a definite yes, even by 1925 standards.

[philkid3]

Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan

[Windy City Fan]

Cummings
Long

I'm glad it looks like we won't induct Jones, Ryan, or Tiernan. There is no need to hurry and our standard for outfielders is not clear at this point. If Van Haltren and Duffy were the standard, then all 3 would have a case. But at this point, with Ryan rejected and Sheckard failing to get traction by the regular voters, it could be argued that Van Haltren and Duffy were fluke mistakes. I certainly hope the latter is true.

I came real close on McKean but it was hard to get past his good hit, no field reputation at such an important defensive position.

[BlueBlood]

Long now needs to go 2 for 2 in order to be elected. I urge the remaining voters to look at his case when deciding and not add him to your ballot simply so we can say we elected somebody.

[henrich]

Ballot
Herman Long yes
Jim McCormick yes
Jimmy Ryan yes

I keep forgetting but I don't think I'm allowed to vote, if I am able to vote then these would be my 3. If not, how do I get to be a voter? If unable, never mind:)

[Cowtipper]

Tommy Bond - yes
Candy Cummings - yes
Fred Dunlap - no
Dave Foutz - no
Mike Griffin - no
Charley Jones - yes
Silver King - no
Herman Long - yes
Tip O'Neill - no
Jim McCormick - yes
Ed McKean - yes
Jimmy Ryan - yes
Mike Tiernan - no

[DoubleX]

So far 10 of the 12 VC members have voted, and as Blueblood has pointed out, only Herman Long has a shot at election right now. I thought Charley Jones and Jimmy Ryan would have good shots here, as Ryan picked up support from many VC members in the regular election after Duffy and Van Haltren were elected, and Jones came up just 1 vote short in last year's VC. I added him to my ballot this time, so I figured he'd be close again, but I guess some voters have changed their mind. Any reason why one has pulled back from Jones?

I'm going to expand the VC to 15 or 16 for next time to ensure we get enough votes.

[bambambaseball]

My balott:

Tommy Bond
Candy Cummings
Dave Foutz
Mike Griffin
Charley Jones
Herman Long
Jim McCormick
Ed McKean
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan

[Paul Wendt]

So far 10 of the 12 VC members have voted,. . .

I'm going to expand the VC to 15 or 16 for next time to ensure we get enough votes.
IIUC you hope to close the poll sooner, such as after 7 days if at least 12 committee members have weighed in. That is why a bigger committee will help, right?

Note that the number of voters does influence the rigor of the 75% standard.
75% or more means 12 out of 15 (80%) and it also means 12 out of 16 (75%).
Similarly it means 9 out of 11 (82%) and it also means 9 out of 12 (75%).

When the number of ballots cast is a multiple of four, the last one cast can only make the difference in electing someone, never in rejecting someone. In other words, the real effect on the standard is that every fourth ballot --or every fourth increase in the number of voters by one-- makes it easier for a candidate to reach 75%; the next three (not divisible by four) each make it more difficult to reach 75%; and so on.

9 of 11
9 of 12 (much easier than 9 of 11)
10 of 13 (harder)
11 of 14 (harder)
12 of 15 (harder)
12 of 16 (much easier)
13 of 17 (harder)
and so on.

Perhaps the committee size should be 15 (or 14 or 13) but only the first 12 voters count. The 13th, 14th, and 15th, if they do ever cast ballots, do not count.

[jjpm74]

Instead of getting hung up on percentages and super majorities, it's much easier to just make the committee 15 members strong and require a player to appear on 9 votes for election regardless of the number of ballots out of a maximum of 15 are cast within the timeframe of each cycle.

[leecemark]

--9 of 15 would be severely reducing our standards for election.

[jalbright]

Perhaps the committee size should be 15 (or 14 or 13) but only the first 12 voters count. The 13th, 14th, and 15th, if they do ever cast ballots, do not count.

You have many worthy ideas, Paul, but I don't think this is one of them. Doing this would create a rush to vote (so one's vote counts), which 1) stifles discussion, and 2) encourages mistakes which would be avoided by reflection. Those are two big negatives, without much positive that can't be achieved otherwise. If you made it all votes within a week, ten days (at least a week, but pick your interval that size or larger) count, and if we don't get to 12 we'll wait for 12, I could see the point. As stated though, I think it's not what we want.

[Freakshow]

Mike Griffin
Charley Jones
Herman Long
Jim McCormick
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan

[jjpm74]

--9 of 15 would be severely reducing our standards for election.


Not 9 of 15.

15 members

9 for election

1st 12 ballots count

1 week deadline whether or not we got to 12 ballots

It seems silly that there are paricipants who don't ever participate for various reasons when 2-3 people not on the committee seem to enthusiastically want to be a part of the process. It'd ecnourage people to be more attentive to the election and help get things moving as several people seem to really drag their feet during this process and slow the whole thing down.

For the contributors part from here forward:

12 members

2 days discussion/adding new candidates
5 days of voting

Tallying will be done whenever I get to it in the evening on the 7th day (I'm not waiting around until midnight) so participants can edit a million times between the beginning and the end for all I care.

[DoubleX]

We're waiting for one vote (AG2004) and we'll have our 12. henrich has accepted an invitation to join for the next election, and I will invite two more, bringing us to 15 (16 if you count classic, whose spot is secure if and when he returns). We'll go with a quorum rule for both rounds in the future, and 75% of the quorum will be needed for election. The quorum will likely be 12 and I will give a week to vote. I'm confident that at least 12 of 15 of us will vote in a week.

[AG2004]

My ballot:

Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan

I apologize for the delay; I haven't been on the site for the past three days.

[DoubleX]

Here are the results, sorry for not getting this up sooner. 9 votes were needed for election and one player made it - Herman Long:

Herman Long - 9

Jimmy Ryan - 8
Mike Tiernan - 6
Candy Cummings - 5
Charley Jones - 5
Jim McCormick - 5
Ed McKean - 4
Mike Griffin - 2
Dave Foutz - 1
Silver King - 1
Tip O'Neill - 1
Tommy Bond - 1
Fred Dunlap - 0

As I mentioned above, I'm going to look to expand our VC to 15 members and go with a quorum so as to better avoid the possibility that not enough people vote.

[jjpm74]

wrong thread.........