BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1940 Final

[DoubleX]

Below is the final ballot for the 1940 VC Players Election. Voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish with 75% support required to elect a player. Voting will be open for five days, at which point we'll tabulate votes provided we have a quorum consisting of at least 12 of the 17 VC members having voted. Anyone is free to participate in the discussion and submit a ballot but only ballots from the 17 VC members will be counted.

1940 Final Ballot (8)
Gavvy Cravath
Lave Cross
Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jim McCormick
Jimmy Sheckard
Mike Tiernan


PAST RESULTS

Players Elected by Veterans Committee (9)
Herman Long (1925)
Cal McVey (1920)
Dickey Pearce (1920)
Lip Pike (1920)
Hardy Richardson (1920)
Jimmy Ryan (1930)
Joe Start (1920)
Ezra Sutton (1920)
Mickey Welch (1920)

1935 Final Results (14 Ballots Cast, 11 Votes Required for Election (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86576)
1) Clark Griffith: 71.43% (10 Votes)
2) Jimmy Sheckard: 57.14% (8 Votes)
3) Mike Tiernan: 50.00% (7 Votes)
4) Jim McCormick: 42.86% (6 Votes)
5) Charley Jones: 35.71% (5 Votes)
6) Lave Cross: 25.00% (4 Votes)
7) Tommy Bond: 18.75% (3 Votes)
8) Ned Williamson: 14.29% (2 Votes)
9) Jack Chesbro: 0% (0 Votes)

1930 Final Results (15 Ballots Cast, 12 Votes Required for Election (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85439)
1) Jimmy Ryan: 86.67% (12 Votes) - Elected
2) Clark Griffith: 66.67% (10 Votes)
3) Jim McCormick: 40.00% (6 Votes)
t4) Lave Cross: 33.33% (5 Votes)
t4) Charley Jones: 33.33% (5 Votes)
t4) Mike Tiernan: 33.33% (5 Votes)
7) Candy Cummings: 26.67% (4 Votes)
8) Jack Chesbro: 20.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Tommy Bond: 13.33% (2 Votes)
t9) Mike Griffin: 13.33% (2 Votes)
t9) Deacon McGuire: 13.33% (2 Votes)
t9) Ed McKean: 13.33% (2 Votes)
13) Tip O'Neill: 6.67% (1 Vote)

1925 Final Results (12 Ballots Cast, 9 Votes Required for Election (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84636)
1) Herman Long: 75.00% (9 Votes) - Elected
2) Jimmy Ryan: 66.67% (8 Votes)
3) Mike Tiernan: 50.00% (6 Votes)
t4) Candy Cummings: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t4) Charley Jones: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t4) Jim McCormick: 41.67% (5 Votes)
7) Ed McKean: 33.33% (4 Votes)
8) Mike Griffin: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t9) Dave Foutz: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t9) Silver King: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t9) Tommy Bond: 8.33% (1 Vote)
12) Fred Dunlap: 0% (0 Votes)

1920 Final Results (12 Ballots Cast, 9 Votes Required for Election (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
t1) Hardy Richardson: 91.67% (11 Votes) - Elected
t1) Joe Start: 91.67% (11 Votes) - Elected
t2) Cal McVey: 83.33% (10 Votes) - Elected
t2) Ezra Sutton: 83.33% (10 Votes) - Elected
t5) Lip Pike: 75.00% (9 Votes) - Elected
t5) Mickey Welch: 75.00% (9 Votes ) - Elected
t7) Charley Jones: 58.33% (7 Votes)
t7) Mike Tiernan: 58.33% (7 Votes)
9) Jim McCormick: 50.00% (6 Votes)
10) Ed McKean: 33.33% (4 Votes)
11) Tommy Bond: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t12) Fred Dunlap: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t12) Denny Lyons: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t12) Ned Williamson: 8.33% (1 Vote)
*Dickey Pearce - Elected in Separate Pioneer/Player Election

Index of Unelected Players Who Have Appeared on Final Ballot
Player Highest Support Appearances/Eligible Elections Last Appearance
Tommy Bond 18.75% (1935) 4/4 1935
Jack Chesbro 20.00% (1930) 2/2 1935
Lave Cross 33.33% (1930) 2/2 1935
Candy Cummings 41.67% (1925) 2/3* 1930
Fred Dunlap 8.33% (1920) 2/4 1925
Dave Foutz 8.33% (1925) 1/4 1925
Mike Griffin 16.67% (1925) 2/4 1930
Clark Griffith 71.43% (1935) 2/2 1935
Charley Jones 58.33% (1920) 4/4 1935
Silver King 8.33% (1925) 1/4 1925
Denny Lyons 8.33% (1920) 1/4 1920
Jim McCormick 50.00% (1920) 4/4 1935
Deacon McGuire 13.33% (1930) 1/2 1930
Ed McKean 33.3% (1920, 1925) 3/4 1930
Tip O'Neill 6.67% (1930) 1/4 1930
Jimmy Sheckard 57.14% (1935) 1/1 1935
Mike Tiernan 58.33% (1920) 4/4 1935
Ned Williamson 14.29% (1935) 2/4 1935

* Cummings was eligible in the 1920 Pioneer/Player Election

[jalbright]

Clark Griffith
Tommy Leach

[DoubleX]

Griffith came one vote shy last time, so this is probably a good opportunity for someone to make the case for Griffith and get him over the hump.

[jjpm74]

Call this a protest ballot if you like, but I don't think a last second ballot that blocks a guy who consistently had 40-50% of the popular vote over 15 full years but includes a number of questionable nobodys should count:

Chief Bender
Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

I'd really like to know how on earth AG2004 can justify guys like Billy Nash over a candidate who received a good deal of support. :rolleyes:

[dgarza]

Gavvy Cravath
Charley Jones
Jim McCormick
Mike Tiernan

[DoubleX]

Call this a protest ballot if you like, but I don't think a last second ballot that blocks a guy who consistently had 40-50% of the popular vote over 15 full years but includes a number of questionable nobodys should count:

Chief Bender
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

I'd really like to know how on earth AG2004 can justify guys like Billy Nash over a candidate who received a good deal of support. :rolleyes:

I was admittedly frustrated as well by seeing four players getting wiped out in a single blow (especially after I had actually drafted the final election thread), but AG was playing by the rules and was in his right. He did not block Bender all by himself - 15 ballots were submitted and Bender didn't appear on 8 of them, so 7 other voters contributed to Bender not appearing on the final ballot. I actually may have put Bender on my ballot if I didn't still feel compelled to make up for my terrible oversight with Jack Chesbro. But Chesbro too came up one vote shy.

The best thing to do within the system is to make your case for Bender for next time. I won't actually count your protest vote, but simply putting it out there could go a long way to getting Bender attention and sympathy for next time. I'll just treat your listing of Bender as someone you would have voted for if on the ballot.

[KCGHOST]

Griffith
Leach
Sheckard
Tiernan

[leecemark]

Griffith
Leach

--Jimmy Sheckard definately meets the bottom line standard we established for 1890s outfielders. We seem to have tightened the standards some since then though and I prefer to hold the higher line.

[PVNICK]

Cross
Leach
Sheckard
Tiernan

same guys that were getting my vote in the regular election.

[jjpm74]

The best thing to do within the system is to make your case for Bender for next time. I won't actually count your protest vote, but simply putting it out there could go a long way to getting Bender attention and sympathy for next time. I'll just treat your listing of Bender as someone you would have voted for if on the ballot.

My protest vote for Chief Bender is there for the same reason your vote for Jack Chesbro was there in the preliminary round. I honestly doubt I'd vote for him down the line barring a compelling argument in his favor. I don't expect you to count Bender here.

I'm just not sure this 2 tiered approach is the way to go. With the exception of the 1st VC election, more than half of my preliminary ballot has been filler candidates and several are players I wouldn't support in any project. I don't think I'm alone on this. I'm thinking it might make more sense to tighten the restrictions on what makes a player eligible for the VC master list, go with freakshow's idea, or have 1 round of actual voting, then a follow up vote for the 5-10 weakest candidates on the ballot to be removed (number set based on an estimate of how many newbies will be coming onto the ballot the next VC election; maintaining a 25-30 player master list to vote on instead of the current system).

My main reasons for wanting a change are that first off, this approach rrrreeeeaaaallly putz along sloooooowly and prolongs the process way too much given the timeline of the regular election and second off, to eliminate the need to throw a bunch of fluff onto a ballot just to get to 15 names.

[Cowtipper]

Cravath
Griffith
Leach
McCormick

[AG2004]

Call this a protest ballot if you like, but I don't think a last second ballot that blocks a guy who consistently had 40-50% of the popular vote over 15 full years but includes a number of questionable nobodys should count:

. . . .

I'd really like to know how on earth AG2004 can justify guys like Billy Nash over a candidate who received a good deal of support. :rolleyes:

12 of the 15 names on my ballot reached at least 1/3 of the vote, and an additional choice reached 20%.

I'm not sure why Bender received a great deal of support. Let's compare Bender to another AL pitcher of the time.

Bender's win share line: 231-70-100
Pitcher X's win share line: 235-77-114

Bender pitched 3017.0 innings with an ERA+ of 112.
Pitcher X pitched 3041.0 innings with an ERA+ of 113.

Bender finished among the top five in the league in ERA+ once. Pitcher X finished among the top five four times, and, unlike Bender, actually had the best ERA+ in the American League once.

Bender did receive a lot of popular support. Pitcher X did not appear on a single ballot in the VC preliminary round this year.

Pitcher X is Doc White.

----

Nash was the fifteenth person on the list.

After making my usual season-length adjustments, Tinker came out at 258-78-118, with Nash at 245-74-115. Tinker was a career A+ defensive shortstop; Nash was an A-level defensive 3B, but won six win share gold gloves. However, Nash had nine All-Star-type seasons, as opposed to six for Tinker. Furthermore, Nash was also the team captain for a Boston team that won three consecutive pennants. Also, Tinker's career totals include 16 win shares in 1914 and 3 in 1915, when he played in the Federal League. There has to be a little bit of a discount for that. The FL adjustment and the leadership credit for Nash wiped out the difference. It was close, but Nash got the edge.

-----

Let's see. We have a third baseman who is fairly comparable to Joe Tinker, and a pitcher who is fairly comparable to Doc White. How many people here would rank Doc White ahead of Tinker overall?

Not many, I guess.

Thus, one could say that putting Nash on my list of fifteen instead of Bender does make sense. He was fifteenth; Tinker, sixteenth. Bender, like White, wasn't that close to making the cut. That's how I can justify my decision.

[Brad Harris]

I was admittedly frustrated as well by seeing four players getting wiped out in a single blow (especially after I had actually drafted the final election thread), but AG was playing by the rules and was in his right.
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/images/FrankThomas2.jpg
Four with one blow?

[bambambaseball]

Let's see. We have a third baseman who is fairly comparable to Joe Tinker, and a pitcher who is fairly comparable to Doc White. How many people here would rank Doc White ahead of Tinker overall?

The fact that you are even considering voting for guys like Nash and Tinker makes me wonder why DoubleX was so annoyed by my occasional 1st round stretch candidates. :crazy

[DoubleX]

The fact that you are even considering voting for guys like Nash and Tinker makes me wonder why DoubleX was so annoyed by my occasional 1st round stretch candidates. :crazy

Jesse Barnes? Lew Fonseca? Joe Dugan?

I'm just not sure this 2 tiered approach is the way to go. With the exception of the 1st VC election, more than half of my preliminary ballot has been filler candidates and several are players I wouldn't support in any project. I don't think I'm alone on this. I'm thinking it might make more sense to tighten the restrictions on what makes a player eligible for the VC master list, go with freakshow's idea, or have 1 round of actual voting, then a follow up vote for the 5-10 weakest candidates on the ballot to be removed (number set based on an estimate of how many newbies will be coming onto the ballot the next VC election; maintaining a 25-30 player master list to vote on instead of the current system).

My main reasons for wanting a change are that first off, this approach rrrreeeeaaaallly putz along sloooooowly and prolongs the process way too much given the timeline of the regular election and second off, to eliminate the need to throw a bunch of fluff onto a ballot just to get to 15 names.

Perhaps you're right that this system is a little too tedious. I was aiming to be thorough, but perhaps it is unnecessary. So I'm open to ideas. Here's one I have: We'll have one round of voting and I'll be much more discerning in creating the final ballot. First, I'll take the current master ballot and drop everyone who's been on it for more than two elections and never received a vote. That should cut out a good number right away. Second, when adding new players, I'll stop using 1 year holdovers from the regular election as my benchmark and go to at least 2 years, if not 5. That should help keep the number down going forward. We'll see then how big the ballot is, and if it looks to be too large that point, I'll cut down further (such as cutting out everyone who has never received more than 1 or 2 preliminary votes).

[bambambaseball]

Jesse Barnes? Lew Fonseca? Joe Dugan?

How is taking a good player and throwing him a token vote worst then AG2004 comparing Chief Bender to Doc White and voting for Billy Nash! Does that mean I can say no to Jackie Robinson and use a comparison to Denny Lyons as my reason? Id be competly ignoring the fact that Jackie Robinson got a late start and had to endure terrible racist issues, but thats okay. AG2004 by comparing Chief Bender to Doc White did the exact same thing.:debate:

Also, I just looked and zemtech, cowtipper, leecemark, jjpm74 and some others voted for questionible first round guys and that was only looking at a couple of old threads!

[philkid3]

Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Mike Tiernan

A couple players I would have voted for didn't get in.

[jjpm74]

12 of the 15 names on my ballot reached at least 1/3 of the vote, and an additional choice reached 20%.

I'm not sure why Bender received a great deal of support. Let's compare Bender to another AL pitcher of the time.

Bender's win share line: 231-70-100
Pitcher X's win share line: 235-77-114

Bender pitched 3017.0 innings with an ERA+ of 112.
Pitcher X pitched 3041.0 innings with an ERA+ of 113.

Bender finished among the top five in the league in ERA+ once. Pitcher X finished among the top five four times, and, unlike Bender, actually had the best ERA+ in the American League once.

Bender did receive a lot of popular support. Pitcher X did not appear on a single ballot in the VC preliminary round this year.

Pitcher X is Doc White.

----


Did you read the book about Bender or do you just crunch numbers? If you did, you definitely wouldn't be making this comparison. Like I said earlier, I don't care about Bender enough to make a case for him. Just know that by constantly shooting off last second ballots, whether it be because of procrastination, for impact, whatever it is, you are making extra unnecessary work for the people running these projects and that is what I have an issue with more than who you voted for.

[philkid3]

I'm not sure why Bender received a great deal of support.
Not for purely statistical reasons. I have said multiple times Bender doesn't reach my performance baseline.

[jjpm74]

We'll have one round of voting and I'll be much more discerning in creating the final ballot. First, I'll take the current master ballot and drop everyone who's been on it for more than two elections and never received a vote. That should cut out a good number right away. Second, when adding new players, I'll stop using 1 year holdovers from the regular election as my benchmark and go to at least 2 years, if not 5. That should help keep the number down going forward. We'll see then how big the ballot is, and if it looks to be too large that point, I'll cut down further (such as cutting out everyone who has never received more than 1 or 2 preliminary votes).

Sounds like a good plan.

[jalbright]

Just know that by constantly shooting off last second ballots, whether it be because of procrastination, for impact, whatever it is, you are making extra unnecessary work for the people running these projects and that is what I have an issue with more than who you voted for.

Let's not make this personal. We all have our habits, and AG2004 is somebody who, in my experience, has always voted late. He makes no more and no less work than any other voter in any project I've run. I certainly don't always agree with his conclusions, but I find his ballots as well or better thought out than many other participants in these projects. I'm happy to have his participation. Please don't think I'm slighting you, jjpm, as you obviously think through your ballot and bring some badly needed passion to the discussion. I'm equally pleased to have your participation. Please rein in the passion a little to allow others to be who and what they are in terms of habits--which is not in the least to say you can't take issue with the positions/choices of picks made by others.

[jjpm74]

How is taking a good player and throwing him a token vote worst then AG2004 comparing Chief Bender to Doc White and voting for Billy Nash! Does that mean I can say no to Jackie Robinson and use a comparison to Denny Lyons as my reason? Id be competly ignoring the fact that Jackie Robinson got a late start and had to endure terrible racist issues, but thats okay. AG2004 by comparing Chief Bender to Doc White did the exact same thing.:debate:

Yes, Bender did get a late start and had to deal with an element of racism, but nowhere near the magnitude of what Jackie Robinson went through. I do agree that Chief Bender being compared to Doc White is a poor comparison, however given Bender's situation vs. White's.

[DoubleX]

How is taking a good player and throwing him a token vote worst then AG2004 comparing Chief Bender to Doc White and voting for Billy Nash! Does that mean I can say no to Jackie Robinson and use a comparison to Denny Lyons as my reason? Id be competly ignoring the fact that Jackie Robinson got a late start and had to endure terrible racist issues, but thats okay. AG2004 by comparing Chief Bender to Doc White did the exact same thing.:debate:

You're still free to vote for whomever you want, but if they're first year players they'll now need 5% like everyone else. The change in the rule had more to do with being obsolete than with your ballots. The rule was initially put in place to accommodate the large ballots of the first decade or so. That's no longer necessary.

Also, there are good players and there are headscratchers. A vote for someone like Joe Dugan is a headscratcher. It's fine if you want to make a case, but you've had a number of those headscratcher votes without really offering why you thought they were good players. Billy Nash on the other hand was a good player and a decent argument could be made that he was one of the 3 or so best 3Bmen of the 19th Century. That also happens to be a position we've somewhat neglected. So I see a difference in voting for Nash as opposed to say Joe Dugan. If you want to vote for a player like Dugan, that's perfectly fine, but don't be surprised if you get questioned about it. I think the hope for many here is that we can better justify our ballots than the BBWAA can.

As for the Bender/White and Jackie Robinson analogy. I believe AG was comparing Bender to White strictly on statistical terms, and perhaps not surprisingly has received some criticism for that given some feel Bender is deserving of some extra recognition outside of his statistical accomplishments. As for Jackie Robinson, he was a much better player than Bender and would be a worthy Hall of Fame induction based just on statistics without even getting into other issues.

[DoubleX]

Let's not make this personal. We all have our habits, and AG2004 is somebody who, in my experience, has always voted late. He makes no more and no less work than any other voter in any project I've run. I certainly don't always agree with his conclusions, but I find his ballots as well or better thought out than many other participants in these projects. I'm happy to have his participation. Please don't think I'm slighting you, jjpm, as you obviously think through your ballot and bring some badly needed passion to the discussion. I'm equally pleased to have your participation. Please rein in the passion a little to allow others to be who and what they are in terms of habits--which is not in the least to say you can't take issue with the positions/choices of picks made by others.

I agree. We might not all like AG's timing, but it's in his right and in the grand scheme of things his vote has the same magnitude as any other vote. I too appreciate the thought AG puts in and much rather have his thoughtful vote come in near the end than not at all.

[jjpm74]

Also, I just looked and zemtech, cowtipper, leecemark, jjpm74 and some others voted for questionible first round guys and that was only looking at a couple of old threads!

Yes, on a few rare occasions, I did indeed vote for some major stretches, but I always gave a reason why and made it clear that I was not voting for them because I thought they belonged in our HOF. I think that's all anyone asks of you or anyone else who votes for headscratchers. One who I see you've voted for for several years in a row is Lu Blue. What makes him stand out for you? I read his SABR bio and crunched his numbers and couldn't find anything there that would justify pushing him along and possibly into a 4th year on the ballot.

[bambambaseball]

Lu Blue finished in the top 20 in MVP shares 4 times, had 6 all star level seasons, and played a key role in many late games. Hes borderline for me and is the 1st to go if someone better comes along and no one on this years balott gets elected.

[bambambaseball]

You're still free to vote for whomever you want, but if they're first year players they'll now need 5% like everyone else. The change in the rule had more to do with being obsolete than with your ballots. The rule was initially put in place to accommodate the large ballots of the first decade or so. That's no longer necessary.

Also, there are good players and there are headscratchers. A vote for someone like Joe Dugan is a headscratcher. It's fine if you want to make a case, but you've had a number of those headscratcher votes without really offering why you thought they were good players. Billy Nash on the other hand was a good player and a decent argument could be made that he was one of the 3 or so best 3Bmen of the 19th Century. That also happens to be a position we've somewhat neglected. So I see a difference in voting for Nash as opposed to say Joe Dugan. If you want to vote for a player like Dugan, that's perfectly fine, but don't be surprised if you get questioned about it. I think the hope for many here is that we can better justify our ballots than the BBWAA can.


Ill try to talk more about the folks Im voting for. I didnt do that when I first joined because my written English sucked. It wasnt because I didnt want to. Now that Ive gotten better at it, I am trying to participate more.

[DoubleX]

Ill try to talk more about the folks Im voting for. I didnt do that when I first joined because my written English sucked. It wasnt because I didnt want to. Now that Ive gotten better at it, I am trying to participate more.

No one will begrudge that and you shouldn't worry, you're already much more communicative and clear than a lot of people who post. And please don't take personally any criticism of your choices. We all experience it at some point - it's just part of our collective learning process.

[leecemark]

--I think you could probably reduce the ballot to those who received 50% at some point in the general election and we wouldn't miss out on anyone who actually has a chance at being elected by the VC.
--Perhaps the preliminary thread could be continued as an opportunity to nominate a player who one of our members feel got short shift in the general election. I'd recommend that the nomination be in the form of a solid presentation of their case - and that it be seconded by someone else to get on the ballot. Then you could drop anyone who doesn't get 50% in the VC ballot. That would narrow the field quickly and substantially.

[jalbright]

You could adjust the 50% in Mark's proposal downward to 40 or 45 if you wanted. I'll say this: if a guy can't get 1/3 (33%) ever from our general electorate, there's almost no chance our VC from that same electorate will elect (and probably shouldn't).

[AG2004]

Also, there are good players and there are headscratchers. A vote for someone like Joe Dugan is a headscratcher. It's fine if you want to make a case, but you've had a number of those headscratcher votes without really offering why you thought they were good players. Billy Nash on the other hand was a good player and a decent argument could be made that he was one of the 3 or so best 3Bmen of the 19th Century. That also happens to be a position we've somewhat neglected. So I see a difference in voting for Nash as opposed to say Joe Dugan. If you want to vote for a player like Dugan, that's perfectly fine, but don't be surprised if you get questioned about it. I think the hope for many here is that we can better justify our ballots than the BBWAA can.


For bambambaseball, I might add that, in the preliminary round of VC elections, we had to list fifteen players on our ballots. That means the list included people who don't quite meet the standards of the Hall, and who didn't earn my vote in the Progressive "BBWAA" elections.

I was defending putting Nash on my preliminary ballot, as jjpm74 asked me to do. I wouldn't vote for him here, but, as Double X pointed out, there is a decent argument for him, and that means there's a decent argument that he was among the top fifteen players available for induction through the VC.

As for the Bender/White and Jackie Robinson analogy. I believe AG was comparing Bender to White strictly on statistical terms, and perhaps not surprisingly has received some criticism for that given some feel Bender is deserving of some extra recognition outside of his statistical accomplishments. As for Jackie Robinson, he was a much better player than Bender and would be a worthy Hall of Fame induction based just on statistics without even getting into other issues.

My Bender/White analogy was done strictly on statistical terms, just as my Tinker/Nash comparison was done on statistical terms.

Incidentally, Bender did not get a late start, as jjpm74 claimed above. His first major league game came just before his 19th birthday. (In 1942, his sister showed a birth certificate which claimed Bender was older than the age baseball-reference shows; even in that case, Bender still made his major league debut as a teenager.) Also, there had been Native Americans in the majors before Bender: Louis Sockalexis, whose drinking problems kept him from a long career, and Bill Phyle, whose lack of ability kept him from a long career. The Charlie Grant/Chief Tokohama saga -- which happened before Bender's debut -- also indicated that Native Americans would be permitted to play in the majors.

Racism did affect Bender, but, unlike Robinson, the pitcher did not have to break a color line. Furthermore, to convince me to grant Bender credit for the time racism kept him out of the major leagues, one would have to provide evidence that pitchers of similar ability and type who weren't Native American made earlier debuts than Bender.

In my Keltner List for Don Newcombe, I cited Chris Cobb's observations that Feller, Wynn, Roberts, Newhouser, Pierce, and Ford were all major league pitchers by the time they were 21, and added that Koufax and Drysdale also made their major league debuts by that age. Newcombe, like those others, was a power pitcher, and he was good enough to play with the Newark Eagles as a teen. White pitchers of that age and ability were targets of bidding wars in that era, and the bonuses they received mandated that they started their careers in the majors rather than the minors. When the Dodgers signed Newcombe in 1946, no other teams had signed African-Americans, and Branch Rickey was introducing one Black star per season in the late 1940s, so Newcombe's major league debut was delayed. Thus, I argued that Newcombe should get compensation for the late start to his career.

In Bender's case, he made his debut just before his twentieth birthday at the latest. Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson also made their major league debuts just before they turned twenty. I can't give Bender any credit for a late career start; I can't find many white pitchers of that caliber and era who made debuts at younger a younger age than he did (give or take a few months).

A pitcher who was statistically similar to Doc White would have needed a lot of extra credit to make my preliminary ballot. I don't see Bender as deserving of that requisite amount of extra credit.

[philkid3]

Being a baseball player I'm more aware of than many others because he has a significant standing among those of the American Indian community is enough for me.

I have no problem if it isn't for someone else, but I don't want that to be dismissed, either.

[jjpm74]

Incidentally, Bender did not get a late start, as jjpm74 claimed above...


Decent argument, and I agree that there's no comparison between Bender and Robinson at all, but it's also blatantly obvious that you haven't read Swift's book on Bender. Bender isn't a hot stove candidate for me and while I wouldn't consider his election a mistake, also wouldn't push his case in an election. If you'd like to look at his book, then discuss his case, I'd be more than happy to with you. Until then, it's obvious that we're not on the same page (pun intended here). ;)

Edit: I Highly recommend reading the book Chief Bender's Burden: The Silent Struggle of a Baseball Star By Thomas Swift for anyone interested in learning more about the climate and culture of the Deadball Era. It's a real eye opener, one of the best researched books I've ever read on baseball, an easy read, and something that will hopefully become a movie someday.

[Brad Harris]

You could adjust the 50% in Mark's proposal downward to 40 or 45 if you wanted. I'll say this: if a guy can't get 1/3 (33%) ever from our general electorate, there's almost no chance our VC from that same electorate will elect (and probably shouldn't).
Good suggestion which I second.

[jjpm74]

Good suggestion which I second.

I third it. The only thing I'd add is to grandfather in any candidates who appeared on a final VC ballot (if there are any) who did not hit that threshold to accommodate the players who showed up on the first few ballots of this project.

[Paul Wendt]

Decent argument, and I agree that there's no comparison between Bender and Robinson at all, but it's also blatantly obvious that you haven't read Swift's book on Bender. ...
If you'd like to look at his book, then discuss his case, I'd be more than happy to with you. ...
jjpm,
This doesn't go much beyond "We can't talk until you read the books I like." There are plenty of good historical books on baseball and Baseball-Fever is full of people who have read zero or one or two of them.

What I have deleted in above quotation doesn't contribute much toward a substantial review. "Climate and culture" indicates that the book teaches social history, or evokes the past, or both; it isn't full of player ratings or game stories. But what do you think Swift is able to show about Bender or about the deadball era? Any hints? "Highly recommended" and "well-researched" don't say much more than the publisher would be happy to print on the cover if you were famous under this name "jjpm74".

Given the particular background already on the table in this case --allusions to a late start as well as racism in general, reference to a birth certificate showing debut at near-20 rather than near-19-- it must be useful to explain the sense, if any, that Swift believes Bender's major league career was "shortened" in duration or in playing time by racism.

[Paul Wendt]

Gavy Cravath
Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

[jjpm74]

I have added Charley Jones and Clark Griffith to my ballot. With the passing of time, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that Ryan, GVH, Duffy are the exception rather than the rule for outfielders. It's unlikely either Jones and Sheckard will repeat on my 1945 ballot barring some discussion and analysis.

[Freakshow]

Nobody was elected in the last VC election. Newbies Cravath and Leach are heartily welcomed to join the six I voted for last time. I supported all 8 in the regular Progressive elections.

Gavvy Cravath
Lave Cross
Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jim McCormick
Jimmy Sheckard
Mike Tiernan

[jjpm74]

jjpm,
This doesn't go much beyond "We can't talk until you read the books I like." There are plenty of good historical books on baseball and Baseball-Fever is full of people who have read zero or one or two of them.
ust be useful to explain the sense, if any, that Swift believes Bender's major league career was "shortened" in duration or in playing time by racism.

It's not a "we can't talk until you read the book I like" more a "I don't care enough about Bender's case and this is too much of a leisure activity for me to spend the next 2 hours writing up a synopsis of the book just to rebute a small part of his argument so I'm going to say a small joke then move on." I don't think there's enough of a difference between White and Bender to make a meaningful counter-argument worthwhile, either. Maybe bambam could do so since he seems to be very passionate about Chief Bender's cause. ;)

[Brad Harris]

Gavy Cravath
Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Mike Tiernan

[DoubleX]

Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jim McCormick
Jimmy Sheckard
Mike Tiernan

[DoubleX]

--I think you could probably reduce the ballot to those who received 50% at some point in the general election and we wouldn't miss out on anyone who actually has a chance at being elected by the VC.
--Perhaps the preliminary thread could be continued as an opportunity to nominate a player who one of our members feel got short shift in the general election. I'd recommend that the nomination be in the form of a solid presentation of their case - and that it be seconded by someone else to get on the ballot. Then you could drop anyone who doesn't get 50% in the VC ballot. That would narrow the field quickly and substantially.

This is a good suggestion but I think our history proves that this might not be the best approach. We've already had a number of players make the final VC ballot that never sniffed 50% or even 40%, or even 10% in the regular election. For example, Ed McKean has appeared on three final ballots, but he never even received 5% in the regular election and was dropped after just three years, which was the first year we dropped players with any previous support. Mike Griffin also made a final ballot, and he too never even reached 5% in the regular election and was also promptly dropped after 2 years. Deacon McGuire is yet another example. He too has appeared on a final ballot and has performed strongly even when he hasn't, and yet he was dropped after just 2 years in the regular election, never reaching 5%. Silver King has also made a final ballot and he never even received a single vote in the regular election. Ned Williamson is yet another and he's twice made the final ballot and gets consistent strong preliminary support.

Even perpetual final balloters like Jim McCormick, Mike Tiernan, Lave Cross, Jimmy Sheckard, and Charley Jones never sniffed close to 50%.

Then there's someone like Joe Tinker. If not for AG's very last second vote, he would have been on this ballot and always had mediocre support in the regular election.

So based on our experience, I don't think picking some level of performance in the regular election would be a good filter. Sure, we could still make suggestions of players to add, but the simple fact of not even been listed is a big disadvantage to a player. This is why I think our two rounds are good, because it provides a fair method at creating a final ballot and allows for players that were severely overlooked in the regular election to have new life.

[leecemark]

--Making the final ballot doesn't really indicate any real support though. Have McLean, McGwire or any other players who flopped in the general election actually gotten more than a vote or two once making the ballot? I suppose it is an honor just to be nominated:D, but a smaller ballot with more discussion beats a more inclusive one without IMO. Of course, the two are mutally exclusive, but I think the tigher our focus the easier it is to get good discussion going.

[DoubleX]

--Making the final ballot doesn't really indicate any real support though. Have McLean, McGwire or any other players who flopped in the general election actually gotten more than a vote or two once making the ballot? I suppose it is an honor just to be nominated:D, but a smaller ballot with more discussion beats a more inclusive one without IMO. Of course, the two are mutally exclusive, but I think the tigher our focus the easier it is to get good discussion going.

It indicates that they're considered among the stronger candidates out there, and by not even listing them on the ballot at all, we'd be denying them a great deal of consideration that they're obviously getting when they're on the ballot.

And yes, some of these players have performed decently in final voting. Charley Jones and Mike Tiernan have come within 2 votes of election. Jim McCormick has reached 50% support. Ed McKean has reached a third. These are all significant, IMO, and the proposed system wouldn't even list them for consideration.

As for discussion, having two rounds as we do currently should naturally engender more discussion than one round with a short ballot.

Sorry Mark, but given our history, I'm not going to implement this plan. I do think the master list needs to be whittled down, but I'm not going to use regular election performance as a guide. What I think I will do is drop everyone who has been on the VC master list for at least two elections and has never received a preliminary vote. I will also be more discerning when adding newly eligible players and will likely require players to have appeared on more than two ballots in the regular election.

EDIT: To illustrate how unintersting this process would be if we created the VC ballot based on a threshold from the regular election, here is what this year's VC ballot would look like with a 50%, 40%, and 30% threshold, respectively:

50% Regular Election Support (3)
Tommy Leach - 66.67%
Chief Bender - 60.00%
Clark Griffith - 52.00%

40% Regular Election Support (7)
Tommy Leach - 66.67%
Chief Bender - 60.00%
Clark Griffith - 52.00%
John McGraw - 47.83%
Mike Tiernan - 44.00%
Jimmy Sheckard - 42.31%
Jim McCormick - 40.00%

30% Regular Election Support (11)
Tommy Leach - 66.67%
Chief Bender - 60.00%
Clark Griffith - 52.00%
John McGraw - 47.83%
Mike Tiernan - 44.00%
Jimmy Sheckard - 42.31%
Jim McCormick - 40.00%
Lave Cross - 38.46%
Gavvy Cravath - 37.50%
Charley Jones - 34.78%
Joe Tinker - 33.33%

So even if we drop to 30%, we'd be looking at just 11 players, and that wouldn't even include players like Ed McKean, Deacon McGuire, and Ned Williamson, who have garnered some discussion and decent support in the VC process. Is it fair to exclude players like that and severely hinder their chances, while giving a distinct advantage to players like Chief Bender and Joe Tinker who might get similar support or even lesser support when all are listed?

[Paul Wendt]

... I do think the master list needs to be whittled down, but I'm not going to use regular election performance as a guide.
You have provided good support for that judgment.

What I think I will do is drop everyone who has been on the VC master list for at least two elections and has never received a preliminary vote.
Feel free to make it two votes. I shouldn't feel assured that I am putting someone into the VC preliminary rounds forever by casting him one preliminary vote.

EDIT: To illustrate how uninteresting this process would be if we created the VC ballot based on a threshold from the regular election ...
The evidence is convincing but unnecessary at my desk.

[jalbright]

EDIT: To illustrate how unintersting this process would be if we created the VC ballot based on a threshold from the regular election, here is what this year's VC ballot would look like with a 50%, 40%, and 30% threshold, respectively:

50% Regular Election Support (3)
Tommy Leach - 66.67%
Chief Bender - 60.00%
Clark Griffith - 52.00%

40% Regular Election Support (7)
Tommy Leach - 66.67%
Chief Bender - 60.00%
Clark Griffith - 52.00%
John McGraw - 47.83%
Mike Tiernan - 44.00%
Jimmy Sheckard - 42.31%
Jim McCormick - 40.00%

30% Regular Election Support (11)
Tommy Leach - 66.67%
Chief Bender - 60.00%
Clark Griffith - 52.00%
John McGraw - 47.83%
Mike Tiernan - 44.00%
Jimmy Sheckard - 42.31%
Jim McCormick - 40.00%
Lave Cross - 38.46%
Gavvy Cravath - 37.50%
Charley Jones - 34.78%
Joe Tinker - 33.33%

So even if we drop to 30%, we'd be looking at just 11 players, and that wouldn't even include players like Ed McKean, Deacon McGuire, and Ned Williamson, who have garnered some discussion and decent support in the VC process. Is it fair to exclude players like that and severely hinder their chances, while giving a distinct advantage to players like Chief Bender and Joe Tinker who might get similar support or even lesser support when all are listed?

You've made the case that 50% is too high a threshhold. But our current model generated eight names--about what you'd get with a 40% threshhold. It's about the same eight, and I'll bet that the ones with any real prospects of achieving 75% are in that 40% group. Our VC is a dramatically different animal than Cooperstown's. First, the VC is a subset of the larger electorate. Second, we have historical resources that were not available in the early days of the Hall, most notably encyclopedic data which helps us contextualize our choices in a way they did not back then. Third, our VC is composed of most if not all of our most involved (and, I believe at least generally, most knowledgeable) participants in the HOF forum. By comparison, Cooperstown's VC's were a collection of old cronies, who may have been knowledgeable in their own way, but were not scholars of the game. So, we shouldn't expect our VC to be anywhere near as active as the Cooperstown version. It hasn't, as our VC generally agrees with the larger electorate, and as a whole, the larger electorate hasn't omitted that many deserving candidates. A few, yes--but I suspect that all the ones tabbed by our VC had fairly substantial support at some point.

[Fielding Marshall]

You've made the case that 50% is too high a threshhold. But our current model generated eight names--about what you'd get with a 40% threshhold. It's about the same eight, and I'll bet that the ones with any real prospects of achieving 75% are in that 40% group. Our VC is a dramatically different animal than Cooperstown's. First, the VC is a subset of the larger electorate. Second, we have historical resources that were not available in the early days of the Hall, most notably encyclopedic data which helps us contextualize our choices in a way they did not back then. Third, our VC is composed of most if not all of our most involved (and, I believe at least generally, most knowledgeable) participants in the HOF forum. By comparison, Cooperstown's VC's were a collection of old cronies, who may have been knowledgeable in their own way, but were not scholars of the game. So, we shouldn't expect our VC to be anywhere near as active as the Cooperstown version. It hasn't, as our VC generally agrees with the larger electorate, and as a whole, the larger electorate hasn't omitted that many deserving candidates. A few, yes--but I suspect that all the ones tabbed by our VC had fairly substantial support at some point.

Charley Jones had a high of 34.78% and was two votes away from induction in the original election. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's also among top vote-getters in the current election...

[Windy City Fan]

Getting back into this project.

Clark Griffith
Gavvy Cravath

[DoubleX]

Voting ends tomorrow. So far we have 13 votes, so we've reached our quorum. I assume will likely get at least one more vote, but right now 10 votes are needed to reach the required 75%.

[AG2004]

My ballot:

Clark Griffith
Charley Jones
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

[DoubleX]

I'll let voting go for a few more hours. Tommy Leach looks in good shape right now. If he gets in, what should I list as his primary position? I tend to think of him at 3B even though he played slightly more games in CF.

[leecemark]

--Leach wouldn't have been good enough to make my ballot had he been a career CFer. I'd List him as a 3B. We could use another one on our roster anyway:D.

[jjpm74]

I'll let voting go for a few more hours. Tommy Leach looks in good shape right now. If he gets in, what should I list as his primary position? I tend to think of him at 3B even though he played slightly more games in CF.

Definitely 3B.

[jalbright]

Well, if Leach weren't about half 3B, he wouldn't have made it for me. I'd go with 3B even though he played a few more games in CF.

[SavoyBG]

I'll let voting go for a few more hours. Tommy Leach looks in good shape right now. If he gets in, what should I list as his primary position? I tend to think of him at 3B even though he played slightly more games in CF.

Looks like his best couple of years were as a 3Bman, and with Groh, and Leach now in there at 3B it'll end the talk about the lack of 3Bmen, so I'm okay with it....it'll make up for Deacon White not being listed at 3B ...............although I don't see why Leach can't be listed as CF-3B or 3B-CF. Why does each player have to be listed at just one primary position?

I still don't see Leach as a hall of famer, but the VC seems to disagree.

[Paul Wendt]

Looks like his best couple of years were as a 3Bman, and with Groh, and Leach now in there at 3B it'll end the talk about the lack of 3Bmen, so I'm okay with it....it'll make up for Deacon White not being listed at 3B ...............although I don't see why Leach can't be listed as CF-3B or 3B-CF. Why does each player have to be listed at just one primary position?

So that everyone is named only once. It's a true listing of the Hall of Fame members by position. See Progressive 1940 #1 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1439116&postcount=1)

Should there also be another listing, probably by surname in alphabetical order? That is where data such as 'CF-3B' or '3B-CF' may be entered in a column.

I remember when I got Total Baseball 3 and read the Hall of Fame article. At the end of it all the members are listed by fielding position, role (manager), or "Negro Leaguers". By mistake one man is listed twice, Willie Stargell. It took me a while to figure it out. I had one other source with a single alphabetical listing, or maybe it was players and others. Probably they were out of phase by a year or two so I had a class or two of new members to work in. It took me a while to figure out that the listing fit the number of hall of famers stated in the article and to confirm that the two sources agreed on the members.

[DoubleX]

Looks like his best couple of years were as a 3Bman, and with Groh, and Leach now in there at 3B it'll end the talk about the lack of 3Bmen, so I'm okay with it....it'll make up for Deacon White not being listed at 3B ...............although I don't see why Leach can't be listed as CF-3B or 3B-CF. Why does each player have to be listed at just one primary position?

I still don't see Leach as a hall of famer, but the VC seems to disagree.

On the main list of Hall of Famers, I list them by multiple positions where appropriate, but later I break the Hall of Famers into various categories, such as primary team, decade, and position, and for isolate one for each category.

EDIT: I'll call this election closed. We've elected multiple players for the first time since our inaugural VC election in 1920. This year it's Tommy Leach and Clark Griffith. Here are the full results - 14 ballots were submitted, so 11 votes was required for election:

Tommy Leach: 85.71% (12 Votes)
Clark Griffith: 78.57% (11 Votes)

Jimmy Sheckard: 64.29% (9 Votes)
Charley Jones: 50.00% (7 Votes)
Mike Tiernan: 50.00% (7 Votes)
Gavvy Cravath: 42.86% (6 Votes)
Jim McCormick: 28.57% (4 Votes)
Lave Cross: 14.29% (2 Votes)

We will revamp voting for next time and probably go with just one round. I'm thinking we'll see how it goes using a 30% regular election cutoff plus any players who have previously made a final VC ballot (such as Ed McKean, Deacon McGuire, and Ned Williamson).

[jjpm74]

We will revamp voting for next time and probably go with just one round. I'm thinking we'll see how it goes using a 30% regular election cutoff plus any players who have previously made a final VC ballot (such as Ed McKean, Deacon McGuire, and Ned Williamson).

IMO, if a player makes it a full 15 years on the ballot, they also at least deserve a look by the VC. How about 30% or 15 years on the ballot? If one of the 15 year guys doesn't show up on a ballot their 1st year on the ballot, they could always be dropped the following election.

[DoubleX]

IMO, if a player makes it a full 15 years on the ballot, they also at least deserve a look by the VC. How about 30% or 15 years on the ballot? If one of the 15 year guys doesn't show up on a ballot their 1st year on the ballot, they could always be dropped the following election.

Yeah, I was actually thinking just that and figured I'd add that on before the next election. I might use a 1/3 threshold rather than 30% (it actually wouldn't make a difference at least up to this juncture). I'd also keep, at least for the first election with these rules, anyone who has made a previous final VC ballot.

If we had used these rules for this election the ballot would have looked like:

Chief Bender - At least 1/3
Tommy Bond - Previous final ballot
Jack Chesbro - Previous final ballot
Larry Corcoran - 15 years
Gavvy Cravath - At least 1/3
Lave Cross - At least 1/3
Candy Cummings - Previous final ballot
Mike Donlin - 15 years
Fred Dunlap - Previous final ballot
Dave Foutz - Previous final ballot
Mike Griffin - Previous final ballot
Clark Griffith - At least 1/3
Charley Jones - At least 1/3
Fielder Jones - 15 years
Silver King - Previous final ballot
Johnny Kling - 15 years
Tommy Leach - At least 1/3
Denny Lyons - Previous final ballot
Jim McCormick - At least 1/3
John McGraw - At least 1/3
Deacon McGuire - Previous final ballot
Ed McKean - Previous final ballot
Tip O'Neill - Previous final ballot
Ed Reulbach - 15 years
Jimmy Sheckard - At least 1/3
Mike Tiernan - At least 1/3
Joe Tinker - At least 1/3
Ned Williamson - Previous final ballot

So that would have given us 28 candidates. More manageable and pretty representative, though we'd probably have to implement some kind system that drops people going forward (such as what you suggested).

Interestingly, I believe Joe Wood will be our first player to qualify under the 1/3 rule without having stayed on the ballot for 15 years.

There's also Roy Thomas who just missed on both regular election thresholds, lasting 14 years on the ballot with a high of 25%.

[BlueBlood]

Sorry about missing the election. I would not have voted for Leach and would have voted for Griffith, so they'd have both snuck in with 75% anyway.

For posterity's sake, you could put me down for this ballot:

Clark Griffith
Jim McCormick


And then have a full vote of 15 ballots listed.

[DoubleX]

To give some advance notice, here's what I've decided on for the revamped rules:

- One round of election with 75% required for election (we'll also be adding a member, bringing our total to 18).

- The 1945 ballot will consist of:
1) Every player that previously made a final VC ballot;
2) Every player that received at least 1/3 support in the regular election;
3) Every player that lasted 15 years on the regular ballot.

- Voters can vote for as many players as they wish on the ballot and can also vote for up to 2 write-in candidates. If any write-in candidates receive at least 50% support, I'll list him on the next ballot (EDIT: I'm also considering 33% as the threshold for write-ins to be bumped up to the ballot). I may supply a master list as I have been doing so voters know who is eligible for write-ins, but I may not.

- If a player on the ballot does not receive at least 2 votes he will not appear on the following ballot (though the player will be eligible for write-in votes). So the 1950 ballot will consist of:
1) Every player from the 1945 ballot who received at least 2 votes;
2) Every newly eligible player that received 1/3 support in the regular election or lasted 15 years on the regular ballot; and
3) Any players who received at least 50% support as write-ins in the 1945 election.

How does this sound?

[Paul Wendt]

At a glance it seem ok but on first thought I think that it will be difficult to elect anyone in one round. With two rounds and a small second ballot the participants know whom the others are thinking about and give them some attention. With one round or a large second ballot the inevitable hasty oversights add up.

> I may supply a master list as I have been doing so voters know who is eligible for write-ins, but I may not.

To avoid that is the main point, it seems to me.
--or is it to avoid tabulating first-round votes? The number of voters is still increasing so there isn't any strong reason to try and save work for us.

[DoubleX]

At a glance it seem ok but on first thought I think that it will be difficult to elect anyone in one round. With two rounds and a small second ballot the participants know whom the others are thinking about and give them some attention. With one round or a large second ballot the inevitable hasty oversights add up.

I agree that two rounds fosters greater conversation and casts more focus on a smaller group of players. However, the expressed consensus thus far seems to be in favor of simplifying to one round. Plus, it's assumed that the members of this committee have a certain level of knowledge and familiarity with the players anyway. In addition, voters can amend their ballots at any point until the election is over, allowing for conversation to change opinions.

> I may supply a master list as I have been doing so voters know who is eligible for write-ins, but I may not.

To avoid that is the main point, it seems to me.
--or is it to avoid tabulating first-round votes? The number of voters is still increasing so there isn't any strong reason to try and save work for us.

It's mostly to avoid the work, but it probably wouldn't be a big deal.

[jalbright]

To give some advance notice, here's what I've decided on for the revamped rules:

- One round of election with 75% required for election (we'll also be adding a member, bringing our total to 18).

- The 1945 ballot will consist of:
1) Every player that previously made a final VC ballot;
2) Every player that received at least 1/3 support in the regular election;
3) Every player that lasted 15 years on the regular ballot.

- Voters can vote for as many players as they wish on the ballot and can also vote for up to 2 write-in candidates. If any write-in candidates receive at least 50% support, I'll list him on the next ballot (EDIT: I'm also considering 33% as the threshold for write-ins to be bumped up to the ballot). I may supply a master list as I have been doing so voters know who is eligible for write-ins, but I may not.

- If a player on the ballot does not receive at least 2 votes he will not appear on the following ballot (though the player will be eligible for write-in votes). So the 1950 ballot will consist of:
1) Every player from the 1945 ballot who received at least 2 votes;
2) Every newly eligible player that received 1/3 support in the regular election or lasted 15 years on the regular ballot; and
3) Any players who received at least 50% support as write-ins in the 1945 election.

How does this sound?

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think going to one round will have a significant adverse effect on electing candidates. As Mike has pointed out, this VC is fairly well versed in the candidates anyway. We may not elect many, but I think that's more a reflection of the fact the larger electorate is not missing many good candidates in the first place.