BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1942 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1942

Pages : [1] 2

DoubleX

03-09-2009, 06:32 PM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.
-Blank Ballots: A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. This option is not to be taken lightly and it is strongly urged that it be used only after the utmost consideration, as non-votes carry great weight. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

Voting Criteria: Players are to be evaluated within the context of the era in which they played and the history of the game to that point. Players are not to be held to standards that would materialize at a time beyond the year of the current election. Modern statistical analysis is permitted but must be applied strictly within historical context not to go beyond the year of the current election. Players are to be judged based solely on their playing careers. Other, non-playing contributions may be considered to the extent that they coincided with a player's playing career (such as a player/manager).

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. Players need at least 5% support to appear on the next ballot (NOTE: Starting in 1940, this rule also applies to first year eligible players).

Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 Major League seasons . If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he had a minimum of 3000 ABs or 1500 IP, though extra scrutiny will be applied. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly one week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

1942 Guide
There are 39 candidates on the 1942 ballot – 26 holdovers and 13 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1937 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

Newly Eligible (13)
Jim Bottomley
Mickey Cochrane
Frankie Frisch
Chick Hafey
Jesse Haines
Babe Herman
Shanty Hogan
Rogers Hornsby
Pat Malone
Ski Melillo
Fred Schulte
Pie Traynor
Rube Walberg

Holdovers (26)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Dave Bancroft 8th 22.86% 28.13% (1936) 8.82% (1940) 20.91%
George J. Burns 13th 20.00% 24.00% (1930) 9.09% (1935) 16.82%
Earle Combs 3rd 17.14% 17.14% (1941) 11.76% (1940) 14.45%
Wilbur Cooper 12th 40.00% 58.33% (1932) 33.33% (1935) 44.86%
Larry Gardner 14th 17.14% 17.14% (1941) 5.88% (1940) 9.09%
Burleigh Grimes 4th 54.29% 56.25% (1939) 50.00% (1940) 53.51%
Harry Hooper 13th 14.29% 34.38% (1931) 8.82% (1940) 20.14%
Travis Jackson 2nd 5.71% 5.71% (1941) 5.71% (1941) 5.71%
Joe Judge 4th 5.88% 5.88% (1940) 3.13% (1939) 4.91%
Rabbit Maranville 5th 65.71% 66.67% (1938) 61.76% (1940) 64.16%
Firpo Marberry 2nd 17.14% 17.14% (1941) 17.14% (1941) 17.14%
Carl Mays 9th 48.57% 56.25% (1937) 45.45% (1935) 50.01%
Lefty O'Doul 4th 5.71% 12.50% (1939) 5.71% (1941) 9.01%
Herb Pennock 4th 8.57% 25.00% (1939) 8.57% (1941) 14.13%
Del Pratt 14th 8.57% 20.83% (1932) 5.88% (1940) 12.57%
Sam Rice 4th 71.43% 71.43% (1941) 52.94% (1940) 59.17%
Eppa Rixey 5th 57.14% 60.00% (1938) 50.00% (1940) 56.63%
Ray Schalk 9th 22.86% 25.00% (1934) 18.18% (1935) 20.96%
Wally Schang 7th 42.86% 42.86% (1941) 32.35% (1937) 35.92%
Joe Sewell 5th 71.43% 71.43% (1941) 61.67% (1940) 66.30%
Urban Shocker 10th 22.86% 35.71% (1933) 15.63% (1939) 27.05%
Riggs Stephenson 4th 5.71% 6.25% (1939) 5.71% (1941) 5.95%
George Uhle 2nd 5.71% 5.71% (1941) 5.71% (1941) 5.71%
Bobby Veach 13th 25.71% 39.29% (1934) 14.71% (1940) 29.02%
Hack Wilson 4th 57.14% 57.14% (1941) 41.18% (1939) 50.48%
Ross Youngs 12th 22.86% 22.86% (1941) 6.25% (1936) 12.29%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Lue Blue Lack of Support 4 8.82% (1940) 2.86% (1941) 5.32%
George Kelly Lack of Support 5 10.00% (1938) 2.86% (1941) 5.59%
Dolf Luque Lack of Support 2 8.82% (1940) 2.86% (1941) 5.84%%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (2)
Player High Support
Larry Gardner 17.14% (1941)
Del Pratt 20.83% (1932)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (5)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Joe Sewell 71.43% 4
Sam Rice 71.43% 3
Rabbit Maranville 65.71% 4
Eppa Rixey 57.14% 4
Hack Wilson 57.14% 2
Burleigh Grimes 54.29% 3

HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (86)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons Living/Deceased Age at Election
Pete Alexander 1935 93.94% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1911-1930 20 Living - Age 55 48
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1871-1897 27 Deceased (1852-1922) 50
Frank Baker 1927 96.43% 1 Third Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1908-1914, 1916-1919, 1921-1922 13 Living - Age 55 41
Ross Barnes^ 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9 Deceased (1850-1915) 61
Jake Beckley 1917 76.00% 6 First Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1887-1907 20 Deceased (1867-1918) 50
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15 Deceased (1854-1927) 53
Roger Bresnahan 1925 79.17% 6 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1897, 1900-1915 17 Living - Age 61 46
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Deceased (1858-1932) 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Living – Age 66 45
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13 Deceased (1861-1905) Deceased
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1905 16 Living – Age 74 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 52 44
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10 Deceased (1864-1911) 45
Frank Chance 1932 83.33% 14 First Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1898-1914 17 Deceased (1876-1924) Deceased
Cupid Childs 1920 76.92% 15 Second Base Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1888, 1890-1901 13 Deceased (1867-1912) Deceased
Fred Clarke 1917 88.00% 1 Left Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1894-1915 21 Living – Age 74 45
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12 Deceased (1861-1909) 40
Ty Cobb 1933 96.55% 1 Center Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1905-1928 24 Living - Age 56 47
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Living - Age 55 48
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Living – Age 72 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1857-1931) 45
Stan Coveleski 1934 89.29% 2 Pitcher Cleveland Indians (AL) 1912, 1916-1928 14 Living - Age 53 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 62 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 72 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Deceased (1870-1940) 44
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16 Deceased (1867-1903) Deceased
Larry Doyle 1926 76.00% 2 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1907-1920 14 Living - Age 56 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 76 52
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1859-1906) 43
Red Faber 1940 76.46% 3 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1914-1933 20 Living - Age 54 52
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 66 40
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15 Deceased (1856-1902) Deceased
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17 Living – Age 85 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 52
Clark Griffith* 1940 (VC) 78.57% VC Pitcher Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891, 1893-1909, 1912-1914 20 Living - Age 73 71
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 53 47
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Deceased (1866-1940) 40
Harry Heilmann 1937 91.18% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1914, 1916-1930, 1932 17 Living - Age 48 43
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Deceased (1855-1935) 49
Hughie Jennings 1927 75.00% 14 Shortstop Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1918 17 Deceased (1869-1928) 58
Walter Johnson 1932 100% 1 Pitcher Washington Senators (AL) 1907-1927 21 Living - Age 55 45
Addie Joss 1929 76.00% 15 Pitcher Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1902-1910 9 Deceased (1880-1911) Deceased
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 44
Willie Keeler 1916 92.00% 2 Right Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1892-1910 19 Deceased (1872-1923) 44
Joe Kelley 1920 84.62% 8 Left Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1906, 1908 17 Living – Age 71 49
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1878-1893 16 Deceased (1857-1894) Deceased
Napoleon Lajoie 1921 96.77% 1 Second Base Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1896-1916 21 Living – Age 68 47
Tommy Leach* 1940 (VC) 85.71% VC Third Base/Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1898-1915, 1918 19 Living - Age 65 63
Herman Long* 1925 (VC) 75.00% VC Shortstop Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1889-1904 16 Deceased (1866-1909) Deceased
Sherry Magee 1924 86.21% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1904-1919 16 Deceased (1884-1929) 40
Christy Mathewson 1922 93.55% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1900-1916 17 Deceased (1880-1925) 41
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10 Deceased (1871-1929) 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Living – Age 83 46
Cal McVey*^ 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Catcher/First Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879 9 Deceased (1849-1926) 71
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14 Living – Age 82 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 73 42
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23 Deceased (1850-1919) 51
Dickey Pearce*^ 1920 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) 1871-1877 7 Deceased (1836-1908) Deceased
Lip Pike*^ 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Baltimore Canaries (NA) 1871-1878, 1881, 1887 10 Deceased (1845-1893) Deceased
Eddie Plank 1922 92.86% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1901-1917 17 Deceased (1875-1926) 47
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11 Deceased (1854-1897) Deceased
Hardy Richardson* 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC Second Base/Left Field Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1855-1931) 65
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Deceased (1871-1942) 35
Babe Ruth 1940 97.06% 1 Right Field/Left Field New York Yankees (AL) 1914-1935 22 Living - Age 47 45
Jimmy Ryan* 1930 (VC) 86.67% VC Center Field Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1885-1900, 1902-1903 18 Deceased (1885-1923) Deceased
George Sisler 1935 90.91% 1 First Base St. Louis Browns (AL) 1915-1922, 1924-1930 15 Living - Age 49 42
Al Spalding^ 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8 Deceased (1850-1915) Deceased
Tris Speaker 1933 100% 1 Center Field Cleveland Indians (AL) 1907-1928 22 Living - Age 54 45
Joe Start*^ 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC First Base Providence Grays (NL) 1871-1886 16 Deceased (1842-1927) 78
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1856-1937) 51
Ezra Sutton* 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Third Base Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1871-1888 18 Deceased (1850-1907) Deceased
Bill Terry 1941 8.00% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1923-1936 14 Living - Age 44 43
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15 Deceased (1860-1922) 47
Dazzy Vance 1940 76.47% 1 Pitcher Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1915, 1918, 1922-1935 16 Living - Age 50 48
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Living – Age 76 52
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1914) Deceased
Honus Wagner 1922 92.86% 1 Shortstop Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1897-1917 21 Living – Age 68 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 69 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 61 41
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17 Deceased (1860-1925) 47
Mickey Welch* 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1892 13 Deceased (1859-1941) 61
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 19 Living - Age 54 44
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Deceased (1847-1939) 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 66 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Deceased (1847-1937) 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 75 49

* = Elected by Veterans Committee
^ = Played Significantly Prior to 1871

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (5): Charlie Bennett, Roger Bresnahan, Buck Ewing, Cal McVey, Deacon White
First Base (8): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, George Sisler, Joe Start, Bill Terry
Second Base (7): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (5): Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins, Heinie Groh, Tommy Leach, Ezra Sutton
Shortstop (10): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (8): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey, Zack Wheat
Center Field (11): Pete Browning, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Jimmy Ryan, Tris Speaker, George Van Haltren
Right Field (7): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Harry Heilmann, Willie Keeler, Babe Ruth, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (25): Pete Alexander, Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Pud Galvin, Clark Griffith, Walter Johnson, Addie Joss, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Eddie Plank, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis, Cy Young

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Connor, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903 (1): Pud Galvin
1904 (2): Paul Hines, Deacon White
1905 (1): Bid McPhee
1906 (2): Billy Hamilton, Amos Rusie
1907 (5): Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Sam Thompson, John Ward, George Wright
1908 (2): Ed Delahanty, Tony Mullane
1909 (3): Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore
1910 (1): Jesse Burkett
1911 (3): Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock, Kid Nichols
1912 (0):
1913 (2): Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity
1914 (1): George Davis
1915 (2): Al Spalding, Rube Waddell
1916 (4): Bill Dahlen, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Cy Young
1917 (2): Jake Beckley, Fred Clarke
1918 (2): Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren
1919 (1): Vic Willis
1920 (2): Cupid Childs, Joe Kelley
- 1920 VC (7): Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Hardy Richardson, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Mickey Welch
1921 (3): Mordecai Brown, Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1922 (4): Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, Ed Walsh
1923 (0):
1924 (1): Sherry Magee
1925 (2): Roger Bresnahan, Bobby Wallace
- 1925 VC (1): Herman Long
1926 (1): Larry Doyle
1927 (2): Frank Baker, Hughie Jennings
1928 (0):
1929 (1): Addie Joss
1930 (0):
- 1930 VC (1): Jimmy Ryan
1931 (0):
1932 (3): Frank Chance, Walter Johnson, Zack Wheat
1933 (2): Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker
1934 (2): Max Carey, Stan Coveleski
1935 (3): Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins, George Sisler
- 1935 VC (0):
1936 (1): Heinie Groh
1937 (1): Harry Heilmann
1938 (0):
1939 (0):
1940 (3): Red Faber, Babe Ruth, Dazzy Vance
- 1940 VC (2): Clark Griffith, Tommy Leach
1941 (1): Bill Terry

Players Elected by Primary Decade
1870s (9): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright
1880s (21): Cap Anson, Charlie Bennett, Dan Brouthers, Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Paul Hines, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Tony Mullane, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward, Mickey Welch
1890s (18): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Clark Griffith, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Herman Long, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Jimmy Ryan, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (20): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Willie Keeler, Napoleon Lajoie, Tommy Leach, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Ed Walsh, Vic Willis, Cy Young
1910s (12): Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson, Sherry Magee, Tris Speaker, Zack Wheat
1920s (6): Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Harry Heilmann, Babe Ruth, George Sisler, Dazzy Vance
1930s (1): Bill Terry

Players Elected by Primary Organization
Baltimore Canaries (NA) (1): Lip Pike
Baltimore Orioles (NL) (3): Hughie Jennings, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley
Boston Braves (fka Beaneaters) (NL) (6): John Clarkson, Hugh Duffy, Herman Long, Kid Nichols, Ezra Sutton, Vic Willis
Boston Red Sox (fka Americans) (AL) (2): Jimmy Collins, Cy Young
Boston Red Stockings (NA) (4): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright
Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) (1): Dickey Pearce
Brooklyn Dodgers (fka Robins) (2): Dazzy Vance, Zack Wheat
Buffalo Bisons (NL) (4): Dan Brouthers, Pud Galvin, Hardy Richardson, Deacon White
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NL) (8): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Bill Dahlen, Clark Grifith, George Gore, King Kelly, Jimmy Ryan
Chicago White Sox (AL) (3): Eddie Collins, Red Faber, Ed Walsh
Cincinnati Reds (NL, AA) (3): Heinie Groh, Bid McPhee, Tony Mullane
Cleveland Blues (NL) (1): Jack Glasscock
Cleveland Indians (fka Naps) (AL) (5): Stan Coveleski, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Napoleon Lajoie, Tris Speaker
Cleveland Spiders (NL) (2): Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs
Detroit Tigers (AL) (3): Ty Cobb, Sam Crawford, Harry Heilmann
Detroit Wolverines (NL) (1): Charlie Bennett
Louisville Colonels (NL, AA) (1): Pete Browning
New York Giants (NL) (13): Roger Bresnahan, Roger Connor, George Davis, Larry Doyle, Buck Ewing, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jim O’Rourke, Amos Rusie, George Van Haltren, John Ward, Mickey Welch
Philadelphia Athletics (AL) (3): Frank Baker, Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell
Philadelphia Athletics (AA) (1): Harry Stovey
Philadelphia Phillies (NL) (5): Pete Alexander, Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Sherry Magee, Sam Thompson
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) (5): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Tommy Leach, Honus Wagner
Providence Grays (NL) (3): Paul Hines, Charley Radbourn, Joe Start
St. Louis Browns (AL) (2): George Sisler, Bobby Wallace
St. Louis Cardinals (fka Browns) (NL, AA) (1): Bob Caruthers
Washington Senators (AL) (1): Walter Johnson

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Regular Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Tris Speaker, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 41
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 26
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 84.83%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Addie Joss, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 8
- Average Wait Before Election: 3.76 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 28
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 11
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 2.20
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 71.43% - Sam Rice, Joe Sewell (1941)
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 66.30% - Joe Sewell
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1938, 1939)
- Average Regular Election Electees Per Year: 1.88
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Largest Post-1915 Ballot: 47 Players (1932)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 35 (1941)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 26.83
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 13
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs - 8
- Electee with Longest Post-1871 Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Post-1871 Career: Dickey Pearce – 8 Seasons
- Average Post-1871 Career Length of Electees: 16.33 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.38
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 15
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 40
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Jack Glasscock - 85
- Deceased in Past Year: Mickey Welch

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22
1910: 25
1911: 25
1912: 23
1913: 23
1914: 26
1915: 25
1916: 25
1917: 25
1918: 24
1919: 27
1920: 26
1921: 31
1922: 28
1923: 25
1924: 29
1925: 24
1926: 25
1927: 28
1928: 27
1929: 25
1930: 25
1931: 32
1932: 24
1933: 29
1934: 28
1935: 33
1936: 32
1937: 34
1938: 30
1939: 32
1940: 34
1941: 35

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665), 1920 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
1921 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83924)
1922 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84099)
1923 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84257)
1924 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84423)
1925 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84552), 1925 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84636)
1926 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84727)
1927 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84871)
1928 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85029)
1929 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85206)
1930 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85358), 1930 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85439)
1931 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85681)
1932 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85850)
1933 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86054)
1934 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86291)
1935 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86514), 1935 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86576)
1936 (httphttp://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86747)
1937 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87002)
1938 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87241)
1939 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87501)
1940 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87800), 1940 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87854)
1941 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88041)

Brad Harris

03-09-2009, 06:43 PM

Dave Bancroft
Mickey Cochrane
Wilbur Cooper
Frankie Frisch
Burleigh Grimes
Rogers Hornsby
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Pie Traynor
Bobby Veach
Hack Wilson

Dropped: Gardner, Shocker, Terry (elected), Youngs
Added: Cochrane, Frisch, Hornsby, Traynor

STLCards2

03-09-2009, 06:53 PM

Hornsby
Frisch
Sewell
Rixey
Traynor
Cochrine

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 07:00 PM

Cochrane
Frisch
Hornsby
Maranville
Mays
Sewell
Traynor

Can we get Lefty O'Doul added to the next contributor election? He doesn't deserve induction as a major league player, but he belongs in the hall as an overall baseball contributor.

I voted for Traynor, but he's not as automatic a choice as some would think. A very good case can be made that Traynor is not near as good as Groh, and Groh was considered a borderline candidate here.

win shares
Traynor - 271
Groh - 271

win shares per 162
Traynor - 22.62
Groh - 26.19

win shares best three seasons:
Traynor - 28, 26, 26
Groh - 37, 30, 28

win shares best 5 consecutive seasons:
Traynor - 119
Groh - 147

TPR
Traynor - 18.4
Groh - 30.4

Warp3
Traynor - 63.1 - 7.3, 6.9, 6.7, 5.5, 5.5
Groh - 67.4 - 8.9, 8.6, 8.3, 7.9, 6.8

mwiggins

03-09-2009, 07:05 PM

Joe Sewell
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Wally Schang
Ross Youngs
Hack Wilson
Harry Hooper
Eppa Rixey
Rogers Hornsby
Frankie Frisch
Mickey Cochrane
Pie Traynor

Cowtipper

03-09-2009, 07:08 PM

A full ballot:

Bottomley
Burns
Cochrane
Combs
Cooper
Frisch
Hornsby
Maranville
Mays
Pratt
Rice
Sewell
Shocker
Traynor
Veach

I had to drop Firpo Marberry this time around.

philkid3

03-09-2009, 07:11 PM

jalbright

03-09-2009, 07:13 PM

Mickey Cochrane
Wilbur Cooper
Frankie Frisch
Burleigh Grimes
Rogers Hornsby
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Joe Sewell
Pie Traynor
Hack Wilson

Cowtipper

03-09-2009, 07:19 PM

jjpm74

03-09-2009, 07:21 PM

bambambaseball

03-09-2009, 07:27 PM

Because of last year, I now have 7 guys I support on top of the 15 I voted for!:hissyfit:

philkid3

03-09-2009, 07:27 PM

None of the players from my ballot last year -- already larger than I've had for a while -- got elected last season. Additionally, four new comers immediately shoot to the top of my queue. In Hornsby, Cochrane and Frisch we have three of the greatest ever seen, and I consider Hornsby and Cochrane the best ever at their respective positions. Along with Traynor, they're at the top of my list.

I'm also finally adding Burleigh Grimes and Wally Schang to my ballot. Which gives me 11, and I had a list of exactly four other players I had been close on. So, partly because of low election rates and partly because of whimsy, since my ballot was already big, I decided to go ahead and use a full 15 spots.

Dave Bancroft
Mickey Cochrane
Frankie Frisch
Burleigh Grimes
Harry Hooper
Rogers Hornsby
Rabbit Maranville
Same Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Pie Traynor
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs

philkid3

03-09-2009, 07:29 PM

This year really is a celebration of the great talent in recent years, though. There are some magnificent players on this ballot and we should have a big election ceremony coming up.

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 07:31 PM

If Pie Traynor doesn't get in on his 1st year of eligibility, it will solidify the position that the participants in the general election do not know how to handle third basemen. Traynor should join Cochrane, Hornsby and Frisch and get in this year.

There's no reason to treat thridbasemen any differently than any other position player. You can MAYBE make a case for a slightly lower standard for early catchers due to the exceedingly difficult time they had playing a lot, but there's no reason to do so for any other position players. We can't just drop standards for the position that happened to have the fewest legitimite great players, unless there is some inate hardship involved with players at that position being able to play at a high level (like with catchers).

Traynor will likely get in, but he is FAR from being an automatic vote. The metrics that we use here (TPR, win shares, Warp) all show Traynor to be a borderline candidate at best. I voted for him, but on a strict interpretation of the metrics, he's probably not a hall of famer by my standards. Leach may have been a marginally better player than Traynor, and I don't consider him a legit hall of famer, although the VC just inducted him. By the way, I think that a player who just comes off 15 years on the general election should have to wait a while before going directly on the VC ballot. It doesn't seem right that Leach goes right in to the hall via the VC one year after his 15 years on the regular ballot.

mwiggins

03-09-2009, 07:36 PM

Of all the players on our ballot last year, the only guy we elect is Bill Terry.

:disbelief:

I'm not going to be one to whine about the process and say I quit cuz my guys aren't getting in, but it is frustrating. And I am starting to see how certain players are in or out in the real Hall of Fame.

Nobody last year was a really solid standout HoFer, though. We had so many borderline candidates that people could spread their votes among. 75% is harder to achieve that it seems.

Take the pitchers...is there really that much difference between Grimes, Mays, and Rixey? Or between Maranville, Sewell, and Bancroft? Or between Rice, Hooper, and Veach? Everybody has their own opinion on who's the best of those little position groups, so we end up with a bunch of borderline candidates with 50% of the vote. STLCards2 and I vote for only one pitcher this time, Rixey. While Cowtipper votes for 3 pitchers, seemingly having a lower standard for what constitutes a HoF pitcher, but Rixey isn't one of them.

The one guy that suprised me how close he was to not making it since I've been voting in these things was Dazzy Vance. Coveleski gets in with 89% while Vance squeaks by with 76%. :disbelief:

mwiggins

03-09-2009, 07:38 PM

bambambaseball

03-09-2009, 07:44 PM

Or they're just not voting for him because of his reputation as one of the most overrated players ever. Or they're just looking at his 107 OPS+ and saying "huh? Why would I vote for this guy? He was barely above average."

How is Pie Traynor one of the most overrated players ever in 1942?:banghead:

mwiggins

03-09-2009, 07:49 PM

How is Pie Traynor one of the most overrated players ever in 1942?:banghead:

Have you not read the 1939 edition of the BJHBA? Apparently it's not that big of a deal that Traynor hardly ever struck out. And defense at 3B isn't really as important as we all thought. ;)

philkid3

03-09-2009, 07:52 PM

Nobody last year was a really solid standout HoFer, though. We had so many borderline candidates that people could spread their votes among. 75% is harder to achieve that it seems.
But Terry is, apparently, to this group the top of that list of borderlines. And that is, well, hard to believe. And it's even more hard to believe that he so clearly separates in general opinion from the others.

The one guy that suprised me how close he was to not making it since I've been voting in these things was Dazzy Vance. Coveleski gets in with 89% while Vance squeaks by with 76%. :disbelief:
Probably becuase Coveleski is often a poster child for underrated. A guy like that tends to get extra attention because people trumpet his career, and, as a result, more people become more versed on his case. They are more sure about Coveleski because, over the years, they've learned more about him. And there are probably some who also overrate him in an overcompensating response.

mwiggins

03-09-2009, 08:24 PM

But Terry is, apparently, to this group the top of that list of borderlines. And that is, well, hard to believe. And it's even more hard to believe that he so clearly separates in general opinion from the others.

Terry's a guy with a .401 season, a .341 lifetime batting average, and a 136 OPS+. He's got the sort of superficial batting stats that don't require a voter to put them into context or to compare them to the positional standards. You can vote for him without worrying about how good he was defensively or how much his defense helped his ERA or what our standards should be for catchers.

And many would not consider Terry borderline. It's not like was a 1970's VC mistake.

Sockeye

03-09-2009, 08:24 PM

jjpm74

03-09-2009, 08:25 PM

But Terry is, apparently, to this group the top of that list of borderlines. And that is, well, hard to believe. And it's even more hard to believe that he so clearly separates in general opinion from the others.

That is baffling to me as well, but I've given up on trying to guess the voting trends in this project when Pete Browning was elected. Bill Terry, a 1st Baseman who had 13 ML seasons gets in on his first try, but Rabbit Maranville, the best defensive shortstop in the history of the game (even out of role, comparing him to all short stops through 2008, he's maybe second to Ozzie Smith), and Joe Sewell who was just as productive but for a much longer period are left on the outside looking in? Maranville was the best defensive player at the hardest to field defensive position and was universally viewed as a superstar in his day. Why does he continue to struggle? Are people that hung up on BA and OPS+ because both WARP3 and win shares have him coming out as a definite HOFer.

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 08:25 PM

How is Pie Traynor one of the most overrated players ever in 1942?:banghead:

Most writers consider him the greatest 3Bman ever, but that is preposterous. I've already shown in this thread that he was clearly a level below Heinie Groh, and that's not even bringing Frank Baker into the discussion. Current start Stan Hack is clearly a better player than Traynor, and I have a feeling that the Pirates current 3Bman may also end up being better than Traynor for his career.

Traynor is vastly overrated because of his high batting average (.320). He did not walk much, and only had fair power, but because he played right in the midst of the greatest sustained period of offensive levels in the game's history, his raw numbers seem impressive. His seven seasons of 100 RBIs seem great on surface, but when you take into account the era that he played in, and who he had batting in front of him in those seasons, those big RBI years are much less impressive.

(To step out of 1942 for a moment, this guy was considered the greatest 3Bman ever well into the 1970s. It wasn't until Schmidt and Brett emerged that he finally lost that title). For some crazy reason he was even considered to be better than Eddie Mathews. It just shows how badly people get fooled by a high batting average.)

jjpm74

03-09-2009, 08:27 PM

My ballot in order of most deserving.

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Frankie Frisch
3. Hack Wilson
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Jim Bottomley
6. Sam Rice
7. Babe Herman
8. Bobby Veach
9. Burleigh Grimes
10. George J. Burns

Why would you support Jim Bottomley? He's one of the worst HOF selections and someone I'm hoping slips off into oblivion after this year. The rest of that ballot, I can see a case for.

mwiggins

03-09-2009, 08:31 PM

Most writers consider him the greatest 3Bman ever, but that is preposterous. I've already shown in this thread that he was clearly a level below Heinie Groh, and that's not even bringing Frank Baker into the discussion. Current start Stan Hack is clearly a better player than Traynor, and I have a feeling that the Pirates current 3Bman may also end up being better than Traynor for his career.

Traynor is vastly overrated because of his high batting average (.320). He did not walk much, and only had fair power, but because he played right in the midst of the greatest sustained period of offensive levels in the game's history, his raw numbers seem impressive. His seven seasons of 100 RBIs seem great on surface, but when you take into account the era that he played in, and who he had batting in front of him in those seasons, those big RBI years are much less impressive.

(To step out of 1942 for a moment, this guy was considered the greatest 3Bman ever well into the 1970s. It wasn't until Schmidt and Brett emerged that he finally lost that title). For some crazy reason he was even considered to be better than Eddie Mathews. It just shows how badly people get fooled by a high batting average.)

Though in 1942 wasn't Jimmy Collins considered the best third basemen ever, not Traynor? Or was that just Bill James cherrypicking to make his point?

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 08:34 PM

Rabbit Maranville, the best defensive shortstop in the history of the game

I think he's second to Bill Dahlen, and maybe even Wagner and Tinker should be ahead of Rabbit.

PLAYER...INNINGS...TOTAL FWS.....FWS per 1,000 innings
Dahlen.... 18754........128.0...............6.82
Maranville 19191........123.2...............6.42
Wagner... 16971........116.9...............6.89
Tinker......15406........112.2...............7.28

Current starrs Rizzuto and Marion are also in the discussion.

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Though in 1942 wasn't Jimmy Collins considered the best third basemen ever, not Traynor? Or was that just Bill James cherrypicking to make his point?

Maybe, as he did get more votes than Traynor in both the 1942 election and the 1945 election, although Traynor was newly retired. Collins got in via an old timer's comm. in 1945 and Traynor in the general election of 1948.

bambambaseball

03-09-2009, 08:49 PM

Maybe, as he did get more votes than Traynor in both the 1942 election and the 1945 election, although Traynor was newly retired. Collins got in via an old timer's comm. in 1945 and Traynor in the general election of 1948.

Do you have Traynors FWS? His defense doesnt seem to stack up for me given his reputation.

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 08:57 PM

Do you have Traynors FWS? His defense doesnt seem to stack up for me given his reputation.

He rates as a B for his career, which is not near as good as his reputation as the greatest fielding 3Bman ever. Here's his numbers with some other greats:

PLAYER...INNINGS...TOTAL FWS.....FWS per 1,000 innings
Traynor...16613.......77.3...............4.65
Collins.....15017.......89.0...............5.93
Cross......14977.......90.4...............6.03
Kamm......14659......77.7................5.30
Latham....13915......73.5................5.28
Nash.......12862......70.9................5.51

bambambaseball

03-09-2009, 08:59 PM

Thats what I thought.

Was Lave Cross really that good? WOW!:eek:

DoubleX

03-09-2009, 09:01 PM

I added a vote for Traynor as I fully intended to vote for him but just forgot to check him off.

The one guy that suprised me how close he was to not making it since I've been voting in these things was Dazzy Vance. Coveleski gets in with 89% while Vance squeaks by with 76%. :disbelief:

Vance got in on the first ballot, Coveleksi did not. Years ago I started a thread here comparing Vance and Coveleski and the consensus was definitely in favor of Vance. Coveleski though, IMO, is one of the most under the radar Hall of Famers, IMO. That doesn't mean underrated, it's just that there's really nothing exceptional about his case either way. He's not a top tier guy nor is he a questionable selection. He's just a solid pick that has faded into history.

In respect to the discussion Traynor, the mantle of best 3Bman to this point in time was widely regarded to be between Collins and Traynor. Modern metrics may tell a different story, but I don't think we should just summarily dismiss such praise.

That is baffling to me as well, but I've given up on trying to guess the voting trends in this project when Pete Browning was elected. Bill Terry, a 1st Baseman who had 13 ML seasons gets in on his first try, but Rabbit Maranville, the best defensive shortstop in the history of the game (even out of role, comparing him to all short stops through 2008, he's maybe second to Ozzie Smith), and Joe Sewell who was just as productive but for a much longer period are left on the outside looking in? Maranville was the best defensive player at the hardest to field defensive position and was universally viewed as a superstar in his day. Why does he continue to struggle? Are people that hung up on BA and OPS+ because both WARP3 and win shares have him coming out as a definite HOFer.

I don't think Maranville is struggling. I believe he's reached at least 60% each year he's been eligible. That's a good start and it's only been four years. He's someone who could definitely benefit from conversation. It's been a while, but for the first 20-25 years in this project, several players required prolonged discussion. The candidates seemed to become more clear cut in '30s, in that it was pretty apparent if someone was over the line or under and there really weren't too many of those close guys that required discussion. That's changed now, and guys like Maranville, Sewell, Rice, Rixey, Grimes, Mays, Cooper, and Wilson (and maybe even Schang), could all benefit from extended discussion (though I have a feeling that Rice could be like Addie Joss and come extremely close but really struggle to get that last vote or two).

Sockeye

03-09-2009, 09:07 PM

Why would you support Jim Bottomley? He's one of the worst HOF selections and someone I'm hoping slips off into oblivion after this year. The rest of that ballot, I can see a case for.

Well lets see for starters his

125 OPS+
6.8 RC/G
.651 OWP
256.7 Batting runs
24.3 Batting wins
21 Black Ink
145 Gray Ink
42.0 HOF Standards
99.0 HOF Monitor
.286 EQA
44.3 WARP1
37.8 WARP3
258 Win Shares

Those numbers put him at least in the boarderline area and for me above the HOF line.

philkid3

03-09-2009, 10:03 PM

Mark, I know you're not a crackpot voter with crazy rules, so I'm interested as to why you didn't vote for Frisch.

Paul Wendt

03-09-2009, 10:07 PM

He rates as a B for his career, which is not near as good as his reputation as the greatest fielding 3Bman ever.
A big part of the Pie Traynor story was batting .300 --indeed, .320.

I remember that Collins was said to have been a whiz with the glove but not Traynor. As I recall people believed that Brooks Robinson and Clete Boyer were better fielders, the best ever, but Pie Traynor was supposed to have been much superior as a batter. (Collins and Traynor were the candidates promoted by MLB in 1969, not that Robinson and Boyer were in the running. It was understood that the all-time team was for retired players. Maybe it was stipulated?)

add: Oops, I forgot to say Ron Santo! Everyone understood that Robinson and Boyer and Ron Santo were not in the running.
;)

bambambaseball

03-09-2009, 10:15 PM

Mark, I know you're not a crackpot voter with crazy rules, so I'm interested as to why you didn't vote for Frisch.

Me too! Hes not member of the lunatic parade!

SavoyBG

03-09-2009, 11:56 PM

A big part of the Pie Traynor story was batting .300 --indeed, .320.

I remember that Collins was said to have been a whiz with the glove but not Traynor. As I recall people believed that Brooks Robinson and Clete Boyer were better fielders, the best ever, but Pie Traynor was supposed to have been much superior as a batter. (Collins and Traynor were the candidates promoted by MLB in 1969, not that Robinson and Boyer were in the running. It was understood that the all-time team was for retired players. Maybe it was stipulated?)

Eddie Mathews was retired in 1969. They picked Traynor as the all time 3Bman. For some reason Mathews was never respected for the great player he was. It took him like 6 or 7 years to get into Cooperstown while someone like Brooks Robinson went right in his first year. Mathews was clearly the best 3Bman ever from the late 1960s until Schmidt was done.

Senor Octobre

03-10-2009, 05:07 AM

Cochrane
Cooper
Frisch
Herman
Hooper
Hornsby
Maranville
Mays
Rice
Rixey
Schang
Sewell
Shocker
Traynor
Wilson

PVNICK

03-10-2009, 05:49 AM

Bancroft
Cochrane
Cooper
Frisch
Grimes
Hornsby
Maranville
Mays
Rixey
Schalk
Schang
Sewell
Shocker
Traynor
Youngs

wow a full 15. There are just those blocks of fairly equivalent players at pitchers and SS, that for me lately are just over the line. We have maybe the two greatest 2B in addition to Collins along with the greatest catcher in AL history along with Dickey, to vote in as well.

SavoyBG

03-10-2009, 06:43 AM

We have maybe the two greatest 2B in addition to Collins

Have you forgotten Mr. Lajoie already?

Not to mention the curent Detroiter at that spot.

leecemark

03-10-2009, 06:58 AM

Mark, I know you're not a crackpot voter with crazy rules, so I'm interested as to why you didn't vote for Frisch.

--He suffered from appearing on the ballot with a vastly superior secondbaseman. I feel like he shouldn't breeze in along with Hornsby. Those who hae described him as being in the Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie class are most definately overrating him. That said, if he should still be on next year's ballot I'll vote for him (doesn't look like he will need it though).

Ace Venom

03-10-2009, 07:03 AM

Dan Bancroft
Jim Bottomley
Frankie Frisch
Larry Gardner
Burleigh Grimes
Roger Hornsby
Rabbit Maranville
Firbo Marberry
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Ray Schalk
Joe Sewell
Pie Traynor
Hack Wilson

Full ballot again. I dropped Judge and Hooper from my ballot. I picked up Sewell from last time.

mwiggins

03-10-2009, 07:19 AM

--He suffered from appearing on the ballot with a vastly superior secondbaseman. I feel like he shouldn't breeze in along with Hornsby. Those who hae described him as being in the Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie class are most definately overrating him. That said, if he should still be on next year's ballot I'll vote for him (doesn't look like he will need it though).

That's understandable. But Schalk and Schang are also appearing on the ballot with a vastly superior player at their position, yet you voted for both of them.

mwiggins

03-10-2009, 07:20 AM

Ace Venom

03-10-2009, 07:28 AM

Why Schalk over Cochrane???

I don't often like to vote for first timers (I made a few exceptions this time) and I was supporting Schalk last time. Cochrane should have no problem eventually getting in, but we had a lot of Schalk discussion last time.

PVNICK

03-10-2009, 07:36 AM

Have you forgotten Mr. Lajoie already?

Not to mention the curent Detroiter at that spot.
Apparently I did.

Brooklyn

03-10-2009, 09:12 AM

My largest ballot to date, at least since the first couple of years.

Cochrane, Frisch, Hornsby, Rice, Sewell, Traynor

vtbub

03-10-2009, 09:33 AM

Cochrane
Frisch
Hornsby
Maranville
Sewell
Wilson

RyanExpress30

03-10-2009, 08:09 PM

1 Hornsby
2 Cochrane
3 Frisch
4 Traynor
5 Bottomley
6 Wilson
7 Combs
8 Herman

Phish

03-11-2009, 08:51 AM

Mickey Cochrane
Frankie Frisch
Burleigh Grimes
Rogers Hornsby
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Joe Sewell
Pie Traynor
Hack Wilson
Ross Youngs

Maranville and Sewell could finally see induction?

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 09:00 AM

Maranville and Sewell could finally see induction?

I don't think Maranville has a chance. He doesn't usually fare well with the late voters. One year, I believe, he was at 100% though 16 voters and didn't make it.

Sewell does appear to have a decent shot, though. At this point, I think he'll make it along with Frisch, Cochrane, and Hornsby. Traynor will get in eventually, but I don't think it'll happen this year.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 09:32 AM

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 09:39 AM

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 09:48 AM

There's more to judging a shortstop's defense than fielding %. Maranville was an exceptional defensive shortstop. Defensive Win Shares has him as an A+ fielder. Not just in his best seasons, but over a LONG career.

Likely so, but I've always had a problem with win shares. The numbers simply don't add up. He may have been better than anyone else in the league at his time, but that in itself shouldn't be a lone qualifier. Now his range factor at shortstop is exceptional, a point I will concede.

EDIT: Okay. You have a point. Maranville is one of those borderline cases where you have to evaluate him for his glove. He wasn't just better than the rest of the league, but he was much better than the rest of the league.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 09:55 AM

Likely so, but I've always had a problem with win shares. The numbers simply don't add up. He may have been better than anyone else in the league at his time, but that in itself shouldn't be a lone qualifier. Now his range factor at shortstop is exceptional, a point I will concede.

Not sure if I understand what you're saying about win shares, but they aren't perfect. And I do understand questioning Maranville as a candidate. I didn't vote for him the first couple of elections, and I'm still not completely sold on him. And his numbers do look much better when you start looking at the other shortstops that played at that time. I haven't done a detailed analysis, but often times, even when his OPS+ wasn't stellar, he was one of the best offensive shortstops in the league. On top of usually being the best defensive shortstop in the league.

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 09:57 AM

As it stands with Maranville, I've taken a closer look at his numbers and I think the late voters are on to something. Maranville was an accumulator and not a very good one. His .257 batting average and his .318 on-base percentage are atrociously bad. People can make an argument that he was a shortstop, but his fielding wasn't all that great. He has a .952 fielding percentage at shortstop, which accounts for 631 errors.

It's not an easy position to play, so Maranville has to impress with other numbers. The problem is that he doesn't. He was a singles hitter that scored a lot of runs, but never batted in many runs because he did not get many extra base hits. Maranville also does not have the yardsticks on his side. He is will below the cut on gray ink and black ink and owes his career numbers to simply playing for 23 seasons. The fact that he was part of the 1914 Braves does help, but not much. I won't be supporting Maranville from now on.

Like mwiggins said, fielding percentage can be a misleading way to judge a player, particularly at an important defensive position like shortstop. In particular, it shouldn't be surprising to see a good defensive shortstop have a lower fielding percentage. This is because that player's ability will result in more opportunities to make plays, tougher plays in particular. Thus, there's not only more opportunities to make errors, but to do so on more difficult players where it's more likely to make an error. In this respect, a good defensive SS could be making an error on a play that a lesser defensive player wouldn't even make a play on. So is it fair to hold the player's ability against him because his better ability gave him at least a chance to make the play?

The fact that Maranville has a strong argument as being the greatest defensive SS to date counts for a lot, IMO. SS is a very challenging and important defensive position, and excelling at it defensively like Maranville did is pretty remarkable. The fact that he could hang around and compile pretty respectable numbers as a SS is also to his credit.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 09:59 AM

I concede that Maranville is a borderline case, which is one of the reasons he has failed with late voters who can take more time to consider these cases. One thing I've noticed with late voters is there are quite a few more votes for Hack Wilson. He's another borderline player that deserves some extra consideration despite his short career and one I will continue to support until he is no longer eligible (or gets elected).

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 09:59 AM

Likely so, but I've always had a problem with win shares. The numbers simply don't add up. He may have been better than anyone else in the league at his time, but that in itself shouldn't be a lone qualifier. Now his range factor at shortstop is exceptional, a point I will concede.

EDIT: Okay. You have a point. Maranville is one of those borderline cases where you have to evaluate him for his glove. He wasn't just better than the rest of the league, but he was much better than the rest of the league.

That is exactly why Maranville has little chance of being elected via the regular ballot. The newer voters in this project seem to be focused on offense primarily which is not a good gauge of shortstop or catcher. They also do not attempt to adjust for schedule and era when evaluating players elected many elections ago. There is also a small but prominent enough group who seem to be imposing their will on the project by only voting for no brainers and ignoring the standards already established before they joined this project.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 10:06 AM

I agree that Maranville is one of those candidates that has little chance of being elected on this ballot. He's a borderline case that relies on his glove to push him over the top. Certainly his offensive numbers are bad for his career, which makes me wonder if he would have been bounced out of the league after a few years if his glove hadn't been so good in his prime. That's certainly not a reason to withhold the vote, but I am questioning my support for Maranville.

leecemark

03-11-2009, 10:12 AM

--I think its important that newer voters in this project get the message that the standard is NOT the Hall of Fame mindset they bring from outside this project. If you are going to join a project midstream it is imcumbent on you to learn how the project has shaped up over the years and do your best to adjust your prior mindset to the context of this Hall. Trying to impose new standards on a 40 year old project is not the good faith effort that should be made by newcomers.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 10:13 AM

And don't forget that for much of baseball history SS has been considered primarily a defensive position. Other than rare exceptions like Wagner, any offense you got from that position was considered a bonus. Maranville was employed by his teams for his glove. No matter how much we might try to put ourselves in the mindset of 1942, we've all had our perception of the shortstop position colored by guys that would come later like Banks, Trammell, Ripken, A-Rod, Nomar, Yount, and Hanley Ramirez.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 10:24 AM

The 1942 mindset is fine and dandy and I think you've won me back to Maranville's side, even if I do still consider him borderline.

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 10:33 AM

Crud, I just realized we Jack Chesbro'd another notable - Edd Roush. He was first eligible in 1936, so this would be his 7th year. I'll add him on the ballot next year.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 10:33 AM

The 1942 mindset is fine and dandy and I think you've won me back to Maranville's side, even if I do still consider him borderline.

You should consider the borderline guys as should everyone participating in this project. For example, in this project, I have been voting for Wally Schang and voted for Jack Clements, Duke Farrell, Lave Cross, Deacon McGuire, Ed McKean, Ed Konetchy, and a slew of others primarily based on discussions centered in this project and standards set after we elected certain players. I have never supported any of those players in any other project.

I don't expect others to be as liberal as I have, but I do hope that they do not attempt to sabotage what we've established over the past 35 elections and focus on this hall and not some idealized small hall notion or whatever standards they have in mind for the NBHoFM.

I also hope that they consider the fact that in 1942 Rabbit Maranville and Pie Trayner were considered among the best in the history of the game. Not borderline cases.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 10:38 AM

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 10:48 AM

Breaking character for a minute here, when thinking about Rabbit Maranville in context, consider Ozzie Smith in the modern era. He was almost universally seen as the best shortstop to field the game despite putting up mediocre offensive numbers on paper and no one doubted his HOF credentials when he retired from the game.

Out of the 1942 mindset as well, I think Smith was much better than Maranville. It's a good link to the modern era, but it's easy to see in the stats that Smith eclipsed Maranville. That's not a count against Maranville, though voters for the real Cooperstown and the real VC certainly have used modern standards when judging deserving players at certain positions (see Ron Santo). It's a tough mindset to leave behind.

Back into 1942, I have supported borderline candidates. I continue to vote for Schang, Gardner and Wilson.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 11:10 AM

Out of the 1942 mindset as well, I think Smith was much better than Maranville. It's a good link to the modern era, but it's easy to see in the stats that Smith eclipsed Maranville. That's not a count against Maranville, though voters for the real Cooperstown and the real VC certainly have used modern standards when judging deserving players at certain positions (see Ron Santo). It's a tough mindset to leave behind.

Just to clarify my point, I am not attempting to make a comparison of the careers of Maranville and Smith. I am attempting to illustrate a point that today's stars sometimes become tomorrow's head scratchers. I'm already starting to see the younger generation question the talent of Ozzie Smith and several times have seen the younger generation refer to Kirby Puckett as a mistake. This is exactly what transpired with Maranville as time passed and why closer scrutiny is needed when looking at players from other generations.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 11:39 AM

And after all this discussion, Rabbit just dropped below the line...:shrug:

Sockeye

03-11-2009, 11:48 AM

Phish

03-11-2009, 12:26 PM

leecemark

03-11-2009, 12:33 PM

Consider for a moment if you will the comparison between Jim Bottomley and Jake Beckley

In my opinion Jack Beckley probably had the better career but was a bit of a compiler. Jim Bottomley didn't last as long but was probably the better player. Both players deserve to be in the HOF.

--Or perhaps it should be neither. Bottomley did peak higher than Beckley, but Beckley made the Hall despite his lack of peak not because of it. Beckley was a slightly above average player for a very long time and made the Hall - without my vote and over the objections of a vocal minority - strictly because of his counting numbers. Bottomley was a very good player for a few years, but didn't sustain it all that long (and was a worse player than Beckley in his lesser seasons). While his peak was better than Beckley's it was not nearly great enough to make up for his modest career totals.

Fielding Marshall

03-11-2009, 12:35 PM

Consider for a moment if you will the comparison between Jim Bottomley and Jake Beckley

OPS+

Beckley 125
Bottomley 125

Best 5 seasons (OPS+)

Beckley 152, 144, 139, 133, 130
Bottomley 163, 155, 148, 146, 135

OWP

Beckley .635
Bottomley .651

Best 5 seasons (OWP)

Beckley .742, .720, .715, .703, .684
Bottomley .777, .762, .760, .758, .687

EQA

Beckley .280
Bottomley .286

Best 5 seasons (EQA)

Beckley .303, .300, .298, .291, .289
Bottomley .322, .315, .312, .308, .297

Win Shares

Beckley 318
Bottomley 258

WS/162

Beckley 21.59
Bottomley 20.99

Best 3 seasons (win shares)

Beckley 65
Bottomley 83

Best 5 seasons (win shares)

Beckley 104
Bottomley 130

Best 10 seasons (win shares)

Beckley 192
Bottomley 214

Black Ink

Beckley 1
Bottomley 21

Gray Ink

Beckley 165
Bottomley 145

HOF Standards

Beckley 50.0
Bottomley 42.0

HOF Monitor

Beckley 84.0
Bottomley 99.0

In my opinion Jack Beckley probably had the better career but was a bit of a compiler. Jim Bottomley didn't last as long but was probably the better player. Both players deserve to be in the HOF.

Wow, Sockeye, the comparison is kind of ridiculous. I think everyone already knew I was going to vote for Bottomley (whom, might I add, was also a famed clutch hitter), but this is icing on the cake. If we are honest with ourselves, then we have to see that Bottomley belongs.

Why would you support Jim Bottomley? He's one of the worst HOF selections and someone I'm hoping slips off into oblivion after this year.

That seems to be some curious sentiments, as I seem to recall a certain Bill James in The Politics of Glory conceding that Bottomley was an acceptable candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Fielding Marshall

03-11-2009, 12:42 PM

Fielding Marshall

03-11-2009, 12:45 PM

Because of last year, I now have 7 guys I support on top of the 15 I voted for!:hissyfit:

Yeah, similar situation here.

Fielding Marshall

03-11-2009, 12:51 PM

DoubleX, the ballot says that one of the players we're supposed to be considering is a certain "Frank Schulte." Of course, the correct player is Fred Schulte, but as Frank Schulte was a real player, it kind of threw me off for a few seconds. No one else seems to have had a problem with it, but perhaps you might be able to change it if it isn't too difficult...?

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 12:52 PM

Personally, I see Bottomley's peak as one of the strongest we've seen thus far, plus he was a premier clutch hitter. Of course, if you have a problem with Hack Wilson, then perhaps Bottomley isn't for you...

What is a clutch hitter and what are you using to measure "clutch"?

Jim Bottomley

Warp3: Career: 37.8 Best 7: 3.7-4.6-5.4-6.3-4.5-4.1-2.8
Win Shares: Career: 258 Best 7: 24-27-23-26-30-21-19
DWS: C+

By those measures, he had 1 MVP level season, 3 All Star level seasons and a bunch of filler.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 12:55 PM

--Or perhaps it should be neither. Bottomley did peak higher than Beckley, but Beckley made the Hall despite his lack of peak not because of it. Beckley was a slightly above average player for a very long time and made the Hall - without my vote and over the objections of a vocal minority - strictly because of his counting numbers. Bottomley was a very good player for a few years, but didn't sustain it all that long (and was a worse player than Beckley in his lesser seasons). While his peak was better than Beckley's it was not nearly great enough to make up for his modest career totals.

How do you (or any of you guys that have been with the project since the beginning) balance the idea of looking at the standards of this project, not your own personal idea of a Hall of Fame, with HoFer's that you perceive as a mistake?

Personally, I wouldn't put either guy in. But I also can't say that if the standard for HoF firstbasemen is Jake Beckley that Bottomley doesn't belong.

In otherwords, where is the line drawn between treating some HoFer's as "mistakes" (ie not considering them to be part of the standards of this Hall) and imposing new standards on the project?

Edit - by "mistakes" I was referring to players that this project has elected that you don't feel belong. Not players in the real HoF that you think are mistakes.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 01:03 PM

How do you (or any of you guys that have been with the project since the beginning) balance the idea of looking at the standards of this project, not your own personal idea of a Hall of Fame, with HoFer's that you perceive as a mistake?

Personally, I wouldn't put either guy in. But I also can't say that if the standard for HoF firstbasemen is Jake Beckley that Bottomley doesn't belong. He's probably more deserving than Beckley.

In otherwords, where is the line drawn between treating some HoFer's as "mistakes" (ie not considering them to be part of the standards of this Hall) and imposing new standards on the project?

I've been using the players who I perceive as the LCDs in our HOF as benchmarks to compare to the players on the ballot. Sometimes, such as in the case of Addie Joss, Hugh Duffy, Jimmy Ryan and George Van Haltren, the bar is raised as time passes and other similar players at their positions do not get elected, so I adjust accordingly and drop the Bobby Veaches of the world from my ballot. I don't use my perception of the NBHoFM and who I view as a mistake and not a mistake at all when participating in this project but I do use modern statistics when looking at these players.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 01:06 PM

I just noticed that I accidentally voted for Rube Walberg. That is a definite mistake and I'd hate to see him make it to 1943 because of my clumsiness. Could a moderator please eliminate my vote from Walberg?

leecemark

03-11-2009, 01:16 PM

--The first couple elections we were electing the best players of all time - up to that time, of course. We quickly moved on to "amoung the best of their generation" or "amoung the best ever at their position". I think that is still the standard for first ballot election. From the backlog that extends down to "amoung the best of their generation at their position" though.
--I think anybody who sits near the median of players already elected clearly meets the standards of this project. I would not say we should be electing everybody better than our worst current inductee though and Beckley is pretty close to that IMO. Beckley had a long hard road to election with a spirted debate between career type voters who supported him and peak voters who did not. Untilimately the career votrers prevailed, but I don't know that his rather unique case sets a standard to be followed for anyone else. It certainly doesn't entitle Bottomley, whose resume is very different.

philkid3

03-11-2009, 01:25 PM

How the hell is Mickey Cochrane under 90%?!

Senor Octobre

03-11-2009, 01:38 PM

Crud, I just realized we Jack Chesbro'd another notable - Edd Roush. He was first eligible in 1936, so this would be his 7th year. I'll add him on the ballot next year.

He'll probably be on my ballot next year.

Sockeye

03-11-2009, 01:42 PM

--Or perhaps it should be neither. Bottomley did peak higher than Beckley, but Beckley made the Hall despite his lack of peak not because of it. Beckley was a slightly above average player for a very long time and made the Hall - without my vote and over the objections of a vocal minority - strictly because of his counting numbers. Bottomley was a very good player for a few years, but didn't sustain it all that long (and was a worse player than Beckley in his lesser seasons). While his peak was better than Beckley's it was not nearly great enough to make up for his modest career totals.

Your definition and my definition of "slightly above average" are two very different things then. Unless you consider a .700 OWP to be "slightly above average"? I however do not. Somewhere between .550-580 would be my opinion of slightly above average depending on position. In the case of Bottomley he had four seasons of .758-777. To put that into context Bill Terry who we just elected only had three seasons with a .755 OWP or better and 6 seasons with a .700 or better OWP. And Terry for his career had over 1200 less PA's than Bottomley. So it's hard if not impossible to make a case that Beckley and Terry deserve to be in the HOF while Bottomley does not.

Sockeye

03-11-2009, 01:59 PM

How do you (or any of you guys that have been with the project since the beginning) balance the idea of looking at the standards of this project, not your own personal idea of a Hall of Fame, with HoFer's that you perceive as a mistake?

Personally, I wouldn't put either guy in. But I also can't say that if the standard for HoF firstbasemen is Jake Beckley that Bottomley doesn't belong.

In otherwords, where is the line drawn between treating some HoFer's as "mistakes" (ie not considering them to be part of the standards of this Hall) and imposing new standards on the project?

Edit - by "mistakes" I was referring to players that this project has elected that you don't feel belong. Not players in the real HoF that you think are mistakes.

I feel that benchmarks are perfectly acceptable and I'll even say very important to use. If we the voters continue to raise and change the standards that are used to elect players then we'll end up with more and more players that are looked back on as mistakes. Very much as the real HOF has done with electing certain players that are no where near deserving on induction while leaving off others that are more than deserving.

So while we should perhaps not use the very worst player selected at a position as the benchmark (in otherwords we should not elect every 1B with a career value equal to or greater than Joe Start) we should look at and consider the fact that a Jake Beckley was elected with a lesser peak than Jim Bottomley and Bill Terry was elected with a shorter career and similar peak to Bottomley. That is a fair guideline to use and how I go about it.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 03:59 PM

While I don't think he's ever going to get voted in, Ross Youngs deserves to have a case made for him. Hopefully it might sway the VC at least.

First of all, yes he did have a very short career. 7 healthy years as a regular, 2 seasons at the end of his career playing with Bright's Disease, and a 7 game cup-of-coffee in 1917. And to make matters worse, two of his seasons were cut short by WW1. In 1918, the Giants only played 124 games (he played in 121 of those), and in 1919 the Giants only played 140 games (he played in 130 of those).

So if he deserves to get in, it's going to be on the merits of those 7 peak seasons. But even with his career cut short by disease at age 29, his WARP3 career total does match up quite well with a number of current HoF OF's.

Youngs - 59.5
Van Haltren - 51.7
Duffy - 51.6
Magee - 58.8
Carey - 57.3
Kelley - 59.3
Wheat - 63.1
Heilman - 66.4
Thompson - 66.5

So even if you're not inclined to make an allowance for the fact that his career was cut short due to illness, his career value is not out of line for this Hall. He also accumulated 115 Gray Ink points in his relatively short career, as he was regularly among the league leaders

But what really deserves your attention is what Youngs accomplished in those 7 seasons, 1918-1924. Youngs was a complete ballplayer. He hit for a high average, drew a lot walks, had a good amount of extra-base power, ran very well, and was an excellent right fielder. In his 7 seasons with the Giants, he was a key member of 4 NL Pennant winners and 2 World Champions, if that counts for anything.

Ross Youngs 1918-1924:

4299 PA's
138 OPS+
Top 3 OPS+ seasons (160, 159, 141)
114 Stolen Bases
.697 OWP
.299 EQA
54.9 WARP 3
Top 3 WARP 3 seasons (10.7, 9.0, 8.7)
62 Fielding Runs Above Average (high of 12 twice, low of 3)
Top 3 Win Share seasons (33, 29, 27)
--------------------------------------
League Leaderships:
Batting Average - 6 Top 10's, 3 top 5's
OBP - 7 Top 10's, 5 Top 5's
SLG - 3 Top 10's, 1 Top 5
SB - 5 Top 10's, 1 Top 5
OPS+ - 6 Top 10's, 3 Top 5's
OWP - 5 Top 10's, 3 Top 5's
Walks - 6 Top 10's, 4 Top 5's

During the 1925 season, Ross began to suffer the affects of what would later be diagnosed as Bright's Disease. His performance that year was far below his previous standards, and in 1926 he was only able to play in 95 games before leaving the team for good in August. He would pass away in Oct 1927.

It's hard to say how Ross's career would have played out if not for his illness, but for me he did enough in those 7 years to prove that he was a truely great player. The year before he began to suffer the affects of the disease he'd had probably his 2nd best season, so it seems unlikely that without suffering a fatal disease he wouldn't have gone on to have the kind of career that made his candidacy a no brainer.

Perhaps the best comparision to a current member of the Hall of Fame is George Sisler. Sisler also had a great 7 year peak before his career was derailed by illness. While Sisler did come back and play for 8 more seasons as a much lesser player, I don't think anyone can argue that he was elected primarily on what he did prior to his illness.

Let's compare Sisler's 7 year peak (1916-1922) with Youngs (1918-1924):

OPS +:
Sisler - 157
Youngs - 138

EQA:
Sisler - .318
Youngs - .299

WARP 3:
Sisler - 49.9
Youngs - 54.9

Fielding Runs Above Average:
Sisler - 21
Youngs - 62

While Sisler certainly was the superior hitter, they appear to be fairly close in terms of overall value. I'm not saying that Youngs is the equal of Sisler in terms of a Hall of Fame candidate, but he doesn't need to be. Sisler was a no-brainer, while Youngs is definitely a borderline candidate. But I do think he's above our standard and deserves your vote.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 04:20 PM

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 04:32 PM

Certainly it's an argument to help sway the VC, but I don't think it's enough. His batting average is impressive and the fact that he was among league leaders when he played is impressive. He led in doubles once and runs scored twice, but it's a tough sell. He wasn't around long enough to accumulate the kind of stats that scream Hall of Famer, so we have to evaluate his peak years. But since I'm willing to give Hack Wilson a discount, I'll evaluate this case.

Hack Wilson's case also primarily rests on 7 great seasons. Let's compare Youngs' 7 years to Wilson's 7 best (1924,1926-1930,1932). Both had a very similar # of PA's - 4234 for Wilson, 4299 for Youngs. Wilson was certainly the better hitter, but Youngs was a much better fielder and baserunner.

WARP3:
Youngs - 54.9
Wilson - 37.8

Hack did have a slightly longer career - 223 PA's more to be exact - but I really can't see voting for him and not Youngs.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 04:41 PM

Sticking just with RF's, we came very close to electing Sam Rice last time. Rice wasn't nearly the hitter Youngs was, and while he was a good fielder, Youngs was superior in that area as well. Rice was probably a little better on the basepaths, but not by much.

So the only real advantage Rice has as a ballplayer is that he didn't contract at fatal illness and have his career derailed before he was even 10 years into it.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd that we'd prefer a RF who was a good-to-very-good player for 20 years over a RF who was a great player for 7 years. And that we'd prefer him by a 4-1 margin.

Even with Rice having nearly twice the career PA's as Youngs, Youngs still accumulated more career WARP3 than Rice. 48.2 for Rice vs. 59.5 for Youngs.

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 05:23 PM

Consider for a moment if you will the comparison between Jim Bottomley and Jake Beckley.

The difference though is that Beckley stood out more in his time. His kind of longevity and production was very rare for his day, even for 1B. After the Anson/Brouthers/Connor trio, 1B just wasn't the big hitting position that it would then become again in the 1920s, the group of which Bottomley was competing against. With players like Gehrig, Foxx, Terry, Sisler early in his career, Fournier, and more recently Greenberg and Mize, Bottomley's production at 1B just wasn't as remarkable as Beckley's was in his day, particularly given their relative longevity.

--Or perhaps it should be neither. Bottomley did peak higher than Beckley, but Beckley made the Hall despite his lack of peak not because of it. Beckley was a slightly above average player for a very long time and made the Hall - without my vote and over the objections of a vocal minority - strictly because of his counting numbers. Bottomley was a very good player for a few years, but didn't sustain it all that long (and was a worse player than Beckley in his lesser seasons). While his peak was better than Beckley's it was not nearly great enough to make up for his modest career totals.

I respectfully disagree. I perhaps put as much thought and effort into advocating Beckley's case as I did anyone, going so far as to show how his yearly production compared to the average production at his position and how his longevity was pretty remarkable for his day. It wasn't just about his counting numbers, though they are a product of what made Beckley stand out (I asked this several times back then and no one gave an answer - if Beckley's numbers weren't so impressive, why did so very few players, and in fact, as I showed, only the true giants of the game at that and over the next 25 or so years, achieve those numbers). Beckley to me in many ways embodies the spirit/objective of this project - the effort to judge a player's accomplishments within the context in which he played and not hold them to some preconceived standards. Pound for pound, Bottomley may have the better player, but Beckley was the more remarkable player in the context of his time. I also think it does say something that Beckley and Bottomley have the same OPS+ despite Beckley having 2000+ more plate appearances and playing in a much less favorable era for hitting. Perhaps Beckley would have benefited from the live ball and rule changes of the 1920s and been an even better hitter compared to the mean, and perhaps Bottomley would have been even worse in Beckley's conditions. This is why straight comparisons over eras aren't always the best tact.

On the current ballot, one might say Sam Rice's case is somewhat reminiscent of Beckley's. Rice has different things going for and against him, but at the core, both compiled pretty shiny counting numbers due to good longevity. I am voting for Rice, but I'm not advocating for him nearly as strongly as I did for Beckley because I don't believe Rice's accomplishments stood out as much in his time as Beckley's did in his. So it's not just simply about gaudy counting numbers, at least for me. It's about putting them into perspective.

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 05:41 PM

Hack Wilson's case also primarily rests on 7 great seasons. Let's compare Youngs' 7 years to Wilson's 7 best (1924,1926-1930,1932). Both had a very similar # of PA's - 4234 for Wilson, 4299 for Youngs. Wilson was certainly the better hitter, but Youngs was a much better fielder and baserunner.

WARP3:
Youngs - 54.9
Wilson - 37.8

Hack did have a slightly longer career - 223 PA's more to be exact - but I really can't see voting for him and not Youngs.

It's interesting how WARP3 seems to have displaced Win Shares in recent elections as the metric of choice. Win Shares puts Wilson somewhat comfortably ahead:

3 Year
Wilson: 97
Youngs: 89

5 Year
Wilson: 151
Youngs: 137

7 Year
Wilson: 188
Youngs: 181

Career
Wilson: 224
Youngs: 206

Number or 30+ Win Share Seasons
Wilson: 3
Youngs: 1

Number of 25+ Win Share Seasons
Wilson: 6
Youngs: 4

So based on Win Shares, I can see voting for Wilson and not Youngs. Also throw in the fact that Wilson might get a little subjective boost for setting the single season RBI record and is 14 points ahead of Youngs in OPS+.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 05:58 PM

It's interesting how WARP3 seems to have displaced Win Shares in recent elections as the metric of choice. Win Shares puts Wilson somewhat comfortably ahead:

So based on Win Shares, I can see voting for Wilson and not Youngs. Also throw in the fact that Wilson might get a little subjective boost for setting the single season RBI record and is 14 points ahead of Youngs in OPS+.

I would have included WS as well, but I didn't have them for the years in question. It is curious that WARP and Win Shares have such a different impression. After adjusting for the 40 or so games Youngs lost to the shortened WW1 seasons, I have him at 212 career Win Shares. So not much of a difference there. I'd be curious to see how man Win Shares Hack earned in his down seasons like 1925,1931,1933, and 1934. His WARP3 scores for those years are each between 1 and 2. Whereas Youngs earned 3.0 or more in every season except for 1925. Hack had a lot more of his career where he was merely an average player.

I do vote for Wilson as well, but the subjective boost he might get from his RBI record is much smaller than the subjective boost Youngs might get because of the fact that his career was cut short because of a fatal illness. Plus, I would naturally favor the more compete ballplayer vs. the player who's value was entirely generated by his bat. Wilson may have been the more valuable player, or at least equal in value, but I would consider Youngs to be the more skilled player.

leecemark

03-11-2009, 06:08 PM

--I think you may be overstating the advantage Youngs has as a complete ballplayer. Wilson had a lousy reputation as a defender, but he did play almost exclusively in centerfield, while Youngs was even more exclusively a rightfielder - even in the year they shared the same outfield for the Giants. Youngs stole many more bases, but I don't know how much of a plus that was for the Giants - his success rate in the years we have data for are terrible. I think his high WARP score may be an anomoly of that system. I'm inclined to believe Win Shares has it right on this one. I'm not voting for either, but Wilson is closer to my ballot.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 06:15 PM

I think his high WARP score may be an anomoly of that system. I'm inclined to believe Win Shares has it right on this one. I'm not voting for either, but Wilson is closer to my ballot.

That certainly could be. I was suprised when I saw how well Youngs fared in WARP.

But even assuming Win Shares are closer to the truth, I'd still see Youngs as a far superior candidate. Wilson's full career barely tops Youngs truncated career for total career value. Even a small allowance for his illness would give Youngs the edge. Even being extremely conservative, Youngs was likely going to earn 300 win shares. And that's assuming he would have started his decline phase at age 28 and been out of the game by age 34, which seems highly unlikely given that he was coming off his best OPS+ year at age 27.

And regarding Wilson being a CF vs. Youngs being a RF - the fact that Wilson played a more important position isn't enough to make up for how much better a defender Youngs was. And I don't have any doubt that Youngs could have handled CF in Wrigley better than Wilson did. When he came up the Giants already had Benny Kauff in CF and George J. Burns in LF, so after he bombed at 2B, RF would have been pretty much the only spot available to him. And with his arm, he'd have probably been seen as fitting RF more than the other two OF spots. Not to mention he probably didn't have the range to cover CF in the Polo Grounds.

Wilson's 14 pt OPS+ edge on Youngs is more than made up by Youngs defense and baserunning, IMO. Esp when that 14 pt edge includes two seasons where Youngs' performance was affected by his illness.

But being a better candidate than Hack Wilson isn't going to get him anywhere. I'm guessing there's enough voters that aren't going to make any allowance for how his career ended, which makes Youngs kind of a non-starter for them.

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 06:55 PM

I would have included WS as well, but I didn't have them for the years in question. It is curious that WARP and Win Shares have such a different impression. After adjusting for the 40 or so games Youngs lost to the shortened WW1 seasons, I have him at 212 career Win Shares. So not much of a difference there. I'd be curious to see how man Win Shares Hack earned in his down seasons like 1925,1931,1933, and 1934. His WARP3 scores for those years are each between 1 and 2. Whereas Youngs earned 3.0 or more in every season except for 1925. Hack had a lot more of his career where he was merely an average player.

This doesn't seem to be the first time recently where Win Shares and WARP3 were in discord.

Here are the Win Shares for Wilson and Youngs by year:

Wilson
1923: 0
1924: 16
1925: 4
1926: 26
1927: 31
1928: 28
1929: 32
1930: 35
1931: 13
1932: 21
1933: 12
1934: 6

Wilson had a very impressive five year run there.

Youngs
1917: 2
1918: 22
1919: 27
1920: 33
1921: 23
1922: 22
1923: 25
1924: 29
1925: 11
1926: 12

Youngs had a longer period of consistency, with 7 straight years of All Star level play, but he didn't have a string of seasons quite like Wilson did.

All told, I'm close on Wilson. Another year or two of good play could probably do it for me.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 07:11 PM

Thanks for those WS #'s Double X. I would give Youngs a 30 WS season in 1919, after adjusting for the shortened schedule. And I adjust 1918 to 27 Win Shares.

So with those adjustments, I'd put Youngs' best 5 seasons at 146 Win Shares vs. 151 for Hack. Hack still has the edge, but it's only 1 WS per season. Which is fairly meaningless. Hack would still have a 5 WS lead over their best 3 seasons.

But over their 7 best years, Youngs is rounghly equal to Hack after adjusting for the shortened WW1 years. Which, since WARP3 shows Youngs' 7 year peak significantly better than Hack's I'd let that break the tie and give Youngs the edge. And the fact that Youngs's peak was sustained over 7 straight years vs. Hack's 5 year sustained peak is also a plus for Youngs in this comparison.

bambambaseball

03-11-2009, 07:20 PM

Wilson is very borderline but had an more impressive peak and also he had one all time great season. I try to not weigh single seasons, but hes so borderline that that 1 year edges him onto my cue.

Youngs after this discussion goes into my cue too. We need to elect 7 guys with no new guys coming along for me to add him, though. Theres just too much good players on the balott right now and we arent electing enough of them!

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 07:44 PM

I think we should make up for some lost time and talk about Edd Roush a little. I think he's a cut above the dubious Van Haltren/Duffy/Ryan trio. I'd put him slightly ahead of Max Carey too. We elected Carey in his first year, which I found a little surprising. Here's how they compare in Win Shares:

3-Year
Roush: 96 (3 30 WS seasons)
Carey: 84 (0 30 WS seasons)

5-Year
Roush: 147
Carey: 134

7-Year
Roush: 191
Carey: 181

10-Year
Roush: 250
Carey: 245

Carey moves ahead in career value, but I think Roush has enough of a combination between peak and career value to make the cut.

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 07:46 PM

Likely so, but I've always had a problem with win shares.

So you like fielding percentage as a stat, but you have a problem with win shares?

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 07:51 PM

I also hope that they consider the fact that in 1942 Rabbit Maranville and Pie Trayner were considered among the best in the history of the game. Not borderline cases.

If that were true it would not have taken Maranville until 1954 to get elected to Cooperstown.

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 07:59 PM

But what really deserves your attention is what Youngs accomplished in those 7 seasons, 1918-1925.

1918 to 1925 is eight seasons, not seven seasons.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 08:01 PM

So you like fielding percentage as a stat, but you have a problem with win shares?

Unless you're dealing with a system that accounts for negative win shares, I don't really have any use for win shares as a stat.

DoubleX

03-11-2009, 08:05 PM

If that were true it would not have taken Maranville until 1954 to get elected to Cooperstown.

There was an enormous backlog of players, especially considering that just one player was elected between 1940 and 1945.

You continue to foster an impression that you're not quite conforming to the objectives of this project, and instead holding players to modern impressions rather than trying to place them within the context of the game they played in and the history of the game to that point. So many of your posts reference future dates and events which I believe does much to reveal an underlying approach which isn't really within the spirit of this project.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 08:14 PM

Certainly I think we need to try to keep the context of the times in perspective. It's not easy to do, but I do think we've done a fairly good job overall based on our selections. We've got a few that look like they'd have to go before the VC, but they will get in.

Brad Harris

03-11-2009, 08:47 PM

AstrosFan

03-11-2009, 08:49 PM

Cochrane
Frisch
Grimes
Hornsby
Rixey
Traynor

bambambaseball

03-11-2009, 08:50 PM

philkid3

03-11-2009, 08:55 PM

He has a .952 fielding percentage at shortstop, which accounts for 631 errors.
Fielding percentage is how you judge defense?

:eek

bambambaseball

03-11-2009, 08:56 PM

SavoyBG at least justifies his balotts and adds players after theyve been talked about. Its painful to watch Rabbit suffer and continue to slide, Joe Sewell slide and Sam Rice slide with balotts like Brooklyn and Astrosfan constantly listed with no explanation or accountibility at all. Both of them and a few other people just impose some imaginary small hall thing here and add nothing to the actual project. This is my last post in this project. Im not voting next year and not participating anymore. Goodbye.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 08:59 PM

This is my last post in this project. Im not voting next year and not participating anymore. Goodbye.

Hey. Don't worry about it. Keep voting. You're a good contributor.

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 09:01 PM

Fielding percentage is how you judge defense?

:eek

It's one thing I measure. I also look at things like range factor and his contributions expected at his position (i.e. assists and double plays). Maranville definitely accumulated well and was pretty amazing in his prime. I'll admit I had a bit of a brain fart with him, but that's resolved.

philkid3

03-11-2009, 09:06 PM

If we are honest with ourselves, then we have to see that Bottomley belongs.
Just to use a WARP comparison because it's quick, I'm not sure how you can so definitively say Bottomley belongs if Beckley does.

Beckely KILLS Bottomley in career WARP 72.5 to 44.3 with eight seasons of 4.5 or better for Beckley (in shorter seasons) to five for Bottomley. There is no way you can say they are inarguably comparable, even if you can easily compare their eras.

It is pretty damn easy to be honest with oneself and keep Beckley in and Bottomley out. I'm not saying Bottomely is absolutely behind Beckley and not a Hall of Famer, I'm saying it's not some apparent comparison that makes Beckely a clear mistake and/or Bottomley a clear mistake, even by advanced numbers.

philkid3

03-11-2009, 09:12 PM

Personally, I see Bottomley's peak as one of the strongest we've seen thus far, plus he was a premier clutch hitter. Of course, if you have a problem with Hack Wilson, then perhaps Bottomley isn't for you...

Would you like to elaborate on and support these sentiments, and also present how clutch he was, if it was an actual repeatable skill and what clutch means and what it's worth?

philkid3

03-11-2009, 09:25 PM

It's interesting how WARP3 seems to have displaced Win Shares in recent elections as the metric of choice.
The new WARP came out recently, and while it's still got some questions, for players before 1955, I'll take it as the best single metric.

I don't build my case on one number, I mostly just use it to weed out the obviously out from the gray area and to present arguments that don't take me three hours to put together on this message board.

All that said, for this I'm not going to use WARP3 because the era adjustment shouldn't apply that much for the Hall of Fame I think. If it did, the number of players with a better Hall of Fame case than the players in will grow exponentially every year as the quality of baseball (according to WARP3) goes steadily up. In short: I'm concerned with how a player is doing in his era, not all-time, for the Hall of Fame, so I'll take WARP over WARP3. If we're building an all-time list, that would be different.

mwiggins

03-11-2009, 09:26 PM

Would you like to elaborate on and support these sentiments, and also present how clutch he was, if it was an actual repeatable skill and what clutch means and what it's worth?

Future HoFer Frankie Frisch called him "The best clutch hitter I ever saw."

HoFer Bill Terry said Bottomley was "a winner who St. Louis's championship clubs together." He also said Bottomely was "the man we feared the most."

Not sure what else you need...;)

philkid3

03-11-2009, 09:29 PM

Future HoFer Frankie Frisch called him "The best clutch hitter I ever saw."

HoFer Bill Terry said Bottomley was "a winner who St. Louis's championship clubs together." He also said Bottomely was "the man we feared the most."

Not sure what else you need...;)

Oh, well, since in 2009 those sorts of quotes from players are all I need to change my mind from any sort of evidence, I'm sure I should be the same in 1942.

:laugh

:crazy

philkid3

03-11-2009, 09:34 PM

Since I had BP open I was going to put together a quick WARP representation of Maranville vs. our HoF shortstops.

But the Cougars game is more important.

This is a reminder to do so afterwards.

Paul Wendt

03-11-2009, 10:02 PM

The new WARP came out recently, and while it's still got some questions, for players before 1955, I'll take it as the best single metric.
WARP1 is denominated in wins so with a scale proportional to the number of team games played. Therefore its probable that you mean major league players before 1955 and after 1903 (1904-1954). During that period, except for the wars of 1915-16 and 1918-19, the major leagues uniformly asked 16 teams to play about 154 games every season.

A few years ago in the annual cycle of this project, the tide came in on Tommy Leach, the last player from before 1904. So this point about WARP1 (or Win Shares or the Total Baseball Ratings) doesn't matter here any longer.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 10:14 PM

Next year, we have Goose Goslin who should be another no brainer. 1st balloteer Edd Roush will get a nice amount of support and may even be elected. Outside of them, Kiki Cuyler will have support and I'm definitely open to listening to his case, Waite Hoyt will get some votes, and Red Lucas, though not someone likely to get support, is another player worthy of discussion.

Also eligable to appear on the ballot are:

Ethan Allen
Ray Benge
Ed Brandt
Bill Cissell
Woody English
Mule Haas
Bill Hallahan
Roy Johnson
Buck Jordan
John Leslie
John Stone
Joe Stripp
Tommy Thevenow

Of them, Mule Haas gained notoriety as a premiere pinch hitter and John Stone had some great seasons with the bat.

With 1 and possibly 2 string candidates next year, hopefully we can specifically focus on the players who have had 40-70% of the vote as those are the players who have the best chance at election. Let's make these players the focus of discussion the next few years.

As interesting as Larry Gardner and Dave Bancroft are, neither one has a legitimate shot through the general election and their cases are best left to discussing in their 14th and 15th years of eligibility so that both are fresh on the minds of the VC.

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 10:19 PM

There was an enormous backlog of players, especially considering that just one player was elected between 1940 and 1945.

You continue to foster an impression that you're not quite conforming to the objectives of this project, and instead holding players to modern impressions rather than trying to place them within the context of the game they played in and the history of the game to that point. So many of your posts reference future dates and events which I believe does much to reveal an underlying approach which isn't really within the spirit of this project.

Look, I've been voting for Maranville since he was eligible. I just don't believe that he was considered one of the greatest players ever in 1942, and the evidence indicates that I'm right. If he was considered one of the greatest players ever in 1942, he would have gotten elected to the hall of fame in those years when nobody was getting in.

As for posts about the future, I have had a few of them lately, but mainly in response to other posters who started that.

And as for the objectives of this project, if you were really trying to induct only players who were thought of as great at the time, the standards here would be higher, rather than a bit lower, than the real hall of fame. Many of the players that have been inducted here in the general vote either never made Cooperstown, or finally made it via the veteran's committee in the 1970s (or later).

Most of the voters here are holding players to modern impressions (win shares, WARP, OPS+, DIPS, etc...). Nobody in 1942 was talking about Carl Mays being helped a lot by his fielders. In 1942 Jim Bottomley was a highly respected former star, and a voter would be laughed out of press row for suggesting that Tommy Leach, who got a whopping one HOF vote in two different years, was a hall of famer. Lou Criger and his .290 career SLG% was a better respected candidate than Leach.

You guys are in denial about this project if you really believe that you are looking at these players through the eyes of 1942. Maybe you and JJPM74 should just talk each year over and then announce to all of us that "won't conform the the standards" as to who is being inducted every year. Because you seem to be pushing other voters into applying the standards that you see as proper, rather than letting voters decide what they feel the proper standards should be. Instead of worrying about a knowledgable voter like me you should be worried about several voters who always have 15 players on their ballot every year, and voters who refuse to vote for a first year candidate, and voters who never heard of any of these players until 2008.

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 10:22 PM

SavoyBG at least justifies his balotts and adds players after theyve been talked about.

Thank you. I was against Groh at first, but a careful look told me that he definitely belonged. I was against sewell, but some on the board convinced me that he was a reasonable lower level hall of famer. I was really against Sutton when I first joined here, but after taking his entire career into account, with adjustments for short schedules, Sutton is an easy hall of famer.

I'm willing to compromise and change my mind, but I don't want to be told what my standards "should" be.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 10:27 PM

You guys are in denial about this project if you really believe that you are looking at these players through the eyes of 1942. Maybe you and JJPM74 should just talk each year over and then announce to all of us that "won't conform the the standards" as to who is being inducted every year. Because you seem to be pushing other voters into applying the standards that you see as proper, rather than letting voters decide what they feel the proper standards should be. Instead of worrying about a knowledgable voter like me you should be worried about several voters who always have 15 players on their ballot every year, and voters who refuse to vote for a first year candidate, and voters who never heard of any of these players until 2008.

You have contributed quite a bit in the way of constructive analysis to this project, and yes, there are some weird voting trends happening that are far more detrimental, but you really do need to tone it down a bit. You do some great analysis and seem to be approaching this with an open mind as evidenced in who you've added to your ballot since you joined the project and I especially appreciate your write ups in the contributor's threads.

I'm willing to compromise and change my mind, but I don't want to be told what my standards "should" be.

Your standards and approach are fine. Looking at the objections, they seem to be geared towards some of the other participants. This project's basically experiencing some growing pains. No big deal, really and I hope no one leaves over the voting trends of what happens to be the deepest ballot we've seen since 1901.

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 10:40 PM

You have contributed quite a bit in the way of constructive analysis to this project, and yes, there are some weird voting trends happening that are far more detrimental, but you really do need to tone it down a bit. You do some great analysis and seem to be approaching this with an open mind as evidenced in who you've added to your ballot since you joined the project and I especially appreciate your write ups in the contributor's threads.

Okay, fair enough.

Of the guys who are getting real good support, I still don't see Rice as worthy. I know he played mainly at Griffith, but he was not a great run producer considering the era he played in. A career 113 OPS+ for a corner OFer is nothing special, evidenced by his mediocre career TPR of 8.2. He was never even close to having even one MVP level season. It wasn't like his 113 OPS+ came way down because of his decline either. He only topped 120 four times in seasons where he was a regular, and he never topped 125. Win shares defense is a B-, which is very good for a RFer, but I defy you to show me any hall of fame corner outfielder who never had even one season as a regular with an OPS+ over 125.

A similar player to Rice, who is winding down his career here in 1942, is Lloyd Waner. Not quite as good of an offensive player as Rice, but a much better fielder at a more important position. I don't see Lloyd as being a good candidate, but I bet some here will vote for him. His best three seasons were all marginally better than Rice's best season according to win shares, but he too never had an MVP level year.

jjpm74

03-11-2009, 10:46 PM

Ace Venom

03-11-2009, 10:58 PM

Instead of worrying about a knowledgable voter like me you should be worried about several voters who always have 15 players on their ballot every year, and voters who refuse to vote for a first year candidate, and voters who never heard of any of these players until 2008.

Or we could all just stop whining about who votes for what player because it all comes down to a matter of opinion. At least that's my take on it. All you can do is present a case and hope it gets someone to your side. Complaining will just turn someone off to a certain candidate out of spite.

SavoyBG

03-11-2009, 10:59 PM

Sam Rice is someone I've always struggled with. On the one hand, advanced metrics don't place him much above league average. On the other hand, he got a very late start and despite this, managed what would have amounted to 3035 career hits if league adjusting and a .310 BA career with over 1500 runs. What accounts for his poor metrics, while posting what many consider to be HOF career numbers?

On another candidate, with all the comparison between Hack wilson and Ross Youngs, I have reevaluated my ballot and won't be voting for Hack Wilson after this year. His career really didn't amount to much outside of one great year.

Rice doesn't come out very good in metrics because he's a corner outfielder with no power who didn't walk much. But he rarely missed a game, played a long time, had very good speed, and had the kind of numbers (high average, almost 3,000 hits) that impressed people a lot in his day. If he had been an exceelnt fielding CFer, or a real good fielder at an infield spot, he'd be a hall of famer in the mold of Traynor. Funny, because he was a reegular CFer in a couple of years, and had great defensive seasons in CF in 1920 and 1921, when he won a win shares gold glove. For some reason he was moved to RF in 1923, even though Washington did not have a great CFer, with Leibold playing there.

I just don't think he was ever a dominant enough player, even for one season, for me to call hiom a hall of famer.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 12:25 AM

WARP1 is denominated in wins so with a scale proportional to the number of team games played. Therefore its probable that you mean major league players before 1955 and after 1903 (1904-1954). During that period, except for the wars of 1915-16 and 1918-19, the major leagues uniformly asked 16 teams to play about 154 games every season.

A few years ago in the annual cycle of this project, the tide came in on Tommy Leach, the last player from before 1904. So this point about WARP1 (or Win Shares or the Total Baseball Ratings) doesn't matter here any longer.
I'm kind've confused as to what you're talking about, and I meant what I said.

Like, I can't agree or disagree or elaborate because I'm litterally in the dark as to what your point is pertaining to mine.

The 1955 cut-off is just because of the numbers we have changing in the retrosheet era.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 12:32 AM

Most of the voters here are holding players to modern impressions (win shares, WARP, OPS+, DIPS, etc...).
Because the education about how to study baseball and the amount of research available to fans has grown over time. We're able to know more now and I don't see why we shouldn't apply the knowledge we have about baseball to players from the era we're discussing. You can use "new stats" (which is a weird term because the events that create them always existed) and still kep them in the context of their era.

Nobody in 1942 was talking about Carl Mays being helped a lot by his fielders.
Maybe they should have.

You guys are in denial about this project if you really believe that you are looking at these players through the eyes of 1942.
We might be, but the fact is that shoudl be the purpose. And that has nothing to do with looking at their stats differently to try and be incorrect because people may have done so once upon a time.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 12:46 AM

Sam Rice is someone I've always struggled with. On the one hand, advanced metrics don't place him much above league average.
Since you bring advanced metrics in to this, I'm not so sure that's correct.

First, he put up a 58.6 career WARP. For reference, Sean Smith's WAR, on a similar scale, has only 69 players since 1955 with a total higher than that. That's definitely not someone getting in to the Hall of Fame automatically based on a career accumulation, but it's nothing to sniff at.

As far as being much above average, 13 of 16 consecutive years in his career he was 2 wins (about average) or better. And two of those years were 1.9, so that's 15 of 16 years of at least average. Eight of those years were 4 wins (about All-Star level) or better, four of them were 5 wins or better, and two were 6 wins (MVP candidate at best, back of the ballot at worst) or better. Finally, he averaged closed to a 4 win season per 650 plate appearances over his career, and he usually surpassed 650 PA.

Now, I'm certainly not saying anyone should look at WARP and say, "Sam Rice is a Hall of Famer." For one, that's not necessarily enough research, and it's also a really low standard even if you just go by WARP. I'm merely trying to present the opposing view point that by advanced metrics he does come out as a a good bit above average.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 12:50 AM

As far as my case on Rice, I find him to fit my standards of borderline, and with his military time and early life tragedy, as well as some nifty counting stats and some heavy doses of fame, I'm giving him the slight nudge. But I certainly don't think he's a shoe in and I'm letting this voting pretty much decide. If he gets in I accept him as a Hall of Famer, if he doesn't I probably won't support him in the VC.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 01:21 AM

I was going to compare Maranville by WARP to the shortstops we've elected not named Wagner who played primarily since 1903. But, well, I didn't realize how few we've elected (which makes me consider Bancroft even more strongly).

So, this is kind've pointless, but since I did it, I'll post it.

I voted for Jennings on his peak, but putting it in this context really shows how outrageous it was. Also, I didn't adjust Bobby Wallace for season length, but that would have only made him look better probably.

Career
Bobby Wallace: 81.6
Maranville: 64.9
Jennings: 54.5

Five Year Peak
Jennings: 44.0
Wallace: 31.0
Maranville: 27.5

Best Three Seasons
Jennings: 29.6
Wallace: 23.6
Maranville: 19.7

Per 600 PA
Jennings: 5.8
Wallace: 5.1
Maranville: 3.7

(The following are rounded to the nearest whole number.)
Seasons 2+
Wallace: 16
Maranville: 14
Jennings: 8

Seasons 4+
Wallace: 12
Maranville: 10
Jennings: 5

Seasons 6+
Wallace: 6
Jennings: 5
Maranville: 5

Seasons 7+
Wallace: 4
Jennings: 4
Maranville: 2

Windy City Fan

03-12-2009, 01:27 AM

Question for Hack Wilson supporters. What makes him significantly better than Jack Fournier? Fournier slipped off our ballot after only 4 or 5 years despite having a better OPS+ and more career PA. Wilson was a centerfielder, but not a particularly good one. So yeah, I'd give him some positional credit and I know he had a more imperssive peak, but career wise, there isn't much seperating him from Fournier. Gavvy Cravath and Charley Jones are a pair of outfielders who we've rejected that also come to mind as reasonable comparisons to Wilson.

I think if you accept the Ryan/Van Haltren/Duffy trio as our standard for outfielders, than Wilson, Jones, and Cravath all easily make the cut. But it seems we've tightened our standards and those three will probably be considered mistakes by future generations, rather than benchmarks for what a hall of famer is.

I'm on the fence with Wilson but I'm asking for some kind of argument from his supporters on why he belongs. I could see Wilson as a bottom rung HoFer, but I could also see him as a player who falls just short.

Similarly, I'd like to hear an argument either for or against the trio of pitchers we have - May/Shocker/Cooper. I'm planning on taking a harder look at them in the future, but any argument folks have for them would be very appreciated.

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 05:34 AM

You guys are in denial about this project if you really believe that you are looking at these players through the eyes of 1942. Maybe you and JJPM74 should just talk each year over and then announce to all of us that "won't conform the the standards" as to who is being inducted every year. Because you seem to be pushing other voters into applying the standards that you see as proper, rather than letting voters decide what they feel the proper standards should be. Instead of worrying about a knowledgable voter like me you should be worried about several voters who always have 15 players on their ballot every year, and voters who refuse to vote for a first year candidate, and voters who never heard of any of these players until 2008.

Non one is in denial here. As JJPM said, there are trends more detrimental than yours, but you open yourself up because your rhetoric can at times be more aggressive and critical than others.

Moreover, there's no way we can fully recreate contemporary perspectives and values. Attempting to do so would be a joke, and that's why there's the flexibility in using modern metrics. All I ask is that people do their best to not hold players to standards that have yet to develop and try to assess a player within the context of the game at that time and the history of the game to that point. As you mentioned, there are voters who have a more difficult time with that than others. It's regrettable, but at the same time, I believe this project also provides a great learning opportunity for many, exposing people to the game's history and players in a systematic way.

Sockeye

03-12-2009, 05:46 AM

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 06:01 AM

Ace Venom

03-12-2009, 07:04 AM

Similarly, I'd like to hear an argument either for or against the trio of pitchers we have - May/Shocker/Cooper. I'm planning on taking a harder look at them in the future, but any argument folks have for them would be very appreciated.

Considering I only support Mays, here we go:

W-L: 207-126 (.622)
G: 490
GS: 325
CG: 231
SHO: 29
GF: 125
BB: 734
SO: 862
ERA: 2.92 (lgERA was 3.49)

League Leader:
Wins (1921)
W-L% (1921)
Games (1921)
IP (1921)
Complete Games (1918, 1926)
Shutouts (1918, 1920)

Black Ink: 23
Gray Ink: 172

Mays scores a 114 on the HOF Monitor. He was a top ten finisher in ERA six times, seven times for wins, six times for W-L%, six times for IP, four times for shutouts and only twice for losses. He also won both his decisions in the 1918 World Series against the Cubs, both complete game victories and a 1.00 ERA in both games. He was also good with the bat, hitting .268 for his career with 110 RBI and 5 home runs. In 1921 with the Yankees, he had his best year with the bat, hitting .343 with 22 RBI, 2 home runs, five doubles and a triple. It is for all these reasons he gets my vote.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 07:45 AM

He did get a very late start, but he still had a very long career. Over 10,000 PA's and 20 seasons. He was still posting positive WARP scores at age 43.

Perhaps this is what we should be focusing on and not on his peak or lack of peak. Sam Rice was very productive into an advanced age and despite the fact that he would not be a full time player until age 27, still managed to end up in the top end of hits all time.

It is a shame he didn't get an earlier start. He could have easily ended up in the company of Tris Speaker and possibly even the great Ty Cobb in hits.

SavoyBG

03-12-2009, 08:00 AM

Non one is in denial here. As JJPM said, there are trends more detrimental than yours, but you open yourself up because your rhetoric can at times be more aggressive and critical than others.

Moreover, there's no way we can fully recreate contemporary perspectives and values. Attempting to do so would be a joke, and that's why there's the flexibility in using modern metrics. All I ask is that people do their best to not hold players to standards that have yet to develop and try to assess a player within the context of the game at that time and the history of the game to that point. As you mentioned, there are voters who have a more difficult time with that than others. It's regrettable, but at the same time, I believe this project also provides a great learning opportunity for many, exposing people to the game's history and players in a systematic way.

Of course people are holding players to standards that were not yet developed in 1942. That's why George Davis, who never got a single hall of fame vote in a general election in his life, went right into this hall years ago.
And a modern standard (DIPS) is the chief argument here against Carl Mays. I think overall we are doing a soild job with who is getting elected.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 08:08 AM

Perhaps this is what we should be focusing on and not on his peak or lack of peak. Sam Rice was very productive into an advanced age and despite the fact that he would not be a full time player until age 27, still managed to end up in the top end of hits all time.

It is a shame he didn't get an earlier start. He could have easily ended up in the company of Tris Speaker and possibly even the great Ty Cobb in hits.

And even with his early start he ended up with 331 Win Shares. Add another 20-25 Win Shares for his lost WW1 time and he's over 350 for his career, and probably 3,175 hits. We've put players in for just great peaks, so I don't see how it's wrong to put players in for just their total career value. It's not like he just hung on as a marginal player to accumulate counting stats. At age 40 he was playing full time and posting an OPS+ of 119. At age 42 he posted an OPS+ of 115 in 323 PA's.

There's greatness in being able to produce at a high level into your 40's. Ty Cobb didn't do that. Neither did Tris Speaker. Or Eddie Collins. Or Rogers Hornsby. Or Babe Ruth.

Btw, has anybody read the Sam Rice biography? I was skimming it on Google to try and see why he was moved to CF and then back to RF, but that section of the book wasn't available in the preview. BP has him with 11 FRAA in CF in 1920, then dropping to -1 in 1921 - which may be explained by the ankle injury he sustained that year. But then in 1922, he drops to -13 FRAA. He moves back to RF in 1923 and posts a +12 FRAA score, but his replacements in CF post even worse fielding scores. Frank Brower had been the Senator's RF in 1922, and then was dealt to the Indians in the offseason. So possibly Rice was moved back to RF because, with his strong arm, he seemed like the best alternative. That was also the year Donnie Bush took over as manager, so possibly he had a different opinion of Rice's skill in center than previous managers did.

The impression that I've always gotten from quotes I've read over the years about Rice's defense was that he had a strong arm, had good range, but was mistake prone and didn't get to as many balls in the OF as a player of his speed probably should have. Which, if true, would explain why the Senators felt he was better suited for RF.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 08:19 AM

I think overall we are doing a soild job with who is getting elected.

For the most part, we have done a good job electing deserving candidates. The last VC was the 1st one since the original VC vote way back in 1920 where there was a consensus candidate that had a strong HOF case and even he is someone who struggles in almost every project. IMO, there have been no major oversights to this point in the project and hopefully it will continue on its current path.

The major draw to this project and what makes it fun, however, is the fact that we get to discuss the merits of players in the context of when they played who are not typical players that would show up in a typical HOF project. I don't remember anyone mentioning Lu Blue or Larry Gardner in the best of baseball project (nor should they given the nature and setup of that project) or in other neighboring HOF projects. That aspect of this project is what I've found the most enjoyable and interesting.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 08:50 AM

Of course people are holding players to standards that were not yet developed in 1942. That's why George Davis, who never got a single hall of fame vote in a general election in his life, went right into this hall years ago.
And a modern standard (DIPS) is the chief argument here against Carl Mays. I think overall we are doing a soild job with who is getting elected.

Even back then they knew that some pitchers were ground ball pitchers and some were better at striking out hitters or had better control or didn't give up as many home runs. Everybody knew that strikeouts were very important, it didn't take DIPS to point that out. I was just reading an article on Whitey Ford from the early 60's where he talked about being a ground ball pitcher and said that he was very dependent on his defense.

The difference being they didn't hold that against pitchers, as the DIPS folks seem to. They were looking and wins, and ERA to some extent, to evaluate pitchers. The same way they were looking at batting average as the best way to evaluate hitters. To me that's all part of us trying to take a more analyitical approach to viewing the players from a 1942 perspective. Even back in 1954, Branch Rickey was writing about using advanced stats to evaluate players. It's not so much "we should perceive these players just as the baseball establishment of 1942 did". That would be a fairly pointless exercise, since we'd simply be recycling what the real life Hall of Fame did.

But what we shouldn't be doing is comparing players that we're voting on to players who haven't played yet. And we should be mindful of how positions were considered at the time. We shouldn't look at early 1900's 1B or 3B as offensive positions, or look at early 1900's 2B as an important defensive positions. In 1942 we don't know that most of the 3B that we're calling "great" will be far surpassed by future 3B. Tommy Leach and Pie Traynor are great 3B. The idea of a thirdbasemen being expected to be a middle of the order run producer shouldn't enter in to our evaluation of those guys, anymore than we should compare CF's to Mays and Mantle.

The way I look at it, if we're doing this right, we should be voting for players that we know will be considered "mistakes" later on in the project. For example, I voted for both Leach and Traynor. But I know that by the time we get to 2009, those two players will not meet my standards for a HoF 3B. Guys like Bando, Nettles, Boyer, and Evans will come along and equal or surpass them; and players will Mathews, Schmidt, and Brett will render Frank Baker no longer the gold standard for third basemen. But in terms of evaluating 3B in 1942, Frank Baker is the Honus Wagner of 3B. He's the guy who put up great offensive numbers from a premium defensive position. And Jimmy Collins is an elite player, an inner-circle HoFer. While from a 2009 perspective, both guys would occupy the bottom half of the Hall.

Btw...I will be adding Mays to my ballot next time. I think I was too quick to dismiss him after looking at some of his DIPS numbers. And I realized I was probably being too stringent on the pitching candidates given who we've elected so far.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 09:17 AM

Because you seem to be pushing other voters into applying the standards that you see as proper, rather than letting voters decide what they feel the proper standards should be.

Voters in 1942 shouldn't be determining what the proper standards are, though. There's been 41 years of elections that have established what the general standards of this Hall are. If I would have been a part of this project from the beginning, I'd have tried to steer it toward what my personal standards are, but I wasn't so it's not fair to come in in the middle of the project ignore what's gone before. Standards can certainly evolve, but the basis for evaluating players should be how they fit into the standards that have been established by this project. It's not "Vote for who you think belongs in the Hall of Fame". It's "Vote for who you think belongs in this particular Hall of Fame".

For example, I think there's only 5 players on this ballot who are Hall of Famers. But Maranville, Sewell, Schang, Rixey, and Rice belong in this Hall, so I'm going to vote for them. They certainly don't meet my personal standards for a Hall of Famer, but my personal standards aren't what his is about.

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 09:36 AM

But what we shouldn't be doing is comparing players that we're voting on to players who haven't played yet. And we should be mindful of how positions were considered at the time. We shouldn't look at early 1900's 1B or 3B as offensive positions, or look at early 1900's 2B as an important defensive positions. In 1942 we don't know that most of the 3B that we're calling "great" will be far surpassed by future 3B. Tommy Leach and Pie Traynor are great 3B. The idea of a thirdbasemen being expected to be a middle of the order run producer should enter in to our evaluation of those guys, anymore than we should compare CF's to Mays and Mantle.

Well said!

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 10:48 AM

Speaking of 3B...I'm curious how the voters will view Stan Hack when he finally hangs 'em up. He's not much with the glove, but he might be the best hitter we've seen at the hot corner since Home Run Baker.

Erik Bedard

03-12-2009, 11:16 AM

I haven't voted in about 25 elections, but I felt like voting again today. I tend to lose interest in baseball over the offseason and pick it up again in the regular season.

That said, I would like to direct those voters who may have picked up the project more recently to this thread (and specifically this page): http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167&page=3

I would request that you pay special attention to the posts of AG2004, since I believe (and IIRC, DoubleX agreed) that his viewpoint is in the best spirit of the project.

KCGHOST

03-12-2009, 11:50 AM

Cochrane
Frisch
Hornsby
Rixey
Sewell
Shocker
Traynor

Mantle57

03-12-2009, 11:59 AM

Pie Traynor
Hack Wilson
Bobby Veach
Joe Sewell
Sam Rice
Rogers Hornsby
Frankie Frisch
Combs
Cochrane
Maranville
Bancroft
Schalk
Schang

I accidentally pressed enter when I only checked off two of my boxes, can my votes be changed to reflect this posted ballot?

I don't think Bobby Veach has gotten much chatter since he's been on the ballot. If somebody picks up the baton for him, it may as well be me. I know RBIs are an often misleading and overrated stat, but I think it's more than a coincidence of lineup order and teammates when you lead the league 3 times, top 5 7x, top 10 10x, spanning both the dead and live ball eras. Plus the fact that he had to compete with guys like Crawford, Cobb, and Heilmann for RBI opportunities. Not to mention the fact that his baseball-reference.com leaderboard page reads like a novel in all the relevant offensive statistical categories he either led or finished top 10 in a very loaded AL in. In fact, he is eerily statistically and positionally similar to Sherry Magee, who this Brooklyn hall has already elected and he put up nearly identical career totals in two less seasons.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 12:14 PM

SavoyBG

03-12-2009, 12:15 PM

Voters in 1942 shouldn't be determining what the proper standards are, though. There's been 41 years of elections that have established what the general standards of this Hall are. If I would have been a part of this project from the beginning, I'd have tried to steer it toward what my personal standards are, but I wasn't so it's not fair to come in in the middle of the project ignore what's gone before. Standards can certainly evolve, but the basis for evaluating players should be how they fit into the standards that have been established by this project. It's not "Vote for who you think belongs in the Hall of Fame". It's "Vote for who you think belongs in this particular Hall of Fame".

For example, I think there's only 5 players on this ballot who are Hall of Famers. But Maranville, Sewell, Schang, Rixey, and Rice belong in this Hall, so I'm going to vote for them. They certainly don't meet my personal standards for a Hall of Famer, but my personal standards aren't what his is about.

I disagree with you completely. Just because the relatively few voters here (30 per year) have, as a group, had a certain standard for who they have voted for in the past 41 years does not mean that any new voter has to conform to that standard. If there has to be a particular standard, then all we need to do is set the numerical boundaries, and just announce all at once who is in the hall and who isn't.

If you're going to have this vote here in a public forum where any new voter is welcome, you can't tell them how to vote. If the people running this want to insist on a cetain standard for a voter, they are going to have to take this to private e-mails. Otherwise they have no way of preventing any kind of radical voter from participating, from the mamaluke who just left Hornsby off his ballot, to guys who vote for preposterous candidates like Lu Blue.

What we should do is just continue to let debates go back and forth on borderline and marginal candidates and let the chips fall where they may. The cream will usually rise to the top.

Brad Harris

03-12-2009, 12:17 PM

The way I look at it, if we're doing this right, we should be voting for players that we know will be considered "mistakes" later on in the project. For example, I voted for both Leach and Traynor. But I know that by the time we get to 2009, those two players will not meet my standards for a HoF 3B. Guys like Bando, Nettles, Boyer, and Evans will come along and equal or surpass them; and players will Mathews, Schmidt, and Brett will render Frank Baker no longer the gold standard for third basemen. But in terms of evaluating 3B in 1942, Frank Baker is the Honus Wagner of 3B. He's the guy who put up great offensive numbers from a premium defensive position. And Jimmy Collins is an elite player, an inner-circle HoFer. While from a 2009 perspective, both guys would occupy the bottom half of the Hall.
I wouldn't call them "mistakes" down the road. One aspect of any "Hall of Fame" (in contrast to a "greatest of all-time" list) is that you're going to have some guys who were the best of their day even if that leaves them short by modern standards of excellence. Changing norms of performance doesn't negate the "greatness" of the top performers in previous eras. It's a matter of context.

Mantle57

03-12-2009, 12:22 PM

"from the mamaluke who just left Hornsby off his ballot"

That's gonna be fixed hopefully, unless you're talking about someone else. I accidentally hit enter before I checked everyone on my ballot off.

Is a mamaluke a crossbreed between a manatee and a rhino?

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 12:43 PM

I disagree with you completely. Just because the relatively few voters here (30 per year) have, as a group, had a certain standard for who they have voted for in the past 41 years does not mean that any new voter has to conform to that standard. If there has to be a particular standard, then all we need to do is set the numerical boundaries, and just announce all at once who is in the hall and who isn't.

If you're going to have this vote here in a public forum where any new voter is welcome, you can't tell them how to vote. If the people running this want to insist on a cetain standard for a voter, they are going to have to take this to private e-mails. Otherwise they have no way of preventing any kind of radical voter from participating, from the mamaluke who just left Hornsby off his ballot, to guys who vote for preposterous candidates like Lu Blue.

What we should do is just continue to let debates go back and forth on borderline and marginal candidates and let the chips fall where they may. The cream will usually rise to the top.

The standards of the Hall of Fame are self-defining, and it's within the evolving standards of the Hall, which is a reflection of the collective mind of the voters, that players are to be judged. You might have your own concept of what constitutes a Hall of Famer, but that might not mirror the reality of the standards that have been actually set for the Hall of Fame over a long and evolving process. In sum, players are to be judged by the standards for a Hall of Famer we've set here, not Cooperstown and not your idealized vision of what the Hall of Fame should be. This doesn't at all mean there isn't room to debate - standards will evolve, subject to debate, and there's always debate about whether a player fits or does not fit within the standards we have collectively established. However, if you're going to try to impose your personal standards with disregard for the collective standards that have been set over time, you'll only frustrate yourself. Which brings me to...

You really seem to have a lot of problems with this project - this has been going on for several elections now. If you have such a problem either understanding or accepting the spirit and objectives of this project, which have been long-established, then perhaps, as has been suggested before, this not the project for you.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 12:44 PM

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 12:46 PM

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 12:55 PM

As opposed to 1 voter who came in early and trying to shove his views down everybody elses throats?

If people find the new voters standards to be acceptable then they will be adopted, if they don't then they won't.

The difference is that if a long time participant involved, they are already aware of the standards already set. They are not trying to impose an imaginary ideal that is not shared by at least a vocal minority in the project and at best the super majority of participants. Try to remember that the guy who checks the none of the above box, block not 1 but four yes votes for every candidate on a given ballot. The same is true if they come in, decide that Player X was a ridiculous pick and only small hall candidates will do no matter who feels differently.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 12:56 PM

Baseball changes and evolves over time just like opinions and views. As far as I know no voter in the history of the real hall has ever voted in every single election.

Newer generations of players come and forces us to reevaluate what is great and what isn't. So on and so on. As such there is no such thing as a general standard that is going to apply to all players in all time periods.

I would disagree with that. The real baseball Hall of Fame has such a standard, and so does this one. Frankie Frisch has rec'd about 90% of the vote so far. There's a standard of Hall worthiness that has been broadly accepted by the voters that a player of Frisch's caliber is worthy of the Hall, and that Ski Melillo is NOT a Hall of Famer. We've elected Cupid Childs, Larry Doyle, and Bid McPhee already. There's been a standard established that a secondbasemen does not have to be at the level of Rogers Hornsby to be worthy of the Hall. Del Pratt...he might fit in, he might not. Some will probably think he does belong, and they can make an argument that he's not out of line with the established standard. If they convince enough people, then he'll make it. Most of the guys on our ballots are in this class of players. The established standard does not really exclude or include them, the way it includes Frisch and excludes Melillo.

When we voted in Groh, we further refined the standards for a Hall of Fame third basemen. As we both said, things change over time. But as of now, we've established a standard that a 20th century third basemen doesn't have to be at the level of Frank Baker to be worthy.

Now, there's a lot of gray area, both in what the standards are, and where each player fits in to that standard, but if a new voter came in and refused to vote for Frisch and Geheringer because in their mind to be worthy a secondbasemen had to be at the level of Lajoie, Collins, and Hornsby, then that would be against the spirit of this project. That might be their personal standard for what makes a Hall of Famer, but it's obviously not the standard of this Hall.

And unlike the real Hall of Fame, one or two voters here can have a major impact on the outcomes of elections. If a real HoF voter decides that only players at Mike Schimidt's or Greg Maddux's level belong in the Hall, it's really not going to make any real difference. But here, it can. One vote will probably decide Joe Sewell's fate this time. Voters here can "force" their personal standards on the project to a much greater extent than in the real Hall.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 12:59 PM

The difference is that if a long time participant involved, they are already aware of the standards already set. They are not trying to impose an imaginary ideal that is not shared by at least a vocal minority in the project and at best the super majority of participants. Try to remember that the guy who checks the none of the above box, block not 1 but four yes votes for every candidate on a given ballot. The same is true if they come in, decide that Player X was a ridiculous pick and only small hall candidates will do no matter who feels differently.

Everything starts somewhere.

If you want everybody to act in accordance to the wishes of 15 or so people from many months ago then there is not point to the rest of us or even voting. Simply tells us who of all of baseball is worthy of enshrining.

Fielding Marshall

03-12-2009, 01:05 PM

Jim Bottomley
Mickey Cochrane
Earle Combs
Frankie Frisch
Larry Gardner
Rogers Hornsby
Travis Jackson
Joe Judge
Rabbit Maranville
Del Pratt
Sam Rice
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Pie Traynor
Ross Youngs

Quite a number of deserving guys on this ballot, and hopefully the current 5 (Cochrane, Frisch, Hornsby, Sewell, and Traynor) all get elected.

After some evaluation, I think Shocker is the best pitcher on the ballot right now and someone I'll be adding next year. He really doesn't get the credit he deserves--check out his leaderboards.

Jackson and Judge would like your vote.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 01:13 PM

I wouldn't call them "mistakes" down the road. One aspect of any "Hall of Fame" (in contrast to a "greatest of all-time" list) is that you're going to have some guys who were the best of their day even if that leaves them short by modern standards of excellence. Changing norms of performance doesn't negate the "greatness" of the top performers in previous eras. It's a matter of context.

I wouldn't call them that either, which is what I was trying to convey by putting it in quotations. You said it better than I could. It's a Hall of Fame from the view point of that year, not "I think the Hall should include the best 20 or so players at each position, and I rank Tommy Leach #27 all-time so I'm not going to vote for him."

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 01:24 PM

Fielding Marshall

03-12-2009, 01:33 PM

Considering I only support Mays, here we go:

W-L: 207-126 (.622)
G: 490
GS: 325
CG: 231
SHO: 29
GF: 125
BB: 734
SO: 862
ERA: 2.92 (lgERA was 3.49)

League Leader:
Wins (1921)
W-L% (1921)
Games (1921)
IP (1921)
Complete Games (1918, 1926)
Shutouts (1918, 1920)

Black Ink: 23
Gray Ink: 172

Mays scores a 114 on the HOF Monitor. He was a top ten finisher in ERA six times, seven times for wins, six times for W-L%, six times for IP, four times for shutouts and only twice for losses. He also won both his decisions in the 1918 World Series against the Cubs, both complete game victories and a 1.00 ERA in both games. He was also good with the bat, hitting .268 for his career with 110 RBI and 5 home runs. In 1921 with the Yankees, he had his best year with the bat, hitting .343 with 22 RBI, 2 home runs, five doubles and a triple. It is for all these reasons he gets my vote.

Well, I'm warming to Mays. Thanks, Ace Venom.

The question is, have you looked at Shocker? Top 10 in ERA 8 times, 7 times for wins (and led once) , 6 times for W-L%, 9 times for WHIP, 8 times for BB/9 (including leading twice), 5 times for K/9, 6 times for IP, 5 times for K (including led once), 6 times for CG, 7 for shutouts, 7 for K/BB (including led twice), and, interestingly enough, only twice for losses. And unlike Mays, he doen't seem to have the stigma of having been helped by his defense.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 02:03 PM

Well, I'm warming to Mays. Thanks, Ace Venom.

The question is, have you looked at Shocker? Top 10 in ERA 8 times, 7 times for wins (and led once) , 6 times for W-L%, 9 times for WHIP, 8 times for BB/9 (including leading twice), 5 times for K/9, 6 times for IP, 5 times for K (including led once), 6 times for CG, 7 for shutouts, 7 for K/BB (including led twice), and, interestingly enough, only twice for losses. And unlike Mays, he doen't seem to have the stigma of having been helped by his defense.

Shocker does have a much better career defense adjusted ERA (from BP) than Mays. 3.78 for Shocker vs. 4.28 for Mays. Shocker has less than 200 wins and less than 3,000 innings, which probably makes him a tougher sell than his rate stats would indicate.

He's definitely worth a second look, though.

Rixey seems like the best choice of this lot, and Grimes seems competely unworthy, but I might find room for Mays and Shocker on my ballot in the future. Cooper seems just below the line, though I did support him when he first appeared on the ballot.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 02:08 PM

What I actually want is for people to participate in the discussions and not just list a handful of guys they think are good then move on so that I (and others) can see if there's some kind of common ground or room for debate. There are about 10 people who routinely vote but contribute absolutely nothing otherwise. Are they reading the discussions? What is their line of reasoning? Do they just see a list of names and say" I've heard of this guy so he's my vote" or are they somewhat knowedgeable? If the purpose of this exercise is just to vote by whatever standard we personally have in mind and nothing else, as is the case with 40% of the participants, we might as well not have it in the forum, post it as a poll on the parent site with no room for discussion and move on.

People who are voting and not explaining why are not reading the posts. They are simply making their picks and moving on. But the people who are sharing their views you are telling to fall in line.

jalbright

03-12-2009, 02:16 PM

I'm becoming exceptionally tired of the constant rehashing of this 2009 versus 19xx voting standard argument. I've said since the beginning I'm not about to forget what I already know and have concluded about where the HOF line is (and think at least most voters really do this as well). I've generally tried to make my statements in here conform to that 19xx standard, but this constant rehashing of the argument makes me feel quite unwelcome. If this back and forth over this point doesn't stop, I will. I don't need it.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 02:24 PM

People who are voting and not explaining why are not reading the posts. They are simply making their picks and moving on. But the people who are sharing their views you are telling to fall in line.

Rather than repeating ad nauseum so you can continue to misread and twist around everything said, these are my sentiments on this project:

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1456346&postcount=141

anyone not doing that isn't conforming to the rules of the project.

I'm becoming exceptionally tired of the constant rehashing of this 2009 versus 19xx voting standard argument. I've said since the beginning I'm not about to forget what I already know and have concluded about where the HOF line is (and think at least most voters really do this as well). I've generally tried to make my statements in here conform to that 19xx standard, but this constant rehashing of the argument makes me feel quite unwelcome. If this back and forth over this point doesn't stop, I will. I don't need it.

See post 141. Aren't you doing what is stated there? If so, how is this making you uncomfortable?

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 02:26 PM

Now can we please get back to discussing the actual players instead of whining about rules that were established 42 weeks ago? This is getting really stupid.

jalbright

03-12-2009, 02:35 PM

See post 141. Aren't you doing what is stated there? If so, how is this making you uncomfortable?

I've made it quite clear from the beginning that I wasn't going to follow such a procedure. Period. I was told I was welcome anyway. The constant attacks on my approach, despite that indication I was welcome despite my express indication I would not follow that approach is precisely what makes me feel that the welcome is rather hollow.

Fielding Marshall

03-12-2009, 02:36 PM

Would you like to elaborate on and support these sentiments, and also present how clutch he was, if it was an actual repeatable skill and what clutch means and what it's worth?

As far as peak goes, basically I looked at his OPS+ numbers from 1923-1931 and couldn't recall having seen numbers of that quality by too many players at this point. Obviously, there's Ruth, Gehrig, and Wilson, but I can't think of too many names beyond those three.

Something else to point out is how much our present standards are interfering with 1942 assessments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1B at this time was a developing position, wherein players were gradually starting to hit for more power but had not yet phased out of the 5-tool type athleticism that was more prevalent during the dead ball era, when the really good 1B hit a lot of triples. Interestingly, Bottomley happened to have a lot of triples, and I don't think people quite see that he's one of the best his era had to offer. There was some debate over Terry getting in last year that I think was a bit much. Terry had a 136+ over an extended period of time, and that's a standout number then and even today; part of the argument for Will Clark has to do with his 137 OPS+. If I were to use current standards, I would be saying that somewhere around or above 140 OPS+ over an extended period of time is absolutely outstanding; as it is, I think Bottomley's stats from a 1942 perspective are better than many of us realize.

As far as clutch goes, this is part of it:
Future HoFer Frankie Frisch called him "The best clutch hitter I ever saw."

HoFer Bill Terry said Bottomley was "a winner who St. Louis's championship clubs together." He also said Bottomely was "the man we feared the most."

Not sure what else you need...;)

Ever since Bill James, there has been ongoing questions about the value of RBI. Obviously, RBI on its own presents too many variables, but RBI in comparison to HR can present a clearer picture of how many runs a player was actually driving in. On BaseballEvolution.com, there is a list known as the "100-Plus Club" (http://baseballevolution.com/compendium/seasons/100plus.html), which basically compiles all seasons with at least 100 more RBI than HR; Bottomley has 5 such seasons and is one of the most represented on the list. His career stats suggest the same (1422 RBI to 219 HR), plus it doesn't look like his RBI was really manufactured by his teams.

There is also the question of his postseason. Do you remember last election where I complained about George Kelly's poor postseason showing? Well, Bottomley's average during the postseason isn't all that great, but he did manage 10 RBI in 18 postseason hits; clearly, he was hitting only in the clutch.

Did I mention that Bottomley holds the record with 12 RBI in a game?

Clutch hitting is one of the least understood aspects of baseball, and I'm led to believe that it's one of the things Bill James is studying right now. Nevertheless, Bottomley is the clearest example of a bona fide clutch hitter we've yet seen, not only statistically but also based on his reputation as well. How you take that is entirely your choice, though obviously I think he belongs.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 02:51 PM

I've made it quite clear from the beginning that I wasn't going to follow such a procedure. Period. I was told I was welcome anyway. The constant attacks on my approach, despite that indication I was welcome despite my express indication I would not follow that approach is precisely what makes me feel that the welcome is rather hollow.

If that's the case, what do you expect? It was made clear that this was the preference. I wasn't thrilled with this approach either when this project started but it grew on me and is why I bent and voted for players I wouldn't vote for in other projects. As new members pop up, old arguments get rehashed. That's inevitable.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 02:55 PM

As far as peak goes, basically I looked at his OPS+ numbers from 1923-1931 and couldn't recall having seen numbers of that quality by too many players at this point. Obviously, there's Ruth, Gehrig, and Wilson, but I can't think of too many names beyond those three.

During that stretch of time, Bottomley led the league in OPS+ zero times and was in the top 5 in his league in OPS+ only 4 of those 8 years.

There is also the question of his postseason. Do you remember last election where I complained about George Kelly's poor postseason showing? Well, Bottomley's average during the postseason isn't all that great, but he did manage 10 RBI in 18 postseason hits; clearly, he was hitting only in the clutch.

That means that he managed to drive guys in on base 10 times in 90 at bats.

Did I mention that Bottomley holds the record with 12 RBI in a game?

Having 1 good game makes him HOF worthy? Does that mean we should also elect Charlie Robertson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/roberch01.shtml) because he pitched a perfect game on April 20, 1922 or Neal Ball (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=ballne01) for turning his unassisted triple play on July 19, 1909?

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 03:03 PM

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 03:13 PM

Everything starts somewhere.

If you want everybody to act in accordance to the wishes of 15 or so people from many months ago then there is not point to the rest of us or even voting. Simply tells us who of all of baseball is worthy of enshrining.

What we're asking is for newer participants to not disregard the standards we've set or treat them as some kind of anomaly. As I said, the standards of the Hall are self-defining, but evolving. My hope is that new participants at least respect the standards we've already established and at least try to work within them rather than trying to impose some personal idealized standards. The greater inflexibility here, IMO, seems to be in those who wish not to abandon their preconceived vision of a Hall of Fame and refuse to acknowledge the standards that we've collectively established.

mwiggins made a good example - it's as if someone coming in and saying that Frankie Frisch doesn't belong because he wasn't Eddie Collins or Napoleon Lajoie. That's fine and dandy, but that would completely ignore the standards we have set for this Hall. The question here is not does a player meet the standards of your Hall of Fame, but whether he meets the standards of this Hall of Fame. Now if someone wanted to make the argument that Frisch doesn't fit within our standards, that would be another story. I don't think it would make a great argument, but it would be a more appropriate tact. And contrary to what some are insinuating, such is not at all an inflexible or onerous concept, but rather one that has permitted a great deal of debate and dissension and has proven quite successful and enjoyable for almost a year.

So I'll repeat again, if anyone feels so strongly as to put their idealized standards above the collective standards we have established, to the point where our collective standards are meaningless, then perhaps this project isn't for you.

EDIT: You know what, I'm sick of the grief people are giving over this project. It takes a long time to put each election together, and while for so long I thought that this was indeed a successful and enjoyable project, I just can't deal with all this argument over what this project should be about, particularly after almost a year into this project. These unfortunate lines of discussion are only becoming more prevalent and distracting. The project is what it is, and has been for a long time now. If people have trouble accepting that, then don't participate, it's as simple as that. Is it really that big of a deal that the issue must be incessantly rehashed? Is it really that hard to conform to the spirit of this project, which is only meant to be a fun learning experience? Why do some people have such a hangup? Why the need to be so contrarian in this innocent exercise? It would be regrettable to see the knowledge of some notable members depart this project, but the alternative seems to be unnecessarily sapping the fun out of this.

EDIT 2: With my first edit in mind, 1942 seems to be an appropriate time to put this project on "hiatus" for World War II.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 03:19 PM

So then what is point of any voter who didn't vote 42 weeks ago?

Again why don't you 10 or so guys simply tell us who is a hall of famer and who isn't?

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 03:30 PM

So then what is point of any voter who didn't vote 42 weeks ago?

Again why don't you 10 or so guys simply tell us who is a hall of famer and who isn't?

Ugh.... Our standards should help let you know what is a Hall of Famer here and what isn't.

Seriously, if this is such a problem for you or anyone else, then don't participate. You really don't have to. As I said above, I'm really sick and tired of this unnecessary contrarianess that seems to be only growing and I'm increasingly leaning to just ending this project. It's like if we were playing a game of basketball and someone kept scoring on their own team. It's not within the rules but there's nothing to physically stop the person from doing it and they do so because they feel the game should be played that way and their views matter more than the rules and spirit of the game, and the result is to take the fun away from everyone else. So tell me, why do you and others feel the constant and unnecessary need to keep scoring on your team? If you don't like the rules, then don't play.

It's amazing, we went through 35+ elections without much controversy at all. Doesn't that say something? Doesn't that count for something? How would you feel if after doing something smoothly and successfully for a long period, a couple of people join in and incessantly bark that everything is wrong and that they're going to disregard everything that's been long established and do things their way? That wouldn't frustrate you?

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 03:32 PM

EDIT 2: With my first edit in mind, 1942 seems to be an appropriate time to put this project on "hiatus" for World War II.

That's unfortunate and regrettable. This is the only project in this forum that actually generates constructive debate about guys who would never be looked at in other projects and is the main reason I still come to this site at all. :(

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 03:41 PM

So then what is point of any voter who didn't vote 42 weeks ago?

As far as I can tell, as one who didn't vote 42 weeks ago, it's to answer this question.

The question here is not does a player meet the standards of your Hall of Fame, but whether he meets the standards of this Hall of Fame.

Again why don't you 10 or so guys simply tell us who is a hall of famer and who isn't?

The "standards" of this Hall don't define who's a Hall of Famer and who isn't. They just provide a general guideline for how exclusive this particular Hall is. Just like the standards of actual baseball HoF provide that general guideline. It isn't some sort of "you must vote this way, the founders of this project have decreeded it".

For example, if you don't think Frisch was really that good. If you don't think he matches up with the current 2B basemen in the Hall, then don't vote for him. If you think certain members of the current Hall are mistakes, that's fine too. But if you, as a voter, find Frisch more deserving than all of the 7 current second basemen in the Hall except for Lajoie and Collins, and you still don't vote for him because you favor a much more exclusive Hall than this current Hall, then that's not really following the spirit of the project.

That's obviously an extreme example. But take Ross Barnes. I don't think he belongs at all, not even close. But I don't feel that I have to vote for every second basemen who I feel is more deserving than Barnes. I don't feel that my votes have basically been determined by the "standards" established by people who voted before me. It actually makes it more interesting than the usual "Do you feel player X belongs in the Hall" question.

If that's all it was, I could just look over the list for a minute, vote, and be done with it. Trying to put things in the context of that particular year and evaluate the players in the context of this particular HoF is what makes this project worth following every week.

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 03:47 PM

That's unfortunate and regrettable. This is the only project in this forum that actually generates constructive debate about guys who would never be looked at in other projects and is the main reason I still come to this site at all. :(

I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps more than anything else, this has been a terrific learning experience. For me, this project is currently the only reason I still come to this site. That's not meant to be a slight to BBF, as this is a tremendous baseball forum, but with time availability changing and interests shifting, I'm just not as committed to the site as I was.

If the grief and disharmony over this project is to continue, particularly from newer participants who would rather impose their own vision of this project than abide by the traditions we've long-established, then I'd rather just end it. It's not worth the frustration. I just can't understand why it's so hard for some to abide by the framework here. This is only meant to be a fun exercise, so what's the point in being so contrarian and obstinate and incessantly bemoaning things?

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 03:48 PM

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 03:54 PM

If the grief and disharmony over this project is to continue, particularly from newer participants who would rather impose their own vision of this project than abide by the traditions we've long-established, then I'd rather just end it. It's not worth the frustration. I just can't understand why it's so hard for some to abide by the framework here. This is only meant to be a fun exercise, so what's the point in being so contrarian and obstinate and incessantly bemoaning things?

Maybe they just need to be ignored so that the focus can shift back to the players. I have to admit, with all the player-centered discussion currently going on over the past few elections, minus the past few pages of this thread, I've had much more fun in this project than in the past and don't even care who gets elected anymore. The reevaluation of players I haven't thought about or looked at in years has renewed my interest in learning about baseball's past and that's what's kept me coming back.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 04:27 PM

Maybe they just need to be ignored so that the focus can shift back to the players. I have to admit, with all the player-centered discussion currently going on over the past few elections, minus the past few pages of this thread, I've had much more fun in this project than in the past and don't even care who gets elected anymore.
Except for the last eight words, I agree with this. I just ignore anyone who I think is unpleasent and move on. And even if players I think belong aren't getting in, this is still the most I've enjoyed a Baseball Fever project.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 04:31 PM

For example, if you don't think Frisch was really that good. If you don't think he matches up with the current 2B basemen in the Hall, then don't vote for him. If you think certain members of the current Hall are mistakes, that's fine too. But if you, as a voter, find Frisch more deserving than all of the 7 current second basemen in the Hall except for Lajoie and Collins, and you still don't vote for him because you favor a much more exclusive Hall than this current Hall, then that's not really following the spirit of the project.
This is probably the best explanation I have yet seen for how standards should be applied.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 04:33 PM

And I definitely hope there's no hiatus.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 04:42 PM

Well, Bottomley's average during the postseason isn't all that great, but he did manage 10 RBI in 18 postseason hits; clearly, he was hitting only in the clutch.
If he was hitting only in the clutch and not the rest of the time, that's a pretty huge knock against him. So he only hit in certain situations but wasn't very good overall? That would imply he could hit whenever he wanted to (pretty much), but chose to do so only when players were on base. Why would he not hit in the other situations? Do players only have a certain amount of hits in their bodies to be used at the right times and many just use them at the wrong times? Or was Bottomley just selfish and refused to help his team more often when he couldn't get an RBI (without a home run)? Or is that just a coincidental pair of stats drawn out of a small sample size?

Beyond that, I'm not sure he was "clearly only hitting in the clutch." What was the leverage of those situations?

Did I mention that Bottomley holds the record with 12 RBI in a game?
But RBIs are affected by opportunities out of a player's control.

Nevertheless, Bottomley is the clearest example of a bona fide clutch hitter we've yet seen, not only statistically but also based on his reputation as well. How you take that is entirely your choice, though obviously I think he belongs.
I'm still not seeing it in the statistics and we know damn good and well reputation can be undeserved and misleading.

Also, you'll get no points from me for citing Baseball Evolution. :laugh

Person reasons that I prefer to keep separate from a fairly mature site.

Ace Venom

03-12-2009, 05:33 PM

If the grief and disharmony over this project is to continue, particularly from newer participants who would rather impose their own vision of this project than abide by the traditions we've long-established, then I'd rather just end it. It's not worth the frustration. I just can't understand why it's so hard for some to abide by the framework here. This is only meant to be a fun exercise, so what's the point in being so contrarian and obstinate and incessantly bemoaning things?

It's a great project and one I think could continue. Obviously more people will come to it as it goes on, but I think it has generated great discussions. All of us need to be civil about this. If someone is not voting how you want, then you have every right to try to convince them to see things your way. What it comes down to is that people still have a vote. While I've certainly supported people in the past that aren't seen as HoF'ers by some (see Judge and Gardner), I found they were within the standards we set for this project. What's the point of going on hiatus? Certainly we have a good thing going here and I find it worth continuing. Look at the discussions we've had about people not in the real Cooperstown. Doesn't that make it worth it?

Ace Venom

03-12-2009, 05:40 PM

The question is, have you looked at Shocker? Top 10 in ERA 8 times, 7 times for wins (and led once) , 6 times for W-L%, 9 times for WHIP, 8 times for BB/9 (including leading twice), 5 times for K/9, 6 times for IP, 5 times for K (including led once), 6 times for CG, 7 for shutouts, 7 for K/BB (including led twice), and, interestingly enough, only twice for losses. And unlike Mays, he doen't seem to have the stigma of having been helped by his defense.

I'm taking a look at Shocker and he does appear to be a bit underrated. He certainly didn't have a problem with the strikeout and his defense at his position was outstanding. He certainly had four great seasons where he was a 20+ game winner. No telling what sort of stats he would have if he was a Yankee for his entire career with that lineup to help him get wins. He's also almost there on the gray ink. He is looking more like a borderline candidate to me and one I will examine closer. He certainly would have gotten to 200 wins had he not died.

bambambaseball

03-12-2009, 05:52 PM

I'm taking a look at Shocker and he does appear to be a bit underrated. He certainly didn't have a problem with the strikeout and his defense at his position was outstanding. He certainly had four great seasons where he was a 20+ game winner. No telling what sort of stats he would have if he was a Yankee for his entire career with that lineup to help him get wins. He's also almost there on the gray ink. He is looking more like a borderline candidate to me and one I will examine closer. He certainly would have gotten to 200 wins had he not died.

Which raises another issue. Why did Addie Joss get in with a death credit, but no one wants to give Shocker who also had a great career but died early a death credit? :nosleep:

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 06:05 PM

Which raises another issue. Why did Addie Joss get in with a death credit, but no one wants to give Shocker who also had a great career but died early a death credit? :nosleep:

Cause Addie is more famous and he's got some flashy records that make him stand out. Best WHIP all-time, 2nd best ERA. Plus he has the kind of extremely dominant season (1908) that Shocker doesn't. His ERA+ is also much better - 142 vs. 124.

Things like that give the impression, right or wrong, that Joss was a HoF lock if not for the early death, and that he belongs in the company of guys like Matty and Brown and Walsh.

Shocker, even if he'd played a couple of more years, and won 200+ games, wouldn't be a no-brainer HoFer for a lot of folks. He'd probably been viewed a little lower than Covelski, and he wasn't a first-ballot guy and there was a lot of debate as to whether he belonged.

Brad Harris

03-12-2009, 06:07 PM

Shocker was on my balllot last election and was actually the last man I dropped when I added the newcomers. It was between him and a certain borderline outfielder. I tend to favor position players in such battles if, as in this case, neither man had much more support than the other.

Ace Venom

03-12-2009, 06:09 PM

Which raises another issue. Why did Addie Joss get in with a death credit, but no one wants to give Shocker who also had a great career but died early a death credit? :nosleep:

Addie Joss was an incredible pitcher and without meningitis, he would have accumulate more stats. He died at age 31, as opposed to Shocker who died at age 38. He finished his career with the Yankees and his final full season was with the 1927 Yankees. He was released by the Yankees in 1928, so his career might have been done even then for all we know. We certainly can't assume he would have been picked up by another team the following season, so his stats probably would not have improved and he thus remains a borderline candidate.

jalbright

03-12-2009, 06:12 PM

What we're asking is for newer participants to not disregard the standards we've set or treat them as some kind of anomaly. As I said, the standards of the Hall are self-defining, but evolving. My hope is that new participants at least respect the standards we've already established and at least try to work within them rather than trying to impose some personal idealized standards. The greater inflexibility here, IMO, seems to be in those who wish not to abandon their preconceived vision of a Hall of Fame and refuse to acknowledge the standards that we've collectively established.

mwiggins made a good example - it's as if someone coming in and saying that Frankie Frisch doesn't belong because he wasn't Eddie Collins or Napoleon Lajoie. That's fine and dandy, but that would completely ignore the standards we have set for this Hall. The question here is not does a player meet the standards of your Hall of Fame, but whether he meets the standards of this Hall of Fame. Now if someone wanted to make the argument that Frisch doesn't fit within our standards, that would be another story. I don't think it would make a great argument, but it would be a more appropriate tact. And contrary to what some are insinuating, such is not at all an inflexible or onerous concept, but rather one that has permitted a great deal of debate and dissension and has proven quite successful and enjoyable for almost a year.

So I'll repeat again, if anyone feels so strongly as to put their idealized standards above the collective standards we have established, to the point where our collective standards are meaningless, then perhaps this project isn't for you.

EDIT: You know what, I'm sick of the grief people are giving over this project. It takes a long time to put each election together, and while for so long I thought that this was indeed a successful and enjoyable project, I just can't deal with all this argument over what this project should be about, particularly after almost a year into this project. These unfortunate lines of discussion are only becoming more prevalent and distracting. The project is what it is, and has been for a long time now. If people have trouble accepting that, then don't participate, it's as simple as that. Is it really that big of a deal that the issue must be incessantly rehashed? Is it really that hard to conform to the spirit of this project, which is only meant to be a fun learning experience? Why do some people have such a hangup? Why the need to be so contrarian in this innocent exercise? It would be regrettable to see the knowledge of some notable members depart this project, but the alternative seems to be unnecessarily sapping the fun out of this.

EDIT 2: With my first edit in mind, 1942 seems to be an appropriate time to put this project on "hiatus" for World War II.

I guess this makes it clear, despite the initial assurances. I'll withdraw from the project, including the VC.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 06:53 PM

Ugh.... Our standards should help let you know what is a Hall of Famer here and what isn't.

Seriously, if this is such a problem for you or anyone else, then don't participate. You really don't have to. As I said above, I'm really sick and tired of this unnecessary contrarianess that seems to be only growing and I'm increasingly leaning to just ending this project.
Personally, in my line of work when the voices of discontent grow that means something is wrong. It means something needs to be addressed.

So tell me, why do you and others feel the constant and unnecessary need to keep scoring on your team? If you don't like the rules, then don't play.

Which again comes back to the point that anybody that isn't part of some original clique is useless and not needed.

It's amazing, we went through 35+ elections without much controversy at all. Doesn't that say something? Doesn't that count for something? How would you feel if after doing something smoothly and successfully for a long period, a couple of people join in and incessantly bark that everything is wrong and that they're going to disregard everything that's been long established and do things their way? That wouldn't frustrate you?

The world isn't perfect. If you are going to burn everything down because not everybody gives you a pat on the back then there is going to be a lot of ash around you.
How would I feel? I wouldn't care. I've written stuff that nobody agreed with, all agreed with, some agreed with, and nobody bothered to pay attention to. It happens.

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 07:00 PM

Personally, in my line of work when the voices of discontent grow that means something is wrong. It means something needs to be addressed.

Which again comes back to the point that anybody that isn't part of some original clique is useless and not needed.

The world isn't perfect. If you are going to burn everything down because not everybody gives you a pat on the back then there is going to be a lot of ash around you.
How would I feel? I wouldn't care. I've written stuff that nobody agreed with, all agreed with, some agreed with, and nobody bothered to pay attention to. It happens.

Fine, you're absolutely right. Let's cast aside what we've been doing quite successfully all along and adopt a new approach because you don't like what we've been doing. You're right - your view is the right one here. We will all bend to how you believe this should be done.

Don't you get it - you're doing the exact same thing you're railing against? You believe things should be done your way because you don't like the way we've been doing it. So please tell us, why are you so right?

And I'm not going to burn everything down because not everyone is giving me a pat on the back, I'm considering burning everything down because it's not worth the frustration. Seriously, tell me why this dissension is so important to you? Why does it matter so much to you how this is done? Why is the way we've been doing this so heinous? I would love to hear answers to these questions. Because you fancy yourself some kind of revolutionary, an ambassador of what's best? The system is flawed because you said so? Is that a matter of fact?

I ask just two things of participants in this project:

1) They do their best to not compare players to future players or standards; and

2) To take into account the standards we have set for Hall of Famers - Again this is OUR Hall of Fame, not Cooperstown or your personalized Hall of Fame - the standards we set do in fact have some impact in defining what constitutes a Hall of Famer. It's not absolute, but it shouldn't be dismissed. You might not realize this, but your preconceived notions of what makes a Hall of Famer have almost certainly been shaped by this very process. If Cooperstown was extremely inclusive, you too would likely have a more inclusive concept of the Hall of Fame.

For the most part, these rules have been long accepted and the guiding criteria that is at the core of this project. That is not going to change now, nearly a year into this project just because a couple of participants don't like it. Like I said, if you don't want to play by the rules, please don't play.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:04 PM

As far as I can tell, as one who didn't vote 42 weeks ago, it's [to answer this question.

Which doesn't need 32 members to decide. It really only needs one of the original "standard bearers" to decide that.

The "standards" of this Hall don't define who's a Hall of Famer and who isn't. They just provide a general guideline for how exclusive this particular Hall is. Just like the standards of actual baseball HoF provide that general guideline. It isn't some sort of "you must vote this way, the founders of this project have decreeded it".

For example, if you don't think Frisch was really that good. If you don't think he matches up with the current 2B basemen in the Hall, then don't vote for him. If you think certain members of the current Hall are mistakes, that's fine too. But if you, as a voter, find Frisch more deserving than all of the 7 current second basemen in the Hall except for Lajoie and Collins, and you still don't vote for him because you favor a much more exclusive Hall than this current Hall, then that's not really following the spirit of the project.
[/quote]
But that ignores the very real fact that things change. By locking ones vote into a set standard it ignores the fact that baseball and people evolve.

Is Charlie Bennett a HoF'er for the same reasons that Mickey Cochrane will be? Would a Charlie Bennett who played in the 1980's be a HoF'er? To lock people into a certain level of player simply because it made on a HoF'er in 1880 ignores reality. The game evolves, it gets deeper, it gets more complex, it gets more diverse. To ignore that is folly. We are at a point in history in which we are voting on players who played and lived fully in the 20th century. Handcuffing voters to maintain some standard that forces us to compare new players to players that played in the 19th century is to lose focus on what a hall of fame is and even what this hall of fame is.

That's obviously an extreme example. But take Ross Barnes. I don't think he belongs at all, not even close. But I don't feel that I have to vote for every second basemen who I feel is more deserving than Barnes. I don't feel that my votes have basically been determined by the "standards" established by people who voted before me. It actually makes it more interesting than the usual "Do you feel player X belongs in the Hall" question.

I guess I am at a loss as to why this is an issue then? If you think it is okay to not vote for somebody even though a previous hall of famer is worse then why can't others? Why is your arbitrary cutoff point okay but other peoples arbitrary cutoff point wrong and going against the "standard"?

henrich

03-12-2009, 07:15 PM

My ballot:

01 traynor
02 sewell
03 schang
04 rice
05 pennock
06 mays
07 hornsby
08 hooper
09 gardner
10 frisch
11 cochrane
12 bottomley

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 07:18 PM

Is Charlie Bennett a HoF'er for the same reasons that Mickey Cochrane will be? Would a Charlie Bennett who played in the 1980's be a HoF'er? To lock people into a certain level of player simply because it made on a HoF'er in 1880 ignores reality. The game evolves, it gets deeper, it gets more complex, it gets more diverse. To ignore that is folly. We are at a point in history in which we are voting on players who played and lived fully in the 20th century. Handcuffing voters to maintain some standard that forces us to compare new players to players that played in the 19th century is to lose focus on what a hall of fame is and even what this hall of fame is.

But that's not what people are being asked to do. I've said several times in this discussion that the standards are evolving. You seem to be oversimplifying the approach here. I believe the vast majority of voters recognize the folly in comparing players from the 1880s to the 1930s, but we also shouldn't just totally forget the standards of the Hall, such as the general level of inclusiveness from one generation to the next.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:21 PM

Fine, you're absolutely right. Let's cast aside what we've been doing quite successfully all along and adopt a new approach because you don't like what we've been doing. You're right - your view is the right one here. We will all bend to how you believe this should be done.
Acting childish doesn't accomplish anything. The fact of the matter is that you have had zero tolerance for anything that doesn't fully ride your coat tails. You have threatened to end these threads because an extremely handful of people have dared to say something differently. And when someone points out that when voices grow in discontent it means something is wrong you go snark. You are supposed to be a leader in this project. Out of all of us you are supposed to be the one thinking most rationally, instead you are acting irrationally and it accomplishes nothing. If you enjoy these threads then going this route will not help you maintain your enjoyment. Instead you will simply frustrate yourself and force you to walk away. If you want to resolve this then again your tack will not help resolve this issue.

Don't you get it - you're doing the exact same thing you're railing against? You believe things should be done your way because you don't like the way we've been doing it. So please tell us, why are you so right?

Right about what? What is my way? You are casting me on a side I haven't even proclaimed to be on. My view is for people to be open to new things and to understand that things can change. Does anybody really want to come out and say they are against that? Does anyone want to say that they are for being close-minded and intolerance?

2) To take into account the standards we have set for Hall of Famers - Again this is OUR Hall of Fame, We are not the Borg. There is no such thing as OUR Hall of Fame. What there is is a community of voters who select their hall of fame and hopefully in the end enough people consider a player to be in their Hall of Fame that they then get elected to this hall of fame. Very very few players have been unanimously elected or close to it. In the first election 5 people didn't think Tim Keefe was a HoF'er in the second 6 people didn't think King Kelly was. These were voters that helped set the "standard". Should they be ignored? If the people who created the standard don't think certain people are HoF'ers then why should others have to be forced to view them as HoFers? If some small panel of VC voters think a player is a HoF'er why does the larger and more democratic group suddenly have to reconsider all of their positions, especially if they have been voting and shaping this project for many months?

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:24 PM

But that's not what people are being asked to do. I've said several times in this discussion that the standards are evolving. You seem to be oversimplifying the approach here. I believe the vast majority of voters recognize the folly in comparing players from the 1880s to the 1930s, but we also shouldn't just totally forget the standards of the Hall, such as the general level of inclusiveness from one generation to the next.

So like I said to him what is at issue here then? If the standards are evolving and you are open to that then what is the issue?

Just to use the same example as was used before.

Frankie Frisch can be better then 5 of the 7 previous HoF'ers but if I don't think he was one of the best of his era to play then I don't have to vote for him and if you are okay with that then what is at issue here?

philkid3

03-12-2009, 07:29 PM

Which raises another issue. Why did Addie Joss get in with a death credit, but no one wants to give Shocker who also had a great career but died early a death credit? :nosleep:

I'll admit I'm not a fan of having Joss in and only voted for him because I didn't want to stand in his way on his last year on the ballot.

I'm close on Shocker, though. Voted for him this year for reasons noted.

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 07:33 PM

So like I said to him what is at issue here then? If the standards are evolving and you are open to that then what is the issue?

Just to use the same example as was used before.

Frankie Frisch can be better then 5 of the 7 previous HoF'ers but if I don't think he was one of the best of his era to play then I don't have to vote for him and if you are okay with that then what is at issue here?

I would be ok with that argument. I think it's fair to argue that only the best of each era should be inducted. But on the same token, we may have set some precedent for how inclusive we are within an era. This is an argument I made a long time ago when we were discussing Herman Long and anticipating the lack of support that the likes of Del Pratt and Dave Bancroft would receive. Long may have been a better player, though Pratt and Bancroft may have stood out more when they played. I said this again more recently with Jake Beckley and Jim Bottomley. Bottomley may have been better, but Beckley may have had the more remarkable career when their careers are put into context. Comparing players within the context that they played is paramount.

Acting childish doesn't accomplish anything. The fact of the matter is that you have had zero tolerance for anything that doesn't fully ride your coat tails. You have threatened to end these threads because an extremely handful of people have dared to say something differently. And when someone points out that when voices grow in discontent it means something is wrong you go snark. You are supposed to be a leader in this project. Out of all of us you are supposed to be the one thinking most rationally, instead you are acting irrationally and it accomplishes nothing. If you enjoy these threads then going this route will not help you maintain your enjoyment. Instead you will simply frustrate yourself and force you to walk away. If you want to resolve this then again your tack will not help resolve this issue.

You make a lot of assumptions here, which is an underlying problem. You, and SavoyBG, seem to assume that many of these issues weren't talked about already. You seem to assume that you can join a project midstream and offer some revolutionary and enlightened line of thinking and that everyone should suddenly give it credence. You seem to not give much credit to the people who have been involved in this project for a long time. You seem to assume that issues haven't been dealt with tactfully already. As others have said, if you're going to join a long-established project midstream, at least make something of an effort to catch up on where we've been before being continually critical. It's in this continual refusal to hear us out and take a moment to understand what we've been doing, and instead sticking to your guns as if you have better ideas that have never been contemplated, that has become exceedingly frustration to the point of disrespectful. Even now I'm sure you'll come back with some sarcastically laced quip that does little more than reflect a continuing refusal to take a moment to internalize what I'm saying.

We are not the Borg. There is no such thing as OUR Hall of Fame. What there is is a community of voters who select their hall of fame and hopefully in the end enough people consider a player to be in their Hall of Fame that they then get elected to this hall of fame. Very very few players have been unanimously elected or close to it. In the first election 5 people didn't think Tim Keefe was a HoF'er in the second 6 people didn't think King Kelly was. These were voters that helped set the "standard". Should they be ignored? If the people who created the standard don't think certain people are HoF'ers then why should others have to be forced to view them as HoFers? If some small panel of VC voters think a player is a HoF'er why does the larger and more democratic group suddenly have to reconsider all of their positions, especially if they have been voting and shaping this project for many months?

You're just arguing semantics here, which supports my thought that you're just trying to be contrarian for the sake of it. By "our" I simply meant "this" as opposed to Cooperstown or your personal concept. It wasn't meant to be possessive, simply an identifier to distinguish.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:38 PM

I'll admit I'm not a fan of having Joss in and only voted for him because I didn't want to stand in his way on his last year on the ballot.

I think this highlights a very important point concerning this issue. The only reason Addie Joss is a "Hall of Famer" is because philkid3 voted for him. If he votes the way he truly felt about Addie and the way he voted for him the 14 other times then Joss is not in and therefore Joss doesn't help set the standard. But because one person gives a sympathy vote to a guy we all suddenly have to incorporate that player into our standard?

Secondly I'll also add that this supposed standard that was created 42 weeks ago wouldn't be the standard if 34 people were voting from the beginning. For instance if I had the time to visit BBF back then Joss would not be a HoF'er right now. In fact there would be a lot of players who made it by the skin of there teeth that wouldn't have gone in if I had the time to vote from the beginning. If 34 people had voted from the beginning again the standard would be different. What does that mean? It means that no standard is set in stone.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 07:44 PM

This argument is now becoming depressing and I'm not even sure why it exists. Respected voters and historical and statistical minds are leaving, either because they're being pushed out by the stuborness of others or leaving because of their desire to not play well with others; I'm absolutely not going to judge who is who, either case is unfortunate and shouldn't be happening. In any case, if there isn't more tolerance and less hostility soon, this fantastic project that I'm happy to be a part of looks headed towards destruction.

The discussions in this topic are important. I don't want to curb the arguments, but I don't see the point in the arguments about what the standard should be. I do think understand the standard set by this Hall of Fame is usefull, but should not be a rule more than a guideline. A starting point, not a finishing point. And I do think if you're going to use a Hall of Fame baseline, this Hall of Fame makes more sense than the real HoF (because we're not voting for the real HoF).

But I also believe a person's standards should be his own. And I feel no need to attack, belittle or dismiss someone on their standards. If someone wants a large Hall, so be it. I someone wants a small Hall, so be it. I just ask they are consistent with their standards.

The arguments and discussions, I think, should not be in a manner of "this should be your standard." It should be, instead, "this is the standard this player meets," and let the voter decide if that meets the standard he wants for the Hall of Fame or not.

As a random example, I'm not going to try and tell Mark what his voting baseline should be, but I might try and convince him of how good Urban Shocker was and that he fits Mark's baseline. We get somewhere with a discussion like that, but we don't by throwing around heated, pointless debate about what the baseline should be, getting in to arguments, throwing hissy fits and threatening to quit, or submitting ballots of protest.

I see no reason we shouldn't be able to come to an amicable agreement and move on. And for the most part, I think that amicable agreement is "do what you feel makes sense, and I'll respect you if you can be logical and consistant." To be certain I've questioned votes, omissions and elections, but I'm not about to let that ruin this project or push me to insulting other BBF members. And I sure as hell don't want to quit.

I hope I can get people to agree with me on this.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:45 PM

You're just arguing semantics here, which supports my thought that you're just trying to be contrarian for the sake of it. By "our" I simply meant "this" as opposed to Cooperstown or your personal concept. It wasn't meant to be possessive, simply an identifier to distinguish.

No I am not, you are not understanding my post. Either that or not looking past the first sentence of my post.

What I said and what I meant was that the standard for this hall of fame was created by individuals with their own standards and criteria for the hall of fame. We don't all think alike and vote exactly the same. Which is why it is so special when enough people choose a player to be a HoFer.

bambambaseball

03-12-2009, 07:45 PM

Acting childish doesn't accomplish anything. The fact of the matter is that you have had zero tolerance for anything that doesn't fully ride your coat tails. You have threatened to end these threads because an extremely handful of people have dared to say something differently. And when someone points out that when voices grow in discontent it means something is wrong you go snark. You are supposed to be a leader in this project. Out of all of us you are supposed to be the one thinking most rationally, instead you are acting irrationally and it accomplishes nothing. If you enjoy these threads then going this route will not help you maintain your enjoyment. Instead you will simply frustrate yourself and force you to walk away. If you want to resolve this then again your tack will not help resolve this issue.

Why dont you take a hint and go away? You are harping and harping and harping. You are one of the main reasons Im disgusted with this project right now. Take a hint and GO AWAY!:waving

DoubleX

03-12-2009, 07:47 PM

No I am not, you are not understanding my post. Either that or not looking past the first sentence of my post.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about several of your responses...

As for the rest of your post, I agree, part of what makes this project special is the collective prerogative of the voters, but we can't completely ignore the standards that have been set. We can't say now that "Charlie Bennett is not a Hall of Famer" because he in fact is. We collectively have deemed him so and that counts for something. Your personal opinion might be different, but that doesn't change reality.

Why dont you take a hint and go away? You are harping and harping and harping. You are one of the main reasons Im disgusted with this project right now. Take a hint and GO AWAY!:waving

Believe it or not, I'd actually rather he not. Ubi has good insight and knowledge, and I have a feeling we'll work through our issues and come to some level of understanding where the project can move on despite any mild differences in perspective.

philkid3

03-12-2009, 07:48 PM

I think this highlights a very important point concerning this issue. The only reason Addie Joss is a "Hall of Famer" is because philkid3 voted for him. If he votes the way he truly felt about Addie and the way he voted for him the 14 other times then Joss is not in and therefore Joss doesn't help set the standard. But because one person gives a sympathy vote to a guy we all suddenly have to incorporate that player into our standard?
Point of order: I didn't give him a sympathy vote. I was unsure of Joss, and people smarter than I were voting for him (as well as against, yes). Since enough people I respect felt he was a Hall of Famer, and I had no more time to make up my mind on him, I voted for him. I have no regrets about that. Though I am still unsure he belongs, enough people are that I can live and I'm glad I didn't keep him out.

That said, I absolutely agree that people shouldn't have to vote for anyone better than Addie Joss. He certainly is not my standard, he's an exception (of which I have had many for multiple reasons).

philkid3

03-12-2009, 07:50 PM

Why dont you take a hint and go away? You are harping and harping and harping. You are one of the main reasons Im disgusted with this project right now. Take a hint and GO AWAY!:waving
This. This is the kind of thing that WILL make me want to start ignoring these threads.

I don't agree with everything said by anyone in this argument, but I really cannot stand telling anyone -- especially a respectable BBF member -- to "go away." Especially in such a condescending manner.

I want you, Bambam, in this project as well as Ubiquitous and don't think either one of you need to go away. Which means he is wanted. I just want the argument to go away.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:51 PM

Why dont you take a hint and go away? You are harping and harping and harping. You are one of the main reasons Im disgusted with this project right now. Take a hint and GO AWAY!:waving

Stay classy San Diego.

Ace Venom

03-12-2009, 07:56 PM

Believe it or not, I'd actually rather he not. Ubi has good insight and knowledge, and I have a feeling we'll work through our issues and come to some level of understanding where the project can move on despite any mild differences in perspective.

IAWTP. We really need a broad range of perspectives in this project, which is something I think needs to be recognized. Cooler heads really need to prevail here. We only elected one player last time. Big whoop. Keep the discussion going and keep cool heads. This project really can't progress if people don't keep cool heads. Is it really that hard to do?

bambambaseball

03-12-2009, 07:56 PM

Stay classy San Diego.

Wow, your a moderator? Thats sad!

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:58 PM

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about several of your responses...

As for the rest of your post, I agree, part of what makes this project special is the collective prerogative of the voters, but we can't completely ignore the standards that have been set. We can't say now that "Charlie Bennett is not a Hall of Famer" because he in fact is. We collectively have deemed him so and that counts for something. Your personal opinion might be different, but that doesn't change reality.

I have said before that I don't think Charlie Bennet is a HoF'er. Having said that I am not asking anyone to go back and reopen the vote and kick him out. When I say that Charlie Bennett is not a Hall of Famer it means to me that I am not going to use him as part of my standard when picking other players for the hall. So if somebody says to me that Joe Soandso should be a HoFer because Charlie Bennett is a HoF'er it isn't a persuasive argument to me. Again though that doesn't mean I think the other should not be allowed to vote for Joe Soandso. Different viewpoints is what makes an election of a player so special. A 75% threshold means that an overwhelming majority of voters have to think a player is a HoF'er, which to me is impressive and even more impressive when it involves many different viewpoints believing that.

Brad Harris

03-12-2009, 07:59 PM

Comparing players within the context that they played is paramount.
A key factor for any "Hall of Fame" project.

Speaking from personal experience, it is very frustrating when a Johnny-come-lately has some idiosyncratic voting philosophy that throws a monkey wrench into the works. Over the years at the BBFHoF (and I know Jim can attest to this also), there were many times when a "non-standard" approach meant the difference between regular elections and a bottlenecked queue of majority-supported candidates. In any project where a three-fourths agreement is necessary for election, you're going to run into this sooner or later.

Very early in the BBFHoF project - within six months of its start - I floated the suggestion of turning to an MVP style ballot in order to ensure a smooth procession of elections and to avoid the chicanery (no matter how well intentioned at times) that these projects often witness. It was roundly shouted down. I was extremely disappointed. But I went with it. There were many changes to the rules over the years - most of them more clarifications than changes - that we tinkered with, both Jim and myself, in order to get things "just right." That doesn't mean they were perfect, just that they were practical.

Stressing the ideas you're espousing, Mike - and they're good ideas - is a good thing, but I'd encourage you to examine, for a moment, what your hopes for the project are and adjust accordingly, if need be. Trust me when I say there were times when I got to the end of a voting cycle and was ready to pull my hair out over some insane ballot or other. There's always room for reasonable disagreements, but those rare outliers that were so off-the-chart really drove me nuts. Jim knows what I'm talking about.

My approach was always that it was up to me (and others in the consensus) to expand our numbers through proselytizing the Gospel of Player X's Achievements and laying that out in context for the other voters and often and as persuasively as we could. That's no easy task, but that's essentially what is required in the formation of any consensus.

Your frustration is understandable. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we have to assume good faith on the part of any participant in this project and soldier forth.

I, for one, don't agree with every pick, for example, but I continue to enjoy expanding my knowledge and reshaping my opinions of some of the less obvious candidates. I only hope to add more to future discussions than I have in recent times.

To an extent, each of us is attempting to force his opinions on the others. That's rather the point of any election: implementing the opinions of the largest voting bloc on the entire electorate.

Like Ben Franklin said: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner." I'm just hoping Joe Sewell isn't one of this year's leftovers. ;)

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 07:59 PM

Wow, your a moderator? Thats sad!

What are you hoping to accomplish? How do you think this will end?

Ace Venom

03-12-2009, 08:00 PM

A 75% threshold means that an overwhelming majority of voters have to think a player is a HoF'er, which to me is impressive and even more impressive when it involves many different viewpoints believing that.

You won't find me disagreeing with you there. The last ballot is a good example. Only one player got elected and a number of players were pretty close up until the last few days. Getting elected is hard.

Ubiquitous

03-12-2009, 08:02 PM

Point of order: I didn't give him a sympathy vote. I was unsure of Joss, and people smarter than I were voting for him (as well as against, yes). Since enough people I respect felt he was a Hall of Famer, and I had no more time to make up my mind on him, I voted for him. I have no regrets about that. Though I am still unsure he belongs, enough people are that I can live and I'm glad I didn't keep him out.

That said, I absolutely agree that people shouldn't have to vote for anyone better than Addie Joss. He certainly is not my standard, he's an exception (of which I have had many for multiple reasons).

I've felt that your last few posts on this topic to be very well stated and if your statements are the acceptable views on voting then I don't really see what the issue is.

So, is his last few posts the acceptable view on voting? People let me know and if so then we have no issue. I spoke up 30 or so posts ago because it didn't seem like his views were the acceptable standard but if they are then you have no issue with me.

bambambaseball

03-12-2009, 08:03 PM

What are you hoping to accomplish? How do you think this will end?

I dont really care. Youve already ruined this activity for me and you come off like the kid who takes his ball and runs home when things dont go his way. Have fun sinking this site and goodbye to Baseballfever! Its been fun,

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 08:15 PM

Guys, why don't you take this disagreement to IM or PM? This thread is getting really derailed and making following the conversation surrounding the actually players difficult to follow.

jjpm74

03-12-2009, 08:16 PM

I dont really care. Youve already ruined this activity for me and you come off like the kid who takes his ball and runs home when things dont go his way. Have fun sinking this site and goodbye to Baseballfever! Its been fun,

And you're way out of line and need to chill out.

Cowtipper

03-12-2009, 08:39 PM

Hack Wilson's case also primarily rests on 7 great seasons. Let's compare Youngs' 7 years to Wilson's 7 best (1924,1926-1930,1932). Both had a very similar # of PA's - 4234 for Wilson, 4299 for Youngs. Wilson was certainly the better hitter, but Youngs was a much better fielder and baserunner.

WARP3:
Youngs - 54.9
Wilson - 37.8

Hack did have a slightly longer career - 223 PA's more to be exact - but I really can't see voting for him and not Youngs.

There is a lot to Youngs' Hall of Fame argument, and now I think I'll be voting for him from now on. Addie Joss got the early death argument, so why not Youngs? According to Bill James' favorite toy, if Youngs hadn't gotten sick and died he would have had over 2500 career hits and 1500+ runs. That would definitely put him in HOF territory.

mwiggins

03-12-2009, 08:47 PM

There is a lot to Youngs' Hall of Fame argument, and now I think I'll be voting for him from now on. Addie Joss got the early death argument, so why not Youngs? According to Bill James' favorite toy, if Youngs hadn't gotten sick and died he would have had over 2500 career hits and 1500+ runs. That would definitely put him in HOF territory.

That's good to hear. :nod:

dgarza

03-12-2009, 08:58 PM

Jim Bottomley
George J Burns
Mickey Cochrane
Earle Combs
Frankie Frisch
Burleigh Grimes
Babe Herman
Rogers Hornsby
Firpo Marberry
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Joe Sewell
Pie Traynor
Bobby Veach
Hack Wilson

1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Frankie Frisch
3. Mickey Cochrane
4. Hack Wilson
5. Bobby Veach
6. Pie Traynor
7. Sam Rice
8. Jim Bottomley
9. Firpo Marberry
10. Burleigh Grimes
11. Carl Mays
12. Babe Herman
13. George J Burns
14. Earle Combs
15. Joe Sewell

SavoyBG

03-12-2009, 11:33 PM

I see, so you're saying 1 voter can come in late in the game, make no effort to learn more about this project, then try to shove their views down everyone's collective throat and that's perfectly fine? That's not how it works in any project run here. If said person doesn't like the rules established by the moderator of a given project, that person can choose to either not participate or learn to live with the rules and parameters established.

One person's views are not enough to affect the voting that much, but still, if a person follows the rules but votes in a way that everybody disagrees with, what can be done? If the person is not banned from the site how would you be able to exclude them? Do you mean that their votes would be manually discounted?

And there's really not much to "learn about the project" in order to vote. It's pretty self explanitory. You vote for the players that you feel are hall of famers, and you don't vote for the players who you don't feel are hall of famers. No two people have the same exact take on which players are hall of famers and which are not, so there are no real "standards" of this project.

SavoyBG

03-13-2009, 12:14 AM

I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps more than anything else, this has been a terrific learning experience. For me, this project is currently the only reason I still come to this site. That's not meant to be a slight to BBF, as this is a tremendous baseball forum, but with time availability changing and interests shifting, I'm just not as committed to the site as I was.

If the grief and disharmony over this project is to continue, particularly from newer participants who would rather impose their own vision of this project than abide by the traditions we've long-established, then I'd rather just end it. It's not worth the frustration. I just can't understand why it's so hard for some to abide by the framework here. This is only meant to be a fun exercise, so what's the point in being so contrarian and obstinate and incessantly bemoaning things?

Like Ubi said, you guys only have a problem with two or three people who like to voice their opinions in the forum, yet those two or three people are submitting reasonable ballots every year. They are not submitting the kind of inane ballts that are being submitted by several voters who never participate in the forum. If this was my project I'd have a much bigger problem with a voter who leaves Babe Ruth off of his ballot than I would with a voter who doesn't agree that anybody who leaves Traynor off of his ballot does not understand the project.

Seems to me that there are many more voters whose standards are too low IMO, than voters whose standards are too high. There's several voters who have full ballots of 15 players every year. There's even some voters who say they would vote for 7 other players in addition to the 15 players on their ballot, if they could. I mean, Rube Walberg (155-141, ERA+ 107) has a vote in this election. What kind of standard would make him a hall of famer?

And as for your now twice mentioned "maybe this project isn't for you," I have no plans of leaving, I really like the project, and I know that I am submitting very reasonable ballots every year. I am also open to debate on candidates, and have been convinced to vote for several players that I was not voting for at first. I have contributed well in the forums. I have voted for many guys now that would never be in the hall of fame if I was setting the standards, so I have adjusted to the project, even if my standard is still somewhat above your standard.

mwiggins

03-13-2009, 04:45 AM

Looks like once a mod adds in Mantle57's missing vote, Sewell's still be above the line. Even though he deserves it, it will still be remarkable if he gets in this time with 4 first-timers on the ballot.

Senor Octobre

03-13-2009, 05:12 AM

I feel bad about Jim leaving. I felt, as always, that he was a valued contributor. :shrug:

DoubleX

03-13-2009, 05:32 AM

I have said before that I don't think Charlie Bennet is a HoF'er. Having said that I am not asking anyone to go back and reopen the vote and kick him out. When I say that Charlie Bennett is not a Hall of Famer it means to me that I am not going to use him as part of my standard when picking other players for the hall. So if somebody says to me that Joe Soandso should be a HoFer because Charlie Bennett is a HoF'er it isn't a persuasive argument to me. Again though that doesn't mean I think the other should not be allowed to vote for Joe Soandso. Different viewpoints is what makes an election of a player so special. A 75% threshold means that an overwhelming majority of voters have to think a player is a HoF'er, which to me is impressive and even more impressive when it involves many different viewpoints believing that.

So you're standard is an inflexible one then that does not take into account the standards the Hall is setting (and that can evolve)? It seems to me that what you're saying is that the players we have elected, which in effect give guidelines to what constitutes a Hall of Famer, mean nothing to you. So what exactly guides you? Where does your idea for what a Hall of Famer comes from?

The fact is, that in theory, we started this in 1901 and the concept of a baseball Hall of Fame started here, and thus a picture of who is a Hall of Famer in many ways would emanate from here, just as the same does from Cooperstown. If this was reality, your views would be inevitably shaped by the standards of this Hall.

In essence, we've created a small universe here, and all I ask is for people to do their best to operate within that universe, to be flexible and internalize the evolving standards of that universe instead of imposing unbending preconceived ideas. The fact is that if this were actually a different universe, you wouldn't have the preconceived ideas you have anyway - you would have been shaped by this universe. So why not at least allow the universe to shape you? Even SavoyBG seemed to make this concession in his last post where he said "I have voted for many guys now that would never be in the hall of fame if I was setting the standards, so I have adjusted to the project, even if my standard is still somewhat above your standard."

If you are unwilling to make adjustments that reflect where we've been with this project, then the inflexibility lies totally with you. This does not mean that there is a strict guideline for who to vote for or who not to - if you go through the election threads you'll readily see that nothing is cut and dry.

EDIT: Also, if participants joining midstream are going to voice loud objection to a player that was previously inducted (this isn't you), it would be nice if that person would at least go back and see some of the conversation leading up to that player's election so we don't have to rehash the same ground, and so that person can get a sense of why that player was elected.

Ubiquitous

03-13-2009, 05:48 AM

So we are back to square one again?

We just got done saying that people don't have to accept every single player in the hall within their own standard but now it seems you are saying we do have to. So is Philkid wrong?

Pick any point in time to start this project and the voters, whether they be real or imagined, are all going to have a different idea of what the hall is and should be. Each voter is an individual and together as a composite vote they decide who is and isn't a hall of famer. The people who don't vote for a player shape the hall just as much as the person who does vote for a player. If a person who doesn't vote for a certain type of player suddenly changes his view and starts to vote for players and types of players he previously didn't vote for then the hall standards will change once again. So really, in terms of maintaining standards the best option is to be consistent to ones own beliefs, otherwise you will change the standard.

As for your response about SavoyBG, I too have voted for players I would never vote for if this was a different hall.

I'm not sure why my voting is a problem and that I need to either get on board or leave. As far as I can tell I am following the same patterns that many others are following, including those voters who set the "standard".

mwiggins

03-13-2009, 06:18 AM

As for your response about SavoyBG, I too have voted for players I would never vote for if this was a different hall.

I'm not sure why my voting is a problem and that I need to either get on board or leave. As far as I can tell I am following the same patterns that many others are following, including those voters who set the "standard".

Neither one of your voting seems to be a problem, or jalbright. I'm not sure why there seems to be such an issue with the idea of new voters being respectful of the standards that have already been established, when the three of you seem to vote in line with those standards just as much as the folks who were part of establishing those standards. Ironically, your voting seems more in line with the standards of this Hall that some who are on the other side of this debate from you. As a relative newcomer to this project, I'd have no idea that you three weren't in complete agreement with everything DoubleX is saying, except for when you specifically say that you don't agree with what DoubleX is saying.

So can we just agree to disagree on the theoretical basis of the project and move on. As others previous have commented, the voters who really don't appear to be following the guidelines of the project when they vote aren't engaged in this thread, and likely aren't reading any of this discussion anyway.

So it seems silly to toss a perfectly good project down the drain over a theoretical disagreement that doesn't appear to be having any real effect the project.

Freakshow

03-13-2009, 06:36 AM

Speaking in general, not about any specific BBF member:

If you cast a big net, you're going to pull in a few lampreys. IOW, if you hold an open house, some of the homeless will walk in.

The poll format at BBF is a big net, an open house. So, when you run a project that utilizes a poll, you should acknowledge the fact that you're going to get some "polluters" affecting the outcome. One species of these I term the "drive by voter". "Ooo, a poll." <click> "Done!"

In projects I run, I don't use the poll format unless I have set up rules to mitigate the influence of polluters. And I would almost never seek to get a 75% supermajority in a poll. Some voters derive satisfaction from controlling the margins; they wait and see how they can affect the results and shape their vote towards that aim. Do we really want our Lesser Sons being the people drawing the in-out line? For me, I don't need the aggravation.

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 07:00 AM

So we are back to square one again?

We just got done saying that people don't have to accept every single player in the hall within their own standard but now it seems you are saying we do have to. So is Philkid wrong?

You have to accept that a standard has been set in this particular hall. That doesn't mean that you have to accept every player elected. I do not accept Pete Browning, Addie Joss, George Van Haltren, Hugh Duffy, and Jimmy Ryan. Leecemark already stated he doesn't accept Jake Beckley. Others have stated objections over Roger Bresnahan and Charlie Bennett. There will not be universal agreement on who is and who is not a HOFer. However, if a player does fit in with a decent number of people we have elected in this project then that player deserves a close look and probably does deserve to be elected. Does that clear things up or confuse things more?

Ace Venom

03-13-2009, 07:06 AM

For some reason, I think this project would be impossible to run without the poll function. I'm loathe to suggest making this a closed ballot because it would create a lot of work for DoubleX. It would also prevent a lot of the discussion that takes place over the period of the voting. We just need to remain civil and respectful of other's opinions.

Obviously standards evolve because seasons have gotten longer and we've seen an amazing crop of early 20th century players that eclipsed what was done by their 19th century counterparts. Does that make the 19th century player less worthy than Ruth or Hornsby? Of course not. While newcomers may scratch their heads at certain selections, you certainly have to contend with a higher standard that will level off over time. We're taking into account players who have been able to accumulate stats in 154 game seasons and in a period where offense has increased. Obviously certain players that might have no-brainers in a different era are looked at and should be looked at with increasing scrutiny as the project continues because we are looking at particular eras. That's the sort of thing we have to consider when voting for candidates each year.

I'm not saying we should have extremely lofty standards or very low standards. Certainly if someone wanted to vote only for Cochrane, Frisch, Hornsby and Traynor, it's justifiable because these are the best players on the ballot. I admit my full ballots haven't been stuffed with the best selections, but that's no more worth criticism than the ones who want to evaluate borderline players using more modern metrics. Overall, I think we've done a good job so far.

SavoyBG

03-13-2009, 07:17 AM

Neither one of your voting seems to be a problem, or jalbright. I'm not sure why there seems to be such an issue with the idea of new voters being respectful of the standards that have already been established, when the three of you seem to vote in line with those standards just as much as the folks who were part of establishing those standards. Ironically, your voting seems more in line with the standards of this Hall that some who are on the other side of this debate from you. As a relative newcomer to this project, I'd have no idea that you three weren't in complete agreement with everything DoubleX is saying, except for when you specifically say that you don't agree with what DoubleX is saying.

So can we just agree to disagree on the theoretical basis of the project and move on. As others previous have commented, the voters who really don't appear to be following the guidelines of the project when they vote aren't engaged in this thread, and likely aren't reading any of this discussion anyway.

So it seems silly to toss a perfectly good project down the drain over a theoretical disagreement that doesn't appear to be having any real effect the project.

Exactly. Besides, the occasional player (Leach) who the people who have been here for 42 years are supporting, but that someone like me doesn't vote for will likely go right in via the VC, like Leach did. Since the VC is likely made up of mainly people who have been here since the project started, they end up with the last word on anybody who doesn't go in via the general election. The bigger problem is not the candidtaes who DON'T get elected in the general election, since the VC can change that. The bigger problem is a player that gets elected in the general election, but does not really belong. The VC has no power to change that decision. I'm not sure if that has happened yet, as 75% is a difficult threshold for anybody to meet.

Just for the record, I totally disagree with the poster who doesn't think that Barnes is a hall of famer. Barnes was major league baseball's first superstar. He was the Nap Lajoie/Honus Wagner of his day. Great fielding 2Bman/SS who was also the best offensive player in his league over a six year period. It's not his fault that they changed the rules at some point, and that he got sick. Within the rules and standards of his day he was baseball's best player by far over a comparatively long period of time. A pioneering trailblazer of the game. I'm not here to try and decide how much better the game has gotten over time and guess if Barnes was around now if he'd be as good as Herman and Gehringer. I'm here to recognize the players who were dominant in their day.

It very well may be that the level of play in the 1870s was no better than the Texas League is now, but that has zero bearing on whether or not a player is a hall of famer as far as I'm concerned.

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 07:27 AM

The VC has no power to change that decision. I'm not sure if that has happened yet, as 75% is a difficult threshold for anybody to meet.

Nor should they have that power. If a player manages to get 75% of the vote, they are not a mistake. I did not support Browning when he was elected, nevetheless, 75% of the voters disagreed with me and he was elected. That does not make him a mistake.

leecemark

03-13-2009, 07:35 AM

--Well, I am away for a day and come back to find 3 pages of bickering :debate:. I think everyone has made their points by now and hope the project can get back to discussing player more than each other and our voting philosophies. I have been frustrated with the approach of some new voters, but it has been my experience that those who have stuck with the project for a few years and actually participated in the discussion have tended to get with the spirit of things.
--Not that there has ever been a single viewpoint in our electorate. We've got some original participants who I disagree with as much or more than any newcomer;). The "problem voters" if we were to view anyone as such are those who are NOT participating in the debate at all and they are not going to be swayed by this discussion. All that is being achieved here is a level of rancor that will make it difficult for anyone to get much enjoyment out of the project. So lets please put the philosophical debate to rest for the time being - or at least bring it to bear on the candidates.

SavoyBG

03-13-2009, 07:37 AM

Nor should they have that power. If a player manages to get 75% of the vote, they are not a mistake. Period. I did not support Browning when he was elected, nevetheless, 75% of the voters disagreed with me and he was elected. That does not make him a mistake.

So according to you, by definition any player who gets voted in via the general election can't possibly be a mistake, and since the occasional player who you do feel should get elected in the general election, but doesn't, will likely go in via the VC, the what's the problem here? Based on this it's not possible for there to be any mistakes here at all.

Tell me, since you are saying that nobody who gets elected by getting 75% of 36 or so voters to vote for them can possibly be a mistake, it stands to reason that you have to feel the same way about anybody who got 75% of the vote in any general election to Cooperstown. Based on your logic you can't possibly say that Herb Pennock, for instance, is a mistake. Not when 94 out of 121 voters say that he's a hall of famer. Since those voters as a group are setting the standard for that hall of fame, Pennock can't be a mistake, correct?

mwiggins

03-13-2009, 07:42 AM

Exactly. Besides, the occasional player (Leach) who the people who have been here for 42 years are supporting, but that someone like me doesn't vote for will likely go right in via the VC, like Leach did. Since the VC is likely made up of mainly people who have been here since the project started, they end up with the last word on anybody who doesn't go in via the general election. The bigger problem is not the candidtaes who DON'T get elected in the general election, since the VC can change that. The bigger problem is a player that gets elected in the general election, but does not really belong. The VC has no power to change that decision. I'm not sure if that has happened yet, as 75% is a difficult threshold for anybody to meet.

Good point about the VC. Deserving candidates like Maranville may get the shaft in the regular election because of some voters with different standards, but it should all sort itself out in the end. And those kind of voters do serve to balance out the voters who are voting for guys like Lu Blue, who I don't think fit the standards of this Hall. It's just an unfortunate part of the process that one or two voters not voting for a guy like Sewell will have a much more significant impact on the process than 15 big-hall members voting for Lu Blue or Jesse Haines will. But that's why there's a VC.

The only real problems appear to be the frustration felt by some members at not being able to elect candidates like that in the regular election and the sometimes contentious debates like we've seen in this thread.

leecemark

03-13-2009, 07:42 AM

Nor should they have that power. If a player manages to get 75% of the vote, they are not a mistake. I did not support Browning when he was elected, nevetheless, 75% of the voters disagreed with me and he was elected. That does not make him a mistake.

--Well a mistake is in the eye of the beholder. We've elected a few players that will always be "mistakes" to me and will not serve to alter my perception of what makes a Hall of Famer, but I wouldn't be in favor of any kind removal process once they have managed to get 75% support.
--I didn't support any of Duffy, Van Haltren or Ryan and any one of them wouldn't set the standard for me. However, when all of them made it I did support other players at that level for a time as it appeared we had set a community standard. As time went by and a number of similar player did not get elected though I happily accepted the upward shift in our standards and no longer support that level of player.

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 07:44 AM

So according to you, by definition any player who gets voted in via the general election can't possibly be a mistake, and since the occasional player who you do feel should get elected in the general election, but doesn't, will likely go in via the VC, the what's the problem here? Based on this it's not possible for there to be any mistakes here at all.

Tell me, since you are saying that nobody who gets elected by getting 75% of 36 or so voters to vote for them can possibly be a mistake, it stands to reason that you have to feel the same way about anybody who got 75% of the vote in any general election to Cooperstown. Based on your logic you can't possibly say that Herb Pennock, for instance, is a mistake. Not when 94 out of 121 voters say that he's a hall of famer. Since those voters as a group are setting the standard for that hall of fame, Pennock can't be a mistake, correct?

Now you are just trying to split hairs and disagreeing just to disagree. In this project, if a player manages to get 75% of the vote, they are not a mistake in this imaginary universe/simulation we have created. Can you move on to more constructive discussion now? This constant nitpicking is starting to turn me off to this project and has gotten completely out of hand. You've said your part, now move on as I am doing.

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 07:47 AM

--Well a mistake is in the eye of the beholder. We've elected a few players that will always be "mistakes" to me and will not serve to alter my perception of what makes a Hall of Famer, but I wouldn't be in favor of any kind removal process once they have managed to get 75% support.
--I didn't support any of Duffy, Van Haltren or Ryan and any one of them wouldn't set the standard for me. However, when all of them made it I did support other players at that level for a time as it appeared we had set a community standard. As time went by and a number of similar player did not get elected though I happily accepted the upward shift in our standards and no longer support that level of player.

There are guys that I consider mistakes as well. Just because I consider them a mistake, that does not mean that they are a mistake that should be purged from this imaginary hall we've created.

DoubleX

03-13-2009, 08:09 AM

I agree with Mark in that mistakes are only in the eye of the beholder. 75% is a rather onerous threshold, increasingly so in recent years as our electorate has grown and our standards have gravitated upward. If a player can get to 75% here, I think it's saying something. That's not to say we haven't elected some more questionable candidates, but I think we've done a good job at not electing real headscratchers and in creating clearer standards than Cooperstown. By this last point I mean that Cooperstown can be very hit or miss, particularly when you consider many of the Frisch inductees. Cooperstown does have some headscratchers, both on the outside and inside, whereas I think we've done a pretty good job at making sure we don't have any headscratchers in or out, thereby creating a clearer cutoff line than Cooperstown. Of course, many of us will disagree on where exactly that cutoff line is and who may or may not be over it, but I think it should give us all a general idea of the scope and framework of this Hall from which to form our opinions. By this I mean, if someone were to argue that only the likes of Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby are Hall of Famers, that wouldn't be working within the framework of this Hall of Fame because we've set a much more inclusive precedent.

Ubiquitous

03-13-2009, 08:42 AM

You have to accept that a standard has been set in this particular hall. That doesn't mean that you have to accept every player elected. I do not accept Pete Browning, Addie Joss, George Van Haltren, Hugh Duffy, and Jimmy Ryan. Leecemark already stated he doesn't accept Jake Beckley. Others have stated objections over Roger Bresnahan and Charlie Bennett. There will not be universal agreement on who is and who is not a HOFer. However, if a player does fit in with a decent number of people we have elected in this project then that player deserves a close look and probably does deserve to be elected. Does that clear things up or confuse things more?

But the standard has been set based on individual views and viewpoints. This standard was created by people who want a small hall and a big hall.

Look at the flipside. there are people who vote for 15 people every time and would vote for more if they were allowed. Yet a relatively small amount of players get elected each year. According to the "standards" people who vote for a ton of players are just as wrong as people who don't vote for a ton of players. In reality it is individuals voting for players that create a composite standard but the important thing to note is that it is very important for everybody to vote their own way in order to protect the standard. If everybody voted according to the standard then elections would be very different and not just because small hallers are voting for more players but also because big hallers are voting for less players.

Again when many different viewpoints can agree on a players worthiness then that means something. It means a lot more then having one set of criterias believing X is hall worthy or not.

Domenic

03-13-2009, 08:57 AM

I'm a bit late to the party, but my ballot is:

Cochrane
Frisch
Hornsby
Maranville
Rice
Rixey
Sewell
Traynor

mwiggins

03-13-2009, 09:12 AM

Look at the flipside. there are people who vote for 15 people every time and would vote for more if they were allowed. Yet a relatively small amount of players get elected each year. According to the "standards" people who vote for a ton of players are just as wrong as people who don't vote for a ton of players. In reality it is individuals voting for players that create a composite standard but the important thing to note is that it is very important for everybody to vote their own way in order to protect the standard. If everybody voted according to the standard then elections would be very different and not just because small hallers are voting for more players but also because big hallers are voting for less players.

That's true, except the big-hall folks have no real impact on who gets elected. The 15 vote people don't impact the standards at all, they just increase the vote total for some candidates who have no chance of getting elected. Whether they vote for Burns/Bottomley/Marberry/Haines or not has no impact on the standards of this project. Only if the group had a broad majority of big-hall proponents would those candidates have any chance of being elected.

Whereas a small minority of small-hall voters can have a significant impact on preventing candidates from being elected.

While both sets of voters are theoretically "out-of-line" with the current standards of the project, they have very different degrees of impact on the project. In other words, if 2/3'rds the group were big-hall voters who voted for 15 each time, and the 1/3rd were small-hall voters who just voted for the major names, then only the candidates the small-hall voters voted for would ever be elected. The "standard" would be defined by the minority of the voters, not naturaly result from a mix of different viewpoints.

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 09:24 AM

But the standard has been set based on individual views and viewpoints. This standard was created by people who want a small hall and a big hall.

Exactly, which is why it is used as a benchmark with which to judge the next generation of players.

Look at the flipside. there are people who vote for 15 people every time and would vote for more if they were allowed. Yet a relatively small amount of players get elected each year. According to the "standards" people who vote for a ton of players are just as wrong as people who don't vote for a ton of players. In reality it is individuals voting for players that create a composite standard but the important thing to note is that it is very important for everybody to vote their own way in order to protect the standard. If everybody voted according to the standard then elections would be very different and not just because small hallers are voting for more players but also because big hallers are voting for less players.

Agreed. The issue is that there are people who are saying "to hell with the standard" and coming down hard on individuals that do vote according to the standard or use the standard as a basis for their argument in favor of a particular player. This is making what was an peaceful and enjoyable project into a project centered around bickering and nitpicking which is sucking any enjoyment there was out of this project. That's what some long time participants are growing wary of.

Again when many different viewpoints can agree on a player's worthiness then that means something. It means a lot more then having one set of criterias believing X is hall worthy or not.

Then what standards do you use when judging a player's HOF worthiness in this project? You have some kind of system that you use when looking at players. What are they?

Ace Venom

03-13-2009, 09:57 AM

While I can easily be categorized as a big hall proponent given my voting history, I'm willing to trim down my selections given the need to clear ballot space and prevent a problematic backlog of returning players. It would also help give my arguments some more weight.

Given that Cochrane, Hornsby, Frisch and Traynor likely won't be on next year's ballot (assuming we don't have a wartime hiatus), that frees up four potential ballot spaces. I'd like to get down to a good ten as a maximum in the future, so it's coming down to certain returning players. Here's who I will no longer make my cut.

Bancroft: The SS position may be underrepresented in our Hall, but that's no excuse to continue to support him. While win shares does work in his argument, he falls way too short on Black Ink and Gray Ink for me to use win shares to compensate for what Bancroft obviously lacks. Bancroft will get cut unless I get a convincing argument to continue supporting him.

Marberry: We can't use 2009 standards to judge 1942 standards and Marberry wouldn't even be considered by 2009 standards, let alone 1942 standards. He doesn't have the numbers, even for someone you would qualify as a mixed starter/reliever.

And here are the players who might make my chopping block:

Gardner: Underrepresented position and much of my same problem with Bancroft lies with Gardner. The only thing keeping Gardner there is that 1943 will be his final year of eligibility. He did a lot of things right, but nothing about Gardner stands out except for his win shares. I've noted my distaste for that particular metric, so you see my problem with supporting Gardner.

Ray Schalk: His OBP is nearly 100 points better than his batting average, but that isn't saying much. I'm not looking for a great offensive catcher here, but Schalk certainly had it as far as defense is concerned. His FP was higher than the lgFP and his RF certainly works in his favor. I likely won't stop supporting him, but I'm open to arguments to not support Schalk.

Hack Wilson: I've been giving Hack a discount because of his off-the-field problems, but it's not like Gehrig (who will make this Hall) having ALS. Hack had a flash of brilliance, but his downfall was his own fault. While he certainly would be a no-brainer if he hadn't let alcoholism destroy his career, I can't justify giving him a discount for a self-inflicted problem.

Certainly feel free to open the discussion.

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 10:09 AM

mwiggins

03-13-2009, 10:15 AM

Hack Wilson: I've been giving Hack a discount because of his off-the-field problems, but it's not like Gehrig (who will make this Hall) having ALS. Hack had a flash of brilliance, but his downfall was his own fault. While he certainly would be a no-brainer if he hadn't let alcoholism destroy his career, I can't justify giving him a discount for a self-inflicted problem.

Certainly feel free to open the discussion.

Wilson's a guy that I'm taking off my ballot going forward. After looking closely at his peak in my posts on Youngs, I just don't think he was dominant for a long enough stretch to justify election on that peak alone.

Goose Goslin and Edd Roush probably both are worthy adds for next year. Neither one is an exceptional candidate, but I would think they will both be elected without a lot of problem. Esp. in a year without any legends like Hornsby and Cochrane on the ballot.

But I'd argue none of those guys are really beyond the pale of this Hall. I struggle with Bancroft, and he appears to deserve more support than he's gotten. There's not a lot seperating Gardner & Leach, other than the fact that Leach was an excellent CF as well. Marberry's not worthy on his numbers, but he does have a reasonable case given that he was somewhat of a pioneer. Schaulk was a great defender at a prime defensive position, and his offense is not bad for the position. Wilson had a very strong hitting peak, so he's not really that unworthy either. I wouldn't feel that you need to take those guys off your ballot. None of them are in Jesse Haines territory.

Ace Venom

03-13-2009, 10:18 AM

Why? You definitely shouldn't feel compelled to do this.

It's not that I feel compelled to do it, but I think I've been supporting subpar candidates. If I'm willing to make arguments in support of candidates, I'm willing to hear arguments against supporting candidates. I'm hoping Savoy will give me some input here.

DoubleX

03-13-2009, 10:36 AM

Bancroft: The SS position may be underrepresented in our Hall, but that's no excuse to continue to support him. While win shares does work in his argument, he falls way too short on Black Ink and Gray Ink for me to use win shares to compensate for what Bancroft obviously lacks. Bancroft will get cut unless I get a convincing argument to continue supporting him.

I don't think SS is underrepresented at all, but there is an inequality between 19th Century and 20th Century players. We were either pretty generous with 19th Century shortstops or they were just that good. When we were discussing Long I mentioned that while Long may have been a better player than Bancroft, Bancroft may have been more remarkable/valuable because there were less shortstops of his quality in his day than there were of Long's quality in his day.

Marberry: We can't use 2009 standards to judge 1942 standards and Marberry wouldn't even be considered by 2009 standards, let alone 1942 standards. He doesn't have the numbers, even for someone you would qualify as a mixed starter/reliever.

I agree. In the context of 2009, Marberry's career makes for an interesting footnote, but in 1942, it makes for something of an unremarkable quirk given that it would be decades before we'd see a trend of pitchers employed in this way. I can't really see supporting Marberry at this juncture.

Gardner: Underrepresented position and much of my same problem with Bancroft lies with Gardner. The only thing keeping Gardner there is that 1943 will be his final year of eligibility. He did a lot of things right, but nothing about Gardner stands out except for his win shares. I've noted my distaste for that particular metric, so you see my problem with supporting Gardner.

Gardner's entire case revolves around what the perception of our 3B standards. One might argue that we've been too elitist at 3B, failing to grasp what success at that position meant in the early 20th Century, while others might argue that it just happens that there weren't many great 3Bmen of that time. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. I believe our perception of 3B has been strongly colored by the greats at the position being dominated by post-1950 players (who we would not yet know in this project). We can't help but think of Mathews, Santo, Brett, Boggs, and so forth at 3B, and thus have a hard time putting the position into perspective from earlier in the century. Personally, it just can't be that over a 50 year period, there just weren't so many remarkable players at the position. Something about the conditions and expectations of the position had to have changed. Thus, I think Gardner might have a pretty decent case (though I haven't been voting for him), in that in the context of 3B in his time and the expectations of the position then and the surrounding decades, Gardner was about as good as they came.

Ray Schalk: His OBP is nearly 100 points better than his batting average, but that isn't saying much. I'm not looking for a great offensive catcher here, but Schalk certainly had it as far as defense is concerned. His FP was higher than the lgFP and his RF certainly works in his favor. I likely won't stop supporting him, but I'm open to arguments to not support Schalk.

I'm not a Schalk fan at all. I tend to think his defense was overrated, he couldn't hit, and that he gets a lot of sympathy for being a good guy on the Black Sox. I much prefer guys like Wally Schang and Deacon McGuire.

Hack Wilson: I've been giving Hack a discount because of his off-the-field problems, but it's not like Gehrig (who will make this Hall) having ALS. Hack had a flash of brilliance, but his downfall was his own fault. While he certainly would be a no-brainer if he hadn't let alcoholism destroy his career, I can't justify giving him a discount for a self-inflicted problem.

I'm close on Wilson, but there's just not quite enough meat on the bones. Great peak, but would like a couple of more productive years.

Domenic

03-13-2009, 10:56 AM

To those that vote for a full ballot, or even a large ballot:

Do you support every player that you vote for for induction into the Hall of Fame? Or are you voting to keep someone in the discussion?

jjpm74

03-13-2009, 11:08 AM

To those that vote for a full ballot, or even a large ballot:

Do you support every player that you vote for for induction into the Hall of Fame? Or are you voting to keep someone in the discussion?

I don't always vote a full ballot, but I definitely do vote for marginal players to keep them in the discussion. These include players I'm undecided on and players who had an interesting enough career that I'd want to learn more about them.

Ubiquitous

03-13-2009, 12:01 PM

That's true, except the big-hall folks have no real impact on who gets elected. The 15 vote people don't impact the standards at all, they just increase the vote total for some candidates who have no chance of getting elected. Whether they vote for Burns/Bottomley/Marberry/Haines or not has no impact on the standards of this project. Only if the group had a broad majority of big-hall proponents would those candidates have any chance of being elected.

That isn't true. It would be true if players were only on the ballot for 2 or 3 years but not when they are on the ballot for 15 years. People who continually voter for full ballots get to continually pimp for their players week after week after week and yes eventually you are going to get other people to share your view. By doing so you get closer and closer to getting that guy inducted. Look at what happened with Joss. He got elected in his 15th year because enough people said yes to him for long enough that others who normally wouldn't vote for him decided to do so on the last ballot. I

While both sets of voters are theoretically "out-of-line" with the current standards of the project, they have very different degrees of impact on the project. In other words, if 2/3'rds the group were big-hall voters who voted for 15 each time, and the 1/3rd were small-hall voters who just voted for the major names, then only the candidates the small-hall voters voted for would ever be elected. The "standard" would be defined by the minority of the voters, not naturaly result from a mix of different viewpoints.

Which again makes the 75% threshold so important. When you can get several different viewpoints to come to an agreement it means much more than one viewpoint stating their opinion.

SavoyBG

03-13-2009, 12:05 PM

Now you are just trying to split hairs and disagreeing just to disagree. In this project, if a player manages to get 75% of the vote, they are not a mistake in this imaginary universe/simulation we have created.

So in this project, with a whopping 36 voters, there can't possibly be a mistake if a candiditate gets 75% of the vote in the general election, but in a Cooperstown vote, which nowadays has like 575 voters, there can be a mistake?

That's preposterious. There's a million times more chnace that 27 out of 36 guys could just happen to have the wrong take on a player than there is that 431 of 575 guys could have the wrong take.

Either there can't be a mistake in either case, or there can be a mistake in either case. You just have to face the fact that the real hall of fame is much less based on stats and value than this hall of fame. They have their own standards, and those standards vary greatly with the standards of our hall here, which, with players, is mainly based on their numbers. You rarely see anybody here making an argument for a player based on how well his teams did. If anything, this hall of fame bends over backwards to take team success out of the equation.