BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1946

[Ace Venom]

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.

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 PAs 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.
- Death Exception: For players who meet the criteria for consideration, but die before their first year of eligibility can have the five year waiting period waived and placed on the ballot the year of death.

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

1946 Guide
There are 33 candidates on the 1946 ballot - 18 holdovers and 15 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1941 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

Newly Eligible (15)
Earl Averill
Beau Bell
Jumbo Brown
Ripper Collins
Dizzy Dean
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Grove
Bump Hadley
Odell Hale
Gabby Hartnett
Jo-Jo Moore
Buddy Myer
Monte Pearson
Charlie Root
Luke Sewell

Holdovers (18)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support
Dave Bancroft 12th 20.69% 28.13% (1936) 8.82% (1940)
Wally Berger 2nd 51.72% 51.72% (1945) 51.72% (1945)
Jim Bottomley 5th 27.59% 27.59% (1945) 23.33% (1943)
Earle Combs 7th 24.14% 24.14% (1945) 11.76% (1940)
Kiki Cuyler 4th 55.17% 55.17% (1945) 51.85% (1944)
Burleigh Grimes 8th 58.62% 58.62% (1945) 48.65% (1942)
Babe Herman 5th 17.24% 20.00% (1943) 11.11% (1943)
Waite Hoyt 4th 17.24% 17.24% (1945) 11.11% (1944)
Tony Lazzeri 3rd 37.93% 37.93% (1945) 29.63% (1944)
Heinie Manush 3rd 34.48% 34.48% (1945) 33.33% (1944)
Rabbit Maranville 9th 68.97% 68.97% (1945) 56.76% (1942)
Carl Mays 13th 48.28% 56.25% (1937) 37.84% (1942)
Sam Rice 8th 65.52% 71.43% (1941) 52.46% (1942)
Eppa Rixey 9th 44.83% 60.00% (1938) 40.74% (1944)
Ray Schalk 12th 20.69% 25.00% (1934) 6.67% (1943)
Wally Schang 11th 47.93% 42.86% (1941) 32.35% (1937)
Urban Schocker 14th 44.83% 44.83% (1945) 15.63% (1939)
Hack Wilson 8th 51.72% 57.14% (1941) 40.74% (1944)

Holdovers Dropped From Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support
Wilbur Cooper End of Eligibility 15 58.33% (1932) 37.04% (1944)
Jimmie Dykes Lack of Support 2 7.41% (1944) 3.45% (1945)
Ross Youngs End of Eligibility 15 37.93% (1945) 6.25% (1936)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support


Penultimate Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Urban Shocker 48.33% (1945)


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in Previous Election (4)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Wally Berger 51.72% 1
Kiki Cuyler 55.17% 3
Burleigh Grimes 58.62% 6
Rabbit Maranville 68.97% 8
Sam Rice 65.52% 7
Hack Wilson 51.72% 3

Hall of Famers
Players Elected - 95
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 59 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 58 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 Deceased (1879-1944) 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 70 45
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Left Field/Center Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13 Deceased (1861-1905) Deceased
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left Field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1895 16 Living - Age 78 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 56 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 76 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 60 47
Mickey Cochrane 1942 89.19% 1 Catcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1937 13 Living - Age 42 38
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Living - Age 58 48
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Deceased (1870-1943) 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 57 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living - Age 66 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living - Age 76 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 60 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1891, 1904-1906 17 Living - Age 79 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 58 52
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living - Age 70 40
Frankie Frisch 1942 91.89% 1 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1919-1937 19 Living - Age 47 43
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15 Deceased (1856-1902) Deceased
Lou Gehrig 1944 100% 1 First Base New York Yankees (AL) 1923-1939 17 Deceased (1903-1941) Deceased
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17 Living - Age 89 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1867-1933) 52
Goose Goslin 1943 93.33% 1 Left Field Washington Senators (NL) 1921-1938 18 Living - Age 45 42
Clark Griffith* 1940 (VC) 78.57% VC Pitcher Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891, 1893-1909, 1912-1914 20 Living - Age 76 70
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 57 47
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Deceased (1866-1940) 40
Harry Heilmann 1937 96.18% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1914, 1916-1930, 1932 17 Living - Age 51 43
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Deceased (1855-1935) 49
Rogers Hornsby 1942 97.30% 1 Second Base St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 1915-1937 23 Living - Age 49 45
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 Deceased (1887-1946) 45
Addie Joss 1926 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 Deceased (1871-1943) 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 72 47
Tommy Leach* 1940 (VC) 85.71% VC Third Base/Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1898-1915, 1918 19 Living - Age 69 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 Deceased (1859-1943) 42
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 Deceased (1859-1944) 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living - Age 77 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 6 Deceased (1836-1908) Deceased
Lip Pike*^ 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Baltimore Canaries (NA) 1871-1878, 1881, 1887 10 Deceased (1845-1926) 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
Edd Roush 1943 76.67% 1 Center Field Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1913-1929, 1931 18 Living - Age 52 49
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 50 45
Jimmy Ryan* 1930 (VC) 86.67% VC Center Field Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1885-1900, 1902, 1903 18 Deceased (1863-1923) Deceased
Joe Sewell 1942 75.68% 5 Shortstop/Third Base Cleveland Indians (AL) 1920-1933 14 Living - Age 47 43
Jimmy Sheckard* 1945 (VC) 83.33% VC Left Field Chicago Cubs (NL) 1897-1913 17 Living - Age 68 67
George Sisler 1935 90.91% 1 First Base St. Louis Browns (AL) 1915-1922, 1924-1930 15 Living - Age 53 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 58 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 (1856-1931) 51
Ezra Sutton* 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Third Base Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1871-1888 18 Deceased (1850-1907) Deceased
Bill Terry 1941 80.00% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1923-1936 14 Living - Age 48 43
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 14 Deceased (1860-1922) 47
Pie Traynor 1942 83.78% 1 Third Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1920-1937 18 Living - Age 46 42
Dazzy Vance 1940 76.47% 1 Pitcher Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1915, 1918, 1922-1935 16 Living - Age 54 48
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Deceased (1866-1945) 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 72 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 71 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living - Age 65 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 10 Living - Age 58 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 70 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 79 49

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

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (6): Charlie Bennett, Roger Bresnahan, Mickey Cochrane, Buck Ewing, Cal McVey, Deacon White
First Base (8): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, Lou Gehrig, George Sisler, Joe Start, Bill Terry
Second Base (9): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (6): Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins, Heinie Groh, Tommy Leach, Ezra Sutton, Pie Traynor
Shortstop (11): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Joe Sewell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (10): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Goose Goslin, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Jimmy Sheckard, Harry Stovey, Zack Wheat
Center Field (12): Pete Browning, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Edd Roush, 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
1942 (5): Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Sewell, Pie Traynor
1943 (2): Goose Goslin, Edd Roush
1944 (1): Lou Gehrig
1945 (0):
- 1945 VC (1): Jimmy Sheckard

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 (21): 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, Jimmy Sheckard, Rube Waddell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Ed Walsh, Vic Willis, Cy Young
1910s (11): Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, EddieCollins, Larry Doyle, Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson, Sherry Magee, Tris Speaker, Zack Wheat
1920s (12): Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Frankie Frisch, Goose Goslin, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Edd Roush, Babe Ruth, George Sisler, Joe Sewell, Pie Traynor, Dazzy Vance
1930s (3): Mickey Cochrane, Lou Gehrig, 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) (9): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Bill Dahlen, Clark Griffith, George Gore, King Kelly, Jimmy Ryan, Jimmy Sheckard
Chicago White Sox (AL) (3): Eddie Collins, Red Faber, Ed Walsh
Cincinnati Reds (NL, AA) (4): Heinie Groh, Bid McPhee, Tony Mullane, Edd Roush
Cleveland Blues (NL) (1): Jack Glasscock
Cleveland Indians (fka Naps) (AL) (6): Stan Coveleski, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Napoleon Lajoie, Joe Sewell, 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) (14): Roger Bresnahan, Roger Connor, George Davis, Larry Doyle, Buck Ewing, Frankie Frisch, Tim
Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jim O’Rourke, Amos Rusie, George Van Haltren, John Ward, Mickey Welch
New York Yankees (AL) (2): Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth
Philadelphia Athletics (AL) (4): Frank Baker, Mickey Cochrane, 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) (6): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Tommy Leach, Pie Traynor, 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) (2): Bob Caruthers, Rogers Hornsby
Washington Senators (AL) (2): Goose Goslin, Walter Johnson

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Regular Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Tris Speaker, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 48
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Addie Joss, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 8
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 33
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 12
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 71.43% - Sam Rice (1941)
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907, 1942)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1938, 1939, 1945)
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Largest Post-1915 Ballot: 47 Players (1932)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 37 (1942)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 14
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs - 9
- Electee with Longest Post-1871 Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Post-1871 Career: Dickey Pearce – 8 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 16
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 41
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Jack Glasscock - 89
- Deceased in Past Year: Walter Johnson

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
1942: 37
1943: 30
1944: 27
1945: 29

Links to Past Elections
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 (http://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)
1942 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88297)
1943 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89063)
1944 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89394)
1945 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89744), 1945 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89707)

[Domenic]

Averill
Berger
Dean
Grove
Hartnett
Maranville
Rice

[Ace Venom]

Earl Averill
Wally Berger
Jim Bottomley
Kiki Cuyler
Dizzy Dean
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Charlie Root
Hack Wilson

[jalbright]

Dean
Ferrell
Grimes
Grove
Hartnett
Maranville
Mays
Rice, S.
Rixey
Wilson, H.

[leecemark]

--Grove and Hartnett stand out from the crowd so much that I didn't vote for anyone elese this year. Several of my holdovers will likely be back and several newcombers may eventually make it - Averill and Dean look pretty good despite short careers.

[jjpm74]

My largest ballot in years:

Earl Averill
Wally Berger
Dizzy Dean
Wes Ferrell
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
Rabbit Maranville
Buddy Myer
Sam Rice
Urban Shocker
Hack Wilson

[jjpm74]

--Grove and Hartnett stand out from the crowd so much that I didn't vote for anyone elese this year. Several of my holdovers will likely be back and several newcombers may eventually make it - Averill and Dean look pretty good despite short careers.

Why be so stingy? If someone is a HOFer to you, what makes them in last year and next year but not this year? Did you only vote for babe Ruth when he was eligible? Did you only vote for Honus Wagner when he was eligible? Both candidates were light years ahead of the competition when they were elected by us. This line of reasoning makes no sense.

[leecemark]

--Everybody else is very much a borderline candidate. They are question marks every year, but look worse on this ballot. None of the guys I might vote for are likley to fall off the ballot without me - or makeit with me - so my decision to leave them off won't have any real effect on their candidacies.

[Ace Venom]

Why be so stingy? If someone is a HOFer to you, what makes them in last year and next year but not this year?

I don't have a problem with how he votes. I've dropped Schalk from my ballot twice. Schang fell off my ballot too. This was really one of the best first ballot classes we've had since 1942. I can understand why he would do it and his reasoning makes sense. We haven't elected anyone on the regular ballot that wasn't a first year inductee since Joe Sewell in 1942. Most of us have been able to agree on the three first ballot candidates that have gotten in since 1942.

A lot of our problem has been declining vote numbers. The numbers are coming back up and I'm trying to get the yearly ballots up more frequently as our schedule allows. Maranville was only needed two of the three voters after he was sitting at 74.07% with only a few hours left. He didn't get a single vote for the last three voters and his case has been argued to death.

Rice has been around the 70% mark before too, but I'm a bit surprised that he's still waiting. Even though he's above the mark on three of the yardsticks, he's still on the outside looking in. He was only 13 hits away from 3,000 hits and he only hit 34 home runs. However, he managed to score over 1,500 runs and he had a .322 batting average. Some might think he's a compiler, but he doesn't look like one.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=121137
“Day in and day out, Rice was the most consistent of the Washington hitters in the happy years of 1924 and 1925. Plaudits went to Goose Goslin and Bucky Harris and Walter Johnson and Joe Judge, but Sam was quietly lining out his base hits, stealing when it was appropriate and, during his and the Senators' heyday, scoring 100 runs a year.”
— Star-News sports columnist, Francis Stann

Quite simply, we're not getting enough participation to get a better ballot spread. I've seen this on the VC where only 12 of the 19 committee members voted with a +1 from SavoyBG. It has nothing to do with how people are voting, but the fact that there just aren't enough votes. We require 75% to get elected and if we're consistently getting less than 30 votes per election, they have to get more votes per year than if we had 30-35 voters. If vote totals increased, you'd probably see more candidates getting elected.

[Sockeye]

Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett

[Cowtipper]

A full ballot. Again.

Wally Berger
Jim Bottomley
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Urban Shocker
Hack Wilson

Guys I didn't have room to vote for, but will get my vote once there is room:

Earl Averill
Dizzy Dean
Wes Ferrell

[RyanExpress30]

1 Grove
2 Bottomley
3 Cuyler
4 Averill
5 Manush
6 Berger
7 Lazzeri
8 Wilson
9 Herman
10 Combs

[SavoyBG]

It has nothing to do with how people are voting, but the fact that there just aren't enough votes. We require 75% to get elected and if we're consistently getting less than 30 votes per election, they have to get more votes per year than if we had 30-35 voters. If vote totals increased, you'd probably see more candidates getting elected.


Your logic is totally wrong. The more voters there are, the more difficult it is to get 75% of the vote.

How could you possibly think that a candidate needs MORE votes to get elected if less than 30 people vote, than they would need to get elected if 35people vote?

If there's 28 voters, a candidate needs 21 votes to get elected.

If there's 32 voters a candidate needs 24 votes to get elected.

[SavoyBG]

I think this is my biggest ballot (8) ever:

Earl Averill
Wally Berger
Dizzy Dean
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays

[Ace Venom]

Your logic is totally wrong. The more voters there are, the more difficult it is to get 75% of the vote.

How could you possibly think that a candidate needs MORE votes to get elected if less than 30 people vote, than they would need to get elected if 35people vote?

If there's 28 voters, a candidate needs 21 votes to get elected.

If there's 32 voters a candidate needs 24 votes to get elected.

You got the math right, but you missed the point. I do wonder how many of the ones who longer vote would have supported Maranville. But even then, you've got a larger spread even though you require more votes. The ratio is the same, but you've got the potential that more people would vote for certain candidates than not. It's possible.

[jjpm74]

-or makeit with me - so my decision to leave them off won't have any real effect on their candidacies.

One of the candidates in question that you voted for last year missed election by 1 solitary vote last election.

[jjpm74]

You got the math right, but you missed the point. I do wonder how many of the ones who longer vote would have supported Maranville. But even then, you've got a larger spread even though you require more votes. The ratio is the same, but you've got the potential that more people would vote for certain candidates than not. It's possible.

You have a proportion of voters in recent years who are hit and run voters and vote for whatever ballot looks "pretty" to them without any regard for who is a good candidate to meet our hall and very obviously don't read the threads before voting. Looking at the last three elections, Rabbit Maranville would have been elected 3 years in a row with our electorate who voted in Hughie Jennings et. al. This is the main reason why I don't bother to take the time to present a case for borderline guys anymore. In past years, it would have actually made a difference. Not so over the past 11 elections.

[Ace Venom]

In past years, it would have actually made a difference. Not so over the past 11 elections.

But what do you do? Change the threshold requirement? 3/5 (60%) briefly crossed my mind, but I dismissed it because if the majority of our regular electorate thought the guy belonged, then drive-by voters wouldn't matter. I'll admit we've had an interesting statistic that we have only elected first timers since Joe Sewell got in with his fifth year on the ballot. To be fair, we've only elected three players on the regular ballot since 1942.

[jalbright]

But what do you do? Change the threshold requirement? 3/5 (60%) briefly crossed my mind, but I dismissed it because if the majority of our regular electorate thought the guy belonged, then drive-by voters wouldn't matter. I'll admit we've had an interesting statistic that we have only elected first timers since Joe Sewell got in with his fifth year on the ballot. To be fair, we've only elected three players on the regular ballot since 1942.

I think messing with the 75% limit would be a dramatic change in the project itself. I don't think that's a good idea in a project that's gone this far without pressing reasons to do so, and would have to evaluate this project as a whole new entity if such a change were made. The only time I've favored a change in the threshold percentage was in the Mistakes thread, and when guys need 75% to get in, there's a real reason to question a 75% majority saying a guy is a mistake.

[Freakshow]

Nobody was elected. Cooper and Youngs expired. Cuyler and Schalk drop off. They were replaced by newbies Averill, Ferrell, Grove and Hartnett.

Averill
Bancroft
Berger
Ferrell W
Grimes
Grove
Hartnett
Lazzeri
Maranville
Mays
Rice
Rixey
Schang
Shocker
Wilson

[jjpm74]

But what do you do? Change the threshold requirement? 3/5 (60%) briefly crossed my mind, but I dismissed it because if the majority of our regular electorate thought the guy belonged, then drive-by voters wouldn't matter. I'll admit we've had an interesting statistic that we have only elected first timers since Joe Sewell got in with his fifth year on the ballot. To be fair, we've only elected three players on the regular ballot since 1942.

That would be a bad idea.

There really isn't anything that can be done about it. You could try to require every voter to post their ballot in the thread in order to count, but that would be a pain to keep track of. I just don't see a point in presenting cases for borderline players anymore when people ignore the thread and just vote and run. Unfortunately, this project seems to have run its course and lost the open mindedness present in the first 35 weeks or so of this project.

[Domenic]

Why not run this like the Veteran's Committee? Instead of a poll, utilize posted ballots only - that should enforce the notion that people should read a bit before haphazardly voting. And, while it may decrease the amount of participation, it should make for better discourse and better selection practices on the whole.

[jalbright]

Why not run this like the Veteran's Committee? Instead of a poll, utilize posted ballots only - that should enforce the notion that people should read a bit before haphazardly voting. And, while it may decrease the amount of participation, it should make for better discourse and better selection practices on the whole.

The problem I have with that is that such a step is a dramatic change in the project. For better or worse, it was designed to draw more voters. Different processes will yield somewhat different results. There's no point in altering the rules of each project to make them more like all the others.
Frankly, if you're not happy with the results, my advice is do some campaigning. If that doesn't do the trick, I'll be willing to revisit the issue. Until then, I don't want to see it go that route.

[Ace Venom]

The problem I have with that is that such a step is a dramatic change in the project. For better or worse, it was designed to draw more voters. Different processes will yield somewhat different results. There's no point in altering the rules of each project to make them more like all the others.
Frankly, if you're not happy with the results, my advice is do some campaigning. If that doesn't do the trick, I'll be willing to revisit the issue. Until then, I don't want to see it go that route.

I'm in full agreement here. That's the major reason I dismissed the idea of a 3/5 rule just as quickly as I thought of it (something similar was mentioned in earlier threads). Doing like the VC is a bad idea too and it's not in the spirit of this project. I'm keeping it at 75% and it's an open ballot. All the ballots that aren't posted in the thread are public anyway.

Unfortunately, this project seems to have run its course and lost the open mindedness present in the first 35 weeks or so of this project.

Even Maranville had to wait 13 years to be elected into the real Cooperstown. Sam Rice had to wait for the VC to get him in. We elected Bill Terry faster than the real Cooperstown did. I'd say we're doing a pretty fair job overall.

[Domenic]

I do enjoy the way that this project has been run thus far - my only complaint lay in the diminishing participation. A few weeks back, these threads would have one-hundred-plus posts and several pages worth of debate and discussion. Recently, even the most well-written plug for a player seems to go ignored.

I'm not quite ready to give up, and I hope that the other users expressing their concern aren't, either. I do, however, miss "the good old days" of these votes.

[jalbright]

I understand the frustration, but the first course of action is to pick up the campaigning. If you don't want to do a lot of research, there's a lot of guys covered in my Musings thread and AG2004's Keltner lists. We may not always agree with what you think, but there's a lot of good information there.

Maybe the design of the project, allowing "hit and run" votes while still requiring a 75% majority, is more vulnerable to stalling on the borderline cases or those outside the post 1900 majors, but if so, I say that's something we have to deal with without altering the 75% majority and poll voting approaches, which are at the heart of the project's design.

[Ace Venom]

I understand the frustration, but the first course of action is to pick up the campaigning.

We haven't exactly been doing that. I mentioned some positives about Sam Rice in one of my posts. Most of Maranville's support comes from his glove.

[SavoyBG]

You got the math right, but you missed the point. I do wonder how many of the ones who longer vote would have supported Maranville. But even then, you've got a larger spread even though you require more votes. The ratio is the same, but you've got the potential that more people would vote for certain candidates than not. It's possible.

Look, you're totally wrong here. It's simple probability and statistics. The more voters participating in the vote, the tougher it is for a candidate to maintain 75% of the vote.

It's not unlike the following example.

You'll see many hitters go 3 for 4 in a game. But you'll never see a hitter go 30 for 40 over the course of 10 games.

Next election check the percentages after the first 4 voters. There will be candidates that have 3 votes alread (75%), but most of those candidates will not be able to maintain 75% of the vote as more votes come in.

[PVNICK]

I don't know when I last had a full slate. Buddy Myer will have to wait 'til next year, assuming he survives.

Averill
Bancroft
Cuyler
Dean
Ferrell
Grimes
Grove
Hartnett
Maranville
Mays
Rice
Rixey
Schalk
Schang
Shocker

[Ace Venom]

Look, you're totally wrong here. It's simple probability and statistics. The more voters participating in the vote, the tougher it is for a candidate to maintain 75% of the vote.

Like I said, you have the math right. It's still theoretically possible that we could get a ratio that would get Maranville in and we nearly did last time. However, I can concede that it's unlikely given the fact that late voters will never vote for Maranville.

[dgarza]

Earl Averill
Jim Bottomley
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Dizzy Dean
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
Babe Herman
Waite Hoyt
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Hack Wilson


1. Lefty Grove
2. Hack Wilson
3. Gabby Hartnett
4. Earl Averill
5. Heinie Manush
6. Kiki Cuyler
7. Sam Rice
8. Jim Bottomley
9. Dizzy Dean 115.4
10. Burleigh Grimes
11. Tony Lazzeri
12. Carl Mays
13. Babe Herman
14. Earle Combs
15. Waite Hoyt

[Domenic]

1. Lefty Grove
2. Hack Wilson
3. Gabby Hartnett
4. Earl Averill
5. Heinie Manush
6. Kiki Cuyler
7. Sam Rice
8. Jim Bottomley
9. Dizzy Dean 115.4
10. Burleigh Grimes
11. Tony Lazzeri
12. Carl Mays
13. Babe Herman
14. Earle Combs
15. Waite Hoyt

I still don't understand how Wilson can be the second-most deserving player on the ballot, yet Berger does not appear therein. Can you enlighten me, please?

Berger and Wilson are extremely comparable with the bat:

Berger - 137 OPS+, 9 Black Ink, 103 Gray Ink, .312 EQA
Wilson - 144 OPS+, 31 Black Ink, 110 Gray Ink, .316 EQA

The two are very similar, with the exception of Black Ink. However, when we factor in fielding, we see a very different picture:

Berger - 201 FRAR, A-, 50.7 WARP1
Wilson - 164 FRAR, C, 45.4 WARP1

Here, Berger has his advantages. While none of the gaps are tremendous, the fact of the matter is that, when factoring in defense, Berger and Wilson are at least extremely similar - BP actually finds Berger to be the better player.

[jjpm74]

We have a small group for 1947:

Elden Auker
Clint Brown
Bruce Campbell
Larry French
Charlie Gehringer
Ted Lyons
Eric McNair
Red Rolfe
Billy Werber

Since we only seem capable of electing no brainers lately, we will probably only elect Charlie Gehringer next year.

It's sad to see Rabbit Maranville and Sam Rice languish just under 75% year after year and to see 1st timers Earl Averill and Dizzy Dean struggle.

[vtbub]

Trust me, there are voters who do read things before voting. I think that there just are different thoughts on who is a hall of famer and who is not.

[jjpm74]

Trust me, there are voters who do read things before voting. I think that there just are different thoughts on who is a hall of famer and who is not.

I agree with you. The vast majority do at least glance over the threads. It's the roughly 10-15% of the participants who don't read the thread and never participate in physical threads on this site that I'm alluding to in my above posts. There are several voters who have been members of this site for 6 or 7 years, participate in every poll and have a total of 8 posts over that entire time. I encountered a few when I was doing the top 100 pitchers project who made a mistake, and I had to PM only to never hear from them again and see that the PM went unread even though they had been on the site every day. It'd be nice to see what their methodologies are occasionally.

[Freakshow]

We have a small group for 1947:

Elden Auker
Clint Brown
Bruce Campbell
Larry French
Charlie Gehringer
Ted Lyons
Eric McNair
Red Rolfe
Billy Werber

Since we only seem capable of electing no brainers lately, we will probably only elect Charlie Gehringer next year.Also eligible is Al Simmons, who turns 45 on 5/22/47 and whose last year of consecutive play was 1941. And I think you overlooked a premier centerfielder, Sam West.

[SavoyBG]

Okay, yes Dizzy Dean had a very short career, but he had a clearly better peak than Addie Joss.

Career WS - Joss -191, Dean - 181

WS per 162 - Dean - 34.08, Joss - 31.51

Best 3 seasons
Dean - 37, 31, 31
Joses - 35, 28, 25

Best 5 consecutive seasons
Dean - 145
Joss - 131

Dean's WS per 162 of 34.08 is better than any pitcher ever except for Walter Johnson (34.09), Grove (36.94), Alexander (34.31), Nichols (35.42), TF Brown (34.13) and Smokey Joe Wood (34.59).

Dean's other colorful intangibles were very memorable in the game. I think he belongs.

[Domenic]

For what it's worth, Dizzy Dean is also thirteenth all-time in Black Ink, ahead of approximately half of the pitchers already enshrined in the BBF Progressive Hall of Fame.

[Ace Venom]

I'm actually surprised that Dean hasn't gotten as many votes. I figured he would have been a no-brainer.

[vtbub]

He belongs, but not as a player. If you add up his career and his days as a broadcaster, he's a shoo-in as a contributor.

A great peak, but was done by the time he was 26.

[Domenic]

I think the case of Dean has a great deal to do with quality over quantity.

In terms of career achievement, Dean's superior Black Ink (13th all-time) reveals him as being as dominant in his era as many of the pitchers already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. He was a four-time All-Star and an MVP, finishing second twice, to boot. For a short career pitcher, he is at least comparable to Joss and Waddell.

[mwiggins]

I think the case of Dean has a great deal to do with quality over quantity.

In terms of career achievement, Dean's superior Black Ink (13th all-time) reveals him as being as dominant in his era as many of the pitchers already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. He was a four-time All-Star and an MVP, finishing second twice, to boot. For a short career pitcher, he is at least comparable to Joss and Waddell.

He's comparable to Waddell, but he falls well short in that comparison. And Joss's 6 year peak (1904-1909) was better than Dean's as well, though most of that difference is due to his great 1908 season. But Joss also had two really good years in 1902 & 1903, while Dean really has nothing outside of 1932-1937. And Joss is a borderline HoF'er at best.

And really, Dean's peak wasn't really any more dominant than Stan Covelski's peak, and Stan's was 10 year's long.

[SavoyBG]

Joss's 6 year peak (1904-1909) was better than Dean's as well,


Not according to win shares it wasn't. Dean wins easily when comparing each player's 6 year peak.

Joss - 1904 - 1909 - 147 win shares
Dean - 1932 - 1937 - 162 win shares

[jalbright]

He's comparable to Waddell, but he falls well short in that comparison. And Joss's 6 year peak (1904-1909) was better than Dean's as well, though most of that difference is due to his great 1908 season. But Joss also had two really good years in 1902 & 1903, while Dean really has nothing outside of 1932-1937. And Joss is a borderline HoF'er at best.

And really, Dean's peak wasn't really any more dominant than Stan Covelski's peak, and Stan's was 10 year's long.

Here's Joss, compared to his peers:


Pitcher.... career best 3 5consec bl ink gr ink HOF stds
W Johnson 564 143 217 150 420 82
Cy Young.. 635 127 200 100 472 82
Alexander 477 127 180 126 339 77
Mathewson 426 115 161 92 352 84
Nichols.... 479 135 208 36 315 69
Plank....... 360 89 133 15 291 71
M Brown... 296 105 163 35 195 56
Walsh..... 265 124 177 67 172 52
McGinnity 269 117 162 64 190 50
Willis....... 293 101 138 25 204 43
Waddell.... 240 100 145 46 158 47
Chesbro.... 209 103 143 27 130 40
Bender..... 231 70 100 17 158 51
Joss........ 191 88 131 19 143 47
Marquard... 208 78 93 11 150 31


Joss does rather poorly in top 3 seasons and in best five consecutive versus his HOF caliber peers (and elsewhere as well).

Now, let's look at Dean compared to his peers:


pitcher career best3 5consec black gray stds
Dean 181 99 145 52 137 33
Grove 391 108 167 108 316 62
Hubbell 305 102 153 51 252 51
Ruffing 311 76 116 11 257 38
Lyons 311 79 110 32 180 30
Vance 241 104 124 66 171 35
Hoyt 262 69 100 7 182 32
Gomez 185 80 106 46 182 34
Ferrell 233 95 129 25 170 22
Walters 258 102 132 48 152 27


Dean does poorly in gray ink and in career win shares, but he's 3rd in black ink and best five consecutive, and middle of the pack in HOF standards (6th) and 3 best seasons in win shares (5th). In fact, Dean bests Joss in best three in win shares, best 5 consecutive in win shares, black ink, and is only 10 career win shares and six gray ink points behind--and Joss comes from an era when more innings were expected of a pitcher. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the standards difference comes in ERA, which is pretty much an era-based issue because the standards don't adjust for that issue. Dean does pretty well compared to Waddell in the three and five consecutive win share measures, as well as black ink. I'd give Rube the overall edge, but it isn't the runaway the post would suggest.

[philkid3]

Averill, Earl
Dean, Dizzy
Ferrell, Wes
Grimes, Burleigh
Grove, Lefty
Hartnett, Gabby
Maranville, Rabbit
Rice, Sam
Schang, Wally

A deceptively strong class. I've got five first timers, and I'm considering Root and Myer, but Grove is the only one who I think is a really upper-crust all-timer. Hartnett is one of the best catchers we've seen, though. Dean and Averill are both pretty similar to me, with careers that fall a tad short of my HoF expectations, but with peaks good enough, I think, to make up for it. And Ferrell was a pretty easy vote.

I'm inching closer to voting for Hoyt. Still not sure his best was good enough, despite having a pretty full career.

[KCGHOST]

Averill
Dean
Grove
Hartnett
Rixey
Shocker

[bambambaseball]

There's gotta be 2 Earl Averill supporters out there! Come out come out wherever you are! :pray:

[Paul Wendt]

(quoting A) >
Originally Posted by Ace Venom View Post
You got the math right, but you missed the point. I do wonder how many of the ones who longer vote would have supported Maranville. But even then, you've got a larger spread even though you require more votes. The ratio is the same, but you've got the potential that more people would vote for certain candidates than not. It's possible.
<

Look, you're totally wrong here. It's simple probability and statistics. The more voters participating in the vote, the tougher it is for a candidate to maintain 75% of the vote.
1.
You are both wrong. The effect of the number of voters depends on the degree of "true support" in the general population of potential voters. With a small number of voters, a candidate with 60% true support may achieve 75% vote by good fortune alone --more likely than with a large number of voters. Similarly a candidate with 80% true support may fall short of 75% by bad fortune --more likely than with a large number of voters.

2.
With a small number of voters, another factor also operates significantly: divisibility by four. Given the 75% threshold, or three fourths, election is easiest when the number is divisible by four; for example, the 75% threshold means 9 of 12 votes but it also means 9 of 11 votes. The difference between 12 voters and 11 voters is now the difference between full attendance and one absentee on the veterans committees for pre-1943 mlb players, managers and umpires, and executives.
(I need to check that. Memory says all three committees have twelve members.)

When Frank Frisch served on the famous veterans committee there were 12 members, hence 9 of 12 votes required for election (precisely 75%). For 1978 the committee increased to 18, hence 14 of 18 votes required for election (about 78%). The size of a "blocking coalition" decreased from 4 of 12 (33.3%) to 5 of 18 (27.7%).

Here the group of voters has always been larger than 18 and larger than 28 for a while. I doubt that the effect of divisibility by four is important. (Much more significant, both on the veterans committee and here, is whether and how the arguments or the early votes by some participants may influence the later votes by others).

--
This analysis in both parts supposes that there is no systematic difference between the people who compose a small number of voters and the "extras" whose help compose a large number of voters.

In practice that is false. In US elections, a greater share of Republicans votes when participation is low than when participation is high --classically, in bad versus good weather. In his later years on the veterans committee, Ted Williams was more likely than the average members to be absent in poor health.

Regarding the practical effect of high and low turnout here, I haven't followed the project closely enough, in the right ways, to say anything worth saying.

[AG2004]

My ballot:

Earl Averill
Wally Berger
Dizzy Dean
Wes Ferrell
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Gabby Hartnett
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Eppa Rixey


---

Wes Ferrell is someone who should be in the Hall. However, he's receiving less than 50% of the vote. His win share line is 233-95-129. His closest match among contemporary pitchers is Dazzy Vance, at 241-94-124. If Vance is an easy choice, than Ferrell should also be an easy choice.

I think Ferrell's ERA+ of 116 is holding him back. I ask those who hold his ERA+ against him to look at his OPS+.

It's 100.

Ferrell hit as well as the average position player of his day. That's a rarity among pitchers. Hence, Ferrell was contributing with his bat much more than other pitchers were.

Ferrell created 189 runs in his career, according to the baseball-reference manual. If 5/6 of those runs came when he was pitching (as opposed to being an OF or PH), and the average pitcher creates about 40 runs with his bat, then Ferrell created about 110 more runs with his bat than the average pitcher.

How much value did those runs have? Well, let's take away those 110 offensive runs to make him comparable to the average pitcher at the plate. Let's also take away 110 of the earned runs he gave up on the mound to balance the totals. Ferrell's marginal runs total (scored+saved) would remain the same, and hence his win share total would remain unchanged.

An average-hitting pitcher with 1067 ER (1177 minus 110) with Ferrell's IP totals would have a career ERA+ of 128.

Therefore,
Ferrell's overall value was approximately equal to an average-hitting pitcher with an ERA+ of 127 and the same number of IP.

Let's look at Dazzy Vance. He had an ERA+ of 125, but about 300 more IP than Ferrell. As pitchers go, Vance was a slightly above-average hitter, with a career OPS+ of 10 (and 45 runs created). Vance was pretty close to an average-hitting pitcher with an ERA+ of 127 in 300 fewer IP.

Thus, Ferrell and Vance are very close overall in value -- which is what the win shares lines tell us. The main difference is that much Ferrell had more value with his hitting, and Vance had more value with his pitching, but the overall total is about the same.

If you voted for Vance, there's no good reason not to vote for Ferrell.

[Paul Wendt]

Let's look at Dazzy Vance. He had an ERA+ of 125, but about 300 more IP than Ferrell. As pitchers go, Vance was a slightly above-average hitter, with a career OPS+ of 10 (and 45 runs created). Vance was pretty close to an average-hitting pitcher with an ERA+ of 127 in 300 fewer IP.
Measured by OPS+ and in his own time, Vance was significantly below average as a batter. OPS+ 10 is a strong batter today (Smoltz) but it was a weak batter eighty years ago (Vance).

Relying on OPS+ and supposing 1/12 weight in team offense, I estimate that Vance in the lineup depressed team OPS+ by about two points. By the same method my estimate for Ferrell is only about +6 points. His impact was greater during his peak seasons, because his batting peak roughly matched his pitching peak, but that timing effect is small. Of course Ferrell does deserve some credit for service as outfielder and hitter with OPS+ 100.

Here is the median career OPS+ for pitchers in my desktop table that now covers more than 700 of him. They are grouped by debut decade and the recent decades include more generally weak-batting relief pitchers; also more pitchers with very few plate appearances (mainly-short relief and mainly-AL).

debut OPS+(median)
1880s 57
1890s 51
1900s 33
1910s 41
1920s 23
1930s 27
1940s 21
1950s 06 (16, excluding 7 mainly-relief pitchers)
1960s 03 (+3, counting only 100+ career plate appearances)
1970s -1 (+2, " ")
1980s -11 (-5, " ")
1990s -10 (-3, " ")

This report counts every pitcher in my table equally, although they have 5 or 50 or 500 career plate appearances. It counts everyone with zero career PA as a weak batter (below median).

The set of 700+ pitchers is does include all of the 407 pitchers with 2000 career innings thru 2008 but it is not defined by a uniform threshold and it supposedly includes all of the leading relief pitchers.

Beginning with 1960s debuts there are pitchers in the dataset with fewer than 100 career PA. The last four lines of this table provide the median OPS+ for pitchers with 100+ PA parenthetically.)

[Ace Venom]

We've elected Lefty Grove and Gabby Hartnett. Earl Averill missed election by a single vote. Dizzy Dean missed election by two votes. Rabbit Maranville missed election by three votes. The 1947 players ballot will be up by Tuesday at the latest.

[bambambaseball]

Sam Rice was also close. Im surprised Averill didnt get in this time. Hes a definite HOFer!

[Ace Venom]

Averill is far from a slam dunk, but he does fit with our standards of center fielders. He managed to compile his numbers over a thirteen year career despite the fact that he played his first major league season at age 27. He's still barely in on the Gray Ink, but far out of the picture on the Black Ink. Defensively, he appears solid. He record over 400 putouts in a season twice in his career and recorded double digit assist numbers in seven times. Considering he was one vote away from being elected, he should get in next year.

[Paul Wendt]

> Here is the median career OPS+ for pitchers in my desktop table ...
>
> debut OPS+(median)
> 1980s -11 (-5, " ")

For example Kevin Brown and Jaime Navarro debuted in the 1980s and finished with career OPS+ = -11 in 575 and 172 plate appearances. That line quoted from the preceding table means that Brown and Navarro they are precisely median or 50th percentile among all pitchers with 1980s debuts in my table. (In particular they rank 43-44 among 86 pitchers.)

Overall, pitchers with few career plate appearances are weak batters. Because of that positive relation between PA and OPS+, median batting skill is greater within a subpopulation defined by a threshold number of plate appearances. In particular, the table shows for 1980s debuts, the median is OPS+ = -5 for pitchers with 100 or more plate appearances, so Brown and Navarro are below median in that group. (They rank 32-33 among 51.)

Only twenty-four pitchers with 1980s debuts achieved 500 career PA including Brown, not Navarro. Within this yet smaller subgroup the median is yet greater, OPS+ = 4 or 5 (positive), and Brown is significantly below median. (He ranks 19 among 24.)

The following table reports median OPS+ for pitchers with 500 plate appearances (column 1) and all with 100 plate appearances (column 2). Note that the former subset are stronger batters at every "point in time". The points are double-decades ranging from debut 1870-89 to debut 1970-89

Median OPS+ for pitchers by debut (double decade)
column 1: at least 500 plate appearances
column 2: at least 100 PA
column 3: linear model with decrease 5 points per decade (one-half point per year)

62 60 50 : 1870s/80s
56 56 45
44 43 40
38 36 35
31 28 30 : 1910s/20s
24 23 25
25 21 20
21 15 15
+8 +3 10 : 1950/60s
+6 +2 +5
+5 -1 +0
+5 -5 -5 : 1980/90s