BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1955

[Ace Venom]

1955 Players VC Election

Below is the final ballot for the 1950 VC Players Election. Voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish with 75% support required to elect a player. Voting will be open for five days, at which point we'll tabulate votes provided we have a quorum consisting of at least 12 of the 20 VC members having voted. Anyone is free to participate in the discussion and submit a ballot but only ballots from the 21 VC members will be counted.

- The 1950 ballot will consist of:
1) Every player that previously made a final VC ballot;
2) Every player that received at least 1/3 support in the regular election;
3) Every player that lasted 15 years on the regular ballot.

-Voters can vote for as many players as they wish on the ballot and can also vote for up to 2 write-in candidates. If any write-in candidates receive at least 50% support, I'll list him on the next ballot. I will supply a master list so voters know who is eligible for write-ins

- If a player on the ballot does not receive at least 2 votes he will not appear on the following ballot (though the player will be eligible for write-in votes). So the 1955 ballot will consist of:
1) Every player from the 1950 ballot who received at least 2 votes;
2) Every newly eligible player that received 1/3 support in the regular election or lasted 15 years on the regular ballot; and
3) Any players who received at least 50% support as write-ins in the 1950 election.
1955 VC Suggestions

1955 Final Ballot (31)
Buzz Arlett
Dave Bancroft
Chief Bender
George J. Burns
Jack Chesbro
Earle Combs
Larry Corcoran
Gavvy Cravath
Lave Cross
Candy Cummings
Johnny Evers
Mike Griffin
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Johnny Kling
Ed Konetchy
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Jim McCormick
Deacon McGuire
Ed Reulbach
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Roy Thomas
Mike Tiernan
Joe Tinker
Hippo Vaughan
Bobby Veach
Hack Wilson

PAST RESULTS

Wilbur Cooper (1950)
Clark Griffith (1940)
Tommy Leach (1940)
Herman Long (1925)
Cal McVey (1920)
Dickey Pearce (1920)
Lip Pike (1920)
Hardy Richardson (1920)
Jimmy Ryan (1930)
Jimmy Sheckard (1945)
Joe Start (1920)
Ezra Sutton (1920)
Mickey Welsh (1920)

1950 Final Results (12 Ballots Cast, 9 Votes Required for Election) (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90804)
1) Wilbur Cooper: 75.00% (9 Votes) - Elected
2) Carl Mays: 66.67% (8 Votes)
3) Urban Shocker: 58.33% (7 Votes)
4) Chief Bender: 50.00% (6 Votes)
t5) Lave Cross: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t5) Charley Jones: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t5) Jim McCormick: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t8) Tommy Bond: 33.33% (4 Votes)
t8) Larry Corcoran: 33.33% (4 Votes)
t8) John McGraw: 33.33% (4 Votes)*
t8) Mike Tiernan: 33.33% (4 Votes)
t8) Ross Youngs: 33.33% (4 Votes)
t13) Buzz Arlett: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t13) Dave Bancroft: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t13) Gavvy Cravvath: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t13) Candy Cummings: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t13) Johnny Evers: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t13) Bobby Veach: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t19) George J. Burns: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Jack Chesbro: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Mike Griffin: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Johnny Kling: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Ed Konetchy: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Deacon McGuire: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Ed Reulbach: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Roy Thomas: 16.67% (2 Votes)*
t19) Joe Tinker: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t19) Hippo Vaughn: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t29) Mike Donlin: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t29) Fred Dunlap: 8.33% (1 Vote)*
t29) Denny Lyons: 8.33% (1 Vote)*
t29) Bobby Mathews: 8.33% (1 Vote)*
t29) Ed McKean: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t29) Tip O'Neill: 8.33% (1 Vote)*
t29) Ned Williamson: 8.33% (1 Vote)
36) Ray Schalk: 0.00% (0 Votes)

* = Write-in Candidate

1945 Final Results (12 Ballots Cast, 9 Votes Required for Election) (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89707)
1) Jimmy Sheckard: 83.33% (10 Votes) - Elected
2) Mike Tiernan: 50.00% (6 Votes)
t3) Chief Bender: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t3) Johnny Evvers: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t3) Charley Jones: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t3) Jim McCormick: 41.67% (5 Votes)
t7) Gavvy Cravath: 33.33% (4 Votes)
t7) Lave Cross: 33.33% (4 Votes)
t9) Tommy Bond: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) George J. Burns: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Candy Cummings: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Mike Griffin: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Johnny Kling: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Ed Konetchy: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Ed McKean: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Joe Tinker: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t9) Bobby Veach: 25.00% (3 Votes)
t18) Jack Chesbro: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t18) Larry Corcoran: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t18) Mike Donlin: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t18) Deacon McGuire: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t18) Ed Reulbach: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t18) Hippo Vaughn: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t18) Ned Williamson: 16.67% (2 Votes)
t25) Larry Gardner: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t25) Harry Hooper: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t25) Dummy Hoy: 8.33% (1 Vote) - Write-in
t25) Fielder Jones: 8.33% (1 Vote) - Write-in
t25) Silver King: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t25) Dolf Luque: 8.33% (1 Vote) - Write-in
t25) Denny Lyons: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t25) Roy Thomas: 8.33% (1 Vote) - Write-in
t25) Joe Wood: 8.33% (1 Vote)
t34) Fred Dunlap: 0.00%
t34) Dave Foutz: 0.00%

1940 Final Results (14 Ballots Cast, 11 Votes Required for Election) (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87854)
1) Tommy Leach: 85.71% (12 Votes) - Elected
2) Clark Griffith: 78.57% (11 Votes) - Elected
3) Jimmy Scheckard: 64.29% (9 Votes)
t4) Charley Jones: 50.00% (7 Votes)
t4) Mike Tiernan: 50.00% (7 Votes)
6) Gavvy Gravath: 42.86% (6 Votes)
7) Jim McCormick: 28.57% (4 Votes)
8) Lave Cross: 14.29% (2 Votes)

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

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

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

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

1955 Master List

Master List
Babe Adams
Buzz Arlett
Dave Bancroft
Dick Bartell
Ginger Beaumont
Chief Bender
Lu Blue
Tommy Bond
Bill Bradley
Kitty Bransfield
Charlie Buffinton
Jack Burdock
George J. Burns
Oyster Burns
Ray Chapman
Jack Chesbro
John Clapp
Boileryard Clarke
Harlond Clift
Earle Combs
Jack Coombs
Larry Corcoran
Tommy Corcoran
Gavvy Cravath
Lave Cross
Candy Cummings
Nig Cuppy
Abner Dalyrmple
Harry Davis
Bill Dinneen
Mike Donlin
Bill Donovan
Jack Doyle
Fred Dunlap
Frank Dwyer
Jimmie Dykes
Johnny Evers
Duke Farrell
Bob Ferguson
Cherokee Fisher
Ray Fisher
Wes Fisler
Silver Flint
Davy Force
Russ Ford
Dave Foutz
Larry Gardner
Kid Gleason
Mike Griffin
Burleigh Grimes
Chick Hafey
Noodles Hahn
Ned Hanlon
Topsy Hartsel
Claude Hendrix
Buck Herzog
Solly Hofman
Harry Hooper
Dummy Hoy
Waite Hoyt
Miller Huggins
Travis Jackson
Charley Jones
Fielder Jones
Joe Judge
Benny Kauff
George Kelly
Brickyard Kennedy
Silver King
Johnny Kling
Ed Konetchy
Arlie Latham
Sam Leever
Andy Leonard
Al Lopez
Bobby Lowe
Dolf Luque
Denny Lyons
Fergy Malone
Pepper Martin
Bobby Mathews
Rabbit Maranville
Firpo Marberry
Rube Marquard
Carl Mays
Jimmy McAleer
Dick McBride
Tommy McCarthy
Jim McCormick
John McGraw
Deacon McGuire
Ed McKean
Levi Meyerle
Billy Nash
Jack O'Connor
Lefty O'Doul
Tip O'Neal
Dave Orr
Orval Overall
Herb Pennock
John Peters
Deacon Phillippe
Jack Powell
Del Pratt
Jack Quinn
Ed Reulbach
Sam Rice
Claude Ritchey
Eppa Rixey
Wilbert Robinson
Jack Rowe
Cy Seymour
Ray Schalk
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Chick Stahl
George Stone
George Stovall
Jesse Tannehill
Jeff Tesreau
Roy Thomas
Mike Tiernan
Joe Tinker
Terry Turner
Hippo Vaughn
Bobby Veach
John Warner
Doc White
Will White
Jim Whitney
Cy Williams
Jimmy Williams
Ned Williamson
Hack Wilson
Hooks Wiltsie
Joe Wood
Rudy York
Tom York
Ross Youngs
George Zettlein
Chief Zimmer

[Ace Venom]

The Veterans Committee

Ace Venom
ag2004
blueblood
brad harris
captain cold nose
cowtipper
dgarza
DoubleX
freakshow
henrich
Jalbright
jjpm74
KCGhost
Leecemark
mwiggins
Paul Wendt
philkid3
pvnick
SavoyBG
Windy City Fan

[jjpm74]

Ballot:

Buzz Arlett
Chief Bender
Lave Cross
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Rabbit Maranville
*John McGraw--write in
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Roy Thomas
Hack Wilson

Guys in bold are the ones who, IMO, should have been elected on the regular ballot.

[Ace Venom]

I'm dropping a really large ballot here, which is probably the largest VC ballot I'll ever cast.

Buzz Arlett
Chief Bender
Jack Chesbro
Earle Combs
Larry Corcoran
Gavvy Cravath
Candy Cummings
Johnny Evers
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Joe Judge (write-in)
Johnny Kling
Ed Konetchy
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
John McGraw (write-in)
Ed Reulbach
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Joe Tinker
Hack Wilson

[jjpm74]

Edit--he is there. Nevermind.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Chief Bender
Jack Chesbro
Lave Cross
Candy Cummings
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Johnny Kling
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Ed Reulbach
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Hack Wilson

[PVNICK]

Dave Bancroft
Chief Bender
Jack Chesbro
Lave Cross
Johnny Evers
Mike Griffin
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Johnny Kling
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Jim McCormick
Sam Rice
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Mike Tiernan
Hippo Vaughan


This ballot is enormous, or I'm being childish and casting votes for those I supported in the regular balloting who did not get in.

Amiong the pitchers I think Hippo Vaughn and Urban Shocker are the head of the class even if some others may have a longevity advantage on them.

[Ace Venom]

I included Joe Judge as a write-in candidate mostly due to his defense, which I think helps his cause. It's not going to convince a lot of people, but there you go.

[Cowtipper]

Chief Bender
George J. Burns
Jack Chesbro
Earle Combs
Gavvy Cravvath
Lave Cross
Candy Cummings
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Ed Konetchy
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Jim McCormick
Deacon McGuire
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Ed Ruelbach
Urban Shocker
Hippo Vaughn
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs (write in)

[Fielding Marshall]

Ace, two things:

1) I don't expect them to get much support, but I noticed that Babe Adams and Harlond Clift are curiously absent from the Master List.

2) I noticed that you included John McGraw as a write-in candidate on your ballot. Looking at the ballot results from the last election, it seems McGraw got 4 votes, enough to put him on the final ballot.

Just thought I should point that out...

[leecemark]

--I don't think the VC should be a device for watering down the Hall. Really don't understand the ginormous ballots being put up here.

Rabbit Maranville
Eppa Rixey

[dgarza]

Dave Bancroft
Chief Bender
George J. Burns
Jack Chesbro
Earle Combs
Larry Corcoran
Gavvy Cravath
Lave Cross
Candy Cummings
Johnny Evers
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Rabbit Maranville
Firpo Marberry (write in)
Carl Mays
Jim McCormick
Tip O'Neill (write in)
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Urban Shocker
Mike Tiernan
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach
Hack Wilson

[mwiggins]

Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Urban Shocker
Joe Tinker
Ross Youngs (write-in)

[SavoyBG]

MY VOTES:

Chief Bender
Burleigh Grimes
Charley Jones
Rabbit Maranville
John McGraw
Carl Mays
Eppa Rixey

[DoubleX]

My first VC vote in a couple of elections. I think we have the strongest group we've had since the initial year.

Dave Bancroft
Candy Cummings
Rabbit Maranville
Jim McCormick
Deacon McGuire
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Mike Tiernan
Bobby Veach

I'm somewhat surprised that not one among Maranville, Rice, and Rixey made it through the regular election.

[Brad Harris]

Gavvy Cravath
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Hack Wilson
Ross Youngs

[jjpm74]

--I don't think the VC should be a device for watering down the Hall. Really don't understand the ginormous ballots being put up here.

Rabbit Maranville
Eppa Rixey

Looking at the ballots cast so far, the only players who have any chance at election are all 1st timers; and honestly, at least 3 of them should have been elected via the regular elections, but weren't because of some issues that have bogged down constructive discussion lately:

Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey

The "big ballots" are a product of how this end of the project is set up. Not an attempt to water down the hall. Change the criteria for adding a player to the short list and my ballot shrinks substantially.

[Ace Venom]

--I don't think the VC should be a device for watering down the Hall. Really don't understand the ginormous ballots being put up here.

I normally try to limit myself to ten as it is, but I felt that a lot of mistakes were made in the last few election cycles. The way this side of the project is set up to basically permit you to vote for whoever you want without having to limit yourself, write-ins excepted of course. To me, the question has always been, "Do you think this person should go in?"

[Ace Venom]

2) I noticed that you included John McGraw as a write-in candidate on your ballot. Looking at the ballot results from the last election, it seems McGraw got 4 votes, enough to put him on the final ballot.

Just thought I should point that out...

Write-ins need 50% to qualify for the next final ballot.

[leecemark]

I normally try to limit myself to ten as it is, but I felt that a lot of mistakes were made in the last few election cycles. The way this side of the project is set up to basically permit you to vote for whoever you want without having to limit yourself, write-ins excepted of course. To me, the question has always been, "Do you think this person should go in?"

--The question for me is "did the electorate miss something on this player?". Is there a segment of the electorate who is unreasonably biased against his era or does not understand how things were different in a particular era. Is there something missing from his numbers that should have been considered but wasn't by a block of voters. Do they have a contribution above and beyond their playing record that adds to their case (here a conbined player/manager or player/broadcaster or player/whatever has a place it may not have had in the regular election - so long as the bulk of their qualification is as a player).
--For Rabbit Maranville I think many voter failed to appreciate either the greater importance of defense in his day and/or the greater value that was placed upon it at the time. Maranville was a MAJOR star in his prime.
--For Eppa Rixey I think there was a block of voters who gave way too much weight to W-L and failed to see that his IP/ERA+ were easily within the range we have to Hall of Fame pitchers. Burleigh Grimes does not have that. His career numbers are borderline at best, despite the fact that he was allowed to use a pitch for many years after it was banned for most - and eventually all - other pitchers. I did vote for him because the mix of high peak years and mediocore works better for me than a long run of pretty good years. I may eventually vote for him in the VC, but don't think we should be too cavialer about overriding the will of the general electorate. Getting close there should lead to a rubber stamp here.
--Sam Rice I never voted for and I will be VERY unlikley to vote for anyone here I didn't vote for in the general election. It would take an established shift in our standards to get that vote. I think Mickey Welsh is the only player I've voted for in the VC that I didn't vote for in the regular election.

[Cowtipper]

--I don't think the VC should be a device for watering down the Hall. Really don't understand the ginormous ballots being put up here.

Rabbit Maranville
Eppa Rixey

I'm just voting for all the guys that I voted for in the regular elections that didn't make it. That makes sense...I think.

[Paul Wendt]

BBF Progressive HOF members (142 players thru 1954)

1860s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s 20s 30s ; all debut decade
8 12 22 24 19 20 30 7 ; 142 all members

1 1 6 7 11 1 ; 27 from Negro Leagues and prior
8 12 21 23 13 13 19 6 ; 115 from major leagues and prior

pitchers (38)
2 2 3 ; 7 NeL " " pitchers
1 1 7 6 6 5 4 1 ; 31 MLB " " pitchers

non-pitchers (104)
1 1 4 5 8 1 ; 20 NeL " " non-pitchers
7 11 14 17 7 8 15 5 ; 84 MLB " " non-pitchers

1860s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s 20s 30s ; all debut decade
detail, major leagues and prior
2 1 1 1 0 0 3 ; 8 c (incl McVey)

1 0 2 1 1 1 1 ; 7 3b (incl Leach)
2 2 1 5 0 0 2 1 ; 13 ss
1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 ; 11 2b
1 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 ; 11 1b

1 2 4 2 0 2 1 ; 12 lf (incl O'Rourke, Simmons)
1 2 5 0 2 2 1 ; 13 cf (incl Pike, Ryan, Duffy)
1 1 3 0 2 2 ; 9 rf (incl Kelly)

grouped, major leagues and prior
5 5 4 9 3 3 7 3 ; 39 majors c-3b-ss-2b (26 blue)
2 6 10 8 4 5 8 2 ; 45 majors 1b-lf-cf-rf (36 blue)

1860s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s 20s 30s ; all debut decade


Blue highlights the more aggregated major league counts for the last five decades, debuts 1880s to 1920s.

[DoubleX]

--Sam Rice I never voted for and I will be VERY unlikley to vote for anyone here I didn't vote for in the general election. It would take an established shift in our standards to get that vote. I think Mickey Welsh is the only player I've voted for in the VC that I didn't vote for in the regular election.

What brought you over to Welch? Was it changed personal standards based on how the standards of the Hall evolved? I think those first two decades or so provided the most interesting time in this project as it set the tone and standards going forward, and it wasn't clear at all when we started whether we'd be a large Hall, small Hall, or something in the middle (I think we're something in the middle).

As for Rice, some of the rate stats might not be quite there, but he had a fine career by more traditional measures and is a nice story. He didn't play his first full season of ball until age 27 and didn't play his second full season until age 29, and yet still finished 2,987 hits and remained consistently productive over a long period. I can't help but think that he if had collected those 13 extra hits that you might be more open to his case, and his near miss in this area is something of an excuse to not vote for him (plus, if there was more hoopla around 3000 hits in his day, he probably would have stuck around to get there). Milestones, whether we like it or not, do affect many of us, and I think rightly so to some degree as they serve to mark a certain degree of accomplishment, skill, consistency, and longevity. Rice's hit total currently ranks 8th all time in all of baseball history in hits, and he was 7th when he retired. Hitting a baseball is the most fundamental skill in the entire game, a skill everyone at all levels aspires to master. In this respect, I think Rice's level of accomplishment, coupled with the fact that he was a good ballplayer for a long time whose totals were hindered by a late start, edge him over the line and make him worthy of Hall of Fame remembrance.

[KCGHOST]

Rixey
Shocker
Tiernan

[Paul Wendt]

What brought you over to Welch? [Note to others: 'Welch' with a 'c']

Was it changed personal standards based on how the standards of the Hall evolved? I think those first two decades or so provided the most interesting time in this project as it set the tone and standards going forward, and it wasn't clear at all when we started whether we'd be a large Hall, small Hall, or something in the middle (I think we're something in the middle).
Some of us were influenced specifically by the election of Tony Mullane and I suppose some thought more generally, "Stovey, Browning, Thompson, Duffy, Van Haltren, ... big hall!", to name only the outfielders.

[Paul Wendt]

I like Mike Griffin, Fielder Jones, Roy Thomas (who should be a write-in?) but I am impressed by the numbers that I posted today, counting the members by fielding position and debut decade. Now Wes Ferrell is the only outstanding pitcher from the 1920s who remains on the board next door and there aren't many strong candidates from the 1930s; meanwhile the number of other players elected has boomed. With 1910s debuts too, the number of pitchers is down from the preceding decades. The patterns almost look like the Negro Leagues and major leagues pitchers are competing while we are considering the other players separately.

The 1910s pitchers are now prominent on the agenda here. I am inclined to rank them
: Rixey > Shocker > Cooper (elected) > Mays > Grimes > Vaughn

Vaughn was a great one at his peak but injury or the "dead arm" cut his major league career short. Rixey seems to be a clear winner and the others all viable candidates.

Why do some people like Grimes best or second in this group?

[Ace Venom]

I compiled a player list for the final ballot for 1957's Negro League committee elections. In the 35 player final ballot, there are are only 14 players from the previous ballot. For the first-timers, included are big guns Satchel Paige, Ray Dandridge and Willard Brown. We're approaching the end of the large ballots because at this point, we'd start dealing with loads of essentially minor league talent.

[leecemark]

Some of us were influenced specifically by the election of Tony Mullane and I suppose some thought more generally, "Stovey, Browning, Thompson, Duffy, Van Haltren, ... big hall!", to name only the outfielders.

--Electing all those outfielders from the 1890s certainly gave us a big hall feel for a time. Welch got my vote based on the idea that we were going to have a much more inclusive Hall then the real one. Then we actually got tighter in the 20th century - rejecting many actual Cooperstown selections. We are shaping up as a medium size Hall now by means of being mor inclusive to the earliest players and more exclusive when it comes to modern players.

[DoubleX]

I compiled a player list for the final ballot for 1957's Negro League committee elections. In the 35 player final ballot, there are are only 14 players from the previous ballot. For the first-timers, included are big guns Satchel Paige, Ray Dandridge and Willard Brown. We're approaching the end of the large ballots because at this point, we'd start dealing with loads of essentially minor league talent.

What will we do with Monte Irvin? 1955 was not a good year for him and he struggled to stay in the lineup. Let's say for the sake of argument that 1956 is his last year and he doesn't reach either 3000 PA or 10 years of MLB service. Will he be on the 1960 Negro League ballot?

[Ace Venom]

What will we do with Monte Irvin? 1955 was not a good year for him and he struggled to stay in the lineup. Let's say for the sake of argument that 1956 is his last year and he doesn't reach either 3000 PA or 10 years of MLB service. Will he be on the 1960 Negro League ballot?

It would be 1962 in that scenario. His primary contributions seem to have been with the Newark Eagles because his numbers just don't seem good enough for a major league outfielder. However, he did start his major league career in his thirties and I can still place him on the regular ballot if he makes 3000 PA or if he is at least in the ballpark. The 126 OPS+ is pretty impressive for a man who started his major league career at age 30.

[jjpm74]

I'd rather not see anyone under 3000 major league PAs get on the regular ballot. 1962's Negro League Ballot seems like a good place for Monte Irvin unless he manages to get to 3000 PAs. Having him on the regular ballot sets a precedent for also having guys like Satchel Paige on the regular ballot even though the majority of their accomplishments came in the Negro Leagues. We didn't see Buzz Arlett on a regular Ballot despite him having 1 great season in the major leagues. That said, I'll be voting for Irvin the first year he is eligible regardless of what ballot he ends up on.

Breaking from 1955 mode, it also sets a bad precedent for when Japanese stars start coming over to the US at the twilight of their careers being included on the standard Major League ballot down the line.

[Ace Venom]

I'm not in 1955 mode here. I justified not putting Satchel Paige on the regular ballot because he didn't meet the minimum requirements. A few first timers do stand out to me for the 1962 NLP VC ballot:

Willard Brown
Ray Brown
Ray Dandridge
Leon Day
Satchel Paige

There are also a handful of notable holdovers that have enjoyed support, but haven't been elected. I actually have 36 names and I don't see that list expanding much more. By the time 1967 roles around, the appearance of first timers on the ballot will mostly come from personal research. I've gone through a number of online resources in an attempt to produce fair ballots for that side of the project. Jackie Robinson will be the first player with any Negro League experience to appear on the regular ballot (1961) and he will be followed by Roy Campanella a year later.

[Ace Venom]

Just a friendly reminder to vote. If we have 12 votes by tomorrow, we can call this part of the election closed.

[DoubleX]

Just a friendly reminder to vote. If we have 12 votes by tomorrow, we can call this part of the election closed.

You could try PMing committee members who haven't voted? I used to do that. I think the results are better when we have as much of the electorate voting as possible.

[Paul Wendt]

Dave Bancroft
Gavy Cravath
Mike Griffin
Charley Jones
Fielder Jones (unless McGraw and Thomas count as two write-ins)
Rabbit Maranville
John McGraw
Eppa Rixey
Urban Shocker
Roy Thomas

So why aren't there more players with aughts and teens debuts who seem worthy?
(Table, "members by debut decade" (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1571135&postcount=22))

[jalbright]

Give a man a chance--I was away for the week. Anyway, my ballot:

Grimes
Maranville
Mays
Rixey
H. Wilson

[Ace Venom]

EDIT: Results to be recalculated.

[Ace Venom]

Give a man a chance--I was away for the week. Anyway, my ballot:

Grimes
Maranville
Mays
Rixey
H. Wilson

We had some overlap. I already counted the ballots and should have posted immediately when I closed.

[leecemark]

--5 days is a pretty short window. I think you should at the very least count Jim's ballot - and probably leave it open through the end of the weekend. Alot of people away from home at this time of year.

[Ace Venom]

Jim's ballot wasn't even there when I was posting the results. I'm aware that he hasn't been around, but I only gave time extensions when I couldn't get a 12 vote quorum.

[leecemark]

--We only do these ballots every 5 "years" and you can't give them a week to run? Why the need more such haste? How can you justify not counting a ballot posted not just before the official count, but before any "voting now closed" notice was put up?

[Ace Venom]

It's never happened before. I usually had time to post the ballot and close voting all in one punch. Now I know I have to post a short "voting closed" post to avoid arguments like this.

[Paul Wendt]

This was four days (96 hours). Right?

[jjpm74]

--We only do these ballots every 5 "years" and you can't give them a week to run? Why the need more such haste? How can you justify not counting a ballot posted not just before the official count, but before any "voting now closed" notice was put up?

He said all along that he was planning to close voting as soon as he got to 12 ballots. I don't see what the big deal is.

[Ace Venom]

It was posted on Monday. Five days later, it's Saturday.

Just a friendly reminder to vote. If we have 12 votes by tomorrow, we can call this part of the election closed.

[leecemark]

He said all along that he was planning to close voting as soon as he got to 12 ballots. I don't see what the big deal is.

--This is not true. There is no deadline listed at the top of the thread. We have 20 members of the VC. Why would the election close as soon as 12 of them vote? Shouldn't we be trying to get as many members as possible to get their ballot in? If the format is going to be only the quickest to get their ballot in count then we are not going to get the best results.

[jalbright]

Hey,

If you're not going to give me a shot at registering my opinion within five and days and 41 minutes of starting the thread, drop me off your VC list. I beat your post despite all that, and now my vote isn't counted? If that's all the consideration I get, I'll be happy to not participate. I await your answer.

[leecemark]

Ditto. If you only want 12 votes you've got a chance to pair 2 members of excess off the comittee.

[jjpm74]

Hey,

If you're not going to give me a shot at registering my opinion within five days of starting the thread, drop me off your VC list. I beat your post despite all that, and now my vote isn't counted? If that's all the consideration I get, I'll be happy to not participate. I await your answer.

This is not your project, so you should not be giving ultimatums. You are out of line here.

[jjpm74]

Maybe in the future, the deadline could coincide with the closing of the regular election to avoid these kinds of issues. Either way, out of the current list of VC members, several might not even know that they are on the VC and several others haven't been on the site much over the past few months:

blueblood
freakshow
henrich
philkid3
Windy City Fan

Maybe the guy running the show can PM them to see if they are still interested in the project and drop them from the list if they don't respond or express that they are not interested.

[leecemark]

This is not your project, so you should not be giving ultimatums. You are out of line here.

--You've threatened to quit several projects because their was something you didn't like about the way they were going. Jim was offerering his resignation as a participant (as was I) not laying dow the law as a mod.

[jalbright]

This is not your project, so you should not be giving ultimatums. You are out of line here.

I'm not running the project, but I have the choice of continuing to participate or not. If my participation is going to receive this kind of treatment, I do not care to continue. Simple as that. I'm stating my position on my continued participation in the VC, as you have in this and other projects. The choice is up to the person running the project.

[jjpm74]

--You've threatened to quit several projects because their was something you didn't like about the way they were going. Jim was offerering his resignation as a participant (as was I) not laying dow the law as a mod.

Maybe when one of you guys are doing so, in the forum that you are in charge of moderating, you can make mention of that somewhere in your post. jalbright is the moderator in this forum and that post read a lot like a moderator giving an ultimatum. Not a participant threatening to quit.

[leecemark]

Maybe when one of you guys are doing so, in the forum that you are in charge of moderating, you can make mention of that somewhere in your post. jalbright is the moderator in this forum and that post read a lot like a moderator giving an ultimatum. Not a participant threatening to quit.



How so? He wasn't threatening to shut the thing down, just not to personally particiapate.

[jalbright]

Maybe when one of you guys are doing so, in the forum that you are in charge of moderating, you can make mention of that somewhere in your post. jalbright is the moderator in this forum and that post read a lot like a moderator giving an ultimatum. Not a participant threatening to quit.

Precisely what did I threaten him with other than my resignation from the project? I won't hide my choice of actions if I'm saying change something or else--you'll have a fair idea of what the "else" represents.

Personally, I'm not fond of voting deadlines of less than 10 days, because people do take vacations and the like--give them a chance. That's a personal preference. If this were a deal run off a poll, the system is as unforgiving as I feel Ace is in this instance. But when I get to express my opinion once every five "years" and am being relied on for other favors (moving threads and the expectation I'll help out on the Japanese in the future), pardon me for expecting the smallest of accomodations (41 minutes-in a week I was away from the start until late last night, to be precise). If that's not happening, I'll do what's good for the forum by continuing to move the threads. Beyond that, my information on the Japanese is in my musings thread, available to all. But my participation in the project beyond that will be irrevocably done.

[jjpm74]

You can choose to leave like anyone else, but like it or not, as the moderator of this forum, when you make a statement like the one above, it will have a different tone than that of a casual user and there will always be some level of intimidation there, even if that is not your intent.

[Ace Venom]

Okay fine. I will recount the ballots. I thought what I had here was understood. You're going to have to find a new project manager after 1955 because I no longer want to do this. I don't want to put up with this sort of thing anymore. That's it. I've had it.

[jjpm74]

Okay fine. I will recount the ballots. I thought what I had here was understood. You're going to have to find a new project manager after 1955 because I no longer want to do this. I don't want to put up with this sort of thing anymore. That's it. I've had it.

If this is it for you, don't waste your time re-tallying. The Project's dead.

[Ace Venom]

No deadline? This is from the first paragraph of every single post.

Voting will be open for five days, at which point we'll tabulate votes provided we have a quorum consisting of at least 12 of the 20 VC members having voted.

One of the big precedents that I've always used is that I don't change rules once something is in progress. I posted a reminder last night.

]Just a friendly reminder to vote. If we have 12 votes by tomorrow, we can call this part of the election closed.

I guess I should have been absolutely specific that I meant by the hour and minute five days from the time this thread was posted. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. I'm sorry that I cannot continue this project because this is just not enjoyable for me anymore.

[Paul Wendt]

This was four days (96 hours). Right?

It was posted on Monday. Five days later, it's Saturday.
??
#1 is dated 7-21 (Tuesday).
So is the other Progressive thread, whose poll closes 7-28 (Tuesday).

[Ace Venom]

So it was. Well, technically this is still open, but it's too late because I want nothing to do with this now.

[Cowtipper]

So it was. Well, technically this is still open, but it's too late because I want nothing to do with this now.

That's a bummer.

Since I run the wildly popular Mets Hall of Fame, would you like me to take over?

[Ace Venom]

That's a bummer.

Since I run the wildly popular Mets Hall of Fame, would you like me to take over?

If you have the blessing of DoubleX, go for it. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem with it.

[jalbright]

It was posted on Monday. Five days later, it's Saturday.

And yesterday's reminder came at 3:20 something PM EST, IIRC. That allowed "one day". I was about 20 hours after that reminder. It seems that at a minimum there's an ambiguity created by the project runner--and if I put myself in that position as a project runner, I bent to maximize the votes counted. If there's a new project runner, he or she can make the call. If not, I can live with being the straw that broke the camel's back given the circumstances that gave rise to that status.

[jjpm74]

And yesterday's reminder came at 3:20 something PM EST, IIRC. That allowed "one day". I was about 20 hours after that reminder. It seems that at a minimum there's an ambiguity created by the project runner--and if I put myself in that position as a project runner, I bent to maximize the votes counted. If there's a new project runner, he or she can make the call. If not, I can live with being the straw that broke the camel's back given the circumstances that gave rise to that status.

When you were running the BBFHOF project and I first joined the site, my welcome to the site was a PM from you chastising me for not alphabetizing my ballot and letting me know that you are not counting it. You weren't accommodating and didn't even take 2 seconds to point me to the lengthy explanation thread. Another moderator did when I inquired.

It's not easy to run a project. The guy thought he was following protocol. Maybe he is overreacting, maybe not. Either way, continuing this line of discussion is pointless.

[leecemark]

That's a bummer.

Since I run the wildly popular Mets Hall of Fame, would you like me to take over?

--If Double X is interested in resuming command I'd say he should have the first option on the job. If he isn't interested then I'm sure you'd do a fine job. Unless, of course, Ace changes his mind. He has done a commendable job for the most part since stepping in for XX.
--This project has generated some strong disagreement over the years . To me that is a sign that people are emotionally invested in it, which is a good thing. That can be tough on the project manager though. Of course you've proved you have a pretty thick skin in dealing with some of the comments in some of your player threads in this forum. I'm sure you can handle this one.

[Cowtipper]

--If Double X is interested in resuming command I'd say he should have the first option on the job. If he isn't interested then I'm sure you'd do a fine job. Unless, of course, Ace changes his mind. He has done a commendable job for the most part since stepping in for XX.
--This project has generated some strong disagreement over the years . To me that is a sign that people are emotionally invested in it, which is a good thing. That can be tough on the project manager though. Of course you've proved you have a pretty thick skin in dealing with some of the comments in some of your player threads in this forum. I'm sure you can handle this one.

Oh yeah, definitely...if DoubleX wants to take it over again, he sure can. I was just under the impression that he got burnt out on it as well.

[DoubleX]

Chiming in a little late here, didn't realize so much was going on. I'd actually be happy to return to running this aspect of the project if Ace needs a break from this part. I was definitely burnt out with the regular election given the weekly upkeep, but I think I can manage this every 5 weeks and would like to have some level of involvement again. Ace has done a fantastic job though and hope he continues to man the ship in other aspects of this project.

As for the quorum rule, if I remember correctly, I believe I originally instituted a 5 day limit during the time when the elections proceeded in two stages. As such, I didn't feel there was a need to have a longer period for voting given that the entire process was at least 10 days. However, now that we've consolidated to one round I think we should extend the election period to a week. We might also need to do something about modifying either the electorate or quorum size given the level of participation from some members.

As for this election, I'd advocate counting Jim's vote and hope we can all settle down.

[leecemark]

--Excellent and welcome back, Mike. Ace, please think over whether you'd want to continue with the heading the regular elections. If you stil feel like stepping back at the end of thay election I am confident that Cowtipper will be up to carry on with the next election. Try not to take the discussion personally either way. I, for one, appreciate, the way you stepped in and kept things going when XX needed to step back. If you feel like you need a break now, then I hope you at least stick around as a voter/contributor.

[jalbright]

I have had only one significant disagreement with Ace, and have been happy to support his fine efforts to keep the project going. It seems the whole thing was an unfortunate miscalculation of the time left for voting--the kind of thing anyone can do. If Ace wishes to continue with the regular elections, I'm happy with that, and if he prefers to participate while Cowtipper takes the regular election reins, I'm fine with that, too. I'd only be sorry if Ace left the project entirely.

[jjpm74]

Chiming in a little late here, didn't realize so much was going on. I'd actually be happy to return to running this aspect of the project if Ace needs a break from this part. I was definitely burnt out with the regular election given the weekly upkeep, but I think I can manage this every 5 weeks and would like to have some level of involvement again. Ace has done a fantastic job though and hope he continues to man the ship in other aspects of this project.


This side is 3 out every 5 weeks:

Every 0 or 5 year--VC Players
Every 1 or 6 year--VC Contributors
Every 2 or 7 year (for now)--VC Negro Leagues

[jalbright]

I was definitely burnt out with the regular election given the weekly upkeep, but I think I can manage this every 5 weeks and would like to have some level of involvement again. ...

As for the quorum rule, if I remember correctly, I believe I originally instituted a 5 day limit during the time when the elections proceeded in two stages. As such, I didn't feel there was a need to have a longer period for voting given that the entire process was at least 10 days. However, now that we've consolidated to one round I think we should extend the election period to a week.

One of the reasons the Best of Baseball project is every two weeks is I wouldn't want to try and keep up with doing it every week. It gets to be draining. Another was the fact people go away, whether on vacations or for business, and a period of a week or less tends to be problematic on those occasions. Finally, it's not a coincidence that I like to finish on Friday night--that gives me the weekend (when I have a little more time) to finalize the results and get the new vote running.

[Ace Venom]

I had a little cool down period and I'll decide whether or not I still want to do the regular election by the time the regular election closes. I still have the Negro League and Contributors lists that I've compiled, so those could be a real help.

[Ace Venom]

1955 unofficial Results (13 Votes Cast, 10 Required for Election)
1) Rabbit Maranville: 13 Votes (100%) - Elected
2) Eppa Rixey: 12 Votes (92.30%) - Elected
t3) Sam Rice: 9 Votes (69.23%)
t3) Burleigh Grimes: 9 Votes (69.23%)
5) Carl Mays: 8 Votes (61.54%)
t6) Chief Bender: 7 Votes (53.85%)
t6) Charley Jones: 7 Votes (53.85%)
t6) Wally Schang: 7 Votes (53.85%)
t6) Urban Shocker: 7 Votes (53.85%)
10) Hack Wilson: 6 Votes (46.15%)
11) Candy Cummings: 5 Votes (38.46%)
t12) Dave Bancroft: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Jack Chesbro: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Gavvy Cravath: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Lave Cross: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Jim McCormick: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) John McGraw: 4 Votes (30.77%) - Write-in
t18) Earle Combes: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Johnny Evers: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Johnny Kling: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Ed Reulbach: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Mike Tiernan: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Joe Tinker: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Bobby Veach: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Ross Youngs: 3 Votes (23.08%) - Write-in
t26) Buzz Arlett: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Larry Corcoran: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Mike Griffin: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Ed Konetchy: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Deacon McGuire: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Hippo Vaughan: 2 Votes (15.38%)
Cutoff
t32) George J. Burns: 1 Vote (7.70%)
t32) Fielder Jones: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Joe Judge: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Firpo Marberry: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Tip O'Neill: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Roy Thomas: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in

With the hoopla done, I calculated the new results. Sam Rice and Burleigh Grimes missed election by a single vote. We've elected Rabbit Maranville and Eppa Rixey. The cases for Rice and Grimes have been debated to death, so I'm not sure anything new can be added to this discussion.

[SavoyBG]

1955 Final Results (13 Votes Cast, 10 Required for Election)

t3) Sam Rice: 9 Votes (69.23%)



Thankfully we kept Rice out this time. Unless you believe Matt's system that says that Rice's defense in RF is about as hall of fame worthy as Maranville's defense at SS, you can't elect this guy. I'd like to see Grimes in, and I'd love to see Mays in, but it's worth not getting them in to keep Rice out.

Glad to see Maranville go in, and I'm a bit surprised at how well Rixey did, but I did vote for him and am happy to see him in too.

[Ace Venom]

Thankfully we kept Rice out this time.

I think our disagreement has been noted on multiple occasions. However, saying "thankfully" is a bit over the top imho.

[jjpm74]

Thankfully we kept Rice out this time.

Since this stuff is so important to you, why don't you create a blog on the subject?

[Ace Venom]

1960's incoming VC class is relatively weak. With adjustment votes, Wes Ferrell is currently on the bubble and has a good shot at getting in for his tenth year of eligibility on the regular ballot. That leaves:

Wally Berger
Jim Bottomley
Kiki Cuyler
Babe Herman
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Buddy Myer

That's not a strong class at all. Berger's enjoyed a lot of support and he seems to be a favorite. I thought Rice had a legitimate shot in this round considering he received most of his support from current VC members on the regular ballot. All things fair, he should go in for the next round and it would baffle me if he didn't.

[jalbright]

Frankly, in my hurry to register my vote, I inadvertently omitted Rice, who I had voted for many times in the past. I won't repeat that omission.

[Ace Venom]

There are a few VC changes that I have been considering.


The period of VC elections consists of a seven day voting period. However, this voting period can end early if every VC member votes.
Write-in candidates with consistent support of three or more votes in two consecutive elections can qualify for the following final ballot.

[leecemark]

--Now there is an ironic twist. Had we moved on without counting your vote Rice would have been elected. Now he gets to battle it out again 5 years from from now. Who would have thought Rice would end up being the focal point of discussion for nearly half a year before election, assuming he does make it next time. If nothing else he has gotten more cyber ink out of this project than he probably ever has anywhere before.

[Ace Venom]

Frankly, in my hurry to register my vote, I inadvertently omitted Rice, who I had voted for many times in the past. I won't repeat that omission.

I wish you had noted that before the voting closed, though we did have a lot of confusion as to when it actually concluded.

[jjpm74]

There are a few VC changes that I have been considering.


The period of VC elections consists of a seven day voting period. However, this voting period can end early if every VC member votes.
Write-in candidates with consistent support of three or more votes in two consecutive elections can qualify for the following final ballot.


Excellent idea on both counts. With a system like that, I won't feel compelled to keep every borderline case alive on my ballot.

Under a system like this, my next ballot will probably look more like this:

Wally Berger
Wes Ferrell (If he's not elected)
Burleigh Grimes
*John McGraw--write in
Sam Rice (If he wasn't elected this time around, which, IMO, he was twice)
Urban Shocker
Hack Wilson


I wish you had noted that before the voting closed, though we did have a lot of confusion as to when it actually concluded.

You could always count it so that we don't have to go through this again in 5 cycles since he was elected, then unelected, then it was found out that he was unelected by accident.

[Domenic]

I would like to toss my hat into the ring, so to speak, to take the place of one of the VC members that haven't been participating in recent years. While I am still relatively new to these forums, I do feel that I contribute my fair share of input in the regular Progressive Election threads, and I would very much enjoy having a voice in these discussions.

[DoubleX]

A few things:

1) While I will re-assume the helm of this part of the project (unless Ace has a change of heart), it wasn't my intention to run the Negro League and Contributor elections as well. If Ace no longer wants to do them, then perhaps those would be good elections for Cowtipper to run, assuming he's still interested.

2) I fully support Domenic joining the VC. I do think though that we should whittle down our electorate somewhat, perhaps removing members who haven't participated in a long time (though with a standing invitation to return).

3) I'm a little torn on what to do with Sam Rice. I feel that we've had so much confusion with the end of this election anyway, that perhaps we should just give him Jim's vote. As it stands, Rice was in, then not in, but should have been in anyway. That wouldn't be a good way to conduct business if this actually mattered - Imagine telling someone they've won, then taking that back, and then saying yet another mistake was made and they should have won but it's too late now.

Then again, the oversight was made, and those are sometimes the breaks.

[leecemark]

--I think allowing JIm to change his vote after the results are in would set a terrible prescedent. If we do this once then anybody could alter the fate of a player who makes or misses by a single vote in any elction going forward. Even if Rice was a player I supported I wouldn't want to see him make it by a change after the fact. I think if we are counting Jim's ballot - and it seems we are in argreement on that - then we have to count the one he actually cast and not the one he may have wanted to cast. Sam has been on the cusp for a long time. He can wait til 1960.

[Ace Venom]

A few things:

1) While I will re-assume the helm of this part of the project (unless Ace has a change of heart), it wasn't my intention to run the Negro League and Contributor elections as well. If Ace no longer wants to do them, then perhaps those would be good elections for Cowtipper to run, assuming he's still interested.

2) I fully support Domenic joining the VC. I do think though that we should whittle down our electorate somewhat, perhaps removing members who haven't participated in a long time (though with a standing invitation to return).

3) I'm a little torn on what to do with Sam Rice. I feel that we've had so much confusion with the end of this election anyway, that perhaps we should just give him Jim's vote. As it stands, Rice was in, then not in, but should have been in anyway. That wouldn't be a good way to conduct business if this actually mattered - Imagine telling someone they've won, then taking that back, and then saying yet another mistake was made and they should have won but it's too late now.

Then again, the oversight was made, and those are sometimes the breaks.

1) I'll keep running this side of the project for now. I may end up distributing some parts of the project in the future. Until you're ready to return in any capacity, I'll keep this running.

2) I'll go ahead with VC contraction. I already invited someone else to join the VC in the past. This will take a bit of time. Domenic is free to join.

3) This is a sticky situation. I added some neglect votes for Billy Herman and Stan Hack in the regular election because people admitted they forgot to vote for him. Given that I've done that before, I can do it again. Given the gray area exists and I called the election done a day early, I see this as the primary reason that Jim did not get to correct his ballot.

The contributor election is in the next cycle and that committee is only twelve members large.

[DoubleX]

--I think allowing JIm to change his vote after the results are in would set a terrible prescedent. If we do this once then anybody could alter the fate of a player who makes or misses by a single vote in any elction going forward. Even if Rice was a player I supported I wouldn't want to see him make it by a change after the fact. I think if we are counting Jim's ballot - and it seems we are in argreement on that - then we have to count the one he actually cast and not the one he may have wanted to cast. Sam has been on the cusp for a long time. He can wait til 1960.

Unfortunately for Rice, I think you're right. I'd just hate to see a player be denied enshrinement and having their life's work forever honored because of some chaos in the process. I know I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of such confusion. At the very least, Rice should have a strong chance next time.

Ace, are you sure you want to keep managing this aspect? I really have no problems returning to this part.

[jjpm74]

Unfortunately for Rice, I think you're right. I'd just hate to see a player be denied enshrinement and having their life's work forever honored because of some chaos in the process. I know I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of such confusion. At the very least, Rice should have a strong chance next time.

The precedent was already established several times in the past as Ace Venom pointed out. If Sam Rice is not elected this time around because of a technicality, then doesn't get in in 5 years, that would be a big failing in this project. Especially since the changed minds are what got both Stan Hack and Billy Herman elected and looks like it is getting Wes Ferrell elected this election.

Edit: If Sam Rice isn't in this time around, Ferrell shouldn't be either and Stan Hack and Billy Herman shouldn't be and should be on the VC ballot in 1960. One can't un-elect 1 guy but not another due to a technical error.

[mwiggins]

The precedent was already established several times in the past as Ace Venom pointed out. If Sam Rice is not elected this time around because of a technicality, then doesn't get in in 5 years, that would be a big failing in this project. Especially since the changed minds are what got both Stan Hack and Billy Herman elected and looks like it is getting Wes Ferrell elected this election.

Actually, with Wes it was two people who listed Wes on their ballots, but mistakenly voting for Rick Ferrell in the poll.

[jjpm74]

Actually, with Wes it was two people who listed Wes on their ballots, but mistakenly voting for Rick Ferrell in the poll.

Right, but it is still an error that would not have been corrected during the earlier years of this project. The same mistake happened with Paul Waner and brother Lloyd and in the other instances, the mistake was that someone missed the person when glancing over the ballot and asked to add him after the fact.

[Domenic]

Thanks, DoubleX and Ace!

In my opinion, Rice should stay on the outside looking in, for the time being. The technicality keeping him out is a fairly big one - his name was omitted from enough ballots to keep him out. It isn't as if someone accidentally clicked the name above or below his, or the click didn't register. While I understand and appreciate that some may have wanted to vote for him, but failed to for whatever reason, I don't think we should change ballots retroactively.

And, to add a little something else - couldn't someone forgetting to vote for Sam Rice be a knock on his candidacy? If a player that was as contested as Sam Rice for the past fifteen cycles isn't memorable... then I'm not sure that he's a Hall of Famer.

[jjpm74]

And, to add a little something else - couldn't someone forgetting to vote for Sam Rice be a knock on his candidacy? If a player that was as contested as Sam Rice for the past fifteen cycles isn't memorable... then I'm not sure that he's a Hall of Famer.

I omitted both Burleigh Grimes and Eppa Rixey when looking through the very long list of player names then added them shortly before this closed only after realizing that they were eligible. Is that a knock to their candidacy?

Is the fact that 2-4 people every election are getting Rick and Wes Ferrell confused a knock to Wes Ferrell's candidacy?

Sam Rice wasn't elected only because of a controversy and confusion over the closing date. Had that controversy not popped up, someone like me would have pointed out that jalbright supported Sam Rice in the regular election but did not add his name here and he probably would have revised his ballot.

[mwiggins]

And, to add a little something else - couldn't someone forgetting to vote for Sam Rice be a knock on his candidacy? If a player that was as contested as Sam Rice for the past fifteen cycles isn't memorable... then I'm not sure that he's a Hall of Famer.

And there's been enough contraversy and bitterness over Rice, do we really want him to go in under disputed circumstances? He would always have an implied asterisk, and there'd probably be more rounds of arguing whenever he was used as a precedent for future candidates. I'd like to see him in too, but let's let him go in without contraversy.

[Ace Venom]

And, to add a little something else - couldn't someone forgetting to vote for Sam Rice be a knock on his candidacy? If a player that was as contested as Sam Rice for the past fifteen cycles isn't memorable... then I'm not sure that he's a Hall of Famer.

He garnered over 50% of the vote every year he was on the ballot. No one else I know of can say that. He's also the only candidate here that got over 70% of the regular vote and never got elected. He's probably the most popular candidate on the regular ballot that never got elected on the regular ballot.

[jjpm74]

And there's been enough contraversy and bitterness over Rice, do we really want him to go in under disputed circumstances?

What we don't need is for him to linger at 70% for the next 30 election cycles and become in this project what Jake Beckley turned into in the BBFHOF project. Bitterness and entrenchment over his lack of election in that project actually ended that project earlier than originally intended and caused several active members here to back away from the forums for a while. I'd much rather see him elected here so we can move away from that possibility since he and Beckley are the only candidates in any project that have caused that level off controversy.

[Ace Venom]

He would always have an implied asterisk, and there'd probably be more rounds of arguing whenever he was used as a precedent for future candidates. I'd like to see him in too, but let's let him go in without contraversy.

I'm not really sure the implied asterisk argument holds water. Stan Hack and Billy Herman went in without argument with the make up votes. Wes Ferrell's two extra votes that came from people accidentally voting for his brother are getting him in on the regular ballot this year. If I cut straight down the middle on this issue, Hack, Herman and W. Ferrell would probably be up for election again on the 1956 regular ballot. Technically, they should still be on the outside looking in. The key here is that if I recalculate votes for W. Ferrell, it's unfair to not do the same for Rice. If I don't recalculate the vote for Rice, I can't give Ferrell any special treatment. I originally posted that Rice is going to remain on the outside, but I have to decide what I'm going to do with W. Ferrell now since there are so many people opposed to recounting votes despite the precedent I already established.

[Domenic]

I omitted both Burleigh Grimes and Eppa Rixey when looking through the very long list of player names then added them shortly before this closed only after realizing that they were eligible. Is that a knock to their candidacy?

It could be, but it doesn't have to be. My point is merely that this could be a knock against the Fame aspect of the project. I'm not knocking Rice or any voters - this is essentially an afterthought for me.

Is the fact that 2-4 people every election are getting Rick and Wes Ferrell confused a knock to Wes Ferrell's candidacy?

No - that's the equivalent of a typo, in my opinion. It's actually easier to make than a typo, as you cannot personally fix it.

Sam Rice wasn't elected only because of a controversy and confusion over the closing date. Had that controversy not popped up, someone like me would have pointed out that jalbright supported Sam Rice in the regular election but did not add his name here and he probably would have revised his ballot.

I don't disagree with this, necessarily. I was just pointing something out that I feel deserves some consideration. This is more an argument for longer-voting periods than for allowing Rice in, though.

He garnered over 50% of the vote every year he was on the ballot. No one else I know of can say that. He's also the only candidate here that got over 70% of the regular vote and never got elected. He's probably the most popular candidate on the regular ballot that never got elected on the regular ballot.

That's sort of my point. Much of the argument against Rice stems from his never really being outstanding - and people may be glossing over him because of his "very good, but never great" track record.

I'm not arguing against Rice - merely pointing out why I feel he should be held out until the next cycle.

[jjpm74]

...if I recalculate votes for W. Ferrell, it's unfair to not do the same for Rice. If I don't recalculate the vote for Rice, I can't give Ferrell any special treatment. I originally posted that Rice is going to remain on the outside, but I have to decide what I'm going to do with W. Ferrell now since there are so many people opposed to recounting votes despite the precedent I already established.

How are you going to deal with Stan Hack and Billy Herman? As you stated, the precedent was already set for this sort of thing.

Edit: I just wanted to say that I stand behind whatever decision you do make, Ace. This is a catch-22 situation, so just do what you think is the most fair.

[Ace Venom]

I'm not arguing against Rice - merely pointing out why I feel he should be held out until the next cycle.

I'm not going to make a decision until tomorrow at the latest because I'm going to use my decision here in conjunction about what to do with W. Ferrell's make up votes. I honestly don't think it would be fair to let W. Ferrell in with adjusted votes if I don't also let Rice in with an adjusted vote. So they're either going to both go in or neither of them will go in.

[Ace Venom]

How are you going to deal with Stan Hack and Billy Herman? As you stated, the precedent was already set for this sort of thing.

I would consider them grandfathered. Of course, if I do the recalculation again here, it will never be done again because of all the controversy it caused here. I'm going to set a ruling that you need to pay attention and get your ballots in correctly. As it stands now, either Rice and W. Ferrell are going in together or they're both going to have to wait. Longer voting periods are a consequence of this election as it is. I haven't exactly decided if I'm going to enact the change with the write-in candidates and I'm leaning towards not making changes there at all.

[Domenic]

I'm not going to make a decision until tomorrow at the latest because I'm going to use my decision here in conjunction about what to do with W. Ferrell's make up votes. I honestly don't think it would be fair to let W. Ferrell in with adjusted votes if I don't also let Rice in with an adjusted vote. So they're either going to both go in or neither of them will go in.

I think there's a big difference between clicking the wrong box (particularly when the players have the same last name) and omitting a name entirely. This is especially true when people post the mistake in question (though you shouldn't hunt for Rick Ferrell voters, assuming they made the mistake).

That being said, I respect whatever decision you make - a precedent does need to be established.

[Ace Venom]

I think there's a big difference between clicking the wrong box (particularly when the players have the same last name) and omitting a name entirely. This is especially true when people post the mistake in question (though you shouldn't hunt for Rick Ferrell voters, assuming they made the mistake).

That being said, I respect whatever decision you make - a precedent does need to be established.

This is a good point. Most of where the call comes is what to do here. I already agreed to recount votes for W. Ferrell, but only with Rice has a recount become a controversy. I honestly don't think it would be fair to let one candidate in on a recount, but deny a recount to another candidate. I just need some time to make this call.

[jjpm74]

I think there's a big difference between clicking the wrong box (particularly when the players have the same last name) and omitting a name entirely. This is especially true when people post the mistake in question (though you shouldn't hunt for Rick Ferrell voters, assuming they made the mistake).

The only reason Sam Rice was unelected (he was actually elected originally) was that Ace Venom forgot to write a post that said thread closed before doing his count and a ballot snuck in a few minutes before he posted the results.

That ballot was the difference in him being elected or not elected, then it was discovered that due to the haste of the ballot, a name was accidentally omitted. That is the same thing as a typo or clicking the wrong box in my book.

[DoubleX]

The precedent was already established several times in the past as Ace Venom pointed out. If Sam Rice is not elected this time around because of a technicality, then doesn't get in in 5 years, that would be a big failing in this project. Especially since the changed minds are what got both Stan Hack and Billy Herman elected and looks like it is getting Wes Ferrell elected this election.

Edit: If Sam Rice isn't in this time around, Ferrell shouldn't be either and Stan Hack and Billy Herman shouldn't be and should be on the VC ballot in 1960. One can't un-elect 1 guy but not another due to a technical error.

This must have occurred while I was away from the project, but what was the issue with Stan Hack and Billy Herman? Votes were changed? I don't know what the context was in this situation, but I was amenable to changing votes while the election was ongoing in the case of pure oversight or accident (i.e. selecting the wrong player), and had the power of a mod to make immediate changes. I wouldn't do it though if I felt the voter had a sudden epiphany and wanted to amend his ballot - I only adjusted if in line with the voter's original intentions. However, I would not make changes after the election ended. So if changes were made to Hack's and/or Herman's totals after the close of an election, than such would be an issue, IMO. Still, I can't help but think that both would have been elected by the general electorate anyway.

Same thing applies to Wes Ferrell. If two voters incorrectly voted for Rick Ferrell, I would have made the change had it been brought to my attention prior to the close of the election. If it was mentioned after the close of the election, then it would be too late. The responsibility is on the voter to be vigilant with respect to the accuracy of his ballot.

The present situation with Rice is slightly different in that there's confusion on top of confusion. Ace called the election and Rice was in. It was then decided that he called it too early and Rice was out. But then it was revealed that a last minute voter intended to vote for Rice but forgot in his haste. Normally, I would say that Rice would not get that vote when the mention of change comes clearly after the election ended. However, here, when exactly the election ended is very nebulous, thus complicating matters.

[jjpm74]

This must have occurred while I was away from the project, but what was the issue with Stan Hack and Billy Herman? Votes were changed? I don't know what the context was in this situation, but I was amenable to changing votes while the election was ongoing in the case of pure oversight or accident (i.e. selecting the wrong player), and had the power of a mod to make immediate changes. I wouldn't do it though if I felt the voter had a sudden epiphany and wanted to amend his ballot - I only adjusted if in line with the voter's original intentions. However, I would not make changes after the election ended. So if changes were made to Hack's and/or Herman's totals after the close of an election, than such would be an issue, IMO. Still, I can't help but think that both would have been elected by the general electorate anyway.

These changes were made during the election, but well after the people requesting the change had voted. Billy Herman might have been someone who accidentally clicked Babe Herman's box. Stan Hack was a case where Hack was close to election and on that discovery, someone requesting his name be added to the ballot he had cast a few days earlier.

[Paul Wendt]

Welcome, Domenic

Regarding the long list of committee members, in my opinion it's missing the last two elections that should trigger a move to the standing offer to return. It's probably good for us to know, if we care to read the list in the introduction, how many people have participated in one of the last two rounds, rather than how many have ever done so. The only role I see for the longer list is that it assists anyone who cares to send them PM.

As it stands, Rice was in, then not in, but should have been in anyway. That wouldn't be a good way to conduct business if this actually mattered - Imagine telling someone they've won, then taking that back, and then saying yet another mistake was made and they should have won but it's too late now.
too bad Ace didn't make that first phone call. Sam Rice would have set him straight, "Thanks but I'm sure I'm waiting for the phone call tomorrow."

[leecemark]

--I think the answer to this controversy is to not allow any changes to any ballots going forward. If you mess up your ballot then you will in almost every occasion have a chance to rectify the error the next time around. Once its cast then that is the end of it, at least in the reglar election poll. In the VC I can see allowing edits before the voting is closed, since it doesn't require altering the public vote totals. Edits after the balloting is closed should not be allowed under any circumstances.

[Ace Venom]

--I think the answer to this controversy is to not allow any changes to any ballots going forward.

People are human and make mistakes, but I'm going to put a moratorium on regular election recounts for a while after this election. I never realized human error would be such a big deal. My decision on what to do with the recounts in this election is still pending, so don't consider any results official just yet. I'm going to make my announcement tonight.

[jalbright]

It is, as Mark pointed out, ironic that counting my ballot with the mistake causes this mess. I'm sorry about that. The reason I didn't mention it until the Rice didn't make it issue flared again was that I was seeking to have things cool down--and you'll note I didn't expect a change of the result. If Ace wants to do it, it's his prerogative as a means to deal with a difficult situation. If he doesn't, it was my mistake. Either way, I'll support his choice.

[SavoyBG]

It is, as Mark pointed out, ironic that counting my ballot with the mistake causes this mess. I'm sorry about that. The reason I didn't mention it until the Rice didn't make it issue flared again was that I was seeking to have things cool down--and you'll note I didn't expect a change of the result. If Ace wants to do it, it's his prerogative as a means to deal with a difficult situation. If he doesn't, it was my mistake. Either way, I'll support his choice.

In the real hall of fame voting, once a ballot is submitted, that is it. A voter cannot change his ballot later. Same thing in a political election. I think we have to stay with the results as they were. Voters have to be more careful before they send up their votes. I don't see what is so difficult about carefully checking your ballot before you send it up.

[DoubleX]

These changes were made during the election, but well after the people requesting the change had voted. Billy Herman might have been someone who accidentally clicked Babe Herman's box. Stan Hack was a case where Hack was close to election and on that discovery, someone requesting his name be added to the ballot he had cast a few days earlier.

I likely would have honored the Herman request because that mistake is understandable. The Hack request may have given me greater pause and a decision may be depended on who was making the request and how long after the ballot was submitted. It's really easy to give some participants the benefit of the doubt (notably those who regularly participate in these kind of discussions), but if it were a more unfamiliar member, it may have looked more like a change of heart rather than a fix of an errant ballot.

--I think the answer to this controversy is to not allow any changes to any ballots going forward. If you mess up your ballot then you will in almost every occasion have a chance to rectify the error the next time around. Once its cast then that is the end of it, at least in the reglar election poll. In the VC I can see allowing edits before the voting is closed, since it doesn't require altering the public vote totals. Edits after the balloting is closed should not be allowed under any circumstances.

I took this hardline approach in the predecessor to this project (the one where we started in 1979), but loosened up a little for this project because accidents to unfortunately and occasionally happen.

However, maybe we should go back to the hardline approach. People should be vigilant and thoughtful before posting their ballots. If a member of the BBWAA incorrectly fills out his/her ballot and submits it, there's nothing to be done.

Perhaps the opening language should be amended to better stress the need to be vigilant and thoughtful before voting?

[jjpm74]

Perhaps the opening language should be amended to better stress the need to be vigilant and thoughtful before voting?

Unfortunately, most people probably don't read the opening language.

One thing freakshow did that worked well in his last project that involved polling was post the thread a few days before adding the poll to give people some pause to discuss and consider the candidates. That would be much more work for Ace, however and may not work in a project that involves 7 day stretches.

[Ace Venom]

We're human and sometimes when we rush things, we don't do things correctly. I have no problem doing these things, but it shouldn't cause controversy. Ultimately, this is my call. If people want to take issue with this, then they are free to do so. I'm not afraid of the controversy anymore. Because I am recounting W. Ferrell's totals, I see no reason why I shouldn't give the same treatment to Sam Rice. Jim and I both made mistakes here and my mistake only made things worse. The only reason I considered this was because of the confusion when the voting period ended. When I first asked Jim what to do, he suggested that I could count an extra vote for Rice, but he later said it might be best just to count his mistaken ballot to avoid controversy. I'm not really afraid of the controversy that simply being fair will cause. They're going to be seven-day voting periods from here on out. Thus, here are the the official results:

1955 Final Results (13 Votes Cast, 10 Required for Election)
1) Rabbit Maranville: 13 Votes (100%) - Elected
2) Eppa Rixey: 12 Votes (92.30%) - Elected
3) Sam Rice: 10 Votes (76.92%) - Elected
4) Burleigh Grimes: 9 Votes (69.23%)
5) Carl Mays: 8 Votes (61.54%)
t6) Chief Bender: 7 Votes (53.85%)
t6) Charley Jones: 7 Votes (53.85%)
t6) Wally Schang: 7 Votes (53.85%)
t6) Urban Shocker: 7 Votes (53.85%)
10) Hack Wilson: 6 Votes (46.15%)
11) Candy Cummings: 5 Votes (38.46%)
t12) Dave Bancroft: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Jack Chesbro: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Gavvy Cravath: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Lave Cross: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) Jim McCormick: 4 Votes (30.77%)
t12) John McGraw: 4 Votes (30.77%) - Write-in
t18) Earle Combes: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Johnny Evers: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Johnny Kling: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Ed Reulbach: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Mike Tiernan: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Joe Tinker: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Bobby Veach: 3 Votes (23.08%)
t18) Ross Youngs: 3 Votes (23.08%) - Write-in
t26) Buzz Arlett: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Larry Corcoran: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Mike Griffin: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Ed Konetchy: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Deacon McGuire: 2 Votes (15.38%)
t26) Hippo Vaughan: 2 Votes (15.38%)
Cutoff
t32) George J. Burns: 1 Vote (7.70%)
t32) Fielder Jones: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Joe Judge: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Firpo Marberry: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Tip O'Neill: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in
t32) Roy Thomas: 1 Vote (7.70%) - Write-in

I see no reason why we need to elect Rice twice when Jim clearly wanted to vote for Rice, supported him on the regular ballot and in a rush, forgot to list him. Seeing as we're all human and make mistakes, please just let it go. However, I am going to put a halt all recounts after this for at least five elections and I will decide whether or not to start doing them again. This seems to be the only way to appease the masses at this point as I really don't want to take a hardline stance. This is not a real BBWAA election and nor should we treat it that way. Real BBWAA probably take more time with their votes than we do sometimes and comparing this to a political election just doesn't fit. Players who benefited from recounts are grandfathered in. This is my final ruling and it's not going to change.

[SavoyBG]

This is my final ruling and it's not going to change.


So Rice backs in.

[jalbright]

I will point out that I had consistently voted for all the guys on my VC ballot this time during the regular elections, and voted for Sam Rice all 15 times he was on the regular ballot.