BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1965

[leecemark]

--I'd be okay with SBG's suggestion. Perhaps a minimum 5 "year" wait. Unless they happen to fall off in a year divisiable by 5 then they wait 6-9 years as the case may be. Of course, I'm okay with it as it is too.

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by leecemark

--I'd be okay with SBG's suggestion. Perhaps a minimum 5 "year" wait. Unless they happen to fall off in a year divisiable by 5 then they wait 6-9 years as the case may be. Of course, I'm okay with it as it is too.

That sounds good. The guys who drop off the general election should not be eligible for the VC the first time it comes up. Let some time pass so it doesn't just become a 16th try at election with a smaller panel.

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by jjpm74

And I see Shocker as a significant oversight, and even demonstrated so in DERA and win shares comparisons many moons ago, but never managed to convince you to vote for him. It's not easy to change someone's mind on a player who retired from the game long ago at this point. It'd take a lot more statistical analysis to convince the voters that Deacon McGuire is a significant oversight when catchers like Wally Schang and Johnny Kling were better offensive players but have yet to be elected. As it is, I only voted for him to keep him on the ballot so that I can get a chance to look at his career more closely when I have a spare moment.

I'm sorry that I don't recall your Shocker analysis. Maybe it was during my hiatus from the project? I could definitely be swayed on Shocker, but he's just on the outside for me right now.

As for McGuire vs. Schang/Kling, part of what needs to be considered is era. McGuire's durability as a catcher was unheard of at that point in the game's history (and really for the next 20 years asw well), and throw in the fact that he was also one of the better hitting catcher's to that point as well, and I think he has a strong argument.

I'm voting for Schang as well, but even he caught less games than McGuire despite playing during an era where catchers played more frequently (and had better protection to enable longer and more productive play). As for Kling, he has a lower OPS+ than McGuire despite catching 500 less games and having almost 2000 less plate appearances.

I see McGuire as being the first real career catcher and the prototype for subsequent generations.

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

It has EVERYTHING to do with overruling the general election. WHENEVER this committee elects a player we are overruling the results of 15 elections by the general election.

I think overruling is an overly harsh term. I see this as more of a review of the general elections, and even that's limited to the players that weren't elected. It's really a safeguard because the general elections, due to the wide open electorate and lack of voter accountability, is more easily prone to oversight. Here, we can have a contained and educated committee give a more thorough review and perhaps make up for some areas that the general electorate missed. We don't have to elect anyone, but I think we serve a very useful oversight function.

So I don't see this as overruling, so much as supplementing or perhaps even assisting.


EDIT: I think your court of appeals analogy is apt, though I still think "overruling" has a more negative connotation than what we're trying to achieve.

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by DoubleX

I think overruling is an overly harsh term. I see this as more of a review of the general elections, and even that's limited to the players that weren't elected. It's really a safeguard because the general elections, due to the wide open electorate and lack of voter accountability, is more easily prone to oversight. Here, we can have a contained and educated committee give a more thorough review and perhaps make up for some areas that the general electorate missed. We don't have to elect anyone, but I think we serve a very useful oversight function.

So I don't see this as overruling, so much as supplementing or perhaps even assisting.


EDIT: I think your court of appeals analogy is apt, though I still think "overruling" has a more negative connotation than what we're trying to achieve.

Originally Posted by leecemark

--I'd be okay with SBG's suggestion. Perhaps a minimum 5 "year" wait. Unless they happen to fall off in a year divisiable by 5 then they wait 6-9 years as the case may be. Of course, I'm okay with it as it is too.

I'd say no to this. The VC meets so infrequently as is, that a player could potentially wait 9 years, which is too long, IMO.

[Ace Venom]

Originally Posted by DoubleX

I'd say no to this. The VC meets so infrequently as is, that a player could potentially wait 9 years, which is too long, IMO.

I'm in full agreement here. Some of these players wait five years for their cases to be reviewed depending on when they fell off the ballot.

[leecemark]

--If these were actual years that would certainly be true. They are, in fact, weeks though - which is not such a long wait.

[KCGHOST]

McGraw
Shocker
Tiernan

[Ace Venom]

Originally Posted by leecemark

--If these were actual years that would certainly be true. They are, in fact, weeks though - which is not such a long wait.

The real problem here is that we're simulating these years and thus the wait applies as it would be simulated. If you don't want to vote for someone in the VC just because they just were bounced off the regular election ballot, that's your perogative. I really fail to see a reason to make them wait considering their playing careers were over for five years before first appearing on the ballot. Those appearing on the final ballot for the first time have used up fifteen years of eligibility, so we're really looking at a twenty year wait. Tacking on more "years" is a bit pointless and not something I'm willing to implement for any reason.

[Ace Venom]

So far, we're only missing one voter. I sent a email as a reminder. Short of a surge of support for Tommy Bridges in the regular election's final days, he'll be eligible for the VC for the first time in 1970. I'm going to be running the special election for the Negro League players one final time in 1967. Since there are no new candidates eligible for consideration in that committee, I figure one final holdover election would be more than enough before I send the Negro League ballot to the regular VC elections for 1970. The option is also up in the air for the split ballot in 1970 for pre-live ball and live ball era players, which I'm leaning heavily towards for purposes of comparison only. The master list is getting rather large.

[Paul Wendt]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

So far, we're only missing one voter. I sent a email as a reminder.

I think you missed someone or sometwo.

There are 15 of us listed at the top of the 1960 thread. It says the panel has been cut to 14 but veterans are welcome to return (by voting, I suppose, and someone did?).

I suppose that the deadline falls during the 21st hour this evening same as the regular 1965.

Yesterday a big deadline passed for my paid work (under-"employed" freelance). I have posted more than my share of inanities in this forum but meanwhile I had not since 1956(!) updated my tabulation of Progressive party members by primary fielding position and debut decade. Some discussion of soft standards for 19th century players and tough standards now (above, presumably) persuaded me to do that now.

... very interesting ... seems to make Bob Johnson an easy call ... Trosky no, Myer no ... Klein and Warneke will wait with Wilson while this shakes out.

now to be sure I get this in!


Dave Bancroft
Wally Berger
Gavy Cravath
Bob Johnson
Fielder Jones *
Charley Jones
Carl Mays
John McGraw
Deacon McGuire
Urban Shocker
Roy Thomas *

bold marks the white horse candidates

[Ace Venom]

Here are the final results. No one received the 75% required for election.

Final Results (14 Votes Cast, 11 Required for Election)
t1) Wally Berger: 10 Votes (71.43%)
t1) Charley Jones: 10 Votes (71.43%)
t3) Bob Johnson: 8 Votes (57.14%)
t3) Carl Mays: 8 Votes (57.14%)
t3) Urban Shocker: 8 Votes (57.14%)
t6) Tony Lazzeri: 7 Votes (50.00%)
t6) John McGraw: 7 Votes (50.00%)
t8) Chief Bender: 6 Votes (42.86%)
t8) Hack Wilson: 6 Votes (42.86%)
t10) Gavvy Cravath: 5 Votes (35.71%)
t10) Kiki Cuyler: 5 Votes (35.71%)
t10) Johnny Evers: 5 Votes (35.71%)
t10) Chuck Klein: 5 Votes (35.71%)
t10) Wally Schang: 5 Votes (35.71%)
t15) Dave Bancroft: 4 Votes (28.57%)
t15) Jim Bottomley: 4 Votes (28.57%)
t15) Mike Tiernan: 4 Votes (28.57%)
t15) Lon Warneke: 4 Votes (28.57%)
t19) Jack Chesbro: 3 Votes (21.43%)
t19) Lave Cross: 3 Votes (21.43%)
t19) Heinie Manush: 3 Votes (21.43%)
t19) Jim McCormick: 3 Votes (21.43%)
t19) Joe Tinker: 3 Votes (21.43%)
t19) Bobby Veach: 3 Votes (21.43%)
t25) Earle Combs: 2 Votes (14.29%)
t25) Larry Corcoran: 2 Votes (14.29%)
t25) Johnny Kling: 2 Votes (14.29%)
t25) Ed Konetchy: 2 Votes (14.29%)
t25) Ed McKean: 2 Votes (14.29%) - Write-in
t25) Buddy Myer: 2 Votes (14.29%)
t25) Tip O'Neill: 2 Votes (14.29%) - Write-in
t25) Hippo Vaughn: 2 Votes (14.29%) - Write-in
t33) Waite Hoyt: 1 Vote (7.14%) - Write-in
t33) Firpo Marberry: 1 Vote (7.14%) - Write-in
t33) Roy Thomas: 1 Vote (7.14%) - Write-in
t33) Cecil Travis: 1 Vote (7.14%) - Write-in
t33) Hal Trosky: 1 Vote (7.14%)
t33) Ross Youngs: 1 Vote (7.14%)

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

Here are the final results. No one received the 75% required for election.

Final Results (14 Votes Cast, 11 Required for Election)
t1) Wally Berger: 10 Votes (71.43%)
t1) Charley Jones: 10 Votes (71.43%)

Glad to see that these two who I support are the only two that are close right now. Jones has really gained support the last few elections.