BBF Mock HoF Election: 1979

[DoubleX]

Here's the rundown for this project:

Basically, the idea is to simulate the BBWAA HoF elections since 1979 and see how we come out compared to them. Why 1979? Because that was the first year that featured the 5% rule to drop candidates. Over the years, that rule has seen a number of seemingly qualified or at least very debatable candidates dropped, so this will give us a chance to at least pretend to fix some of those oversights.

This will operate just like the BBWAA elections. Voters can vote from 0-10 candidates - I've even included a "None of the Above" option for voters who wish to pull a Paul Ladewski and submit a blank ballot (thereby counting against every other vote). 75% support will elect a candidate, less than 5% support will cause the candidate to be dropped and shift hope to the imaginary BBF Veteran's Committee. Candidates can only stay on the ballot for 15 years; thus for example, 1979 will be the only election that will feature Enos Slaughter because it was his 15th year on the ballot. New candidates will be added each year as they become eligible, but they will comport to the actual list that was supplied to the BBWAA in the given year (with one exception, being when the steering committee reintroduced some dropped players in various elections in the past 25 years).

Also, because I want this to start out mirroring the template that the BBWAA had to work with in 1979, only the players that were on the list for the BBWAA in 1979 will be on the list here. Thus I will not go back and add some overlooked names, such as Larry Doby, that would have been eligible in 1979 but who the steering committee did not include on the eligibility list. However, in subsequent years I expect divergence with the BBWAA's eligibility list as we'll have different players elected, different players getting more than 5% and remaining on the ballot, and different players dropped.

Also, please feel free when you submit your ballot to stump for and/or against players. This is meant to be a discussion thread as much as a voting thread.

IMPORTANT: There is some concern about voters defrauding this process by voting with multiple screen names. First, please don't as there is really no point and it takes the fun out of this which is to see how we come out, more than it being a heated competition to get your player elected. Nevertheless, to take precaution against the possibility of a voter abusing the process, votes will be made public, so if we see unfamiliar screen names casting similar ballots, we'll see cause for concern, and if the concern proves to be founded, some form of punitive action could follow. So basically, ONE PERSON = ONE BALLOT. Anything else is really just moronic and defeats the purpose.

Elections will last two weeks and at the first post of each election I will provide a little guide about the election. If you have any suggestions of information you would like to be included in this guide, please let me know and I will likely oblige provided it does not take too much time to do so. Future guides will show some voting history in addition to the information that the guide below shows.

So without further adieu...


1979 Election Guide

The 53 candidates features players who retired between 1959 and 1973 (future elections will likely have much fewer candidates). There are a lot of names here, so I encourage you to look closely before voting as you might overlook someone you intended to vote for.

First Timers
Tommie Agee
Bernie Allen
Gene Alley
Luis Aparicio
Jim Beauchamp
Bobby Bolin
Johnny Callison
Ray Culp
Fred Gladding
Frank Howard
Hal Lanier
Jerry May
Willie Mays
Jose Pagan
Milt Pappas
Joe Pepitone
Ron Perranoski
Rich Reese
Chris Short
Larry Stahl
John Stephenson
Jimmy Stewart
Jeff Torborg

Second Year on Ballot
Bill Mazeroski
Denny McLain
Hoyt Wilhelm
Maury Wills

Last Year of Eligibility
Enos Slaughter

Penultimate Year of Eligibility
Alvin Dark
Don Newcombe
Bobby Thomson
Mickey Vernon

The Rest
Richie Ashburn
Clete Boyer
Ken Boyer
Jim Bunning
Lew Burdette
Del Crandall
Don Drysdale
Roy Face
Curt Flood
Nellie Fox
Harvey Haddix
Gil Hodges
Elston Howard
Ted Kluszewski
Harvey Kuenn
Don Larsen
Vern Law
Jim Maloney
Roger Maris
Red Schoendienst
Duke Snider

Real-Life Hall of Famers on Ballot
Luis Aparicio (1984, BBWAA)
Richie Ashburn (1995, VC)
Jim Bunning (1996, VC)
Don Drysdale (1984, BBWAA)
Nellie Fox (1997, VC)
Willie Mays (1979, BBWAA)
Bill Mazeroski (2001, VC)
Red Schoendienst (1989, VC)
Enos Slaughter (1985, VC)
Duke Snider (1980, BBWAA)
Hoyt Wilhelm (1985, BBWAA)

[SamtheBravesFan]

Luis Aparicio
Richie Ashburn
Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Nellie Fox
Frank Howard
Willie Mays
Bill Mazeroski
Duke Snider
Hoyt Wilhelm

[DoubleX]

I voted for the following 8 players (in order of my conviction):

Willie Mays
Duke Snider
Hoyt Wilhelm
Don Drysdale
Richie Ashburn
Ken Boyer
Nellie Fox
Red Schoendienst

I really labored over Boyer, Fox, and Schoendienst. I think my vote for Boyer will obligate me to vote for other 3Bmen down the line. However, my bigger problem was with Fox and Schoendiest - to me it's either vote for both or leave both off. I really don't see much difference between the two, but if anyone has an argument for why one is better than the other, I'd love to hear it. Ultimately, I caved in and went for both.

As for players I couldn't quite commit to - the top of that list has Luis Aparicio, Frank Howard, and Enos Slaughter.

[Colorado Express]

R. Ashburn
K. Boyer
D. Drysdale
N. Fox
G. Hodges
F. Howard
W. Mays
E. Slaughter
D. Snider
H. Wilhelm

[Colorado Express]

By the way, GREAT idea. This should be lots of fun.

I must admit, I surprised myself as to the fact that I actually voted for 10 players...I normally view myself as very conservative when classifying someone as HOF-worthy.

[mwiggins]

In order of support...

Mays
Snider
Wilhelm
Drysdale
Bunning
Ashburn
Slaughter

[Sliding Billy]

Just one procedural question: To some extent our choices will depend on comparisons with other players. Are we doing so from a historical perspective, e.g. comparing Maury Wills with the likes of Dave Bancroft (who was in at the time) and Travis Jackson (who was not), or from a contemporary perspective, anticipating how Wills would line up against Ripken, Larkin, and others?

If we want to replay the choices of the time, the historical perspective seems more appropriate, but more difficult to maintain. If we want to wind up with the most consistent selection, with all the better players inside and all the weaker ones outside, then using knowledge of candidates yet unborn would give us a better result. But we'd lose any bragging rights over the original voters.

I realize, of course, that everyone is going to make up their own mind using individual criteria (d'oh, that's why it's a vote ), but I was wondering what other voters had in mind.

[Colorado Express]

Just one procedural question: To some extent our choices will depend on comparisons with other players. Are we doing so from a historical perspective, e.g. comparing Maury Wills with the likes of Dave Bancroft (who was in at the time) and Travis Jackson (who was not), or from a contemporary perspective, anticipating how Wills would line up against Ripken, Larkin, and others?

If we want to replay the choices of the time, the historical perspective seems more appropriate, but more difficult to maintain. If we want to wind up with the most consistent selection, with all the better players inside and all the weaker ones outside, then using knowledge of candidates yet unborn would give us a better result. But we'd lose any bragging rights over the original voters.

I realize, of course, that everyone is going to make up their own mind using individual criteria (d'oh, that's why it's a vote ), but I was wondering what other voters had in mind.

Good question, but I think it has to be from a historical perspective.

[dgarza]

Order of support :
Willie Mays
Duke Snider
Don Drysdale
Enos Slaughter
Richie Ashburn
Jim Bunning
Frank Howard
Nellie Fox
Mickey Vernon
Gil Hodges
------------------
Hoyt Wilhem - I felt really really bad about having to cut it at 10
Ken Boyer - I'll hopefully get to him some day
Luis Aparico - I felt bad about leaving him off for right now as well, but not nearly as bad as leaving Wilhelm off
Red Schoendienst - maybe some day
Bill Mazeroski - see Red

problem player - what to do about Harvey Kuenn?

[mwiggins]

Just one procedural question: To some extent our choices will depend on comparisons with other players. Are we doing so from a historical perspective, e.g. comparing Maury Wills with the likes of Dave Bancroft (who was in at the time) and Travis Jackson (who was not), or from a contemporary perspective, anticipating how Wills would line up against Ripken, Larkin, and others?

If we want to replay the choices of the time, the historical perspective seems more appropriate, but more difficult to maintain. If we want to wind up with the most consistent selection, with all the better players inside and all the weaker ones outside, then using knowledge of candidates yet unborn would give us a better result. But we'd lose any bragging rights over the original voters.

I realize, of course, that everyone is going to make up their own mind using individual criteria (d'oh, that's why it's a vote ), but I was wondering what other voters had in mind.

That is a good point. It probably should be done from a 1979 perspective, not 2006. If you take A-Rod, Ripken, Yount, Larkin, Jeter, Trammell, and Ozzie out of your SS rankings, I'm guessing a guy like Aparicio is going to look a lot more like a HoF.

[DoubleX]

Just one procedural question: To some extent our choices will depend on comparisons with other players. Are we doing so from a historical perspective, e.g. comparing Maury Wills with the likes of Dave Bancroft (who was in at the time) and Travis Jackson (who was not), or from a contemporary perspective, anticipating how Wills would line up against Ripken, Larkin, and others?

If we want to replay the choices of the time, the historical perspective seems more appropriate, but more difficult to maintain. If we want to wind up with the most consistent selection, with all the better players inside and all the weaker ones outside, then using knowledge of candidates yet unborn would give us a better result. But we'd lose any bragging rights over the original voters.

I realize, of course, that everyone is going to make up their own mind using individual criteria (d'oh, that's why it's a vote ), but I was wondering what other voters had in mind.

That's a great question, and I think you should try your best to approach it as if you were doing the evaluation in the given year. It's tough because there really is no way to recreate how your perspective would be without being shaped by the knowledge you have accumulated since that time.

[SamtheBravesFan]

That's a great question, and I think you should try your best to approach it as if you were doing the evaluation in the given year. It's tough because there really is no way to recreate how your perspective would be without being shaped by the knowledge you have accumulated since that time.

I tried doing that, like trying to find a progressive home run leaders table to see if that would help, but I couldn't find one. If anyone could help, that would be great.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The HOF had a dearth of shortstops at this time. I think there was Wagner, Boudreau, Cronin, Appling, Maranville, Wallace and fairly new inductee Banks. Jackson, Reese, Vaughn, etc. would come later.
While the lack of shortstops would surely be alleviated, third basemen continued to and still continue to miss the call.

[DoubleX]

The biggest problem with trying to adjust your perspective is that our analysis, in the pre-Bill James and sabermetrics world, would likely be very different. Raw statistics and notoriety would probably be the driving force of our voting and I would suspect a lot of us would support guys like Gil Hodges who we would not support now.

All I can say is try your best. If you think someone in a given election is deserving, vote for them.

[mwiggins]

The biggest problem with trying to adjust your perspective is that our analysis, in the pre-Bill James and sabermetrics world, would likely be very different. Raw statistics and notoriety would probably be the driving force of our voting and I would suspect a lot of us would support guys like Gil Hodges who we would not support now.

All I can say is try your best. If you think someone in a given election is deserving, vote for them.

Are you wanting us to try to base our analysis on raw stats and notoriety? I.e. vote for Jim Rice, not Jimmy Wynn?

[DoubleX]

Are you wanting us to try to base our analysis on raw stats and notoriety? I.e. vote for Jim Rice, not Jimmy Wynn?

No, I'm saying vote for whomever you want to vote for. But if we were to try to look at it as if it were the given year, our perspective would likely be a lot different. In the pre-Jamesian and pre-sabermetrics baseball world, I doubt a lot of us would have the esteem for Jimmy Wynn's career that a lot of us have. With such a perspective, it's more likely that we would have put more stock in raw stats and notoriety, though not necessarily so.

Anyway, vote for whomever you like. And after thinking it over, I think it's ok to use our modern analysis and opinions because the goal of this is to say who we think they should have put in; basically, to pretend to rewrite history. So consider whatever you want.

[KCGHOST]

Mays
Wilhelm
Snider

[Sliding Billy]

The biggest problem with trying to adjust your perspective is that our analysis, in the pre-Bill James and sabermetrics world, would likely be very different. Raw statistics and notoriety would probably be the driving force of our voting and I would suspect a lot of us would support guys like Gil Hodges who we would not support now.

All I can say is try your best. If you think someone in a given election is deserving, vote for them.

Yeah, the perspective I was angling for was kind of an oblique one: Applying contemporary criteria to 1979 choices while pretending not to know about players who came along later.

Of course some of those players, e.g. J*e M****n, may have had a lot to do with the development of those criteria.

[THE OX]

I only voted for six, and will admit to being the only vote for Milt Pappas.

[Ubiquitous]

Wow I never knew Jim Bunning had so many fans. The guy even has a slight vote edge on Drysdale.

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:

Willie Mays
Duke Snider
Frank Howard
Gil Hodges

[DoubleX]

Wow I never knew Jim Bunning had so many fans. The guy even has a slight vote edge on Drysdale.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't get it. I don't really consider Bunning a Hall of Famer, perhaps at the very backend. Could someone state their case for Bunning? That's part of what I'd like this to about - trying to convince each other of a candidate's credentials.

[dgarza]

I don't really consider Bunning a Hall of Famer, perhaps at the very backend.

But even if he's just at the very backend, that's still in, right? He's not up against alot of great pitchers as it is. Sure he's a bottom level HOFer, but that still makes the grade.

[digglahhh]

In order of conviction

1. Mays
2. Snider
3. Wilhelm
4. Ashburn
5. Drysdale


Boyer and Howard could get votes from me in the future. I was hesitant to pull the trigger. I like Newcombe a lot too, but couldn't commit to voting for him.

You know, the first ballot/not first ballot and the strong/weak class paradigm is maligned by BBF, myself included. But, I think that once you are in a position to vote you may act differently. For example, I have to admit that I was aware of the fact that I did not want to fill my whole ballot. And, as much as I hate to admit it, Boyer and Howard will probably get my vote when the pool thins a bit.

[DoubleX]

But even if he's just at the very backend, that's still in, right? He's not up against alot of great pitchers as it is. Sure he's a bottom level HOFer, but that still makes the grade.

I said perhaps at the very backend. I'm not convinced of it, that's why I'm asking someone to state the case for Bunning. I can see mysef being convinced in the future, but right now, he's on the outside for me.