View Poll Results: PLEASE READ RULES, LIMIT TO 15 VOTES, AND POST BALLOT IN THREAD

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ginger Beumont, CF (1899-1910) - 1st

    1 4.00%
  • Jake Beckley, 1B (1888-1907) - 4th Year

    14 56.00%
  • Cupid Childs, 2B (1888, 1890-1901) - 10th Year

    9 36.00%
  • Larry Corcoran, SP (1880-1887) - 15th Year

    2 8.00%
  • Lave Cross, 3B (1887-1907) - 4th Year

    3 12.00%
  • Bill Dinneen, SP (1898-1909) - 2nd Year

    0 0%
  • Hugh Duffy, CF/OF (1888-1901, 1904-1906) - 5th Year

    12 48.00%
  • Elmer Flick, RF (1898-1910) - 1st Year

    15 60.00%
  • Clark Griffith, SP (1891, 1893-1907, 1909, 1912-1914) - 1st Year

    8 32.00%
  • Harry Howell, SP (1898-1910) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Hughie Jennings, SS (1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912) - 2nd Year

    11 44.00%
  • Charley Jones, LF (1875-1880, 1883-1888) - 15th Year

    7 28.00%
  • Fielder Jones, CF (1896-1908) - 3rd Year

    2 8.00%
  • Addie Joss, SP (1902-1910) - 1st Year

    13 52.00%
  • Willie Keeler, RF (1892-1910) - 1st Year

    16 64.00%
  • Joe Kelley, LF (1891-1906, 1908) - 3rd Year

    9 36.00%
  • Sam Leever, SP (1898-1910) - 1st Year

    1 4.00%
  • Herman Long, SS (1889-1904) - 7th Year

    8 32.00%
  • Jim McCormick, SP (1878-1887) - 15th Year

    8 32.00%
  • John McGraw, 3B (1891-1906) - 5th Year

    9 36.00%
  • Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879) - 15th Year

    10 40.00%
  • Jack O'Connor, C (1887-1904, 1906-1907, 1910) - 2nd Year

    0 0%
  • Lip Pike, CF (1871-1878, 1881, 1887) - 15th Year

    12 48.00%
  • Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892) - 15th Year

    16 64.00%
  • Claude Ritchey, 2B (1897-1909) - 2nd Year

    0 0%
  • Jimmy Ryan, CF (1885-1903) - 8th Year

    5 20.00%
  • Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) - 15th Year

    20 80.00%
  • Tully Sparks, SP (1897, 1899, 1901-1910) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886) - 15th Year

    15 60.00%
  • George Stone, LF (1903, 1905-1910) - 1st Year

    1 4.00%
  • Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) - 15th Year

    13 52.00%
  • Mike Tiernan, RF (1887-1899) - 11th Year

    2 8.00%
  • George Van Haltren, CF (1887-1903) - 8th Year

    13 52.00%
  • Rube Waddell, SP (1897, 1899-1910) - 1st Year

    21 84.00%
  • Mickey Welch, SP (1880-1892) - 15th Year

    10 40.00%
  • Jimmy Williams, 2B (1899-1909) - 2nd Year

    0 0%
  • Vic Willis, SP (1898-1910) - 1st Year

    9 36.00%
  • None of the Above (Blank Ballot)

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1915

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,621
    Blog Entries
    34
    Addie Joss
    Quote Originally Posted by torez77
    However, saying that Joss has no business in the HOF is ridiculous. His 1.89 ERA is 2nd all-time, adjusted ERA+ of 142 is 10th all-time. His 8.7 baserunners per 9 innings happens to be 1st all-time. He had a short career, but it was an excellent one, HOF worthy without question.

    ......
    I feel that Joss, Waddell, and other pitchers from that era such as Ed Walsh, Mordecai Brown and Smokey Joe Wood don't get the credit they deserve. They shouldn't be mentioned quite in the same breath as the Big 4 from that era (Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, Young), but they are just below them IMO. I may be stretching it with Smokey Joe, but at his peak he was awesome and Walter once said no man alive can throw harder than Smokey Joe.
    Well, I'm glad we don't have to debate that at least Walter Johnson, Mathewson and Cy Young are all superior to Joss. Joss finishes 11th among pitchers in the decade 1900-09 behind those three, McGinnity, Waddell, Vic Willis, Plank, Three Finger Brown, Chesbro, Doc White and Jack Powell. I can see putting Joss ahead of White and Powell on peak performance. I look at six categories for guys in this era: Black Ink, Gray ink, HOF standards, career win shares, win share total in his best three seasons, and best win share total in five consecutive seasons. We'll go through the comparison to Chesbro in detail below in a moment. Of the HOFers (thus leaving out White and Powell), Joss can only edge Plank in gray ink, tie Waddell in HOF standards, and get Willis in HOF standards and best five consecutive, at least in that decade. He gets swamped on career wins shares by every one of them and often is significantly behind these guys in at least most of these categories. Even if we cut it down to 8 seasons in the decade like Joss (who only managed 7 more win shares from 1910 on), these guys are still beating him.

    The real coup de grace for Joss's case in my mind, though, is the comparison to Jack Chesbro:

    Code:
    …………………......	Chesbro	Joss
    Black Ink…………	27	19
    Gray Ink…………	130	143
    HOF standards…	40	47
    career WS……….	209	191
    WS 1900-09………	203	184
    best 8 WS………..	195	184
    best 3 WS………	103	88
    best 5 consecWS	143	131
    I threw in the decade and best 8 seasons figures to try and give Joss a break, but it did no good. There's 130 years of baseball, and we've got 70 major league pitchers or so in the Hall. That works out to about six a decade on average if we leave out the last decade. If you want to push it to 7 or 8 by taking fewer 19th century guys and eliminating duplicates, OK--but we already have 8 from the decade before getting to Joss versus Chesbro. The selection of Chesbro has drawn a lot of flak, but if we're only going to take Chesbro or Joss, I take Chesbro hands down.

    I might add that only three of the ten most similar pitchers to Joss are in the HOF, and two of them are Candy Cummings (for his supposed invention of the curve) and Monte Ward (who had about two other HOF caliber careers in baseball, one as a shortstop and another as a executive type).

    I'll add this analysis by AG2004:
    1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

    No.

    2. Was he the best player on his team?

    He led Cleveland’s pitchers in win shares in 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1908.

    3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

    He never led AL pitchers in win shares, although he finished second in 1908. He was third among major league pitchers in win shares that season, but that was his only year among the top six in win shares among MLB pitchers.

    4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

    He had 35 win shares in 1908, when Cleveland lost the pennant by half a game, and pitched a perfect game in the heat of the pennant race. Otherwise, Cleveland wasn’t close to winning the pennant during Joss’ career.

    5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

    For Joss, this question is not relevant. He died of meningitis at the age of 31, so we don’t know what his decline would have been like had he lived.

    6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

    No.

    7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

    By similarity scores: John Ward, Larry Corcoran, Deacon Phillippe, Jeff Pfeffer, Noodles Hahn, Hooks Wiltse, Dizzy Dean, Jack Coombs, Candy Cummings, and Fred Toney. Three of the ten are in Cooperstown, but Ward also had a career as a shortstop, and Cummings is in as inventor of the curveball. However, Joss’ lifetime ERA+ of 141 is the best of the bunch; nobody else has one higher than 131. Similarity scores don’t help us here.

    Career win shares, contemporary P: Sam Leever 212, Jack Chesbro 209, Deacon Philippe 206, Wild Bill Donovan 202, Bill Dineen 200, JOSS 191, Jack Taylor 183. Chesbro is the only one in Cooperstown, and he’s considered one of the Hall’s mistakes. Otherwise, these aren’t Hall of Famers.

    Best three seasons, contemporary P: Vic Willis 101, Clark Griffith 94, Eddie Plank 89, Jack Powell 89, JOSS 88, Jack Taylor 85, Bill Dineen 81, Babe Adams 81, George Mullin 80. This isn’t BBFHOF territory, either.

    Best five consecutive seasons: Vic Willis 138, Bill Dineen 134, Eddie Plank 133, JOSS 131, Jack Taylor 124. This isn’t the best company for Joss, as he’s just below the cutoff line.

    8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

    His Black Ink score of 19 is only 99th, and his Gray Ink score of 143 is just 102nd. Those are not good marks. However, he does place a decent 42nd in HOF Standards, at 47.0.

    9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

    Joss pitched in the deadball era, which makes his raw numbers look better. Also, he had no decline phase to lower his career numbers.

    10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

    No. There are many other pitchers better than Joss who aren’t in the BBFHOF. There are pitchers better than Joss who haven’t even received votes in the BBFHOF elections.

    11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

    There was no MVP award during Joss’ career. He finished second in win shares among AL pitchers in 1908, however.

    12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

    There was no All-Star game in Joss’ era. Baseball Magazine started naming its all-league and all-American teams in 1908. Joss was one of the five pitchers on its all-AL team that season, but failed to make the all-American team that year.

    Joss had only two seasons in which he was among the top five AL pitchers in win shares. He was sixth one other year, and seventh two other times. But three or four All-Star-type seasons is very low for a pitcher.

    13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

    I don’t know. Joss had only two seasons when he was among the top five pitchers in the AL in win shares. However, those were the only seasons when he was among the top ten in the AL in IP and games started. I don’t know why he wasn’t used as often as other leading pitchers in the league.

    14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

    He pitched a perfect game in 1908. He’s also known as the player Cooperstown waived its ten-year requirement for.

    Joss has the best WHIP of any major league pitcher in history, and the second best ERA of any pitcher. He’s twelfth in adjusted ERA+ among major league pitchers.

    15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

    As far as I can tell.

    CONCLUSION: A player with a career as short as Joss’ needs a huge peak in order to deserve induction into the BBFHOF. Joss had very good rate stats, but suffers in the win shares measures because he usually didn’t pitch as many times per season as his contemporaries. As he doesn’t come close to having the best peak among pitchers of the twentieth century’s first decade - he didn't make Baseball Magazine's list of top five pitchers in 1908, his best season - Joss does not deserve induction into the BBFHOF.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Joss just didn't pitch enough (and I'm talking about per season not his short career) to match up well with the other great pitchers of his time. He was a guy like Jose Rijo from more recent times who was terrific when he was on the mound, but just couldn't be counted on often enough to join the elite category. If you were the best or very close to it a fair number of times (as Koufax was) and you don't have the career numbers to make up for that then there isn't much to build acase on. ERA+ is a good indicator of quality, but if it is the singular qualifier for someone - as it is for Joss - then that doesn't cut it for me.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570

    Vote Spaulding!

    --Al Spaulding is exactly at 75% in his last year on the ballot. This IS a pitcher with a huge peak. In only 5 seasons as a regular pitcher Splauding was so dominant he compiled so much Black Ink that he is still 13th all time - 130 years later. He won 252 games in those 5 seasons (no wonder his arm gave out!) putting up an ERA+ over 140. He was also a good hitter, putting up a 116 OPS+. Apparently a good fielder too. His fielding percentage was .58 over league and his range factor was 25% better than the league. Obviously a short career, but packing 253 wins into it still gives him some worthy counting stats (and he won all those games in very short schedule seasons).

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by leecemark View Post
    --Joss just didn't pitch enough (and I'm talking about per season not his short career) to match up well with the other great pitchers of his time. He was a guy like Jose Rijo from more recent times who was terrific when he was on the mound, but just couldn't be counted on often enough to join the elite category. If you were the best or very close to it a fair number of times (as Koufax was) and you don't have the career numbers to make up for that then there isn't much to build acase on. ERA+ is a good indicator of quality, but if it is the singular qualifier for someone - as it is for Joss - then that doesn't cut it for me.
    Come on, he was better than Rijo. Significantly better ERA+, and was healthier year in and year out than Rijo, and thus pitched a much more respectable amount of innings in his era than Rijo did in his. My support for Joss isn't that strong, so I'll leave it at that.

    It will be interesting to see how Spalding plays out.

    As a final observation, just glossing over players we've elected, it looks like the bulk of our electees played during the 1880s, which makes me wonder if we're having trouble adjusting our standards to how the game and statistics subsequently changed.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bay Point, CA
    Posts
    1,669
    At this point, Spalding is the only man worth discussing. Waddell's in, the rest have no prayer.

    For Spalding, take into account that he was one of the most dominant players of his era, and later, one of the most important figures in the game's eventual growth. Nobody would leave him out of their Hall as a contributor, so I urge everyone to vote for him now. He's going to get in anyway in our VC, so why not elect the whole portrait of the man which includes his playing time? Really, he's the only guy that's been consistently close to election that I'm certain will be a shoe-in during his first VC year. Voting against Spalding now is just delaying the process, he's in no matter what, so why block him?
    1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

    1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
    1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
    1966 1974 1977 1978


    1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
    2013 2014


    1996 2006

  6. #26
    I think this is my biggest ballot so far:

    Beckley
    Duffy
    Griffith
    Jennings
    Joss
    Keeler
    McCormick
    McGraw
    Spalding
    Van Haltren
    Waddell
    Welch
    Willis
    Please check out my collection of vintage baseball recordings:

    http://www.oldtimesports.net/users/AWilliams

  7. #27
    Duffy
    Griffith
    Jennings
    Jones
    Keeler
    Kelley
    McVey
    Pike
    Richardson
    Spalding
    Start
    Sutton
    Van Haltren
    Waddell
    Willis
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pullman, WA
    Posts
    3,091
    I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.
    Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bay Point, CA
    Posts
    1,669
    Spalding's had a nice push today, but all it takes is the next vote to be from a detractor and he slips to 15 of 20, 75%. I think he'll make it over the hurdle this time. Some voters that see a guy over usually decide to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've also noticed a few on here adding support for Spalding so at least one of our longest holdovers won't need to make their case to the VC.

    Quote Originally Posted by philkid3 View Post
    I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.
    Well, Beaumont is at zero votes at the moment so it's not really worth discussing. The rest of the new crop has led him to be in the dust right away.
    1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

    1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
    1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
    1966 1974 1977 1978


    1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
    2013 2014


    1996 2006

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by philkid3 View Post
    I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.
    Ginger Beaumont--one batting title in 1902, a speed demon who topped 100 runs 4 times, had a career .311 BA, 123 OPS+, decent on base percentage. No significant peak to speak of, but a solid contributor during a 12 year career.

    Clark Griffith--decent manager, above average pitcher. Playing career + managing career will probably lead to his eventual induction through the VC. His ERA+ of 121 is decent. He also had a decent peak, but a short career.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pullman, WA
    Posts
    3,091
    I'll be very interested in how B-F treats Dahlen next round. Not only because of our rumored desire to right what we see as wrongs, but just to see how sure-fire we consider him.

    I don't know what everyone else's queue looks like, but after this ballot, if we're keeping things at 15, mine will be wide open next year.
    Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by philkid3 View Post
    I'll be very interested in how B-F treats Dahlen next round. Not only because of our rumored desire to right what we see as wrongs, but just to see how sure-fire we consider him.
    Easily one of the 10, if not 5, most deserving players on next year's ballot.
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  13. #33

    centerfielders Jones, Beaumont, Thomas

    Quote Originally Posted by philkid3 View Post
    If someone can convince me not to vote for Flick in the future, I invite you to do so. He's at the top of my queue and I want to know what I'm missing that's so damning. I mean, I've been aware in the past that I like him more than others, but still.
    . . .
    I'm ver close on Beaumont and Griffith and could be persuaded to vote for them in the future. I would very much like to see anyone else's arguments for them.
    Regarding this little Hall of Fame, I don't believe there is a good argument against Flick or for Beaumont. Elmer Flick was one of the great batsmen of his time, with Sam Crawford in a class above the centerfielders and not far short of the great Frenchman. Ginger Beaumont was merely one of the better centerfielders during a golden age, not so good as his close contemporaries Roy Thomas and Fielder Jones, maybe not so good as Cy Seymour. I would vote for Beaumont rather than Flick for the sake of providing a good field for comparison next year when we catch our breath and see what a slew of outfielders we have to sort out.

    --
    Last winter the neighboring "Ultimate Quest for Candidates" considered the best players with major league careers centered in the 19-aughts. (And not in Cooperstown, so Flick, Clarke, and Crawford were not on the ballot.) Beaumont finished 10th but only 6th or 7th among outfielders. Here are the results.

    Jimmy Sheckard 82%
    Tommy Leach 78% (half-time CF)
    Roy Thomas 73% (CF)
    Cy Seymour 52% (CF, some pitching)
    Mike Donlin 51% (, some vaudeville)
    Fielder Jones 47% (CF)
    Harry Davis 36%
    Bill Dinneen 25% (p)
    Johnny Kling 22%
    Ginger Beaumont 21% (CF)

    The six winners, Sheckard to Jones, advanced to a second poll where they scored 12, 9, 0, 0, 4, and 2 votes. (That is, led once again by Sheckard who did not play CF.) Three other centerfielders scored Van Haltren 13, Jimmy Ryan 9, Dummy Hoy 3.
    --

    One point for Roy Thomas over Beaumont and everyone else is his skill at reaching base. Everyone's favorite measure OPS+ is based on the sum of on-base and slugging averages, which is an approximation. Statistical analysis shows that "one point on base" is more valuable than "one point slugging" so Thomas was a superior batsman despite OPS+ equal to Beaumont's. (Thomas +81 points above league on-base average, -10 points below league slugging average. Beaumont +31 and +47.) Thomas was also a great amateur player for several years before he turned pro, first at the University of Pennsylvania and then at the Orange Athletic Club, Orange NJ. In the field Bill James grades them A- and B+ where B+ may be average in centerfield.

    One point for Fielder Jones over Beaumont and everyone else is his fielding. He may be the best we have seen, or the best with the batting skill to support a major league career (deferring to Jimmy McAleer). He played four early seasons in rightfield beside Mike Griffin and Dummy Hoy but he still earns the A+ grade from Bill James. Jones was another leadoff batter, a "slap hitter" who specialized in bases on balls. It may be fair to call him the poor man's Roy Thomas as a batsman (+.042 on-base, -.005 slugging).

    Of course Jones earned his greatest fame as the leader of Comiskey's Hitless Wonders. For five seasons they won at least 87 games (.576) and finished at least third in the pennant race. In his last season they needed only one more win against the Tigers for a second miracle.

    American League 1908
    ops+ era+ W L
    119 100 : 90 63 Detroit
    100 118 : 90 64 Cleveland
    _90 104 : 88 64 Chicago

  14. #34
    >>
    I would vote for Beaumont rather than Flick for the sake of providing a good field for comparison next year when we catch our breath and see what a slew of outfielders we have to sort out.
    <<

    I did it, so Beaumont will be there to make Thomas look better next year.
    My vote was also the first for Fielder Jones whose other supporters have flown the coop. So he will not be there without help.

    Should the word 'flick' be a synonym for 'flown': the other supporters have flick the coop? It should be related to fly, flew, flight and flit somehow.

    --
    It looks like we will have a whole slew of outfielders to sort, with only the older guys Stovey, Browning, and Thompson as low points of reference.

    We will not have such a backlog of pitchers and we will have McGinnity and Waddell from our own time "in" with Mullane and Caruthers.

    --
    The record shows that I dropped Beckley and McGraw for Duffy. Huh? Evidently I voted very quickly. Thank heaven I don't make such mistakes elsewhere.
    In the event, it doesn't matter. "Everyone" has 1/3 to 2/3 of the vote.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 08-23-2008 at 09:45 AM.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    527
    Jake Beckley
    Hugh Duffy
    Hughie Jennings
    Charley Jones
    Addie Joss
    Willie Keeler
    Joe Kelley
    John McGraw
    Cal McVey
    Lip Pike
    Hardy Richardson
    Al Spalding
    Joe Start
    Ezra Sutton
    Rube Waddell
    Nos Amours! ... 1969-2004

  16. #36
    I don't understand how Hardy Richardson has slipped so many spaces in his last year of eligibility when he only fell short 1-2 votes in the past several elections

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bay Point, CA
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    I don't understand how Hardy Richardson has slipped so many spaces in his last year of eligibility when he only fell short 1-2 votes in the past several elections
    Easy. Strong freshman crop led some people to drop him in order to whittle their list down to 15 names. I, for example, have Keeler (and now Kelley) in my queue. That's 17 names I support!
    1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

    1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
    1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
    1966 1974 1977 1978


    1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
    2013 2014


    1996 2006

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBlood View Post
    Easy. Strong freshman crop led some people to drop him in order to whittle their list down to 15 names. I, for example, have Keeler (and now Kelley) in my queue. That's 17 names I support!
    Right, but Richardson's not available to vote on again next year. Keeler and Kelley will be.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bay Point, CA
    Posts
    1,669
    Which is something a few obviously didn't consider.
    1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

    1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
    1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
    1966 1974 1977 1978


    1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
    2013 2014


    1996 2006

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by philkid3 View Post
    I'll be very interested in how B-F treats Dahlen next round. Not only because of our rumored desire to right what we see as wrongs, but just to see how sure-fire we consider him.
    Ideally, we're not trying to right wrongs here, as we're acting as if the real Hal does not exist. The problem is that I think on some level, perhaps just subconciously, that people may have their objectivity clouded by some need to right a wrong, both in terms of inducting players or not voting for lower tier Hall of Famers. In any event, I strongly urge voters to disregard everything they know of the real Hall of Fame and everything they know of baseball history in the years following the election. Try your best to assess players in the context of their time and the context of baseball history at this point. For instance, I feel that some people might not be voting for Jake Beckley because of how they perceive 1B post-Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg, and that should not be here.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •