Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1920 Discussion

  1. #1

    BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1920 Discussion

    Time seems right to get this going. First the rules and format:

    Members and Format: The Veterans Committee is made up of 12 members (we may expand later) who will meet every 5 years to deliberate and then vote to elect players, pioneers, and contributors to the Hall of Fame. There will be separate ballots for each category. The 12 current members are: ag2004, blueblood, classic, dgarza, doublex, freakshow, jalbright, jjpm74, leecemark, paul wendt, philkid3, and windycityfan. Anyone is free to participate in the discussions, but only these 12 members will vote.

    Players Voting: The voting for players will be in two stages, with a yes or no vote at each stagee. First members will vote on a master list, with to determined number of players with the most support making the final ballot. To be elected a player on the final ballot must receive at least 75% support from the VC. There is no limit or cap on how many candidates can be elected.
    - Pioneer and Contributor Voting: Given that the pool of candidates will typically be smaller for pioneer and contributors than for players, we will just have one final vote.

    Player Eligibility: All players that have had at least 15 years elapse from their first year of eligibility in the regular election will be eligible in the veterans election. Even if a player was dropped from the regular election ballot before 15 years elapsed, he must still wait for remaining of the 15 years to pass.
    - Additional Contributor Eligibility: If a player was elected in the regular elections, he may still be eligibility to be inducted as a contributor by the VC (Al Spalding being an example of this).

    The only thing left to decide in my mind is how many to put on the final ballots. I'm thinking as time goes by, the final players ballot could become larger due to the growing pool of players.


    With that out of the way, with a simple discussion putting together a master ballot. For players, generally, I'll go back through the regular elections and add anyone here that lasted at least one election there (I might become more discerning later as the pool grows). Just to be clear how this will proceed, we'll put together a large list, then vote on who on that list should make the final ballot. At this stage we're not necessarily voting on who should be elected, just voting on who deserves that final consideration. The top vote-getters will then go on a final ballot (I'm thinking 15-20 for the players right now), and we'll then vote for election, 75% electing.

    So this is my preliminary list of players:

    Oyster Burns
    Charlie Comiskey
    Larry Corcoran
    Frank Dwyer
    Bob Ferguson
    Mike Griffin
    Ned Hanlon
    Charley Jones
    Denny Lyons
    Bobby Matthews
    Tommy McCarthy
    Jim McCormick
    Ed McKean
    Cal McVey
    Levi Meyerle
    Tip O'Neill
    Dave Orr
    Lip Pike
    Hardy Richardson
    Mike Tiernan (assuming he's not elected in 1918, his last year of regular election eligibility)
    Joe Start
    Ezra Sutton
    Will White
    Mickey Welch

    Feel free to suggest additions. Also, it is fair now to consider pre-1871 playing for any of these players.

    Here's the tentative pioneer list as composed by JJPM. People on this ballot played almost entirely before the 1870s and because of the rapidly evolving game of the late 19th Century, I feel it is more appropriate to put them on a separate ballot.

    Asa Brainard
    Bill Craver
    Jim Creighton
    Candy Cummings
    Cherokee Fisher
    Davy Force
    George Hall
    Andy Leonard
    Fergy Malone
    Dick McBride
    Dickey Pearce
    Al Reach
    Harry Wright
    George Zettlein

    Here's a contributors ballot, also put together by JJPM (I added Spalding):

    Ferdinand Abell
    Doc Adams
    John T. Brush
    Morgan Bulkeley
    Alexander Cartwright
    Henry Chadwick
    Charlie Comiskey
    Bob Ferguson
    Ned Hanlon
    William Hulbert
    Ban Johnson
    Denny McKnight
    A.G. Mills
    Frank Selee
    Al Spalding
    Harry M. Stevens
    Chris Von der Ahe
    James Whyte Davis
    Harry Wright

    Again, members, please feel free to add to these lists.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 09-15-2008 at 09:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Al Spalding was already elected as a player. Players can be listed twice?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bay Point, CA
    Posts
    1,673
    Yeah, I thought we had agreed "no" to double inductions.
    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

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Al Spalding was already elected as a player. Players can be listed twice?
    That was a mistake. I copied and pasted a list I posted before we elected Spalding.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBlood View Post
    Yeah, I thought we had agreed "no" to double inductions.
    We didn't agree. I thought it over and I think if there are rare circumstances where a player we elected also contributed greatly to the game, it seems limiting to only have them as a player. It doesn't do justice to the contributions. A person did enough to be elected in each capacity exclusive of the other, I see no problem in honoring that. I believe the others sports Hall of Fames do that. This will be limited though to players elected in the regular election, because in that election we're strictly judging the players on their playing careers and aren't considering much of what else they may have contributed. If you feel we've already appropriately honored a person, such as Spalding, then you don't need to vote for him as a contributor.

  5. #5
    Lip Pike, Joe Start, Cal McVey, all played in the 1860s and here should be listed as pioneers, not players IMO. Listing them as players is what killed their chances in the regular elections. Ezra Sutton played prior to 1876 as well.

    On guys like Spalding, it seems redundant to consider them a second time when their off the field contributions are what pushed them over the edge in the first place.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Lip Pike, Joe Start, Cal McVey, all played in the 1860s and here should be listed as pioneers, not players IMO. Listing them as players is what killed their chances in the regular elections. Ezra Sutton played prior to 1876 as well.
    They'll stay as players because they were on the regular elections. The players ballot here will be entirely composed of players from the regular elections, as the players election here is meant to be a review. BUT, here you can consider their 1860s play. The difference here is that pioneer were players that were never in the regular elections.

    On guys like Spalding, it seems redundant to consider them a second time when their off the field contributions are what pushed them over the edge in the first place.
    It's not going to happen very often. But take a guy like Joe Torre. He is someone we can conceivably elect as a player. Should we then not be able to consider his separate career is a manager? If you don't want to vote for someone as a contributor, believing they've been honored enough as a player, then don't vote for that person as a contributor. It's as simple as that. Doesn't hurt to have them on the ballot though.

  7. #7
    Comiskey and Ferguson are listed as players, but only received player votes because of their off the field exploits. They don't need to appear on the VC players ballot, IMO since anyone who is on the VC who voted for them as players would be voting for them as contributors here. Neither one did enough as a player IMO. That may also be true of 2 or 3 others on the player list.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    8,601
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    Members and Format: The Veterans Committee is made up of 12 members (we may expand later) who will meet every 5 years to deliberate and then vote to elect players, pioneers, and contributors to the Hall of Fame.
    Why does the pioneers ballot need to recur every 5 years indefinitely? This is a set group of individuals, correct? What persons in the future, from the 20th Century, would qualify as a "pioneer" (in contrast to a "contributor")? How many such elections of these men should we have?

    Players Voting: The voting for players will be in two stages, with a yes or no vote at each stagee. First members will vote on a master list, with to determined number of players with the most support making the final ballot. To be elected a player on the final ballot must receive at least 75% support from the VC. There is no limit or cap on how many candidates can be elected.
    I like this format.

    Additional Contributor Eligibility: If a player was elected in the regular elections, he may still be eligibility to be inducted as a contributor by the VC (Al Spalding being an example of this).
    Strongly disagree, particularly if a guy's non-playing contributions are permitted to be part of the consideration in his election as a player. If someone's contributions merit a "double induction" then they ought to go in as a contributor.

    The only thing left to decide in my mind is how many to put on the final ballots. I'm thinking as time goes by, the final players ballot could become larger due to the growing pool of players.
    I'd recommend a maximum of 25.

    For the players, Burns, Comiskey, Dwyer and Hanlon are clearly not on par with the rest.

    Pre-1871 peformance definitely merits consideration.

    Contributors worth adding to the ballot, some of whom died not long after 1920: Frank C. Bancroft, O.P. Caylor, Henry Lucas, Francis Richter, Arthur Soden, Alfred H. Spink, George Stallings, and John Montgomery Ward.

    By the way, what's the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the contributor's ballot? Must the individual be retired? Dead?
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith, Spink Award winner

  9. #9
    (my emphasis)
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    With that out of the way, with a simple discussion putting together a master ballot.
    I can help with that and I'll be happy to vote. I will not be able to do research or much writing, less than my longest contributions on BBFHOF and Progressive players.

    For players, generally, I'll go back through the regular elections and add anyone here that lasted at least one election there (I might become more discerning later as the pool grows).
    . . .
    So this is my preliminary list of players:
    . . .
    Feel free to suggest additions. Also, it is fair now to consider pre-1871 playing for any of these players.
    Evidently you mean survived two elections, appeared on three ballots.

    Among the two-and-out candidates, I believe Dunlap and Williamson were highest regarded by the baseball community; Williamson and York posted the best careers.
    Here's the tentative pioneer list as composed by JJPM. People on this ballot played almost entirely before the 1870s and because of the rapidly evolving game of the late 19th Century, I feel it is more appropriate to put them on a separate ballot.
    . . .
    They played almost entirely before 1876. Several were quite young before 1871 and their careers center on the early 1870s.

    Davy Force should have been on the regular ballot, and he was.

    Some to add:
    Jack Chapman (better as contributor)
    Wes Fisler
    Charlie Smith
    Jimmy Wood

    Here's a contributors ballot, also put together by JJPM (I added Spalding)
    . . .
    Charlie Comiskey, Ban Johnson, Harry M. Stevens [among others]
    . . .
    Again, members, please feel free to add to these lists.
    Those three are still at work. Do you plan to cover men who are active?

    Some to add:
    William Cammeyer
    Tim Murnane
    O.P. Caylor
    Al Spink
    Ted Sullivan
    Nick Young

    Francis Richter is still at work. He belongs if you will cover active men.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    I thought it over and I think if there are rare circumstances where a player we elected also contributed greatly to the game, it seems limiting to only have them as a player. It doesn't do justice to the contributions. A person did enough to be elected in each capacity exclusive of the other, I see no problem in honoring that. I believe the others sports Hall of Fames do that.
    basketball, yes.
    John Wooden and Lenny Wilkens, player and coach

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Classic View Post
    Why does the pioneers ballot need to recur every 5 years indefinitely? This is a set group of individuals, correct? What persons in the future, from the 20th Century, would qualify as a "pioneer" (in contrast to a "contributor")? How many such elections of these men should we have?
    It won't recur indefinitely. I'm guessing after the first few VC elections, we'll have done all we're going to do with the pioneers, and perhaps we'll incorporate the top remaining pioneers into the contributors ballot so as to not completely remove the possibility of election. But I do think at some point we'll abandon a separate pioneer section.

    Strongly disagree, particularly if a guy's non-playing contributions are permitted to be part of the consideration in his election as a player. If someone's contributions merit a "double induction" then they ought to go in as a contributor.
    I'll use this rare example again. What if we elect a player in the regular elections based on his playing career and then he goes on to be a great manager? Why not honor his managerial career just as we would honor any great managerial career?

    For the players, Burns, Comiskey, Dwyer and Hanlon are clearly not on par with the rest.
    They'll be on the preliminary ballot for now (maybe not Comiskey though who will be exclusively on the contributors ballot), and if you don't believe they belong, then you don't vote for them at the first stage and if they're clearly inferior, they probably won't make the final ballot. The first stage is meant to be pretty open, and we're just whittling down to the final list. Plus, at this juncture, we don't have all that many former-regular election players to look at, so we might as well include all the guys in the preliminary round that hung on for at least a year.

    Contributors worth adding to the ballot, some of whom died not long after 1920: Frank C. Bancroft, O.P. Caylor, Henry Lucas, Francis Richter, Arthur Soden, Alfred H. Spink, George Stallings, and John Montgomery Ward.

    By the way, what's the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the contributor's ballot? Must the individual be retired? Dead?
    No clue. I've said a few times now that I'd like someone else to oversee this part if possible. I don't really feel my knowledge of contributors is good enough where I can effectively manage that ballot.

    Also, you mentioned Ward there, he's someone we've already elected as a player, but might have enough distinct non-player contributions where he'd make it independently as a contributor as well.

    To be clear here, I'm saying that it may be appropriate to elect a person in separate capacities if they did things in clear separate capacities. Again, the example of a person that has a great playing career, retires, and we elect him as a player, then goes on to a great managerial career, is perhaps most illustrative of this.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    Evidently you mean survived two elections, appeared on three ballots.
    I meant survived at least one, though perhaps the list I gave suggests otherwise? It's just an easy way for me to put a tentative list together as I have those "Dropped from Previous Election" sections in each regular election. As our pool of players becomes larger, I'll probably become more discerning and not just automatically include everyone that survived at least one election.

    Anyway, the list I give is just a preliminary list and is really just suggestions. People are free to make suggestions to that list and I don't have a limit in mind at this point as most of the players will be scrapped in our first round of voting anyway.

    Davy Force should have been on the regular ballot, and he was.
    Noted, thanks. He'll go with the players then.

    Those three are still at work. Do you plan to cover men who are active?

    Some to add:
    William Cammeyer
    Tim Murnane
    O.P. Caylor
    Al Spink
    Ted Sullivan
    Nick Young

    Francis Richter is still at work. He belongs if you will cover active men.
    Like I said to Classic, I really haven't thought about eligibility for contributors. What's the consensus here? Can contributors be active and be eligible?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    15,249
    Blog Entries
    34
    I don't care so much that contributor candidates are active, but I want to be sure we have a clear picture that their body of work in the sport is worthy. Also, the Hall gets generally better publicity for live over posthumous inductions. With those points in mind, I'd propose that they either be retired (dead being an extreme form of retirement), or at least 60 or 65 years old before being eligible.
    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.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    I don't care so much that contributor candidates are active, but I want to be sure we have a clear picture that their body of work in the sport is worthy. Also, the Hall gets generally better publicity for live over posthumous inductions. With those points in mind, I'd propose that they either be retired (dead being an extreme form of retirement), or at least 60 or 65 years old before being eligible.
    This sounds fair, but I'd even amend that to anyone who has been a contributor for at least 20 years, is retired or is over 65 years old. That 20 year provision would allow us to look at someone like Connie Mack in the context of when the actual HOF inducted him rather than waiting until 1940 or later (Mack was inducted in 1937).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    8,601
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    This sounds fair, but I'd even amend that to anyone who has been a contributor for at least 20 years, is retired or is over 65 years old. That 20 year provision would allow us to look at someone like Connie Mack in the context of when the actual HOF inducted him rather than waiting until 1940 or later (Mack was inducted in 1937).
    Totally agreed. A contributor has to meet at any one of the above criteria in order to be eligible.
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith, Spink Award winner

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    15,249
    Blog Entries
    34
    Connie was born in 1862, so he was 75 when he was inducted. The way I meant the rule was that since he was already over 65 in 1937, he was eligible. I don't think it would be bad to make Connie wait until after 1927. (Heck, his second dynasty hadn't matured yet). Also, if we go to just 20 years, guys who were player/contributors could be eligible late in their playing careers if we count their time playing. I'm not too keen on that. Age 60 or 65 or out of the game due to retirement/death seems about right to me.
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    8,601
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    Connie was born in 1862, so he was 75 when he was inducted. The way I meant the rule was that since he was already over 65 in 1937, he was eligible. I don't think it would be bad to make Connie wait until after 1927. (Heck, his second dynasty hadn't matured yet). Also, if we go to just 20 years, guys who were player/contributors could be eligible late in their playing careers if we count their time playing. I'm not too keen on that. Age 60 or 65 or out of the game due to retirement/death seems about right to me.
    I'm adamantly opposed to counting playing time in that 20 year window. Perhaps a 30-year window would be better though. A guy who starts his contributor career at the age of 35 would thus be eligible at roughly the same time as the age-eligibility criteria factor sets in. What do you think?
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith, Spink Award winner

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    15,249
    Blog Entries
    34
    I'm OK with it, but I think age 60 or 65 is just easier to deal with, which is why I suggest it. I mean, when exactly does Buck O'Neill's or Paul Krichell's or a bunch of other guys start the 20 or 30 year clock ticking? It's not always easy finding birth dates, but it's usually manageable.
    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.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Classic View Post
    I'm adamantly opposed to counting playing time in that 20 year window. Perhaps a 30-year window would be better though. A guy who starts his contributor career at the age of 35 would thus be eligible at roughly the same time as the age-eligibility criteria factor sets in. What do you think?
    Same here except in the case where a player's contribution overlaps (the player-manager).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Retired, 65 or dead seems the easiest and best rule.

  21. #21
    Are Silver King & Tommy Bond eligible? Fred Dunlap?
    Last edited by dgarza; 09-15-2008 at 08:17 PM.

  22. #22
    dgarza, I believe those players will be eligible.

    Classic will be running the contributor elections. He'll set up a separate thread for that election and fill everyone in regarding eligibility and what not.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by leecemark View Post
    --Retired, 65 or dead seems the easiest and best rule.
    I would prefer a cutoff of 60, since we are holding the election only once every five years.

    Let us suppose we have someone who turns 64 in an election year. With our schedule, he won't be eligible until he turns 69. Some candidates might not be able to make it to age 68 or 69. A cutoff of 60 would guarantee that everyone would get a shot before they turn 65, and thus give people a greater chance of honors while they are alive.

    If there were a special election each year just for contributors who turn 65 in that calendar year, I would be more supportive of using 65 instead of 60 as the minimum age for active contributors.

  24. #24
    I'm wondering if it's going to be too much to ask for people to vote twice here - once to create a final ballot and once for election.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    I'm wondering if it's going to be too much to ask for people to vote twice here - once to create a final ballot and once for election.
    I honestly don't see a need to whittle down the ballot any further. The strong candidates will be the ones most people vote for whether we scale it down or keep it as is.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •