Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

Thread: 1944 Best of Baseball Election

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    Considering how closely intertwined cricket and baseball were and how cricket made its own change from underhand to side arm to eventually over hand and along the way break the wrist I think it is entirely possible that people were doing what Jim did before Jim.

    For instance Tom Walker in the late 1700's is widely believed to be the first bowler to change from the underhand throwing style of cricket to the roundarm style. It would eventually become a mainstay of cricket until about 1864 when the overhand style became the popular choice.

  2. #22
    Players:

    1. Ross Barnes
    2. Charlie Bennett
    3. Jimmy Collins
    4. Ezra Sutton
    5. George Sisler
    6. Bob Caruthers
    7. George Wright
    8. Louis Santop
    9. Roger Bresnahan
    10. John Ward
    11. Dickey Pearce
    12. Charlie Radbourne
    Contributers:

    1. Jim Creighton
    2. Bill Klem
    3. Francis Richter
    4. O.P. Caylor
    5. Ed Barrow
    Last edited by bambambaseball; 03-28-2009 at 04:45 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,316
    Players

    01. Sherry Magee
    02. Pie Traynor
    03. Heinie Groh
    04. Zack Wheat
    05. George Wright
    06. Rabbit Marranville
    07. Bid McPhee
    08. Dazzy Vance
    09. Max Carey
    10. Roger Bresnahan
    11. Amos Rusie
    12. George Sisler

    Contributors

    01. Charles Comiskey
    02. Ed Barrow
    03. Jack Dunn
    04. Jim Creighton
    05. Bill Klem

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Lima, Ohio
    Posts
    6,282
    Players

    1. Joe Jackson
    2. Fred Clarke
    3. Zack Wheat
    4. Sherry Magee
    5. Willie Keeler
    6. Sam Thompson
    7. Elmer Flick
    8. Bill Terry
    9. Harry Stovey
    10. Pete Browning
    11. George Sisler
    12. Joe Kelley

    Contributors

    1. W. Hulbert
    2. J. Creighton
    3. A. Cartwright
    4. K. Landis
    5. F. Richter
    My dream ballpark dimensions
    LF: 388 Feet...Height 37 Feet...LCF: 455 Feet...CF: 542 Feet...Height 35 Feet
    RCF: 471 Feet...RF: 400 Feet...Height 60 Feet
    Location....San Diego

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    As the game of baseball becomes more competitive then the need to win becomes greater which means the seeking out of every advantage possible becomes greater. I'm not saying we should ignore Jim and his achievements, I just don't see any particular need to hoist him up to the top of my list.

    I don't know it as fact but I'm willing to bet that other people threw the ball illegally before Jim. It just so happens that Jim was at the right place at the right time for his actions to be widely disseminated throughout the baseball playing domain.

    To me crediting Jim is like crediting Roger Bannister with runner's ability to run faster than 4 minutes per mile. Sure he was the first but that doesn't but others quickly broke the 4 minute barrier as well.

    The last paragraph, to me at least, is an argument against having a contributor ballot. That's fine, but if we're going to have one (and we will so long as there's sufficient interest and the rules call for one), it's irrelevant. You boosted Al Spalding for his sporting goods business, promotions, and so forth. Somebody was going to realize they could make money selling such items, and it only stands to reason they'd want to promote the game to help themselves. Some GM was going to have a player who would openly cross the color line. Eventually, one of them would have had success. These guys actually did these things, and popularized them and/or made them succeed. That's why we are supporting them as contributors.

    The fact that Creighton is the guy who at the very least popularized pitching the new way renders the whole issue of whether or not he was actually the first to do so an interesting side question, but not one which should be determinative of him as a contributor. Certainly, Branch Rickey wasn't the first guy to try and put an African-American in a major league uniform. There's no question John McGraw tried it, but as a subterfuge, rather than as an open choice. Some may well have knowingly succeeded McGraw's way. Rickey, though, chose wisely as to who would be the first to make that open break with tradition, and gave Jackie ample support in the effort.
    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.

  6. #26
    Players
    1 Joe Jackson
    2 Addie Joss
    3 George Sisler
    4 Ross Barnes
    5 Dazzy Vance
    6 Bid McPhee
    7 Wille Keeler
    8 John Ward
    9 Elmer Flick
    10 Rube Waddell
    11 Bill Terry
    12 Pie Traynor

    Contributors
    1 Bill Klem
    2 Charles Comiskey
    3 Abner Doubleday
    4 A Cartwright
    5 W Hulbert

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,597
    1. Louis Santop
    2. George Wright
    3. John M. Ward
    4. Jimmy Collins
    5. Ross Barnes
    6. Amos Rusie
    7. George Sisler
    8. Sam Thompson
    9. Old Hoss Radbourn
    10. Paul Hines
    11. Zack Wheat
    12. Frank Grant

    Contributors:

    1. William Hulbert
    2. Francis Richter
    3. Jim Creighton
    4. C. I. Taylor
    5. Bill Klem

  8. #28
    bambam,
    We elected Frisch.

    --
    Regarding Creighton and Pasteur:

    I consider it likely that fast pitching would have arrived in the New York game a few seasons after Creighton introduced it, probably before the war, although that might have delayed it until several years later. Creighton was a leading young cricketer himself, but I don't know that that connection or the health of the other game helps predict how quickly someone else would have snapped the wrist. If round-arm bowling ruled in America, which doesn't follow from its popularity in first class cricket, that may have delayed rather than hastened transfer to the New York game.

    At the same time I consider it likely that pasteurization and other health practices based on the germ theory of disease would have arrived in the rich countries a few years later without Pasteur. Others were engaged in the historical processes of developing microscopes and discovering germs. Maybe Pasteur and his movement even caused others to retrench and they might have taken the same path themselves if wandering on their own.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Magrathea
    Posts
    6,172
    Blog Entries
    2
    1. Jimmy Collins
    2. John M. Ward
    3. Max Carey
    4. Louis Santop
    5. Dazzy Vance
    6. Fred Clarke
    7. Paul Hines
    8. Sherry Magee
    9. Amos Rusie
    10. George Sisler
    11. Zack Wheat
    12. Ezra Sutton

    Contributors:

    1. Alexander Cartwright
    2. William Hulbert
    3. Francis Richter
    4. Jim Creighton
    5. Bill Klem

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    Under the rules, we already have a quorum for the contributor ballot, and when leecemark provides at least two more names (or somebody else casts a valid ballot), we'll have a quorum for the player ballot as well.
    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.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    I'm removing J. L. Wilkinson from my ballot for the time being, though he certainly will reappear. I've added Richter and Klem to my contributor ballot.
    I considered Wilkinson vs. Ward late last year and my reasoning for Ward may be quixotic (unreasonable).

    C.I. Taylor voters,
    Why do you support Taylor ahead of Wilkinson? When I have asked about Taylor in the past, the replies have favored Wilkinson, Posey, or both.

    All,
    Is age a criterion for you here, after it plays its role in determining eligibility? This is much too late for C.I. Taylor to enjoy his election but in the 1940s it may be an argument for Barrow or Landis.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --My ballot has been completed.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    The last paragraph, to me at least, is an argument against having a contributor ballot. That's fine, but if we're going to have one (and we will so long as there's sufficient interest and the rules call for one), it's irrelevant. You boosted Al Spalding for his sporting goods business, promotions, and so forth. Somebody was going to realize they could make money selling such items, and it only stands to reason they'd want to promote the game to help themselves. Some GM was going to have a player who would openly cross the color line. Eventually, one of them would have had success. These guys actually did these things, and popularized them and/or made them succeed. That's why we are supporting them as contributors.

    The fact that Creighton is the guy who at the very least popularized pitching the new way renders the whole issue of whether or not he was actually the first to do so an interesting side question, but not one which should be determinative of him as a contributor. Certainly, Branch Rickey wasn't the first guy to try and put an African-American in a major league uniform. There's no question John McGraw tried it, but as a subterfuge, rather than as an open choice. Some may well have knowingly succeeded McGraw's way. Rickey, though, chose wisely as to who would be the first to make that open break with tradition, and gave Jackie ample support in the effort.
    Like I said earlier, I have a hard time voting for players as contributors. That is because I feel most of the contributing players are simply evolutionary steps in baseball. Whereas the people running and organizing baseball are to me the ones that make or break the game at this stage of the game. As long as these pioneers are out there then there will be a game and there will be players who tinker within that game. If there is a Spalding or Cartwright then eventually there will be a Creighton. But if there is no Spalding or Cartwright then even if there is a Creighton it doesn't really matter because nobody is going to be around to care.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by leecemark View Post
    --My ballot has been completed.
    Thanks for the heads-up. Duly noted and recorded. We now have a quorum on both sides.
    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.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    if there is no Spalding or Cartwright then even if there is a Creighton it doesn't really matter because nobody is going to be around to care.
    This is awfully wrong about the Spaldings and probably about the Cartwrights, meaning the original Knickerbockers. Their steps, too, were evolutionary steps.

    Most-successful businessmen rarely do anything but most-successfully marry their interests to what people are doing en masse. In Spalding's case there were many other sporting goods businessmen. He was more successful and ultimately he managed to buy the Reach and Wright businesses, rather than vice versa, but the difference is incremental --incremental whether the alternative is Reach purchase of Spalding or all continuing independently. At the same time, the annual baseball guide was 17 years old when he put together his first one and it was essentially mature. That is, Spalding mainly copied the form, and a few years later he hired Beadle's longtime editor Henry Chadwick to take over his own.

    Without Spalding's aid, Hulbert's effort to organize a more centralized league of clubs might have failed, or lasted only a few seasons. Either way, who can doubt that commercial baseball as mass entertainment --the national spectator pastime-- was here to stay? Spalding gained from the League (by exclusive contracts to produce official baseballs and publish the official book) and the League gained from Spalding. But the League is only some institutional details. Without Hulbert's National League, or following its failure, there might have been another. Or commercial baseball might have developed more like English football. What then? Perhaps two distinct businesses would have become its most successful producer-distributor of goods and its most-successful publisher. Perhaps two distinct publishers would have retained the leading editorial authority (Chadwick) and secured an official contract.

    How would such differences be "revolutionary"? Why, that is, should we consider the steps down two different historical paths revolutionary rather than evolutionary steps?

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    All,
    Is age a criterion for you here, after it plays its role in determining eligibility? This is much too late for C.I. Taylor to enjoy his election but in the 1940s it may be an argument for Barrow or Landis.
    Truthfully, as I'm basically looking at this from a 2008 perspective, the age issue is at best a very minor one for me. It would have been much more important in its own time. So long as I can find contributor candidates I can accept who are doing well with our voters, I'll choose from that group. This approach is calculated to help move things along, and, given that we have to choose between this apple and this orange and this mango and this watermelon, it makes life a little easier.
    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. #37
    Players
    1. Louis Santop
    2. Paul Hines
    3. George Wright
    4. Sherry Magee
    5. Fred Clarke
    6. John Montgomery Ward
    7. George Sisler
    8. Amos Rusie
    9. Edd Roush
    10. Zack Wheat
    11. Dazzy Vance
    12. Jimmy Collins

    Contributors
    1. William Hulbert
    2. Francis Richter
    3. Ed Barrow
    4. Alfred H. Spink
    5. Bill Klem
    "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

  18. #38

    Pasteur

    "Louis Pasteur" at wikipedia shows multiple people working on Pasteur's themes at several points. Germ theory and experiment may be a better historical example, rather than its application to vaccination. But these examples from vaccination are clear (probably because their concrete nature fits the wikipedia project well).

    Others developed vaccination for smallpox, Pasteur for chicken cholera. Then anthrax:
    >>
    In the 1870s, he applied this immunisation method to anthrax, which affected cattle, and aroused interest in combating other diseases. Pasteur publicly claimed he had made the anthrax vaccine by exposing the bacillus to oxygen. His laboratory notebooks, now in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, in fact show Pasteur used the method of rival Jean-Joseph-Henri Toussaint, a Toulouse veterinary surgeon, to create the anthrax vaccine.[17][7] This method used the oxidizing agent potassium dichromate. Pasteur's oxygen method did eventually produce a vaccine but only after he had been awarded a patent on the production of an anthrax vaccine.
    <<


    Later with rabies he took one giant step for a man but it seems to be one small step for mankind, one a small step because merely a shortcut (which is very common, I believe).
    >>
    The rabies vaccine was initially created by Emile Roux, a French doctor and a colleague of Pasteur who had been working with a killed vaccine produced by desiccating the spinal cords of infected rabbits. The vaccine had only been tested on eleven dogs before its first human trial.[7][18]

    This vaccine was first used on 9-year old Joseph Meister, on July 6, 1885, after the boy was badly mauled by a rabid dog.[7] This was done at some personal risk for Pasteur, since he was not a licensed physician and could have faced prosecution for treating the boy. However, left without treatment, the boy faced almost certain death from rabies. After consulting with colleagues, Pasteur decided to go ahead with the treatment. The treatment proved to be a spectacular success, with Meister avoiding the disease; thus, Pasteur was hailed as a hero and the legal matter was not pursued.
    <<


    Back to baseball, the point is to support analogies such as Spalding to Pasteur to reject the revolutionary interpretation. What wouldn't have happened except for the successful Captain of Industry is institutional detail, such as location of one center or another in Chicago rather than Philadelphia, and it is shortcuts, hastening this by several years and delaying that by a few.

    --
    This interpretation may support honoring people for long and meritorious service, such as NA and NL secretary-treasurer Nick Young, umpires Connolly and Klem, and some field managers or club executives.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-29-2009 at 11:13 AM.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    963
    01 hoyt
    02 barnes
    03 magee
    04 wheat
    05 stovey
    06 terry
    07 galvin
    08 pennock
    09 santop
    10 wright g
    11 clarke f
    12 thompson s

    contributors
    01 landis
    02 cartwright
    03 creighton
    04 hulbert
    05 klem

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,746
    Blog Entries
    4
    1. George Sisler
    2. Monte Ward
    3. Amos Rusie
    4. Pie Traynor
    5. Hoss Radbourne
    6. Bob Caruthers
    7. George Wright
    8. Jimmy Collins
    9. Louis Santop
    10. Joe Jackson
    11. Bill Terry
    12. Dazzy Vance

    1. Jim Creighton
    2. AJ Reach
    3. Albert Spink
    4. William Hulbert
    5. Landis

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
  •