Ranking the Hall of Fame Players - Election Two

[DoubleX]

I decided to end the first election a couple hours early given that Ruth was so far ahead. Couple of other changes I've decided to make is to expand the ballot to include 40 names, and to shorten the voting period to 5 days in order to move things along.

Eligibility: In order to be eligible, a player must 1) Be in the Hall of Fame; and 2) Be designated as a "player" by the Hall of Fame.

Voting Criteria: Voting is to be based on a player’s qualifications to be in the Hall of Fame. As such, subjective elements can factor into the evaluation, and this should not simply be an exercise in ranking players based on statistics. Jackie Robinson is probably the best example of this.

Election Format: Elections will last 5 days, with winner takes all. A tie will result in a 2 day runoff. For now the ballot will list 40 players, plus an “Other” option. If voting for “Other” please post and specify the player. Also, feel free to let me know if you feel I should expand/contract future ballots and/or add/subtract certain players from the future ballots.

Results
1) Babe Ruth

[Freakshow]

Not to cause trouble, but to be clear.

In the first election thread you wrote:

The goal of this project is to rate the players based on what they did only as players, and not what they contributed to the game in other capacities.

Now, here you wrote:

Voting is to be based on a player’s qualifications to be in the Hall of Fame. As such, subjective elements can factor into the evaluation, and this should not simply be an exercise in ranking players based on statistics.

In some cases these seem to be at odds. Consider Frank Chance. He was elected to the HOF, and later designated a "player", for his great play, his leadership, and for being a winning manager.

Your first quote above implies we should not consider his managing when evaluating him for this project. Your second quote implies we should consider his managing when evaluating him for this project, since his managing was a significant factor in his election.

Which is it. Several other players have similar issues.

[Paul Wendt]

1.
Is this limited to retired players? (if not, Clemens, Maddux, Bonds would all begin to attract some votes soon)

2.
If so, does this use the waiting list for the writers vote? (if not, Henderson would get some votes in the top 40)

Those two points don't matter to me now, maybe to someone else (Bonds #2?)

3.
Is this limited to the player role?
every role during a regular player career?
the entire baseball career of every great player? I suppose not. If so then John McGraw should be included and he might get votes as high as #2. Maybe he belongs with Jackie Robinson in the header, presumably to explain why not McGraw.

Frank Chance and Fred Clarke are not near McGraw's level but it may be useful to address them as examples. They were long-time player-managers. McGraw was a player and manager with only three seasons overlap, two of those playing half -time because of injuries.

[Paul Wendt]

great minds . . .

[fenrir]

the only player i consider to be a better player then mays is ruth. so since he was elected, mays is my next choice.

[DoubleX]

Not to cause trouble, but to be clear.

You are causing trouble, stop it.

In the first election thread you wrote:

The goal of this project is to rate the players based on what they did only as players, and not what they contributed to the game in other capacities.

Now, here you wrote:

Voting is to be based on a player’s qualifications to be in the Hall of Fame. As such, subjective elements can factor into the evaluation, and this should not simply be an exercise in ranking players based on statistics.

In some cases these seem to be at odds. Consider Frank Chance. He was elected to the HOF, and later designated a "player", for his great play, his leadership, and for being a winning manager.

Your first quote above implies we should not consider his managing when evaluating him for this project. Your second quote implies we should consider his managing when evaluating him for this project, since his managing was a significant factor in his election.

Which is it. Several other players have similar issues.

In the first election, I think I wrote both quotes. The first quote was also in my opening post of the first election, though I did very slightly alter my language this time around as to not sound so much like I was compelling voters to consider subjective factors, just that they can. Here is what I had in the opening post of the last election (I've put in red where I altered the language):

Voting Criteria: Voting is to be based on a player’s qualifications to be in the Hall of Fame. As such, subjective elements can and should very much factor into the evaluation, and this should not simply be an exercise in ranking players based on ability and statistics. Jackie Robinson is probably the best example of this.

As for the other quote you cited, that was part of my conversation with you, and I don't feel as if the two are at odds, and I did point out Frank Chance as a specific example I believe. In fact, I said last time:

Yes there are a few more complicated examples, like Frank Chance, but he's in as a player, so we will consider him as a player and only consider what [he did] while playing.

Note, I added the [he did] because I left that out last time, but it shouldn't change anything much. By this statement I mean consider anything at all Chance accomplished while playing. The fact that he was a player-manager is something that should very much be considered because that was an integral part of his playing career; but any consideration for his managerial contributions should end when he ended being a player.

Anyway, the heart of this project is to take all the Hall of Famers designated as "players" by the Hall of Fame and evaluate their place in the Hall as "players." The object here is not to debate whether or not a person was rightly or wrongly designated a player or should have had some other designation. We're accepting the designation, right or wrong, at face value, and doing our rankings. Now if player was a player-manager for part of his playing career, by all means consider it, because that is part of what he did as a player.

Chance is admittedly a more complicated individual because we know he's in the Hall as a composite of his contributions, but we're ignoring that for now. We're looking at the simple fact that the Hall of Fame lists him as a player, and ranking his place in the Hall based on that. Plus, Chance is also a very rare example, and not the norm for why players are in the Hall, so I'm not going to bend the rules for him.

[DoubleX]

1. Is this limited to retired players? (if not, Clemens, Maddux, Bonds would all begin to attract some votes soon)

It's limited to players actually in the Hall. The ideal goal here is go one by one through everyone designated as a player in the Hall and rank their Hall worthiness.

2.
If so, does this use the waiting list for the writers vote? (if not, Henderson would get some votes in the top 40)

Those two points don't matter to me now, maybe to someone else (Bonds #2?)

I'm still toying about what to do with Henderson. If this is successful, this project will go long past next year's election (and possibly the year after as well). By that point, we'd likely be past where we'd rank Henderson. So do I presume he's elected next year so we can rank him when the time comes? But then what about Jim Rice? He looks to be a near-lock for next year, so do I include him? (Note, the issue isn't actually that great with Rice, because even if we assume he's elected, we'd probably not be ready to rank him until after next year's election anyway).

Also, what if something happens in the next year? It's unlikely, but what if Henderson is leaked to gambling or steroids or something? It's unlikely, but you never know anymore.

3.
Is this limited to the player role?
every role during a regular player career?
the entire baseball career of every great player? I suppose not. If so then John McGraw should be included and he might get votes as high as #2. Maybe he belongs with Jackie Robinson in the header, presumably to explain why not McGraw.

Frank Chance and Fred Clarke are not near McGraw's level but it may be useful to address them as examples. They were long-time player-managers. McGraw was a player and manager with only three seasons overlap, two of those playing half -time because of injuries.

This is the discussion I've been having with Freakshow. The criteria for a person to be included in this discussion is very simple. 1) They must in the Hall of Fame; and 2) The Hall of Fame designates them as a player. So McGraw would not be in the discussion since the Hall designates him as a manager.

But we can go back to Frank Chance (or Clarke). He's in the Hall as a player, but a big part of the reason he's in the Hall is due to what he did as a player-manager. So by all means consider that. But we're hear to evaluate what players did while players, so anything Chance did after he stopped playing, should not be considered.

[Paul Wendt]

OK, so Jackie Robinson signed to play before he was a player . . . no, no, I'm just making trouble.

Thanks, that is entirely clear.

[DoubleX]

OK, so Jackie Robinson signed to play before he was a player . . . no, no, I'm just making trouble.

Thanks, that is entirely clear.

As I said last time, any suggestions for things I could add to the opening post that make the criteria clearer, I'm all for. I'm thinking next time I'll add something that clearly states that this is for players that are 1) In the Hall; and 2) Designated by the Hall as "players." Hopefully that will clear up some of the confusion.

EDIT: I just added an "Eligibility" part to the opening post, so hopefully that will help going forward.

[Sockeye]

Willie Mays

Since Barry Bonds isn't in the hall yet I'll have to go with his Godfather...Willie Mays

[yanks0714]

Other - Chick Hafey......just kidding.

The 'Say Hey' Kid, none other than Willie Mays. And Mickey is my idol.

I think the first 4 are gonna be pretty clear cut. After that it's gonna be a wild battle.

[philkid3]

I rank Ted Williams ahead of Willie Mays, but for the purposes of this I voted Willie.

He has the "stuff" going for him. I think he has even more of a legend and is a more beloved baseball image. I'm also going to put more emphasis on "five tool" guys for this than I do when I'm attempting to be more objective.

[KCGHOST]

I like the Dutchman in this slot.

[MadHatter]

Mays was the total package.

[DoubleX]

At what point do people start considering Jackie Robinson? I was tempted to vote for him this time. I was also very tempted to vote for Mays, but I went with Aaron though. I have Mays ranked higher, but I think Aaron having the records he has, make him a very slightly better fit for the Hall. But I could really go either way.

As for Robinson, I'm pretty sure he'll be in my top 5-7.