Election 71-75

[DoubleX]

This election is over and parity is really starting to take over. Here are the results:

1) Eddie Murray - 67 (57 points, 10 votes; 3 first place)
2) Bullet Rogan - 59 (50 points, 9 votes)
3) Harmon Killebrew - 57 (49 points, 8 votes; 1 first place)
4) Buck Ewing - 56 (48 points, 8 votes; 2 first place)
5) Billy Hamilton - 49 (42 points, 7 votes)

6) Robin Roberts - 45 (38 points, 7 votes; 1 first place)
7) John Clarkson - 44 (37 points, 7 votes; 1 first place)
8) Juan Marichal - 42 (37 points, 5 votes)
9) Paul Waner - 39 (33 points, 6 votes)
10) Carlton Fisk - 38 (33 points, 5 votes; 1 first place)
11) Gaylord Perry - 37 (31 points, 6 votes)
12) Al Simmons - 36 (31 points, 5 votes)
13) Martin Dihigo - 34 (28 points, 6 votes)
14) Mordecai Brown - 29 (23 points, 6 votes)
15) Phil Niekro - 29 (26 points, 3 votes; 2 first place)
16) Willie McCovey - 28 (24 points, 4 votes)
17) Gary Carter - 27 (24 points, 3 votes)
18) Whitey Ford - 23 (20 points, 3 votes; 1 first place)
19) Frankie Frisch - 18 (14 points, 4 votes)
20) Buck Leonard - 18 (16 points, 2 votes)
21) Eddie Plank - 17 (14 points, 3 votes)
22) Bert Blyleven - 15 (13 points, 2 votes)
23) Fergie Jenkins - 14 (11 points, 3 votes)
24) Dennis Eckersley - 13 (11 points, 2 votes)
25) Jesse Burkett - 12 (10 points, 2 votes)
26) Joe Medwick - 10 (9 points, 1 vote)
27) Tim Keefe - 9 (7 points, 2 votes)
t28) Bill Dickey - 9 (8 points, 1 vote)
t28) Willie Stargell - 9 (8 points, 1 vote)
30) Luke Appling - 5 (4 points, 1 vote)
t31) Joe Cronin - 4 (3 points, 1 vote)
t31) Harry Heilmann - 4 (3 points 1 vote)
t33) Paul Molitor - 3 (2 points, 1 vote)
t33) Brooks Robinson - 3 (2 points, 1 vote)
t35) Jim Palmer - 2 (1 point, 1 vote)
t35) Charles Radbourn - 2 (1 point, 1 vote)
t35) Ozzie Smith - 2 (1 point, 1 vote)
t35) Jud Wilson - 2 (1 point, 1 vote)

[BigRon]

1. Robin Roberts
2. Paul Waner
3. Harmon Killebrew
4. Whitey Ford
5. Willie McCovey
6. Al Simmons
7. Eddie Murray
8. Juan Marichal
9. Mordecai Brown
10. John Clarkson

[J W]

That's why I brought Clarke's name up. He could be top 100 material as is, but along with his success as player/manager he would bump into my current ballot somewhere. Frank Chance with his player/manager credit would distance himself from the lower pack. Hughie Jennings... well, he was only player/manager because of a couple at-bats but he did enjoy success as manager. Red Schoendienst managed after he retired but also picked up 1000 managerial wins, two pennants and a championship.

[jalbright]

We haven't done much with guys who contributed in ways beyond their play. OK, we've got John Ward. I take it we're including all his contributions, not just those during his playing career. We've got some guys with real success as managers, like Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, and Hughie Jennings to name three. If fame is important, so is being the manager of a World Champion or pennant winner.

[Jar of Flies]

My apologies for delay in voting. I have taken the Vaughan and Blyleven remarks to heart about fame versus value and have used a modifier to my rankings to include the ELO rater by baseball-reference.com, as I have a difficult time assigned fame to a player. This greatly benefits George Sisler, Bill Terry, Ralph Kiner, Harmon Killebrew, and Paul Molitor, where it hurts unelected Wes Ferrell, Heinie Groh, Kevin Appier, Rick Reuschel, and the elected Rich Gossage.

I did not use the ELO rater for negro leaguers, and 19th century players, as the former aren't incorporated, and the later are severely underrated in general.
I made a conscious effort to bump 19th century players who were elected early in the BBWAA years (pre 1946), and a bump down for players that haven't been elected to the hall of fame.

Special cases called for special rankings, so jumps were given to Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby (color barrier breakers), and to pioneers like John Ward for forming the Players League, etc. I gave a small bump to guys with all-time crowns (Hank Aaron, RBI, etc.) too.

The ELO rater wasn't harsh against Arky Vaughan, with a placement of 73, and Bert Blyleven at 74, so they dropped only a few spots from my statistical rankings. Blyleven moves below Martin Dihigo and Bullet Joe Rogan because of this.

I appreciate the discussion, and will continue to monitor and update my rankings if arguments strike me as convincing.

NEWLY minted rankings:
1. Carlton Fisk
2. Martin Dihigo
3. Gary Carter
4. Bullet Joe Rogan
5. Bert Blyleven
6. Robin Roberts
7. Luke Appling
8. Paul Waner
9. Billy Hamilton
10. Gaylord Perry

Top 10 ineligible:
Jeff Bagwell
Bill Dahlen
Alan Trammell

[SavoyBG]

--Fame plays a role for me, but not a huge one. The larger subjective factor is historical significance.

Well, as the first SS to really be a huge HR hitter, the first MVP from a really bad team, and also the only player in history to be known as MISTER (insert team's name), he was pretty significant historically. He even contributed his famous "let's play two" to baseball lore.

[BigRon]

I'll try to post by tomorrow.

[jjpm74]

Less than two days left in this election. So far, turnout seems a little down.

It might be because of Thanksgiving is just around the corner.

[DoubleX]

Less than two days left in this election. So far, turnout seems a little down.

[J W]

--Fame plays a role for me, but not a huge one. The larger subjective factor is historical significance. Did the player do something that changed the game? Was he really great at something that makes him unique - i.e. did he set records and/or lead the league in important categories. Does he have some none playing acomplishments that boost his place in the game. The Hall of Fame is only partially about honoring great players. It also should tell the story of the game's history. Players who contribute more to that narrative get a boost from me and those who were quietly put up great careers not so much. I believe that is the spirit of this project, but obviosly how much of a boost and which players deserve it is going to vary considerably from voter to voter.

I like this line of thinking although my voting has not reflected it much. This is why both King Kelly and Monte Ward were recently slotted top 70 players all time. In Kelly's case, it's not that he was famous during his time; rather that he was one of the first real stars of the sport, and a bit of a pioneer. Just being famous shouldn't cut it, IMO. At best it should give a minor bump.

I'm strongly considering giving Fred Clarke a boost. He is the definitive player/manager in terms of success. Who's with me?

[DoubleX]

Good post, DoubleX- similar to comments I made in post 26. One caveat- Vaughan may have been around a top 40 position player, based on more modern thinking, but when you mix in the top pitchers he certainly is lower- probably no higher than the mid- 50s- almost exactly where he was spotted.

I think if one were so inclined, based just on performance it would be plausible to make an argument for Vaughan to move past or at least be closely grouped with the following positional players we've ranked ahead of him:

13) Jackie Robinson
25) Cap Anson
34) Yogi Berra
35) Cal Ripken
37) Pop Lloyd
41) Roberto Clemente
45) Hank Greenberg
46) Dan Brouthers
49) Ed Delahanty
50) Johnny Mize
51) Al Kaline
52) Turkey Stearnes
53) Wade Boggs
54) Charlie Gehringer
55) Mickey Cochrane
56) Reggie Jackson

So that's 16 without counting pitchers. Now I'm not saying I would put Vaughan ahead of these players, but I think an argument could be made.

[leecemark]

1) Harmon Killebrew
2) Buck Ewing
3) Bullet Joe Rogan
4) Robin Roberts
5) Billy Hamilton
6) Martin DiHigo
7) Eddie Murray
8) Frankie Frisch
9) Carlton Fisk
10) Old Hoss Radbourne

[leecemark]

--Fame plays a role for me, but not a huge one. The larger subjective factor is historical significance. Did the player do something that changed the game? Was he really great at something that makes him unique - i.e. did he set records and/or lead the league in important categories. Does he have some none playing acomplishments that boost his place in the game. The Hall of Fame is only partially about honoring great players. It also should tell the story of the game's history. Players who contribute more to that narrative get a boost from me and those who were quietly put up great careers not so much. I believe that is the spirit of this project, but obviosly how much of a boost and which players deserve it is going to vary considerably from voter to voter.

[BigRon]

As the person who started this project, I'll say that there isn't a set way of how players should be evaluated here. This project was meant to include subjectivity, and that includes subjectivity in the method. I wanted to do this for two reasons: 1) To make this project a little different than the many player ranking projects we've done; and 2) Because I believe strongly that being a Hall of Famer isn't just about statistics - though obviously statistics are a big factor. Ultimately, as Jim mentioned earlier, the results will balance out between groups that place more emphasis on statistics and groups that are giving more credit for other elements.

I actually think Arky Vaughan is a good example - in a strict player ranking, Vaughan may well have come in as a top 40 player. Here he's 57th, so we're talking about a drop of perhaps 20 places, and that's notable and reflective of the balance of the consensus - there was a group that felt he should have been higher based on his statistical performance, and a group that felt he should have been lower based on a lack of notoriety compared to other players, and ultimately it balanced out to have him probably someplace in the middle of where each group deemed he should be.

I'd also say that it's warranted to place a lot of emphasis on statistical analysis because generally speaking, performance, and quantifiable performance, is the first element that got most Hall of Fame players into the Hall. While Vaughan may have been underrated in his day, we can see now that he was actually a pretty special player, one of the all time greatest at his position, and that's probably worthy of a fairly high ranking here. That being said, when comparing Vaughan to players with similar performance (or even slightly lesser than Vaughan), Vaughan may understandably fall behind due subjective factors. I believe I had Banks slightly ahead of Vaughan here and that's because that while I believe Vaughan was the better player I think Banks' combination of achievement and stardom, makes him a more notable Hall of Famer; that being said, I wasn't going to punish Vaughan's great play too much based on the fact he was underappreciated - he deserves recognition for being the great player he was.

I hope this all make sense...

Good post, DoubleX- similar to comments I made in post 26. One caveat- Vaughan may have been around a top 40 position player, based on more modern thinking, but when you mix in the top pitchers he certainly is lower- probably no higher than the mid- 50s- almost exactly where he was spotted.

[DoubleX]

As the person who started this project, I'll say that there isn't a set way of how players should be evaluated here. This project was meant to include subjectivity, and that includes subjectivity in the method. I wanted to do this for two reasons: 1) To make this project a little different than the many player ranking projects we've done; and 2) Because I believe strongly that being a Hall of Famer isn't just about statistics - though obviously statistics are a big factor. Ultimately, as Jim mentioned earlier, the results will balance out between groups that place more emphasis on statistics and groups that are giving more credit for other elements.

I actually think Arky Vaughan is a good example - in a strict player ranking, Vaughan may well have come in as a top 40 player. Here he's 57th, so we're talking about a drop of perhaps 20 places, and that's notable and reflective of the balance of the consensus - there was a group that felt he should have been higher based on his statistical performance, and a group that felt he should have been lower based on a lack of notoriety compared to other players, and ultimately it balanced out to have him probably someplace in the middle of where each group deemed he should be.

I'd also say that it's warranted to place a lot of emphasis on statistical analysis because generally speaking, performance, and quantifiable performance, is the first element that got most Hall of Fame players into the Hall. While Vaughan may have been underrated in his day, we can see now that he was actually a pretty special player, one of the all time greatest at his position, and that's probably worthy of a fairly high ranking here. That being said, when comparing Vaughan to players with similar performance (or even slightly lesser than Vaughan), Vaughan may understandably fall behind due subjective factors. I believe I had Banks slightly ahead of Vaughan here and that's because that while I believe Vaughan was the better player I think Banks' combination of achievement and stardom, makes him a more notable Hall of Famer; that being said, I wasn't going to punish Vaughan's great play too much based on the fact he was underappreciated - he deserves recognition for being the great player he was.

I hope this all make sense...