2014 Golden Era Mock HOF Election

74 Replies

The Golden Era (1947-72) committee meets on Monday to consider players from that era who meet Hall of Fame eligibility requirements but have not yet been elected. Just for fun, thought we might run our own mock election using the same rules.

More after the jump.

Here are the position players on the ballot.

Rk	Player	WAR	WAA	oWAR	dWAR	Rbaser	OPS+	G	Active	PA	R	H	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	BA	OBP	SLG
1	Ken Boyer	62.8	31.5	55.6	10.6	13.3	116	2034	1955-69	8272	1104	2143	282	1141	713	1017	105	.287	.349	.462
2	Dick Allen	58.7	32.9	69.9	-16.5	15.8	156	1749	1963-77	7315	1099	1848	351	1119	894	1556	133	.292	.378	.534
3	Minnie Minoso	50.1	26.8	47.6	-5.7	13.0	130	1835	1949-80	7712	1136	1963	186	1023	814	584	205	.298	.389	.459
4	Gil Hodges	44.9	13.9	41.6	-5.4	-1.1	120	2072	1943-63	8102	1105	1921	370	1274	943	1137	63	.273	.359	.487
5	Tony Oliva	43.0	20.1	38.1	-4.6	5.1	131	1676	1962-76	6880	870	1917	220	947	448	645	86	.304	.353	.476
6	Maury Wills	39.5	10.5	38.2	12.0	54.7	88	1942	1959-72	8306	1067	2134	20	458	552	684	586	.281	.330	.331

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/5/2014.

And, the pitchers.

Rk	Player	WAR	WAA	Active	G	GS	CG	SHO	W	L	W-L%	IP	ER	BB	SO	ERA	FIP	ERA+
1	Luis Tiant	66.1	34.5	1964-82	573	484	187	49	229	172	.571	3486.1	1280	1104	2416	3.30	3.47	114
2	Billy Pierce	53.1	25.9	1945-64	586	433	193	38	211	169	.555	3306.2	1201	1178	1999	3.27	3.49	119
3	Jim Kaat	45.3	7.7	1959-82	898	625	180	31	283	237	.544	4530.1	1738	1083	2461	3.45	3.41	108

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/5/2014.

Polls are open until midnight (24:00) Pacific time on Sunday, December 7th. Voting rules are as follows:

Up to 5 candidates may be selected on a ballot
Write-in candidates are not allowed
Submitting a blank ballot is allowed and has the effect of reducing election chances for all candidates (something you might consider doing if you feel none of the candidates is Hall-worthy)
Players named on at least 75% of ballots cast win election

If the ballot does not display in your browser, you can also vote here.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

Our mock election and the actual MLB election have concluded with the same result. No candidates were elected as none were mentioned on 75% of the ballots cast in either poll.

There were 100 ballots cast in our mock election, six of which were submitted with no candidates selected. Here are the final results for HHS poll, together with the results (from 16 ballots) for the MLB election.

Rank	HHS	Vote	MLB	Vote
1	Dick Allen	65%	Dick Allen	69%
2	Luis Tiant	59%	Tony Oliva	69%
3	Ken Boyer	57%	Jim Kaat	63%
4	Minnie Minoso	45%	Maury Wills	56%
5	Gil Hodges	31%	Minnie Minoso	50%
6	Tony Oliva	21%	Ken Boyer	<=19%
7	Jim Kaat	19%	Gil Hodges	<=19%
8	Billy Pierce	13%	Luis Tiant	<=19%
9	Maury Wills	4%	Billy Pierce	<=19%

The two polls are mainly in agreement for Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, Gil Hodges and Billy Pierce. But, there are some substantial variances for the other candidates.

Thank you for participating.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

74 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

10 years ago

Maybe I’m the first one? I swear I was looking at that ballot the other day and didn’t think anyone should make it — most were close. But I reconsidered here and now think 5 should go. I bet the committee doesn’t pick anyone.

Author

Doug

10 years ago

Reply to PP

You’re the first to comment, but not the first to vote.

After 16 ballots cast (one blank, none spoiled), Dick Allen leads with 13 votes (81%), the only player above the 75% threshold. Next are Luis Tiant with 10 votes and Minnie Minoso with 9.

Joseph

10 years ago

Reply to PP

I agreed with your first conclusion–no one should go in from this ballot. Yes, I know there are those who are less worthy who are already in–but that doesn’t mean that more unworthy players should go in.

10 years ago

Reply to PP

Surprised El Tiante and Boyer got 3 or fewer votes. In retrospect, I think the 5 guys I picked wouldn’t have hurt the Hall but they won’t be missed in it either.

Tiant, Allen, Boyer, Tony O, and Minoso.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Tony Oliva’s Slash line is unusual:

.304 .353 .476

Only ONE other player with more than 150 career PA ended with:
.300+ BA
.355- OBP
.475+ SLG

That would be Smead Jolley:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jollesm01.shtml

Joseph

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I think you’re missing something here–or I misunderstand–the play index shows over 400 players who’ve done this, including Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams.

What am I missing here?

Richard Chester

10 years ago

Reply to Joseph

Joseph: I think you read that comment too quickly. Voomo means OBP less than .355.

Joseph

10 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Yes, that’s it–usually “less than” is shown with a “<".

Author

Doug

10 years ago

Reply to Joseph

Joseph,

I think you had OBP greater than .355, instead of less than .355.

My query agrees with Voomo’s. Only Jolley fits this bill, and he had only 1815 carer PA, about three seasons’ worth. That’s the lowest career PA (by 748!) of any of the 200 players since 1901 with multiple seasons of 30 doubles, 15 home runs and 100 RBI.

Joseph

10 years ago

Reply to Doug

Yes, that’s it–I mis-read it–I’m more familiar with “less than” being shown with a “<".

Thank you.

10 years ago

Reply to Joseph

Voomo has probably learnt the hard way that ‘greater than’ and ‘less than’ signs sometimes mess up comments here because of their HTML properties.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Joseph

Yep, what RJ said. It grinds my low gears to thoughtfully format an idea, and then it becomes immortal htmalarkey.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

And if you don’t know Smead, he was compared to Babe Ruth as a minor leaguer. Perhaps he should have been compared to Ty Cobb, because he batted .366 in 7100 AB.

It was defense (lack thereof) that kept his MLB career modest.

Baseball-reference seems to be lacking two of his best PCL seasons.
Here’s those numbers, and a link to a good biography:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=jolley001sme
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/3aee5500

no statistician but

10 years ago

Doug: I would hesitate to put any of these players in the Hall, being one of those who values more than WAR. Example: The support for Allen must come from people who look at his oWAR and nothing else, I would say, but we already have one HOFer—Hornsby—who played for four teams in four years in the pre-free-agency era. Do we need another whose franchises three years running couldn’t wait to unload him at season’s end in spite of his being the best player on the team? Further, we already have one player—Killebrew—whose WAR is 11 points below his oWAR.… Read more »

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

I don’t think Santo is the bar that needs to be cleared – the BBWAA’s failure to elect him in the first place was one of its more egregious oversights, and the fact that the VC dragged its heels for years was just as bad.

Anyway, I voted for Tiant and Boyer.

David P

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Looking at Boyer vs. Santo and comparing their WAR and WAA leaves me very confused. Boyer has 305 Runs Above Average, Santo has 316 (a 3.6% edge). Yet Santo has a sizable lead in WAA, 36.7 vs 31.5 (a 16.5% edge). The same thing with WAR. Boyer has 610 Runs above Replacement, Santo has 649 (a 6.4% edge). But in WAR, Santo has a 70.4 to 62.8 lead, a 12.1% advantage. I don´t get it. They had very similar impact on runs. They played the same position, in the same league, at the same time. So why does Santo have… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to David P

David P — One factor in the Santo/Boyer runs-to-wins discrepancy is that they weren’t perfect contemporaries. The periods that they *don’t* overlap had very different run environments. So the ratio of runs to wins was lower during Santo’s career, over all. Boyer played five full years before Santo’s debut, 1955-59, before the redefined strike zone that drove down scoring. And he was a half-timer in 1967-68, the worst scoring years of that era. The NL average during Boyer’s full-time years was 4.21 R/G. During Santo’s full-time years, it was 4.06, almost 4% lower. That wouldn’t fully explain the discrepancy you… Read more »

Author

Doug

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

A lot of Allen’s negative dWAR (as with all players who played first base a lot) comes from Rpos. Just looking at Rfield, it’s still negative but only modestly so. Without Rpos, Allen is the clear WAR leader in this group.

David P

10 years ago

Reply to Doug

Doug – I don`t quite understand your comment. Allen has a -110 Rfield and a -42 Rpos. His Rfield is “dragging hims down” a lot more than his Rpos.

Author

Doug

10 years ago

Reply to David P

I stand corrected. I had them reversed (they’re next to each of other in the stat table).

Allen’s negative Rpos was tempered somewhat by his play away from first base (he actually had about 100 more games at other positions than at first base).

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

NSB: Why does it matter that a player’s WAR is 11 (or however many) points below his oWAR?? All that means is that the metrics consider them a bad defender for their position — you want to rule out putting more than one poor defender in the hall? Would you not put in Jeter? Support for Allen comes from people who look at his OPS+ and his WAR and compare him to who else is in the hall. What I’ve read of the Allen story suggests that while he was billed as a major headcase, it’s not really that clear.… Read more »

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

MS: As to your opening question, the differential matters as one indicator of what kind of player the guy is. It’s just one indicator, but we’re all looking for shorthand ways to evaluate here, and it’s a thing I notice, how much difference there is between oWAW and WAR, positive or negative or about the same. You can take Bill Mazerowski as the opposite pole, 19.1 oWAR and 36.2 WAR. His offensive value isn’t high, but his defensive value is. Does that make him HOF worthy? Not to me, but it did to the veterans committee. Allen and race bias?… Read more »

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

I honestly don’t see how the number of black players on the roster is a relevant issue here. Dick Allen was, by all accounts, an @$$hole. There’s no argument about that. The question is, was a black @$$hole treated differently than a white one? Ty Cobb was one, too, and no one seemed to have a problem calling him “competitive” and keeping him around. The fact that there were other black players on the team does not mean that Allen wasn’t treated differently because of his race. Also, the point that “he wasn’t viewed as indispensable or even close” does… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

nsb — FWIW, in 1963, Allen was the first black pro ballplayer in the history of Arkansas. That was also the first year that the Little Rock grandstands were integrated. The white fans pitched a lot of racial animosity at Allen, according to many accounts. And the Phillies organization seems to have done little or nothing to pave the way for this integration, or to help Allen cope with the mistreatment. Or so I’ve read.

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

JA: Knew that already, but I was focussing on replying to the direction of MS’s comment, which was a response to my original, which treated Allen’s big league experience. Did his time in Little Rock traumatize him to the extent that he was changed radically? Maybe. Could that be the root of his difficulty getting along? Also maybe. Or maybe his behavior, however it’s described, came about for some other cause. I personally don’t think it was willful so much as compelled. He wasn’t an @$$hole, as Dr. D calls him, not in my opinion. But that didn’t make him… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

@41,43;

RE – DICK ALLEN;I think that it was possible for an African American MLB player breaking the color barrier to be both:

– a trailblazer suffering racial discrimination
– a huge pain in the neck and irritant to some of his team mates

The two are not mutually exclusive. I’d put Allen in the HOF, but I don’t usually consider ‘character’ issues (except gambling – that’s a big NO to Joe Jackson, Hal Chase, Pete Rose).

Voom Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Joe Jackson in the same category as Chase and Rose? Hard to know the precise truth from 95 years ago, but I’m inclined to believe the man’s words:

http://www.blackbetsy.com/theTruth.html

Richard Chester

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

@47: Excellent post Voomo. Joe will surely get my vote when his time comes.

Editor

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Voomo @47 — I read that link as far as Jackson pleading with Comiskey to bench him for the Series, in order to [in his mind] quell any rumors that he was tanking. “Tell the newspapers you just suspended me for being drunk, or anything, but leave me out of the Series and then there can be no question.” Really, Joe? The only way that could support his innocence is by suggesting that he was too dim-witted to realize that benching such a star as him would hurt Chicago almost as much as if he played and tried to lose.… Read more »

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

@47: I was found innocent, and I was still banned for life.

Life plus 63 years, so far.

Paul E

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

nsb – re: Dick Allen The City of Brotherly Love has always heaped feces upon their stars (Mike Schmidt, Del Ennis-a Philly native, no less, Sonny Jurgensen, Wilt Chamberlain, Scott Rolen, Charles Barkley, etc… ad nauseam…) and generally blamed them for their teams’ failures. When you couple the “northern-most Southern city” with on-going race riots in the middle of North Philadelphia (Connie Mack Stadium – 21st & Lehigh) in the mid-1960’s , and further factor in a changing demographic in those same neighborhoods, white Philadelphia fans rained their anger and frustration on Allen without mercy. At some point, Allen decided… Read more »

T-Bone

10 years ago

Reply to Paul E

About 2 years ago I read a fairly long piece about Dick Allen but for the life of me I can’t find it, and I didn’t save it. For full disclosure, I have been a fan of Allen since I first really understood Baseball in 1969. That said, the article I read went all the way back to Allen’s childhood and described what it was like and how much he looked up to his Father, also named Dick. Dick Allen felt he was being insulted and disrespected when teams began calling him Rich and Richie. He wanted to be called… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

10 years ago

Boyer among modern third basemen (5,000+ PAs since 1893): — 13th in WAR — 10th in WAR per 650 PAs — 11th in the product of those two — 8 years with 5+ WAR, tied for #3 Traditional measures? — 7-time All-Star — 5 Gold Gloves — 8 years with MVP votes, including one win — 8 years with 90+ RBI, tied for #4 — 6 years with 90+ Runs, tied for #9 Only 11 modern 3Bs are in the Hall, still the fewest of any position, and three of those are questionable at best (Lindstrom, Kell, Traynor). Yeah, I… Read more »

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I voted for those 2 plus Allen & Minoso. I don’t think that any of these guys are as big a mistake by the BBWAA as Santo or Vaughan were by any means but I do think that they are all either very close to or over the “Are they as good as the average Hall of Famer” at their position line. And another point in Boyer’s favor- at the time of his retirement a very good case could be made for his being one of the 5 best 3rd basemen in the games history and he was a contemporary… Read more »

oneblankspace

10 years ago

I’m voting the White Sox ballot of Allen, Pierce, Minoso, Kaat.

I had to scroll down to get to the Done button to submit the form, but I was able to do it from this page.

David W

10 years ago

I voted for Boyer and Minoso.

He got a late start due to discrimination, and his first year in 1951 he was 25 years old. As a rookie he finished 4th in MVP voting.

Joseph

10 years ago

None of these players should be in. It’ the Hall of FAME. Not the Hall of Merit.

It’s certainly not the Hall of Good Players Nobody Remembers Except for People Fascinated by Baseball Obscurities.

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to Joseph

1.) It’s called the Hall of “Fame” because it is meant to bestow fame, not because fame is a prerequisite.
2.) How many players would be in your personal Hall? I think this is always the thing that gets lost in these discussions. I’m guessing you’re probably more in the range of 100 players. But for those of us who favor a 250-or-so Hall, these guys are pretty reasonable candidates.

Author

Doug

10 years ago

At this juncture (65 ballots incl. 3 blank, none spoiled), Allen and Tiant are tied with 42 votes (64.6%).

10 years ago

– Luis Tiant received 30.9% of the vote on his first appearance on the ballot (1988) but plummeted to 10.5% the next year. What happened? Ah: 1989 saw the arrivals of Carl Yastrzemski, Johnny Bench, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins on the ballot, not to mention Jim Kaat, whose counting stats put Tiant in the shade. Tiant’s share of the vote never recovered, not topping 20% again. – Minnie Miñoso received 1.8% of the vote upon his first retirement. But apparently 10 PAs and one hit can do a heck of a lot for your Hall chances. When Miñoso reappeared… Read more »

Dave Humbert

10 years ago

Pretty thinned-out era for candidates: Lots of good but not great here. Hodges, Oliva, and Wills can only get sympathy votes – just did not do enough. Kaat’s longevity is nice, but that’s his main selling point and Sutton/Wynn are borderline enough for me already. Pierce and Minoso are just borderline. I would not object to them getting in, but doublt 75% will buy their cases (Minoso needing some Doby-like “pioneer” credit and Pierce being Whitey Ford “lite”. I went Tiant, Boyer, Allen. Tiant especially “feels” like a HOFer to me, Boyer ranks highly among third basemen all-time, and Allen… Read more »

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to Dave Humbert

I think that what you said about not standing out is a really big factor. Santo was something of a cause célèbre among the advanced metrics crowd for more than a couple of decades and then his death sort of rekindled the old arguments. And no one in this group has had that kind of fairly widespread support because none are really that far over the line that their exclusion is seen as a clear injustice so making the case for them becomes more complex- and that’s not the kind of argument that is going to get you 75% of… Read more »

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

The best argument for the five genuine candidates here—Boyer, Allen, Minoso, Tiant, and Pierce—is that they were better than a number of players already in the Hall. I’m not referring to the Friends of Frisch; I’m talking about guys like Red Schoendienst, Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, Tony Perez, and Catfish Hunter, only one of whom, the first, wasn’t a BBWAA choice. Schoendienst had sentiment behind him for a couple of reasons, and Sutter was overvalued tremendously with an afterglow that lasted just long enough to get him in. Rice, Perez, and Hunter were decent candidates at least—you could call them… Read more »

Dave Humbert

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Those D level guys the BBWAA put in that you mentioned got in based on reputations overstating their true value. Rice (the “feared slugger” of his day), Sutter (the first to use the split-finger fastball), Perez (Big Dawg, leader of the Big Red Machine), and Hunter (the “big game pitcher”) were all overrated somewhat. Others the BBWAA considered “dominant” in some way included Traynor, Maranville, Brock, and Fingers. Lemon and Pennock got in based on their “ace” status on famous teams. Statiscally, these may be the weakest 10 selected by the BBWAA (excluding Campy and Aparicio), 6 of them elected… Read more »

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to Dave Humbert

I know a lot of people favor a tiered system as a way of sorting out the worse selections. My problem is, if we go that way, do we actually risk diluting the Hall of Fame even more? My guess is that it would be a LOT easier to make a Hall of Fame argument for, say, Ken Boyer if there’s a D-Level Hall of Fame section. But not just Ken Boyer. Suddenly there’s a reason to elect Fred Lynn (well, he AT LEAST belongs in the D-Level); heck, there’s an argument for Brian Jordan being in the D-Level. Teddy… Read more »

bluejaysstatsgeek

10 years ago

There was an article about Dick Allen in today’s NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/sports/baseball/weighing-the-complexity-of-a-hall-candidate-and-his-times.html?ref=baseball

Dave Humbert

10 years ago

Dr. Doom makes a good point that tiered systems can open the door to further dilution: if Hunter is OK at D level, why not Morris, Lynn, Jordan, etc. I did an exercise about a year ago to determine my own HOF, using books and websites rating HOF’s (and those overlooked). Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats provided a starting point, with all players Hall Ratings taking into account WAR and WAA, adjustments for catchers, relievers, 19th century schedules and pitchers, etc. Replacement Level Baseball Blog (Bryan O’Connor), Replacement Level Podcast (Ross Carey), and Left Field (Dan McCloskey) had great discussions… Read more »

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to Dave Humbert

Your Hall sounds like it would be pretty close to what I think it ought to be (altho admittedly I have never put near as much effort into working out the details). I get that it wouldn’t be right to kick out the 50 or so “mistakes” that are in the Hall- you can’t have people wondering if the honor bestowed on them today will be taken away 20 years from now just because someone changed their mind- but I also don’t think that it would somehow lessen the honor if we were to apply the standards consistently. While he… Read more »

Dave Humbert

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

I agree no one actually gets removed, but 40-50 questionable selections highlights the flaws of the voting process in the past. Getting the Hall to induct the overlooked will be tough, as overcrowded ballots, roids issues, and perceptions of “not dominant enough” can combine to ensure many deserving players never reach 75% of the vote anyway. The voters are becoming too exclusive and overcompensating for the past mistakes. Guys like Whitaker, Trammell, Grich and Raines are all in my hall, as well as Shilling, Walker, Bagwell and Piazza. Bonds, Clemens, Rose, and J. Jackson get in also (no character clause… Read more »

Tubbs

10 years ago

I voted for Miñoso, Tiant, Kaat, Hodges, & Pierce

Miñoso is, by far, the candidate I feel most strongly about. I feel the combination of Miñoso’s fine career (which was delayed by the color barrier) and role as one of the first black superstars in the early days of integration as well as the Major League’s first black Latino player make him HOF worthy candidate

brp

10 years ago

Three guys I didn’t vote for in the CoG (at least I don’t think I have):
Tiant
Boyer
Allen

The HOF bar is a lot lower than the COG bar.

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

For anyone who’s interested, Joe Posnanski just wrote about the Golden Era ballot on his blog. Here’s the link:

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-golden-era-ballot/

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

10 years ago

Looks like I got in late (no CoG on weekends for me), but I voted for Minoso, Allen, Tiant, and Boyer. I think Minoso’s induction is imperative and shouldn’t wait any longer. The other three are closer to, but probably above, the borderline, a line possibly defined by Billy Pierce.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

10 years ago

…and another shutout. The BBWAA finally decides they like Bert Blyleven and the Veterans Committees decide they want to be like him.

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to Bryan O'Connor

You know this is a little off topic but I wish some in the traditional media would back off Blyleven as the first of many sabermetric-only candidates they will have to consider. First, Blyleven was a hell of a pitcher on traditional stats too. Second, he’s got a amazing combination of contributing factors across the board that lead traditional stats to undervalue him. I don’t think there ever will be another Blyleven-type case who is so clearly a HOFer under the lens of advanced metrics that would fail an older critera. And even then, he was generally held as the… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

I think any potential HoF disagreement between saber- and traditional types will likely be centred around defensive stats. Beltre perhaps? But he’s likely to get the counting stats. So… Utley? If he retired tomorrow that might make an interesting argument.

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to RJ

Well I think first that sabermetrics are now too popular to have such a standoff again. We’re not going to argue over any 96 WAR players anymore. The only thing “wrong” with Blyleven was his W/L record Second, borderline cases sabermetically are not Blyleven. Leaving out Utley, or even Beltre, is not the same as Blyleven. 3.3 ERA over 5000 innings pitched is a hell of a lot of value. Beltre’s not there yet and if he does, I don’t see how he gets there without 3000 hits and 400 HR 4 gold gloves. There are very few players who’s… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

Gotcha. Points taken.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

I’m not that confident. If they don’t fix the voting, it’s very possible to happen again. And they appear to not understand the inevitable mathematical effects of their voting scheme, because their attempt to improve it made it much much worse.

paget

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

Ok, so huge tangent here, but I came to thinking about John Hiller. How, you ask? By one of those mini b-ref odysseys that bring you from 1)taking a look at Blyleven’s page, 2)noting his extraordinary 1973 campaign, 3)wondering who finished ahead of him in the Cy Young voting that year (there were six ahead of him), 4)Seeing John Hiller with an astounding 8.1 WAR in a season with 125.1 IP. I had read of that season before, but never had seen WAR’s take on just how good it was. When I think of the most extraordinary seasons in relief… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

paget: John Autin of this parish wrote some Hiller eulogies a while back.

http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/02/not-another-underrated-tiger/

http://www.highheatstats.com/2013/03/john-hiller-ace-reliever-of-the-70s-part-2/

Author

Doug

10 years ago

I’ve updated the post with the results from our mock election, together with the results from the MLB election.

Brendan Bingham

10 years ago

Reply to Doug

The rank-order correlation between the two lists is near-zero (-0.044, if I’ve done it correctly). It seems the two groups are viewing the candidates very differently.

Doug

10 years ago

Reply to Brendan Bingham

I’m inclined to agree more with the HHS perspective.

Nothing against Tony Oliva, but it’s a bit shocking to think he was one vote shy of election.

Dave Humbert

10 years ago

Reply to Brendan Bingham

At least the two groups viewed Allen and Minoso at similar percentages. The lack of clearly superior candidates on the list ensured the vote would be diluted and no one would reach 75%. Last year, the 3 big managers had no real competition (Marvin Miller and a bunch of less than stellar players) to take votes away. Heck, we could not reach 75% with anyone here either – but I think our rankings show a more objective view of overall player value. The committee support for Oliva, Kaat and Wills follows some past voting patterns – career cut short, gaudy… Read more »

Darien

10 years ago

Ah nuts, short window on this one. Had I seen it in time, I’d have voted for Tiant and possibly Allen. That would be it for me.

10 years ago

So, in summary, no one was elected by either the HOF voters or the HHS voters, and while the preferences were different, the overall numbers look similar.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to PP

Yes, the math is inevitable — with the misguided ballot restrictions, the more deserving players there are on the ballot, the harder it is for even *one* to get elected.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Something I don’t think many have realized (or at least stated outright) is that the voting rules are simply a problem and lead inevitably to results like this. Restricting ballots while requiring a high level of consensus to admit anyone means that the more deserving candidates there are on the ballot, the harder it is even for the *best* player to get in at all. It’s very possible that the top couple candidates had 75% support, but missed because the votes got spread around. They could only vote for 4, but there are at least 5 reasonable candidates, plus 3… Read more »

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

Joe Posnanski agrees (as do I).

Brendan Bingham

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

MS: You state, “I may try to set up a simulation to demonstrate. If the rankings of those 8 players are random by voter, and each voter votes their top 4, how many players typically get in? I’m betting it’s around one or two on average with a good chance at none, even for the case where everyone thinks all 8 should be in.” Do the simulation if you wish (I would be interested in seeing the results), but the way this problem is stated, it can be analyzed by binomial expansion. Assume three things: 1)8 equally worthy candidates 2)16… Read more »

Author

Doug

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

Excellent points, Michael. Reason enough to be concerned with the coming glut of Hall-worthy players that will further exacerbate the problem of reaching a consensus under the current voting arrangements. But, allowing a larger number of votes, by itself, probably wouldn’t be too helpful. As it currently stands, even with a ballot in the BBWAA election limited to only 10 players, many ballots are submitted with many fewer selections. Instead, perhaps the number of votes allowed on a ballot should reflect the size and strength of the candidate pool (e.g. number of votes = number of candidates with x WAR).… Read more »

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to Doug

I don’t have a major objection to people filling out a smaller than 10 player ballot, if there really are fewer than 10 players that they think belong in the hall of fame. I can imagine reasonable voters with that opinion (though I strongly disagree), for instance, someone who simply won’t vote for anyone with significant steroid suspicion and a small haller who will only elect COG level candidates that would maintain or improve the average hall level. On last year’s ballot, there were 14 guys we elected to the COG. I do think that all of those should be… Read more »

Steve

10 years ago

All belong in the “Missed it by that much” HOF