VOTE: Time Warp HOF Ballot 1963 - Page 2

MogulChamp · 12-16-2005, 01:13 AM

Bowden
Schukraft
Pontiff

Matt from TN · 12-16-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifspuds

Perly

He was inducted last year.

ifspuds · 12-16-2005, 11:42 AM

That's what I get for copy-pasting my previous ballot. I thought I'd taken all the inductees off. Guess not.

TwinsFan86 · 12-16-2005, 02:46 PM

Bowden
Misisca
Schukraft
Ponfick
Ormiston
Stuart
Arsenault

Matt from TN · 12-16-2005, 04:53 PM

Already 17 votes and it's the weekend, so I'll close up the voting now because I don't know when I'll be online again with my spreadsheet handy, and it looks like I'll be quite busy next week. So....

Howard & Wing get in on the 2nd try after near misses. Schukraft & Ponfick get in on their 15th and 13th ballot respectively.

Code:


Tom Howard		82.35%
Ogden Wing		82.35%
Terry Schukraft		82.35%
Mark Ponfick		76.47%
Ricardo Bowden		58.82%
Ted Stuart		58.82%
Corky Stell		52.94%
Hershel Lee		52.94%
Al Arsenault		47.06%
Luther Ormiston		47.06%
Genarito Nunez		35.29%
Maurice Misisca		23.53%

Ricardo Bowden failed to be elected in his last try and will be on the VC ballot in 1964.

The following players fell off the ballot for failing to get at least 5% of the votes. The year they are eligible for the VC is listed in parenthesis:

Hershel Cooley (1979)
Nick Pursell (1979)

tward13 · 12-16-2005, 05:36 PM

About time.

Seems I've been voting for Schukraft and Ponfick for 30 years.

Tom Howard took one year too long.

Elendil · 12-16-2005, 07:39 PM

Stuart
Arsenault
Howard
Wing

Edit: Oops, didn't realize voting finished already. Those are the ones I would have voted for.

jdw · 12-16-2005, 07:39 PM

I'm glad Howard and Wing got in. Seem like such obvious picks if one followed the Live Era.

Terry Schukraft is long overdue. I still don't think people understand how good he, Fenner and Palmer were as a trio.

Ponfick is disappointing. I've written it many times before, and might as well have it here on last time:

70-30 with a 2.77 ERA during the talent thin War Years
264-222 with a 4.05 ERA the rest of his career

He was 39-41 during those War years. The number of pitchers who have put up 70-30 with 2.77 ERA's in *normal* setting from the age of 39-41 is... it's never happened.

The last time Ponfick was in the Top 10 in ERA prior to 1943 was in 1939, three seasons prior. He'd been in the Top 10 in just four of his 15 qualifying seasons from 1927-42. He then was in the Top 10 for all three War seasons.

Without the War, he would have fallen off the cliff in 1943. That's flat out reality. One can go back through TWB and look for the pitchers who were strongly effective at the age of 39 from 1922-42. I would be surprised if you can find five. Actually, I even *1* would be surprising, but I'm being conservative. In Ponfick's case, it really was just the "diluted talent" (created by the aritificial developmental paterns of those three years) that allowed him to go 70-30.

I literally toss those years out and look at the rest of his career.

Is it HOF worthy?

No.

There are loads of players who were hurt by the War such as Jimmy Ditty, Wolter Tjeenk-Willink, Art Booth, Luke Riley, and Dave Arkless. Some of them got in the Hall, and some like Wolter never will have the chance.

Mark Ponfick is our first player who got in soley because of the War. Absent it, he never would have gotten more than 10% of the vote.

John

jdw · 12-16-2005, 07:40 PM

> Stuart
> Arsenault
> Howard
> Wing
>
> Edit: Oops, didn't realize voting
> finished already. Those are the
> ones I would have voted for.

Dang! There's the voter we needed to keep Ponfick out!

John

jdw · 12-16-2005, 07:45 PM

> He fell off the ballot last year.

Ponfick goes in while Groaning fell off the ballot!?

John

Matt from TN · 12-16-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw

Ponfick is disappointing. I've written it many times before, and might as well have it here on last time:

Me and the rest of the 76% that voted for him must respectfully disagree with you. Just like yuo don't like McAuliffe in the Hall. We had this discussion about him. I (and others) believe that 3500 hits and 300+ wins is practically a guarantee for enshrinement. Sure, Ponfick is the lowest ranked of all enshrined pitchers, but he deserves to be there nonetheless, IMO.

I look at Ponfick and have absolutely no bad feelings about him being ni the Hall. I can't say the same about everyone else that's in there.

Who's for Will Haggan now?!?!

Vris · 12-16-2005, 10:26 PM

Go Haggan! Longevity rules!

tward13 · 12-16-2005, 11:59 PM

I agree with Matt. There are certain accomplishments that do it. TWB didn't shut down during the war so the games count. Should we discredit all the records set before 1947 because they weren't against the best talent available?

Elendil · 12-17-2005, 12:18 PM

Well, I agree with you, jdw.

Especially since pitcher wins are nigh-on the most meaningless statistic in baseball.

rogmax11 · 12-17-2005, 12:50 PM

My brain sides with jdw; Ponfick minus the war-years bonus is Mr. Mediocrity on longevity steroids. My heart however, sides with the Boss. Can you imagine the growing sense of discomfort that would arise year after year as HOF votes came and went, and a 300 game winning pitcher was left off the party boat?

It was ironic that I missed this ballot after voting seemingly forever for Ponficks' inclusion.

jdw · 12-17-2005, 05:51 PM

> Me and the rest of the 76% that voted for him
> must respectfully disagree with you. Just like
> yuo don't like McAuliffe in the Hall. We had
> this discussion about him. I (and others)
> believe that 3500 hits and 300+ wins is
> practically a guarantee for enshrinement.

This is a red-herring.

337 Will Haggan (#8 all-time)
334 Mark Ponfick (#9 all-time)

You stopped voting for Haggan while he was still eligible for the BWAA. You haven't advocated him in the VC for ages... as in more than a decade, if ever.

Haggan didn't have the help of the War to go 70-30 to pad his way to 300 wins.

Again, Ponfick would *never* have won 300 games without the War.

You, Matt, know this more than anyone else. You were the won who tinkered with the developmental style to slow down aging so those older players like Oscar, Dodger and Ponfick could "sustain" their careers and pretty much dominate the thin talent when all the stars were gone.

The difference is that Oscar and Dodge were HOFers *without* the War.

*snip the rest*

You're entire pro argument for Ponfick is that he "won 300 games", yet you ignore the fact that he won 300 for the reasons I point to: 70-30 during the war as a 39-41 year old.

You've pointed to the War hurting several candidates while making cases *for* them. Ditty among others. It's kinda sad when you then ignore the impact of the War on the one player above all others who benefitted from it. Frankly, the one candidate who wouldn't even have a case for getting in without the war.

I would have voted for Ponfick is anyone could have made a case for his pre-War career being worthy. 13 years on the ballot, 13 years of pointing out he's a ****ty selection, and 13 years of not a single person voting *for* him being able to prop up the HOF worthiness of his pre-War career. That should tell every all they need to know - it's not worthy.

You might as well just create a formula to spit out the guys who get in the HOF is that level of thought is all that goes into it. Because there's what voting for him was - a number got spit out, and folks voted for him. What created that number... no one seems to care.

John

jdw · 12-17-2005, 06:04 PM

> There are certain accomplishments that do it.

Tom, I would think you above most of the rest would know that numbers don't always tell the whole story if you don't know the *story*, context and impact.

.311/.367/.490/.857 with 193 HR, 1010 RBI and 1035 from 1942-56

Are those HOF numbers?

Plenty of voters seemed not to think so. Some nice numbers there, but it's a pretty short career, not big in bottom line numbers.

.307/.391/.462/.854 with 200 HR, 1018 RBI and 1370 R from 1938-56

Again, pretty light, especially for a wing OF in an era where we're seeing tons of players blow by 200 HR's.

What's the story of those two? What were their numbers in the context of the times when you look at their primes? Is there anything in their big seasons that makes them *worse* than the raw numbers do, or do they hold up.

Howard and Wing are players who were vastly better than one would think by just looking at their bottom line numbers.

They are the antithesis of Ponfick, a player who's now as good as his bottom line numbers.

But one doesn't know that unless they take the time to look, know the context, and think it through.

John

Matt from TN · 12-17-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw

This is a red-herring.

337 Will Haggan (#8 all-time)
334 Mark Ponfick (#9 all-time)

You stopped voting for Haggan while he was still eligible for the BWAA. You haven't advocated him in the VC for ages... as in more than a decade, if ever.

Haggan didn't have the help of the War to go 70-30 to pad his way to 300 wins.

Well, the Haggan thing was intended as a joke. Still, I wouldn't be sad if he were in the Hall. I could live with it. To some degree, longevity is a credible factor for induction.

Quote:

Again, Ponfick would *never* have won 300 games without the War.

You, Matt, know this more than anyone else. You were the won who tinkered with the developmental style to slow down aging so those older players like Oscar, Dodger and Ponfick could "sustain" their careers and pretty much dominate the thin talent when all the stars were gone.

How I manipulated the game should have no, zezo, effect on voting. What happened happened. Blame it on war-weakened lineups, but not on what I did. That simply shouldn't be a factor. When voting in the game, you have to look at it as if it was real life and there isn't some Man Behind the Perverbial Curtain.

Quote:

You've pointed to the War hurting several candidates while making cases *for* them. Ditty among others. It's kinda sad when you then ignore the impact of the War on the one player above all others who benefitted from it. Frankly, the one candidate who wouldn't even have a case for getting in without the war.

Who's war-shortened career have *I* ignored?

Matt from TN · 12-17-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw

Tom, I would think you above most of the rest would know that numbers don't always tell the whole story if you don't know the *story*, context and impact.

It's a 2-sided coin though. Sometimes sheer numbers supercede the *greatness* of a player. It's not like I would advocate a player with a 300-320 career record. But many *good* seasons strung together to reach a major milestone counts for something.

DamnYankees · 12-17-2005, 07:05 PM

I'd vote for Haggan if he was still on the ballot, I think.

12-16-2005, 11:42 AM	#23
ifspuds Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 2,117	That's what I get for copy-pasting my previous ballot. I thought I'd taken all the inductees off. Guess not. __________________ Jeff Watson Former dynasty writer and online league player, now mostly retired

12-16-2005, 02:46 PM	#24
TwinsFan86 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Auburn Hills, MI Posts: 276	Bowden Misisca Schukraft Ponfick Ormiston Stuart Arsenault Last edited by TwinsFan86; 12-16-2005 at 02:48 PM.

12-16-2005, 04:53 PM	#25
Matt from TN Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In a funk.... Posts: 3,413	Already 17 votes and it's the weekend, so I'll close up the voting now because I don't know when I'll be online again with my spreadsheet handy, and it looks like I'll be quite busy next week. So.... Howard & Wing get in on the 2nd try after near misses. Schukraft & Ponfick get in on their 15th and 13th ballot respectively. Code: Tom Howard 82.35% Ogden Wing 82.35% Terry Schukraft 82.35% Mark Ponfick 76.47% Ricardo Bowden 58.82% Ted Stuart 58.82% Corky Stell 52.94% Hershel Lee 52.94% Al Arsenault 47.06% Luther Ormiston 47.06% Genarito Nunez 35.29% Maurice Misisca 23.53% Ricardo Bowden failed to be elected in his last try and will be on the VC ballot in 1964. The following players fell off the ballot for failing to get at least 5% of the votes. The year they are eligible for the VC is listed in parenthesis: Hershel Cooley (1979) Nick Pursell (1979) __________________ Set in Stone... Players Remain with Original Franchise

12-16-2005, 07:39 PM	#27
Elendil Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the dynasty forum Posts: 2,318	Stuart Arsenault Howard Wing Edit: Oops, didn't realize voting finished already. Those are the ones I would have voted for. __________________ Heaven is kicking back with a double Talisker and a churchwarden stuffed with latakia.

12-16-2005, 10:26 PM	#32
Vris Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere where I don't know where I am Posts: 3,251	Go Haggan! Longevity rules! __________________ None Blog it.

12-16-2005, 01:13 AM	#21
MogulChamp All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 656	Bowden Schukraft Pontiff

12-16-2005, 05:36 PM	#26
tward13 All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,964	About time. Seems I've been voting for Schukraft and Ponfick for 30 years. Tom Howard took one year too long.

12-16-2005, 07:39 PM	#28
jdw All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,161	I'm glad Howard and Wing got in. Seem like such obvious picks if one followed the Live Era. Terry Schukraft is long overdue. I still don't think people understand how good he, Fenner and Palmer were as a trio. Ponfick is disappointing. I've written it many times before, and might as well have it here on last time: 70-30 with a 2.77 ERA during the talent thin War Years 264-222 with a 4.05 ERA the rest of his career He was 39-41 during those War years. The number of pitchers who have put up 70-30 with 2.77 ERA's in normal setting from the age of 39-41 is... it's never happened. The last time Ponfick was in the Top 10 in ERA prior to 1943 was in 1939, three seasons prior. He'd been in the Top 10 in just four of his 15 qualifying seasons from 1927-42. He then was in the Top 10 for all three War seasons. Without the War, he would have fallen off the cliff in 1943. That's flat out reality. One can go back through TWB and look for the pitchers who were strongly effective at the age of 39 from 1922-42. I would be surprised if you can find five. Actually, I even 1 would be surprising, but I'm being conservative. In Ponfick's case, it really was just the "diluted talent" (created by the aritificial developmental paterns of those three years) that allowed him to go 70-30. I literally toss those years out and look at the rest of his career. Is it HOF worthy? No. There are loads of players who were hurt by the War such as Jimmy Ditty, Wolter Tjeenk-Willink, Art Booth, Luke Riley, and Dave Arkless. Some of them got in the Hall, and some like Wolter never will have the chance. Mark Ponfick is our first player who got in soley because of the War. Absent it, he never would have gotten more than 10% of the vote. John

12-16-2005, 07:40 PM	#29
jdw All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,161	> Stuart > Arsenault > Howard > Wing > > Edit: Oops, didn't realize voting > finished already. Those are the > ones I would have voted for. Dang! There's the voter we needed to keep Ponfick out! John

12-16-2005, 07:45 PM	#30
jdw All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,161	> He fell off the ballot last year. Ponfick goes in while Groaning fell off the ballot!? John

12-16-2005, 11:59 PM	#33
tward13 All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,964	I agree with Matt. There are certain accomplishments that do it. TWB didn't shut down during the war so the games count. Should we discredit all the records set before 1947 because they weren't against the best talent available?

12-17-2005, 12:18 PM	#34
Elendil Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the dynasty forum Posts: 2,318	Well, I agree with you, jdw. Especially since pitcher wins are nigh-on the most meaningless statistic in baseball. __________________ Heaven is kicking back with a double Talisker and a churchwarden stuffed with latakia.

12-17-2005, 12:50 PM	#35
rogmax11 All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,320	My brain sides with jdw; Ponfick minus the war-years bonus is Mr. Mediocrity on longevity steroids. My heart however, sides with the Boss. Can you imagine the growing sense of discomfort that would arise year after year as HOF votes came and went, and a 300 game winning pitcher was left off the party boat? It was ironic that I missed this ballot after voting seemingly forever for Ponficks' inclusion.

12-17-2005, 05:51 PM	#36
jdw All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,161	> Me and the rest of the 76% that voted for him > must respectfully disagree with you. Just like > yuo don't like McAuliffe in the Hall. We had > this discussion about him. I (and others) > believe that 3500 hits and 300+ wins is > practically a guarantee for enshrinement. This is a red-herring. 337 Will Haggan (#8 all-time) 334 Mark Ponfick (#9 all-time) You stopped voting for Haggan while he was still eligible for the BWAA. You haven't advocated him in the VC for ages... as in more than a decade, if ever. Haggan didn't have the help of the War to go 70-30 to pad his way to 300 wins. Again, Ponfick would never have won 300 games without the War. You, Matt, know this more than anyone else. You were the won who tinkered with the developmental style to slow down aging so those older players like Oscar, Dodger and Ponfick could "sustain" their careers and pretty much dominate the thin talent when all the stars were gone. The difference is that Oscar and Dodge were HOFers without the War. snip the rest You're entire pro argument for Ponfick is that he "won 300 games", yet you ignore the fact that he won 300 for the reasons I point to: 70-30 during the war as a 39-41 year old. You've pointed to the War hurting several candidates while making cases for them. Ditty among others. It's kinda sad when you then ignore the impact of the War on the one player above all others who benefitted from it. Frankly, the one candidate who wouldn't even have a case for getting in without the war. I would have voted for Ponfick is anyone could have made a case for his pre-War career being worthy. 13 years on the ballot, 13 years of pointing out he's a ***ty selection, and 13 years of not a single person voting for* him being able to prop up the HOF worthiness of his pre-War career. That should tell every all they need to know - it's not worthy. You might as well just create a formula to spit out the guys who get in the HOF is that level of thought is all that goes into it. Because there's what voting for him was - a number got spit out, and folks voted for him. What created that number... no one seems to care. John

12-17-2005, 06:04 PM	#37
jdw All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,161	> There are certain accomplishments that do it. Tom, I would think you above most of the rest would know that numbers don't always tell the whole story if you don't know the story, context and impact. .311/.367/.490/.857 with 193 HR, 1010 RBI and 1035 from 1942-56 Are those HOF numbers? Plenty of voters seemed not to think so. Some nice numbers there, but it's a pretty short career, not big in bottom line numbers. .307/.391/.462/.854 with 200 HR, 1018 RBI and 1370 R from 1938-56 Again, pretty light, especially for a wing OF in an era where we're seeing tons of players blow by 200 HR's. What's the story of those two? What were their numbers in the context of the times when you look at their primes? Is there anything in their big seasons that makes them worse than the raw numbers do, or do they hold up. Howard and Wing are players who were vastly better than one would think by just looking at their bottom line numbers. They are the antithesis of Ponfick, a player who's now as good as his bottom line numbers. But one doesn't know that unless they take the time to look, know the context, and think it through. John

12-17-2005, 07:05 PM	#40
DamnYankees All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,644	I'd vote for Haggan if he was still on the ballot, I think.