VOTE: Time Warp HOF Ballot 1954

[Dagrims]

no one.

Kidding.

Schwarz
Misisca
Greisbach
McAuliffe
Davie
Kahle
Riley
Ponfick
Paul
Schukraft

[haggis007]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

A subscriber to the Enkiel HOF voting program

Dang. It may end up that no one gets in again if this keeps up. Maybe with our small sample size we need to reconsider the way we vote or the 75% threshold or something given how one or two, what was the word--"contrarian?," votes can really hammer the process. I mean, at this rate, we will have such a backed up slate of candidates that admission is by VC only. Just playing it out, if we add the four guys mentioned above next year, it will only dilute the vote even more, and so on and so on . . .

[jdw]

> Dang. It may end up that no
> one gets in again if this keeps
> up. Maybe with our small sample
> size we need to reconsider the
> way we vote or the 75% threshold
> or something given how one or
> two, what was the word--"contrarian?,"
> votes can really hammer the process.
> I mean, at this rate, we will have such
> a backed up slate of candidates that
> admission is by VC only. Just
> playing it out, if we add the four guys
> mentioned above next year, it will
> only dilute the vote even more, and
> so on and so on . . .

I'm at a loss over the panic mode. Here's who we've voted in:

BBWAA Pitchers
Allen Albertini
Bourbon Allen
Bowie Castellon
Anthony Cote
Scott Fenner
Raymond Gindler
Otto Kahle
Jethro Lee
Tim Lopresto
Andrew Murphy
Ahrend Nagel
Cecil Tan
David Wickersham

BBWAA Hitters
Whiskey Allen
Jean-Francois Arsenault
Ben Baum
Jed Burke
Steven Bussell
Tyrell Chestnut
Harry Cohan
Campbell Ditty
John Falise
Kid Fite
Jerry Hertzog
Roy Hobbs
August Kahle
Sam Kass
Whitey Kohse
Will Miller
Genaro Nunez
Dale Reneau
Salvatore Rossi
John Schmieder
Tom Turley
Oscar Vancini
Levi Walls
George Ward
Woody Woodson
Glendon Zegri

VC
Howard Adams
"Dark Horse" Allen
"Ray of Light" Brown
Tee Carver
Jared Jarry
John "Butterball" Klehammer
Mark Krosser
Dave "Shepard" McBean
Jassen Nelson
Scott Podlasek
Patrick Seifried
Johnny Cakes Sutton

The Real Life BBWAA voted in 27 people through 1953. TWB isn't taking a backseat to that pace.

Of course the RL VC was fricking insane. I think *our* VC has been much more sane. I know we all on the VC have a favorite or two we'd like to see go in, but the guys the VC has toss in are some greats. I think it's done a great job, and if we slow down to 1 a year, and over time get some more quality players who fell off the BBWAA ballot, cool.

The last thing we want to do is change the rules. Nothing has screwed up the RL HOF more than the constant changing of the rules. A Very Bad Idea.

I think people probably just have to make some cases better.


John

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by jdw

I think people probably just have to make some cases better.

The "one-player" ballot has a much greater effect on the overall results of the Time Warp HOF voting, however, particularly if more than one voter takes that position. I seriously doubt that better cases being made for players will result in such voters altering their decision.

[fhomess]

Yeah, I don't think it's such a big deal. 1 or 2 people voting for 1 player shouldn't prevent the true stars of the league getting in. The HOF is an honor for the best of the best. We have kept a pretty good pace on the votes. There are always going to be guys that lots of folks think are worthy, but they just don't make it. That's what the VC is for. If you think people aren't voting for the right players, make a case about why they should go in.

[haggis007]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

The "one-player" ballot has a much greater effect on the overall results of the Time Warp HOF voting, however, particularly if more than one voter takes that position. I seriously doubt that better cases being made for players will result in such voters altering their decision.

This is a much more articulate version of my point, thanks Dagrims. If there were 100 votes, for example, the effect of one or two "one-player" votes would not alter the outcome as much as when you have 15-20 votes. I am not panicked, just frustrated with the impact that a couple of voters may have on the process.

Maybe I wouldn't be as annoyed if the "one-player" voters articulated their reasons for taking the contrary view that Kahle (or Paul, as the case may be)is not worthy of the HOF, when the vast majority belives that he is.

Maybe its a good thing I've missed this thread in the past . . .sorry for the rant.

[jdw]

> The "one-player" ballot has a much
> greater effect on the overall results
> of the Time Warp HOF voting, however,
> particularly if more than one voter
> takes that position.

Enk is just pulling that on Paul. He's voted for multiple guys in other years. It's him following an example that JT used several years back, but in a rather goofed up way... which isn't surprising. If Paul gets in, Enk goes back to voting like Enk.


> I seriously doubt that better cases being
> made for players will result in such voters
> altering their decision.

Cases being made better has gotten players in, and it's kept players out. I've done a bit of both.


John

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by pat

Is the forums down? Thanks.

Yes it was this morning. Delayed the sim by an hour.

Originally Posted by jdw

I use Kingman because they are truly similar - low BA, eye catching HR, poor BB, poor OBP (actually below league average), and SLG that really aren't all that how for a great HR man.

Maybe it's just that I hear Kingman's name thrown out with every slugging/low avg guy in TWB. It starts to sound like a real put-down. Like Jeter, Willard must have had intangibles.

[Matt from TN]

I know some things have been different in TWB vs MLB, like fewer 300-400 HR guys & the fact that some ancestors got a lot of playing time in the 20s-30s, but is still amazes me to see 3000 Hit guys, 300 win guys and 300 HR guys not get more support. Some of them don't even get 50% I can understand Schwarz with his low avg, but what about Misisca (let alone Kinnear)? Is it just because the Tigers had such great all-around offense? Do they not have enough leaderboard appearances? Then you have Minzey, a no-doubter in my book were this MLB - 2988 hits and a .316 Avg. McAuliffe's not a prototypical HOFer, but holy crud, 3500 hits?!?! Schukraft has 332 wins and was part of the best pitching trio of all time.

And do voters properly weigh service time lost to WWII or do they just look at final stat totals? I have no doubt that Riley & Booth would've been 300 game winners and won more WS, Greisbach would've gotten 3000 H and Arkless would've easily topped 300 HR had they not all lost time to the war. They left in 42, 43 and never returned to the field as players.

Then you have Liao over 3000 H. I guess if you vote for Ponfick, you have to vote for Fargo too. Then you'd include Haggan, but it's so bizarre seeing 300-game winners & members of the 3000 Hit club, as well as the top HR hitters of all time, not getting in.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by Matt from TN

I know some things have been different in TWB vs MLB, like fewer 300-400 HR guys & the fact that some ancestors got a lot of playing time in the 20s-30s, but is still amazes me to see 3000 Hit guys, 300 win guys and 300 HR guys not get more support. Some of them don't even get 50% I can understand Schwarz with his low avg, but what about Misisca (let alone Kinnear)? Is it just because the Tigers had such great all-around offense? Do they not have enough leaderboard appearances? Then you have Minzey, a no-doubter in my book were this MLB - 2988 hits and a .316 Avg. McAuliffe's not a prototypical HOFer, but holy crud, 3500 hits?!?! Schukraft has 332 wins and was part of the best pitching trio of all time.

And do voters properly weigh service time lost to WWII or do they just look at final stat totals? I have no doubt that Riley & Booth would've been 300 game winners and won more WS, Greisbach would've gotten 3000 H and Arkless would've easily topped 300 HR had they not all lost time to the war. They left in 42, 43 and never returned to the field as players.

Then you have Liao over 3000 H. I guess if you vote for Ponfick, you have to vote for Fargo too. Then you'd include Haggan, but it's so bizarre seeing 300-game winners & members of the 3000 Hit club, as well as the top HR hitters of all time, not getting in.

3000 hits is a tough line in TWB. There are just far too may people around that number. In the real MLB, there are 23 or so players with 3,000 hits, today. In TWB, we already have 21 of them, not to mention a glut of players with 2,800+.

It's just not as impressive. One day I'm sure most, if not all, will get in. But the HOF has high standards, for me, and in the TWB world, 3,000 is not a lock. At least, it didn't used to be. I think any TWBer who debuted after 1930 will have 3,000 be as solid a lock as today.

[jdw]

> Maybe it's just that I hear Kingman's
> name thrown out with every
> slugging/low avg guy in TWB. It starts
> to sound like a real put-down.

I get the opposite with Kiner - I feel like it's insulting Ralph!


> Like Jeter, Willard must have had intangibles.

"Great Teammates" is always one of the finest intangibles. :P


John

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

3000 hits is a tough line in TWB. There are just far too may people around that number. In the real MLB, there are 23 or so players with 3,000 hits, today. In TWB, we already have 21 of them, not to mention a glut of players with 2,800+.

It's just not as impressive. One day I'm sure most, if not all, will get in. But the HOF has high standards, for me, and in the TWB world, 3,000 is not a lock. At least, it didn't used to be. I think any TWBer who debuted after 1930 will have 3,000 be as solid a lock as today.

I agree on both points, that 3000 H isn't the same as in MLB and that more current players who top that mark will be almost certain locks. When we look at wins & hits in MLB, we often see the deadball era as difficult to compare to anything after it, particularly in terms of W's and CG's. It's similar in TWB, but the same can be said about the ancestors-who-got-a-starting-job-at-age-18 era in TWB, appx late 20s thru early 40s.

Although, Ponfick and Schukraft are not ancestors and had no help with age.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by Matt from TN

I agree on both points, that 3000 H isn't the same as in MLB and that more current players who top that mark will be almost certain locks. When we look at wins & hits in MLB, we often see the deadball era as difficult to compare to anything after it, particularly in terms of W's and CG's. It's similar in TWB, but the same can be said about the ancestors-who-got-a-starting-job-at-age-18 era in TWB, appx late 20s thru early 40s.

Although, Ponfick and Schukraft are not ancestors and had no help with age.

Well, I guess I just have a hard time hearing compaints about not voting for deserved people from the one guy, the only guy, who didn't cast a vote for Dodge Lee!

[jdw]

> but what about Misisca (let alone Kinnear)?
> Is it just because the Tigers had such
> great all-around offense? Do they not have
> enough leaderboard appearances?

My problem with Misisca:

BA
None

OBP
None

OPS
1928 - .879 - 10th
1931 - .903 - 6th
1936 - .900 - 5th
1938 - .939 - 4th

He has strong SLG due to excellent 2B and HR for the era. But the rest of his game just wasn't very good for his era.

Did he drive in a lot of runs? Sure. Look at the line-up of those teams.

I just don't think he was that "great". He's not Kingman. But maybe Lee May with more longevity. Willie Horton with more longevity.

Kinnear is one of my all-time favorites. My type of guy - HR & BB at a good defensive position. But his OPS aren't great either:

OPS
1925 - .973 - 9th
1933 - .842 - 9th
1936 - .894 - 6th
1937 - .959 - 5th

I think we forget that this was the High Offense era these guys played in. In contrast Sunny:

OPS
1935 - .973 - 1st
1938 - .983 - 1st
1939 - .928 - 5th
1940 - .900 - 7th
1941 - .870 - 8th
1942 - .793 - 9th
1943 - .846 - 7th
1944 - .879 - 6th

And that is in a park that cut back his "Brilliant" power massively.

I kind of think those Tigers are a bunch of Dewy Evans level players. Really good players. Guys like that help you win titles. Excellent at their best, and capable of "great" years.

But I don't think over the course of his career *in sum* that Dewy was a great player.

Greater than Davey Lopes?

Sure.

But Davey was greater than Larry Bowa.



> Then you have Minzey, a no-doubter
> in my book were this MLB - 2988 hits
> and a .316 Avg.

AVG
1923 - .345 - 6th
1926 - .330 - 7th
1929 - .351 - 6th
1934 - .339 - 7th
1938 - .331 - 5th

Hits
1923 - 188 - 7th
1925 - 193 - 6th
1926 - 185 - 10th
1930 - 188 - 10th
1937 - 179 - 6th
1938 - 180 - 6th

In the context of their time, those hits and BA really weren't impressive. 1 time in the OBP leaderbord, and 1 time on the OPS leaderboard... in 9th and 10th respectively. He's one of those "played forever" guys.


> McAuliffe's not a prototypical HOFer,
> but holy crud, 3500 hits?!?!

I think I've talked about him in the past.


> Schukraft has 332 wins and was part
> of the best pitching trio of all time.

Schukraft should get voted in.

Ponfick is a fluke due to the War... which I think I pointed out last year.

Who says the Press doesn't cover these topics? :P


> And do voters properly weigh service
> time lost to WWII or do they just look
> at final stat totals? I have no doubt
> that Riley & Booth would've been 300
> game winners and won more WS,

Yep. Touched on that a bit before.

> Greisbach would've gotten 3000 H

Not doubt. Torch also got screwed because he was older when going off to War - very few went at that age.

But let's put some more Yankees in before we start talking about the rest of those Tigers.


> and Arkless would've easily topped
> 300 HR had they not all lost time
> to the war.

Agree on Arkless, and it's a key reason that I'm voting for him. He also was an exceptional defensive CF - 7 Gold Gloves, winning the last two right before heading off to war at the age of 34.


> Then you have Liao over 3000 H.
> I guess if you vote for Ponfick, you
> have to vote for Fargo too. Then
> you'd include Haggan, but it's so
> bizarre seeing 300-game winners
> & members of the 3000 Hit club, as
> well as the top HR hitters of all
> time, not getting in.

Wait until they all get to the Vet!


John

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Well, I guess I just have a hard time hearing compaints about not voting for deserved people from the one guy, the only guy, who didn't cast a vote for Dodge Lee!

Ack!! I will never live that down.

Originally Posted by jdw

I kind of think those Tigers are a bunch of Dewy Evans level players. Really good players. Guys like that help you win titles. Excellent at their best, and capable of "great" years.

But I don't think over the course of his career *in sum* that Dewy was a great player.

Good analogy and good point.

Schukraft should get voted in.

I'm think it'll never happen thru the BBWAA, sadly. He seems to get less and less support.

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by jdw

My problem with Misisca:

BA
None

OBP
None

OPS
1928 - .879 - 10th
1931 - .903 - 6th
1936 - .900 - 5th
1938 - .939 - 4th

He has strong SLG due to excellent 2B and HR for the era. But the rest of his game just wasn't very good for his era.

Did he drive in a lot of runs? Sure. Look at the line-up of those teams.

I just don't think he was that "great". He's not Kingman. But maybe Lee May with more longevity. Willie Horton with more longevity.

But man he hit a lot of HR... Tiger Stadium or not. The thing that shocks me most about him is 0 BOY's. Despite being one of the most feared AL hitters of his day.

> Then you have Minzey, a no-doubter
> in my book were this MLB - 2988 hits
> and a .316 Avg.

AVG
1923 - .345 - 6th
1926 - .330 - 7th
1929 - .351 - 6th
1934 - .339 - 7th
1938 - .331 - 5th

Hits
1923 - 188 - 7th
1925 - 193 - 6th
1926 - 185 - 10th
1930 - 188 - 10th
1937 - 179 - 6th
1938 - 180 - 6th

In the context of their time, those hits and BA really weren't impressive. 1 time in the OBP leaderbord, and 1 time on the OPS leaderboard... in 9th and 10th respectively. He's one of those "played forever" guys.

I disagree. He got 351 AB at age 22 and 466 AB at age 39. Nothing outlandish about that. When I think of intangibles or leadership or a "winner" I think of Minzey. He helped take the Cards to 2 WS, helped the Sens get to the brink of their WS breakthrough and capped off the great Dodgers team. His acquisition by Brooklyn in 1934 was key in getting them to the WS for the 1st time in almost 20 years, beating the Cubs for the pennant by 1 game. With him, the Dodgers went to 3 WS. All in all, Minzey hit .294 in 5 WS. Two WS were subpar for him, but he hit over .300 in the other 3. And let's not forget he won 4 CF GG's .

[metsgeek]

Personally, I can't believe Greisbach doesn't get more support. He had a .346 career average!

[rudel.dietrich]

Batters -
Kinnear
Arkless
Greisbach (I mean really...what is the deal with him not being in yet?)
Liao
Martin
Davie
Kahle (God rest his soul )

Pitchers -
Riley
Ponfick
Paul

[Vris]

.346 average..yet lead the league in batting how many times? Twice.

Oh but he got on. 15 appearances in the top 10 for OBP (1 time leading), so he musta been all over the runs leaderboard...3 times. And he never lead the league.

It goes back to what John was saying. A bunch of good players, but nothing overall spectacular. I've never been able to wrap my mind around him. Or any of those Tigers. Kinnear will always be my favorite though.

[cknox0723]

schwarz
misisca
greisbach
c. kahle
fargo
ponfick
paul