VOTE: Time Warp HOF Ballot 1968

[marc]

Originally Posted by Matt from TN

A lot of us think he's not a HOF'er. He was never viewed as a "great player." I always saw him as a good, key player. Never great.

I would totally understand that line of thinking if there weren't lists 10 players long that didn't include Nunez. I just can't imagine voting for 7+ players and Nunez not being one of them, I'm probably the pickiest of all the voters and I just don't think this ballot has more than 2 or 3 more deserving players.

[Elendil]

I normally hate this kind of thinking, but I didn't vote for McMurray this time, b/c I just don't think he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Next year, but not this time. Is that crazy?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Elendil

Is that crazy?

No




It is completly ****ing ******ed
Do you expect his career numbers to change between this year and next?
Is he any more or less of a HOF now that he is retired and not adding or taking away from his value?

The first ballot argument makes me want to beat the people that use it with a blunt metal object until what limited brain activity they had ceases.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

It is completly ****ing ******ed
Do you expect his career numbers to change between this year and next?
Is he any more or less of a HOF now that he is retired and not adding or taking away from his value?

The first ballot argument makes me want to beat the people that use it with a blunt metal object until what limited brain activity they had ceases.

So...what exactly are you saying?



Heh... Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I think he is actually a borderline HoFer, and I think it's a little surprising that he's getting such strong support at this point. That's worth a little balancing.

[tward13]

Originally Posted by Elendil

So...what exactly are you saying?



Heh... Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I think he is actually a borderline HoFer, and I think it's a little surprising that he's getting such strong support at this point. That's worth a little balancing.

I disagree with you, but not necessarily as much as the previous poster.

Nothing needs balancing. He's in or not. The percentage or year he gets in doesn't matter. Just vote for a guy if you think he's a HoFer or don't vote for him.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by tward13

I disagree with you, but not necessarily as much as the previous poster.

Nothing needs balancing. He's in or not. The percentage or year he gets in doesn't matter. Just vote for a guy if you think he's a HoFer or don't vote for him.

I'm unsure about whether he's a HoFer, I guess. I'd like to get a slightly better idea of the minimum standard before casting my lot with the "yes" crowd. In cases of uncertainty like this, I suppose I tend to err on the "nay" side to begin with.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

No




It is completly ****ing ******ed
Do you expect his career numbers to change between this year and next?
Is he any more or less of a HOF now that he is retired and not adding or taking away from his value?

The first ballot argument makes me want to beat the people that use it with a blunt metal object until what limited brain activity they had ceases.

That and, "This years class is really tough, but maybe next year when the class is weaker I'll vote for Player X" really just make me scratch my head. They aren't competing against potential "classmates".

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by Elendil

I'm unsure about whether he's a HoFer, I guess. I'd like to get a slightly better idea of the minimum standard before casting my lot with the "yes" crowd. In cases of uncertainty like this, I suppose I tend to err on the "nay" side to begin with.

I agree with erring on the nay side. I do the same thing & sometimes am persuaded to change. I didn't initially vote for Troy Kinnear but I was convined he was worthy. Same with Ormiston - I watched his career closely & he made a huge impression during his time but his average scared me. Then I looked more closely & realized his stats were similar to some RL HOFers.

As for the minimum standard, I wish I knew how to better explain it to you. Any ideas how?

[jeheinz72]

Ted is up to 18/21! It'd take 4 No's without a yes to keep him out. Excellent!

[MogulChamp]

Originally Posted by Matt from TN

& sometimes am persuaded to change.

Tell me about it. After looking at JDW's analysis of Allen Jr's career, I will probably be changing my vote for him next year.

Very persuasive.

[bigjas]

Bourbon Allen, Jr.
Luther Ormiston
Ted McMurray
Al Arsenault
Maurice Misisica
Corky Stell
Lonny Arrendale
Bobby Johnson
Genarito Nunez
Hershel Lee

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by MogulChamp

Tell me about it. After looking at JDW's analysis of Allen Jr's career, I will probably be changing my vote for him next year.

Very persuasive.

that's why he's the press, or was at least

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by Matt from TN

I agree with erring on the nay side. I do the same thing & sometimes am persuaded to change. I didn't initially vote for Troy Kinnear but I was convined he was worthy. Same with Ormiston - I watched his career closely & he made a huge impression during his time but his average scared me. Then I looked more closely & realized his stats were similar to some RL HOFers.

As for the minimum standard, I wish I knew how to better explain it to you. Any ideas how?

It's probably my fault. I really need to look in depth at all existing HoFers, rather than just the "big names." OPS+ and ERA+ numbers would be a lot more reliable as summary indicators if they were park-adjusted, but unfortunately the work involved with that would be huge & not worthwhile.

[haggis007]

Originally Posted by jdw

How good was Allen?

When he and Erickson were in their primes, Allen was the one with the aura. If you don't believe me, ask Brady. He's even rolled out a quote *from* Erickson where Carp said that Allen was the best pitcher he ever saw.


John

Without question, Allen was the best pure *pitcher* Carp Erickson ever saw--in part just based on sheer numbers and dominance during his heyday, in part based on what he did with the physical talent he had--only 5'6 and 130lbs or something like that; it was never about stuff for Allen Jr, it was all control and movement.

Erickson never really became dominant until Allen showed up in the Bronx & the entire Yankee rotation pitched over its heads while Allen was ther (check out Eric Williams if you have any doubts...).

Might not have been statistically at the top of the heap, but Yankee hitters feared him so much, we went out and traded for him . . .

[jeheinz72]

Is this closed yet?

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Is this closed yet?

doesn't look like it, better vote quick

[jdw]

Originally Posted by marc

I would totally understand that line of thinking if there weren't lists 10 players long that didn't include Nunez. I just can't imagine voting for 7+ players and Nunez not being one of them, I'm probably the pickiest of all the voters and I just don't think this ballot has more than 2 or 3 more deserving players.

Okay... here's my ballot:

Bourbon Allen Jr.
Lonny Arrendale
Ben Cook
Hershel Lee
Maurice Misisca
Luther Ormiston
Corky Stell
Ted McMurray
Ted Stuart


Among the hitters:

Lonny Arrendale > Tito Jr.
Hershel Lee > Tito Jr.
Ted McMurray > Tito Jr.
Maurice Misisca > Tito Jr.
Luther Ormiston > Tito Jr.

I honestly don't think any of those are remotely close. Those five were all "great" hitters at their peak. Tito Jr. wasn't. He was an "excellent" hitter a few years, good in others, and a solid contributor to some great Cardinals teams. But the guys above won 7 BOY's, and Lee was thought to be the best hitting catcher in the game until the injuries took their toll.

I strong suspect that if there was an "MVP Award" in the game that dialed into how the real life voters voted in 1951, and it was applied to *our* 1951 AL season, Lee would have won it going away. Kress already had 3 BOY's by that point, and it was the A's who blew away the wildly disappointing and through-to-be underachieving Tigers to win the race. Lee was 2nd in HR and SLG while 3rd RBI as a catcher and was thought to be a great defensive catcher as well... and "called" for a staff that ran circles around the league that year leading the AL in fewest Runs Allowed by 84 runs. Lee would have been "Top 5" in an MVP vote in most years prior to that since he debuted.

Tito Jr. wouldn't have gotten within hailing distance of an MVP.


Ben Cook > Tito Jr.

I think Cook's great OBP abilities were more valuable to the five pennant and three World Series winners he played on than Tito's "RBI abilities" were to the three pennant winners and one World Series winner he played on. Cook was a run scorer starting things off for many of the best NL offenses of 50s. You can look at his dotting of the Runs Leaderboards and see that:

Runs
1950-2-112
1951-6-101
1952-3-97
1953-1-125
1954-3-101
1955-1-128
1956-3-109
1957-3-102
1958-3-105
1959-3-101

Tito Jr. doesn't have anything remotely as impressive. Just Cook's Runs and OBP leaderboards swamp Tito Jr.

On the non-hitter among the position players:

Ted Stuart

Stuart's a "special case". I'm not wedded to him, but he generally has been thought of since he close out his career as being one of the two greatest defensive players in TWB history - Woody Woodson and Ted Stuart. Again, I'm not wedded to voting for him, but he does have a note of "greatness" to him, which Tito Jr. doesn't.

On the pitchers:

Bourbon Allen Jr. > Tito Jr.
Corky Stell > Tito Jr.

I discussed Bourbon Jr. above.

I've discussed Corky in the past. Three Murphs. The "difference maker" in turning the Underachiving Tigers into the Mighty Tigers, the greatest team of the Live Era.

Tito Jr. just wasn't great. He also wasn't "good" for long enough to warrant getting in.


John

[jdw]

Originally Posted by Elendil

I normally hate this kind of thinking, but I didn't vote for McMurray this time, b/c I just don't think he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Next year, but not this time. Is that crazy?

I'm not a fan of the "he's not a 1st Ballot HOFer" concept.

My reaction is close to Tom's that Rudel's, though I confess to having some of the feelings Rudel had when I see it rolled out in real life HOF situtations.

In the case of McMurray, if you think you're going to vote for him next year, and are only pitching him this year before of the "1st ballot" concept, it's pretty goofy.

I also have advocated even stronger than Matt the concept of "error on the side of caution", both here and in the VC.

In large part I've eased back on it here because of players getting elected such as Mark Ponfick and David McAuliffe that I think are pretty mediocre. So when I look at Stell and see those three non-War year Murphs and the impact on the Mighty Tigers, and then look at Ponfick's inflated numbers, I'll vote for Stell now whereas in 1950 he's the type of pitcher who probably wouldn't have gotten my vote. When I look at Cook and his impact on two mini-dynasties of the 50s _and_ his role in integrating the league, and then look over at the overrated McAuliffe who wasn't one of the five biggest stars on his club that is already well represented in the HOF... I'll vote for Cook now.

Lower my standards?

I hate to say it, but that is the case.


John

[PTBNL]

Bourbon Allen, Jr.

[Matt from TN]

Allen & McMurray get in on the 1st ballot and Lee receives a long-awaited induction, the 1st black player in the HOF. Stuart received a huge jump in support and was in before the final 2-4 ballots were cast. Next year is his final year on the ballot. Allen completes the first grandfather-father-son HOF trio with Whiskey, Bourbon and now Bourbon Jr.

Bourbon Allen Jr	90.91%
Ted McMurray		86.36%
Hershel Lee		77.27%
Ted Stuart		68.18%
Luther Ormiston		59.09%
Al Arsenault		50.00%
Lonny Arrendale		45.45%
Corky Stell		31.82%
Bobby Johnson		31.82%
Maurice Misisca		31.82%
Ben Cook		22.73%
Genarito Nunez		22.73%
Bud Ulrich		13.64%
Howard Ayers		 9.09%
Ben Giordano		 9.09%
Ed Monchak		 4.55%
Cliff Wynne		 4.55%

The following players received fewer than 5% of votes & will fall off the ballot. The year they are eligible for the VC is listed in parenthesis.

Ed Monchak (1984)
Cliff Wynne (1984)
Dale Thompson (1984)