1915 Ballot results

[DTroppens]

We had 23 voters (thanks to all that voted).
It will take 18 votes to get elected.
It will take 3 votes to stay on the next ballot

IN
George Mullin 22 votes

STILL ON BALLOT
Jimmy Barrett 12
Ed Killian 12
Ed Summers 8
Jim Delahanty 8
Germany Schaefer 6
Ed Siever 5
Matty McIntyre 4

OFF THE BALLOT
Ed Willett 2
Claude Rossman 2
Kid Elberfeld 1
Boss Schmidt 0

[estrepe1]

The low number of votes that Siever got is a travesty. I just can not believe that only 5 people thought he was worthy.

I think people need to re-look at his numbers and the teams that he was a part of.

[squid]

1 of my 3 made it and the other 2 will fill my 1920 votes, shame on those that didn't vote, this is an opportunity of a lifetime.

[DTroppens]

Estrepe,
This is a good place to air your views. I was a little surprised just one got in. I voted for Barrett and thought he was a lock. The pitchers were really tough to differentiate. I understand why someone voted for Killian, Siever, Summers and even Willett a bit but I understand why someone wouldn't vote for any of them.

There were a lot of middle ground candidates here and the voting reflected that.

[whitecapwendy]

The low number of votes that Siever got is a travesty. I just can not believe that only 5 people thought he was worthy.

I think people need to re-look at his numbers and the teams that he was a part of.
remember that we are not using the stats from the other teams he was a part of, but only the stats of his time as a Tiger.
I voted for Summers. I honestly thought he was a lock. I really like his numbers as a Tiger.

[estrepe1]

I don't understand voting for Barrett and not Siever.

[squid]

estrepe, I really value your opinion...convince me.

[estrepe1]

remember that we are not using the stats from the other teams he was a part of, but only the stats of his time as a Tiger.

His numbers as a Tiger were better than most of the people that garnered more votes than him.

[dt35456884]

I still maintain that this was an above average class. I think this will become apparent as the elections proceed. I myself give these guys the benefit of the doubt as they are in no way helped by people's memories. I'll probably fight to keep a couple of these guys on the ballot as long as I can.

It will be interesting to see if voters let nostalgia cloud their judgment. For instance, if you put in a vote for Fydrich but not for Siever, are you really being honest with yourself? I think not.

[DTroppens]

Siever is hurt by his best season being a really unlucky one for him apparently. He had a losing season in a year that he really had a strong ERA. However, he had a TON of unearned runs that season. Unearned runs were very common back then, but he got his share of "luck" with unearned runs.

His low HR number had little impact on me. He played in the deadball era when that made it possible. He just happened to be the one that got the mark.

All that said, I voted for him but I wasn't going to be upset if he didn't make it.

[estrepe1]

Siever had an ERA+ of 121 over 1036 innings with the Tigers. That is 21% above the average pitcher of his era and in his park. He had the second best season in Tiger history by ERA+ with a 191 in 1902. His ERA+ of 121 is good for 8th best in career history for the Tigers.

Anyone worried about innings pitched? He is 34th in TIger history.

He has the 3rd best career number in terms of BB/9 with only 1.80 per 9.

He put up the 5th ERA season in Tigers history at 1.91 and has the 5th best career ERA in Tiger history with 2.61.

Siever is hurt by his best season being a really unlucky one for him apparently. He had a losing season in a year that he really had a strong ERA. However, he had a TON of unearned runs that season. Unearned runs were very common back then, but he got his share of "luck" with unearned runs.

His low HR number had little impact on me. He played in the deadball era when that made it possible. He just happened to be the one that got the mark.

All that said, I voted for him but I wasn't going to be upset if he didn't make it.

I don't judge any pitcher by W/L.

I am upset he didn't garner more votes than the likes of Schaefer. I could handle him not being voted in if he received at least a decent percentage of the votes. When I saw he was so low on the voting list I had to say something. Its just not right for him to be that low.

[whitecapwendy]

I still maintain that this was an above average class. I think this will become apparent as the elections proceed. I myself give these guys the benefit of the doubt as they are in no way helped by people's memories. I'll probably fight to keep a couple of these guys on the ballot as long as I can.

It will be interesting to see if voters let nostalgia cloud their judgment. For instance, if you put in a vote for Fydrich but not for Siever, are you really being honest with yourself? I think not.
are you saying that I will be really surprised at Fidrych's numbers? I have never actually looked at his stats before, but guaranteed I will if he is one nominated for the 1980 class.

[DTroppens]

There were a lot of quality candidates here, but only one was a true lock. You could see that the votes would be dispersed just from the talk. When I added the totals a few days ago I was surprised only one looked headed in, but on a second glance it didn't shock me.

I don't know what I will do with the next ballot. There are some good candidates here. I think we will keep a list of anyone that ever gets at least 40% of the vote. Those are going to be the people we may want to look at in the future. I've done a decent amount of reading on players in this era. I go to the library and copy articles occasionally. Most people gave more than a couple of votes, reflecting that people did see a lot of quality candidates. More than half picked at least four. The issue here is it was very tough to pick one over another individually. Now what are the chances that everyone is going to come up with the same conclusion. Apparently, not very good.

[squid]

It will be interesting to see if voters let nostalgia cloud their judgment. For instance, if you put in a vote for Fydrich but not for Siever, are you really being honest with yourself?

doesn't nostalgia cloud everybody's judgement....tram vs ozzie smith is a perfect example.

mts poll on who should be the next tiger in the HOF couldn't decide, tram, morris over freehan, and cash got next to nothing.....that's the beauty of it, we get to try to make wrongs right.

[DTroppens]

estrepe,
He also was 60-54 for a Tiger record. Sometimes you have to get a bit lucky as being good.

[Johnny Mac]

man, i must have missed the whole thread on that vote, or else i would have submit a ballot.

Ill be voting in the rest for sure. cant wait till we get to guys I actually remember and I dont have to go by stats, etc.

[dt35456884]

that's the beauty of it, we get to try to make wrongs right.

Correct. This project is meant to recognize all the great Tigers. Including the forgotten and underappreciated.

[squid]

ty for the info estrepe, not sure if i'm convinced, but that helped.

[estrepe1]

estrepe,
He also was 60-54 for a Tiger record. Sometimes you have to get a bit lucky as being good.

I don't judge pitchers based on their W/L record.

I personally think that pitchers from that era sometimes get underrated. People look at the extremely low ERA and just think "deadball" just like people underrate hitters from that era that had decent numbers for the time.

Siever really was a good pitcher even for that time. His career might have been short. But I think we have to handle short career pitchers before the modern times different than any other era. Think about the fact that so many likely could have lasted longer with surgery and procedures not available back then. If you were injured back then you were done.

mts poll on who should be the next tiger in the HOF couldn't decide, tram, morris over freehan, and cash got next to nothing.....that's the beauty of it, we get to try to make wrongs right.

Freehan is really one of the more underrated figures in MLB history.

[whitecapwendy]

man, i must have missed the whole thread on that vote, or else i would have submit a ballot.

Ill be voting in the rest for sure. cant wait till we get to guys I actually remember and I dont have to go by stats, etc.
I am going by stats by the guys I remember. This can't be a popularity contest, but according to the actual quality of the player.

[whitecapwendy]

Freehan is really one of the more underrated figures in MLB history.
He was my vote.

[Johnny Mac]

I am going by stats by the guys I remember. This can't be a popularity contest, but according to the actual quality of the player.

i know, i just dont like voting on guys i know nothing about but their stats.

[DTroppens]

I just looked at Siever's fielding numbers. He had eight errors and fielded at an .849 percentage during his best season ERA wise. His unearned runs are very high - even for this era.

[ClintD]

i know, i just dont like voting on guys i know nothing about but their stats.

I think it just test your baseball mind. It is impossible to start ths history talk with "our collective memories". This is the only way to do it and I applaud the organizers. It is tough, I understand that. But I think it's necessary and delightfully challenging.

[squid]

i did some research, but mostly went with stats....i will do more research in order to decide my vote...still not convinced that Siever should be in and Delahanty shouldn't.

[Johnny Mac]

I think it just test your baseball mind. It is impossible to start ths history talk with "our collective memories". This is the only way to do it and I applaud the organizers. It is tough, I understand that. But I think it's necessary and delightfully challenging.

i completely agree and i am going to do it. I was just stating I cant wait until we get to guys I remember

[whitecapwendy]

i know, i just dont like voting on guys i know nothing about but their stats.
It is tough, especially when you have to figure out their stats only as a Tiger. There were a few that Idaho Bert had done history threads on which gave a little bit of the human element. But it is a learning experience for me. I am now able to walk away from the 1915 class knowing something about this group of Tigers. The names Sievers, Shaeffer, Summers, Mullin, Killian etc would never have meant anything to me if I hadn't gotten involved with this. Thanks Dtroppens for forcing my hand on this.

[DTroppens]

There are TONS of books out there about these people. Read them. I am making my decisions not only on stats but what I've read about each and even on newspaper clips I've pulled throughout the years. There are great sources on the internet. Check the Ballplayers on the net. There is a deadball era site that I used to go to a ton about 6 years ago (the name slips my mind).
Go to Baseball-links.com and look there.

Books that can help
The Corner
The Detroit Tigers (a book done in 1945 and is available at the Detroit Library. I know because I copied the book when I took it out).
The Ernie Harwell collection - at the Detroit Library
The Detroit Tiger Encyclopedia
in some cases - The Baseball Hall of Shame
More than Merkle - about the 1908 season
Books on Tiger Stadium - several good books made about four years ago.
Bill James Historical Abstracts - the old one and the new one. There is overlap but both are great books and I would never want one and not the other.
Glory of their Times - a ton of old Tigers are interviewed in that book. A must have for a Tiger fan.
Cobb Would Have Caught It - the Tiger equivalent of Glory of their Times with a ton of history about the Tigers.
The Biographical Encyclopedia for Baseball - This could be found in bargan racks at most commercial bookstores a few years ago. In fact I already had one edition, the second edition and then bought the second edition again when it was on the bargain racks. Great book.
Ernie Harwell books
Baseball Roots - very simplistic but about deadball era
Whos Who in Baseball - just like the Biographical encyclopedia just older. got that on the bargain racks.
Baseball - When the Grass was Real - like Glory of their Times just an era older.
Baseball's Top 1,000 players - simple but works as a starting point if the player is in it.
Out By A Step - similar to the book listed above. Can help with some.

There's also baseball board games that you can play (I play them to learn) if you can trust the company to do a good job with the players. I graded the ablities of about 50 Tiger teams for a replay I created.

Most of this can be found at your local LIBRARIES! Go check it out. You may find a few of these books. And there's always the internet. That's why I gave such a long time for the past voting. I wanted to give people a lot of time to do research. If you can't get to the library until Thursday - that's fine. You have time. If you want to go to a bookstore and not purchase a book but take notes - go for it.


There are a ton of sources out there. We are lucky as Tiger fans because we seemingly have a ton of books out there. There is no reason you should make a vote without thinking you can do it with a decent amount of information. It's out there. You just have to seek it out.

[DTroppens]

If people really want to get into this even deeper, start purchasing Tiger radio games. They have a ton at mlb.com. The oldest known radio broadcast archived is a Tiger game in 1934. You get to listen to Ty Tyson who is pretty good. You also get to hear him make anouncements to the crowd while doing the broadcast. That's pretty funny. Starting with 1961 there are a ton of radio games for the Tigers out there. You really get a feel like you've "seen" these guys play. I have games that Dick McAuliffe played. A lot of them. Listening to these games I really do feel like I "witnessed" him. Heck I probably have listened to more Tiger games that McAuliffe played in than a lot of people that were living in the 1960s because of my tapes.

[DTroppens]

WhitecapWendy,
No problem. This is more fun than work. My wife reads novels all the time. Heck a ton of people do. I never understood why people do this when there are so many great books on people that actually lived. And as Tiger fans we have more than many others.

Other books that may help
Elden Auker has a book.
Hank Greenberg has a book
Ty Cobb has his won book and there are several others.
Birdie Tebbetts has a book
Red Rolfe - He was the manager in 1950, the best Tiger team you may not know anything about now that you know about 1915. He had a notebook he kept and it was found and presented in a book. that one is probably at the store right now.
Bill Freehan has a book - never read it though.
Marv Owen has a book - not a great one
George Kell has a book

All these books will have some info about their teammates. How much you can take them for gospel you have to learn for yourself, but it's a good start.

[estrepe1]

About the poor turnout. I still think that this is their first warning. Keep track of the committee members that didn't vote. They should be OUT if they miss one more vote without a decent excuse.

[NATE]

I was conservative in my voting. One question I always asked was, "If I let player A in, then what other players of equal ability must be added?" I would rather be cautious at this point.

I went to a SABR meeting in Cleveland last week. I picked up a 1975 edition of the the HOF's book about itself. As of that date, only 52 members were elected by the sportwriters. The initial class (1936) only inducted Cobb, Johnson, Mathewson, Ruth and Wagner. Lajoie, Speaker and Young were added in 37 and Alexander in 38.

[Mudman]

The initial class (1936) only inducted Cobb, Johnson, Mathewson, Ruth and Wagner. Lajoie, Speaker and Young were added in 37 and Alexander in 38.
The past HOF voting is an interesting study. The great Joe DiMaggio didn't make it until his third year.

[estrepe1]

I was conservative in my voting. One question I always asked was, "If I let player A in, then what other players of equal ability must be added?" I would rather be cautious at this point.

This is a good point. I still question how Siever could get such a low number of votes. I also wonder if people don't realize how good he is in comparison to some of the other pitchers we will be voting on in the future.

I don't know if I am supposed to say this type stuff so if Dtroppens wants me to delete it I will. But I have looked ahead and the average innings pitched for all the candidates is 916. The average era+ is 103.

I think if we leave Siever out its fine. But if he doesn't qualify only 19 - 20 pitchers should qualify for this when the thing is finished.

[tiger337]

Estrepe,
This is a good place to air your views. I was a little surprised just one got in. I voted for Barrett and thought he was a lock. The pitchers were really tough to differentiate. I understand why someone voted for Killian, Siever, Summers and even Willett a bit but I understand why someone wouldn't vote for any of them.

There were a lot of middle ground candidates here and the voting reflected that.

I agree with this. I think Barrett was a better candidate than the 3 Eds. Barrett was one of 3 best players on the team 4 straight years. He was a solid hitter and a very good center fielder.

[tiger337]

The low number of votes that Siever got is a travesty. I just can not believe that only 5 people thought he was worthy.

I think people need to re-look at his numbers and the teams that he was a part of.

Here is why I did not vote for him: He was never the best pitcher on his team in any season and was only the 2nd best pitcher one season in terms of quality and quantity (win shares is a reasonable measure). In his big year, he pitched only 188 innings. That's like a pitcher pitching maybe 135 innings today so it's not as impressive as it appears on the surface. I think a short career guy needs to be one of the best pitchers on his team or to make a big contribution to a championship team or something else to distinguish himself besides ERA+. I found it really hard to distinguish between Seiver and Summers when looking at it that way. I can defintely see somebody voting for him. I almost did. I just don't think he was a slam dunk candidate.

[estrepe1]

Here is why I did not vote for him: He was never the best pitcher on his team in any season and was only the 2nd best pitcher one season in terms of quality and quantity (win shares is a reasonable measure). In his big year, he pitched only 188 innings. That's like a pitcher pitching maybe 135 innings today so it's not as impressive as it appears on the surface. I think a short career guy needs to be one of the best pitchers on his team or to make a big contribution to a championship team or something else to distinguish himself besides ERA+. I found it really hard to distinguish between Seiver and Summers when looking at it that way. I can defintely see somebody voting for him. I almost did. I just don't think he was a slam dunk candidate.

I don't think he is a slam dunk candidate. I think he is a slam dunk over Schaefer. I guess the thing that upsets me is not that he didn't make it. But that he received little to no support.

If this first vote has set the criteria. I don't see how too many players will get in. Which is just fine with me as long as people are consistent.

I have no problem looking at it in the way you did as long as you hold it for the rest of the way. And btw I don't know if it is fair to say that player A isn't as good as player B because player A was the best pitcher on a staff of average pitchers and player B was the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on a deep staff.

BTW Empty your inbox.

[DaYooperASBDT]

About the poor turnout. I still think that this is their first warning. Keep track of the committee members that didn't vote. They should be OUT if they miss one more vote without a decent excuse.Agreed. I'd like to discuss this further in another thread, but yes two misses and gone unless you have very good justification.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I don't think Siever was "crowded out" by voting for other candidates. How many actually used all five votes, and how many of those using all five left Siever off. We need that info before drawing conclusions on the voting patterns, no?

I left Siever off basically for the same reason I left Summers off. One or two spectacular seasons does not make my standard for a Tigers HOF'er. I may have to leave Fidyrich off for the same reason, unless someone can make a compelling argument about his overall impact on the franchise.

I also looked at innings pitched, in Siever's case.

[estrepe1]

I don't think Siever was "crowded out" by voting for other candidates. How many actually used all five votes, and how many of those using all five left Siever off. We need that info before drawing conclusions on the voting patterns, no?

I left Siever off basically for the same reason I left Summers off. One or two spectacular seasons does not make my standard for a Tigers HOF'er. I may have to leave Fidyrich off for the same reason, unless someone can make a compelling argument about his overall impact on the franchise.

All I know is that at least 1 person voted for Schaefer and not Siever. I would love to read the reasoning on that one.

Thats fine if you leave people off for those reasons. I think we have to handle pitchers before 1980 differently than pitchers after. Due to the fact that pitchers in general seemed to have shorter careers before that period. Probably due to advances in surgery.

I think if you didn't vote for Siever and you vote for Fidrych you need to look closely at your voting standards and whether they actually make sense.

I also looked at innings pitched, in Siever's case.

Thats fine. But I just hope that the voting is consistent for the rest of the time. I think that people that voters remember or have heard of will get more support for sentimentel reasons. At times that will be fine because there are some really good candidates that people will remember. But I think people should try to find a guideline that they are going to vote by and stick to it.

[tiger337]

I have no problem looking at it in the way you did as long as you hold it for the rest of the way. And btw I don't know if it is fair to say that player A isn't as good as player B because player A was the best pitcher on a staff of average pitchers and player B was the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on a deep staff.



In general, it would not be fair but when you are comparing players on the same team from the same time period, I think it's a reasonable way to look at it. My reasoning is that this is the Tigers Hall of Fame so if you're a borderline guy, you should at least be one of the best players on the Tigers team when you played. Once careers start getting longer, I start relying more on ERA+ and other career (with Tigers) stats.

I thought it was very close between Siever and Summers. I liked Summers a little better because he made more of a contribution to 2 championship teams. I agree that Siever was a better candidate than Schaefer. I enjoyed reading about Schaefer but I excluded him from my list early in the process.

[estrepe1]

In general, it would not be fair but when you are comparing players on the same team from the same time period, I think it's a reasonable way to look at it. My reasoning is that this is the Tigers Hall of Fame so if you're a borderline guy, you should at least be one of the best players on the Tigers team when you played. Once careers start getting longer, I start relying more on ERA+ and other career (with Tigers) stats.

I think that once we get into future classes though you have to start comparing what this player did versus what a player did that you made a similar decision with. Along with making possible decisions based on the team.

I still don't know that you should vote for someone just because they were the best player on a bad team but I understand the point of view.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Regarding Schaefer, there are many dynamics with such a vote, beyond the stats.

I think most voters feel entitled to one or two "heart over head" votes in this process. I voted for Schaefer myself, not expecting him to actually get in. As long as you don't use your max votes, I see no harm in it. But now that we have more candidates, I suspect there will no longer be room for such votes. But in the first vote we had room, as the pool of candidates, especially position players, was fairly thin. Looking at stats, Barrett and Delahanty both had better stats than Germany did.

I am learning a lot about the HOF process from this. It gets really interesting now, as each voter will have their "persons of interest" from past elections, but also the limitation of votes and the addition of more candidates. Would be surprised if we see less than five votes on the 1920 ballots, but I guess we'll see.

[DaYooperASBDT]

PS - I suspect we will revisit Summers, Barrett, and Siever in the annual elections. And I was very surprised that Killian did not get in. I hope he gets another look for 1920.

[DTroppens]

Someone asked how many people used all five votes - actually more than 50% used at least FOUR votes. I would suggest that people use more than less. Some people did vote for just one. While I think Mullin was clearly ahead of the class, I think people should almost have to use at least two votes. There were people here that contributed to two or three strong penant runs. If these people were not quality candidates then we are going to run the well dry fast.


I am almost thinking we will have to have something like semi-annual votes. Maybe the pre 1955 classes as one group and the post 1955 classes as another. If we end up putting all of the people that don't make the vote on the same list, we may end up creating a clouded vote for a very long time. Of course there's plenty of time to address that issue and it may not end up being an issue. This next class is pretty darn good and have people that contributed to those 1907-09 teams as well.

[Mudman]

PS - I suspect we will revisit Summers, Barrett, and Siever in the annual elections. And I was very surprised that Killian did not get in. I hope he gets another look for 1920.
I was surprised, too! Killian is a very strong candidate.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I am almost thinking we will have to have something like semi-annual votes. Maybe the pre 1955 classes as one group and the post 1955 classes as another. If we end up putting all of the people that don't make the vote on the same list, we may end up creating a clouded vote for a very long time. Of course there's plenty of time to address that issue and it may not end up being an issue. This next class is pretty darn good and have people that contributed to those 1907-09 teams as well.It will be interesting to see how our "election standards" evolve. Ideally there would be zero evolution, but there is going to be a learning curve for us, like it or not. We will need at least annual elections to help rectify anyone that was overlooked, like the vets committee is supposed to do (but hasn't, in Ron Santo's case)

And Estrepe alluded to the sports medicine factor. I have also mentioned before the "pitcher abuse" factor. We really need a good study of career lengths by era, in order to judge old-timers against modern players (especially pitchers).

[DTroppens]

I know some people may be shocked by this but I too used Win Shares as a part of my analysis. In a way they have a big edge on OPS+ or ERA adjustments because they take into consideration the amount of playing time the players had with teams. I had a notecard that actually listed people's win shares on it and circled a number anytime they were the leader on the team. Darn it, I can't find the card. But I will make Barrett's right here.

J. Barrett
1901 23 - top hitter score on team (Not circled)
1902 22 - circled as he was the highest scorer
1903 26 - circled
1904 26 - circled
1905 1

So according to win shares he was the best player three years and the top position player four. Throw that in with his solid OPS+ (not always great but solid), his supposed decent glove (he had a good arm) and just what I knew about the guy before doing extensive research, he was a lock for me. He was 90% on BEFORE I did any research. It's a flimsy ranking book but even Baseball's best 1,000 had him listed and not just barely at 732. Everytime I purchase a book about an era I think of someone that was a good player but vanilla to see if that guy was in the book about that era. Jimmy Barrett wouldn't be that vanilla guy. If he wasn't included I'd think the person didn't do his homework. On the other hand if the I saw Ed Willett or Ed Siever I'd be a little surprised depending on the depth of the research. Summers always seems to make the cut because of his rookie year being 1908 and his win total and ERAs. I think people are intrigued how quick his career was. And then he was a knuckleballer and had a nifty nickname. Those things seem to get you on lists faster too for quality points. Siever had some decent years. I actually voted for him, but I wasn't going to die if he didn't make it. I didn't expect him to.

I think people could use win shares as a tool. But please don't use that as the bible or even OPS or ERA. All are good but even just those three don't tell you a story about the player. I used all three of these things, many more tools and also looked at the character of the player. Those tools helped me confirm the Barrett selection but they had ZERO to do with me picking Germany Schaefer. Using stats he's not going to make it. But even Ty Cobb liked this guy. He has more stories than anyone in Tiger history (well minus Cobb) and there actually was a rule created because of him. I think there's room for the human element to this team and I'm glad there are others that think the same.

[tiger337]

I think that once we get into future classes though you have to start comparing what this player did versus what a player did that you made a similar decision with. Along with making possible decisions based on the team.

I still don't know that you should vote for someone just because they were the best player on a bad team but I understand the point of view.

To be clear, I didn't base my vote totally on whether someone was the best player on his team. That was just another tool to use along with innings pitched, ERA+, so, BB, etc. With borderline guys, I want to look at as many different criteria as I can find.

If this was the all baseball HOF, I would not care much about contributions to championships and whether they were the best players on their teams. This is the Tigers Hall of Fame though so I think those things carry some weight along with the usual stuff like longevity and peak performance relative to the league.

[tiger337]

I was surprised, too! Killian is a very strong candidate.

Mullin was a shoe in and then I voted for Killian and Barrett with little hesitation. I considered Siever and Summers and decided to add Summers at the last minute.

[tiger337]

I know some people may be shocked by this but I too used Win Shares as a part of my analysis. In a way they have a big edge on OPS+ or ERA adjustments because they take into consideration the amount of playing time the players had with teams. I had a notecard that actually listed people's win shares on it and circled a number anytime they were the leader on the team. Darn it, I can't find the card. But I will make Barrett's right here.

J. Barrett
1901 23 - top hitter score on team (Not circled)
1902 22 - circled as he was the highest scorer
1903 26 - circled
1904 26 - circled

So according to win shares he was the best player three years and the top position player four. Throw that in with his solid OPS+ (not always great but solid), his supposed decent glove (he had a good arm).

This is very similar to my reasoning.


It's a flimsy ranking book but even Baseball's best 1,000 had him listed and not just barely at 732.

Flimsy ranking is putting it very very mildly! That book is absolutely awful. I was forced to read it because it was a Christmas present. Barrett was listed as the 72nd center fielder in the Historical Abstract which does carry some weight.




I think people could use win shares as a tool. But please don't use that as the bible or even OPS or ERA. All are good but even just those three don't tell you a story about the player. I used all three of these things, many more tools and also looked at the character of the player. Those tools helped me confirm the Barrett selection but they had ZERO to do with me picking Germany Schaefer. Using stats he's not going to make it. But even Ty Cobb liked this guy. He has more stories than anyone in Tiger history (well minus Cobb) and there actually was a rule created because of him. I think there's room for the human element to this team and I'm glad there are others that think the same.

I don't completely ignore nonstatistical issues here but if someone is not a good player, I'm not voting for him. I might use interesting stories as a deciding factor for a borderline guy.

[estrepe1]

I don't completely ignore nonstatistical issues here but if someone is not a good player, I'm not voting for him. I might use interesting stories as a deciding factor for a borderline guy.

Exactly. I think about it this way. When adjusting for eras Juan Encarnacion and Germany Schaefer were similar players. If Juan Encarnacion had a ton of stories about his character would he be bumped up to the level where you vote for him to be in?

[DTroppens]

That's fair Tiger337.
It is a flimsy book, but it's not bad. For the average fan they can turn to page 198 and read a few paragraphs about Buddy Lewis who I know about 99.99% of the people have no clue about. I only know about him because I do replays and did an ENTIRE 1946 AL Replay, so I know he was a good player and know a bit about him. Would I suggest anyone to pick someone because they are No. 345 compared to No. 976, nah. But when someone sees that Hoot Evers compares favorably with the top 1000 and see a paragraph or two about him, it may help them. Hey look Tito Fuentes is in the book! I don't take books like this as an authority of who the best players are, but they do give another thumbnail sketch of players and that makes it valuable. Plus it's got a mug of just about everyone if not everyone in this book. That's not something you always get.

P.S. Off the subject. I see Turkey Stearnes is Stearnes in some publications and in others is Stearns (Like in Bill James' historical abstract).
Cristobal Torriente owns the record for the most name spellings

[DTroppens]

Rich Dauer is 1,000.

Looking at his criteria last night I did see he eliminated every pitcher with a losing record, cut those who batted less than .260 (not fair when you compare players from 1968-1972 compared to the 1920s) and I think he cut all players that didn't play 10 years. That cuts out a ton of good players. With that criteria, Freehan went from making No. 149 to almost not making the list because of a .262 average. Yikes! Is that even possible to be that close to falling off the list.

P.S. No one gets the lack of respect that Bill Freehan gets. Okay there are others but they are talked about all the time. There is no committee out there proclaiming Freehan's credentials. He's fallen from one of the best at his position all time to just not talked about much at all.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Today, Schaeffer would simply be a flake. But in the context of a new team trying to establish itself and develop a fan base, he had an impact in that first decade. Guys like that "put the asses in the seats", as Reggie Jackson once said about himself.

Then along came Cobb, Crawford, etc. They put wins on the board and made Detroit a baseball town for good.

Dave, I'm glad you mentioned Hoot Evers. I plan on taking a real close look at him when his name comes up.

[DTroppens]

estrepe,
That's fair and we have voters that represent that opinion. From the vote probably more than of the opposing view so there won't be many people getting in for these reasons.

The Bird will be very interesting. Without his colorful personality and his little wave he created for one-plus season all he is is a good pitcher for a bit more than a year. I'll be interested to see how people vote for him

[DTroppens]

Babe Ruth's legend proclaims he predicted a home run in the World Series. I've heard accounts where that wasn't made a lore until a few weeks after the actual World Series and once saw a quote where even Ruth half debunked it but said it was great for his legend.

Germany (a nonpower hitter) absolutely DID do this and won a game doing it. So who's better now? :classic:

Comparing Germany with this era isn't fair. As DaYooper said that was part of the game back then and I'm sure someone like Germany was needed to help erase some of that friction created by Cobb. I'm sure people said "that's the guy that called his homer" a week later. While not the best player there is room for him to be on such a ballot and there is something he would add to the HOF. That said I doubt I'll vote for him again.

DaYooper,
there are a ton of good Tigers many people may not even know existed.

[estrepe1]

estrepe,
That's fair and we have voters that represent that opinion. From the vote probably more than of the opposing view so there won't be many people getting in for these reasons.

That is part of the fun of this. It helps people learn about these different players and it also shows the different characteristics of the voters.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Anybody that thought to steal FIRST base pretty much earned my vote right then & there! :classic:

But no way will I vote for Germany again. Ballot is now very crowded.

[whitecapwendy]

Okay, I am still in the learning process of all of this. It is to my shame that I have to admit that Mullin was not one of my four votes. In comparing his stats with the others I came up with lower ERA and lower WHiP for 3 other pitchers and while he had a very high strike out rate, he also gave up a lot of walks. I want to learn here, so what did I miss?

I am aware now that many of my figurings for stats were flawed and that might have been part of the problem. I am trying to use a variety of different stats as I analyze each player. It is a big help having the stats available for comparison. I can see I need to do research to find some of the intangibles. I have ordered one of the Ernie Harwell books and the Detroit Tigers Encyclopedia, but they won't get here until late March (ugh). I also ordered "The Glory of their Times" and it was shipped on the 8th. I am looking forward to getting that book.

I am trying to stay away from personality and human element as criteria for voting for a player (hence no vote for Schaefer--numbers just did not add up). While I will be the first to admit that Fidrych is probably one of my "favorite" pitchers from the past, I do not know at this point if I would vote for him, because I have not looked at his numbers to see how he compares with the others that will be in that same class.

I guess what I am asking/saying in all of this rambling is, where is my analysis flawed that I missed Mullin as a "shoe in?"

[Edman85]

Mullin was a very good hitting pitcher, and was with the Tigers for 12 years.

I will admit I did not vote for Siever the first time around, but will this time upon realizing the disadvantage some pitchers were at in this area as far as longevity. The fact that he only played 4.5 seasons with the Tigers is what originally led me to doubt him.

I would like to think that people voting on this sort of thing would be above using W-L record in judging pitchers... I really would.

[whitecapwendy]

I glance at w-l, but rarely take it too seriously because more often than not, the pitchers don't have a whole lot of control over that. I tend to look at things like Whip, ERA, and SO/BB for pitchers. For hitters I look at AVE, yes, but also at BB/SO, SB, OPS (with the historical OPS+) and fielding. I guess part of my problem was, I did not look at the pitcher's batting closely.

[DTroppens]

WhitecapWendy,
When I saw your PM I noticed that and wondered about it. I thought he was a shoe-in.

He had longevity and pretty much quality longevity. He was strong in the World Series, won a ton of games and while he wasn't always our best pitcher year to year, he was during that era. He wasn't the best during the three key years 1907-09, but he was during that era.

In a way he's kind of like Jack Morris. Over the era of the 1980s he was arguably our best. However through many years others had better years. For example 1984 many were arguing Dan Petry had a better season after Morris went through that slump (after a great start). Being a workhorse during those years, posting strong numbers during that time put him on my list easily - especially comparing him to the people on our list. Each may have had one year on him, but didn't have his longevity over the era.

[Oblong]

I think it would be a good idea if there was a pinned thread with the ballot and deadlines. Maybe even links or text of any resources if that's available. I was out of town last weekend, until Wednesday of this week, and on Thursday night I had a washing machine breakdown that flooded a room in my basement so I've been occupied with dealing with that. I don't surf the net much at work anymore so my time online is limited to the evenings/night. I can't read through 3 or 4 threads to know what's going on but if I had just one stop to look to see what was up, I would have done some research and voted.

[squid]

While I was ummmm...hard at work this afternoon I managed to find a couple of minutes (hours) for a little research. While visiting baseball-reference.com I took the time to print all of the stats for every eligible player. Then, since the boss said it was O.K. I printed every player bio at wikipedia.com. Looks like I've got some heavy reading to do during the Bud Shootout.

[dt35456884]

With such little support for the players not named Mullin in this election, I'm curious to see how the scope of this thing will unfold. I guess I'd be pretty disappointed if only 30 or 40 players get in by the end of this. I myself was envisioning a a group of 60 or 70.

About Siever. I have trouble criticizing the guy for the lack of years he spent with the club, while at the same time dismissing the 1,000+ highly effective innings he contributed simply because pitchers tended to log more IP per season back then. In my mind, those things go hand in hand. I have to believe that running guys out there as frequently as they did often artificially shortened careers in terms of years. But the guy really did log over a thousand innings. Whether he did it in 8 seasons or 3 seasons is not particularly relevant to me.

It will be interesting to see what kind of support Fidrych garners. If it's significantly more than Siever's, the integrity of this thing as an objective historical project takes a big hit in my mind. On the other hand (and this gets back to my concerns surrounding such a small "Hall"), I have to wonder how much credibility we can expect from people outside of the board if a Tiger "legend" like Fidrych is finally up for nomination, only to fall flat on his face with 20% support (or worse), as Siever apparently has.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I felt Mullin's above average performance over a 12-year period ranked him above the others, due to their relatively short careers.

I struggled with Siever for several days. What tipped me toward a "no" vote in the end was his high WHIP in most of his seasons, and a definite lack of innings compared to the other pitchers.

Why so few innings? Was it a sore arm, or did the manager feel his other starters were that much better?

He did have one of the best season ERA's I've ever seen, IIRC that was in 1902.

Summers was also a near miss for me. If his arm had lasted just more one season, I would have included him.

Perhaps in our first annual vote, we will enough more data to work with, and rectify any omissions. We may have to play with the voting mechanism, as there will be a number of nominations. May have to allow more votes, depending on the number of candidates.

DT, I was also thinking 60-70 would be about right for the total, but if we end up with 80 it would not break my heart. There have been what, 1200-1300 Detroit Tigers? So that would only 1 of every 200 Tigers that we've enshrined.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I think it would be a good idea if there was a pinned thread with the ballot and deadlines. Maybe even links or text of any resources if that's available. I was out of town last weekend, until Wednesday of this week, and on Thursday night I had a washing machine breakdown that flooded a room in my basement so I've been occupied with dealing with that. I don't surf the net much at work anymore so my time online is limited to the evenings/night. I can't read through 3 or 4 threads to know what's going on but if I had just one stop to look to see what was up, I would have done some research and voted. I would like to request that we always have the current election thread pinned, and the deadline noted in the first post. That would help me out also - I was very confused about the deadline for 1915.

[Edman85]

I thought it was pretty clear when the date was... I too have been busy this past week, and have been very interested in this project and seeing that I do my part.

[Oblong]

well I still can't find it so if someone could let me know I'd appreciate it. I see 5 threads with multiple pages all appearing to talk about the same thing. Heck, I don't even know how you are supposed to vote. Do I just post it, send a PM to someone, or what?

I'd suggest:

1) one announcement with the schedule, deadline for submission, and a summary of FAQ. No replies.

2) One thread for each ballot and discussion of the players within that ballot.

3) One thread for the results.

I do appreciate the effort everybody's putting into this.

I'd love to blow off my kids dinner and fixing a washing machine for baseball but I just can't. Your suggestion that I'm not interested or dedicated enough was out of line.[/QUOTE]

[estrepe1]

Sorry Oblong. You need to PM Dtroppens in order to vote.

[tiger337]

I was pretty clear about the date too but I tend to remember those types of details. I can understand why others were not sure. There were a lot of threads going.

[tiger337]

I'd suggest:

1) one announcement with the schedule, deadline for submission, and a summary of FAQ. No replies.

2) One thread for each ballot and discussion of the players within that ballot.

3) One thread for the results.



I think these are good suggestions. These are the first threads I read when I get on here so I know everything that is going on. However, I can see why others are confused by all the different threads.

[dt35456884]

I'd suggest:

1) one announcement with the schedule, deadline for submission, and a summary of FAQ. No replies.

A deadline for submission and some basic voting guidelines can now be found on the first post of the Class of '20 thread, along with the selected nominees. I'll be including this from now on.

A FAQ thread does exist. We're finding it necessary to tweak details along the way, so it doesn't make sense to keep such a thread locked. As the voting proceeds, it's nice to have the input necessary to improve the process. It's probably a good idea for everybody to keep an eye on the FAQ thread for now.

2) One thread for each ballot and discussion of the players within that ballot.

This exists.

3) One thread for the results.

This exists.

[Oblong]

I can see where if you were here for the discussions from the beginning you'd know but I asked to be on the committee late last week and upon my arrival home from my trip I checked in but couldn't go through all the threads for different reasons. If it were obvious to me that there was a vote I'd have made time on Wed or Thur night after the wife went to bed.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'd like to see all the ground-rules discussions kept to one thread, if we could swing that. Either the FAQ thread or whatever thread y'all prefer. I'm on dial-up, and have limited time as well. It's impossible, I mean impossible, to follow it all on multiple threads.

We'll get all the kinks worked out. I'm willing to post a complete voting schedule, if we are agreed on one vote per week? But I'd like Dave's blessing before I do.

PS I'm going to post a summary of today's discussion in the FAQ thread - we really need to start utilizing it for these questions, IMHO.

[whitecapwendy]

I can see where if you were here for the discussions from the beginning you'd know but I asked to be on the committee late last week and upon my arrival home from my trip I checked in but couldn't go through all the threads for different reasons. If it were obvious to me that there was a vote I'd have made time on Wed or Thur night after the wife went to bed.
I am surprised. I got a PM from Dtroppens telling me I was on the committee.

[tiger337]

With such little support for the players not named Mullin in this election, I'm curious to see how the scope of this thing will unfold. I guess I'd be pretty disappointed if only 30 or 40 players get in by the end of this. I myself was envisioning a a group of 60 or 70.

About Siever. I have trouble criticizing the guy for the lack of years he spent with the club, while at the same time dismissing the 1,000+ highly effective innings he contributed simply because pitchers tended to log more IP per season back then. In my mind, those things go hand in hand. I have to believe that running guys out there as frequently as they did often artificially shortened careers in terms of years. But the guy really did log over a thousand innings. Whether he did it in 8 seasons or 3 seasons is not particularly relevant to me.

It will be interesting to see what kind of support Fidrych garners. If it's significantly more than Siever's, the integrity of this thing as an objective historical project takes a big hit in my mind. On the other hand (and this gets back to my concerns surrounding such a small "Hall"), I have to wonder how much credibility we can expect from people outside of the board if a Tiger "legend" like Fidrych is finally up for nomination, only to fall flat on his face with 20% support (or worse), as Siever apparently has.


I'd rather see too few players get in than too many. Players can be added later but not subtracted. We plan on keeping this thing going in the future. Right?

Siever doesn't deserve to be in there because he was a girly fragile sissy. If he was a real man going up against all those pop gun offenses of the dead ball era, he would have pitched 300 innings at least once!

[DaYooperASBDT]

Siever's 1901 was weird. Good ERA, but high WHIP. Kind of reminds me of Verlander's numbers.

[redshark63]

You know what.

This is the beauty of elections of this sort.

Everybody brings a little different aspect as to what is important for induction.

There are players in the Bsbl HOF that people today question as to their relevant merit to be there. Whether it is Rabbit Maranville or Bill Mazeroski or whoever, they got in because someone either felt that their overall worth merited inclusion or there was strong enough lobbying to get him in (Maz, Gil Hodges almost) or they were a significant enough player in their era or a combination of all of those.

Maz is a classic example of all of those - a steady player who did not necessarily put up saber-friendly numbers, but was the premier middle infielder of his time and had a fairly key hit, and had a great deal of support from his buddies (oh, and was a 7 time All-Star).

What I am saying is that there is no wrong or right vote.

As for considering it a sham if Fidrych gets in but Siever doesn't, I don't agree.

Short term memory is always is a factor in most elections.

That is why it is still amazing that there are some significant 19th century players on the outside of the HOF and only some that recently were added (e.g. George Davis). In fact, the Bsbl HOF had special elections in the '40's, I believe, to get the pre-1920's players in. That is why you see those clumps of earlier players coming in all at once.

I would not be surprised if Fidrych gets a good share of votes - his star shined very briefly, but his "Fame" is still relevant and remember vividly 30 years later. He was a beacon in the middle of some really bad Tiger teams.

Voters (such as the Bsbl HOF voters) remember who they covered or played with, not some guy who died before they were born. They can look at the old guy's stats, but at the end of the day, they are generally going to vote for the guys they knew and knew how they played.

[DaYooperASBDT]

The "Bird" discussion will be a lot of fun. There is an huge X factor - he put butts in the seats and turned a whole generation on to Detroit baseball, IMHO. But I'll shut up for now !! :cheeky:

[estrepe1]

If there is one place where the problem of recent memory shines brightly it is the all time team that DT35456884 shared on another thread.

Having Kirk Gibson on that team was an absolute sham. I don't believe that people on this board would make the same mistake. Which is why I am excited about this project.

[Oblong]

To his credit, Gibson has said as much. He knew he didn't belong on there.

[dt35456884]

Voters (such as the Bsbl HOF voters) remember who they covered or played with, not some guy who died before they were born. They can look at the old guy's stats, but at the end of the day, they are generally going to vote for the guys they knew and knew how they played.

Everything you said is true, and yet we all know there are plenty of full-fledged idiots who are on the National Baseball Hall of Fame committee. They make ridiculous oversights and blunders on a fairly regular basis.

Will we be above that here? Will we be able to set aside our nostalgia and memories? I would really hope so. Maybe not though.

[whitecapwendy]

Okay, question about All-Star players. I realize that today with "fan vote", not all players that make the All Star roster are "All star" calibre. I am assuming that is something that has developed with computer technology. But I am assuming that at one time, All stars were truly stars of the game. Can someone give me a rough idea of about what years that involved? I am relying on stats primarily, but as we come into the years of the All star games, I plan to take note of whether the player was an All Star (if numbers are somewhat shakey but he was an A.S., maybe I need to find out why), and want to know if there were years that All Stars were worth taking note of.

[DaYooperASBDT]

As Redshark says, we will be biased toward players we actually saw. I'm pouring over the numbers, but that bias will always exist. I'm glad an annual election was suggested. Great idea - that will help us add any that were overlooked, or more likely "crowded" out by a large field of candidates. We'll have a good list eventually.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Okay, question about All-Star players. I realize that today with "fan vote", not all players that make the All Star roster are "All star" calibre. I am assuming that is something that has developed with computer technology. But I am assuming that at one time, All stars were truly stars of the game. Can someone give me a rough idea of about what years that involved? I am relying on stats primarily, but as we come into the years of the All star games, I plan to take note of whether the player was an All Star (if numbers are somewhat shakey but he was an A.S., maybe I need to find out why), and want to know if there were years that All Stars were worth taking note of.Some years fans voted, some years managers. Can't remember which years but I'm sure the info is Google-able. I recall one year fans voted Cincinatti's entire starting lineup in, so fan voting can be a real fiasco at times!

[whitecapwendy]

Everything you said is true, and yet we all know there are plenty of full-fledged idiots who are on the National Baseball Hall of Fame committee. They make ridiculous oversights and blunders on a fairly regular basis.

Will we be above that here? Will we be able to set aside our nostalgia and memories? I would really hope so. Maybe not though.
That is one advantage to being a fairly recent baseball fan. Of course I know some of the names, but not like some of you. I think I can set aside nostalgia (memories aren't a problem), and stick with the facts. I just need to make sure I get as many as possible.

[estrepe1]

I wouldn't pay attention to whether they were an all star or not.

[estrepe1]

As Redshark says, we will be biased toward players we actually saw. I'm pouring over the numbers, but that bias will always exist. I'm glad an annual election was suggested. Great idea - that will help us add any that were overlooked, or more likely "crowded" out by a large field of candidates. We'll have a good list eventually.

There are a few players and pitchers (that will remain nameless) that I was surprised at their low numbers. Some of the guys from the championship and playoff teams that really were not as good as people probably remember.

[tiger337]

As Redshark says, we will be biased toward players we actually saw.

I hope not. That's the problem with the real Hall of Fame and I hope we avoid that.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Rob Fick was an All-Star, so there you go! :cheeky:
T337, I am fighting the bias hard. Numbers like OPS+ help, but baseball was a much different game in 1908, etc. Very good challenge. I will continue the fight for Jimmy Barrett! :cheeky:

[tiger337]

I will continue the fight for Jimmy Barrett! :cheeky:

I'm on the Barrett bandwagon too.

[Mudman]

Will we be able to set aside our nostalgia and memories?
From this corner...ABSOLUTELY!!!

[cruzer1]

I think we got it right with the first vote. This should be an exclusive club of greats, not goods.

[dt35456884]

From this corner...ABSOLUTELY!!!

Thanks, but that was a rhetorical question for Tigers fans, Chief Wahoo.

[dt35456884]

I think we got it right with the first vote. This should be an exclusive club of greats, not goods.

Of course, but there is a lot of room for interpretation in that. One could make a pretty convincing argument that there were only 15 really "great" Tigers. We're in for a pretty short, paint-by-numbers list if that's the case.

[estrepe1]

I think we got it right with the first vote. This should be an exclusive club of greats, not goods.

You know what I would be just fine with that. Around 30 - 40 of the greatest players to put on the Tigers uniform.

I hope that the standards stay consistent though. And to be honest the only reason I was upset was that Schaefer got more support than Siever. I didn't think that was correct and still do not.

Of course, but there is a lot of room for interpretation in that. One could make a pretty convincing argument that there were only 15 really "great" Tigers. We're in for a pretty short, paint-by-numbers list if that's the case.

This is also correct. I think that we can get a little wider range than 15 but if we set the standard too high that is all we will end up with.

[DaYooperASBDT]

My prediction: We won't let enough in during the initial elections, but more will get in during the annual elections. This was the case with the "real HOF" and the Veterans Committee. For our annual election, I have even thought about having a straight up/down vote on each guy that fell into the 15%-74% "state of purgatory". But I'll take that up in the FAQ thread at some point, unless someone beats me to it.

As long as we treat all the various eras fairly, I will be completely satisfied with the results. Even if Barrett doesn't get in .... :classic:

[DTroppens]

I haven't done the work but Barrett is about 80% certain to be on my ballot next time. For those who wonder I will NEVER look at other ballots until I make mine. Should I send mine to someone so people know my votes?

[Edman85]

I haven't done the work but Barrett is about 80% certain to be on my ballot next time. For those who wonder I will NEVER look at other ballots until I make mine. Should I send mine to someone so people know my votes?

We trust you.

[whitecapwendy]

I haven't done the work but Barrett is about 80% certain to be on my ballot next time. For those who wonder I will NEVER look at other ballots until I make mine. Should I send mine to someone so people know my votes?
We know you take this even more seriously than we do. You have our trust. If you would feel better, do what you think is best, but we trust you.