Philosophy of HOF Selections

[DaYooperASBDT]

In hopes of containing some of my "philosophy" within a single thread, would like to have some discussion on the Tigers HOF voting process. Could be a good place to gain insights into what truly makes a player Hall of Fame material.

Since there are no rules regarding who a voter can and can't select, each voter will have their own idea on the subject. And that's what makes the process fun. With 29 voters, I would expect 29 different methods. IMHO, all we can really strive for is consistency and honest evaluation, and we'll have those well covered I'm sure.

Some folks here want a very exclusive group, and some would like to see as many as 70 elected. Will be interesting to see our final figure. There have been 1,457 Detroit Tigers, so using the "Top 5%" would yield about 73.

To try to jump-start the discussion, here are some of my personal criteria for selection:

1. Longevity with the Tigers
2. At least 3 seasons of superior performance, IMHO.
3. Contributions to the health of the franchise
4. If clearly in the top five percent of Tiger players, for that player's "era"
5. If possible, achieve some degree of balance, by position, unless there is a clear "lack of talent" apparent (example: third base).

But again, how you pick 'em has been left entirely up to your personal philosophy, so please don't lose sleep, have fun with it!

[DaYooperASBDT]

Not that these guys necessarily have it perfect, but I thought it would be interesting to look at the 38 former Tigers elected by the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame, and in which year they gained election. I'm not familiar with their voting procedures, so don't let this sway your votes! I do know there is a built-in bias toward athletes born in Michigan. For example, Billy Pierce likely does not make our cut, he mostly pitched for other teams.

Class of 1955
Ty Cobb

Class of 1956
Mickey Cochrane
Charlie Gehringer
Harry Heilmann
(http://www.athleticachievement.org/mshof/inductees/archives/heilmann.html)
Class of 1958
Sam Crawford
Hank Greenberg
Hugh Jennings

Class of 1960
Wish Egan (scout)

Class of 1961
"Schoolboy" Rowe

Class of 1962
George Mullin
Hal Newhouser

Class of 1963
Tommy Bridges

Class of 1964
Heinie Manush

Class of 1965
Leon "Goose" Goslin

Class of 1969
Walter O. Briggs, Sr.
George Kell

Class of 1970
Billy Rogell

Class of 1972
Rudy York

Class of 1976
Frank Navin

Class of 1978
Al Kaline

Class of 1981
Jim Bunning

Class of 1982
Bill Freehan
Mickey Lolich

Class of 1983
Vic Wertz
Class of 1984
Norm Cash
John Fetzer

Class of 1985
Jim Campbell
Virgil Trucks

Class of 1986
Dick McAuliffe

Class of 1987
Willie Horton

Class of 1989
Ernie Harwell
(http://www.athleticachievement.org/mshof/inductees/archives/harwell.html)John Hiller

Class of 1991
Denny McLain

Class of 1992
George"Sparky" Anderson
Paul Carey

(http://www.athleticachievement.org/mshof/inductees/archives/waters.html)Class of 1993
Harvey Kuenn

Class of 1994
Mickey Stanley

Class of 1995
Barney McCosky

Class of 1996
Ty Tyson

(http://www.athleticachievement.org/mshof/inductees/archives/tyson.html)Class of 1997
Charlie Maxwell

Class of 1999
Kirk Gibson

Class of 2000
Jim Northrup
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker

Class of 2001
Jack Morris

Class of 2002
Gates Brown
(http://www.athleticachievement.org/mshof/inductees/archives/bartkowicz.html)Lance Parrish
(http://www.athleticachievement.org/mshof/inductees/archives/elliott.html)
Class of 2003
Billy Pierce

Class of 2006
Frank Tanana

[estrepe1]

The fact that it took them until 1958 (3rd class) to induct Sam Crawford is kind of dumb.

3. Contributions to the health of the franchise

I would like some more explanation to this one because I have no idea what it means. Other than you probably mean to use it as a loophole for some short term player you plan on voting for.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Agreed on Crawford, makes one wonder if he was disliked somehow. Maybe didn't give interviews or something.

I fully expect #3 to be my most controversial criteria. Call it a loophole if you like, as that would be the application.

I'm looking at numbers first, but we are going to have to confront the Fidrych situation eventually. If you asked me to vote today, I would have to say "No", but there will be arguments on his impact on the game of baseball in 1976. He was a phenomenon, there is no denying that. However, he clearly falls under my "3 season" cut.

[Edman85]

1. Performance relative to league averages over a long period of time. Tenure and performance are relative to era. Both are weighted towards the extremes (ie, if somebody average was with the team for a very long time or if they were very good for a short period of time, they get a nice boost) (~65%)

2. Emphasis on performing well in pennant/World Series seasons (~15%)

3. Personality considerations (see McClain, Denny) (~15%)

4. Other considerations to enable "fame" to be a consideration. Such as notable tasks, antics, etc. (~5%)

5. Adjusting to possibly keep guys on the ballot during loaded years.

[Johnny Mac]

i dont look at personality at all when choosing. I go based upon performance in terms of the league average and if they were on a championship team, they get a slight boost. I also look at longevity

[DaYooperASBDT]

McClain is going to require some thought on my part. He clearly ran with the wrong crowd, and has an attitude about it. Many have chosen to overlook that, and I may as well.

You can really fall into a logical trap here. If you give credit to a "good guy" that helped fan interest, and look beyond the numbers, then don't you have to look at the "bad guys", and handicap that? I suspect many here will vote on stats alone, and avoid that paradox.

Another interesting factor is Edman's #2 - did he help his team into the post-season? When looking at a guy like Travis Fryman or Dick Wakefield, I suspect I will focus on the regular season numbers more. Don't want to punish a guy for playing on crappy teams. OTOH, I can see rewarding a player for having great post-season numbers/heroics.

This also gets into my long-running discussion with Estrepe on the benefit of "lineup" protection, or a player performing better when surrounded by better players, which would certainly be true on a playoff/championship club.

[whitecapwendy]

Another interesting factor is Edman's #2 - did he help his team into the post-season? When looking at a guy like Travis Fryman or Dick Wakefield, I suspect I will focus on the regular season numbers more. Don't want to punish a guy for playing on crappy teams. OTOH, I can see rewarding a player for having great post-season numbers/heroics.
.
I noticed that Edman included percentages and Longevity etc (regular season) has a 65% rating and post season has a 15% rating. I think that helps to balance it so that the weight is on the regular season.

I appreciate you guys talking about what process you use for rating the players this is helping me to work on balance. I will still have numbers be my primary emphasis, but am branching out a little and taking note of other things you guys look at. Am finding myself spending more time with wikipedia and baseball library sites. I recently ordered the book "The Glory of their times" and have seen it mentioned several times so far in my research.

[tiger337]

Agreed on Crawford, makes one wonder if he was disliked somehow. Maybe didn't give interviews or something.



He was very popular with his teammates. I think he gets overlooked because he was always overshadowed by Ty Cobb.

[estrepe1]

85% of my thought process is performance. 15% is longevity.

[estrepe1]

He was very popular with his teammates. I think he gets overlooked because he was always overshadowed by Ty Cobb.

Heilmann was the same in many ways. He was on the same team as Cobb and many over look his contributions

I guess you could say that about Bobby Veach as well. Although he wasn't nearly as good as Crawford and Heilmann.

That 1921 OF was amazing.

Veach - .338/.387/.529
Cobb - .389/.452/.596
Heilmann - .394/.444/.606

That would be the best offensive OF in the game today. Even in terms of raw numbers without adjusting for era.

Unbelievable that team only won 71 games... I guess thats what happens when you have no offense.

[whitecapwendy]

Heilmann was the same in many ways. He was on the same team as Cobb and many over look his contributions

I guess you could say that about Bobby Veach as well. Although he wasn't nearly as good as Crawford and Heilmann.

That 1921 OF was amazing.

Veach - .338/.387/.529
Cobb - .389/.452/.596
Heilmann - .394/.444/.606

That would be the best offensive OF in the game today. Even in terms of raw numbers without adjusting for era.

Unbelievable that team only won 71 games... I guess thats what happens when you have no offense.
I already have those three earmarked. I am just waiting for 25, 30 and 35 vote to come for them. :happy:

[tiger337]

In terms of total win shares, the greatest baseball outfield of all time was the Tigers in 1915:

Veach .313/.390/.434 (30 WS)
Cobb .369/.486/.487 (49 WS)
Crawford .299/.367/.431 (28 WS)

2nd best ever:1908 Tigers

McIntyre
Crawford
Cobb

4th best: 1909

Jones
Crawford
Cobb

8th best: 1917

Veach
Cobb
Heilmann

9th best:1909

McIntyre
Crawford
Cobb

So the Tigers had 5 of the 9 best outfields in the history of baseball according to win shares

[estrepe1]

49 win shares for one player is ridiculous.

I am not surprised that the Tigers have 5 of the top 9 outfields of all time. It really is the deepest part of the team historically.

[Oblong]

I plan on being stingy. And I don't plan on a vote for Fydrich. Not even a speckle of consideration.

Yooper's #3 could help me swing a borderline guy on my ballot. I won't name names because I'd like to keep those private but there's a couple that I could see myself voting for where a criteria like that could turn a no into a yes.

[whitecapwendy]

I plan on being stingy. And I don't plan on a vote for Fydrich. Not even a speckle of consideration.

Yooper's #3 could help me swing a borderline guy on my ballot. I won't name names because I'd like to keep those private but there's a couple that I could see myself voting for where a criteria like that could turn a no into a yes.
If Fidrych is nominated, I will look at his numbers just like everyone else. It is certainly not his fault that he only had a two year career.

[estrepe1]

If Fidrych is nominated, I will look at his numbers just like everyone else. It is certainly not his fault that he only had a two year career.

It doesn't matter why his career was short. It only matters that his career was short.

[tiger337]

When we build our Hall of Fame musuem, we'll put some bird Memorabilia in there but no plaque.

[dt35456884]

When we build our Hall of Fame musuem, we'll put some bird Memorabilia in there but no plaque.

Let's let the guy come up for a vote before we start proclaiming "no plaque."

[tiger337]

Let's let the guy come up for a vote before we start proclaiming "no plaque."

Can we still build a musuem though?

[Edman85]

Unfortunately, to get the level of detail I want, it's going to take me until the 1930's to rank all the players and where my cutoff will be. I will be going on hunches and intuition based on criteria in my head and preliminary research done last week. After going in depth like I want to, and plugging a ton of numbers into Excel, the above criteria will be adjusted to account for everything.

At this moment, I'm on the fence on Fydrich. I really have always thought that the Hall of Fame is more than just performance. Certainly, with guys like Fydrich, there is more than just their track record to go on. That said, who's to say there wasn't a Fydrich back in the day before the media was able to show everything it has in the last 30 years.

Also, I don't get the point in being stingy with votes. I would like to say that 75-100 players are worthy of this Hall of Fame. If we just limit it to those in the Baseball Hall of Fame plus a few others, what have we really learned and accomplished in this voting? To me being stingy is being lazy.

[DTroppens]

Ty Cobb did a lot of politicking for Sam Crawford to make it in the Hall.

Cobb was a total prick. There's no question about that, but he did some very good things for teammates and others that we really don't know. I've read some of the things but I don't have a large list in front of me. I wish I did. I'm sure most of his acts of kidness won't ever be known.

If I recall he really helped out Mickey Cochrane many times.

[DTroppens]

I am not going to list how or why I make my selections with a broad brush right here. I'm sure there will be reasons why I select someone but someone else you could make the same argument for by some basis. However, there's other elements involved besides longevity (if that's the case we are going to argue).

Bobby Higginson has longevity. Mark Fidrych doesn't. Higginson was sort of a prick but sort of looked at as the leader at times. Bird pumped up his team but I don't know if he really was a leader. And I don't know of anyone that hated him. It's fun listening to radio games where he's in the dugout. You can hear him jabbering all the time. There are good reasons to pick Bobby that I like in candidates. Some I listed above. However, he's going to have a tough time making my list I'm guessing. Fidrych I think is going to have a better chance getting my vote. Can I argue longevity for him? No. I think his best season was better than Bobby's (some could probably argue the opposite). How can I justify it in a thesis paper? I don't know off the top of my head.
However, I can say this. I am going to make what I think are the best decisions with a lot of work. I'm sure I'll vote for some I didn't think I would and not vote for some right now I think are automatic. Will some of the people I don't pick have legit arguments. Sure. But you can bet all of them I pick will have legit arguments to be selected.

[whitecapwendy]

Ty Cobb did a lot of politicking for Sam Crawford to make it in the Hall.

Cobb was a total prick. There's no question about that, but he did some very good things for teammates and others that we really don't know. I've read some of the things but I don't have a large list in front of me. I wish I did. I'm sure most of his acts of kidness won't ever be known.

If I recall he really helped out Mickey Cochrane many times.
There is a reason his teammates refused to play without him. Although I have a feeling his bat had something to do with that (offense not threats)

[DTroppens]

Wendy,
There were other reasons. Get some books on Cobb and you'll hear more stories than you ever heard. In fact, Al Stump's is very good.

Another interesting book is the Ty Cobb Scrapbook which has details on many games he played. It doesn't try to post a positive or negative light on Cobb but has a this is what happened feel to it. Just info from newspaper articles.

[estrepe1]

I think he milked the tough guy attitude in the media because it helped with his game. He played a lot of intimidation games with fielders when they were trying to tag him... sometimes it wasn't intimidation like drop kicking a catcher.

I would guess he was a great teammate to have. He reportedly wanted nothing more than to win every game. I think at times we paint a broad brush with his attitude and his personality due to things like the movie about him. However I think he did a lot behind the scenes like Dtroppens indicates that will never be noticed.

He wasn't a great person but I don't think he was nearly as bad as he is sometimes portrayed.

I bet if he was around today you would hear a lot of testimony in the media about how he was someone you love to have on your team but hate to play against.

I doubt he would be a racist at this point in time. Its a completely different culture.

[Edman85]

The whole team wouldn't have gone on strike in 1912 over his suspension if they didn't like/love Ty Cobb.

[DTroppens]

Edman,
The story goes there that the team didn't like Cobb but they knew two things:
1. They felt Cobb was right with his actions. It just happened the guy had no arms. :classic: That was a time when those things were a bit more allowable.
2. Their chances of victory without him were not nearly as good.

Read what teammates said about Cobb and there's no doubt he wasn't loved by his teammates. Some won't even admit he was the best player of his time while in his peak. Others say he was a great player but a real prick. Some say they got along with him enough. There was a time he was moved from center because Matty McIntyre would not go after boardline plays to make Cobb look bad.

I forget the players in question but there was a time when Cobb told a teammate to berate another teammate to get him to hit better. He did it for an entire year. When the season was up Cobb was supposed to tell the player about the plan, but Cobb didn't aknowledge it.

There is plenty of stuff out there saying how much teammates hated Cobb. That's well documented.

[DTroppens]

Oh I found it. Harry Heilmann heckled Bobby Veach for Cobb because Veach was too easy going. As far as it was known Veach never accepted Heilmann's apology.

[whitecapwendy]

The whole team wouldn't have gone on strike in 1912 over his suspension if they didn't like/love Ty Cobb.
that was actually my point in my post.

[whitecapwendy]

Wendy,
There were other reasons. Get some books on Cobb and you'll hear more stories than you ever heard. In fact, Al Stump's is very good.

Another interesting book is the Ty Cobb Scrapbook which has details on many games he played. It doesn't try to post a positive or negative light on Cobb but has a this is what happened feel to it. Just info from newspaper articles.
Which book by Stump. Ty Cobb biography or My Life in Baseball (I don't dare get both) I am leaning toward My life in baseball

[squid]

All I know is that you'd better be one tough SOB if any part of your nickname has the word "Peach" in it.

Back to voting philosophy, Right now I'm basing mine mostly on stats, if I find myself with an iffy choice (which I have this week) I have tried to find as many articles/references as I can. Longevity is a concern with me, however, a brief dominate stretch carries weight with me as well. How's that for standing on the fence. For now I'm just having fun and learning about players that, for the most part, I had never heard of.

[estrepe1]

Oh I found it. Harry Heilmann heckled Bobby Veach for Cobb because Veach was too easy going. As far as it was known Veach never accepted Heilmann's apology.

That is pretty interesting stuff.

[dt35456884]

Which book by Stump. Ty Cobb biography or My Life in Baseball (I don't dare get both) I am leaning toward My life in baseball

"My Life in Baseball" is essentially Cobb's autobiography. As such I think you'll find the biography, "Cobb," to be more objective.

[whitecapwendy]

"My Life in Baseball" is essentially Cobb's autobiography. As such I think you'll find the biography, "Cobb," to be more objective.
Yeah, but I also bought the Ty Cobb scrapbook. would you also get the biography with that or get the more personal perspective?

[tiger337]

Edman,
The story goes there that the team didn't like Cobb but they knew two things:
1. They felt Cobb was right with his actions. It just happened the guy had no arms. :classic: That was a time when those things were a bit more allowable.
2. Their chances of victory without him were not nearly as good.



Another reason was that players generally distrusted management and would take the player's side in this type of dispute. Even though there was no union, there was still plenty of tension between labor and management.

There is little question that Cobb's teammates disliked him though. Cobb's transgressions have probably been exaggerated over time but, by all accounts, he was a very difficult person to get along with. At the same time. I'm sure they liked having on the team because they were obviously much better with him than without him.

[tiger337]

Wendy,
There were other reasons. Get some books on Cobb and you'll hear more stories than you ever heard. In fact, Al Stump's is very good.

Another interesting book is the Ty Cobb Scrapbook which has details on many games he played. It doesn't try to post a positive or negative light on Cobb but has a this is what happened feel to it. Just info from newspaper articles.

I like the Alexander book.

[ClintD]

There is little question that Cobb's teammates disliked him though. Cobb's transgressions have probably been exaggerated over time but, by all accounts, he was a very difficult person to get along with. At the same time. I'm sure they liked having on the team because they were obviously much better with him than without him.

Perhaps he was "one of those guys"...the name Vladimir Konstantinov comes to mind...that you love him when he's on your team, hate him if he isnt. Rasheed Wallace is another examble. Bill Laimbeer...the Detroit list of "those guys" goes on and an on!

[DTroppens]

Clint,
Trust me. He was hated. I can rattle off another 10 stories with a tiny bit of research to get the names right. I think one person from baseball went to his funeral and there were a ton of teammates still alive when he died. That's how "unloved" he was.

I think Cobb is a very good book by Stump. Alexander's book apparently is going through another printing because I've seen it in wrap at the book stores the last few weeks for the first time in years. I don't actually have that book.

There are two Stump books. The first was the one that Stump felt Cobb wanted people to read and the second was what he thought was an accurate reflection of the man. The first book Cobb actually writes as a way to clean the slate but his personality still oozes out in it.

I think it's fair to say that Cobb felt he was better than most people and that they simply didn't get him because he was at a higher plain. That was probably true with his play on the field but he gave that appearance through regular life. His fights are well known. He had it out with a black (I think) employee at a hotel for no particular reason. I think that's what set up one of his fights with Schmidt. Back to my point about his ego. You really get a feel that he taught to prove he could make people better to prove just how good he was.

Another interesting tidbit. He really had this desire to be a pitcher. He pitched 2-3 games during his career and he would warm up in the pen often thinking maybe one day he'd get his chance. Occasionally you'll find comments about this from him. I'm sure the original Stump book probably has a comment or two about that. But his knowledge about pitching was limited. One time a young player came up to him and asked him for some tips and all he said was something to the affect that "I can teach you anything about hitting, but pitching I can't help you at all." I should remember the pitcher but I can't at this time.

[whitecapwendy]

Clint,
Trust me. He was hated. I can rattle off another 10 stories with a tiny bit of research to get the names right. I think one person from baseball went to his funeral and there were a ton of teammates still alive when he died. That's how "unloved" he was.

I think Cobb is a very good book by Stump. Alexander's book apparently is going through another printing because I've seen it in wrap at the book stores the last few weeks for the first time in years. I don't actually have that book.

There are two Stump books. The first was the one that Stump felt Cobb wanted people to read and the second was what he thought was an accurate reflection of the man. The first book Cobb actually writes as a way to clean the slate but his personality still oozes out in it.

I think it's fair to say that Cobb felt he was better than most people and that they simply didn't get him because he was at a higher plain. That was probably true with his play on the field but he gave that appearance through regular life. His fights are well known. He had it out with a black (I think) employee at a hotel for no particular reason. I think that's what set up one of his fights with Schmidt. Back to my point about his ego. You really get a feel that he taught to prove he could make people better to prove just how good he was.

Another interesting tidbit. He really had this desire to be a pitcher. He pitched 2-3 games during his career and he would warm up in the pen often thinking maybe one day he'd get his chance. Occasionally you'll find comments about this from him. I'm sure the original Stump book probably has a comment or two about that. But his knowledge about pitching was limited. One time a young player came up to him and asked him for some tips and all he said was something to the affect that "I can teach you anything about hitting, but pitching I can't help you at all." I should remember the pitcher but I can't at this time.
Okay thanks--this helps. I may have to check Alexander's book just to compare the two.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Just read a few Sporting News articles from 1912 recently (thanks Dave for the link!) There were several articles discussing both the "Cobb strike" and the issue of fan rowdiness at various American league parks.

So I would conclude that the strike was not so much in support of Cobb specifically, but it was more of a message to league president Ban Johnson that the players were fed up with unruly fans, in general.

[whitecapwendy]

Just read a few Sporting News articles from 1912 recently (thanks Dave for the link!) There were several articles discussing both the "Cobb strike" and the issue of fan rowdiness at various American league parks.

So I would conclude that the strike was not so much in support of Cobb specifically, but it was more of a message to league president Ban Johnson that the players were fed up with unruly fans, in general.
You know, Cobb may have had something there. :cheeky: Think of how much better behaved the fans probably were when he was playing in the ballpark. All the minor league players can do in our ball park is turn around and glare at the fan.

[Oblong]

Does your criteria have a minimum number of years? Obviously we can't only pick guys who played 10 years or else it'd be boring. What is your threshold? For me it's the 4-6 year range, depending on their overall dominance/contributions. In wartime years I'm going to probably factor in service time as MLB time in making my decision. It will be some interesting discussions when we get to guys starting in the 50s as the names become fresher in our memories, not to mention the championship teams.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm looking for either:

3 superior seasons, compared to era peers (3-9 years total)

10+ years, with career totals at or above league average

But there are now other factors, like the 5 vote limit, that will force me to make some cuts even after applying my "cutters".

The 1940's are interesting, as the talent level was clearly hampered by the loss of players to the war effort. Some guys will be easy (Newhouser), but others will require a close look. I plan to stick to comparing the "wartime" players against the league average, don't know if it would be fair otherwise.

[whitecapwendy]

I do not discount someone who has only been with the Tigers two-three years (often not their choice), if those years have been tremendous years. Obviously I would much rather have someone who has spend almost their whole career with the Tigers and put up big numbers (a couple names come to mind), but if the player has done very well with the Tigers for 2-3 years, I would not begrudge them a vote (personally--I understand the opposing view). However, I would not vote for them if they only spent one season. For me personally, they have to be there at least two very good years--emphasis on the very good.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I haven't warmed up to voting in the "two-year" guys yet, like Summers, but I may to willing to revisit that come 2008.

[dt35456884]

I don't pay any attention to years with the club. Innings pitched and at-bats, while not the absolute best measure of lengevity, are worlds better than years. Hal White pitched parts of 10 seasons with the Tigers, tallying 820.3 innings. Bobo Newsom accomplished nearly as much in 3 years. Was White seven years more significant than Newsom was (if that even means anything)? The answer is no.

[Edman85]

The best four year player I've come across so far?

Mickey Tettleton

The guy was amazing in his time here... very underrated

[estrepe1]

The best four year player I've come across so far?

Mickey Tettleton

The guy was amazing in his time here... very underrated

Yeah he was incredible over that 4 year stretch. One of my favorites.

Guillen with a healthy year could have a similar 4 year stretch given his position in the field. And assuming that he isn't with them in 2008.

[tiger337]

I don't pay any attention to years with the club. Innings pitched and at-bats, while not the absolute best measure of lengevity, are worlds better than years. Hal White pitched parts of 10 seasons with the Tigers, tallying 820.3 innings. Bobo Newsom accomplished nearly as much in 3 years. Was White seven years more significant than Newsom was (if that even means anything)? The answer is no.

This is where win shares is helpful. It allows you to compare the relative contribution of players with careers of varying lengths. Win shares is not good for everything but I find it very useful in this particular exercise. I wish I could find historical win shares online so I could link it.

[tiger337]

The best four year player I've come across so far?

Mickey Tettleton

The guy was amazing in his time here... very underrated

Tettleton was awesome. Fielder got all the attention but Tettleton was better than him the whole time he was in Detroit. Fielder had that big year in 1990 but Tettleton was not on the team then.

[Oblong]

I don't think Tettleton was underrated. Everybody loved him at the time. He was a lot of people's favorite player at the time.

[estrepe1]

I think people understood he was good but that he was underappreciated in comparison to Fielder.

[dt35456884]

The best four year player I've come across so far?

Mickey Tettleton

Agreed in full.

Best three year player? The aforemention Bobo Newsom. And Carlos Guillen isn't far behind.

Best two year player? Eddie "Walking Man" Yost. Just look at that absurd OBP.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I don't pay any attention to years with the club. Innings pitched and at-bats, while not the absolute best measure of lengevity, are worlds better than years. Hal White pitched parts of 10 seasons with the Tigers, tallying 820.3 innings. Bobo Newsom accomplished nearly as much in 3 years. Was White seven years more significant than Newsom was (if that even means anything)? The answer is no.That's a good point, and to clarify I really did mean three FULL seasons of superior play. Siever narrowly missed making my 1915 ballot, due to a lack of innings in his truly great season (1902 I think it was?)

And of course you have to look at pitching roles, such as relievers, and expect fewer innings pitched. I will have a very high standard for relievers though, when they start coming up for nomination.

That begs more questions, is a reliever in, say, 1990, more valuable than a reliever in 1940? When did saves really come into vogue? Do you even look at saves, or at least give it only a certain amount of weight?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Tettleton was a real key to the Tigers offense. I would not at all be surprised if he made my ballot.

[DTroppens]

Bobo Newsom is one of the great characters of the game.

[squid]

By DaYooper,
When did saves really come into vogue?

In 1973 John Hiller saved 38 games for the Tigers, that record held until 1980.

Hiller paved the way for Rollie Fingers and The Quiz.

[DTroppens]

I think I asked this here one time, but I know I posted it other places as well but I'll post this again here.
In 1974 John Hiller had a 17-14 record EXCLUSIVELY on relief appearances. That's 31 decisions in one season as a reliever. That has to be a ML record.

Wilbur Wood was the name that comes to my mind, but I don't think he ever had this many.

[DaYooperASBDT]

By DaYooper,
In 1973 John Hiller saved 38 games for the Tigers, that record held until 1980.
Hiller paved the way for Rollie Fingers and The Quiz.Right, but when we get to someone like, say, Al Benton, do we just measure him against other relievers of his day, or do we not even look at relievers until the 1960's or 1970's ??

[DTroppens]

Measure him by the relievers of his day I'd say.

[DaYooperASBDT]

DT35456884 posed a good question in another thread, "How do you not vote for Bobby Veach?". I have a theory.

If you look at the "real" HOF voting, you'll see that no player has ever received a unanimous vote. I thought Cal Ripken might become the first, but he didn't either.

Once the number of worthy candidates begins to outstrip your number of votes, it becomes very tempting to "budget" your votes.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what happened this time. Perhaps someone felt that since Cobb and Heilmann were better, they wanted to leave out an outfielder, or wanted to see more guys from other positions get in.

But 1930 is a great example of what could happen, with vote budgeting. Ty Cobb is such a complete lock, won't a few of us be tempted to not bother voting for him, in order to save that vote for another guy that is ooooh so close to election. I suspect that would trouble just about all of you ethically, but I know I'm at least tempted by the idea.

I used to wonder a lot about how certain guys aren't chosen unaminously, but this process really provides huge insight into the process. It's fascinating to live in the shoes of a "HOF voter".

[Oblong]

I thought about the Budget idea when Jennings was left off. That theory can work when there's a lot of voters but all it takes in our system is a couple of people to do that and the guy won't get in.

I don't want to tell others how to vote but I'd like to think everybody will vote for who they think is worthy regardless of what others are doing.

[whitecapwendy]

DT35456884 posed a good question in another thread, "How do you not vote for Bobby Veach?". I have a theory.

If you look at the "real" HOF voting, you'll see that no player has ever received a unanimous vote. I thought Cal Ripken might become the first, but he didn't either.

Once the number of worthy candidates begins to outstrip your number of votes, it becomes very tempting to "budget" your votes.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what happened this time. Perhaps someone felt that since Cobb and Heilmann were better, they wanted to leave out an outfielder, or wanted to see more guys from other positions get in.

But 1930 is a great example of what could happen, with vote budgeting. Ty Cobb is such a complete lock, won't a few of us be tempted to not bother voting for him, in order to save that vote for another guy that is ooooh so close to election. I suspect that would trouble just about all of you ethically, but I know I'm at least tempted by the idea.
I used to wonder a lot about how certain guys aren't chosen unaminously, but this process really provides huge insight into the process. It's fascinating to live in the shoes of a "HOF voter".
stop and think though, if everyone did that, Ty Cobb wouldn't get any votes.

[DaYooperASBDT]

That's an excellent point that both Oblong and Wendy made, and we are actually thinking very alike. There isn't much of a "margin of error" between 100% and 75%, only about six votes. So if you did budget votes, and a few others joined in, suddenly your "shoe in" might not even get in!

There's a good chance I'll vote for two of our "holdovers" again, so that leaves only 3 votes for the current class. I think my two "holdovers" are better than some of the "borderline" guys in the 1930 group.

I'm assuming that a couple of the borderline guys from 1930 get enough votes so I can look at them again in 1935. So far that has been the trend, so even voting for the "locks", everything might shake out OK. I'm assuming the 1935 class will not be nearly as strong as the 1930 group.

[estrepe1]

DT35456884 posed a good question in another thread, "How do you not vote for Bobby Veach?". I have a theory.

If you look at the "real" HOF voting, you'll see that no player has ever received a unanimous vote. I thought Cal Ripken might become the first, but he didn't either.

Once the number of worthy candidates begins to outstrip your number of votes, it becomes very tempting to "budget" your votes.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what happened this time. Perhaps someone felt that since Cobb and Heilmann were better, they wanted to leave out an outfielder, or wanted to see more guys from other positions get in.

But 1930 is a great example of what could happen, with vote budgeting. Ty Cobb is such a complete lock, won't a few of us be tempted to not bother voting for him, in order to save that vote for another guy that is ooooh so close to election. I suspect that would trouble just about all of you ethically, but I know I'm at least tempted by the idea.

I used to wonder a lot about how certain guys aren't chosen unaminously, but this process really provides huge insight into the process. It's fascinating to live in the shoes of a "HOF voter".


The margin is much different here than in the regular HOF. There are a lot of voters in comparison. With only around 24 voting every week it is very difficult to actually "budget" your votes because a worthy candidate may not make it by one vote. All it takes is for 7 people of the 24 to leave him off of the ballot.

here's a good chance I'll vote for two of our "holdovers" again, so that leaves only 3 votes for the current class. I think my two "holdovers" are better than some of the "borderline" guys in the 1930 group.

I'm assuming that a couple of the borderline guys from 1930 get enough votes so I can look at them again in 1935. So far that has been the trend, so even voting for the "locks", everything might shake out OK. I'm assuming the 1935 class will not be nearly as strong as the 1930 group.

The 1935 class isn't deep at all and neither is the 1940 class. The next deep class is 1945.

[DTroppens]

dt sent me a PM when I told him that Veach didn't get a vote on every ballot and that's what I suggested. Someone was "saving" a vote.

I have tought about that but never was tempted to do it yet. The next one may be a good one to do that, however, I probably won't. That's where this 10% rule is really helping candidates in terms of sticking on the ballot. Donie Bush gets over 60% of the vote - that means he'll be on it for a very long time even if he doesn' get another vote for five weeks. And that's not going to happen. I think this method really helps keep people from wanting to do this.

And if you have a guy like Ed Summers (or for me Germany Schaefer in the last ballot) and you see he's got maybe your vote, maybe another and no one is excited about him, I can't see doing this if you KNOW there is another candidate that should be on your list. I think that may have been done with Veach though. I don't recall who didn't vote for Veach (and I am not going to check back either because it's really none of my business) but I recall thinking the rest of the names made sense. It gave me the impression that was what was going on.

I'm sure some think it would be a travesty if certain people don't get in with a unaminous vote. I don't think so. I think Cobb better get in, but if someone wants to make issue with his attitude then I can live with it. However, if people are ripping him for his racism, they probably should check a lot of players - Cobb's was just more noticiable. I'm sure many had those same issues (as that was the prevailing thought of the time) and we just don't know anything about it.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I would be surprised if Cobb got 100%. I vote on what they did on the field, and what they did to draw fans to the ballpark, but I can imagine a "protest vote" scenario, I suppose.

IMHO, this isn't the place for registering protest votes about a guy's racism. Dude's dead for one thing, and Cobb lived in a very different historical era. But with any group of 24+ voters, anything is possible.

Thanks all for a good discussion.

[Oblong]

I'm voting for holdovers whenever I can. But if a new class comes in with 5 HOFers, then those new guys get top ranking and the holdover has to wait. I'm not ranking them in order. If I think a holdover is more deserving than a new candidate, I'm giving the new candidate preference because the holdover had his shot.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Haven't had to eliminate very many "holdovers" yet, due to fairly slim pickings each time.

But I'll have to give up Barrett this time, as there are 3 from the 1930 group getting my vote, and I want Bush in and Coveleski in, more than I want Barrett in. The "borderline" guys from 1930 can wait. But I probably won't vote for them anyway.

[estrepe1]

I'm sure some think it would be a travesty if certain people don't get in with a unaminous vote. I don't think so. I think Cobb better get in, but if someone wants to make issue with his attitude then I can live with it. However, if people are ripping him for his racism, they probably should check a lot of players - Cobb's was just more noticiable. I'm sure many had those same issues (as that was the prevailing thought of the time) and we just don't know anything about it.

Agreed on the racism thing. His attitude was just so in the face of everyone that people saw his hatred first hand. It was a problem throughout the country at the time. Just think about what Jackie Robinson went through and that was 19 years after Cobb retired.

Of course that doesn't make it right. It just puts a different perspective on the situation.