2003 Hall of Fame Final Tally

jcrmoon42 · Post by **jcrmoon42** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:32 pm

Congratulations to John Ross Riles, Jr. and Donnie Rotten for their election to the Hall of Fame this year. Riles dominated the voting in his first year on the ballot on the strength of 287 wins and 3 Pitcher of the Year awards. Rotten gains election in his second year on the ballot thanks to 475 career homers from the shortstop position. Unfortunately, we must say good bye to Kevin Haubert, who finished third in his final ballot, the highest he has ever finished.

Here is your final tally. 483 points required for election.

1. John Ross Riles, Jr. - (1)-11, (2)-5, (3)-3, (5)-1, (6)-1, Total - 721
2, Donnie Rotten - (1)-5, (2)-8, (3)-2, (4)-3, (6)-1, (7)-1, (12)-1, Total - 584
3. Kevin Haubert - (1)-1, (2)-2, (3)-4, (5)-1, (6)-1, (7)-3, (8)-4, (9)-1, (11)-1, (12)-1, (13)-1, (15)-1, Total - 351
4. Heath Rockefeller - (1)-1, (2)-2, (3)-5, (4)-3, (8)-2, (9)-1, (10)-1, (12)-1, (13)-1, (14)-3, (15)-1, Total - 349
5. Glen Groves - (1)-2, (3)-2, (4)-3, (5)-3, (7)-1, (8)-2, (9)-2, (10)-2, (12)-2, (13)-2, Total - 334
6. Gunga Oogolagunga - (1)-1, (2)-1, (3)-2, (4)-4, (5)-2, (6)-2, (7)-1, (8)-1, (9)-2, (10)-1, (11)-1, (12)-1, (14)-1, (15)-1, Total - 326
7. Jack Maverick - (2)-1, (4)-5, (5)-1, (6)-4, (7)-1, (8)-1, (10)-1, (11)-4, (12)-1, (13)-1, (14)-1, Total - 273
8. Sam Kirkpatrick - (2)-1, (4)-1, (5)-3, (7)-1, (9)-4, (10)-4, (11)-6, (13)-1, Total - 249
9. Rashardo Menne, Jr. - (3)-2, (5)-2, (6)-2, (7)-2, (8)-3, (9)-2, (10)-1, (11)-2, (12)-2, (14)-2, (15)-1, Total - 249
10. Hank Daniels - (4)-1, (5)-3, (6)-3, (7)-2, (8)-2, (9)-1, (10)-4, (11)-1, (12)-3, (14)-1, Total - 243
11. Braggo Franco - (2)-1, (5)-3, (6)-1, (7)-1, (8)-2, (9)-2, (10)-1, (11)-2, (12)-2, (13)-2, (14)-2, (15)-2, Total - 228
12. Archie Ayrault - (4)-1, (5)-1, (6)-4, (7)-3, (8)-1, (9)-1, (11)-1, (12)-3, (13)-4, (15)-2, Total - 220
13. Hayden Finch - (3)-1, (6)-1, (7)-2, (8)-1, (9)-1, (10)-2, (11)-3, (12)-2, (13)-5, (14)-1, (15)-2, Total - 200
14. Zebediah Williams - (5)-1, (6)-1, (7)-2, (8)-1, (9)-2, (13)-3, (14)-3, (15)-8, Total - 168
15. Alistar Sharpe - (7)-1, (8)-1, (9)-2, (10)-4, (12)-2, (13)-1, (14)-7, (15)-3, Total - 167

JimBob2232 · Post by **JimBob2232** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:59 pm

Well done. 2 very deserving candidates. I am perpetually surprised by the low votes on Groves and Gunga.

Why is this Hauberts last ballot? I thought you dropped from the bottom. Is there a number of years restriction? If so, it might help to know when some of these guys will drop off.

Thanks!

jcrmoon42 · Post by **jcrmoon42** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:47 pm

They are dropped after they have been retired for 10 years. Each year, I look at all of the retirees and pick reasonable candidates, replacing both those who have run out of time and those who have been elected. I also look at the bottom of the voting results, and if there are new retirees who are more deserving, I put them on instead as well.

cheekimonk · Post by **cheekimonk** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:06 pm

SP John Ross Riles, Jr (1981-2000):
WAR: +2.8, +0.7, +2.7, +8.4, +9.3, +12.5, +11.1, +11.5, +12.7, +11.4, +12.9, +12.1, +12.2, +8.2, +9.2, +8.9, +3.2, +2.4, +3.2, +1.5
WAR (total): +152.2
WAAS: +117.5 (18 of 21 seasons)
That middle stretch I bolded, 1984 to 1996, may be the most dominant stretch by any player in MBWBA history. That's without full research.

SS Donnie Rotten (1981-1999):
WAR: +1.0, +0.7, +3.0, +3.7, +5.8, +9.6, +6.3, +6.5, +7.2, +4.7, +4.1, +7.5, +2.6, +3.7, +3.4, +1.7, +0.1, +2.5, +0.8
WAR (total): +75.0
WAAS: +42.7 (14 of 19 seasons)
Rotten is a perfect example of the shortcomings of looking at All-Star selections. One of his 6 All-Star seasons was 1998 when he posted a +2.5 WAR. Let's assume the other 5 were the seasons where he had his highest WAR. That would be 1986-1989, and 1992 (+9.6, +6.3, +6.5, +7.2, +7.5). Keeping in mind that we're considering a +2.0 WAR to be the minimum All-Star level performance, Rotten had 7 additional seasons with outstanding WAR but no All-Star nod: +3.0, +3.7, +5.8, +4.7, +4.1, +3.7, and +3.4. I don't think it can be argued that because he wasn't tabbed those season count against him (and we're assuming he got a nod in his most productive seasons). This is a good case for the use of WAAS, I think.

CL Gunga Oogolagunga had 19 seasons in the MBWBA. In 2002, I had him very high on my ballot simply because he recorded the most Saves ever. But of those 19 seasons he never topped 2.0 WAR. Never. His career WAR is a paltry +15.7. Since his most impressive stat is a cumulative one (saves just keep getting added as the years roll by) my opinion of Gunga has shifted to that of a player who was good enough for a very long time. 463 saves over 19 seasons is just over 24 per year.

Glen Groves had 10 All-Star worthy seasons out of 16. He had a very good stretch in the middle of his career, but his +51.0 WAR becomes a +28.8 WAAS. That's a big gap.

scottsdale_joe · Post by **scottsdale_joe** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:25 am

We need to somehow have a way to add players who are off the ballot.
Like the MLB Veteran's Committee.

"The Veterans Committee is the popular name of the National Baseball Hall of Fame Committee to Consider Managers, Umpires, Executives and Long-Retired Players, a committee of the U.S. Baseball Hall of Fame that provides an opportunity for Hall of Fame election to all individuals who are eligible for induction but ineligible for consideration by the Baseball Writers Association of America. As of the 2011 election process, it is responsible for considering individuals in the following categories:

Players who are no longer eligible for the BBWAA ballot
Managers
Umpires
Executives, including team owners, general managers, and league officials.

The term "Veterans Committee" is taken from the body's former official name: National Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans. It is no longer officially used by the Hall, which now calls the voting bodies the Expansion Era Committee, Golden Era Committee, and Pre-Integration Era Committee.[2] However, it remains in wide use by sports media."

No, I am not volunteering to run such a committee.

JimBob2232 · Post by **JimBob2232** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:36 am

It would be nice...but the admissions standards need to be pretty high.

I especially like the thought of adding managers (and maybe gms). I have no idea what my managers name is, or who the best manager in the game is right now. Could add an interesting dynamic.

jcrmoon42 · Post by **jcrmoon42** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:32 pm

I can't agree to a Veteran's Committee, honestly. If a guy is on the ballot for ten years, and the guys who are on the ballot with him consistently outshine him, it would be safe to say he's probably not a HOFer. I mean, that is really the test, isn't it? Measurement against the players from your own era?

I can hear the "Small Hall" guys complaining now!

JimBob2232 · Post by **JimBob2232** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:53 pm

jcrmoon42 wrote:I can't agree to a Veteran's Committee, honestly. If a guy is on the ballot for ten years, and the guys who are on the ballot with him consistently outshine him, it would be safe to say he's probably not a HOFer. I mean, that is really the test, isn't it? Measurement against the players from your own era?

I can hear the "Small Hall" guys complaining now!

Fair enough...but maybe we can compromise here...For next year, can you add a column for "years on the ballot"? if i know a guy is coming in to his last couple chances, I would like to know that, because maybe i would rate him higher than normal if I think he should be in the HOF. Sometimes my decisions dont come down to "who is the most deserving", but "who should go in NOW".

We've had this conversation before...but lets play this out...if I think Gunga should be in the HOF (lets make that leap), but he is in the last year of the ballot, and a guy like Riles is on his first year on the ballot...even though i think Riles is more deserving, I am going to vote Gunga #1 and Riles #2. Even if i think there are 6 guys more deserving than Gunga...if its his last year on the ballot, and I think he is a HOFer, im putting him #1.

This is the difference between the MLB method and our method. Here we dont vote for who SHOULD be in and need 75% (or whatever)...but we rank them and only give people over a certain number of points admission to the hall. This difference makes me not vote for who is most deserving, in order...and why I typically rank 1st ballot guys low, even if they are stellar candidates. I felt there are 5 guys on this years ballot who should be in the HOF. I ranked Riles #5, even though i felt he was the most deserving of any of the candidates. I did the same with Rotten last year. Simply put, they have time to get in, other guys dont (and other guys need more help!)

JimBob2232 · Post by **JimBob2232** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:54 pm

Oh, and not that I am trying to give you more to do (i very much appreciate all you do for the HOF already!)...but it would be fun to see the list of guys coming up on the ballot for the next 5 years!

Al-Hoot · Post by **Al-Hoot** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:52 pm

all this is why, when it was mentioned, that I voted Haubert first this year;

it is also why I voted Rotten a bit low last year

i agree it would totally help if we knew (exactly) how many years a guy has been on the ballot

cheekimonk · Post by **cheekimonk** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:25 pm

JimBob2232 wrote:Oh, and not that I am trying to give you more to do (i very much appreciate all you do for the HOF already!)...but it would be fun to see the list of guys coming up on the ballot for the next 5 years!

Well, I don't think Jason has to take that on. First, it's hard to tell who will be picked as an actual candidate the next year...much less 5 years from now. He looks at the current HoF makeup and stats trends (more offensive? more defensive?), then picks accordingly. As for the pool he will be picking from that can be accessed by anyone. Go back to 1999 and look up all the players that retired that year. There's you pool of 2004 candidates.

bschr682 · Post by **bschr682** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:13 pm

JimBob2232 wrote: Fair enough...but maybe we can compromise here...For next year, can you add a column for "years on the ballot"? if i know a guy is coming in to his last couple chances, I would like to know that, because maybe i would rate him higher than normal if I think he should be in the HOF. Sometimes my decisions dont come down to "who is the most deserving", but "who should go in NOW".

We've had this conversation before...but lets play this out...if I think Gunga should be in the HOF (lets make that leap), but he is in the last year of the ballot, and a guy like Riles is on his first year on the ballot...even though i think Riles is more deserving, I am going to vote Gunga #1 and Riles #2. Even if i think there are 6 guys more deserving than Gunga...if its his last year on the ballot, and I think he is a HOFer, im putting him #1.

i dislike this kind of voting. If a guy is on the ballot for 10 straight years and never gets enough votes to climb the ballot why do u think he deserves to get in? too many borderline guys get in because they get the "its the last year on the ballot" sympathy votes.

JimBob2232 · Post by **JimBob2232** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:27 am

bateague wrote:
JimBob2232 wrote:Oh, and not that I am trying to give you more to do (i very much appreciate all you do for the HOF already!)...but it would be fun to see the list of guys coming up on the ballot for the next 5 years!
Well, I don't think Jason has to take that on. First, it's hard to tell who will be picked as an actual candidate the next year...much less 5 years from now. He looks at the current HoF makeup and stats trends (more offensive? more defensive?), then picks accordingly. As for the pool he will be picking from that can be accessed by anyone. Go back to 1999 and look up all the players that retired that year. There's you pool of 2004 candidates.

Oh, he absolutely doesn't have to! I just thought it would be fun. Maybe I'll try to dig up the potential candidates later tonight and post.

JimBob2232 · Post by **JimBob2232** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:37 am

bschr682 wrote:
JimBob2232 wrote: Fair enough...but maybe we can compromise here...For next year, can you add a column for "years on the ballot"? if i know a guy is coming in to his last couple chances, I would like to know that, because maybe i would rate him higher than normal if I think he should be in the HOF. Sometimes my decisions dont come down to "who is the most deserving", but "who should go in NOW".

We've had this conversation before...but lets play this out...if I think Gunga should be in the HOF (lets make that leap), but he is in the last year of the ballot, and a guy like Riles is on his first year on the ballot...even though i think Riles is more deserving, I am going to vote Gunga #1 and Riles #2. Even if i think there are 6 guys more deserving than Gunga...if its his last year on the ballot, and I think he is a HOFer, im putting him #1.
i dislike this kind of voting. If a guy is on the ballot for 10 straight years and never gets enough votes to climb the ballot why do u think he deserves to get in? too many borderline guys get in because they get the "its the last year on the ballot" sympathy votes.

It's not sympathy for me. The first thing I do when I open my ballot is decide who I think should be "in" and who I think should be "out". This is how MLB does it too, except the voting stops there. There is no ranking, there is no points. Because there is in mmbwba, for me, it becomes a priority/strategy as to how it is possible to get all of them into the HOF. If I know riles is going "in" because he is a lock, I'm going to vote him at he bottom of my "in" group to give more votes to my others "in" guys. If another one of my "in" guys is on his last shot, I'm going to vote him #1 on my ballot to give him the best shot of making it.

My list of "out" guys I pretty much rank in order. If one of them slips "in"....well...good for them.

cheekimonk · Post by **cheekimonk** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:30 am

The only time I look at "years on the ballot" is in a candidate's first year. Being a first-ballot HoFer should be very, very, very rare. J. Ross Riles most definitely deserved that distinction.

jcrmoon42 · Post by **jcrmoon42** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:56 am

Great discussion, Guys. I'll throw my two cents in.

1. I can certainly switch the "First Year on Ballot" column to "Years on the Ballot" if that is better for you guys. They are also on the ballot in chronological order. So, the guys who have been on longest are at the top.

2. This system is intended to simulate the real world HOF system. The problem with the 75% system in leagues like this is that the sample size is so small that pretty much only the absolute elite get in. There is nothing wrong with that if that is what your intention is for the Hall of Fame. However, the real world model is that somewhere around 2 guys per year get in on average. This system does that. The 75% system does not. For whatever reason, after years and years of teams using that method, it just doesn't get the job done.

3. I think this system requires a little bit of a change in thinking. I understand the first ballot idea being only for the elite. That's kind of an old school way of looking at it, but that's cool. It is relevant in the real world, and I don't dismiss it here. I also understand the idea of moving guys up your ballot who have been on for a while or who risk being removed due to time running out. However, I personally think very differently with this system. I look at a blank slate of candidates and rank them based on how deserving I think they are. I don't worry about years on the ballot, first year on the ballot, or anything like that. I'm looking at player vs. player. Is this guy more deserving than that guy? Since we are analyzing each player against a group of his peers, which is as good a definition of Hall of Fame voting as anything else, this way seems to make the most sense to me.

4. There is, unfortunately, no way to anticipate who will be on the ballot, because we don't have a waiting period. They go on the ballot immediately upon retirement. The biggest reason for this is because it is easier for me to make a ballot when I have a list of retirees. If we waited five years, I would be dependent on the leaderboards to determine candidates, and that is iffy at best. However, you can still anticipate a little bit who might retire and discuss those guys.

5. I don't agree that too many borderline guys get in on the sympathy vote. In fact, I can't really see anyone voted in since we started this in '97 who I think would qualify as a sympathy vote. A couple of guys, notably Cory Aubrey and Kevin Haubert, have gotten up to third in their last year, perhaps out of sympathy, but we have yet to have anyone actually get in. In the real world, I think this can be a problem. If a guy is on the ballot for 15 years, just hanging on, is he suddenly a HOFer in year 15? I think this system really weeds that out, because you've got to get a lot of top votes to get in, and while voters are willing to put a Kevin Haubert third on their ballot, few are willing to rank him over a Riles. The few that do don't outweigh the rest of the system.

jumpmancol · Post by **jumpmancol** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:23 pm

Well, to bring this topic back around...

I came in at the tail end of Donnie Rotten's career, but I was fortunate enough to have him for a short time prior to his retirement. Great player and well-deserved honor, but at the time, I had no idea I had a future HOF'er on my hands!

7teen · Post by **7teen** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:35 am

Good to see Rotten in. I came into the league the first year it started back up and Rotten was on the Surfers team and was the highest paid player by a wide margin. He never produced to what his salary dictated he was making. But he was still a good hitting shortstop during those first years.

scottsdale_joe · Post by **scottsdale_joe** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:32 am

jcrmoon42 wrote:I can't agree to a Veteran's Committee, honestly. If a guy is on the ballot for ten years, and the guys who are on the ballot with him consistently outshine him, it would be safe to say he's probably not a HOFer. I mean, that is really the test, isn't it? Measurement against the players from your own era?

I can hear the "Small Hall" guys complaining now!

Shrug.
It's not a big deal since I consider the HOF mostly irrelevant anyway.
Sort of like the All Star game and Spring Training.
Then, that's me.

jcrmoon42 · Post by **jcrmoon42** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:26 pm

scottsdale_joe wrote:Shrug.
It's not a big deal since I consider the HOF mostly irrelevant anyway.
Sort of like the All Star game and Spring Training.
Then, that's me.

In the grand scheme of things, it is all pretty much irrelevant. It is just a matter of degrees of irrelevance. Spring Training is certainly less relevant than the All Star Game, and the All Star Game is certainly less relevant than the Hall of Fame. All of them pale in comparison to the relevance of the season which is less relevant than the playoffs/championship. But all of that pales further still when compared to Hurricane Katrina. God bless the Crawdads for having to play in a vacant lot...err...I mean for having to play in a vacant lot two years from now.

The Brewster

The Brewster