2005 Hall of Fame final tally

[jcrmoon42]

Congratulations to Glen Groves for his election to the MBWBA Hall of Fame. Glen dominated this ballot while the other players stole votes from one another. Nine of the fifteen players on the ballot received first place votes, but seven of those received votes in the bottom two, including Groves. Nobody is automatically eliminated this year.

Here is your final tally. 529 points required for election.

Glen Groves - (1)-8, (2)-4, (4)-2, (5)-1, (6)-2, (7)-3, (8)-1, (13)-1, (14)-1, Total - 603
Riley Hinson - (1)-3, (2)-3, (3)-3, (4)-2, (6)-1, (7)-2, (9)-1, (12)-3, (13)-3, (14)-2, Total - 428
Hank Daniels - (1)-3, (3)-2, (4)-2, (5)-4, (6)-3, (8)-2, (9)-1, (10)-4, (11)-2, Total - 402
Evander Kilkenny - (1)-2, (2)-2, (3)-1, (4)-3, (5)-1, (6)-2, (7)-2, (8)-4, (9)-3, (10)-2, (11)-1, Total - 396
Flavio Luna - (1)-1, (2)-2, (3)-4, (5)-5, (6)-1, (7)-1, (8)-3, (10)-1, (11)-2, (12)-1, (13)-1, (14)-1, Total - 382
Dave Manzanillo - (1)-2, (3)-1, (4)-1, (5)-4, (6)-3, (7)-5, (8)-1, (11)-2, (12)-1, (13)-1, (15)-2, Total - 347
Rashardo Menne, Jr. - (1)-1, (2)-1, (3)-3, (4)-2, (5)-2, (6)-3, (7)-2, (9)-4, (12)-1, (14)-2, (15)-2, Total - 346
Eddie Harris - (1)-1, (2)-2, (4)-2, (5)-3, (7)-1, (8)-2, (9)-4, (10)-2, (11)-2, (13)-1, (14)-1, (15)-2, Total - 322
Hayden Finch - (2)-1, (3)-4, (4)-1, (6)-2, (7)-2, (9)-2, (10)-1, (11)-3, (12)-6, (13)-1, Total - 306
Archie Ayrault - (2)-1, (3)-2, (4)-2, (5)-1, (6)-1, (7)-3, (8)-2, (9)-3, (10)-1, (11)-2, (12)-1, (13)-1, (14)-2, (15)-1, Total - 293
Zebediah Williams - (2)-4, (4)-1, (6)-1, (7)-1, (8)-1, (9)-1, (10)-2, (11)-2, (12)-2, (13)-3, (14)-4, (15)-1, Total - 290
David Smurf - (1)-2, (2)-1, (4)-2, (8)-1, (9)-1, (10)-2, (11)-2, (12)-2, (13)-3, (14)-3, (15)-4, Total - 284
Gabriel Steel - (2)-2, (3)-1, (4)-2, (5)-1, (8)-2, (10)-4, (11)-3, (12)-3, (13)-3, (14)-1, (15)-1, Total - 277
Timothy Regina - (3)-1, (4)-1, (6)-3, (7)-1, (8)-2, (9)-2, (10)-2, (11)-2, (12)-1, (13)-1, (14)-3, (15)-4, Total - 231
Robert Nolan - (3)-1, (5)-1, (6)-1, (8)-2, (9)-1, (10)-2, (12)-2, (13)-4, (14)-3, (15)-6, Total - 199

[mrbornac]

Congrats Glen Groves! WOOT!

[recte44]

Those of you voting Hinson in the bottom 5, please explain yourselves.

[bschr682]

I didn't have him in the bottom 5 but i still don't think hes a surefire hall of famer. What measure are you using that you are so convinced he needs to be in the hall? The only really compelling arguement i see is the number of all star games which is impressive but nothing else he did was very dominant. decent .280 average but not special. very low counting stats considering a 19 year career. only 3 slick fielders so it wasn't like he was the premier defensive catcher in the league constantly. I have him in the middle of my ballot and he probably will never get any higher.

[JimBob2232]

I did have hinson fairly high, but in order to do so you really need to consider his position. His overall numbers are not great...but they are pretty darn good FOR A CATCHER.

I usually do not consider position when I vote. I should, but i usually dont. I am assuming others are the same way.

[jcrmoon42]

It appears to me that most people do not consider position when they vote. It is really the only explanation for guys like Ayrault and Menne to get as little attention as they do.

[bigmike13]

I know i'm the new guy, but I'll be the first to admit that i did not have Hinson in my top 5. My main reason was that he went in the ballot in 2003 so he has a few more years to be on the ballot and felt he would most surely get in either this year or next . Second i looked at his stats compared to everyone else's stats and then compared to how long he played and just felt some other people maybe had a bigger impact during their careers. And no, i really didn't take position into account. maybe i should have. will keep it in mind for next season

[7teen]

I had Menne 4th and Ayrault 6th strictly because of their stats/position. I think I have always had Ayrault in the top half of my ballot because of his position. I think i did the same with Jack Maverick when he was on the ballot as well.

[bschr682]

I take position into consideration if the player has some defensive value. A really good defensive SS/CF/C can make the hall with smaller numbers because of the fact they add so much on the defensive side. But thats only if the guy is a PLUS defensive player.

[jcrmoon42]

Honestly, I'm really surprised that there is even any question among this crowd about whether a player is more valuable playing a more important defensive position. It makes no sense to simply compare raw numbers without considering position and context.

Joe Mauer and John Kruk have the same career OPS+ in a similar career length. Are they equally valuable? Is there even a question?

As for determining whether or not a player is a PLUS defensive player, how are we doing that exactly? Fielding awards? Raw stats? Is anyone actually looking at that? Of course not.

In reality, simply knowing that a guy played a key defensive position over his career means he is much, much more valuable if he is the same hitter as someone playing a less valuable defensive position. This is also reflected in the recent player rankings I posted. Menne, Ayrault and Hinson rank very high at their position, because they were great hitters at key defensive positions. Meanwhile, guys like Manzanillo don't do so well in the rankings. Although he was a great hitter, there are lots of those at first base. There's just no real comparison, in my opinion.

[bschr682]

i agree this works in real life but this is sim league. I have seen many,many,many owners who don't give a damn about defense so you can have a guy who is a truly awful defender sit at a supposed PLUS defensive position. I'm guilty of that myself for part of this most recent season. Bolt Vanderhugen in no way is a CF anymore yet i played him there. Same thing happens for many players on many teams. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. hah.

[jcrmoon42]

i agree this works in real life but this is sim league. I have seen many,many,many owners who don't give a damn about defense so you can have a guy who is a truly awful defender sit at a supposed PLUS defensive position. I'm guilty of that myself for part of this most recent season. Bolt Vanderhugen in no way is a CF anymore yet i played him there. Same thing happens for many players on many teams. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. hah.

I agree that this is the case for a season or two at a time, but a guy isn't going to play for 15 years at shortstop if he sucks at shortstop.

[leejay56]

I had Hinson right up there,,surprising he didnt make it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[recte44]

He should next year....we just have to continue educating the masses.

[JimBob2232]

The other issue I have with Hinson is that his overall numbers, while good for a catcher, when he played...are not great in comparison to catchers in todays game.

Put Hinson up against Jeremy Hunter, Hurley Reyes, Champ Kind, Robin Larker (if he is a C) Gustovo Maldenado, Pat Larkin, Rafael Avilla...and things get a little muddier.

I still think he is worthy, I just dont know that it is cut and dry.

[recte44]

Really need to compare players to players of their era. If you're comparing the 70's/80's guys to the players of today, they don't compare well at all.

[JimBob2232]

Really need to compare players to players of their era. If you're comparing the 70's/80's guys to the players of today, they don't compare well at all.

Agreed, but comparing a guy who retired in 2002 vs a guy who is playing in 2005 isnt that unrealistic.

[jcrmoon42]

Upon his retirement, Riley Hinson is the fourth best offensive catcher in 32 years of MBBA history. That's pretty good. Don't you think?

Ayrault is fourth at 2B. Menne is third at SS. We've even got the third and fourth best offensive first basemen in Luna and Manzanillo. Meanwhile, Groves flies in as the 10th best hitting CF in league history. In 32 years, there have been 9 better hitters. That means that even during his career, there were at least 4 or 5 contemporaries who were better than him.

I know. Rate stats are just one way of measuring a player. Counting stats are another. Still, given a reasonably long career, a guy with superior rate stats, especially at a difficult defensive position, should really be considered as a better player. I'm not sure why longevity itself holds such esteem for most voters. It seems a quality versus quantity argument, and I'll take quality, given a reasonable amount of quantity, any day.

[trmmilwwi]

Therein lies the beauty of human voting... Love the additional discussion (and outright pleading )!!