text:
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6604 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Monday, January 10, 2005
1942 Results: Hall of Merit Voters Were "Dazzled" by Vance; "Memphis Bill" Also Left an Impression!
With a record 65 candidates who earned a spot on a ballot, 1920's strikeout king Dazzy Vance placed first for induction to the Hall of Merit in his second year of eligibility.
In his first year as a candidate, New York Giants' star Bill Terry gained admission to the HOM by winning enough votes for the second spot.
Eppa Rixey was a very close third, while John Beckwith made a huge jump in the rankings by moving from last year's #13 to this year's #5.
Rounding out the top ten were: Clark Griffith, Joe Sewell, George Van Haltren (back in the top ten), Tommy Leach, Hughie Jennings and Jake Beckley.
RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 3 Dazzy Vance 719 41 9 8 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 n/e Bill Terry 571 42 3 3 5 1 2 2 4 6 2 2 2 5 3 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 4 Eppa Rixey 527 37 3 3 2 1 4 7 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 4 5 Joe Sewell 475 33 3 4 4 5 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 13 John Beckwith 463 31 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 4 6 6 Clark Griffith 456 30 3 3 3 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 7 11 George Van Haltren 436 27 7 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 8 7 Hughie Jennings 430 26 3 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 9 8 Tommy Leach 424 33 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 4 1 5 3 1 1 3 2 10 10 Jake Beckley 402 27 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 9 George Sisler 399 28 3 1 4 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 4 12 12 Rube Waddell 338 26 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 13 14 Hugh Duffy 333 24 2 2 4 4 2 3 1 3 3 14 19 Edd Roush 296 24 1 1 1 3 4 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 15 15 Cannonball Dick Redding 293 24 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 4 2 1 3 1 16 16 Cupid Childs 289 22 1 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 17 17 Mickey Welch 279 15 5 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 18 18 Pete Browning 273 19 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 19 20 Burleigh Grimes 237 17 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 20 22 Larry Doyle 222 17 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 21 21 Roger Bresnahan 190 17 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 22 23 Jimmy Ryan 190 15 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 23 26 José Méndez 189 16 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 24 24 Charley Jones 187 12 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 25 25 Wally Schang 168 12 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 26 28 Bill Monroe 154 14 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 27 27 Sam Rice 143 11 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 28 31 Dobie Moore 131 13 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 29 29 Pie Traynor 119 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 30 32T Harry Hooper 118 11 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 31 30 George J. Burns 110 10 2 1 2 1 3 1 32 34 Vic Willis 74 7 1 1 1 2 2 33 37 Ben Taylor 72 6 2 1 1 1 1 34 35 John McGraw 68 5 1 1 1 1 1 35 32T Bobby Veach 66 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 36 38 Wilbur Cooper 64 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 45 Rabbit Maranville 63 7 1 2 2 2 38 49 Addie Joss 63 6 1 1 2 2 39 42 Urban Shocker 59 6 2 1 2 1 40 44 Spotswood Poles 58 5 1 1 1 1 1 41 40 Carl Mays 57 5 1 2 1 1 42 43 Hack Wilson 54 5 1 1 2 1 43 41 Gavy Cravath 54 4 1 1 1 1 44 46 Ed Williamson 46 4 1 2 1 45 39 Frank Chance 43 5 1 2 2 46 36 Fielder Jones 35 4 1 1 2 47 48 Ed Cicotte 35 3 1 1 1 48 47 Ed Konetchy 31 3 1 1 1 49 51 Lave Cross 29 2 1 1 50 50 Dave Bancroft 24 3 1 1 1 51 60 Jim McCormick 24 2 1 1 52 54T Fred Dunlap 23 2 1 1 53 n/e Buzz Arlett 20 2 1 1 54 54T Del Pratt 16 2 1 1 55T 53 Dolf Luque 16 1 1 55T 52 Tom York 16 1 1 57 54T Donie Bush 15 1 1 58 54T Sam Leever 14 1 1 59T n/e Tommy Bond 10 1 1 59T 58T Duke Farrell 10 1 1 59T 58T Jack Fournier 10 1 1 62 61 Ray Schalk 9 1 1 63 63 Jack Quinn 8 1 1 64T n/e Herman Long 6 1 1 64T 62 Ross Youngs 6 1 1
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 10, 2005 at 11:14 PM | 89 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:02 AM (#1071027)
hot topics2. OCF Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1071082)
Average consensus score -9.0. Range of consensus scores -21 to + 2. Just two positive consensus scores: jschmeagol at +2 and me at +1. (Relatively, the highest I've ever been.)3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:31 AM (#1071094)
Gotta run now. I'll be back with more details later this evening.
My consensus score was probably dead last.4. OCF Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:34 AM (#1071104)
John, at -17, you didn't even make the bottom 5.5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:41 AM (#1071113)
Wow! I'm honestly surprised, OCF.6. EricC Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:44 AM (#1071119)
Gee, if I had known Bill Terry was going to win, I might have argued more strongly against him. :-)7. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:03 AM (#1071134)
Bill Terry is to the 1920s-1930s what Sam Thompson was to the 1890s.
Terry didnt' make my PHOM of Merit this year, but I did have him fourth. It is a weak year and he just stuck out. No other first baseman had as good a peak or prime (and it wasn't really close)in my system and I am a peak/prime voter.8. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:21 AM (#1071179)
I am glad that Vance is in. I think we elected the rigth 1920s pitchers in Coveleski, Faber, and Vance. If Rixey (and he is the only other one that will make my ballot) makes it I won't be too mad but i think I would draw the line between them.
Bleh.9. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:41 AM (#1071239)
Mr. "highest consensus score" just saw two candidates elected that he didn't even have on his ballot.
Funny, I wondered if anyone could put Terry ahead of Sisler AND Beckley, or how anyone could put Vance ahead of Jennings.
I guess I found my answer!
These guys sure picked a hecukva year to become eligible.
Top 20 Vote Pts Leaders through 194210. The Honorable Ardo Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1071466)
Pike 13399
Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
Caruthers 10704
H Stovey 9576
Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5
Top 20 Active Vote Pts Leaders through 1942
McCORMICK 3119
TIERNAN 2686x
x - no votes in 1942
I'm happy with both our inductees this year - a good thing, for the 1942 backlog won't see many "elect-me" votes in many years.11. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:52 AM (#1071500)
With Oscar Charleston, Bill Foster, Dick Lundy, and Judy Johnson appearing on the 1943 ballot, I'm going to review my placements for all the Negro League candidates (Mendez, Monroe, Dobie Moore, Taylor, Redding, Beckwith) along with the 4 newbies.
Wow, I'm floored that Terry was elected. Absolutely floored. Might be our worst work yet.12. Michael Bass Posted: January 11, 2005 at 05:13 AM (#1071537)
I'm reasonably sure this is the first and only time my "elect me" players in a controversial election will actually be elected. I'll bask in it. :)13. robc Posted: January 11, 2005 at 06:03 AM (#1071667)
Joe,14. Kelly in SD Posted: January 11, 2005 at 08:25 AM (#1071943)
Al Spalding disagrees.
Joe,15. karlmagnus Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:07 PM (#1072035)
In total agreement. He can go with Faber and Wallace to take tickets. Terry joins the growing group of players who gained entrance through retiring in the right year in combination with a lack of two strong candidates so that broad but weak support enabled enshrinement.
Terry finished tied for 7th in elect-me votes.
Vance 12
Van Haltren 9
Jennings 9
Beckwith 7
Welch 7
Sewell 7
Beckley 6
Griffith 6
Terry 6
(listed in order of elect-me votes, then first-place, then alphabetically.)
Points per vote (everyone w/ 15 votes) [position]:
Welch 18.6 [17]
Vance 17.5 [1]
Jennings 16.5 [8]
Van Haltren 16.1 [7]
Griffith 15.2 [6]
Beckwith 14.94 [5]
Beckley 14.88 [10]
Sewell 14.39 [4]
Browning 14.37 [18]
Sisler 14.3 [11]
Rixey 14.2 [3]
Duffy 13.9 [13]
Grimes 13.9 [19]
Terry 13.6 [2]
Childs 13.1 [16]
Doyle 13.1 [20]
Waddell 13 [12]
Leach 12.8 [9]
Ryan 12.7 [22]
Roush 12.3 [14]
Redding 12.2 [15]
Mendez 11.8 [23]
Bresnahan 11.2 [21]
So how did Terry make it in?
Terry dominated the 9-15 spots on ballots where 22 of his 42 votes came from. The next highest finish by a player with 50% of their votes from the bottom half of the ballot was Waddell - 12th. The next most votes from 9-15 was Redding with 16.
He did have broad support in top half as well with 20 votes 1-8. But it was his support at the back half of the ballot that put him in. 5 more 12th place votes would have put Rixey in. Terry and Sewell both had 20 votes 1st - 8th. 9-15 Terry had 22, Sewell 13. If Sewell matched Terry's performance on the back half, he would be in.
To Many Voters,
Thank you for taking the time to explain, in some way, your voting method/system.
We should severely increase the first year penalty on our ballots, like the HOF used to do, otherwise we appear to elect people by accident. Personally I regret Vance much more than Terry, but there were several more deserving long standing candidates than either. We are also biasing far too much towards recent players. My PHOM is now 14 away from consensus, and of those 14, I would regard about half as serious mistakes, who wouldn't make my PHOM if it was treble the size.16. robc Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:14 PM (#1072041)
I think Terry shows the advantage of our system. We are electing people with broad based support across many different systems - peak, prime, career, ws, warp, traditional stats, etc. Much better to elect him than someone who a small group of electors think is the tops - although the Welch voters may disagree.17. robc Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:23 PM (#1072049)
Let me propose a thought experiment, someone better at probability could actually calculate the result. Lets take 500 players and absolutely rank them from 1 to 500. We know the order they belong in. Now, lets randomly distribute their retirement years across the history of baseball. Every year, lets "vote" based on this absolute rank. When we finish electing the 210 or so guys, how many of them will have been elected in their first year on the ballot?18. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 11, 2005 at 01:43 PM (#1072059)
How many of the 210 elected are outside the top 210?
If you were to penalize a first year ballot player by adding 50 to their rank arbitrarily for that year, wouldnt you end up electing more or at least worse outside the top 210 players?
For those of your who think that Terry is one of our worst electees, how many like Sisler? I guess I understand why peple would vote for Beckley, i.e. a fetish for long careers. I really don't think Beckley shoould get elected but I understand it. But in my system, Terry is solidly above Sisler.19. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:02 PM (#1072069)
Terry's Win Shares numbers in my system are much like those of an outfielder. This may not sound convincing, but if I went solely on my win shaares numbers, 7 of my top ten guys (maybe more) would be outfielders, I don't think that is very realistic. Win Shares seems to overrate outfielders.
Now Terry didn't make my PHOM, somaybe I am nto the guy who should defend him. But I do think he would have been a much better selection than say, Joe Sewell.
Well, this doesn't exactly knock "shiny new toy" out of the box, does it?20. Al Peterson Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:20 PM (#1072093)
I think the high number of 9th to 15th place votes are in some cases a matter of voters not being sure what to do with him on the first try, so it's 'a compromise' - one that got him elected.
Wow, I'm floored that Terry was elected. Absolutely floored. Might be our worst work yet.21. PhillyBooster Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:28 PM (#1072104)
I'll agree with you that Terry is borderline. Then again all the people on the 1942 ballot were borderline - thus they were backlog candidates. We did the best we could and thus Bill Terry makes the HOM.
As for complaints that Terry got in by being on many ballots but in the lower half, we can have that or the Lip Pike syndrome. In 1940 he got elected while being on 26 of 50 ballots. So the half of us who thought he was a bogus selection bit the bullet then. Others can do the same now.
Wow, I'm floored that Terry was elected. Absolutely floored. Might be our worst work yet.22. karlmagnus Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:41 PM (#1072123)
The "problem", if there is a problem, comes in the way we tabulate votes, not in the ordering of any particular -- or group of -- ballots. The group has a whole has been fairly consistently good in ranking according to their personal values.
However, in this case we've got a bunch of people on all of our ballots, down bottom, who we probably wouldn't want to actually elect.
Suppose we kept our same scoring system, but voted for only 5 people per ballot:
1. Vance -- 502
2. Beckwith -- 320
3. Sewell -- 316
4. Jennings -- 312
5. van Haltren -- 298
6. Terry -- 280
7. Rixey -- 258
Or, if we just ranked our Top 5, 5-4-3-2-1
1. Vance -- 89
T2 van Haltren -- 52
T2 Beckwith -- 52
4. Jennings -- 51
5. Sewell -- 48
6. Terry -- 46
7. Griffith -- 41
Either of those scoring methods pushes Terry down to sixth place.
Kelly made a valiant mid-ballot attempt to dissuade people from voting for Terry. The problem was that it is likely that he was about sixth best -- and people conservatively placed him 10th or 12 (like I did), but the scoring method put him back on on top.
If you personally think Beckwith or van Haltren would have been a better inductee than Terry (and many do not), then the criticism should be with the scoring method, not with the voters.
Any voting system has its glitches. I have both Beckwith and van Haltren off my ballot, below Terry but above Vance. Griffith or Beckley are the two in the Top 10 who were above Terry, but your voting system changes do nothing for them.23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:47 PM (#1072131)
Changing the system doesn't help, but being cautious about newbies is essential. Even more essential is not to get bored with older players, allowing them to slip slowly down ballots as new toys appear, which is what seems to be happening.
THAT looks to me the real problem.
I'm not going to beat up on Terry since somebody here could beat up on a player that I trumpeted. Somebody's borderliner is another's HOMer.24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1072138)
Was he at least a borderline candidate? Yes. Did he have an impressive peak? Yes. Do any of us need to hold our noses? No.
Welcome, Bill.
Joe,25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:53 PM (#1072143)
Al Spalding disagrees.
Spalding was the greatest pitcher of his era, while Terry wasn't close to being the best first baseman for his. Spalding was the greater impact player.
Changing the system doesn't help, but being cautious about newbies is essential. Even more essential is not to get bored with older players, allowing them to slip slowly down ballots as new toys appear, which is what seems to be happening.26. robc Posted: January 11, 2005 at 02:59 PM (#1072155)
THAT looks to me the real problem.
Very well said, karlmagnus.
I see no evidence of the "shiny new toy" or boredom effect. If anything, the Terry result might be due to people being cautious with him. There could be a number of people who had him about 5-8 but showed first year restraint and voted him 9-15 instead. My system of restraint had him below Sewell in 2nd instead of his natural 1st. The combination of a good but not great career value with a very nice peak pushed him to near the top of my ballot and onto a lot of other ballots.27. Chris Cobb Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:02 PM (#1072159)
I think the elections of Terry and Pike are both proof that are system works. In down years you can be elected by being a strong candidate amongst 50% of the voters or by being a ballot candidate amongst 80% of the voters.
Phillybooster's analsyiss of the system is cogent, but I believe that there is a voter psychology factor involved as well as a systemic voting factor.28. Michael Bass Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:08 PM (#1072173)
I agree with those who point out a tendency for new players to get more down-ballot support than they will receive in the next year or two, which then plays into the working of the voting system. I think voters should be aware of the tendency to let new candidates onto the ballot and try not to do it.
I would ask the voters to ask themselves: Are there features of my voting system that may unfairly privilege new candidates (for instance in how the consideration set is constructed)? If my approach to ballot construction is designedly subjective, am I giving new candidates unearned privilege?
I cannot disagree more about a "first ballot penalty". We are called on to rank players to the best of our ability. That means we should be careful not to experience "shiny new toy syndrome", but it certainly doesn't mean we should be dropping new players arbitrarily.29. PhillyBooster Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:10 PM (#1072180)
I further disagree that the voting system is a problem. We've actually got a pretty solid voting system if it's one that can elect Pike and Terry despite such disparate ways into the HOM.
And finally, I sort of resent the implication that, as one of the 6 people who had Terry in an "elect me" slot, I got somehow dazzled by his newness on the ballot and overrated him. He is/was exactly where the mathematical formula I use slotted him on my ballot. I sometimes make adjustments to that formula for pitchers and catchers, as it does not handle them well, but in this case I made none. If Terry had not been inducted, then 20 elections later, he still would have been over everyone else on this ballot with the possible exceptions of Vance (who is a pitcher, which I'm always ending up messing with, and who was very close to Terry this election) or one of the NLers (where subjective evidence could theoretically convince me that they deserve a higher ballot position).
robc's point is also a good one.30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:20 PM (#1072200)
The fact that Terry had a lot of "down ballot" support could just as easily be an artifact of a lot of people who would otherwise have given him "up ballot" support being conservative. I know I dropped him a few "subjective" points, as I do with many new candidates who I don't have a good comfort level with.
Without letting us vote on his again in 1943, we won't know whether he was a shiny toy or a victim of restraint.
As I have mentioned before, I don't believe in the "shiny new toy" theory, but I do think we need to be very careful with the newbies.31. robc Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:46 PM (#1072264)
My system originally had Sewell at the top of my ballot a few elections back, but I had made some mental mistakes with him. Was I "blinded" by the jug-eared shortstop who retired years before I was born? Of course not. I just made a mistake.
Remember: if Terry hadn't made it, some of us would be complaining about another inductee. It just wasn't a good crop this "year," relative to other elections.
John,32. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:49 PM (#1072273)
Spalding might have been the greatest pitcher of his era if he had shown up for the second half of it. Posting a goose egg for the last half of his era knocks him down a bit.
I find it interesting that I picked Spaldings name, considering he was on my ballot when he got elected and eventually made my PHOM while guys like Pike got elected while only vaguely sniffing at my ballot. I still think Lip was a better choice than Al.
I agree with EricC that Terry is reminiscent of Sam Thompson - and neither one is currently in my PHoM. The careers weren't really that long, they played in big-scoring eras so their raw numbers look more impressive than they really are, and they were never really the best players in their leagues. But they certainly had solid careers, and I don't really think they're indefensible picks.33. Dolf Lucky Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:51 PM (#1072277)
I'll also add that there's been a lot of criticism of Sewell's case because there wasn't a lot of competition at shortstop in the 20s. But the opposite argument can be made for Terry - he wasn't the best first baseman of his era, but you don't have to be as good as Gehrig and Foxx to be worthy of election.
Whoever got elected this year for the 2nd spot would have competed for "worst electee ever" title. Carrying under 50% of the total possible points guarantees you get lumped in that discussion. That means that if instead of Bill Terry, Rixey or Beckwith or Beckley or Welch or whoever got elected, they would be on many people's minds when thinking of the worst HoMer to date. It was an extremely weak ballot.34. andrew siegel Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:55 PM (#1072289)
I was going to post something else, but I got distracted by something shiny...
I had Terry 11th, one spot ahead of Chance, four ahead of Beckley, and five ahead of Sisler. By the numbers, he would have been 6th or so, but I exercised caution based on (1) his newness and (2)the fact that there is a bunch of first baseman with roughly similar credentials.35. robc Posted: January 11, 2005 at 03:58 PM (#1072296)
That having been said, Terry was a very good player with a particularly impressive prime. He had a run of seven years in a row with an OWP over .700 and nine years in a row with an OWP over .670, and was one of the greatest defensive first basemen of alltime. I didn't do a systematic study but through quick rummaging I couldn't find a single 20th-century player with seven consecutive OWP's over .700 who we won't be a strong candidate for election.
Terry is not yet in my PHOM, but he would be if I voted straight-up on the numbers this year and, as is, he's fifth in line for election, which means he will probably sneak in the door sometime in the distant future. Even if he doesn't, he's at worst a borderline candidate. Since each of us have a few guys we think are ridiculous picks, I don't understand the whinning.
Dolf,36. sunnyday2 Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:00 PM (#1072300)
Was it Oscar Charleston? He is '43s shiny new toy.
Charleston, Cochrane, and Frisch - lots of shiny new toys. Surely no more than 1 or 2 of those 3 belong on the ballot?
Speaking as somebody who had Spalding, Pike and Terry all in elect-me spots, I could gloat. But I have to admit to some embarrassment at being part of a controversial "consensus" (many ballots, few elect-me's) selection like Memphis Bill. I usually specialize in the other kind of controversy (the few ballots but skewed high) candidate.37. Dolf Lucky Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:10 PM (#1072322)
I think as we go forward, we will elect many Spaldings, Pikes and Terry's that some voters don't like. I personally think Pud Galvin and a couple-too-many-LFers are our worst choices, but the fact is we will do worse than any of these guys someday. I mean, just think about electing three every year in the not too distant future, and working our way down to today's backlog again doing it.
As the consideration sets get bigger and our ballots more fragmented, there will also be many very close calls. And the fact is that we will have more Terry's than Pikes in the future. That is because our system has a small but potentially decisive bias toward consensus--to wit:
Elect-me bonus = 4 points
Off-ballot penalty = 6 points
Compare #2 Terry and #3 Rixey e.g. Assume Rixey makes 5 more ballots, so that each has 42. And assume that one of Rixey's is a first and four are 15ths. Now they have the same number of ballots and Rixey has one extra elect-me, for a total of 575 points to Terry's 571. That would be fair--i.e. Rixey getting elected, if he had the same total number of ballots and one more elect me.
Now delete Rixey from one ballot, one lousy little 15th place. He now has one extra elect-me, but Terry one extra ballot. And Terry wins 571-569.
Or take G. Van Haltren who is second this year in elect-me points. He needs a whole 'nother 15 ballots to match Terry's 42--well, assume he has them and they're all bottom of the ballot, an 8th and 2 each from 9th to 15th. Now he has the same number of ballots as Terry and 3 extra elect-me's. Add 139 points for VH and he beats Terry 575-571.
Now delete one 15th place, same as with Rixey. He's still got 3 extra elect-me's but one fewer ballot and he loses 571-569.
Now obviously Rixey and VH could also win these match-ups with a slightly different distribution of placements. But who's to say that scenarios like this won't happen randomly. I say they will and more than once.
So anyway, Bill Terry is in and some voters disagree, saying he may be one of our worst choices. Well, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
Was it Oscar Charleston? He is '43s shiny new toy.38. Chris Cobb Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:15 PM (#1072336)
He's black though, so I'm not sure he counts.
*cough* Pete Hill *cough*
I think it's ok to vote Cochrane high, but Frisch may need to be hit with some caution, perhaps as a penalty for sneaking in some of his friends to the Hall of Fame.
Perhaps we can form a committee that would recommend which new candidates should be artificially held back, and which are OK to vote high. Any volunteers?
Here's a somewhat peculiar statement, but it's an attempt to express my analysis of the outcome. The strength of support for Terry suggests that if he had not been elected this year, he probably would have been elected in the future. At present, I don't agree with the electorate's choice, but it's possible my view of Terry will change in future.39. Chris Cobb Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:20 PM (#1072354)
I cannot disagree more about a "first ballot penalty". We are called on to rank players to the best of our ability. That means we should be careful not to experience "shiny new toy syndrome", but it certainly doesn't mean we should be dropping new players arbitrarily.
I agree that we shouldn't drop new players arbitrarily, but we need to be sure we aren't favoring them arbitrarily, either.
I further disagree that the voting system is a problem. We've actually got a pretty solid voting system if it's one that can elect Pike and Terry despite such disparate ways into the HOM.
The voting system is not a problem: it has shown itself over the years to be a highly satisfactory mechanism for selection. Nevertheless, its design will favor certain configurations of voter support over others. It is useful for us to be aware of the system's influence.
And finally, I sort of resent the implication that, as one of the 6 people who had Terry in an "elect me" slot, I got somehow dazzled by his newness on the ballot and overrated him. He is/was exactly where the mathematical formula I use slotted him on my ballot.
If it makes you feel any better, my concerns about the electorate as a whole favoring new candidates excessively are directed at rankings in the bottom third of the ballot. I'm pretty sure that the folks who ranked Bill Terry #1 or #2 saw him, in their systems of value, as a clear HoMer. I disagree with that evaluation, but I'm sure it's a fully considered choice.
Since each of us have a few guys we think are ridiculous picks, I don't understand the whinning.
This is the challenge that Terry would have gone through if he'd placed third insead of second in his first year on the ballot. When the people who supported Terry write and defend their choices, it helps to verify that the outcome of the vote does indeed reflect the electorate's considered judgment.
Sunnyday2,40. sunnyday2 Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:21 PM (#1072357)
Great comments!
It seems to me that 20C ML position players would be the easiest group to get our arms around. I mean, pitchers are hard, and the 19C is hard and the NeL is hard. So here is our pecking order of 20C position players. Does this look right?41. DavidFoss Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:38 PM (#1072405)
4. Sewell
9. Leach
11. Sisler
14. Roush
20. Doyle
21. Bresnahan
25. Schang
27. Rice
29. Traynor
30. Hooper
31. Burns
35. Veach
37. Maranville
42. H. Wilson
43. Cravath
45. Chance
46. F. Jones
48. Konetchy
50. Bancroft
53. Arlett
54. Pratt
57. Bush
59. Fournier
62. Schalk
64. Youngs
Now each of us will find something there to disagree with, but they're grouped in 5s so that I can at least ask the question of whether anybody is at a grossly inappropriate level.
1st 5--I'm kind of surprised to see Leach with that group myself. 2nd 5--career guys, generally, who are not high on my list, but all (other than Bresnahan) somewhat comparable. 3rd 5--nobody there that excites me, they could be lower but probably not higher.
4th 5--Chance and Bancroft seem to be at least two groups too low, and Chance has never even been on my ballot. But if these rankings seem a bit out of whack at all, it is Chance and Bancroft seeming to be too low.
Otherwise I would just observe that the 20C position player backlog seems pretty weak. I think the division between Tier 1, inner circle, NBs and everybody else is so well established, that everybody who is not Tier 1 seems weak by comparison. I wonder if we are not underrating the whole lot of them a little bit. They are 25 players out of 65, 5/13ths, 40 percent, and maybe that is right. But I think the relative certitude that we have about the pecking order of this particular group of players, compared to the pitchers, the 19C and the NeLers, works to the disadvantage of all the non-NBs on this list.
*cough* Pete Hill *cough*42. Mike Webber Posted: January 11, 2005 at 04:56 PM (#1072442)
I think this was the first election where I thought a non-shoo-in flew in first ballot with relative ease. That's 1927. Fifteen ballots ago.
I have no problem with Pete Hill's induction. There were four backlog elections immediately after 1927. The top NINE candidates from that year have all been inducted, so he was destined to make it anyways.
The point is that we've known about this "decent-candidate-in-a-backlog-year" effect for quite some time now. We were careful to run Groh & Wheat through the gauntlet in 1933 as one of them was likely to be inducted with little debate. We knew Faber flew in with very few elect-me votes just a couple of years ago. We all knew that there were many shoo-in's becoming eligible starting in 1943 and this was last backlog election for a while. We had the Terry thread up a 'year' early for extra debate and with the extra week for the holidays, its hard to imagine us thinking of him as a new toy since there were 47 posts there, but none since December 9th. There was mention in the discussion threads about the need to carefully examine Terry because he could easily be inducted in this backlog year. We should all know by now that you cannot wait until someone finishes 3rd in the voting before you state your case against their candidacy... because they just might finish higher.
I think Terry earned this. Welcome Bill.
Sunny Day;43. Paul Wendt Posted: January 11, 2005 at 05:07 PM (#1072464)
I sorted my ballot from last year, and we seem to match up. You have Arlett and I have Combs, but otherwise the top 25 position players are the same.
You like the catchers more than I do, I like Maranville and George Burns more. Burns is probably a mistake on my part. Bancroft would be our biggest disagreement, I have him as a borderline bottom of the ballot guy, but you see a lot of people more deserving than Beauty.
Beckwith surged to 5th with support on only 57% of the ballots. He leads in #15 votes and ties for the leads in #14-#15 votes. That hints at relatively strong support just off-ballot, unless #15 votes are tokens.44. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 11, 2005 at 05:08 PM (#1072469)
The Beckwith thread boomed during 1940 and again during 1942, following major articles by Chris Cobb (Nov 30 and Dec 27 real time). Near silence during 1941 set the stage for his big jump in the 1942 election.
I expected that Sewell, Rixey or Beckwith would be elected. But I knew that someone without strong support would be elected. I think almost everyone knew that.
Terry benefited here by retiring before a boatload of first and second magnitude stars retired (and perhaps from the particular age that was selected to stand in lieu of retirement for Negro League elders). But that is true of everyone who was eligible in 1942.
The true first-year effect may be that people who feel strongly, and can make a good case, that Terry does not belong in the HOM on January 1, 1943, were not warned of his imminent election. In contrast, the corresponding "enemies" of Rixey, Sewell and Vance were warned. For Sewell, I think the warning was decisive; he would have been elected if his very strong showing had not stimulated some latent critics to give focus on him now.
sunnyday, I don't know that I'd read much into placement on the bottom half of the ballot. There are so few votes there that it's hard to say they're reflecting the overall opinion of the electorate. For example, I would guess that, on the whole, people tend to have Dave Bancroft ahead of Hack Wilson, Gavvy Cravath, and Fielder Jones, but for the large majority of them, none of them show up on the ballot.45. OCF Posted: January 11, 2005 at 05:43 PM (#1072579)
I had Terry 6th on my ballot. I had Van Haltren, Sewell, and Beckwith all ahead of him (along with my pet cause, Larry Doyle), but I did see him as clearly the best available first baseman, ahead of Sisler, Chance, and Beckley (and Fournier and Konetchy), so I'm not complaining about his election. In my opinion, his case is much stronger than Sam Thompson's. In particular, in the offensive system I use, Terry's top two offensive years match Sisler's nearly exactly, and then every year below that Terry is clearly better.46. OCF Posted: January 11, 2005 at 05:54 PM (#1072603)
Yes, the accident of the order we are considering candidates matters. If Terry had stayed on the ballot, he might have stayed on the ballot while Gehrig, Foxx, and Greenberg were all elected ahead of him. I'd have to put Greenberg ahead of Terry.
Mr. "highest consensus score" just saw two candidates elected that he didn't even have on his ballot.
I can understand being a little confused by post #7, but jschmeagol had Vance 2nd and Terry 4th on his 1942 ballot.
The average consensus score was -9.0, beating the previous low of -8.5 set in 1939. They will be substantially higher in 1943 as a number of new candidates gain broad ballot support.47. Paul Wendt Posted: January 11, 2005 at 06:13 PM (#1072659)
Here's a 5-year update. This list is sorted by average score over those five years, with appropriate context adjustments for incomplete lines.
Voter 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 jschmeagol 6 0 -1 12 2 Chris Cobb 4 -1 1 12 -2 Tiboreau 4 -1 1 10 -1 Howie Menckel 2 1 4 9 -4 Ardo 11 0 favre 2 -3 0 12 -3 OCF -2 -2 -1 11 1 DanG 1 -2 -4 10 -3 Brad G 3 -6 -3 12 -4 Andrew M. 2 -4 -1 8 -4 Adam Schafer -1 0 0 9 -8 Dan Rosenheck 1 -5 Devin McCullen 1 -5 -2 9 -4 daryn -2 -2 0 8 -7 Buddha 4 -3 -11 12 Tom H 2 -4 -4 8 -5 Esteban Rivera -3 -4 -1 7 -7 dan b 2 -5 -3 5 -8 Rob Wood -4 -5 -3 6 -5 Don F 0 -7 -5 8 -7 Andrew Siegel -3 -8 -3 6 -5 Al Peterson -2 -10 -4 8 -5 SWW -2 -4 -4 6 -10 Max Parkinson -2 -5 -5 3 -7 Philip -2 -7 -7 6 -7 David Foss 0 -11 -4 5 -9 Rusty Priske -3 -5 -10 8 -9 Ken Fischer -3 -7 -4 2 -8 Joe Dimino -2 -6 -9 6 -10 Rick A -5 -7 -5 5 -13 Sean Gilman -2 -10 -7 3 -12 sunnyday2 -3 -11 -9 6 -12 jimd -10 -9 -10 6 -7 mdb1mdb1 -11 -10 -7 6 -10 Jeff M -5 -15 -10 5 -8 Thane of Bagarth -9 -14 -7 3 -7 Michael Bass -4 -14 -14 4 -7 Dr. Chaleeko -6 -16 -9 4 -10 Patrick W -11 -13 -12 4 -6 PhillyBooster -10 -6 -11 3 -13 Jim Sp -13 -15 -7 5 -10 Brian H -9 -11 Ron Wargo -14 -13 -8 4 -11 yest -13 -10 -15 5 -9 John Murphy -4 -12 -7 -2 -17 Brent -7 -16 -11 3 -13 Bleacher -13 KJOK -12 -12 -10 1 -15 Dolf Lucky -7 -15 -18 1 -15 Kelly from SD -11 -17 -10 1 -20 Mike Webber -1 -16 karlmagnus -12 -14 -19 -1 -19 robc -13 -17 -17 -4 -17 jhwinfrey -18 -17 -13 -2 -18 EricC -14 -14 -18 -2 -21 Guapo -17 -21 -20 -6 -19
One could get a high consensus score by being a follower or by being a leader. I don't think there's any doubt that Chris Cobb is a leader - his posts probably make him the single most persuasive voter.
David Foss #4148. PhillyBooster Posted: January 11, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1072786)
its hard to imagine us thinking of [Terry] as a new toy since there were 47 posts there, but none since December 9th. There was mention in the discussion threads about the need to carefully examine Terry because he could easily be inducted in this backlog year. We should all know by now that you cannot wait until someone finishes 3rd in the voting before you state your case against their candidacy... because they just might finish higher.
I didn't see this (or any of #31-42) before posting #43. In observing that Terry's latent critics "were not warned of his imminent election" I did mean not warned by his strong showing at the polls --close but no cigar-- as latent critics of Joe Sewell were warned (cf Rixey, Vance).
Terry's latent critics . . . were not moved by his imminent election, as Joe Sewell's were.
Does this look right?49. jimd Posted: January 11, 2005 at 09:30 PM (#1073214)
4. Sewell
9. Leach
I'll start out with the Top 2 -- which I guess are the most important to get right -- and say "No".
Holistic ubermeasures:
Leach: 114
Sewell: 102
Win Shares:
Leach: 329
Sewell: 277
Bill James Ranking
Leach: BJ Rank #20 3B
Sewell: BJ Rank #23 SS
Piece by piece:
Offensively, they both are turning in a 109 OPS+, although Leach gives us an extra 253. Offensive advantage Leach for the same performance in 1.5 more season's worth of games.
Defense: Both played "important" defensive positions
Marginal Differences in Games Played by At Important Def. Positions:
Leach: 996 G @ CF; 312 G @ 3B
Sewell: 1152 G @ SS
Leach: 584
Sewell: 511
Leach: 120
Sewell: 101
Other: Postseason (2 world series each)
Leach: 18 for 58 with 4 2B, 4 3B, and 9 RBI. .310 BA., .866 OPS
Sewell: 9 for 38 with a double and 3 RBI. .237 BA, .619 OPS.
Other: "Peak"
Leach: 24.72
Sewell: 23.58
Top 3 WS:
Leach: 87
Sewell: 84
Top 3 WARP1:
Leach: 29.1
Sewell: 31.7
Pennants Added 2.0:
Leach: .778 -- third all-time for third basemen, clearly among the HoMers (Sutton, Baker, Leach, Collins, Groh)
Sewell: .627 -- tenth all-time for shortstops, after 7 HoMers (Wagner, Davis, Dahlen, Wright, Glassock, Wallace, Ward), and 2 non-Homers (Jennings and Long).
So, by what measures does Sewell top Leach? Marginally in Top few WARP-1 seasons. Maybe in "defensive importance" if 1150 games at SS trumps 1300 games in center and third.
In my mind, this one isn't really that close. It's Leach by a country mile.
So, by what measures does Sewell top Leach?50. Bleacher Posted: January 11, 2005 at 09:31 PM (#1073218)
I have both players high on my ballot, but I have Sewell (2) ahead of Leach (7).
A couple of factors not included in PhillyBooster's excellent analysis:
1) The bulk of Leach's career is played in the weaker NL of the 00's/10's; Sewell is playing in the dominant AL of the 20's. (WARP-3: Leach 82.0 Sewell 88.5) This also boosts Sewell's peak ahead of Leach's.
2) Sewell was often the best SS in MLB during the 20's (WARP has him #1 5 times, 23-6,28); Leach was rarely the best at his position of the year (only once, 1908).
Since he sailed into the HoM (with only an 11th place vote from me), and we're not likely to discuss him much more, let me add a brief anecdote to Bill Terry.51. PhillyBooster Posted: January 11, 2005 at 10:02 PM (#1073324)
I was living in the Bay Area in 1981-82, going to a lot of games at the Stick, which had the names of several great Giants of the past on the OF wall, including Matty and McGraw, as well as Mays, McCovey, and Marichal. But no Bill Terry.
I wrote the Giants owner (then Bob Lurie) in the offseason and said that he was missing the boat in not having Terry's name out there, since he was the last NL guy to hit .400 and won 3 pennants and a WS as manager. He wrote back thanking me and said they'd do something about it.
Well, they put his name and number on the OF wall the next year (I think it was '82 or '83). And Terry even showed up for the ceremony. He was about 85 or so at the time. When they asked he how he felt about being honored, the cantankerous old fart said that it was long overdue!
2) Sewell was often the best SS in MLB during the 20's (WARP has him #1 5 times, 23-6,28); Leach was rarely the best at his position of the year (only once, 1908).52. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 11, 2005 at 10:23 PM (#1073389)
By my calculations (combination of WARP, WS and personal judgment), Leach was the best NL third baseman in 1901, 1902 and 1908, and the best NL centerfielder of 1913. I also see him as the second best NL third baseman of 1903, and the second best NL centerfielder of 1907 and 1914. Feel free to disagree with any individual year, but if you like someone else, then Leach was a very close second.
I do not deny that Sewell was also frequently the best, but the margins (for both players) were relatively narrow. Neither towered over the quivering masses below. Any advantage to Sewell on that count (and there may be a small one) I consider marginal and in no way decisive.
Great story, Bleacher. Of course, you probably should have suggested Buck Ewing, but nobody cares about 19th century baseball, anyway. ;)53. jimd Posted: January 11, 2005 at 11:06 PM (#1073495)
Anyway, I killed some time this afternoon by trying to analyze which eras are getting the most support in the voting for this year. What I did was, for each year, to add up the points for every player. So 1875, for example, has Charley Jones (187)+Tommy Bond (16)+Tom York (10).
The results: The totals slowly climb up through 1886 (1021), then go up steeply through 1891 (3224). They basically plateau (actually goes down a little) through 1897, then go up to a peak in 1900 (3921). After 1903, there's a sharp dropoff, bottoming out in 1908 (1881). They starts climbing again in the teens, getting back to the previous level by about 1915. There's a peak in 1920 at 4572.
If you don't count the honorees, that's the high point, staying steady through 1925 and heading down from there. If you do count Vance and Terry, it continues up, peaking in 1923 (5574). It parallels the other line from there on out, with a steady decline and a big dropoff after 1933.
To me, the big surprise was the large dip, basically between 1903 and 1913. It might be that we're undervaluing that era, it might be that we're satisfied we've handled it fairly. It's hard to say if it's a lack of candidates from that era or just a lower rating of the candidates we have. The average pts/candidate are definitely higher in the 1890s. From about 1905 to 1922 they're at roughly the same level. They go back up during the 1920s, reaching the level of the 90s if you include Terry and Vance.
Leach was the best NL third baseman54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2005 at 11:29 PM (#1073552)
I don't distinguish between the two leagues. The probability of the 2nd best player at a position being in the same league as the best player is close to 50% (7/15 or 47%). Jimmy Collins, Bill Bradley, and Frank Baker are part of the mix.
He was about 85 or so at the time. When they asked he how he felt about being honored, the cantankerous old fart said that it was long overdue!55. EricC Posted: January 12, 2005 at 12:39 AM (#1073651)
Well, he was blunt, I've heard. :-)
Counterarguments to #48;#5156. jimd Posted: January 12, 2005 at 01:14 AM (#1073714)
1. Comprehensive measures that take into account league strength , such as this week's ;-) version of WARP3, show that Sewell had more career value than Leach, in fewer games. #48 completely ignores this point. Now one may choose not to believe in AL-NL differences, but WARP, my system, World Series results, All Star game results, and HoF voting patterns all show a pretty clear pattern of AL superiority in this era.
2. CF and 3B are central positions on the defensive spectrum, while SS is on the right. Lumping them all together as "important defensive positions" is OK, but somewhat misleading.
3. Even if Bill James's ratings are true, it is entirely possible that the 23rd greatest SS in history belongs in the HoM, while the 20th greatest 3B doesn't. It's not like people are flocking to induct James' 15th greatest 3B (Traynor).
4. As jimd pointed out, a player can lead a league and not be among the 2 best players at his position. As ranked by Win Shares per plate appearance, corrected for league strength, Sewell was among the top 1/2/3 at his position 3/8/9 times. All eligible players at least this dominant at their positions have been inducted except for Frank Chance and Wally Schang. Leach was among the top 1/2/3 positions at his position 0/2/4 times. This is a Larry Gardner, Dave Bancroft, Hall of the Very Good level.
Look, I appreciate Tommy Leach, but he belongs in the Hall of the Very Good, not the HoM. He was Bill Bradley lite in his 3B days and Clyde Milan lite in his CF days. Win Shares blows it because it does not take into account league strength. Pennants added is essentially WS/430 at this Sewell/Leach level and merely repeats the WS mistake.
Well, he was blunt, I've heard. :-)57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 12, 2005 at 01:27 AM (#1073736)
And sarcastic too, as James noted in one of his historical abstracts. I'm sure most here are familiar with the story of his "Is Brooklyn still in the league?" comment.
(For those who aren't, IIRC it went something like this: Between the 1933-34 seasons, as manager, he was giving his assessments of the various NL contenders to the press. The above comment was his notorious reply when asked about the Dodgers. The final two games of the season found the defending champion Giants tied with the Cardinals and hosting the Bums. The two teams had a fratricidal version of the Yankee-RedSox rivalry, so Brooklyn players and fans took extra-sweet delight in winning those two games while the Gas House Gang swept the last place Reds.)
EricC,58. EricC Posted: January 12, 2005 at 01:56 AM (#1073775)
1. Didn't Sewell play in an era with fewer great shortstops? Like none in the majors? I would say that Leach contemporaries Collings and Baker were quite good 3B. This would make a straight comparison of Leach's times at the top of his position and Sewell's times at the top of his misleading.
2. Before 1920, 3B was a more important defensive position. I believe it was more like 2B today. So saying they both played important defensive positions isn't as misleading as you asy it is.
Didn't Sewell play in an era with fewer great shortstops?59. Brent Posted: January 12, 2005 at 02:50 AM (#1073818)
Yes, I agree; Sewell played in an era with few great ML shortshops, just as Traynor played at a time with few great ML 3B. On the other hand, real wins result when you have a player that's the best at his position. There's a fine line between rewarding a player for having weak competition and punishing him for it.
Before 1920, 3B was a more important defensive position.
OK, point taken. I'll just note that Leach played more games at CF than 3B.
EricC wrote:60. EricC Posted: January 12, 2005 at 10:15 AM (#1074370)
On the other hand, real wins result when you have a player that's the best at his position.
I've heard this argument made many times in various threads, but I don't think the argument is really valid. Why should it matter that one team has the best shortstop, if another team can beat them by having the best left fielder, or another team can beat them by having the best pitcher? Teams don't play each other position by position, it's one lineup against the other.
In 1921-23 New York was able to beat Cleveland despite Sewell's dominance at shortstop by having an even more dominant outfielder; in 1924-25 Washington was able to use a dominant pitcher and a left fielder to beat Cleveland's dominance at shortstop. I really don't think the argument that dominance at a position relative to other weak players should carry any weight in HOM decisions.
I've heard this argument made many times in various threads, but I don't think the argument is really valid. Why should it matter that one team has the best shortstop, if another team can beat them by having the best left fielder, or another team can beat them by having the best pitcher?61. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: January 12, 2005 at 11:18 AM (#1074403)
You are assuming the premise in order to argue against the premise.
Naming names, Joe Sewell was not as dominant at his position as your examples Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson were at theirs, and may not have been as dominant as your third example Goose Goslin.
And, in complete consistency with the premise that there is value to having a player who is the best at his position, I rate Ruth, Johnson, and Goslin higher than Sewell.
"Whoever got elected this year for the 2nd spot would have competed for "worst electee ever" title."62. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 12, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1075655)
I don't think Rixey would be on that list.
I never said it was a problem, I just didn't like the choice, that's all. I don't think there's anything wrong with our system. I agree with whoever said that it's a positive that you need broad support, and a small minority can't get someone elected (which is by design). I just don't like the way it worked out this year, that's all.
Of course Hughie Jennings was the best at his positions for five staright years against what I believe to be to tougher competition at SS. ELECT JENNINGS WHEN WE CAN!!! 1951? 48?63. ronw Posted: January 12, 2005 at 11:23 PM (#1075777)
Sorry for the plug.
Anyone have a year-by-year total ballots cast listing? We don't seem to put it in our results table.64. Patrick W Posted: January 13, 2005 at 12:27 AM (#1075872)
Year # Ballots 1898 29 1899 31 1900 35 1901 35 1902 42 1903 44 1904 43 1905 41 1906 43 1907 41 1908 42 1909 43 1910 44 1911 42 1912 42 1913 42 1914 41 1915 44 1916 44 1917 45 1918 45 1919 47 1920 46 1921 48 1922 46 1923 48 1924 46 1925 48 1926 50 1927 49 1928 47 1929 48 1930 51 1931 53 1932 51 1933 54 1934 56 1935 52 1936 50 1937 52 1938 53 1939 53 1940 51 1941 53 1942 53
Congratulations, Jim Sp and Kelly from SD! Your 1942 ballots had no players in common. This may be the first time this has happened in a HoM election. (but it probably won't be the last).66. robc Posted: January 13, 2005 at 03:10 AM (#1076153)
Somehow they both beat me in consensus scores. Then again that makes sense, I probably have 1/2 a ballot in common with both. Damn you, Lave Cross. BTW, support for Cross has doubled, who is the other sucker, errmmm, I mean highly perceptive individual?67. robc Posted: January 13, 2005 at 03:19 AM (#1076173)
Are there really 30 ballot worthy candidates?
That last comment was a joke considering 65 different players got votes this year. Of those, 41 are on less than 1/4 then ballots. Those are crazy votes by nutjob voters (note: I think 6 of them are on my ballot - hmmm, that may explain the low consensus score). Some were worried that when we hit the ballot nadir that the vote would be split to widely. Looks like we have avoided that. 24 candidates got most of the votes, which seems reasonable. In 1898, there were 18 candidates on at least 1/4 the ballots. That number has barely increased.68. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2005 at 03:27 AM (#1076192)
Are there really 30 ballot worthy candidates?69. OCF Posted: January 13, 2005 at 06:48 AM (#1076477)
30 different candidates got top-3 votes. 24 of those got elect-me votes. 17 of those got #1 votes.
Congratulations, Jim Sp and Kelly from SD! Your 1942 ballots had no players in common.70. Michael Bass Posted: January 13, 2005 at 07:10 AM (#1076506)
So: an examination of voter-to-voter agreement. The scale runs from 0 to 100, and the score for Kelly from SD and Jim Sp is 0. The average over all pairs is 40.8, or 41.9 if you include the self-agreement scores of 100. The highest scores:
84 Daryn & Adam Schafer
83 Andrew M & Tiboreau
79 OCF & Rob Wood
79 Michael Bass & Thane of Bagarth
77 jschmeagol & Tiboreau
76 Sean Gilman & David Foss
75 Michael Bass & Max Parkinson
The lowest:
0 Kelly from SD & Jim Sp
3 Kelly from SD & Dolf Lucky
5 karlmagnus & Dr. Chaleeko
5 KJOK & Brad G
6 Kelly from SD & Eric C
7 karlmagnus & Mike Webber
8 Esteban Rivera & Mike Webber
9 karlmagnus & Brent
What does a score of 3 represent? The only candidate in common between Kelly from SD and Dolf Lucky was George Burns - 9th on one ballot, 12th on the other.
Everyone's agreement with me was at least 27 - the highest minimum score out there. (The 27 was with karlmagnus.)
Looking to Chris Cobb as the bellwether voter, agreement with him ranged from 17 (karlmagnus) to 73 (Dan G, Howie Menckel, with some other 71's and 72's.)
Hmm...I'm most the only one twice on the "most in agreement" list. I must be the ultimate follower. ;)71. OCF Posted: January 13, 2005 at 07:53 AM (#1076543)
Oh, and rob, I am the other Cross voter. He's been on and off my ballot since we started, but he's at a high water point for now (well, until this year's class knocks him back a bit). Long career, couple good years in there to mix with the many averagish years, some catching bonus for good measure. What's not to love? :)
Well, Michael, your 11 with Rusty Priske wasn't all that far from the other list.72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 13, 2005 at 02:13 PM (#1076709)
Karlmagnus,73. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 13, 2005 at 02:23 PM (#1076716)
We appear to be locked in a peculiar HOM dance where I never vote for Beckley and you vote for many fewer NgLs than me. Too bad I have two left feet!
Here's to another 60 years of waltzing!
; )
I voted Terry at number 14 without qualm. I didn't think at first that he would make my ballot, but as I compared him against other candidates on my ballot (and off), I kept coming back to two things:74. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2005 at 02:55 PM (#1076761)
1) He was better than Sisler, and George isn't all that far from my ballot
2) His stats were close to Childs'.
Childs is on the bottom of my ballot now (13th last year), having slid down over the years. He's on there because of a nifty peak. His only real peak advantage over Terry comes on a three-year basis. He and Terry intersect or Terry very slightly exceeds him at the other intervals I look at. Initially, therefore, I put Terry above him. However, I ultimately retained Childs at 13 and put Terry 14th because I felt that 2B was a more valuable defensive position in the 1890s than 1B was in the 1930s.
As for my number 15, it was Bill Monroe about whom I have been wavering for years and years. Monroe ceeded a variety of peak and prime advantages to Terry, and his career advantage wasn't enough, in my mind, to overcome my doubts about the sketchiness of the information available about him.
Does that sound like shiny new toy? I don't think it does, but maybe I'm wrong?
I'm much more concerned that I got Vance wrong than Terry because I had/have trouble figuring out whether Vance's 2900 innings are more meritorious than Rixey's 4 jillion.
84 Daryn & Adam Schafer75. karlmagnus Posted: January 13, 2005 at 03:03 PM (#1076780)
83 Andrew M & Tiboreau
79 OCF & Rob Wood
79 Michael Bass & Thane of Bagarth
77 jschmeagol & Tiboreau
76 Sean Gilman & David Foss
75 Michael Bass & Max Parkinson
The lowest:
0 Kelly from SD & Jim Sp
3 Kelly from SD & Dolf Lucky
5 karlmagnus & Dr. Chaleeko
5 KJOK & Brad G
6 Kelly from SD & Eric C
7 karlmagnus & Mike Webber
8 Esteban Rivera & Mike Webber
9 karlmagnus & Brent
It's good to see that my ballot was eccentric enough that I wasn't lumped in with the conformists, but not too eccentric to be thrown in with the radicals. :-D
Dr. Chaleeko, we agree on essentials. I had Terry 13 and you had him 14; only a sabermetric metric could call that violent disagreement :-))76. ronw Posted: January 13, 2005 at 05:50 PM (#1077232)
One rudimentary view of the five most divisive elections:77. OCF Posted: January 13, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1077387)
1. 1940 Lip Pike
26 out of 51 ballots (51%) - lowest ever
7 1st, 5 2nd (12 elect-me) out of 51 ballots (23.5%)
496 points out of 1226 possible (40.5%) - lowest ever
Divisive Index (1-avg of 3 % above) - 61.66
2. 1939 Max Carey
37 out of 53 ballots (69.8%)
8 1st, 2 2nd (10 elect-me) out of 53 ballots (18.9%)
580 points out of 1272 possible (45.6%)
Divisive Index - 55.24
3. 1942 Bill Terry
42 out of 53 ballots (79.2%)
3 1st, 3 2nd (6 elect-me) out of 53 ballots (11.3%) - tied for lowest % ever with Faber
571 points out of 1272 possible (44.9%)
Divisive Index - 54.85
4. 1932 Rube Foster
40 out of 51 ballots (78.4%)
2 1st, 4 2nd (6 elect-me) out of 51 ballots (11.8%)
595 points out of 1224 possible (48.6%)
Divisive Index - 53.73
5. 1939 Red Faber
44 out of 53 ballots (83%)
1 1st, 5 2nd (6 elect-me) out of 53 ballots (11.3%) - tied for lowest % ever with Terry
589 points out of 1272 possible (46.3%)
Divisive Index - 53.12
No one else is over 50. Other high indexes include:
1931 Dickey Pearce - 49.97
1930 Bob Caruthers - 45.18
1929 Sam Thompson - 44.99
1942 Dazzy Vance - 44.68
1926 Sherry Magee - 43.28
1927 Pete Hill - 42.57
1929 Bobby Wallace - 42.16
1928 Joe McGinnity - 41.46
1916 Harry Stovey - 41.07
1930 Jimmy Sheckard - 40.90
1938 Stan Coveleski - 40.83
1921 Charlie Bennett - 40.83
1926 Frank Grant - 40.56
1905 Hardy Richardson - 40.24 (lowest # of elect-me, 5 (3 1st, 2 2nd)
These just show that there was disagreement over electing players in any particular year. They do NOT show that the election was a mistake. In my opinion, it is not easy for this group as a whole to make a glaring mistake.
Ten lowest Divisive Index scores are obvious:
1917 - Cy Young - 0
1923 - Honus Wagner - 0
1933 - Walter Johnson - 0
1941 - Babe Ruth - 0
1924 - Sam Crawford - 0.06
1902 - Dan Brouthers - 0.10
1936 - Pete Alexander - 0.19
1934 - Ty Cobb - 0.84
1922 - Nap Lajoie - 1.12
1922 - Christy Mathewson - 1.18
1934 - Ty Cobb - 0.8478. Jim Sp Posted: January 13, 2005 at 06:37 PM (#1077391)
And Speaker, 1934, not making this particular list.
But looked at in a broader perspective, 1934 was our least divisive year. Cobb wasn't unanimous 1st and Speaker wasn't unanimous 2nd. But ask any of us who had Cobb-Speaker-Collins-Lloyd-Williams as our top 5 votes but not in that order (for instance, I had Cobb-Collins-Speaker-Williams-Lloyd) and we'd all have said, of course, all 5 of them are HoMers, as fast as we can elect them.
Ranking elections as "most divisive" by average consensus score, I get:
1942 -9.0
1939 -8.5
1940 -7.0
1938 -4.5
1931 -3.4
1929 -0.5
1930 -0.4
1926 +0.9
1932 +1.1
1927 +3.3
The other end of the scale looks like this:
1934 21.9
1923 15.8
1935 15.8
1936 15.3
1922 14.9
1924 13.2
1941 was double-unanimous at the top, hence a zero on Ron's metric, but still scored only a +5.2 average consensus score, hinting at the division to come in 1942.
My records start with 1921, so I'm missing several earlier years that Ron mentioned. It's a different metric and ranks the years differently than what Ron did, but still tends to turn up most of the same years.
Ron's way of looking at it is focused on the candidates; mine is focused on the voters.
Congratulations, Jim Sp and Kelly from SD! Your 1942 ballots had no players in common.79. DanG Posted: January 13, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1077753)
I can only assume that Kelly from SD feels as honored as I do. Apparently the voters in Enron-by-the-Sea are quite polarized.
Number of HoMers on each ballot:80. OCF Posted: January 13, 2005 at 09:40 PM (#1077868)
1898 14 1899 16 1900 16 1901 15 1902 16 1903 16 1904 15 1905 14 1906 12 1907 12 1908 11 1909 12 1910 11 1911 12 1912 11 1913 9 1914 11 1915 12 1916 12 1917 13 1918 11 1919 11 1920 11 1921 11 1922 12 1923 14 1924 13 1925 12 1926 11 1927 10 1928 9 1929 7 1930 5 1931 3 1932 3 1933 4 1934 9 1935 8 1936 8 1937 6 1938 4 1939 3 1940 2 1941 3 1942 2
1929 781. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2005 at 10:10 PM (#1077949)
1930 5
1931 3
1932 3
1933 4
Is it possible that it there was an unfair disadvantage to reaching the ballot in those years? I'm not saying that is the case; it probably wasn't. But any candidates who might have survived initial scrutiny to at least remain candidates were then shoved off the back of the ballot in 1934; it's the class of 1934 that makes things tough for them.
Without further commentary, here are some players who entered the ballot then.
Bruce Petway
Spot Poles
Del Pratt
Jake Daubert
Larry Gardner
Harry Hooper
Bobby Veach
George Burns (the good one)
Rube Marquard
Dutch Leonard
Dave Brown
Wilbur Cooper
Hooks Dauss
Babe Adams
Ross Youngs
Dobie Moore
Jose Mendez
Roger Peckinpaugh
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Jack Fournier
Ray Schalk
1929 782. Kelly in SD Posted: January 13, 2005 at 10:18 PM (#1077974)
1930 5
1931 3
1932 3
1933 4
Is it possible that it there was an unfair disadvantage to reaching the ballot in those years? I'm not saying that is the case; it probably wasn't.
The 1933 Ballot is worth looking at. The top three were all new eligibles. #4 was Pike who would eventually make it in a close vote. After that, the backlog at the time was:
5. Van Haltren
6. Beckley
7. Griffith
8. Jennings
9. Waddell
10. Welch
11. Childs
12. Duffy
13. Breshnahan
14. Browning
15. Ryan
16. Mendez
17. Leach
18. Monroe
19. CJones
20. Doyle
Looks like "newbies" Sewell, Rixey & Beckwith have inserted themselves above the older backlog and Sisler, Roush, Redding and Grimes have been inserted into the middle of it. Leach has made a bit of a rally in the last 10 years.
I am deeply honored to know I may be the most idiosyncratic voter. I will work hard to maintain this lofty status (though karlmagnus is close behind.) :P83. Paul Wendt Posted: January 14, 2005 at 12:13 AM (#1078202)
Odd things having to do with elections seem to follow me this year: I left San Diego in Sept and the city almost gets a write-in mayor (and would have if the people writing in Donna Frye had checked the write-in box on their ballot!!) for Seattle, WA where we have the Gregoire-Rossi I win, no I win, you concede, no you concede thptptpt.
I was nowhere near FL in 2000, honest.
Next: why Judy Johnson and Jim Bottomley deserve your elect-me votes this year...
On a more serious note.
OCF's last post probably explains my lack of agreement as I had Poles, Mendez, Cooper, Burns, and Moore on my ballot and Fournier and Veach have seen it recently. "Shiny new toy" syndrome? I don't think so. I didn't start to vote for most until after the mid30s deluge. How about "Found-older-toy-in-back-of-closet-where-it-may-have-been-forgotten-for-awhile toy?" or "Showing-signs-of-wear-but-still-loved toy?"
This is opposed to my fascination with Welch and early outfielders which could be "It-is-not-junk-it's-a-classic-and-will-be-worth-something-someday toy."
(Yes, I do not want to read for class today.)
OCF on number of 1943-0101 HOMers on the ballot:84. jimd Posted: January 15, 2005 at 06:16 AM (#1081285)
1925 12
1926 11
1927 10
1928 9 ]
1929 7
1930 5
1931 3
1932 3
1933 4
Is it possible that it there was an unfair disadvantage to reaching the ballot in those years?
I don't think it's true. This is one numerical representation of electing backlog candidates rather than new ones for several years. If you formulated this statistic in advance of that ballyhooed decade of opporutnity, and asked people to predict its trend, they would have predicted it well.
The highest vote getter in a yearly election that has not yet been elected:85. Cblau Posted: January 20, 2005 at 03:17 AM (#1089739)
(1st column is 1942 current vote ranking)
44 Williamson: 1898
18 Browning: 1899-1906
13 Duffy: 1907-1915, x1909
22 Ryan: 1909
12 Waddell: 1916-1922, x1920
08 Jennings: 1920, 1938
10 Beckley: 1923-1929, x1925; 1934-1937
07 VanHaltren: 1925, 1930-1933
04 Sewell: 1939-1940
03 Rixey: 1941-1942
The above players are those which had significant support at some time, often ahead of somebody later elected (true for every election 1898-1936, x1934). In a sense, the lower-ranked of these players are the core of any reconsideration set.
HOMers that finished behind a non-HOMer in an election:
(1st column is count of # elections behind someone not elected)
30 Pike
25 Pearce
12 Caruthers
08 RFoster
07 Thompson
07 Grant
04 McVey
02 Galvin
02 Carey
01 Start
01 McGinnity
These are the HOMers whose merit was often not immediately apparent and required time and persuasion to get elected.
These lists represent one way of mapping the in-out line between HOMers and non-HOMers, based on the electoral ebb and flow.
Now I'm going to be a real troublemaker. The constitution reads: Voters will vote for 15 players on each HoM ballot... Voters are encouraged to include 15 players on each ballot, though ballots with fewer than 15 players will be accepted.86. jimd Posted: January 20, 2005 at 04:14 AM (#1089830)
I see several voters indicating that they don't think certain players on their ballots should be elected. Why then don't they submit a ballot with fewer than 15 names? Maybe they aren't aware of this rule. Or they just want to fit in.
Voters are encouraged to include 15 players on each ballot, though ballots with fewer than 15 players will be accepted.87. EricC Posted: January 20, 2005 at 09:01 AM (#1090134)
Maybe they aren't aware of this rule.
I was not aware that this clause is in the Constitution.
IIRC, this clause contradicts what was agreed to in the original election process threads (see posts #12, #14, #20, scruff being Joe Dimino). We're using the MVP ballot as the basic model, so this should not be allowed, unless an official MLB MVP ballot is also allowed to be a "bullet" ballot.
Voters are encouraged to include 15 players on each ballot, though ballots with fewer than 15 players will be accepted.88. robc Posted: January 20, 2005 at 12:37 PM (#1090238)
I had Vance #14 on my 1942 ballot. Suppose that I preferred that Rixey or Sewell win, and therefore submitted a ballot with only 13 names. This would be constitutional, but would violate the spirit of the rule against strategic voting.
Agreeing with JimD here. At one point it was agreed that all ballots would have 15 players. The only exception was allowing ties in the 15th place spot. Fortunately, that isnt happening anymore.89. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 20, 2005 at 02:26 PM (#1090325)
Now I'm going to be a real troublemaker. The constitution reads: Voters will vote for 15 players on each HoM ballot... Voters are encouraged to include 15 players on each ballot, though ballots with fewer than 15 players will be accepted.
It's wrong, Cliff. Since the beginning of the project, it was understood that you have to have 15 players on the ballot. Joe must have missed that part when going over the Constitution at the time.
I'll have it corrected some time today.
The only exception was allowing ties in the 15th place spot. Fortunately, that isnt happening anymore.
I agree, Rob.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Support BBTF
Thanks to
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26)
Last: kcgard2
Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot
(10 - 1:16pm, Nov 25)
Last: lieiam
Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(11 - 6:01pm, Nov 24)
Last: Ron J
Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion
(14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16)
Last: Bleed the Freak
Reranking First Basemen: Results
(55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07)
Last: Chris Cobb
Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023
(15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30)
Last: Srul Itza
Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results
(7 - 9:28am, Oct 17)
Last: Chris Cobb
Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion
(68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14)
Last: DL from MN
Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot
(13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12)
Last: DL from MN
Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion
(39 - 10:42am, Oct 12)
Last: Guapo
Reranking Shortstops: Results
(7 - 8:15am, Sep 30)
Last: kcgard2
Reranking First Basemen: Ballot
(18 - 10:13am, Sep 11)
Last: DL from MN
Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread
(111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01)
Last: Chris Cobb
Hall of Merit Book Club
(15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10)
Last: progrockfan
Battle of the Uber-Stat Systems (Win Shares vs. WARP)!
(381 - 1:13pm, Jul 14)
Last: Chris Cobb
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6604 seconds


text:
Episode description
Dr. Andrew Smaggus presents a Human Dx unknown to Reza and SLU residents Drs. Hendrickson and Bteich
Human Dx case link
Dr. Jordan Hendrickson
I am from the great state of Oklahoma (Ohhhhhh-klahoma if you say it like the musical). I attended medical school and stayed for residency at Saint Louis University where I am currently a second year resident. After residency I hope to pursue a fellowship in pulmonology and critical care. I'm a serial hobbyist with interests ranging from sewing, to college football (Boomer Sooner), to researching future projects to do around my house.
Dr. Fernand Bteich
I hail from Lebanon and went to Saint Joseph University School of Medicine in Beirut (learnt medicine in French). I am now a third year Internal Medicine Resident at the Saint Louis University Hospital. I am pursuing a fellowship in hematology and oncology after residency. In my free time, I enjoy attending concerts, trying new restaurants, working out, fiddling with computer hardware and binging on Youtube.
Dr. Andrew Smaggus
Dr. Andrew Smaggus is a general internist in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Healthcare Quality & Safety at Queen's University. His interests include complexity science and its applications to healthcare. He has served as a contributing editor at HumanDx since 2017
Human Dx
Learn more here

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Brisbane's prestige housing market is being boosted by Melbourne and Sydney buyers travelling north to invest in the city.
Principal Director at Ray White Ascot, Dwight Ferguson, suggests 50% of their clients are Sydney-siders, with the dramatic increase in interest causing the prestige sector to thrive more than any other parts of the Brisbane market.
"Our Brisbane market is simply showing much better value than the rest of the eastern states at the moment."
– Dwight Ferguson, Director and Principal at Ray White Ascot.
"We're experiencing it daily, where Sydney people are either enquiring or coming up to check out Brisbane," Mr Ferguson said.
"With any market, the trend starts locally.
"That started three years ago, but now we are experiencing the interstate migration that proves that our market is in full-flight."
The Brisbane prestige property market enjoyed a record-breaking sale in March, when an exclusive clifftop mansion in Kangaroo Point sold for a whopping $18.48 million.
The all-time high price triggered a six-month period that has seen more sales over the $5 million-mark than over the past five years in Brisbane.
Sales Executive at Marshall White in Melbourne, Michael Wood, believes the lower cost of entering the Brisbane real estate market is what has attracted such great levels of southern interest.
"Naturally having a more affordable housing economy will attract buyers," Mr Wood said.
"The cost of housing for all sectors of the Melbourne and Sydney markets is not attainable for the majority of people looking to get into the market.
"Brisbane offers a similar lifestyle, some would even argue it's better due to weather, and the cost of creating the Australian dream is far more achievable."


text:
11 Body Positive Instagram Accounts To Follow
We know that as much as we love social media, it can be a little draining. Feeds full of other people's fun adventures, killer new offices, or perfectly toned "bikini bodies" can leave us feeling completely inadequate after a quick scrolling sesh. Fortunately, body positive Instagram accounts exist to lift us up and remind us to love ourselves as we are. No one is perfect, but we can be perfectly happy with the body we have right now.
Social media serves as instant, unfiltered access to celebrities, but it's also the new celebrity-creating machine, transforming YouTube vloggers to viral sensations. While it's easy to get wrapped up in the picture-perfect lives of our favorite celebs and Internet stars, Instagram has allowed us to take a peek into their not-so-fabulous, everyday lives. It's helped us to realize how much we actually have in common with them.
Following them on their social media accounts means we can see them for who they really are – with zit creams and even stretchmarks proudly on display. Body positivity has taken over the Instagram world, creating a space for more authentic and realistic images to penetrate our feeds, and I couldn't be more stoked about it.
Below are some of my favorite, body positive Instagram accounts. You body and soul will thank you for following!
1. @ladyfigure
Need some plus-sized fashion inspo? This gal is strutting her stuff in all the latest trends. If you love color, this one is for you.
2. @honorcurves
Tall girls, where you at? She's 6'1 with a 47 inch waist and loving every minute. You should, too.
3. @nadiaaboulhosn
Something about her style reminds me of Kim K., and I'm sure that Keeks would be flattered by that comparison, too.
4. @ddlovato
Demi encourages self-love at any size, and is a true advocate of mental and physical health. She is a body pos goddess.
5. @tessholliday
Tess Holliday is a gorgeous model and body positive advocate, proving that acts of self love - like wearing whatever the hell you want and being proud of your size - can and should exist simultaneously. We are taking notes, girl.
6. @teerwayde
An Australian model with curves to kill and a retro style. Obsessed.
7. @bbwgeneration
This self-acceptance advocate reminds us all that your weight has nothing to do with your worth.
9. @kobi_jae
A fashion blogger with wild style and feminist attitude. YAS.
10. @chrissyteigen
She adoringly called her stretch marks "stretchies." And let's be real - those stretch marks turned us from awkward teens to hot and confident grown ass women. They deserve some love.
11. @lordemusic
Ain't no shame in her no makeup selfie game. We love you, Lorde.
Image: Nadia Aboulhosn/Instagram


text:
We did dance workshops with two groups of Grade 3 students today at River Oaks PS in Oakville ON. These kids made my day. They were so energetic and creative I don't think I stopped smiling the whole time I was in their school. As we were leaving today a music class was practicing "Funky Town". I love that song, I think this school rocks!
On another note I thought I would post a flyer for the upcoming March break dance camp that will be happening at the Woodland Cultural Centre. We are not affiliated with this camp however if I was between 9 and 13 I would certainly want to be participating in it.
Multimedia School Show "Visions of Turtle Island" includes live singing and dancing in Powwow & Haudenosaunee styles, ending with the ever popular Hoop Dance. Ontario Curriculum - Study Guide available. Singing & Dancing workshops for all ages, grades and skill levels. Festivals, Weddings & Private Functions. We can design a show to suite your needs! Available for travel Nationally or Internationally
Thursday, February 9, 2012
River Oaks PS
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
We are not going to give you the last controversy of Shoaib & Sania; as they are finally married now, but we are telling you the latest one.
Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik, who married Indian tennis player Sania Mirza, demanded huge amount of Rs 3.5 crores from the media for the reporting rights to his 'Walima'. The news is in the air that he charged media for the coverage of their wedding function and reception ceremony in Sialkot. Later on, no news channel paid the amount and didn't even show the interest to have such deal; as a result, Shoaib asked the security to keep the media away from the wedding function.
Rumors are also in the air that after having the Walima in Sialkot, Shoaib Malik again disappointed the people in the very next and finally last function of his marriage in Lahore. One of his 'claimed' relative was selling the card of Shoaib's wedding and a person bought it; afterwards when he failed to attend the function even with the card, he filed the case. The case was filed in Lahore High Court against Shoaib. Other than this, Shoaib Malik also faced the legal notice of violating the rules of serving more than one dish at the wedding function and for didn't end-up the function before 10pm. These are the rules of the region from the government.
So gossip lovers, what will be the next controversy of this series of controversies related to Shoaib & Sania, we will definitely keep you updated.
The couple is continuously facing conflicts ever since they have announced the news that they are getting married.


text:
CLEA continues to be the primary providers of Long Term Disability coverage for California Law Enforcement Officers
CLEA Benefits
Long Term Disability
The words LTD mean something very different in the LTD insurance world. With our competitor, it means benefits may be payable only to age 65.
When you have the CLEA Plan it means so much more. If you are totally disabled, CLEA will pay you monthly benefits no matter how long you survive after becoming disabled.
Plan Members
CLEA is the largest, #1 provider of long term disability benefits to law enforcement personnel in California with nearly 21,000 members. CLEA protects more than 160 law enforcement associations.
Percentages of Wages Protected
CLEA pays the highest percentage of wages when one of our members becomes disabled.
CLEA pays up to 85% of wages, tax-free, including most all additional add-on incentives such as bomb team, dog handler, marine patrol, educational incentive, POST, longevity, etc.
(100% of wages for Catastrophic Disabilities for up to 30 months – not to exceed
maximum monthly benefit)
(No Workers' Compensation Permanent Disability offsets)
Maximum Benefit of $10,000 per month, tax-free
Our competitors pay either 66 2/3% or 70% depending on the Plan your association has chosen.
Member Managed & Controlled
CLEA, unlike our competitors, is member managed and member controlled. Each Association with 100 or more members has an equal vote on the corporate Board of Directors. Our competitors are managed and controlled by profit motivated, stockholder-owned insurance companies." They have changed their corporate structure, benefits, and premium in order to remain operational. The members have no say in how the insurance company manages or controls their costs and benefits.
Death Benefit
CLEA pays a $65,000 with the first check of $15,000 being issued usually within 24 hours of the death of a member to any named beneficiary, then $1,000 per month for 50 months.
Benefits are payable for both on or off duty, accidental or natural death. CLEA will pay $10,000 on suicide after
a member has been in the Plan for 2 years. CLEA will pay a $20,000 death benefit to any active reserve military member's family during the first 2 years of active service.
Our competitor pays $50,000 for a natural death and $65,000 for an accidental death. A member must die within 24 months of the onset of a disability and the beneficiary designation is very limited.
Actuarially Sound
CLEA provided third party actuarial reports and audited financial statements regarding the Plan to the California Department of Insurance prior to June 30, 2017, as required by law (former AB 1072). The audited financial statements include liability/reserve amounts recommended by an independent actuarial firm. In the opinion of these actuaries, as of end of the most recent plan year, the established liabilities/reserves are expected to be adequate to satisfy contractual obligations and are consistent with applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice. CLEA has paid in excess of 8,500 claims and more than $121 million in benefits to our members and their families since 1985.
"CLEA Administrators, on behalf of HPAC I want to thank you all for your fast action in releasing the check for the deceased officer from Porterville Developmental Center. I personally delivered the $10,000 check to the wife in Porterville who was at the cemetery trying to figure out where she would get the money to put her late husband to rest. It was a big relief according to her and she was very thankful for your fast response. Again thank you."
"Thanks so much for your assistance! This has been a very long process…I find it comforting to have such a kind, knowledgeable and experienced CLEA representative assisting me. You are truly appreciated!"
-San Diego Co DSA
"CLEA we're so thankful for the initial $10,000 to help with services for our beloved."
-San Bernardino Co Prob
"As we close out my claim I would like to send a big "thank you" to my claims administrator and the rest of the staff at CLEA. The insurance CLEA provided was a much needed "buffer" in assisting me to my next phase in life. You guys were professional, provided a fast response, explained my benefits clearly, and made a difficult transition substantially easier. A large portion of this "thanks" goes to you as you were my point of contact during this process."
– Redwood City POA
"I'm writing to express my appreciation for the excellent service and professionalism I received from your Sr. Claims Administrator during my claim process with CLEA. Unfortunately, as a Patrol Sergeant I was involved in a major vehicle collision, which ended my 20 year law enforcement career and resulted in neck fusion surgery and lower back issues. I filed a claim with CLEA, as this was a benefit that was highly recommended to me as a junior officer and I can say now, was some of the best advice I received as a new officer."
– Redwood City Police 2
"CLEA and Contra Costa DSA are amazing. The Death Benefit check was on my doorstep when we returned from the funeral Mass and reception. Thank you for everything now and to come."
-CoCo DSA 2
"Everything in the claims administrator's email was explained so easily for me to understand! I really appreciate the whole team at CLEA. Anytime I called, with any question I had, I was always treated so nicely and not just as a claim number. Thank you for always promptly returning my calls and emails, I couldn't have had a better experience with the claims team! Even if I only qualify for one dollar, you made this process and the paperwork so easy."
-Hemet POA


text:
Steigenberger Minerva
Why cruise on this ship?
Luxury in its purest form awaits you on the Steigenberger Minerva, a 5-star cruise ship, on your Nile cruise from Luxor to Aswan and back.
The stylish panorama restaurant offers sufficient space for all guests. Let yourself be pampered by the friendly staff. The on-board kitchen offers tasty international and German dishes that are presented with passion.
Theme evenings, quiz events, bingo (depending on the programme) as well as live music ensure that there is no time for boredom on-board. Books, board and card games are also available.
For each cruise Nicko Cruises offer a pre-bookable Excursion Package including interesting excursions, which they specially recommend. In the case of some cruises you will see in the travel itinerary that the excursions are already included in the basic price. Further optional excursions can be booked on board, often subject to a minimum number of participants. Theatre performances depend on local schedules, which are sometimes subject to last minute alterations. Should you not take part in a pre-booked excursion (either as part of a package or booked individually on board), they are not able to issue a refund. Also please note that abnormal water levels or extended waiting times at locks may lead to delays and alterations to the planned excursion schedule or to a change of disembarkation or embarkation point.
Health and fitness
Please note: There are no health/fitness facilities onboard MS River Art.
Kids and teens
Please note: There are no children's facilities onboard MS River Art.
The cabins are 2 bed outer cabins, furnished identically furnished on both sides and have an approximate size of 140 sq. ft (exception, the 2 bed cabins 114 and 202 with approximately 215 sq. ft., 2 bed premium upper deck cabin 201 with approximately 258 sq. ft.).


text:
11/10/2023 DHANTERAS PRICING. 1% OFF FOR CASH OR CHECK PAYMENT. PRICE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, LOCAL ARIZONA HAND DELIVERY, WILL NOT SHIP. DISCOUNT CODE Does not apply on Gold Bars
|2.5 Gram PAMP Pure Gold Bar. PAMP Suisse is a trusted name in Precious Metals around the world. The PAMP Suisse value now gains more security with new Veriscan® technology that helps ensure the origin of these .9999 fine Gold bars when buying from any seller.
|999 Gold Bar Weight: 2.5 grams.
Ideal for Gift , Milani & IRA Saving
|Gold Purity
|99.9% PURE GOLD. Purity of Gold is guaranteed and stamped.
|Designed & Made in USA; HAND Delivery only
Payment & Security
Payment methods
Your payment information is processed securely. We do not store credit card details nor have access to your credit card information.


text:
The Chef and The Winemaker by Resplendent Ceylon
Resplendent Ceylon is proud to welcome Michelin star chef BERND BACHOFER and distinguished New Zealand Winemaker KAI SCHUBERT to Sri Lanka for a culinary sensation.
Celebrate the best of Resplendent Ceylon's culinary talent and visiting chefs from around the world in a week of table dinners and culinary competitions.
The first week of October will play host to Michelin star chef Bernd Bachofer and distinguished New Zealand Winemaker Kai Schubert.
Thursday 4th October – Wild Coast Tented Lodge at 7.00pm
Friday 5th October – Cape Weligama at 7.00pm
Bernd Bachofer has a passion for Japanese & south-east Asian food which he combines beautifully with elements of classic cuisine. Graduate of the Hotel Academy Heidelberg, Bernd worked in Switzerland and Germany at several Michelin star restaurants before opening his own in 2011, Restaurant Bachofer, near Stuttgart, which was awarded a Michelin star in 2015.
A global search for the perfect conditions for viticulture, especially for Pinot Noir, brought Kai Schubert, graduate of the German Viticulture and Oenology University to the Wairarapa, New Zealand. Schubert vineyards are closely planted and the unique climate produces low yielding, internationally award winning wines with intense and complex character.
Bernd has curated a special six course menu which has been beautifully paired with Schubert wines with the assistance of importers Decanter Wines. These intimate gatherings will be held at the Dining Pavilion at Wild Coast Tented Lodge and the Tableau Restaurant at Cape Weligama.
Six Course Wine Degustation Dinner
Sashimi and Tartar from Tuna / baked egg yolk / Miso-ice cream / Dashi
Schubert Sauvignon Blanc
Langoustine Tempura / Hollandaise, Japanese style / Ponzu / Cauliflower Panna Cotta
Schubert Rosé
Caramelized Curcuma Salmon / Green Thai Curry / Unagi Dim Sum / Goa Bean
Schubert Selection Pinot Noir
Purple Curry Lentils / Goat Cheese Molecular / Smoked Red Paprika Gel / Cumin Foam / Parmesan Crisp
Schubert Pinot Noir Marion's Vineyard
Braised Young Lamb shoulder / Red Onion crème / Soma Tam Salad / Tapioca Chips
Schubert Syrah
Variation from Yuzu Fruit / Japanese Matcha Tea
Degustation Dinner LKR 32,298 per couple
Accommodation at Wild Coast Tented Lodge for 1 night in a Cocoon Suite on a double occupancy, fully inclusive basis – LKR 57,000 [wine dinner paid separately]. Additional nights on a fully inclusive basis including a daily game drive – LKR 75,500
Accommodation at Cape Weligama on double occupancy basis in a Junior or Master Suite, with breakfast – LKR 54,600
Seats are limited so don't miss the opportunity to book your place at the Winemakers table
For reservations please contact us on +94 11 774 5730 or email@example.com


text:
There's a stiff wind blowing in South Florida this morning. I awoke from unsettling and frankly terrifying nightmares about a panic migration that had started in Florida. Millions of people were doing anything they could to move their families out of the state as rapidly as possible. Gas shortages meant people were abandoning their cars and were walking, attempting to carry possessions on their backs and pulling children along the highway in the blazing heat by their hands. People were being robbed in daylight, people were overheating and collapsed alongside the road. The National Guard were standing by and simply kept motioning people along the highway. It was reminiscent of what hurricane threats have come to look like in the state in recent years. Florida's population has ballooned 20% over the last 15 years and in South Florida, we haven't had a major storm make landfall since 2005. All those new people get real freaked out when you tell them something like Dorian that hit the Bahamas is coming. But my dream apocalypse wasn't because of a storm but because food shipments had ceased to the peninsula. Climate change had created food shortages and Florida has most of its food shipped to it.
When I finally struggled to wakefulness the concerns from my slumber followed me. Rather than a dystopian, preposterous scenario, what my brain had concocted is actually becoming increasingly likely. A food shortage could set off waves of unsettled people, panicking and in that frame of mind, making things all the worse, compounding the problems for themselves and everyone around them.
I went to the toilet and unlocked my phone. That's when I saw that today was the first day of the Global Climate Strike and the reason that it had been so heavily playing throughout my sleep. Being "tuned in" all the time has some definite drawbacks.
It's so easy to become overwhelmed by the stark reality in front of us. I've come to start thinking of my role in the coming years almost as a triage nurse except with magick. A triage witch. How can I provide comfort and care to those around me? How can I stop them from emotionally and spiritually bleeding out? What unique spiritual abilities that I have can be useful? Fear is something always just around the corner. It's a reaction to real or perceived circumstances but it's not always the most useful, especially when you're looking at a lifetime of potentially catastrophic change ahead of you. Another reaction is simply, depression.
Which is why I've really tried to make the present moment, right now, the place where my mind lives as much as possible. Because in that space, I can make a difference. In that space I can be kind. In that space I can grow something.
From that space I have strength to face what is ahead of me. To be helpful and of service. To have sat in silence, to have sat with water and then fire, to take that deep healing and form it into action.
I hope that the Climate Strike inspires you to do the same. I don't know if anything we do now will change the course ahead of us but to quote my friend at Atroposian Musings in a recent post about the burning of the Amazon:
And when we open our eyes again, we gather our wits and powers and act this blessing into the world. We find ways to donate, to share, to uplift, to shift consciousness, and to work a charm of powerful trouble.


text:
GVC Appoints Dr Mark Griffiths, A Distinguished Behavioural Addiction Professor
GVC Holdings, the global sports betting and gaming entertainment group to be re-named Entain, has engaged a world-leading academic specialising in online addiction to advise on further enhancing player protection and disclosed further technological initiatives to advance safer play.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction and Psychology at Nottingham Trent University, joins GVC this month with the same title. He will be auditing GVC's policies and processes on responsible gaming and suggest improvements, drawing on academic and scientific experience gained over more than 30 years studying online behaviours and addiction. Dr Griffiths was also part of the World Health Organisation working party that formally recognised "gaming disorder" as a psychological condition last year.
Last week, GVC's CEO Shay Segev set out his direction for the Group, focusing on two strategic pillars of sustainability and growth, underpinned by the Group's industry-leading proprietary technology. This included a commitment, under the new Sustainability Charter, to continue to lead the industry on responsible gambling.
A core part of this is the launch of the Advanced Responsibility & Care ("ARC") programme. The ARC programme encompasses scientific analysis of player behaviour to inform the enhancement of player protections. GVC's data scientists then derive predictive models and analytics to score players for potential indicators of protection. Each player has a dynamic risk rating aligned to their play patterns and other criteria to enable real time monitoring and analysis tools to enable early interventions to improve player protection.
Professor Griffiths' work will be instrumental in delivering ARC. He will work with the business to apply findings from the behaviours of over 160 million players on GVC's global database to help develop stronger rules, measures and interventions. He will also draw on GVC's existing multi-million-dollar partnership with Harvard Medical School, now two years into a five-year study into addiction.
GVC is today also announcing further initiatives under its new Sustainability Charter. These include a partnership in US with Conscious Gaming, under which GVC will become the first official partner of PlayPause, a recently launched multi-state responsible gambling tool. PlayPause will launch with BetMGM, GVC's U.S. based joint venture with MGM Resorts early next year.
"We know that the most responsible operator will also be the most successful operator, which is at the heart of Entain and our new strategy," commented Shay Segev, Chief Executive. "Our investments in new technologies, and partnership with Dr Griffiths and Harvard, underpin our firm commitment to providing customers with the safest and most enjoyable player experience possible."
"I'm delighted to be joining GVC at this time because it gives me an unprecedented opportunity to help deliver innovative technological advances supported by evidential scientific research to improve player protection" Dr Griffiths said. "I plan to apply the understanding and specialist expertise built over a long career in psychology to reduce the risks of problem play."
The US partnership with Play Pause follows new partnerships in the UK announced last week, with Future Anthem and Mindway AI, whose specialist expertise in neuroscientific and academic based algorithmic learnings will further inform work with Dr Griffiths and Harvard on player protection.
One thought on "GVC Appoints Dr Mark Griffiths, A Distinguished Behavioural Addiction Professor"
Comments are closed.