I’ve made a post related to this argument over here, out of respect for RickJay’s wishes that we not fill up this thread with tangential arguments.
I did not say it is easy. I never looked up Arky Vaughn until we did this thread.
I just can not relate the dead ball era to today. There were always 400 hitters at the turn of the century. Do they get a free ride? They won home run titles with single digits. Does that relate? I think logic fails when you go too far back. Sorry. I think at some point the difference between eras becomes so wide that it is actually a different game.
That doesn’t actually answer my question.
Lots of time for more votes. Lurkers, get in here and vote!
Honus Wagner
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Ernie Banks
Lou Boudreau
Arky Vaughan
Joe Cronin
Alex Rodriguez
Luke Appling
Joe Sewell
Herman Long
Bump. Your chance to vote ends midnight tonight. Vote!
I actually agree with this. One of the telltale signs that the game is improving and the players getting better is the tendency to lose the extremes. One of the reasons there AREN’T .400 hitters anymore is that the game as a whole has gotten tighter and meaner. The pitchers are bigger, faster, better trained and better fed. Pitches have improved to the point where it is likely that someone like Cobb or Ruth, while still being a great player, wouldn’t have the numbers they had.
In my dream of dreams I’d like to see the famed ‘greatest team of all’, the 1927 Yankees, go up against the 1989 Athletics or the Big Red Machine and so forth. I think the old timers would fine the competition significantly tougher than they were used to facing.
Ozzie Smith
Honus Wagner
Alex Rodriguez
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Ernie Banks
Derek Jeter
Arky Vaughan
Pee Wee Reese
Joe Cronin
Luke Appling
There’s other signs of course-Bill James did a list of them in one of his books
[Rummage]
If the competition level goes up, these factors will go down:
Hitting by pitchers
Standard deviation of the players’ ages from 27
Passed ball rates
Error rates (fielding % goes up)
% of time pitchers spend at other positions
% of fielding plays made by the pitcher
% of games which are blowouts
Average distance of teams from .500
Standard deviation of offensive effectiveness (as Jonathan just outlined)
Standard of record-keeping
% of player-managers
While these will go up:
Double play rate (GIDP at least)
Average attendance
Quality of the playing conditions
% of extra inning games
Now correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation 100% in this case, but it would be very hard for some other factor, other than the competition level, to come in and affect most of these factors in these ways.
We have another tie! We are inducting 11 shortstops:
Honus Wagner
Cal Ripken Jr.
Robin Yount
Arky Vaughan
Alex Rodriguez
Luke Appling
Ozzie Smith
Joe Cronin
Ernie Banks
Lou Boudreau
Derek Jeter
Boudreau and Jeter tied for 10th. Just missing was Barry Larkin, followed by Aparicio, Reese, Sewell.
A reasonable vote, I think. The third baseman vote is now open!
Dang, I should’ve voted for Larkin. I think Boudreau should be severely dinged for putting up most of his good numbers during the war years when the MLB talent pool was significantly depleted.
Switching from Boudreau to Larkin would have simply caused them to be tied for 11th, if it makes you feel any better. Larkin missed by two votes. He’ll be a strong wild card contender in the modern era, I think.
I’m glad I switched my vote. I would have felt bad if Jete missed by one vote. I’m glad Banks made it where he belongs.
They wouldn’t even have been tied, since I didn’t vote for Boudreau to begin with. 
(Threw my votes away on Dahlen and Davis.)
Man, I could have kept Jeter out of the hall of fame… Well, at least for a little bit.
I didn’t vote for Jeter, but he’s not a bad choice; he really has been a terrific hitter. If he holds on playing reasonable baseball for a few more years he’ll be top ten with ease, and that seems likely.