2016 Pre-Integration Era HOF Candidates

Doc Adams, Harry Stovey, Bill Dahlen, and Chris von der Ahe are all on the ballot.



http://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fame...016-candidates

[conor912]

Inducting guys 100 years after the fact always seemed silly to me. I think there should be like a 30 year cutoff - if you don't make it in 30, you never make it. How the situation can still be fluid after all those decades is beyond me. That said, I hope Dahlen gets in so that I can have another T3 HOFer

[bbcard1]

Larry Doyle never gets any love. I think he has a case comparable to those candidates, which is an era that has honored many and overlooked few.

[PolarBear]

von der Ahe should have been in the HOF 70 years ago. He was the first true promoter of baseball and an accomplished showman. His St. Louis Browns won four straight pennants in the 1880's.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by conor912

Inducting guys 100 years after the fact always seemed silly to me. I think there should be like a 30 year cutoff - if you don't make it in 30, you never make it. How the situation can still be fluid after all those decades is beyond me. That said, I hope Dahlen gets in so that I can have another T3 HOFer

Problem is that the Hall of Fame didn't exist until 1936 so many of the 19th Century players never had a chance like those that played later. For modern players I have no problem with the 30 or so year cutoff. The fact that an entire "major league" has only one or two inductees from its ranks seems silly to me (American Association).

[GaryPassamonte]

Rhett- What about the National Association? I don't think there are many, if any, players inducted whose careers were spent primarily in the NA. That is because most of these players don't meet the HOF's 10 year rule. Their years of play prior to the start of the leagues considered Major don't count. This is ludicrous. Ross Barnes is my pet peeve with this policy. I'm sick of seeing executives, managers, umpires, etc. from the 19th century getting inducted while these players are excluded for no good reason. They don't qualify as contributors because they are players. They don't qualify as players because of the 10 year rule. Apparently, no provision is considered by the HOF to rectify this exclusionary policy. That's my HOF rant for today.

[oldjudge]

Der Boss deserves to be in the HOF! Actually, I think Von der Ahe and Stovey are both deserving.

[GaryPassamonte]

I don't have a problem with any of the 19th century candidates. I think the 20th century candidates leave something to be desired.
Also, having one of the 3 categories considered for HOF inclusion span from the beginnings of baseball all the way to 1947 is not fair to the possible candidates. Two categories would be much more equitable. Maybe a category pre WWI and one post WWI to 1947 would be better.

[FirstYearCards]

HOF too watered down as it is. Pick a number (100, 200, 250 etc.) and cap it. Someone gets voted in, someone gets booted.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It just gets sillier and sillier. Marty Marion hit .263 with around 1400 hits. Wes Ferrell won 193 games with a 4.04 ERA. Even adjusted for the times, he is not remotely a HOF pitcher. Here are the pitchers most comparable to Wes, according to Baseball Reference.

1.Jack Stivetts (936)
2.Sadie McMahon (915)
3.Tommy Bridges (906)
4.General Crowder (904)
5.Jouett Meekin (903)
6.Brickyard Kennedy (900)
7.Guy Bush (896)
8.Lon Warneke (894)
9.Rick Sutcliffe (891)
10.Dave Stewart (891)

[paul]

Why no consideration for George Van Haltren?

[GKreindler]

Amen, Paul.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

von der Ahe should have been in the HOF 70 years ago. He was the first true promoter of baseball and an accomplished showman. His St. Louis Browns won four straight pennants in the 1880's.

Truth! The dude put a "Shoot The Chutes" water slide ride at the ballpark.

[travrosty]

everybody should be in the hof.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by travrosty

everybody should be in the hof.

Hahaha. Maybe they should open the Hall of Participation.

I'd like to see the HOF induct more of the guys from the early years. Duncan Curry for example.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandBaseBallist

Doc Adams, Harry Stovey, Bill Dahlen, and Chris von der Ahe are all on the ballot.



http://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fame...016-candidates

I wouldn't vote for any of these before Bob Caruthers gets in.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by conor912

Hahaha. Maybe they should open the Hall of Participation.

Ringo Starr could be the honorary chairman.

Von der Ahe, Herrman and Stovey have merit. The other players are part of the Hall of Very Good.

[btcarfagno]

Marty Marion on the ballot but not Jack Glasscock?

Makes sense.

Tom C

[darwinbulldog]

Marty Marion is a joke. Ferrell might not be a HOF pitcher, but he's a reasonable candidate as a HOF player. How many other pitchers put up better numbers at the plate than they allowed from the mound? I can think of one. Factor in the batting numbers, and he was more valuable than at least a couple dozen of the already-inducted pitchers.

Wins Above Replacement? I'm glad you asked.

Sandy Koufax:
Career -- 49.0
7-year peak -- 45.2

Wes Ferrell:
Career -- 61.6
7-year peak -- 53.2

P.S. I agree that Parisian Bob is conspicuous in his absence.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It just gets sillier and sillier. Marty Marion hit .263 with around 1400 hits. Wes Ferrell won 193 games with a 4.04 ERA. Even adjusted for the times, he is not remotely a HOF pitcher. Here are the pitchers most comparable to Wes, according to Baseball Reference.

1.Jack Stivetts (936)
2.Sadie McMahon (915)
3.Tommy Bridges (906)
4.General Crowder (904)
5.Jouett Meekin (903)
6.Brickyard Kennedy (900)
7.Guy Bush (896)
8.Lon Warneke (894)
9.Rick Sutcliffe (891)
10.Dave Stewart (891)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nuff sed about Wes Ferrell, IMO.

Vote Percentage Received for the Hall of Fame:

1948: 0.8

1949: 0.9

1956: 3.6

1958: 3.4

1960: 3.0

1962: 0.6

I'll put my faith in 71 years of history since he retired. The notion that somehow someone deserving was overlooked for 71 years does not resonate.

[Rich Klein]

I was shocked when I saw Frank McCormick on the list of 10;

Not listed as Sherry Magie is a much better choice

Rich

[darwinbulldog]

Or you could look at, you know, his statistics.

History in this case is just a euphemism for the mistakes of less informed voters. Anyway, sorry about your cognitive dissonance, but if you're ever falsely convicted and sentenced to life in prison I would hope the exonerating evidence that comes to light 25 years later isn't dismissed by people who put their faith in history.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nuff sed about Wes Ferrell, IMO.

Vote Percentage Received for the Hall of Fame:

1948: 0.8

1949: 0.9

1956: 3.6

1958: 3.4

1960: 3.0

1962: 0.6

I'll put my faith in 71 years of history since he retired. The notion that somehow someone deserving was overlooked for 71 years does not resonate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Your analogy doesn't work. There is no new evidence. Just the same record he has had since 1941. The one on which of the nearly 70 or so panels that have voted since he was eligible, he received no more than 3 percent on the scattered occasions he received any votes at all.

[z28jd]

No one has mentioned it, but since the 2013 vote, they dropped Tony Mullane from the ballot. That was a ballot that had three get elected, Hank O'Day, Jacob Ruppert and Deacon White.

Dahlen will be elected this year. He got ten votes last time and that was with almost everyone voting for O'Day, Ruppert and White. Since voters had a maximum of four votes, those three took up 70% of the votes, leaving a maximum of 20 to be split among everyone else and Dahlen fell two votes short. With all the SABR advancement in figuring out the value of players to his team, Dahlen has jumped to the top of the charts as one of the best players of his era.

His career WAR is 75.2, which is higher than Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson, Luke Appling and Barry Larkin(to add a couple SS in there).

WAR is a cumulative stat, so the more you play the higher it should be. I don't think anyone here would argue against Derek Jeter going in on the first ballot.

Jeter 2747 games, 71.8 WAR
Dahlen 2444 games, 75.2 WAR

That means that Dahlen was more valuable to his team than Jeter was to his. Since WAR is huge now in Hall of Fame talk, if Dahlen doesn't go in, then you have a continuation of a mistake that has been made since they put in the big group of players in the early 40's, because that's when Dahlen should have been elected.

All signs point to him going in this year though. He is recognized as the best position player not in, who played during the first 90 years of MLB, plus he is better than a lot of those players already in from that time span. He is the top returning vote-getter and just missed last time due to a numbers crunch.

The other one who should get in is Doc Adams. How his contribution to the game has been overlooked all these years is beyond me, but he has huge support from the SABR community. They named his their most overlooked legend last year and that helped push him to the new ballot. Adams should have been elected during the first ceremonies in 1939, but much of the credit he deserved wrongly went to others. If you don't think Adams should be in, then you don't know enough about him.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your analogy doesn't work. There is no new evidence. Just the same record he has had since 1941. The one on which of the nearly 70 or so panels that have voted since he was eligible, he received no more than 3 percent on the scattered occasions he received any votes at all.

The evidence is capital murder cases isn't new either. It just doesn't always come to light before trial. The analogy is elegant and apt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You go right on advocating for a guy with a 4.04 ERA then. You're doing a great job of convincing us that the voters of the last 70 years just didn't know what to look for. Where does Bill James rank him by the way, that would be interesting, I thought I had his book handy but can't find it.

[btcarfagno]

What a strange case Wes Ferrell is. He was a better hitter than his Hall Of Famer brother. He won 20+ games 6 times. He was also incredibly easy to hit off of, rarely struck anyone out and walked a ton of hitters. A normal 9 inning game for him would include 13-14 base runners. Efficient he was not.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

All you guys who want to keep expanding the Hall should like this site. It ranks Wes in the 20s, fairly high up especially if you take out the PED guys.

http://www.notinhalloffame.com/baseb...0&limitstart=0

[timn1]

to play devil's advocate:

-Marion was the Ozzie Smith of his era

-Ferrell has a better record, overall, than at least a dozen HOF pitchers. The 4.04 era distorts the quality of his pitching, but his career spanned the highest-ERA era (sorry) of the whole 20th century. It's comparable to a sub-3.00 lifetime era in the deadball era. Pitchers of this period are routinely undervalued by people who can't get their heads around how much of an ERA adjustment has to be made to evaluate their careers. Ferrell's .600 winning PCT (not playing for the Yankees) is a better measure of his value.

Personally, I think Ferrell should be in, and not Marion. But there are legit arguments to be made - these nominations aren't just made at random.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes, but in 48 and 49 when he was first eligible, and was voted on by people who surely had seen him pitch (and hit), and were familiar with how good he was or wasn't relative to his era, he got less than 1 percent of the vote, meaning probably 1 vote each year. He wasn't even an afterthought.

[autograf]

What's the argument against Pete Browning except AA? I'm a homer with him but he should be in.....................

[darwinbulldog]

I figure the Hall should include about 2 players per year. Apparently that makes me a Big Hall guy. So be it. If we start with 1871 and don't yet count the 2015 voting, we should already have 288 players in. If you count Al Spalding then, we're about 37 eligible players shy of the Hall I'd want. Dahlen and Ferrell would both be in my top 37.

Along with:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Bob Caruthers
Charlie Buffinton
Urban Shocker
Jim McCormick
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
Mike Piazza
Kevin Brown
Rick Reuschel
Ivan Rodriguez
Larry Walker
Tommy Bond
Noodles Hahn
Bobby Grich
Tony Mullane
Luis Tiant
Dave Stieb
Bobby Mathews
Minnie Minoso
Tim Raines
Fred McGriff
Lou Whitaker
Alan Trammell
Reggie Smith
Dick Allen
Willie Randolph
Ken Boyer
Sal Bando
Ron Guidry
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
Edgar Martinez

There. Something everyone can disagree with.

[btcarfagno]

Wes Ferrell's WHIP numbers being extraordinarily bad have little to do with the era in which he played. His WHIP numbers were in the bottom half of all major league pitchers on a routine basis, even in his best 8 years. He led the league in hits allowed three straight years. He led the league in walks once. During his best 8 years (after which he was an absolute flaming dumpster fire as a pitcher by the way) he allowed more hits (just hits) than innings pitched every year except one. That year he allowed 299 hits in 299 1/3 innings. Far from scintillating even given the era. Over those same 8 years, he struck out a total of 795 batters while walking...795.

Also, as "OK" as his ERA numbers were over that eight year stretch, hs FIP numbers were much much higher....which means he was basically a very lucky pitcher over that 8 year stretch. For five of those 8 years, his FIP was half a run HIGHER than his ERA. Only two years was his FIP lower than his ERA.

Great run support and defense I assume. He has a nice little 8 year run and won a lot of games over that time. He was far from a dominant pitcher though.

Tom C

[sayhey24]

I would agree that there are deserving 19th century candidates, but not so much with the 20th century candidates on the ballot (Even though he's not from this era -- I would rank Dave Concepcion ahead of Marty Marion).

To me, the most deserving pre-integration era candidate is not on the ballot. Cecil Travis hit over .300 every year but one from from 1934 to 1941, and made three all star teams. He peaked in 1941 at the age of 28 when he hit .359. In that year in which Joe D. had his hitting streak and Ted Williams batted .406, Travis lead the AL in hits (and was second in batting average ahead of Dimaggio). He was on pace to have a legitimate shot at 3,000 hits.

Travis entered the Army the next year, fought in the Battle of the Bulge and was not the same player when he returned almost four years later.

I can certainly understand the argument against players who were on pace for Hall of Fame careers and fell just short because of injury, but how can you hold fighting for your country against a player when deciding Hall of Fame worthiness? What better definition of a Hall of Famer is there than Cecil Travis?

Of course he is also hurt by the fact that he was playing for Washington.

Greg

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh no don't get Cole started again on Cecil Travis, I might have to whup him again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I figure the Hall should include about 2 players per year. Apparently that makes me a Big Hall guy. So be it. If we start with 1871 and don't yet count the 2015 voting, we should already have 288 players in. If you count Al Spalding then, we're about 37 eligible players shy of the Hall I'd want. Dahlen and Ferrell would both be in my top 37.

Along with:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Bob Caruthers
Charlie Buffinton
Urban Shocker
Jim McCormick
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
Mike Piazza
Kevin Brown
Rick Reuschel
Ivan Rodriguez
Larry Walker
Tommy Bond
Noodles Hahn
Bobby Grich
Tony Mullane
Luis Tiant
Dave Stieb
Bobby Mathews
Minnie Minoso
Tim Raines
Fred McGriff
Lou Whitaker
Alan Trammell
Reggie Smith
Dick Allen
Willie Randolph
Ken Boyer
Sal Bando
Ron Guidry
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
Edgar Martinez

There. Something everyone can disagree with.

If you want to dilute that much, I would rank Hodges, Oliva and Garvey above some of those names. As well as John and Kaat.

[btcarfagno]

Jack Glasscock everyone.

Jack.

Glasscock.

He was regarded as the finest fielding shortstop of his time, and his offense was well above average for any position on the field, let alone a shortstop. Finished with more than 2000 hits. .290 lifetime batting average. OPS+ of 112. Stole 372 bases that we know about. He was 28 before it became a measurable statistic, and at that point he averaged 50 steals per year for the next 5 years. Just imagine how many he stole in the 7 years prior to that. He likely had 700+ steals in his career.

As an example of his overall game, in 1889 he led the National League in hits with a slash line of .352/.390/.467 for an OPS+ of 138 (the next year it was 147). He also led the league in total chances (by more than 100 over the next person), putouts, assists, double plays and fielding percentage.

He is a Hall Of Famer, and was looked upon as such in the era in which he played. Not his fault that the first election process for the Hall came 37 years after he retired.

Tom C

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Jack Glasscock everyone.

Jack.

Glasscock.

He was regarded as the finest fielding shortstop of his time, and his offense was well above average for any position on the field, let alone a shortstop. Finished with more than 2000 hits. .290 lifetime batting average. OPS+ of 112. Stole 372 bases that we know about. He was 28 before it became a measurable statistic, and at that point he averaged 50 steals per year for the next 5 years. Just imagine how many he stole in the 7 years prior to that. He likely had 700+ steals in his career.

As an example of his overall game, in 1889 he led the National League in hits with a slash line of .352/.390/.467 for an OPS+ of 138 (the next year it was 147). He also led the league in total chances (by more than 100 over the next person), putouts, assists, double plays and fielding percentage.

He is a Hall Of Famer, and was looked upon as such in the era in which he played. Not his fault that the first election process for the Hall came 37 years after he retired.

Tom C

ANYONE who could play and play well with such a condition deserves at least another look.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Marty Marion is a joke. Ferrell might not be a HOF pitcher, but he's a reasonable candidate as a HOF player. How many other pitchers put up better numbers at the plate than they allowed from the mound? I can think of one. Factor in the batting numbers, and he was more valuable than at least a couple dozen of the already-inducted pitchers.

Wins Above Replacement? I'm glad you asked.

Sandy Koufax:
Career -- 49.0
7-year peak -- 45.2

Wes Ferrell:
Career -- 61.6
7-year peak -- 53.2

P.S. I agree that Parisian Bob is conspicuous in his absence.

Glenn - I outta beat you with a (nerf) fungo bat for comparing Wes Ferrell to Sandy Koufax... shows how flawed even Sabremetrics like WAR can be.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Travis entered the Army the next year, fought in the Battle of the Bulge and was not the same player when he returned almost four years later.

I can certainly understand the argument against players who were on pace for Hall of Fame careers and fell just short because of injury, but how can you hold fighting for your country against a player when deciding Hall of Fame worthiness? What better definition of a Hall of Famer is there than Cecil Travis?

Greg

I don't have an opinion on Travis specifically but I think you have a good point about WWII service. Think of Addie Joss. If he had lived, who knows if his career would have taken a left turn and ruined his HOF chances. But, since he died in his prime, he's in the HOF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Glenn - I outta beat you with a (nerf) fungo bat for comparing Wes Ferrell to Sandy Koufax... shows how flawed even Sabremetrics like WAR can be.

Maybe someone can explain Koufax's WAR 7 being so low despite his incredible streak of 6 seasons. He is essentially tied with WILBUR WOOD and ranked below Silver King, Stan Coveleski, Jack Stivetts, Dazzy Vance, Vic Willis, and Joe McGinnity, to name a few.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

ANYONE who could play and play well with such a condition deserves at least another look.

A second look and a medal.

Or at least some porn screen tests or something.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe someone can explain Koufax's WAR 7 being so low despite his incredible streak of 6 seasons. He is essentially tied with WILBUR WOOD and ranked below Silver King, Stan Coveleski, Jack Stivetts, Dazzy Vance, Vic Willis, and Joe McGinnity, to name a few.

Not sure if home/road spits have anything to do with it. He was a slightly above average pitcher on the road. He was insane at home. Creature of Dodger Stadium.

Tom C

[timn1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You go right on advocating for a guy with a 4.04 ERA then. You're doing a great job of convincing us that the voters of the last 70 years just didn't know what to look for. Where does Bill James rank him by the way, that would be interesting, I thought I had his book handy but can't find it.

Good question, Peter. Bill James ranks Ferrell #40 among pitchers, and EVERY pitcher ahead of him except Carl Mays at #38 is already in the HOF. (Mays might well be in there too if not for that little incident...) Ferrell is ranked just above a bunch more guys who are also in the HOF.

I don't argue that Ferrell was an efficient pitcher (neither was Nolan Ryan). He gave up lots of hits and walks in an era where almost everybody did, and still managed to post a .600 PCT and go 65 games over .500 while never pitching for a pennant winner. His strikeouts were probably league average or above for the era, and he gave up very few HRs. Oh, and the three years he led the league in hits allowed he also led in IP, so let's don't go crazy over that stat.

Do you realize how many HOF pitchers are NOT 65 games over par, even with many more decisions? And how few of them are at .600? (Look at Drysdale, for cryin out loud. That gaudy ERA and pitching for strong teams in Dodger Stadium didn't help him get more than 43 games over.)

Don't even get me started on some of these guys.... Marquard? - 24 games over .500 while playing for pretty good teams. Basically a .500 pitcher who had one good hot streak. His PW (Player Wins) rating is actually below 0!! Koufax's PW is at 22, as is Dizzy Dean's. Ferrell is at 31 (again, probably the highest of almost any 20th-century pitcher not in HOF).

To explain Ferrell as having 8 years of unbroken good luck makes little sense to me. The guy knew how to win.

[btcarfagno]

Ferrell's WHIP and FIP numbers were about 15% better than the AVERAGE pitcher during his best 8 seasons. After that he was absolute garbage. I'm not thrilled with putting someone in who was 15% better than an average pitcher during his best seasons.

I hope you aren't touting wins as a stat that shows he is Hall of Fame worthy. Wins show how many more run your team scored than how many they gave up while you were the pitcher of record. He only controls half of that.

Nolan Ryan was a very inefficient pitcher. He also struck out more than the population of some countries, and threw a ton of no-hitters which...while they involve some amount of luck...are a very popular happening.

Tom C

[cardsfan73]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

von der Ahe should have been in the HOF 70 years ago. He was the first true promoter of baseball and an accomplished showman. His St. Louis Browns won four straight pennants in the 1880's.

I agree 100%! Often overlooked how important a role he played in the early days of the game. Even when I am talking baseball with the locals they don't know about von der Ahe.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh no don't get Cole started again on Cecil Travis, I might have to whup him again.

Again? You were bruised, bloody, battered and beaten after the last go-round.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Again? You were bruised, bloody, battered and beaten after the last go-round.

Oh yeah? Want to do a poll and see how many people here think Cecil should be in?

[timn1]

Bill James puts Ferrell's 4.04 ERA in context as 22% better than league average (park and era adjusted). The 22% better than league average compares favorably to a lot of the second-tier HOF pitchers. Put him in Dodger Stadium in the 1960s, and Koufax in League Park in the 1930s, and the ERA numbers would (mostly) reverse. More precisely, Ferrell in Dodger Stadium is Drysdale with a much better winning PCT.

Also, WHIP is a great stat, but like ERA it works best in conjunction with others rather than in isolation. Ultimately I dont think it measures overall effectiveness as a pitcher (as opposed to, say, raw talent) as well as a pitcher's winning PCT relative to the teams he played on.

Ferrell's good years were 1929-1936 when he went 161-94 (.631) (very high ERAs during the rest of his career, but still only .500 - not "absolute garbage"). Subtracting his decisions his teams 1929-1936 went 469-498 (.485). In other words he was pitching for subpar teams and carrying them on his back. Then he broke down, but unlike Koufax (who retired with a similar record), Ferrell tried to keep going and his ERA went up as he endured a long decline phase.

BTW, Drysdale was 199-157 (.560) during his effective years (1957-68). Without his decisions the Dodgers were 837-716 (.540). Not that much of an improvement to the team.

On the other hand, Ferrell's relative winning PCT (.631/.485) is almost exactly comparable to Koufax's six strong seasons (1961-66) when he went 129-47 (.733) relative to his team without him: 562-407 (.580)

I don't expect it will convince any of the naysayers, but I would be totally comfortable arguing that Ferrell was a better pitcher than Drysdale and quite close to Koufax in quality during their peak years (not close in pitcher type, obviously).

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Ferrell's WHIP and FIP numbers were about 15% better than the AVERAGE pitcher during his best 8 seasons. After that he was absolute garbage. I'm not thrilled with putting someone in who was 15% better than an average pitcher during his best seasons.

I hope you aren't touting wins as a stat that shows he is Hall of Fame worthy. Wins show how many more run your team scored than how many they gave up while you were the pitcher of record. He only controls half of that.

Nolan Ryan was a very inefficient pitcher. He also struck out more than the population of some countries, and threw a ton of no-hitters which...while they involve some amount of luck...are a very popular happening.

Tom C