— Our Blogs and Nothing But Our Blogs
I’m in the process of getting a formal set of rules together, and I’m wondering what you guys think should be included.
Obviously we’ll have the voting system, we settled on 24-23-22-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6 (if 3 are elected) IIRC.
I’m wondering if I could get a volunteer to maintain the email group. I can’t get to web email at work anymore, and I’m on dial up at home, so I don’t log on all the time, and things get missed. I apologize if you’ve slipped through the cracks. Once we get the group going on yahoo, this will be much easier.
I’m also wondering what other rules you’ll forsee us needing I’ll tell you where I’m leaning:
Eligibility 5 years after the first time the player plays less than 10 G in the field or pitches in less than 5 games. This will account for most token appearances. We could provide for an exception if someone feels there is a player who slips under this guideline but should eligible anyway. A voter would raise the issue, and we’d decide o a case-by-case basis (maybe a small committee of 3-5 people for eligibility questions?)
I don’t want this to get out of control with rules or anything, but I also want to anticipate problems. So let me know what you all think by posting on this thread, and if you have other questions/suggestions for things that should be in our “Constitution” post them here, so we can discuss and let’s get this thing rolling!
Posted: October 30, 2002 at 01:06 AM | 78 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: Pitchers for the Hall of Merit
Let’s start discussing the pitchers here. I don’t have any adjusted numbers to post yet, but there’s no reason we can get the discussion cranking.
I take that back. I went through season by season a ways back and came up with pythagorean W-L records for each pitcher, based on his ERA vs. park adjusted league (season by season), adjusting for an average number of decisions in each season (based on the pitcher’s career IP/dec ratio for his career). Those numbers will be in the extended text.
Posted: September 18, 2002 at 05:16 PM | 571 comment(s)
These were the systems presented. I think we’ve agreed to go with 15 players on the ballot (to increase the penalty for not being named, as well as increase the depth of our research).
This closes the gap between 1 and 15 on the list, and gives a more substantial penalty for not being named on any ballots.
This system has larger gaps between the positions (on a percentage basis) and doesn’t penalize a player that is left off that ballot too much (it’s like a 16th place vote really).
Similar to the previous system, but gives a significant bonus for being dubbed the best player on the ballot.
4) 20-19-18-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 (assuming 3 players get in that year)
This system changes based on the number of players to be elected in a particular season. Basically the same as above, except all players voted into an “election” spot get the six-point bonus.
A combination of the first and last systems. This one increases the penalty for not being on the ballot (larger penalty than the first actually), but still has a very large gap between each spot on the ballot.
Those are the significant contenders as I see them. If I missed one, let me know.
I lean towards system 1. If anyone would like to make any final pitches to sway a “vote” please do. I could see a split vote among the last 4 systems, because they are similar, so maybe we should have some kind of run off to get it down to two, and then a final vote if no system is over 50%? I’m new to this election thing, so if I’m missing something, please let me know so we can choose the system fairly, as it is the backbone of our entire project.
Posted: August 30, 2002 at 09:49 PM | 15 comment(s)
Okay, my summer ‘vacation’ is over, almost. I had some personal things to tend to the last month or so, but I’m ready to get cranking again.
I say almost, because I’ll be out of town this weekend, and I’ll be in Vega$ for the first time ever from September 6-10.
We’ve got to decide on a voting system as well. I’ll set up a separate thread for that.
I’ll respond to the email I’ve received from the last month sometime in the next week as well. Thanks for your patience guys.
Posted: August 30, 2002 at 09:34 PM | 18 comment(s)
Guys, I’ve been very busy w/some personal issues the last few weeks. I might be dealing w/these for another week or two. That’s why I’ve practically vanished from this site (all of Primer, not just the HoM) since late July.
I’ll be back with you all shortly. I have been popping in to read every now and then, but I haven’t had any time to do any new work.
If anyone wants to run the formula Charles Saeger gave for pitching vs. fielding for all leagues 1871-1900, that’d be a huge help.
Rob Wood—great work with the voting studies. I guess we are going to have to make up our minds shortly.
Posted: August 08, 2002 at 06:14 PM | 0 comment(s)
Here are the right fielders. Jim O’Rourke should be a LF, his stats are now over there.
Posted: July 17, 2002 at 10:17 PM | 123 comment(s)
Here are the center fielders. A much better bunch than the LF’s.
Posted: July 15, 2002 at 03:34 AM | 106 comment(s)
Here are the catchers, I’ve updated this thread 9/19/2003. I’m going to remove anyone who isn’t a new eligible, or hasn’t received a vote from these threads; unless he has 175 WS (145 for the catchers), so these threads don’t get too cluttered.
Posted: July 13, 2002 at 04:03 AM | 148 comment(s)
Here are the SS’s. Pebbly Jack Glasscock is by far the best candidate here. George Wright may have a case on peak value once we have some NA data. Ed McKean has a case he may get in before the next generation’s big guns start hitting the ballot.
Posted: July 10, 2002 at 05:52 PM | 360 comment(s)
Page 127 of 129 pages ‹ First < 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 > | Features Archive | Site Archive