— Our Blogs and Nothing But Our Blogs
I think one way to build towards the first election is to recap each season with a thread, starting with the 1871 NA. I’m thinking a season a day (Monday-Friday). As we go through time this way, we’ll start to get a feel for which players dominated year-in-year out, etc.
Charles Saeger has done a lot of work towards coming up with modified Win Shares for NA (and eventually all 19th Century players). The reliability of Win Shares gets shakier the further back we go in time, mainly because of the pitching and fielding differences. Charlie’s work should correct a fair amount of this error.
The problem with the massive revisions is that they also require a massive effort to work their way into a spreadsheet. It’ll be worth the wait once they are done, and if we go through time season by season, that will also buy us a little bit of time to get the spreadsheet revised and do some testing before presenting the NA numbers.
We’re not saying WS are the be all and end all. But Charlie’s revised numbers will be a very good guide for an era where we don’t have much to go on.
Let me know what you think of the season-by-season approach. Assuming people are in favor of it, I should be able to get the 1871 NA up tonight.
Posted: January 13, 2003 at 03:53 PM | 11 comment(s)
I received two outstanding Christmas presents yesterday, the Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues and the Complete Book of Baseball’s Negro Leagues.
These two books, combined with the Negro League section of the NHBA, and hopefully some testimony from Negro League experts on the panel should give us a pretty solid chunk of evidence to go on. We aren’t going to be perfect of course, but when it’s said and done we should probably have about 20 or so Negro Leaguers among our 200+ inductees.
One player that I ‘discovered’ was Biz Mackey, probably the 2nd best catcher in Negro Leagues History. Cristobal Torriente is another player that hasn’t been honored by the Hall of Fame that should be . . . there are a few others.
There aren’t too many players from the 19th Century for us to worry about, maybe Bud Fowler and George Stovey (Fleet Walker wasn’t really that great of a player, his fame is more symbolic than anything else).
When I get a few minutes, I’ll set up a thread to discuss the Negro Leaguers, I’ll probably start by posting the All-Time All-Star teams from the Complete Book . . . and from from the NHBA, I should be able to get those up there tonight.
We’re also fairly close to NA Win Shares, Charlie Saeger has done a lot of work, but I’ve got to get a spreadsheet reprogrammed before we can test them out. Maybe 2-3 weeks. If you’ve read the book, you know WS is a massive spreadsheet, about 2 MB without any data. This is a massive overhaul, and will require reprogramming almost the entire thing. If this works out well, it’s possible we’ll be able to come up with revised WS for other 19th Century seasons, but much of that will depend on having the time to enter the data, to see if it’s worth the effort.
Posted: December 26, 2002 at 02:34 PM | 2 comment(s)
Statement of Purpose:
The Hall of Merit is an internet group of baseball enthusiasts who will create its own “Hall of Merit” to rival the “Hall of Fame” in Cooperstown. Many believe that the National Baseball Hall of Fame has done a less than perfect job of selecting the game’s greatest players to honor. We will attempt to rectify mistakes made by Hall of Fame selections by conducting our own series of elections. A more thorough description of the Hall of Merit can be found here.
We will ...Read More...
Posted: December 06, 2002 at 11:55 PM | 392 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: Email Conversation with Rob Wood
My ‘conversation’ with Rob Wood will be posted in the discussion thread.
It’s basically a status of where we stand. Rob has volunteered to draft a rules document, based on everything that’s been discussed in the threads.
I think we’ll be ready to vote after New Year’s.
Hopefully this answers your questions.
If any of you have an idea for a thread, let me know and I’ll post it. This section is different than Clutch Hits, in that we don’t have “news” every day to link to. We try to keep the discussion going, but it’s easy to fall into lulls. Any suggestions would be appreciated . . . thanks!
Posted: November 26, 2002 at 12:40 AM | 1 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: Hall of Merit group set up on Yahoo
The group has been set up on yahoo, we’ll use this to send messages, register voters, etc.
I’m not sure how this will work, I only sent two invitations, because it didn’t have an easy way to get to the address book unfortunately. Go to the link above for the home page for the group. Post any questions, etc. here.
Posted: November 15, 2002 at 04:12 AM | 20 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: The Jackson/Rose/Cicotte/Devlin issue
I’ll post Craig’s comment from the rules thread and my reply in the discussion.
Posted: November 07, 2002 at 10:03 PM | 77 comment(s)
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)
Page 126 of 129 pages ‹ First < 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 > | Features Archive | Site Archive