User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7322 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
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.
I think you should give an award for each league. An MVP award, especially, should consider the pennant race, and you can't compare Oscar Charleston to Babe Ruth when they never play against each other, or against any of the same teams. (Those who think the MVP is simply the player with the highest WARP or whatever may disagree.)
Voting on more awards is more interesting, anyway.
I would think for an MVP vote you need to only include real league #s, no relying on exhibitions to flesh out Negro League stats, so that may reduce the number of years you can include the Negro Leagues.
See post #839 in the New Eligibles thread.
I urge anyone who was not with us in 2002 to read these nascent threads. I think they show some important points:
1) Nothing about our system is sacrosanct. For instance, back then we were getting set to begin with the 1906 election. We were looking at biannual elections and thinking of the possibility of having a ballot larger than ten guys.
2) Some ideas that come up from time to time have been thoroughly debated long ago.
3) It's fascinating to see how early ideals have evolved. In some ways we've done more than we imagained possible; in other ways we've fallen short of expectations.
It's always best to go to an internet archive for ancient threads; the restored versions here are often mere fragments of the actual discussion.
It tends to focus on the extremes first. Careerists bump Hughie Jennings, peaksters dis Beckley. Those guys might get voted off before someone who is more generally perceived as bottom-of-the-HoM, like Red Faber. Sandy Koufax would not fare well in that kind of system.
And why exactly are we stopping the 3-week cycle with 2008 or 2009, or whatever? Guess I missed that whole discussion. I think the momentum of the project is important, and stopping for a year, it will be hard to pick the discussion back up, especially on the backloggers...
The biggest problem with that is that our core of ~50 voters will begin to disperse. Hence either the project disperses along with us, or we bring in a replacement group of voters interested in maintaining it. Acculturating new voters will be its own kind of challenge, but the slower pace might well allow some to consider it who don't want to jump on board as long as we're moving as fast as we have been.
I've been thinking a little about non-playing merit. Organizing that will be daunting. I see four broad categories, and those categories are broad enough to cause plenty of confusion.
1. Merit in talking about the game, writing about the game, researching or analyzing the game, and developing and contributing to exhibitions and celebrations of the game.
The problem with this; find some rational way to rank-order Vin Scully, Grantland Rice, Earnshaw Cook, Ernest Lanigan, and Buck O'Neil. (I see a lot of O'Neil's merit falling here: story-teller, source for historians, and tireless promoter of the Negro League Museum in Kansas City. But as a scout, he could also appear in #3 below.)
2. Merit in financial backing, business direction, and structural governance. Harry Wright, William Hulbirt, Ban Johnson, Rube Foster, K.M. Landis, Walter O'Malley. I'd probably put Monte Ward and Marvin Miller in this category. Almost every name worth mentioning in controversial for one reason or another - some if these guys will arouse real passion, one way or another. One of the oddities here: there's no such thing as replacement value. Some RF with no speed, a noodle arm, and an 82 OPS+ - well, that guy just isn't going to have a long career. But an owner can be as bad as Andrew Freedman and there's still no easy way to get rid of him. (Just listen to guys Vlad or MWE on this board talk about the Nuttings and the Pirates.) Guys who made money in busisness that weren't Organized Baseball might be eligible in some cases: Spalding, Spink.
3. Merit in team construction, team building, player acquisition and player development. These days, these are job titles: general manager, scouting director, and so on. Long ago, this is a lot of what the people we now call managers did. A scout could qualify here, but he'd have to be quite a scout to convince us. The biggest problem will be dealing with people like Frank Selee and John McGraw. They certainly built and developed teams, and were more important than their club presidents were, but they also appear in #4. Possibly #3 and #4 should be collapsed together.
4. On-field leadership and daily decision-making. Managers now; captains in the dim and distant past. Bobby Cox, Earl Weaver, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw. In some ways the easiest to analyze - and that fact that they're much more difficult to analyze than players means that categories 1, 2, and 3 are going to be even more difficult.
Then there's the problem of mixed category problem: if we're talking about Frank Chance in category 4, as a manager, how should it affect us that he was a bordeline-out HoM player? Or at Torre or a Ward who are in the HoM as players? Or a Schoendienst who was at least a good player? Or Buck O'Neil?
In other words, you don't want to try to rank-order Vin Scully, Grantland Rice, Earnshaw Cook, Ernest Lanigan, and Buck O'Neil. Or Bill James, for that matter. Understood.
Yeah, you're right. I think the announcer/writer stuff is going to be much more like all of us ranking our favorite novels or music acts in that, it'll be a matter of taste above all else, which makes for lots of debates about people's tastes and a very squishy basis to vote on. Also, writers and ambassadors take us further from the field, from wins and losses, of questions about the dynamics of the game on the field, which is a big part of why I like this project so much.
Unless I'm missing something there isn't going to be a runoff for the 2008 election . . .
Very important thing to consider . . . not really sure how to attack this . . . I would thinking starting a separate email list just for voters, so I can send a reminder, etc. would be a start.
If voters are willing to give phone numbers or some other contact method, I would be willing to make the calls assuming email addresses change and aren't updated, etc.
Any other ideas?
Someone has to take the lead on this one, Sean. See posts #151-155 in this thread.
I don't see much point in voting on MVP's, etc. - I think it would just devolve into a struggle between Warp and WS - larger camp wins.
Voting players off the island won't accomplish anything either - will basically be a struggle between peak and career voters.
Something I think could generate new discussion would be to establish a small HoM - go back to 1898 and elect one player per year. Players that were near unanimous selections under our elect 2 or 3 model would be discussed in a different way.
The focus of the current project has always been on the players near the borderline. Those clearly above were quickly elected; those clearly below were quickly dismissed (by most ;-).
A "Small HOM" would be a similar project to this one, but focusing on many of the players that were quickly elected due to their being clearly overqualified. A HOM of about half to two-thirds of the current size would shift the focus to a line around near what many people refer to as the "Writers HOF". A HOM of about one-quarter to one-third would shift the focus to a line around near what many people refer to as the "Inner Circle". Either project would be interesting to me; maybe others see it the same way.
If the fraction chosen is something simple such as one-half, one-third, etc, then it would be easy to develop an election schedule similar to the existing HOM's schedule but with an appropriately reduced number of elections.
-a non-US players HOM (that is Japan and the Carribean)
-managers
-general managers/executives
Another thought is to rank the players by position to create first-team HOMers, second-team HOMers, third-team HOMers, etc.... This way it's not as big a project, it allows for more than yes/no phrasing, and it allows us to continue to explore the changing conditions of the game.
Lotsa ideas here, few proposals. I've given detailed proposals for stratifying the HoM and for the MMP Project. Since these are "No Sale" with the group, and nobody else seems to have a concrete proposal, dan b's idea for voting through the 2012 election and calling it a day seems like the way to go.
These are in the order I thought to put them down, not my personal preference.
a. Yearly All-Star Team
b. Yearly MVP/CY/RoY
c. Japanese Wing
d. Latin American Wing
e. Manager Wing
f. General Manager/Owner/Organizer Wing
g. "Last Man Standing" with Ruth/Wagner/Josh Gibson fighting at the end
h. HoM All-Star Teams - Best 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, RF, C, and a 1 man, 2 man, 3 man? pitching staff. Then 2nd best, 3rd best, etc.
i. Small Hall - half size, one per year, or ...?
j. Best player for each team in its history
k. All-Star team for era
l. All-Star team for decade
m. Contributor wing
n. Yearly elections after 2008 only
o. Elections through 2012 on the 3 week schedule and wrap it up
p. Minor league HoM
Anything else to add to the ballot.
And I still think Japanese players should be eligible for the HOM itself.
1. t-Latin American Wing
1. t-Manager Wing
4. General Manager/Owner/Organizer Wing
5. HoM All-Star Teams - Best 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, RF, C, and a 1 man, 2 man, 3 man? pitching staff. Then 2nd best, 3rd best, etc.
big gap
6. Best player for each team in its history
7. Yearly All-Star Team and Yearly MVP/CY/RoY (combining)
8. Small Hall - half size, one per year, or ...?
9. All-Star team for era or decade
10. Minor league HoM
11. "Last Man Standing" with Ruth/Wagner/Josh Gibson fighting at the end
12. Contributor wing
these seem like a different election, and I'm not ready to make this decision.
n. Yearly elections after 2008 only
o. Elections through 2012 on the 3 week schedule and wrap it up
big gap big gap big gap big gap big gap big gap
2. General Manager/Owner/Organizer Wing (morgan effa manley buckley)
3. pioneer wing (I would probobly even support HoM mistake Dickey Pierce)
4. all decade teams in some we might approch players we never discosed before
big gap big gap
5. Yearly MVP/CY/RoY and Yearly All-Star Team (combining) way to time consuming espeschialy the later
if not one of the above or another idea as of now unsudgeted I think I'll leave
Japanese Wing
Latin American Wing
Minor league HoM
how about a baseball movie section (it sounds much better then a japanese wing and Tom Selick is as far as I want to go into Japanese baseball :)
HoM All-Star Teams - Best 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, RF, C, and a 1 man, 2 man, 3 man? pitching staff. Then 2nd best, 3rd best, etc.
I could tell you now who would win at every position except for center and pitcher
Best player for each team in its history
maybe by then the Devils Rays would have sombody half way decent though tis would be very intresting if we would do that for NA teams that folded
Small Hall - half size, one per year, or ...?
been there done that
Last Man Standing" with Ruth/Wagner/Josh Gibson fighting at the end
there would be more un uniformity then we have now
worst case scenario we could always move to basketball and correct the Artis Gilmore fiasco :)
are we going to use tie shares in addition to win shares
1. t-Latin American Wing (Overlaps Negro Leaguers some, somewhat subjective
1. t-Manager Wing Too Subjective unless we're going to discuss what "formula" should be used to evaluate managers.
4. General Manager/Owner/Organizer Wing Too subjective, see managers wing.
5. HoM All-Star Teams - Best 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, RF, C, and a 1 man, 2 man, 3 man? pitching staff. Then 2nd best, 3rd best, etc. Taking the HOM guys and doing this? I like this one
big gap
6. Best player for each team in its history blah
7. Yearly All-Star Team and Yearly MVP/CY/RoY (combining) blah
8. Small Hall - half size, one per year, or ...? blah
9. All-Star team for era or decade Mildly interesting
10. Minor league HoM blah
11. "Last Man Standing" with Ruth/Wagner/Josh Gibson fighting at the end I like this one - give us a 'ranking of the HOM players
12. Contributor wing blah
these seem like a different election, and I'm not ready to make this decision.
n. Yearly elections after 2008 only NO!
o. Elections through 2012 on the 3 week schedule and wrap it up YES!
The issue for me is I am not quite as math-oriented as many of you. I'd simply have to research formulas I like and weigh them. That alone would be an interesting activity for me.
The problem could be called the Sammy Sosa problem.
If we hold the election for 2012 in the year 2008 based upon eligibility as we know it 2008, we could be inducting people one or more years too early. This would throw us somewhat out of whack with the institution we claim to be an alternative to. Case in point, Sammy Sosa.
Let's say that we'd started this project a year and a few months earlier than we did, such that we were wrapping up with 2006 during the middle of the 2006 season. Then we decided to extend out to 2011 or so, keeping the three-week election cycle. Late in 2006, we'd be voting on 2011, and we'd elect Sammy Sosa.
Then in 2007, Sammy Sosa would hit 20 HRs for Texas, and things would get really weird. Would we ignore the elephant in the room? Would we unelect him and have a run-off to decide his replacement? Would we pretend that a full year was somehow token and that it was OK that he didn't have to be unelecte? The solution would be contrived and inconsistent with our thoughtful deliberations.
So I think we need to have yearly elections to preserve the 5-year cooling off period and to maintain our direct comparison to the HOF. If it means there are long, boring gaps during which there isn't much to say. Well, so be it. Maybe that's the time for champions of the backlog or the new frontlog to hammer away at us. It also gives a lot of us plenty of time to iron out wrinkles in our system, do new research to support our positions, or, in Gary A's case, to do lots and lots and lots of more research to extend our knowledge of the NgLs. (You'll do that, right, Gary????? Please!!!!!!!!) Heck, a big NgL encyclopedia might even get published, you just never know. And having some time to let those things shake out can't be a bad thing, prolly just a different thing.
In addition, if other projects (wings for MGRs, NPBs, the MMP project, anything) spring up, that will create new knowledge or ideas or feed new information into arguments for certain players on the ballot, which will need to be reported back to this electorate.
I must have missed it, Eric, but was there talk of not having yearly elections after 2007? I don't know how else we could do it but that way.
I still think we should have the elections right after the HOF's so we can elect the same number to maintain our comparitive perspective, too.
Like you, I don't see how it's feasible.
b. Yearly MVP/CY/RoY
j. Best player for each team in its history
n. Yearly elections after 2008 only
Anything else to add to the ballot.
Large Hall or "Hall of Very Good": repeat everything from 1898 with same number of electees by year as for the HoM elections, but with enshrined HoMers ineligible.
I'm not advocating for it, but it's easily "feasible".
If Sosa is a HoMer with his career thru 2005, then great; if he adds anything later, this wouldn't make him undeserving. Yes, it's inconsistent, in a sense. But I have always advocated that Rules should not become sacred; with different circumstances that evolve, adaptions should be made. Inert organisms aren't alive. In any case, this point is purely academic; there are no viable HoMers among the new candidates from 2009-2012 who appear likely to return and play substantially.
An aside: If consistency were really important than GVH would be a HoMer; 18 backloggers have passed him since 1972 alone.
We really don't have this and never have. I we did, then Cone, Saberhagen and dozens of others wouldn't be allowed earlier eligiblity than their HOF debut. And players with less than ten years played wouldn't be eligible.
Actually, I tend to agree that we ought to go to annual elections after the 2008 results. But I don't think the reasoning given for not doing so is compelling. And I think that if we don't have some other kind of project to keep people tuning in, then we should just do elections as far as we can now and wrap this up.
This is a proposal for a stratification project we could do. It’s a simple design and would be easy to run. I led a similar project on another web site a couple years ago and the results were very satisfying, despite the small number of voters (5 to 15).
The idea is to arrange all 234 HoMers along a spectrum of ten classes. There would be one election for each class, starting with the best players. Within each class there would be a defined top end (the “+’s” (pluses)) and low end (the “-‘s” (minuses)). We would want to name each class: I suggest that the top should be “The 10’s”, and the worst “The 1’s”. Or we could solicit for more colorful names. (ROYGBIV is a little too short.)
Initially, the main issue to be determined is the size of each class. There are a million ways to do it, but I suggest we use a classic pyramidal structure with a constant rate of increase from one level to the next.
Here’s one scheme, with 12 players in the top level and a 14% rate of increase:
12 10’s
14 9’s
16 8’s
18 7’s
20 6’s
23 5’s
27 4’s
30 3’s
35 2’s
39 1’s
Here’s another, with 6 players in the top level and a 28% rate of increase:
6 10’s
8 9’s
10 8’s
13 7’s
16 6’s
21 5’s
27 4’s
34 3’s
44 2’s
55 1’s
And a scheme between those two, with 9 players at the top and a 20% rate of increase:
9 10’s
11 9’s
13 8’s
16 7’s
19 6’s
22 5’s
27 4’s
32 3’s
39 2’s
46 1’s
Of course, the increase between levels doesn’t need to be a constant rate. This scheme is based on each level increasing by four from the previous level:
5 10’s
9 9’s
13 8’s
17 7’s
21 6’s
25 5’s
30 4’s
34 3’s
38 2’s
42 1’s
Here’s another, where the levels increase by three each time:
10 10’s
13 9’s
16 8’s
19 7’s
22 6’s
25 5’s
28 4’s
31 3’s
34 2’s
36 1’s
Or if you prefer a system of plateaus, you may prefer one of these schemes:
10 10’s
10 9’s
15 8’s
15 7’s
20 6’s
20 5’s
30 4’s
30 3’s
40 2’s
44 1’s
10 10’s
10 9’s
10 8’s
20 7’s
20 6’s
20 5’s
30 4’s
30 3’s
30 2’s
54 1’s
Or maybe you just want to level it off:
20 10’s
20 9’s
22 8’s
22 7’s
25 6’s
25 5’s
25 4’s
25 3’s
25 2’s
25 1’s
Maybe even pure tenth percentile rankings:
24 10’s
23 9’s
23 8’s
24 7’s
23 6’s
23 5’s
24 4’s
23 3’s
23 2’s
24 1’s
Again, a million ways to do it. We just need to decide which direction we want to go (if we decide to do it). You mathematicians can perhaps come up with the “perfect”, justifiable scheme.
I mentioned earlier about +’s and –‘s. The idea is that when you decide who you are voting for in a level, you designate the top 20% with a “+” and the bottom 20% with a “–“. For example, suppose we have a scheme with nine 10’s. On your ballot, you would assign two pluses for the best (eg, Ruth, Mays), two minuses for the worst (Mantle, Musial), leaving five in the middle (Aaron, Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Johnson). Doing this helps avoid ties in the voting, as well as giving the project a strong sense of players’ actual ranking.
The other issue to be decided is a scoring system. Because we have +’s and –‘s we need to decided how to account for these in the tally. I suggest that a + is worth a bonus of .4 and a minus is the opposite, subtract .4. IOW, it takes three +’s to make up for being left off a ballot. Again, y’all math nerds can probably tweak this number to something better.
I like this proposal more than previous stratification ideas, because we’re dealing with smaller groups of players. I think this lends itself to more focused discussion on the candidates for a level. Also, it creates a general ranking of the HoMers without slogging through an extended process.
I think we would want to maintain our triweekly election schedule. This gets us done in plenty of time to focus on the 2009 HoM election.
As I've noted before, some would already vote in Pujols, others would say, "I need more career."
But in my mind it's not a binding thing, just a way to get a little bit of a preliminary handle on future candidates.
One easy approach would be to just have one ballot, everyone ranks everyone.
But that would be too fast, and wouldn't lend to a ton of discussion.
Voting off the island isn't a bad way to go, but would take awhile - maybe one a week, so we have it done in time for the 2009 HoF election? I would think we'd have to have run-offs early though, or the discussion would be so fragmented that a group of 10 or so people could get someone booted out pretty easily.
Any other ideas?
********
Voting HoFers off the island isn't a bad idea and would be fun, but it's kind of a negative way to go, right? We aren't going to be advocating the Hall of Fame to kick people out . . .
I could be interested in participating in:
a. Yearly All-Star Team
b. Yearly MVP/CY/RoY
or
e. Manager Wing
f. General Manager/Owner/Organizer Wing
or
q. "Hall of Very Good": repeat everything from 1898 with same number of electees by year as for the HoM elections, but with enshrined HoMers ineligible.
I'd be interested in following the discussions of, but not participating in:
c. Japanese Wing
d. Latin American Wing
I have no interest in re-doing the work that's already been done, whether that be re-ranking elected HoMers, a stratified HoM, or anything else along those lines.
Yearly All-Star/MVP/CY/ROY
Top players for each team
Japanese Wing
I don't really see the problem. I'm only talking about continuing thru the 2006 season retirees. As far as I know, the only one that even possibly is 'coming back' ala Sosa is Keith Fowlke, and I don't think he'll be a big HOM contender.
#1) Deacon White, no doubt about it.
The rest, we can debate about, but all but a handful are "backloggers".
Most people will see them as, at best, marginally better than the players they replace.
The non-backloggers (chronological order):
Hines, Dahlen, Santo, Grich, Blyleven, Gossage, Whitaker, Trammell
Maybe some other 19thC guys, but we had little consensus about their election at that time.
I would definitely include Start as a non-backlogger - I think he's probalby the best unelected player after White. Dahlen, Grich, Trammell also very high on the list.
I agree with that. I think our perspective on the early players (and our evaluation menthods) has changed since the beginning of the project. OTOH, we had a very high consensus that he was a HOMer (nearly edging the Deacon in 1898). Start didn't, taking until 1912 for election, but that could also change given the shift in perspective about what's worthy of credit.
Since we agree this would be a worthy aim to devote our time to, it's all the more reason to go in the direction of something like "The Ten Level Spectrum of HoMers". Why? Because merely producing a ranked list of non-HOFers lacks an important aspect: the context of who are their peers already in the Hall.
If we simply say "Deacon White is the best non-HOFer", what does that mean? That he's as good as Willie Mays? or George Kelly? It's a mute determination.
But, if we can say, "Deacon White is the best non-HOFer. We rate him a low 6, on the same level as Willie McCovey, Bill Dickey and Harmon Killebrew", this speaks loudly about the quality of player we judge him to be.
Again, think about that proposal of mine. It's pretty simple to do, and I think it offers significant benefits.
#1) Deacon White, no doubt about it.
The rest, we can debate about, but all but a handful are "backloggers".
Most people will see them as, at best, marginally better than the players they replace.
The non-backloggers (chronological order):
Hines, Dahlen, Santo, Grich, Blyleven, Gossage, Whitaker, Trammell
Maybe some other 19thC guys, but we had little consensus about their election at that time.
By "non-backloggers" here do you mean frontloggers, jimd?
Glasscock was almost a frontlogger. Certainly he enjoyed majority support.
more than Gore, Barnes, Richardson, or Stovey, it seems clear to me.
based on Frontlog support level
(averaged in the case of multi-year candidates)
10 23 unanimous
Young Wagner WJohnson Cobb Speaker ECollins Lloyd Alexander
Ruth Hornsby Gehrig Grove DiMaggio TWilliams Musial Mantle
Mays Aaron FRobinson Seaver Schmidt Brett Boggs
9 23 unanimous - .943
RJackson Morgan Bench Yastrzemski JWilliams Charleston Mathews
Carlton JGibson Ott Foxx Feller Spahn Yount Lajoie
Mathewson Fisk Paige Nichols Crawford BGibson Carew Stearnes
8 23 .939 - .818
JRobinson Campanella Berra Delahanty Brouthers Niekro Carter Mize
Murray Perry Hartnett Waner Cochrane Gehringer Vaughan Blyleven
Ryan McCovey Davis Anson Roberts ASimmons Connor
7 23 .817 - .674
Rose Kaline Banks Palmer Hubbell Molitor Killebrew White
Winfield Clemente Snider Leonard Dickey Hines Sandberg Santop
Dahlen Santo Torriente Clarke Heilmann O'Rourke Appling
6 22 .673 - .463
Frisch Dihigo Greenberg Trammell Jenkins Cronin RBrown Grich
Stargell Gossage OSmith Hamilton Clarkson Eckersley Baker Plank
Burkett Whitaker Wilhelm TSimmons Wells Wheat
5 22 .452 - .209
Kelly Rogan Ford Newhouser Wilson Goslin Gore Reese
Clark Walsh Marichal BWilliams Ewing Allen Doby JJackson
Glasscock BRobinson Koufax Wright Irvin Suttles
4 23 .206 - .116
Lyons WFoster McPhee MBrown Barnes Keeler Vance Start
Slaughter Radbourn Carey Ward Drysdale Kelley EWynn Flick
Keefe Beckwith ESutton Spalding GJohnson Wallace Rusie
3 23 .111 - .055
Hernandez DSutton Bennett Herman Magee Torre McVey DlEvans
Boudreau DwEvans Stovey Groh McGinnity Fingers JCollins Ashburn
Pike Coveleski Bunning Jennings Ruffing Terry Thompson
2 23 .054 - .021
Lemon Galvin Caruthers Ferrell Beckley Sheckard Medwick Stieb
RFoster Keller Pearce Sisler Dawson Griffith Moore Richardson
Rixey Browning Mendez Fox Freehan Grant CJones
1 23 .021 - .000
Randolph Hill Pierce WBrown Mackey Faber Bresnahan Doerr
Kiner Averill JWynn Roush Sewell Bell Boyer Minoso
Hack Oms Waddell Trouppe Gordon Childs Nettles
If we actually did this ranking, I think that there would be a lot of movement up and down one level, though I don't think there'd be too many shifts of two or more levels. (Pete Rose excepted; the boycott dragged him down in a dense portion of the rankings.) I think the rankings are fairly solid in the middle, but both ends are too easily affected by the eccentricities of one or two voters (not voting for an otherwise unanimous player, or repeatedly voting for a deep backlogger year after year).
Note: these are not my opinions about the HOMers, but, in effect, my mathematically based opinion about our consensus opinion, based on the voting.
Yes I do.
I still think Hines is an easy pick.
Didn't mean to imply that he wasn't. I definitely think he's easily a HOMer.
Strat level 7? Maybe not that high.
I agree; I hope someone steps forward to run it. However, it’s a multi-year project. For those looking to fill the months between elections with something smaller, I’ve proposed the Ten Level Spectrum of HoMers (TLSH) in #242, #261. I hope that jimd's implementation of it will generate some enthusiasm for the idea.
But after that, we should do the MMP (MVP) Project (or something like it). I’ll try to frame the proposal for it in a friendlier manner.
The Most Meritorious Player (MMP) Project – Take 2
The details and some discussion of this proposal are posted on this thread, posts #145-155. Perhaps it’s TOO detailed, because nobody wants to be “John Murphy” for it. The proposed scope is, perhaps, too daunting(?)
I’ll try to strip it down, because I cringe every time someone proposes we redo MVP/CY/ROY/etc. The MMP project (sometimes referred to as the MVP Project) accomplishes all these and more.
Essentially, the idea is simple: run one poll for each year ranking the top players (at least 25), similar to the weekly NCAA polls. That’s it.
By doing this, we’ll see many things:
• The best players in baseball for every season, ranked
• The best players in each league for every season
• The best players at each position for every season
• Relative “star power” of each league
• Which teams in history had the most star power; pennant winners with little star power; also-rans with mega star power
• See exactly in what eras a position was weaker or stronger relative to the other positions
• The top rookies in baseball history
• Years with no good rookies
• Create a peak value system for everyone in history, true MVP Shares
• How many years, exactly, was a player among the top 10, 20, 30 in the game?
• An automatic normalizing mechanism, e.g., no matter how much you stand out from the league you can’t be higher than #1
We have a proposal and we’ve already begun debating the rules. We just need someone to baby-sit, which is where the project is stalled. This person will have the standing to lead the project however they see fit; it can be designed to be very simple or very complex. Either way I think it’s a more worthwhile project than any other.
I expect that I would contribute with the organization, like I do now with the New Eligibles and Necrology lists. However, I don't think that I could be reliable on a day-to-day basis.
One thought I did have was as to a starting date. I'm very much against beginning in 1871; it would be much better if we led up to those nascent seasons. The perfect year to begin with is 1957, the first complete Retrosheet year, and move to the present. This start also puts off having to deal with the Negro leaguers. Another benefit is that we will have scrutinized the players from an era sorely overlooked by the HOF, the past 50 years. With biweekly elections it would take +2 years to get through 2009. By this time we would hopefully have more data available to tackle earlier seasons - from Retrosheet, more Negro League numbers, Win & Loss shares, etc. Then we would decide what year to continue from: maybe 1956 and move backwards, maybe 1901 to 1956, then 1900 and back. Whatever makes the most sense. Perhaps by the end of the project we would even have better pre-NA numbers, to do some of the years before 1871.
I see the problems with starting in 1871, so I think I'd vote for going backwards thru time. I think it's preferable to jumping around because it has the continuity, but in the end, even random order could be fun.
Allowing new voters to cast ballots for previous years (or revised ballots) at any time seems interesting but somewhat impractical. Perhaps just reopening each old ballot for a week on its anniversary could keep that manageable. Allow revisions and new ballots, close it, and come up with a new total. Then again, that may be more work than it's worth.
One thing I've come to really dislike about the HOM ballot is the on-ballot bonus, the gap between being on and off the ballot. It's a discontinuity at an arbitrary point; it should be the smallest gap on the ballot (or tied for it), not the largest. So as an alternative point system for this new project, I'd propose one which dwindles to 1 point, with a bit of a bonus for the top spot and the top positions close to it; e.g. 35-30-26-23-21-20-19-...-2-1 for 25 spots.
Our current system requires explanations for not voting for leading candidates. I would propose that the MMP ballot require mentioning the top player or two at each position (top 5 pitchers say), and explaining why they didn't make the final ballot (assuming they didn't). Basically to explain why someone thinks there is a talent void at a given position. Just an idea.
Yeah, I agree that the on-ballot bonus is too steep.
I think your proposed point system gets too top heavy. Lately, I've been thinking along the lines of a 30-man ballot - ranking the first ten, then five groups of four thereafter. The point system might run like this:
27 for 1st
23 for 2nd
20 for 3rd
18 for 4th
17 for 5th
16 for 6th
15 for 7th
14 for 8th
13 for 9th
12 for 10th
10 for 11-14th
8 for 15-18th
6 for 19-22nd
4 for 23-26th
2 for 27-30th
24 for 1st
21 for 2nd
19 for 3rd
18 for 4th
17 for 5th
16 for 6th
15 for 7th
14 for 8th
13 for 9th
12 for 10th
10 for 11-14th
8 for 15-18th
6 for 19-22nd
4 for 23-26th
2 for 27-30th
Andrew, I would be willing to be on the management team for the MMP project.
year -discussion -ballot
1957 --1/7/2008 -2/11/2008
1958 -1/21/2008 -2/25/2008
1959 --2/4/2008 -3/10/2008
1960 -2/18/2008 -3/24/2008
1961 --3/3/2008 --4/7/2008
1962 -3/17/2008 -4/21/2008
1963 -3/31/2008 --5/5/2008
1964 -4/14/2008 -5/19/2008
1965 -4/28/2008 --6/2/2008
1966 -5/12/2008 -6/16/2008
I think that discussing multiple years at once would be too confusing, despite the mutual exclusivity of each election. Remember when we tried to discuss upcoming years while a HOM election was going on?
Plus, I think a discussion of each year would be deeper and more meaningful if we were able to concentrate on that particular year. Perhaps it should be three weeks. For Week 1, we'd post the eligible players for the year, then people could post the uberstats on those players, and people can formulate preliminary lists. In Week 2 we debate those lists, explaining why we are deviating from the uberstat rankings. In Week 3 we vote. I think we might need a couple of weeks to narrow down the top 25 , especially in the early years.
Well, I'm giving you my two cents. It's up to you and Andrew (and whoever else signs on to run it) as to which direction you want to go. Your point about concentration is well taken. However, I must point out that with a tri-weekly election scehdule the project will take nearly nine years to complete, assuming a couple weeks off each year for the annual HoM election.
You might consider semi-monthly elections as a compromise.
Generating the consideration set is probably the bulk of the work.
Here's another way to go. Plan on 24 biweekly elections each year. During a 2 to 4 week hiatus each fall during HoM season, specify which 24 years we'll be electing. This gives you a couple extra weeks ("snow weeks") to play with during the year, taking them off as necessary.
During that hiatus period post 24 "Stat Threads", one for each year. Those threads would be used as you describe for Week 1, above: "we'd post the eligible players for the year, then people could post the uberstats on those players, and people can formulate preliminary lists." IOW, you set up a storehouse thread of numbers for each election that can be filled at our leisure during the year. Maybe you set these up off-site, perhaps at a Yahoo group. If set up off-site, you could bring the important data over here, posting the stat thread for the next election during balloting week.
Then you can run 24 biweekly election each year rather than the 16 or 17 on a triweekly schedule.
I was already acutely aware of this without Dan having to say it. I'll be honest here - I've put a lot of time into this project, and maybe some of that time I should have been doing other things. Right now, taking a step back and just watching is feeling like an attractive option.
I am feeling the same way, though I put a lot more time and participation into the first half of this project than I have lately. With the HoM project, getting organized and establishing personal criteria as a voter was the hard part. Later it became a process of plugging in the newbies, making a few re-evaluations based on new info and occasional tweaking of the system. Starting from scratch every two or three weeks with MMP votes just sounds too time consuming. Maybe if you waited until 2011 when I retire.
I have been around since responding to a guy known as Scruff at an e-mail address that began “nymetssuck” in December 2001. It has been an enjoyable project to be a part of and fun to tell my friends at PNC Park about our latest selections and omissions. Thanks Joe for getting this started. And thanks to John for all your work that kept it going. Thanks to all of you that contributed your research, to karlmagnus for your tireless support of lost causes (we should all be giving Sam Leever “teacher credit”) and to Sunnyday for keeping thinks interesting – in the beginning I was a frequent and deserving target of your criticism and in the end we are both peak voters relying heavily on WS.
I am not sure we need to do a stratification of the HoM, but I would hope that at a minimum we do something with the HoM not HoF group before we call it a completed project (I know, it is never really “completed”. John is going to wake us up once a year to vote again.) – Maybe rank them by eras – 19th century, deadball, lively ball pre-integration, etc.
While some of you start the MMP project, I think I will be digging into my spreadsheets to build a PHoVG. I think I will start in 1898 and use the same number of selections per year that we used with the HoM, players in the PHoM not eligible. If I stick with my 1898 ballot, my first inductees will be Ned Williamson, Tip O’Neill, Ezra Sutton and Charlie Jones. Joe Start will have to wait another year.
Rather than thinking grandiosly about what we're going to do after 2008, I have a humble, little proposal that I think will serve a good purpose.
THE HALL OF MERIT CENTENNIAL REPORT
The Hall of Merit Centennial Report (HOMCR)will be issued after the 2008 elections. It will be a capstone report of our first 100 years, and it will evaluate our performance against our stated mission.
I imagine the HOMCR to be concise and relatively brief. Its audience would be folks who come to our project late or who simply don't want to dive into 1000s of threads of discussion to figure out where we are.
Here's some components I had considered in the rough order I'd think they'd be presented in the report:
-Very brief preamble of how we got here, our mission, and how our election rules differ from the HOF's.
-The full HOM roster through 2008 and perhaps a year-by-year listing as well.
-HOM-not-HOF lists through 2008.
-Concise summary and analysis of how our selections differ with the HOM.
-HOM membership demographics (era, position, etc): evaluated for fairness to era/position and against HOF demographics
-Brief summaries of the key points of ongoing discussion and innovation in the HOM (peak/career, hitting/fielding, 19th C. issues, NgL and MLE, War Credit, DanR's WARP, RSI, the role of uberstats, etc....)
-Individual voter reflections about the HOM and its processes (limited to 250 words a person for those who wish to contribute something).
-The future of the HOM: the importance of maintaining our standards vs. exactly mirroring the HOF (once we've decided on a course of action for future elections).
-Acknowledgements and bibliography, where we thank everyone who has supported us along the way, including voters, lurkers, inspirations, and outside-project folks who have given us information, then offer a list of key resources (books, websites, articles, etc...) that have come up time and again in the HOM, presented by topic (General, NgL, statistical/analytical, HOF, biographical, etc....)
The report would be made available at the HOM's main page and serve as our defining statement about the project's initial phase.
Again, I envision something short, punchy, and digestible...not a book or a dissertation.
And, yes, if we do this, I'll volunteer to head this up.
I'm hoping my card ends in '5' or '0,' because as a little kid I knew that meant you were a star.
:)
Howie, great memory. I'd forgotten about that, but you're totally right. And of course if your card ended in 00 or 50, you were really big.
Let us merely say that the numbers 726, 792, and 660 are forever emblazoned in my consciousness.
What stats would be on the back?
My "In-Action" card will show me in the midst of changing my mind. Pretty exciting, huh? Make that an "Inaction" card.
I'm looking forward to the personal trivia at the bottom of the back of the card:
Did You Know?
Dr. Chaleeko led all voters in the 1970s with 682 posts of 5 paragraphs or more. In the offseason he enjoys roller skating.
***********
I'm not going to be able to run it, so take this with a grain of salt . . . but regarding the MMP - I think it'd be more valuable to tie the number of players voted for to the number of teams in the league.
If you do that, then, getting a vote has the same value in any season. You could also tie the points so that a 1st place and last vote in any season are worth the same amount.
I'd suggest 1 players listed per team. So an 16 team major leagues would have a 16 man ballot. A 30-team major leagues would have a 30 man ballot.
A 25-man ballot throughout history wouldn't mean the same thing and it would be tough to do comparisons from say 1918 and 1988.
But if you give points proportionally so a 1st place vote in 1982 = a 1st place vote in 1918 and a 16th place vote in 1918 = a 26th place vote in 1982 - then the point totals would be easily comparable. Just a thought.
***********
That's one heckuva memory. We have come a long way . . . since that time I've lived in 2 additional states, 3 additional homes, and I'm on my 3rd job as well. Been to 6 SABR conventions too.
Same girlfriend, still living together and we still aren't engaged. Maybe we haven't come such a long way after all. :-)
The Yankees haven't won a World Series since this project was proposed in October of 2001. I must have jinxed them.
I wasn't being presumptuous that anyone would want me to run it or anything . . .
The Hall of Merit Centennial Report (HOMCR)will be issued after the 2008 elections. It will be a capstone report of our first 100 years, and it will evaluate our performance against our stated mission.
I imagine the HOMCR to be concise and relatively brief. Its audience would be folks who come to our project late or who simply don't want to dive into 1000s of threads of discussion to figure out where we are.
Something like this is appropriate, maybe without "evaluat[ing] our performance against our stated mission". The biggest problem for the HOM after 2008, I anticipate, will be reproducing the electorate by retaining many and recruiting some.
By the way, it isn't the first 100 years but the first 111, one ninth of a millenium.
As we wind down this phase of the Hall of Merit, I've got another "Fun Time" project started at Baseball-Fever. I call it "The Ultimate Quest for Candidates". Round one is a series of 12 polls to determine the best hall of fame candidates from each decade.
I would greatly appreciate any members of the HoM electorate who drop in and contribute their expert opinion. The first poll, covering the 1920's, is in its final week.
Cross-posting from another thread....
Anyone interested in helping with the HOM Centennial Report, please email me at
eric[dot]chalek[at]heinemann[dot]com
I'd like to gather a small group to do the writing and editing, complete a draft, then open a thread to discuss the draft and ensure accuracy. After a final draft is completed, we can make it part of our welcome page or link to it in some way off-site.
..............................
"In-Action" card - funny reference. 1972 Topps, kind of a weird set.
funny reference here:
http://baseballcardblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/appreciation-1972-topps-in-action.html
The last post visible is #2622350 (#299 local numbering).
The side bar list 301 posts, but if you click on the 301, it takes you to 1-100.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main