Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Once We Catch-Up: The Hall of Merit After 2007

This thread will deal with how we should handle the first annual election starting in 2008.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 05, 2006 at 08:02 PM | 641 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 6 of 7 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > 
   501. fra paolo Posted: November 20, 2010 at 05:16 PM (#3694256)
Regarding DL from MN's comments in #490 about a HoM 2.0, I think he's absolutely right. Simply going back and starting over again is destructive of what has already been done. Lassus makes the same comment.

A HoM 2.0 needs to be done in a different way, with a different name.
   502. fra paolo Posted: November 20, 2010 at 05:23 PM (#3694259)
Re: Runoffs

As Howie in #492 has raised 'de-induction', there are ways to avoid de-inducting people.

The key principle here isn't de-induction, but retroactivity. If we institute a runoff system, we can, if we want, apply it to previous elections, without de-inducting people. You're actually looking for a way to formalize the concept of 'inner circle' and 'outer circle' within the HoM.

Again, is this a 'something better' than what the HoF does?
   503. fra paolo Posted: November 20, 2010 at 05:30 PM (#3694263)
In re: MMP

Again, DL from MN in #490 is spot-on. The project needs a more relaxed timetable than the HoM had. Quarterly might be a little too much, though. I believe that when the project was nearly launched last year, the idea was to have a ballot every three weeks, which is still too hectic, to my mind.

We're probably looking at 6-8 weeks between ballots.
   504. Mark Donelson Posted: November 20, 2010 at 05:46 PM (#3694271)
Fra paolo: Yes, there are more than just you. Equally, there are more people as firmly on the other side--at least on the issue of dropping eligibility for anyone, ever, for whom the principle you describe is not accepted--than just me. There seems, if you'll forgive the awful turn of phrase, to be no consensus on consensus in this regard, and in some of your posts in the past it's seemed like you've been presenting things as if there were, and it was merely inertia that was preventing this obviously highly necessary change from happening. It's not--it's actual opposition to what you're saying. From more than just me, I think, despite my gazillion posts lately. If my responses to you have seemed irritable, that's probably why. Perhaps I was simply reading too much into your tone, in which case I apologize.

Now, there does seem to be consensus on one aspect of greater consensus--the runoffs. Wouldn't it be more productive to pursue that than to keep butting heads where there isn't agreement that there's even a problem, or that the proposed solutions would help the process any?

Unless I'm wrong, of course, and there are massively more of us on your side of the issue. But from what I see, it's been mostly the same few folks on both sides this time around, with the silent majority perhaps wisely staying out of it.

As to retroactivity, it sounds like a big mess to me, one that would, again, muddle what has already been done more than clarify. But I object less strenuously than I do to de-induction or changes to eligibility.
   505. karlmagnus Posted: November 20, 2010 at 06:39 PM (#3694297)
I'm very interested by the reactions to my proposal in 474 for renewing the HOM every 10 years -- thanks for the kind words from supporters. I think where I disagree with the opponents is the idea that it would detract from the HOM. By being within the HOM, it would provide a window on the evolution of sabermetric thought and provide a much richer picture of the places where we differ from the HOF. The HOM II of the 2010s would not be "better" than the HOM of the 2000s, because in some cases it would lack important input from some who were important in the original HOM but have moved on. However a "live" institution has much more chance of capturing the imagination of new folk than a dead one; if some brilliant young guy comes along in 2021, with new and valuable ideas, he will be able to participate in HOM III and will thus be captured by the HOM movement, in a way he never could be by an institution that was already 14 years frozen. The HOM will become the overall umbrella for a process that lives forever.
   506. DL from MN Posted: November 20, 2010 at 07:08 PM (#3694310)
An instant runoff makes some sense since you're already ranking candidates. Require that everyone rank anyone that appeared in last year's top 15 and all new candidates. That would pretty much assure you don't need a true runoff election.

I guess my problem with a HoM 2 using the same methodology is the results would be pretty close to the same. We might not have Bill Terry and Joe Medwick and might have Bucky Walters and Phil Rizzuto instead. I don't see that as being worth the effort.
   507. DanG Posted: November 20, 2010 at 07:32 PM (#3694316)
Mark: Your objections to things, such as limits on eligibility, remind me of those in the political realm who object to a concept reflexively (such as “socialism"), rather than taking the time and effort to examine precisely what is being done, or proposed, then analyzing the costs and benefits.

The fact is, the HoM has NEVER HAD perpetual eligibility. Once a player is “elected” he is no longer considered as a candidate. Once you accept this as valid (and we have), objections to doing the opposite, to “unelecting” those players the group consensus has deemed non-candidates, lose their philosophical underpinnings. This point has been made before.

If you have read and understand my “70-and-out” proposal, there is little there to which you have any objection. The only item I would add to completely dispel your objections would be to say: Once a player goes dormant, if a certain number of voters (say 5) petition for his reinstatement based on new evidence, we would do that.

If you read through that entire thread, adopt the change in the previous paragraph, and still have some objections, well, there is no arguing with someone whose mind is made up.
   508. Lassus Posted: November 20, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3694326)
I guess my problem with a HoM 2 using the same methodology is the results would be pretty close to the same. We might not have Bill Terry and Joe Medwick and might have Bucky Walters and Phil Rizzuto instead. I don't see that as being worth the effort.

God, yes, this. As well as worth the confusion that would drive fannies away from the seats, such as it were. Well, if the seats existed yet, which, they don't.


Unless I'm wrong, of course, and there are massively more of us on your side of the issue. But from what I see, it's been mostly the same few folks on both sides this time around, with the silent majority perhaps wisely staying out of it.

Uhhhhh how do you guys all stay in touch, anyhow? In other words, where the heck is everyone else in this debate? Is there an email list or something?
   509. Mark Donelson Posted: November 20, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3694354)
Dan:

If you want to go all literal on me about "perpetual eligibility," fine. What I've been talking about is "eligibility as it's been all along." And analyzing costs and benefits is precisely how I've been approaching it. I do not feel the current system is particularly broken, so to me the costs of some of the proposed changes (say, preventing people from voting for their choices if they are "lost causes") outweigh the benefits (very marginally higher consensus--which I clearly do not consider all that much of a benefit at all). So spare me the subtle ad hominem. I mean, I like socialism. ;)

And I have read your 70-and-out proposal, thank you very much, and I do object to it. I don't see it improving our elections in any significant way, and I feel that stopping voters from voting for whom they want, lost cause or no, is objectionable on its face. Not that it can't be considered, but the payoff (for me) would need to be far greater and far more likely. Benefit small, cost bigger. Not prejudging, but yes, my mind is indeed made up on the proposal, because it's not exactly new, and I took the time to evaluate its costs and benefits some time ago. We are, after all, going over old arguments here, are we not?

You (and others) just have a fundamental disagreement with me (and others) on this matter. You feel greater consensus is important and would make a big difference, and that removing the option to vote for lost causes is not imposing all that much. Whereas I feel the freedom to vote for whom we want regardless is important, and not to be given up lightly, and that greater consensus is neither necessary nor all that likely to make much practical difference. I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this, and also to accept it if a plurality of the electorate, or of its decision-making/-discussing segment, comes down on the other side.

But you seem to feel that the only way to show one is examining the issues honestly and methodically is to come to the same conclusions you do. Well, sorry, but no.
   510. Mark Donelson Posted: November 20, 2010 at 08:24 PM (#3694362)
Also, the point about the elected becoming ineligible is silly. Why would anyone want to vote for an already-elected player? (To the extent that we don't anyway, with our PHOM selections--there are many "4a: Jake Beckley" votes on ballots, as you know.) You may feel the hope that the lost causes will magically catch on with more voters is a foolish one--heck,you may even be right--but it exists for Sam Leever, while a vote for Robin Yount is literally, not almost literally, a vote thrown away.

(edited for clarity)
   511. Alex King Posted: November 20, 2010 at 10:17 PM (#3694442)
4. HOM redux. Karl sums it up in 474. There's great divergence of opinion here, with several people strongly behind it, and others just as strongly against it, at least until the website is in place and the current HOM as it stands is more firmly established in the larger, non-BTF world.


Count me among those against it, at least in the short term. Right now, I think the website, runoffs, and MMP project are more important. HOM redux could be a good idea in the long term, once all these other concerns have been addressed.

DanG, why can't runoffs increase consensus while preserving perpetual eligibility? Runoffs essentially eliminate "no-hope" candidates when we consider who to elect for backlog spots; however, voters can still support whoever they want in the initial election. Thus, they will allow for a greater consensus on who is elected to the HoM.

I think the most important priority, however, is the website. I agree with Lassus that the website will better publicize the Hall of Merit and help keep it alive.
   512. Mark Donelson Posted: November 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM (#3694461)
Runoffs essentially eliminate "no-hope" candidates when we consider who to elect for backlog spots; however, voters can still support whoever they want in the initial election.

Agreed. Everybody wins.
   513. DanG Posted: November 21, 2010 at 05:41 AM (#3694613)
You feel greater consensus is important and would make a big difference, and that removing the option to vote for lost causes is not imposing all that much. Whereas I feel the freedom to vote for whom we want regardless is important, and not to be given up lightly, and that greater consensus is neither necessary nor all that likely to make much practical difference.
To falsely attribute that I believe that "consensus" is the primary benefit, or even a particularly important one, indicates that you're relying on assumptions formed long ago based on an incomplete understanding of the proposal. This is confirmed when you said: "I took the time to evaluate its costs and benefits some time ago", preceded by "my mind is indeed made up on the proposal."

Having said that, I tend to agree with Alex that if we adopt a runoff following the general election (along with extending the ballot to 20 for the general election) that the need for fallowing candidates, such as proposed by "70-and-out," becomes much less.

As for karl's proposal for HoM2: if we decide to go that route we still have more than two years to discuss the rules. I would tend to agree that a somewhat different approach would make that more worthwhile to do. Here's an approach that has been floated before:

Players would be "elected" when they reach a specified threshold of support; or when they maintained a certain lower threshold for a specified number of elections. These thresholds may have to be adjusted downward as the project progresses and the ballot becomes more crowded.
   514. DL from MN Posted: November 21, 2010 at 04:28 PM (#3694696)
I still don't see why you can't have your runoff _during_ your election. Require everyone to _rank_ previous top 20 finishers (not just mention) and any new candidates likely to gain support. Then if a top 3 finisher is below a certain threshold (50% of ballots?) the runoff begins where any candidate not in the top 20 finishers is eliminated. Any candidate not mentioned on a ballot is assumed to be ranked below all of those mentioned. The results are re-run with the same reverse order point totals but without an elect-me bonus (20pts for 1st, 1pt for 20th) and without inducted players.

Can someone run the numbers and see which players have been elected while being mentioned on fewer than half the ballots?
   515. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 21, 2010 at 08:45 PM (#3694864)
Hall of Merit electees with less than half the electorate giving ballot support:
1991 48.1% Dobie Moore
1997 47.1% Nellie Fox
1997 45.1% Edd Roush
1998 46.9% Jake Beckley
2000 48.9% Rollie Fingers
2002 49.0% Dave Stieb
2003 41.5% Charley Jones
2005 42.6% Andre Dawson
2005 40.7% Pete Browning
2006 46.3% Alejandro Oms
2006 46.3% Graig Nettles
2008 48.0% Bret Saberhagen
2009 40.0% John McGraw

David Cone was the only player on the 2010 ballot to garner >50% of the electorate support with out being elected.
   516. DanG Posted: November 21, 2010 at 09:13 PM (#3694879)
Can someone run the numbers and see which players have been elected while being mentioned on fewer than half the ballots?
How about the "Percentage of Possible Points" list from the 2008 Results thread.

BTW, I like DL's idea of combining the runoff with the election.
   517. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 09:45 PM (#3694898)
a) If we go to runoffs, we should go back over the whole of the HoM balloting and have runoffs for all similar cases.


For fun, maybe. To de-nduct enshrinees, I can't sign on to that.

b) Let's try hard to get the MMP project going within the time frame John suggested. Someone please explain why it didn't happen earlier this year, so next year we can avoid that problem.


Since Joe gave us the green light, then I'll be in charge of getting it done. Need to go over the old posts regarding it first.

Figure on the middle of January then.
   518. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 09:48 PM (#3694899)
I'm still somewhat torn on opening the runoff up to the world. I'm quite nervous about older players not getting a fair shake from the masses. There is no check on things like individual voters being fair to all eras like there is when they have to spell out an entire ballot.


I personally would want to open it up to everybody myself, Joe. There's enough of a contemporary bias as it is, IMO.
   519. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 09:54 PM (#3694902)

And so I don't really agree that reworking the old stuff gets us anywhere in terms of bringing new blood, or interest in. We did rank the players, as you say, and big chunks of the old electorate vanished for those, without very many new voters signing on. I don't doubt that continued discussion of Willie Randolph's candidacy (I shouldn't harp on him--Jake Beckley or Hughie Jennings or Rollie Fingers would all work as well) would hold the interest of a few people here forever, but I can't conceive of it helping with momentum, either by cementing the old/current electorate or by bringing in a new one.


All it would do is replace a marginal HoM enshrinee with another one. I don't see it doing much to jump start the HoM, IMO. I do see it pissing off a lot of voters, however, regarding players they championed in the past if they were later thrown out of the HoM on the ear.
   520. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM (#3694907)
The idea that the HOM should be still going half a century from now, with a bunch of nonagenerians making annual elections seems to me cuckoo. The reality is, given the human lifecycle effects (which don't affect me -- I'm not upwardly mobile, just drifting round and round in circles) that in 50 or even 20 years none of the original voters will be around.


Hey, I'll be a very spry 95 years young in 2060, by cracky! :-D

Even if they have recruited successors, those successors will hardly be committed to preserving the voting patterns of a bunch of old fogies they don't know personally. Also sabermetrics will have moved on, and new methods may show some selections to have been just plain wrong.


The solution is, within an overall HOM project, to start a new HOM once a decade, so we elect a new HOM, with a number of members and voting ballot that seem best to that generation of voters, every 10 years, the new balloting perhaps starting in April 2013. The website will then contain a series of HOMs, one for each decade, each honored but only one current any given time. The 5-year period between inceptions (which will contain only annual elections) will be devoted to evolving voting methods,recruiting new voters, thinking about and carrying out supplemental projects like the MMP, etc.

I look forward to the 1898 election for HOM II in April 2013.


I can't really seeing this flying, karlmagnus. The HoM electorate is always evolving, but if it doesn't, then another group in charge of the Hall of Something or the Other will create their own HoM down the road anyway. Besides, I really don't want to "retconn" the Hall of Merit over and over.
   521. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 10:14 PM (#3694910)
DanG, why can't runoffs increase consensus while preserving perpetual eligibility? Runoffs essentially eliminate "no-hope" candidates when we consider who to elect for backlog spots; however, voters can still support whoever they want in the initial election. Thus, they will allow for a greater consensus on who is elected to the HoM.


That's my thinking, Alex. Both side get what they want.
   522. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 10:17 PM (#3694914)
I still don't see why you can't have your runoff _during_ your election. Require everyone to _rank_ previous top 20 finishers (not just mention) and any new candidates likely to gain support. Then if a top 3 finisher is below a certain threshold (50% of ballots?) the runoff begins where any candidate not in the top 20 finishers is eliminated. Any candidate not mentioned on a ballot is assumed to be ranked below all of those mentioned. The results are re-run with the same reverse order point totals but without an elect-me bonus (20pts for 1st, 1pt for 20th) and without inducted players.


I could handle that, Dan. My thinking was more about just keeping the process alive a little bit longer, but I have no objections to your idea.
   523. Mark Donelson Posted: November 21, 2010 at 10:37 PM (#3694923)
Dan: Well, that's what I get for attempting to sum up your six-benefits manifesto from that thread in one term for the sake of brevity, I suppose. Rest assured, I've been over the 70-and-out thread several times in the last few days now, and my intellect is up to comprehending both the proposal and the arguments made (successfully, in a practical sense at least) against it back then.

Or don't; at this point I don't really care. If we agree, as we seem to (shocking, I know), on the runoff as a solution that addresses some of your issues that's entirely unobjectionable to me, it's more or less moot anyway. We're clearly talking past each other now, and I'd prefer to cease fire.

DL's suggestion for the auto-runoff appeals to me as well, though it obviously wouldn't work for James's idea of bringing in new voters at the runoff phase. But there seems to be growing opposition to that notion anyway. The plus side is that it would not require anyone to take charge of or spearhead the runoffs. Though if we wanted to initiate the instarunoffs in the current election, we'd need to get everyone who's submitted a ballot already to resubmit, so we'd want to get that decided soon.
   524. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM (#3694931)
Though if we wanted to initiate the instarunoffs in the current election, we'd need to get everyone who's submitted a ballot already to resubmit, so we'd want to get that decided soon.


I would say hold off on the runoff a year, since this election appears to be uneventful anyway.
   525. Mark Donelson Posted: November 21, 2010 at 10:58 PM (#3694935)
Good point, John.
   526. DL from MN Posted: November 21, 2010 at 11:33 PM (#3694958)
The threshold for runoff is debatable. I would even be willing to say if the candidate didn't receive 50% of total points we would perform a runoff. At a minimum a runoff should happen if they don't get on half the ballots. I think those are the endpoints and we could compromise somewhere in the middle. I doubt either one will matter this year.
   527. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2010 at 11:51 PM (#3694968)
The threshold for runoff is debatable. I would even be willing to say if the candidate didn't receive 50% of total points we would perform a runoff. At a minimum a runoff should happen if they don't get on half the ballots. I think those are the endpoints and we could compromise somewhere in the middle. I doubt either one will matter this year.


I would say that any player with less than 51% would trigger the runoff process, so future enshrinees would be assured of a majority of the possible points.
   528. fra paolo Posted: November 22, 2010 at 04:39 PM (#3695286)
It's interesting that the 'less-than-50' list is entirely from post-1990 elections. This is probably telling us something important, although I've no idea what at the moment.

On runoffs and consensus, again the main point is to propel what the most important work of the HoM is, which is to discuss baseball history and get people to read about it.

Critics of the 'consensus school', to make an academic history pun, are too focused on the outcome, IMO. It is much better to have a few more ballots and more discussion threads, than a HoM that is moribund for three-quarters of the year.

A two-tier HoM, incorporating retroactivity and runoffs, will avoid the 'de-induction' issue, and give room for more discussion threads.

However, if the MMP comes off, and the news is looking good at the moment, all this should be moot.
   529. Mark Donelson Posted: November 22, 2010 at 04:50 PM (#3695295)
This is probably telling us something important, although I've no idea what at the moment.

If I recall correctly--can't find the thread at present--it's by design. Wasn't the HOM set up to put the "catch-up" backlog elections--the massive slew of elect-3s that would allow the HOM size to equal the HOF's--at the end, so that the bottom tier candidates wouldn't be elected early on without having to go through a lot of evaluation?

Maybe I'm remembering that wrong--and it seems to have kinda worked, kinda not, based on who got in as that bottom tier--but I recall something along those lines. John, Joe, is that right?

However, if the MMP comes off, and the news is looking good at the moment, all this should be moot.

Well, until we finish the MMP, anyway. Of course, unless we take on a really accelerated schedule, that'll be years from now! So while I, in turn, feel you're too focused on the process, fra paolo, we can pick up the argument in 10 years. :)
   530. DL from MN Posted: November 22, 2010 at 05:33 PM (#3695323)
> This is probably telling us something important

Not really. As the number of marginal candidates increases with time it makes sense that they would pull ever more fragmented support.
   531. DanG Posted: November 22, 2010 at 11:10 PM (#3695623)
Adding in four players who were named on exactly half of the ballots:

1991 48.1% Dobie Moore
1996 50.0% Charlie Keller
1997 47.1% Nellie Fox
1997 45.1% Edd Roush
1998 46.9% Jake Beckley
2000 48.9% Rollie Fingers
2002 49.0% Dave Stieb
2003 41.5% Charley Jones
2004 50.0% Roger Bresnahan
2005 42.6% Andre Dawson
2005 40.7% Pete Browning
2006 46.3% Alejandro Oms
2006 46.3% Graig Nettles
2008 48.0% Bret Saberhagen
2008 50.0% Dick Lundy
2009 40.0% John McGraw
2009 50.0% Reggie Smith

The floor of the HoM was defined in the elections from 1997 to 2009.
   532. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2010 at 12:38 AM (#3695679)
The floor of the HoM was defined in the elections from 1997 to 2009.


Not really. The percentages would have been higher if we had, say, the number of candidates we had in the Twenties. The flip side is that players that we had inducted a hundred ago would have had lower percentages today.
   533. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2010 at 12:45 AM (#3695682)

Maybe I'm remembering that wrong--and it seems to have kinda worked, kinda not, based on who got in as that bottom tier--but I recall something along those lines. John, Joe, is that right?


I actually wasn't around at that time, Mark. I had been here Joe proposed the idea, but it took a long time to get rolling along (sound familiar :-) and I forgot all about it. Fortunately, I just happened to visit this section during the inaugural election. The rest is history.
   534. DanG Posted: November 23, 2010 at 01:24 AM (#3695696)

Not really. The percentages would have been higher if we had, say, the number of candidates we had in the Twenties. The flip side is that players that we had inducted a hundred ago would have had lower percentages today
Yeah really. While what you say about percentages is obviously true, there were still many inductees yet to come from among players on those ballots in the late 20's/early 30's. Thus, the electees back then were not scraping the floor.

The idea that the HoM floor was defined in the inductions 1997-2009 is supported by the results of the positional voting, I think. And yes, that was the idea from the beginning, to avoid loading in too many players too early.
   535. sunnyday2 Posted: November 23, 2010 at 02:26 AM (#3695722)
Need to go over the old posts regarding it f
irst.

How about a thread for MMP Rules, or something like that.

And somebody asked why it (MMP) didn't happen a year ago. I don't mean this as being critical, it's just a fact: Joe never said, "Do it." Now he has said that, and John has agreed to support it. But who remembers the discussion of how to structure it?
   536. Paul Wendt Posted: November 23, 2010 at 07:00 AM (#3695806)
>> Not really. The percentages would have been higher if we had, say, the number of candidates we had in the Twenties. The flip side is that players that we had inducted a hundred ago would have had lower percentages today

> Yeah really. While what you say about percentages is obviously true, there were still many inductees yet to come from among players on those ballots in the late 20's/early 30's. Thus, the electees back then were not scraping the floor.

Plenty of pairs of candidates switched places during their ballot careers, even pairs where one ranked far above the other.

Sam Thompson, Biz Mackey, Ralph Kiner, and Billy Pierce all won booby prizes in the special elections to rank HOM members within fielding position.
   537. Paul Wendt Posted: November 23, 2010 at 07:27 AM (#3695807)
(Edit function is unreliable.)

Sam Thompson (1929) won one booby prize in the special elections to rank HOM members within fielding position. Eppa Rixey (1968) and Biz Mackey (1975) won them. So did Joe Sewell (1985), Ralph Kiner (1987) and Billy Pierce (1987), Ken Boyer (1991), Nellie Fox (1997), Jake Beckley (1998), Rollie Fingers (2000), Andre Dawson & Pete Browning (both 2005). (We may pass over Jim Galvin (1910) in the pre-1893 pitchers class, but note that he wrested the prize from Bob Caruthers (1930).)
   538. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2010 at 02:18 PM (#3695844)
Thanks for illustrating my point more clearly, Paul. The positional elections show exactly where the floor of the HoM really is and that it included inductees from all different "decades." Again, the increasing number of candidates (in 1900, we only had about 30 - we have had years with over 100 more recently for quite a while now) have artificially depressed the percentages for the borderline types. It's only going to get lower for them, too.

Galvin and Thompson had to compete against only 52 other candidates, FWIW.
   539. DL from MN Posted: November 23, 2010 at 04:16 PM (#3695936)
Seconded - we need a thread to set up the MMP.

Do we need a vote on having a runoff election next year? Here's my proposal, I'm willing to have it voted up or down.

Starting next season each voter must rank all players who finished in the top 15 the previous year. This rank can be off ballot but they must be ordered. In addition each voter must rank every new player with >40 WAR according to baseball reference. If after the balloting is completed any candidate receives less than 50% of total points an instant runoff election will proceed. All candidates in an elect-me slot will be considered elected if they receive > 50% of total points and will not carry over to the run-off election. All other candidates not in the top 12 at the time of the original ballot will be eliminated and the remaining candidates will be re-ranked according to the ballot rankings. Rankings will be in reverse point order (10-12 points for 1st depending on how many candidates are remaining) down to 1 point for last place with no elect-me bonus.

All in favor? Any amendments?
   540. DL from MN Posted: November 23, 2010 at 04:59 PM (#3695978)
I'll amend - top 15 the previous year who were not elected (finishers 4-18).
   541. DanG Posted: November 23, 2010 at 05:06 PM (#3695985)
Seconded - we need a thread to set up the MMP
Actually, thirded. From me in #499:

if the MMP is a go, there needs to be a separate thread set up for discussion of the rules
   542. DanG Posted: November 23, 2010 at 05:26 PM (#3696008)
So did Joe Sewell (1985), Ralph Kiner (1987) and Billy Pierce (1987), Ken Boyer (1991), Nellie Fox (1997), Jake Beckley (1998), Rollie Fingers (2000), Andre Dawson & Pete Browning (both 2005).
Paul, thanks for supporting the idea that the great majority of the weaker HoM players came from the later elections. That was the idea behind the original design. The early electees who ended up at the bottom of the positional elections were either players whose value was generally reassessed downward, or products of the different electorate in those elections.
   543. Paul Wendt Posted: November 23, 2010 at 06:47 PM (#3696079)
Yes the bottom of the Hall of Merit was populated in later elections and yes, that shows a success or two for the progression through historical time with predetermined numbers of annual election winners.

Dan #531
> "The floor of the HoM was defined in the elections from 1997 to 2009."

That is too narrow and in this week's context it supports a false association specifically with election by "=< 50%" of the ballots cast.


John #538
> "Again, the increasing number of candidates (in 1900, we only had about 30 - we have had years with over 100 more recently for quite a while now) have artificially depressed the percentages for the borderline types. It's only going to get lower for them, too."

We don't know this will be true of the "borderline" meaning the weakest candidates who are elected. That depends crucially on the quality of the best newly eligible players, in relation to the predetermined numbers of winners; not crucially on the number of candidates who score points (although a relative flood of quality newcomers will drive some off the bottom of the standings). It must also depend crucially on whether the annual cycles of the next fifty years(!) attract importantly different electors, presumably "modernists".

Major league baseball has continued to expand since the days of Reggie Smith and Andre Dawson. The three-per-year schedule which made space in the last fifty years for them and for deep backlog winners who would populate the bottom of the HOM might not continue to make space during the next fifty years.

For me now the 2010s look like the 1940s when quality "new eligibles" were a flood that lasted fifteen years. (2010 is 1941)

P.S. The schedule induction rate was then two per year, now three per year, with transition fairly early in the "last fifty years" that have followed the flood.
   544. Paul Wendt Posted: November 23, 2010 at 06:51 PM (#3696084)
Some of you may see clearly that the HOM will not see more than 45 quality new candidates in 15 cycles thru 2024, nor more than 30 during the ten 2010s. I don't see that yet.
   545. DL from MN Posted: November 23, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3696138)
I agree that the runoff would probably only take place next year among the next 10 years.
   546. DanG Posted: November 23, 2010 at 08:22 PM (#3696172)
It seems we're talking past each other, Paul. In trying for a brief explanation of a point that seems obvious to me, I've created some confusion. Let me take a little time to explain what I'm looking at when I conclude that the period 1997-2009 gave us our weakest selections to date.

When looking for the weaker HoMers I focus on years where the ballot contained the fewest eventual HoMers. Before 1997 there is only one election where fewer than 12 eventual HoMers are found among the also-rans: 1931. Among the 11 who would be elected later, there was only one real "front-logger": Rube Foster, who would be elected the next year. The other 10 players had all been on the ballot more than ten years, so they'd been well-vetted. At the time, we wondered whether any of them would ever make it, that perhaps the door was closing permanently on these early guys.

Well, to our group's credit they stayed in the pool. Here are the years the ten were elected, along with their finish in the 1931 election:

5    Lip Pike        1940
7    Hughie Jennings 1960
4    Clark Griffith  1971
12    Rube Waddell   1986
8    Cupid Childs    1988
6    Jake Beckley    1998
20    Charley Jones  2003
9    Roger Bresnahan 2004
14    Pete Browning  2005
28    John McGraw    2009 

The first three, high in the backlog in 1931, had strong enough cases to win sufficient converts for election. Fifty "years" on, in 1981, it was still questionable whether any of the others would ever make it. Here's where they finished in that election:

9 Cupid Childs
11 Rube Waddell
12 Jake Beckley
17 Charley Jones
22 Pete Browning
27 Roger Bresnahan
36 John McGraw

In the mid-80's the elect-3 years started with greater regularity and the floor started lowering noticeably, as we neared the present day. The number of good new candidates was insufficient to fill all the slots, so voters had room to promote the oldsters.

That's still a rather simplified view of history, but it demonstrates my point of view. And it's good to see that players from that 1931 ballot are still being reevaluated by the electorate; Duffy, Cravath and Leach remain popular candidates; Chone WAR has put the final nail in George Van Haltren's case. But of course it's never final - the next New Thing could just as easily resurrect him. Stay tuned.
   547. DanG Posted: November 30, 2010 at 03:37 PM (#3699159)
Joe [#464]
We still had 41 voters in 2010 - down from our high mark of 51 (I think)
Just to nitpick, and not to sell us short, I see our high as 56 voters, in 1934 and 1982. We had 54 voters as recently as the elections of 2004 to 2006. The first election to have 50 voters was 1926.
   548. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2010 at 08:57 PM (#3700229)
Ah my bad . . . I missed that. Thanks!
   549. OCF Posted: December 02, 2010 at 06:09 AM (#3700614)
So what really happened to (from 1931):

3. Van Haltren (yes, 3rd in the standings, with 5 1st place votes, appearing on 41 out of 53 ballots)
10. Ryan
13. Welch
16. Monroe
17. Poles
18. Doyle
19. Hooper
21. Veach
22. Chance
23. Cicotte
24. Cravath
25. Burns
26. Williamson
27. Joss

all of whom finished in front of at least one eventually elected candidate?
   550. DL from MN Posted: December 02, 2010 at 04:10 PM (#3700734)
What happened? Replacement level got revised upwards. The outfielders continued to split the votes. Cravath gained supporters after minor league credit became more standard.
   551. Howie Menckel Posted: December 03, 2010 at 07:13 AM (#3701489)
Don't underestimate which favorites disappearing voters had. Not only did these voters place 'pets' high, they also may have tempted others to vote for their guys. Once the advocacy went away, the core vote left and the possible stray secondary vote also left.

Duffy, Van Haltren, and Ryan are almost like tragic Shakespearean characters here. You can almost imagine them all agreeing at some point that one should be promoted to Hall of Merit while the others slip away into obscurity, but that chance never came........

good to see DL from MN here!
   552. sunnyday2 Posted: December 04, 2010 at 01:22 PM (#3702298)
Once the advocacy went away,


?
   553. DL from MN Posted: December 04, 2010 at 09:45 PM (#3702734)
I'm here more than most people. I wouldn't be shocked if people were getting sick of me.
   554. DL from MN Posted: December 09, 2010 at 04:03 PM (#3706688)
Proposed MMP schedule:

2010 - January 2011
1990 - Feb 2011
1970 - Apr 2011
1950 - Jun 2011
1930 - Aug 2011
1910 - Oct 2011
1890 - Dec 2011
2011 - Jan 2012
1991 - Feb 2012
etc

I like voting on all eras in a given year. I think 7 elections a year will be fairly aggressive. Yes it will take 20 years to go through 140 years of baseball history. Yes we completely ignore anything before 1890 for a while but I'd rather do that while we make sure the method works. I think we could add another election in 2016 (1876) to coincide with the start of the National League. This lineup of years runs the gamut: post-war integration in 1950, post-expansion baseball in 1970, segregated 1930, deadball 1910 and the player's league of 1890.
   555. DanG Posted: December 09, 2010 at 04:46 PM (#3706739)
This plan of "island hopping" isn't the way to go, IMO. Each era has it's peculiar issues to deal with, mostly along the lines of non-MLB credit, league strength adjustments, value of defense, and available statistics on which to base one's analysis. I think it's better to deal with all the seasons in one era at a time, to focus on the issues unique to that era.

After much thinking about it, I have come to the belief that it would be optimal to start with 1960 and move forward in time with elections until we reach the present day; then to do the years from 1900 to 1959; then finish up with 1869-1899.

Assuming 7 elections per year is the way we go (7 weeks per election!?), I would change DL's schdule to this:

Proposed MMP schedule:

1960 - January 2011
1961 - Feb 2011
1962 - Apr 2011
1963 - Jun 2011
1964 - Aug 2011
1965 - Oct 2011
1966 - Dec 2011
1967 - Jan 2012
1968 - Feb 2012
etc
   556. DL from MN Posted: December 09, 2010 at 04:56 PM (#3706754)
If we're starting in 1960 I wouldn't recommend 7 elections per year, I'd drop it back down to 6. I think we can only be that productive with recent years (1990 and later).

I like the "island hopping" idea because it gives you a year to work out the issues for that era between ballots. It keeps people engaged that might be particularly interested in a certain era (deadball, 1970s, current year, etc) and would otherwise only participate several years from now. It also informs the HoM process by reviewing all eras every year.
   557. DanG Posted: December 09, 2010 at 06:41 PM (#3706876)
By informing the process by "reviewing all eras every year" you're losing focus on most of them. The research necessary for good translations of Negro league and minor league seasons, as well as other issues, may be lacking. I think the situation would be the opposite of what you're saying: focusing on all eras simultaneously is a more difficult task than dealing with one era - with my suggestion we could have more elections per year, not fewer.

I don't think voters would spend the year working out the issues for a particular era. It would be more likely that they would just revive their old methodology from the previous year's visit to that time period; less progress would be made on any one era. You also lose that "walking through time" element that made the original HoM more enjoyable.
   558. DL from MN Posted: December 09, 2010 at 07:02 PM (#3706908)
I guess the compromise would be to say - if we're going to focus exclusively on an era, let's make it either really easy (1980-present) and go really quick or pick one that is underrepresented and cloudy and try to make progress on it.

I think you would see that by hopping that different experts/contributors would gravitate toward different eras.
   559. lieiam Posted: December 09, 2010 at 11:50 PM (#3707296)
I agree with DL from MN that voting for different eras within one year is MUCH more interesting... but I also agree with DanG that it would be more difficult to really "get the details right" by doing it that way. Still, I think I like the "island hopping" just beacuse it seems so much more interesting... (Of course, I'm a long time lurker who has never voted for the Hall of Merit so I'm more interested in seeing what the regular voters want).
   560. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 10, 2010 at 02:25 AM (#3707473)
I realize the task may be daunting, but I would find it appealing to vote on all Hall of Merit, non Hall of Famers, as one large group.

The Hall of Meriters but not Hall of Famers were voted by era, and by position, but never as one big lot.

Any takers?
   561. Howie Menckel Posted: December 10, 2010 at 07:00 AM (#3707749)
I combined the 4 votes somewhere; it wasn't an exact science but it gave a pretty good idea iirc...
   562. DL from MN Posted: December 10, 2010 at 04:37 PM (#3707939)
I suggested the converse - vote on the HoF non HoM in 3 groups.
   563. Mark Donelson Posted: December 10, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3707944)
Any takers?

Isn't it better to stay focused on the MMP stuff as far as beyond-the-annual-elections voting goes? We're having a hard enough time getting that started without adding variants to votes we've kinda already done...
   564. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2010 at 05:03 PM (#3707973)
#560 and #562, please take this the right way, but for the love of god almighty, why?

Regarding this, and a lot of what DanG and a few others have said, I would like to say that you are a group human beings making a judgment of other human beings. You will never, ever, ever, EVER get it right. Ever.

But you have taken the job to serious task, you have demanded work be shown, you have self-policed, you have done more work. If you continue to place and re-place and re-place everything under the microscope over and over, I truly believe you are doing the opposite of gaining ground - you are instead spinning your wheels, and this has been the HOM's problem lately in spades.

(This talk about the website and MMP has been thrilling, however, no mistake. Yay!)
   565. DL from MN Posted: December 10, 2010 at 05:59 PM (#3708033)
Why rank the HoF non HoM? To see how bad the mistakes are. To learn a little about those players. Because we like ranking things. That about covers it.
   566. Mark Donelson Posted: December 10, 2010 at 06:16 PM (#3708055)
That about covers it.

OK, sure, but why now, when we're trying to get all these other things off the ground? Still seems something that could happen anytime, to me, whereas there's a real need to focus what limited energy and attention we have on MMP and the website.

Otherwise we just bat around all these ideas for new ways we can rank people for a while, no one does anything, and we come back next November and wonder why nothing ever happened. (At least, that's been the precedent set.)

So, with that in mind: I haven't commented yet on the question of island-hopping or no island-hopping for the MMP project because I kind of see both sides. I have to say that island-hopping does SOUND more appealing, more fun, but my practical side is siding with Dan. I'm torn. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that? (Particularly the others who've been trying to get MMP going--Sunnyday? John Murphy, do you have any preferences?)

I always find myself wishing to hear the opinions of the always-reasonable Chris Cobb on these matters, as well, but given that he wasn't part of the regular election this time around, I imagine he's probably too busy to get involve here too.
   567. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 10, 2010 at 09:34 PM (#3708217)
i agree that an updated website is the highest priority, and that the mmp project is next.

The ranking of hom not hof is a potential side project, not top billing.

All items seem appealing to me.
   568. DL from MN Posted: December 11, 2010 at 03:35 PM (#3708584)
> wonder why nothing ever happened

It's pretty clear why things happen here. Things happen if John and Joe both say okay and they don't otherwise. Nobody else has authority to make things happen.
   569. Alex King Posted: December 13, 2010 at 07:19 AM (#3709305)
I agree with Dan G that "island-hopping" is not the best way to arrange the MMP election schedule, and that a chronological process will make it far easier to consider and evaluate candidates, particularly in regards to MLE and Negro-League candidates. In my mind, a straight chronological election process (starting in 1871, or 2010 and going backwards) seems most logical; DanG, why do you want to start at 1960 and go forward, and then go backward?

We should also establish an MMP Rules/Constitution thread.
   570. Alex King Posted: December 13, 2010 at 07:38 AM (#3709313)
Also--what should we do about early pitchers? Everyone acknowledges that they were the most valuable players on a yearly basis; however, we don't want every MMP between 1871 and 1893 to be a pitcher.
   571. DL from MN Posted: December 13, 2010 at 04:25 PM (#3709424)
Actually I'm fine with a pitcher elected as MMP yearly in that era. The downballot support should be all pitchers if you have a 20 person ballot. There were only 8 teams, there weren't 20 pitchers that good.
   572. Alex King Posted: December 14, 2010 at 02:20 AM (#3709917)
I think we should come up with some way of honoring the best position players from the 1800s, which is why I dislike pitchers winning the award every year. For the 1800s, we could give two awards: Most Meritorious Position Player and Most Meritorious Pitcher.

20 person ballot.


If anything, I feel that the MMP ballots should be smaller than the HOM ballots, since there are fewer yearly qualified MMP candidates than HOM candidates (the MMP drop-off is steeper; players 10-15 on an MMP ballot are weaker than players 10-15 on an HOM ballot).
   573. DanG Posted: December 14, 2010 at 03:31 PM (#3710274)
Alex:

Go back and read #145-146 in this thread, where I proposed rules for the MMP. Although many have commented, nobody "in charge" has put forth an alternative proposal. I guess we should get our own MMP THREAD (nudge, nudge); or we'll just continue talking here.

The idea for the MMP involves much more than identifying One MMP for each season; that's only one, fairly minor, benefit. The main thing is the ranking for each year. This is why we want large ballots. It would be a great thing to know the top 30 (or 40 or 50 or ...) players each season in order. If that means a bunch of pitchers near the top for the 1800's, so be it; there are still plenty of spots to see where the position players rank.

And Why do I say start in 1960? Several reasons.

First of all, I agree in principle with DL when he wrote:

if we're going to focus exclusively on an era, let's make it either really easy (1980-present)

I think it’s just as easy to start in 1960 as 1980. These are the seasons from our lives, the ones we know best, so doing the recent years first gives us the benefit of informing our votes with first-hand knowledge of whatever intangibles there are to consider. Plus we have full play-by-play data from retrosheet for this era.
Addressing the easy years first also gives us time: time to iron out any wrinkles in our procedures; time to develop a workable group dynamic; time to think about approaches to the issues of other eras; time for new data and methods to emerge. In long-term projects such as this, it behooves one to remain open to improvements to the original plan, to implement what we’ve learned as we move forward.

So why not start in 1950? I don’t think the 1950’s are quite as straight-forward as one might first assume. There were two major dynamics there we would want to consider if we aim to “do it right”. 1) MLB in the 1950’s was a contracted league, having effectively merged with the Negro leagues. The NL was quicker to mine this vein of talent and was the stronger league. 2) In this environment (esp in the early 1950’s), there are likely players “trapped” in the minors (mainly black players) who would be all-stars in MLB in an era with more opportunities to play. Shouldn’t we concern ourselves with identifying these?

But the overriding reason, to me, to start in 1960 is for the MMP process to inform the HOF voting. The two eras where the HOF fails to have anywhere near fair representation are pre-1893 and post-1960. By starting in 1960 we’ll soon examine the entire careers of HoMers like Santo, Allen, Torre, Freehan, and Wynn, as well as other popular candidates like Kaat, Oliva, Tiant, et al.
   574. DL from MN Posted: December 14, 2010 at 04:56 PM (#3710376)
> These are the seasons from our lives

Which is why I suggested 1980...
   575. DanG Posted: December 14, 2010 at 05:33 PM (#3710425)
Which is why I suggested 1980...
...which would entirely forego the benefit of promptly evaluating the stars of the 60's and 70's, who aren't getting any younger while waiting for the HOF to notice them.
   576. DL from MN Posted: December 14, 2010 at 07:58 PM (#3710578)
Ok - start in 1970. I want to get Bobby Grich noticed. He and Bill Dahlen are the best players who get no attention whatsoever.

Edit: Works for Ted Simmons and Darrell Evans too.
   577. OCF Posted: December 14, 2010 at 08:57 PM (#3710624)
The "years of my life" in baseball terms do include the 1960's. I have vague memories of the 1960 World Series (ground ball hits Kubek in throat) and of 61*. I really started paying attention in 1967, to the Cardinals. (Does that mean I'll vote for Cepeda for the 1967 MMP? Well, er, I think I'll have to look at the evidence.)

Start with the 60's and we run very quickly into the issue of how to compare a pitcher to a position player for MMP. It comes up with one or two of Koufax's years, and it certainly comes up with Gibson's 68 (and maybe also '69).
   578. Alex King Posted: December 15, 2010 at 03:07 AM (#3710965)
I agree with DanG that 1960 is a logical starting place: consider that 1961 is the beginning of the Expansion Era, and 1959 is the year that the Red Sox finally integrated.
   579. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2010 at 06:50 AM (#3711086)
I haven't really kept up with the angles either way, but yes 1960 is interesting. And Mr. Chairman, I will yield the balance of my time....
   580. DL from MN Posted: December 15, 2010 at 06:44 PM (#3711433)
Who is the candidate we are exposing using 1960 as the start date? Bill Freehan? The biggest HoF sins of omission from the 60's are Joe Torre (who is going to be elected to the HoF sooner or later) and Dick Allen (who everyone agrees is out for reasons other than his numbers). We don't highlight Minoso or Pierce (best years in the 50s). OTOH the HoF is currently overlooking Grich, Simmons, Evans, Nettles and Wynn.

If you're trying to inform HoM voting the candidate that wins from a 1960 start is Tiant. If you're interested in figuring out Reuschel, Campaneris, Concepcion and Sal Bando the year to start is 1970.

I'm not opposed to 1960, I just think it puts off the analysis we're really trying to highlight for a year or two.

The Hall hasn't really missed anyone from the 1960s. They're royally screwing up the 70s and 80s as we speak.
   581. DanG Posted: December 15, 2010 at 07:35 PM (#3711490)
The Hall hasn't really missed anyone from the 1960s
I really wish that were true. The last sentence in #573:

By starting in 1960 we’ll soon examine the entire careers of HoMers like Santo, Allen, Torre, Freehan, and Wynn, as well as other popular candidates like Kaat, Oliva, Tiant, et al.

There is also the point of disproving the worthiness of some of the Hall's favorites, Maury Wills in particular.

I auppose you could push the start up to 1961, when Santo, Kaat and Torre had their first good years.
   582. DL from MN Posted: December 15, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3711508)
Alright - they've failed to elect Santo but I don't think we're going to bring a whole lot to that argument at this point. We've convinced the people we were going to convince already.

Let's go with 1961. It's a pretty interesting year for a number of reasons. Then once we're done we can work backwards from 1960.
   583. Patrick W Posted: December 15, 2010 at 11:25 PM (#3711734)
<U>MMP Proposal for Consideration</u>

I think the HOM project was as long as you can seriously plan for a project (5-6 years; 2003 to '07) and hope to get the 35-50 person electorate you want to have reasonable election outcomes. If you only have seven elections per calendar year, you will get a completed history of MMP's in 22 actual years! I consider it laughable that anyone would sign up for the long haul on a project that would wrap up in 2032. For a yearly awards project, I think you have to plan for multiple elections ongoing at the same time. I think this is workable for an MMP project b/c people's methodologies will be similar across yearly ballots, and the consideration set for each ballot is finite (30 players/yr maybe vs. the 600+ players assessed for the HOM). I do recommend a longer period for voting to account for the multiple elections.

I also suggest a 10-man ballot. With multiple elections at a time, I don't know how much good it does to compare 4.2 WAR vs. 4.0 WAR seasons for the 19th spot on the ballot. What we really care about is the 8-9 WAR guys. There should be enough discrepancy from the voters to provide election results naming 20-30 players.

My proposed schedule would go like this:

<U>(Election Years) / Open Voting - Close Voting</u>
(2010) / Feb 1 - Mar 31, 2011
(1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964) / Apr - May 2011
(1965 - 1969) / Jun - Jul 2011
(1970 - 1974) / Aug - Sep 2011
(2011) / Oct 2011
(1975 - 1979) / Nov 2011 - Jan 2012
...
(2005 - 2009) / Feb - Mar 2013
(1955 - 1959) / Apr - May 2013
(1950 - 1954) / Jun - Jul 2013
...
(1880 - 1884) / Apr - May 2016
(1876 - 1879) / Jun - Jul 2016
(1871 - 1875) / Aug - Sep 2016
(2016) / Oct 2016

Every October would be reserved for voting on MMP for the just completed season (1 month for voting). 3 months would be given for the end of year elections (from Nov thru Jan) to account for holidays - and as a break from the continuous cycle of the project. 2 month elections otherwise. With this proposal you'd tackle 26 elections in an average year. It's too late to begin this project in time for 1/1/11, so I began the election calendar on Feb 1, 2011.

Only 1 ballot per voter, but the election results would identify the MMP, the best pitcher, and the best non-pitcher. The later two awards would strictly be the highest rated player per the MMP results. The MMP would also be the winner of one of the other two awards. Ideally, the election results could also be used to ID an NL MMP, AL MMP, NeL MMP, or other breakdowns people would desire.

I have no idea if I would have time for participation in such a project, but this is how I see such a project operating.
   584. OCF Posted: December 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM (#3711753)
It would be nice if someone could supply a basic data dump for each year as it comes up. Name, position, league, WAR, WARP, WS, anything else worth tabulating. List should probably catch anyone who's top 20 or 25 in any of those measurements, plus possible "worth noticing" guys even if they don't make top 20 in those things. Actual winners of MVP, CY, ROY should be always at least be on the lists.
   585. DL from MN Posted: December 16, 2010 at 12:48 AM (#3711798)
I'm out using that schedule. I can't do the analysis that quickly. You have to completely re-create a spreadsheet from scratch every single year. I'd estimate 5-10 hours per year between analysis and discussion. I don't have time to do that every 2 weeks. It's a nice sentiment but unworkable. I also think 10 players isn't enough. The ballot will fragment quickly and you'll really only know the consensus on the top 5 at the end of voting. That may not be enough to truly evaluate the best pitcher/position player. I liked the idea of somewhere between 1 and 2 players per team in the league.

At 7 elections per year and starting in 1961 we wrap up the modern era in 7 years. I think some portion done well is better than nothing done quickly.
   586. Alex King Posted: December 16, 2010 at 01:01 AM (#3711802)
Why not 12 elections per year (1 per month)? That way, we're finished with the modern era in 4 years. I think a month is enough time to evaluate each year's crop of candidates, though we might want to limit the ballot to 1 spot per team.
   587. DanG Posted: December 16, 2010 at 03:52 AM (#3711893)
I also suggest a 10-man ballot. With multiple elections at a time, I don't know how much good it does to compare 4.2 WAR vs. 4.0 WAR seasons for the 19th spot on the ballot. What we really care about is the 8-9 WAR guys. There should be enough discrepancy from the voters to provide election results naming 20-30 players.
As DL points out, 10 is not enough; sure, you might end up naming 20-30 players (more if yest and karl are voting) but you won't get a good ranking of them. But Patrick is also right that we don't need to split hairs to separate the down-ballot guys.

I offered the solution in #146, what I called "Quadrant Voting". The idea is to individually rank the top guys and group-rank the rest.

You could rank 10 and then have groups of five players following that. A 30-man ballot might get points something like this:

Top 10: (40-38-36-34-32-30-28-26-24-22)
2nd 10: (18-18-18-18-18-13-13-13-13-13)
3rd 10: (8-8-8-8-8-3-3-3-3-3)

Or you could rank 10, followed by pyramiding quadrants:

Top 10: (40-38-36-34-32-30-28-26-24-22)
next 2: (20-20)
next 3: (17-17-17)
next 4: (14-14-14-14)
next 5: (9-9-9-9-9)
next 6: (3-3-3-3-3-3)

Or a million other ways to do it.
   588. DL from MN Posted: December 16, 2010 at 04:01 PM (#3712172)
1 per month is about as fast as I can see proceeding and that's only for the modern era, I don't see how we'll work out 1924 in a month. That gets 1961-2015 done in just over 4 years.
   589. fra paolo Posted: December 16, 2010 at 04:35 PM (#3712215)
Shouldn't we relate the start date and the rate of elections per annum to what we want to achieve? If the objective is to influence voters, and we have a maximum of 12 elections each year, what starting point is most effective in terms of eligibility and such? I guess we really only interested in the Veterans' Committee electors. Don't they only vote every other year?
   590. DanG Posted: December 17, 2010 at 04:17 PM (#3712986)
I guess we really only interested in the Veterans' Committee electors. Don't they only vote every other year?
The VC has reverted to election by caucus, but has split into three eras. Each era is voted for on a triannual basis.

Expansion Era - voting in late 2010 (2013, 2016, etc.) on individuals from the era 1973-1989 (essentially retiring 1981-89)
Golden Era - voting in late 2011 (2014, 2017, etc.) on individuals from the era 1947-1972 (essentially retiring 1954-80)
Pre-Integration Era - voting in late 2012 (2015, 2018, etc.) on individuals from the era 1871-1946 (essentially retiring before 1954)

HoMers due to be considered by the VC next year are: Santo, Minoso, Torre, Wynn, Allen, Boyer, Freehan and Pierce. However, they'll only have a 10-person ballot, several of whom will be non-players. 12 of the 16 committee members need to give a thumbs up to elect anyone.

How you want to relate this to the MMP is up to you; to me, our focus should be towards a push for players while they're still living.
   591. fra paolo Posted: December 17, 2010 at 04:25 PM (#3712987)
It looks to me like we've missed the boat on the Expansion Era. We should start with a chunk of years in the 'Golden Era'. Make a list of the outstanding candidates still alive who built their case during 1947-72, and figure out an election schedule that overlaps the best with their careers.
   592. DanG Posted: December 17, 2010 at 04:45 PM (#3713004)
outstanding candidates still alive who built their case during 1947-72
Minoso, Newcombe, Pierce, Pesky and Rosen look to be the oldest viable HOF candidates from the "Golden Era" who are still living.
   593. DL from MN Posted: December 17, 2010 at 06:20 PM (#3713106)
We were purposefully avoiding integration in an effort to make it easy to start.
   594. DanG Posted: December 17, 2010 at 07:22 PM (#3713147)
We were purposefully avoiding integration in an effort to make it easy to start
Right. And given the dearth of good living candidates from the 50's, a 1961 start still looks like the way to go.
   595. sunnyday2 Posted: December 17, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3713189)
Holy ####, people, we've been talking about what to do next since 2007.
   596. fra paolo Posted: December 17, 2010 at 09:41 PM (#3713246)
I would suggest that since the Golden Era is 26 years long, we should divide it into 9/9/8, and consider starting in either 1965 or 1964.

Or you could divide it into two 13-year segments and start in... 1960! Which seems to be the consensus. But then you'd probably be carrying an MMP election or two past the end of the VC balloting next year.
   597. OCF Posted: December 19, 2010 at 01:22 AM (#3713818)
As a side issue: when should we do the annual HoF vote? The rest of BTF generally appreciates that one.
   598. DL from MN Posted: December 19, 2010 at 05:26 AM (#3713903)
> when should we do the annual HoF vote?

Last week.
   599. Howie Menckel Posted: December 19, 2010 at 08:06 AM (#3713944)
of the real 2011 HOF ballot, we have chosen these 10 players for the Hall of Merit:

Roberto Alomar
Jeff Bagwell
Bert Blyleven
Kevin Brown
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

I imagine most of us, with only 10 slots, would pretty much choose those 10. The only non-HOMer on the ballot with significant support is Rafael Palmeiro.

..........

more interesting, guess level of support. maybe....?

Jeff Bagwell
Bert Blyleven
Tim Raines
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Kevin Brown
Larry Walker
   600. Alex King Posted: December 20, 2010 at 06:29 PM (#3714645)
It would be nice if someone could supply a basic data dump for each year as it comes up. Name, position, league, WAR, WARP, WS, anything else worth tabulating. List should probably catch anyone who's top 20 or 25 in any of those measurements, plus possible "worth noticing" guys even if they don't make top 20 in those things. Actual winners of MVP, CY, ROY should be always at least be on the lists.


I'll post 1961 eligibles in #600.
Page 6 of 7 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost is getting a Woody
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2791 seconds
49 querie(s) executed