Hot topics.

Sounds fine to me

Sounds fine to me. Note that that 2008 would be a month or so before the HoF election - I guess that's OK. We could kick it back another week or so, but there's still something to be said for getting it in before Christmas.

If you must. I suppose it lessens the withdrawal pain of going from bi-weekly to yearly, but I LIKE my bi-weekly baseball-history-addict fix!

machts nichts

Reason #4 grabs me, though I will also say that a 2 week discussion period probalby only means that the same things get said twice as much. And, I'm as guilty as anybody, but we've certainly moved incrementally from analysis to polemics the past couple of HoM years. How to avoid falling deeper into this trap?

I'm used to this schedule, but no strenuous objections. The last 5-6 elections could be pretty heated with desperate backlog pleas.

though I will also say that a 2 week discussion period probalby only means that the same things get said twice as much.

Maybe this will motivate more of us (myself included!) to post preliminary ballots. There seems to be a second wave of discussion that starts just after the ballot thread is posted when people figure out whether a player is getting more or less support than they had guessed.

We should also make room for our first Veterans' Committee discussion and ballot thread to be set up prior to 2/27 (the date of the actual Vets' Committee announcement).

I propose that we do the '93 and '94 elections as presented above, but then set up the Vets' Committee discussion thread on 2/12, the ballot thread on 2/19, and end the election on 2/26 (while starting the '95 election on that date).

Maybe this will motivate more of us (myself included!) to post preliminary ballots.

Perhaps we want to "formally" recommend (but not require) that from now on voters should post preliminary ballots.

I propose that we do the '93 and '94 elections as presented above, but then set up the Vets' Committee discussion thread on 2/12, the ballot thread on 2/19, and end the election on 2/26 (while starting the '95 election on that date).

That makes sense to me; it keeps us on the schedule presented in the header, right?

I like the idea of more time. With more new serious candidates being added each season as a result of expansion, I am finding it more difficult simply to keep up with the new arrivals, and I would like to be able to do that and also work on new ways of doing cross-period comparisions, tweak my system to deal more fairly with the increase in long-career players we are seeing in the 1970s and 1980s, assess relief pitchers better, and so on.

Re sunnyday2's point about polemics vs. analysis, I think more time might help us move incrementally back towards analysis, by allowing us the time to do it. I also agree that more posting of prelims would be useful, though I think that delving into the backlog will always result in an increase in polemics, and the election of Pete Rose will result in a reduction.

I second David Foss's support for the posting of more preliminary ballots!

That makes sense to me; it keeps us on the schedule presented in the header, right?

Yes, Dan.

I think I suggested something similar a few months ago. Needless to say, I'm on board.

I'm used to this schedule, but no strenuous objections. The last 5-6 elections could be pretty heated with desperate backlog pleas.

Next time on HOMies with the Mob, the gang gathers in secret to hatch new plans, but things in the family don't always go according to plan....

Da Commish: I asked allayou here to dis secret meeting to figure out what the hell we're gonna do about our little backlog problem.

Mikey Dub: Why don't we just pop 'em all?

Da Commish: Granny, show Mikey what happens when you say stupid stuff at big, secret meetings.

Mikey Dub: Owwwwww! I think you broke my nose!

Dotorro: Aw, rub some dirt in it and sit still, it ain't broke. And would someone pass me da grappa, already?

Marco Schmeagol: OK, Commish, what about we elect Chahlie Kellah?

Howie the Menk: Mech. I got not use for his like. Which means dis group ain't got no use for his likes.

Marco Schmeagol: Really? You gots some problem with Mr. Kellah? Don't make me come over there and rearrange your ballot.

Howie the Menk: Don't put your hands on me, Marco, I know some people in da Bronx that you don't want to know about....

Granny Murph: Hey, OK, every body keep your shirts on; we got a backlog to deal wid here, and da Commish don't want to have to clean up no bodies. Besides youse guys is forgettin' Pie Traynuh.

Presto yesto: Yeah, he gots da putouts.

Sunny2times: You call dis analysis? I call dis polemics. I don't call dis analysis, I call dis polemics. I'm going to get the paper. Get the paper.

Howie the Menk: What got into 2times?

That's next time on HOMies with the Mob, 10 PM, only on the Disorganized Crime Channel.

*uproarious laughter*

(Cue theme music)

"Hangin' out...down the street...the same old thing...we did last week...

Hello Brooklyn!"

Next time let's meet in Foreman's basement! Maybe kelsomangus or FezFoss will bring us some smokes. And maybe some baseball chicks!

And to think, if I hadn't moved from Brooklyn when I was two, I might actually sound like that. :-D

Hilarious stuff, Eric. If we were still doing the Primeys, I would nominate you for one.

BTW, in regard to a Veterans' Committee player ballot, should I also post a composite one (managers, executives and owners)?

I like the proposal, I don't want this to end either.

I like the idea in general, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a slightly longer break before the 2008 election, especially if we think we'll be getting a significant number of new voters (which for our purposes would probably mean about 10.) One thing we could do that might be helpful would be updated positional threads, with brief bios of the top 10 or so from the backlog at each position, plus links to their individual threads. Get 10 people to each write one up (and let John put in all the links to make it look good) and it wouldn't be that much work. I'll volunteer to take 2B.

I'm all for it--I always need more time to work on my ballot.

I even live in Brooklyn!

I am up for the idea, nice segueway into a year long wait. However, I suggest that we go back to posting teh discussion threads after an election, five weeks of discussion on a certain year will get a little boring.

I'm cool with the election schedule proposed above.

Watch our schedule, over time, turn into a j-curve, nearing the axis of completion but never touching it. None of us wants the withdrawal, so we'll just keep pushing back a few more weeks, and the election cycles will grown longer and longer.

When the HOM monkey's on your back, it's tough to not to give the monkey what it wants. ; )

I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a slightly longer break before the 2008 election, especially if we think we'll be getting a significant number of new voters

But the proposal fits the fantasy that real BBWAA voters will read before submitting their real ballots.

whew, we only get one more result in the next five weeks after this layoff? this will take some getting used to...

I even live in Brooklyn!

Me too (though I'm a recent arrival)!

I like the new schedule too. And I agree with my fellow Brooklynite re not posting years early if we go to that schedule.

My only suggestion is that we have one ballot discussion thread open at a time. With more than one open at a time, it seems that the threads become less about the specific ballot and the players on it. I get confused about who is in the pool for a given year.

I could go for it. I would suggest, as posted above, that there be only one discussion thread open at a time, and the player threads could open at the same time (we'll have 2+ weeks, that could be enough time), and "strongly suggest" the posting and discussion of prelim ballots, or at least the placing of newbies within each class.

As for the other Hall, with so many BBWAA voters, I think at least one will check out our results, which is enough to make me happy.

My only suggestion is that we have one ballot discussion thread open at a time.

I agree. I sometimes find myself confused just with next year's ballot discussion being available during the current year voting.

I want to make sure I've got this straight. Our next ballot closes January 22? Doesn't that make this particular "year" four weeks long?

Doesn't that make this particular "year" four weeks long?

Correct, Jeff. The same as last year.