User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5208 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Monday, March 05, 20071996 Ballot Discussion1996 (March 26)—elect 3 Players Passing Away in 1995 Candidates Thanks, Dan!
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: March 05, 2007 at 01:54 PM | 325 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(20 - 10:37pm, Nov 30) Last: Alex02 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5208 seconds |
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 believe that he said that had he known about one of the ballots under discussion, he would have invalidated it under Constitutional grounds (unreasonableness). And it wasn't anything like having Clay Bellinger on the ballot either.
Can anyone remember what I can only vaguely recall? It may have been the week when the poster named something like "Bernie Williams doubled" entered the fray.
That was a different issue. Bernie (now called 'zop I think) was a new voter who submitted a ballot late in the afternoon on Monday and made some comments about how he didn't included 19th century players in his consideration set. There was quite a bit of argument but it was decided to have Bernie/zop wait until the next election.
After some clarification issues, Bernie/zop ending up joining the electorate and is now a veteran voter and useful contributor to the yearly debate.
Right after that happened, we had a rash of obscenity-laden e-mails, most likely from that bozo from another IP. Both IPs are off limits since then.
One other set of issues that we didn't put into the Constitution is that voters must ...submit the explanations for their votes here at the Primer website.
The idea isn't that voters post comments about each player on their ballot. They are supposed to explain why they have that player in that slot. Comments such as 'he had over 2700 hits and drove in 100 runs a couple of times' doesn't do that. That's just trivia.
If I were voting, my comments would run something like this:
1. Helped his teams win 75 games above what a replacement value player would have.
2. Helped his teams win 74 games above what a replacement value player would have.
Etc. Because I'd be voting on the basis of how much the player helped his teams to win. That's what matters. If someone is voting for players on another basis, they need to explain that basis, and why each player deserves his ballot spot using the stated criteria. This really isn't being done.
You and I place our trust in the electorate in differently. I certainly don't trust that every voter will always carefully consider each ballot or apply criteria consistently and reasonably, but I am convinced by long experience that the electorate, as a whole, is deeply committed to civil and reasoned discussion and analysis. I believe that individual voters may well, from time to time, cast frivolous and unconsidered votes. Your approach to trust, by disallowing the electorate in the aggregate from making a determination about whether a vote is sufficiently well-reasoned and considered to be counted, enables, to a small degree, unconsidered or frivolous voting, in order to protect voters from any enforced standard, which you expect would have a chilling effect on voters' freedom of choice. I, on the other hand, trust that the electorate, in the aggregate, would never apply "popularity" as a standard but would instead examine the basis for a vote about which there were questions to see if it were extremely unreasonable. I don't think the enforcement of a standard of that sort would in any way suppress free thinking, as long as that free thinking was carried out with consistency and reason, and I would trust the electorate to be highly cautious in taking the step of disallowing a ballot, but having a process for disallowing ballots on grounds of reasonableness would diminish occurences of frivolous voting and would therefore help protect the integrity of our results.
Since the number of frivolous or foolish votes is always very very small relative to the total number of votes cast every year, because only people who really care about the project are likely to devote the time necessary to participate, those votes don't much affect the integrity of the project, so you may well be right to judge that we are better off without an enforcement mechanism. Certainly the project would suffer if people were tossing around ballot challenges on anything like a regular basis. But I think our discussion might be livelier and do a better job at reaching a consensus based on reasoned analysis if we were considering, as we assembled our ballots, that we needed to be able to explain the reasons for our rankings at least sufficiently to persuade a ballot committee that our choices had some real justification.
True if it is the full extent of a voter's comment. Then again, this describes (or nearly describes) HOMers like Jim O'Rourke and Brooks Robinson. Stated in isolation, of course they are not compelling reasons. But if someone is claiming this for a SS, a C, or someone from the 1900s or 1960s (or someone before 1892 and the long sked), those are potentially compelling, if basic, lenses through which a player's performance and perhaps value can be seen. Clearly more explanation is required, but hits and rbis are not verboten and can easily be part of any voters' grab bag of reasoning if they are given some context too.
I agree hits and RBI are not verboten. To give a (hopefully) ridiculous example, if a voter's basis for ordering his ballot was "career hits plus RBI in 100 RBI seasons", then we would all understand why he has a certain player where he does. Without that, we are in the dark. How do we know someone isn't just pulling names out of a hat, then putting in random comments? Sorry to pick on Rico, but when we ask why a certain player is on a ballot, and the voter's response is 'I don't know,' then I think there is a problem. Rico has Garvey 14th, which seems as bad as having Buckner 15th. I posted, IIRC, in Garvey's thread why I think Norm Cash was much better than Garvey. Rico doesn't agree, since he doesn't even have Cash in his top 40. But why does he disagree? No one knows, except Rico, and we can't be sure that he knows, either.
I shouldn't have said no one is properly explaining their reasoning. A few people do, such as Dan R. You might disagree with his choices, but you know why his ballot is the way it is, and can discuss it intelligently. I'm always wondering why many voters change the ordering of the backlog from ballot to ballot. No one on the ballot has played for at least 15 years, so we know their relative merit isn't changing. I think it is because the voters don't have a solid handle on what constitutes merit. So, one week they'll go, I feel like I'm underrating fielding, so I'll move Phil Rizzuto up. Then, next time, they feel something different. It seems to me that these people haven't thought enough about their ballots, or they wouldn't keep changing them.
Not to belittle the difficulty of making a ballot. I can't resolve the many issues involved to my satisfaction in order to compile one. And the results of the collective wisdom of the electorate are pretty good.
Sorry, thanks for bearing with me.
I would inherently distrust a system that claims to be complete.
Simply put - there is no one way to win in baseball. Rather, a team must score more runs than the opposing team to win a specific game. Then that team must do that with more frequency than their direct competition in order to advance to the post-season. Once there, they must find a way to win either 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 to win a pennant and finally, a World Series.
Each World Series is one by a different team with a different makeup and balance. Each victor overcame different hurdles to make it to the pinnacle.
With that in mind, how can anyone claim to "know" what provides the most merit? What aspect of the game is most important?
What is the signal and what is the noise? Is it possible that the signal needs the noise in order to sustain meaning? Maybe the signal is the noise?
Funny, I think it would make more sense to say that people who have the same pecking order for 35 straight "years" are the one who haven't thought enough about their ballots, or they wouldn't keep picking the same order.
I agree.
Funny, I think it would make more sense to say that people who have the same pecking order for 35 straight "years" are the one who haven't thought enough about their ballots, or they wouldn't keep picking the same order.
I agree.
The two standards of reasonableness that matter to me are that (1) a voter has good reasons for the placement of each player relative to all the other serious candidates eligible and (2) the voter is regularly re-examining those reasons in light of new arguments, new data, new ways of measuring value, new ways of assessing merit.
Overall, I think the electorate has become much more skilled at measuring value and assessing merit over the course of this project. I know I have learned a tremendous amount, not just about baseball, but also about statistical analysis, voting methodologies, debate tactics, social history, and the problem of having to make judgments. Our judgments will never be perfect, because we will never have perfect information, and because merit is multi-faceted, but that doesn't mean we should ever give up on improving our judgment and our knowledge.
I think the process is analogous to any tobaganing-into-knowledge situation where at the beginning you think you have a good system for figuring out this great question. Let's say in 1960 or so, you start voting and you have Gil Hodges on your ballot. Then along comes Mickey Vernon who you never did think was worthwhile. But your system tells you he's better than Hodges. Well that blows your placement of Hodges, so you have to reconsider. So now you've got Vernon and Hodges at 10 and 15. Meanwhile you've also got to vote on George Sisler. Then along comes Norm Cash. Then there's a discussion of whether Bill Terry is the worst HOMer. Then along comes Garvey. And then Perez. And then Hernandez. It's a never-ending challenge to your ranking system, particularly when arguments against many rankings involve a if-him-why-not-him question. No matter how good your initial system is, some candidate or some voter will come along with a challenge to your POV that breaks or bends or WARPs your system and reduces the confidence you can have in it.
Then you've got people (like me) who change their system every 20-30 years when they realize the inadequacy of the prior one. And let me tell you, that's a great way to totally change a backlog ballot. Which is another point: it's the backlog where change happens, not the frontlog. Everyone (even yest?) would put MJ Schmidt first. But not nearly everyone had QT second or third. The backlog necessarily requires granular distinctions among player and with such small differences among them, a decision to give a half-year credit or to reward post-season performance can have very large consequences for ballot position.
I think it's kind of like your favorite foods. As a 10 year old it might be pizza. Then you try nachos. Then you try lasagna. Your faves list is getting longer and more differentiated. By the time you're 30, you wonder how Joe Pizza 10 Years Old morphed into Ettienne Escargots. Is it inappropriate to change ones mind about this? Of course not, it's just the way it goes.
All that said, cblau is very much correct that substantial ballot comments are better than skimpy ones, in particular for candidates that are off the consensus radar. I don't think that means War and Peace, more like The Crying of Lot 49. Enough that we get it, not enough that we're clobbered with it.
.... in the legend of my own mind :)
Agree with all of what has just been said. In an attempt to blend some of th elogic from different fronts together, I would say that yes, we each change our ballots as we gain understanding. This is good. What is better is when we explain it more fully than "I was underrating fielding". Not everyone wants to make the time to spell things out as completely as DanR; nor could some of us (even being the numbers fanatic that I am) even attempt to coherently do so, if we were restricting ourselves to a numeric system ojnly (which I am not). But it helps when an explanation at least gives the electorate as a whole a good feel that someone didn't just pile a load of stuff in the Bull dump. Which is why it's good for someone to issue a gentle question/critique/challenge asking for clarification.
All in all, a much better system than most anything else out there.
So here's a question I'm hoping a MiL expert can help me with. What sort of relationship did the MxL have with MLB during the 1960s? Did any teams use it with any frequency for seasoning purposes? Was it a place where Latino prospects were sent, but usually not English speakers?
Thanks!
Excellent summary in 307 of our relative differences with respect to our trust in the electorate.
In sum, I suppose that while I completely agree with harsh criticism, I would probably never throw out a long-standing voter's ballot, no matter how unreasonable a vote might be, as long as some minimum explanation was given.
Unlike Mr. Blau, I don't much care if the given reason is, "I really liked his hair." I believe that despite such a comment, the long-time voter actually has other reasons behind his ranking. Sometimes, to break up the monotony, we are occasionally guilty of a few attempts at humor in our ballot comments. (Exhibit A - see some of Chaleeko's past ballots. Exhibit B - I always like Sean Gilman's "He's good" and "Him Too." for no-brainers.)
I believe that rico carefully considered Buckner when placing him at #15. However, in closing, I am glad that rico redid his Buckner comment, because the second version was one of the best ballot comments of this entire project.
...or you have changed your evaluation mathod numerous times as I have. :-)
I don't think even karl believes the comment, by the way.
I think that's a compliment. I'll take it as one either way. ; )
With Beckley it's a pretty simple matter that we've been over 100 times, and even so, my position on him has softened a bit. But I feel safe here knowing that there's little if any reason for anyone to believe me or to believe that I haven't been over and over him in my mind or on the boards 1000 times.
The other required top-10s also have that sort of sarcastic tilt to them, but since I support each of them as likely HOMers (just not enough to be on my ballot), I don't really feel like there's much more for me to say. Keller, being unsupported by me for election, gets a little more commentary about why I don't think he's fit for election. I've always presumed that comments on guys I don't support in the top ten are better than comments for guys I do support (just not enough to roster on my ballot). Maybe that's not good thinking on my part.
I used to be against them on principle myself, but they do tend to curtail wrong impressions and hurt feelings, so they are here to stay with me.
> match them. Hall of Very Good. 3 times a major league all-star is good.
> Top 5 starter (61-68) top 6 (69- ) in league: 1968, 1974, 1976.
> Rank in league/majors: 2nd/3rd, 2nd/2nd, 5th/5th (7th t in 1967, 7th t in 1972, 9th t
> in 1973)
You and I have much different definitions of what makes an All-Star. If you're one of the top 22-24 pitchers in the majors, I'd classify you as an all-star (50 players on a league All-Star roster). That gives enough spots for the top 3-4 players at each position to be considered all-stars also.
Just to explain myself; I only did that after I did some basic demographic & statistical analysis that showed pretty conclusively that there must have been a huge increase in the size of the pool of "potential players" from ~1870-1895ish, due to the increasing nationalization of the professional game. It was only after I was informed of the "all pennants must be treated equally" principle that I reworked my voting to value early-19th C players equally.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main