Email Conversation with Rob Wood

My ‘conversation’ with Rob Wood will be posted in the discussion thread.

It’s basically a status of where we stand. Rob has volunteered to draft a rules document, based on everything that’s been discussed in the threads.

I think we’ll be ready to vote after New Year’s.

Hopefully this answers your questions.

If any of you have an idea for a thread, let me know and I’ll post it. This section is different than Clutch Hits, in that we don’t have “news” every day to link to. We try to keep the discussion going, but it’s easy to fall into lulls. Any suggestions would be appreciated . . . thanks!

My responses are in CAPS.

> Joe,
>
> I am probably in the same boat as most HOM members.  I don’t know what
> is going on behind the scenes, or what is still to come before we cast
> our first ballots.
>
> I think we still need Adjusted Win Shares for the NA seasons.  We need
> final resolution on the Cap Anson/Joe Jackson issue(s). Maybe it’s
> wise to simply allow any voter to exclude a player on the ballot he
> first appears on for “character” reasons.  That would be the only time
> that character would be allowed to influence a vote. I’m not sure if
> this issue is worth a full-scale vote of all HOM members, though it is
> clearly an important issue.  This is probably the best and most
> workable compromise.

WE DEFINITELY NEED ADJUSTED WS FOR NA.

I AGREE ON THE ONE-YEAR COMPROMISE FOR CHARACTER, BUT HERE’S MY PROBLEM. DOES TY COBB NOT GET IN ON THE FIRST BALLOT NOW? I THINK THAT’S LUDICROUS. ANSON FINE, HE WAS A RACIST, MAYBE HE’S THE REASON FOR THE COLOR LINE LASTING UNTIL 1947, MAYBE NOT. BUT THIS OPENS A BIG CAN OF WORMS. I THINK WE NEED TO PUT A QUALIFIER ON WHAT CHARACTER ISSUES CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, I REALLY WANT TO PUT THIS BEHIND US. WAY TOO MUCH ENERGY HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPENDED ON IT.
>
> We could also use a semi-official rules document.  I’d be happy to
> take a crack at this based upon the information on the Rules thread. 
> (Let me know if you’d like me to work on this.)

I WOULD LOVE IT IF YOU COULD DO THIS. I KEEP MEANING TO, BUT THERE ARE TOO FEW HOURS IN A DAY AND I KEEP FALLING BEHIND.
>
> We could use a tentative schedule for our first vote, and the things
> that will happen before the first vote.  We should probably fix a time
> for the first ballot and leave plenty of time for people to discuss
> their first ballots and the 19th century guys.  We could easily take
> two weeks just discussing those guys.  Subsequent discussions would
> fit into a one-week schedule since there are only a few new guys
> coming onto each subsequent ballot.

I AGREE WITH A TENATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE FIRST VOTE, I’M THINKING MID-JANUARY, AFTER THE HOLIDAYS. DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE?
>
> Have you given further thought to the logistics of voting, tallying,
> and reporting the results?  Hopefully, the Yahoo Group will make this
> fairly easy.  Do we want two people to review the balloting? This is
> what the Baseball Survivor group did; it serves to lighten the load on
> the talliers plus it allowed any mistakes to be caught before the
> official announcement of the votes.  Plus, they can serve as the
> ballot review committee, alerting any voter if their ballot looks
> especially strange, and would have the authority to exclude a ballot.

I WAS THINKING I’D JUST PUT THEM IN A SPREADSHEET AND USE THAT TO TALLY THE VOTES. WE SHOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TWO TALLIERS, VERY GOOD SUGGESTION. I WAS THINKING A ROTATING GROUP OF 3 PEOPLE, BUT WE SHOULD MAYBE HAVE 4 AND GO WITH 2 PER WEEK. THE GROUP OF 4 WOULD CHECK THE BALLOTS AND RAISE THE ISSUE WITH THE VOTER IF 3 OF THE 4 AGREE TO. DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE? THE REASON FOR 4 IS TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE BEING BUSY, VACATIONS, ETC. IT’D BE COOL IF THE MACHINE COULD KEEP CHURNING WHEN I’M OUT OF TOWN, ETC.
>
> Where are we going to post our reasons behind our votes?  Where are we
> going to debate the merits of the players on the ballot?  Will there
> be one long thread for this on the Primer HOM site?  Are you thinking
> that the positional threads will carry on and be sufficient? The
> concern is that many discussions will be comparisons of players at
> different positions.  How would that work?

I WAS THINKING I’D SET UP A THREAD FOR EACH ELECTION. OR MAYBE ONE THREAD FOR PITCHERS, ONE FOR 1B/LF/RF AND ONE FOR C/SS/3B/2B/CF? I’M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS.
>
> Also, is an official ballot going to be made available each “year”
> identifying the new players eligible for that year; I imagine that we
> don’t need to list the “holdovers” for each ballot.  This could help
> tallying since we can tell voters that they have to use the names
> specified on the ballot; this helps avoid spelling errors and some
> people using nicknames (Pete vs. Grover Alexander), distinguish
> between the two George Burns, Dutch Leonards, Sam Jones, etc. The same
> two-person ballot review committee could be responsible for
> determining the eligibility years of players coming on the ballots.

I WAS THINKING I’D PUT A LIST OF ADJUSTED STATS OUT FOR EVERYONE NEW TO THE BALLOT EACH YEAR AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD.
>
> That reminds me, since the number of selections varies over time, I
> believe the ballot point-tallies vary too.  Do we want the voter to
> simply list his (up to) 15 players from top to bottom?  And then the
> vote tallier will apply the proper point-scheme applicable to that
> year’s ballot? I think that would be better than having each voter
> post the player’s name along with the number of points.  Of course,
> voters would have to make sure to post their ballot from top to bottom
> each time (in the absence of points or ranks).  Or maybe we should
> require ranks? And we are going to allow voters to list fewer than 15
> players on a ballot, aren’t we?

I WAS THINKING PEOPLE WOULD RANK THEIR CANDIDATES FROM 1-15 AND WE’D ASSIGN THE POINTS.
>
> By the way, I just thought of something.  I think we are leaning
> toward having weekly voting.  But this will not leave enough time if
> we have to have a runoff election (breaking ties).  I propose that we
> have a simple tie-breaking rule such as the player appearing on the
> most ballots, if still tied go to the most highest point votes, etc.

WE COULD PULL THE RUNOFF FROM THE ACTUAL BALLOTS. IF YOU VOTED Y HIGHER THAN X, THAT WOULD BE YOUR VOTE. A LITTLE EXTRA TALLYING, BUT NO EXTRA BALLOT NEEDED. I DOUBT THAT THE RUNOFF (AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS) WOULD INCLUDE PEOPLE THAT DIDN’T EVEN MAKE OTHER PEOPLE’S TOP 15. YOU’D THINK AT LEAST ONE OF THE TWO WOULD BE ON EVERY BALLOT. IF NOT, WE CAN CALCULATE ANYWAY. LET’S SAY WE HAVE 50 BALLOTS. 26 HAVE PLAYER Y AHEAD AND 22 HAVE PLAYER X. THE OTHER 2 BALLOTS (THE ONES THAT DIDN’T INLCUDE EITHER) DON’T MATTER BECAUSE PLAYER Y HAS THE MAJORITY. IN THE RARE CASE OF 24-23 OR SOMETHING, WE’D CONTACT THE OTHER 3 VOTERS FOR THEIR CHOICE. IF WE CAN’T GET A HOLD OF THEM, THE 24-23 WOULD HOLD UP. I THINK THAT WORKS.
>
> Just thought of something else.  What about Negro Leaguers?  Do we
> have enough names and when they retired?  I know SABR put out a Negro
> Leagues book a few years ago.  Did someone say that Eric Enders can
> serve as an HOM Negro League expert?  Maybe he should be tasked with
> developing a list of reasonable candidates and the year they retired
> (vis a vis the token rule).

I’LL SHOOT ERIC ENDERS AN EMAIL. I SAW A NEGRO LEAGUE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA AT BORDERS THE OTHER DAY, MAYBE I’LL PICK THAT UP.
>
> Let me know how I can help.
>
> Rob
>
LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS. THANKS FOR VOLUNTEERING TO HELP OUT!

ALL THE BEST,

—- JoeDimino