User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3923 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Thursday, August 21, 2003Redistribution of Electees by Year?I was thinking, maybe the original plan we came up with based on team years wasn’t the best way to go. What if we based the electees on the number of players born in each year, projected out 45 years (the average age of our first 16 electees at the time of election). Bear with me here while I explain this. We’d start our 213 Hall of Famers through 2001 number. We’d the see how many players were born during or before 1956 (11713, plus 306 players we don’t have birthdates on). Would there be anything else to adjust for? Such as allowing slots for 25 Negro Leaguers. Not as a quota, just factoring in that they aren’t in our pool of birthdates). If we make the Negro League adjustment (we can worry about which years get electees later), we’d basically have one HoMer for every 63.93 major league players born. I think a great majority of all of the players we don’t have birthdates on played in the 19th Century, so I would add them to the ‘backlog’. Our 6th HoMer should be around the same time as the 349th player born. Counting the 306 + 43 we know we have would put our first HoMer born in 1845 or the 1890 election. Our 20th HoMer, the last one we elected, would be the 823rd player born (not counting the 306 w/out birthdays, the 1129th including them), which was in 1864, which works out to our 1909 election. Which would mean we are just two ahead (although somewhat misproportioned). We’ve got a museum to run, so I wouldn’t hold off an election, but we’d only go one per year until we get back on schedule, which won’t be long. Alternatively, we could just add two HoMers (in recognition of the real Hall’s lack of Negro Leaguers and pre-1880s players) and go with 215. I’d probably support that, but I could be talked out of it too. It’s not too late to change this, and I think it’s much better theoretically than our current system. There is no bias involved here, just a lightbulb that went off, one that should have gone off a year ago. I should be able to post the schedule if we go down this path later today (I’m still working on it, since I have to do a lot of it by hand). What do you guys think? JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: August 21, 2003 at 03:20 PM | 36 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2024
(13 - 11:23pm, Dec 08) Last: Space Force fan 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (191 - 7:43pm, Dec 07) Last: Howie Menckel 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Ballot (4 - 3:10pm, Dec 07) Last: Jaack Hall of Merit Book Club (17 - 10:20am, Dec 07) Last: cookiedabookie Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (28 - 10:54pm, Dec 03) Last: cardsfanboy 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 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 |
|||||||
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 0.3923 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.
1. Howie Menckel Posted: August 21, 2003 at 03:30 PM (#516747)Not that it makes a whole lot of difference, but based on what you presented I think all four of the Ward/Glasscock/Rusie/Hamilton group would have been in by the end of this election.
1906:Ward
After 2001, perhaps the system could be amended to match the number the HOF elects (just like the original 213 was). No matter what system we chose, the HOF could trip us up by either not electing anyone for years, or deciding that anyone within One Degree of Joe Morgan was Hall-worthy. If the goal is to create an alternate Hall, then after we match them through 2001 we should continue trying to match them in future years.
The AA was 8 every year except for 1884 which was 12. The UA was 8. Some seasons there are more teams listed in the standings but that's because teams failed and the association either reorganized the team elsewhere or (more usually) persuaded some minor league team to finish out the defunct team's schedule. At any given time during those seasons there were no more than 8 teams active (12 in 1884 AA).
The NA is different; to my knowledge they never added teams during the season, just lost them through attrition. The formula TotalLeagueGames/MaxTeamGames for each season yields the following numbers: 8,6,7,7,8 for a total of 36, which seems more reasonable than including at full value all the teams that died after a dozen games or less (total of 50 in all).
I'm not very knowledgeable about the Negro Leagues. Sorry.
I'm with Andrew and Mark. I don't see that we are totally and completely out of whack. I also like Mark's point about the integrity of the project. I'm all for being flexible, but I prefer to use that flexibility when there is a compelling need.
If we are going to err (and it is impossible to get in "perfect"), I would prefer to err on the side of having more inductees in later years. The concern in that case is that voters will be blinded by recent stars and ignore the more qualified early stars. The alternate error -- having to elect too many people in the early years when the "correct" inductee is not even eligible yet -- is a structural problem that cannot be corrected after the fact.
I'd prefer to err on the side that a strong argument can counteract.
Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to participate. If you are not well versed with the players and history (or at least make the attempt), that should be a disqualification.
Whatever our differences, all of the voters so far have at least taken the time to examine the record and history of 19th century baseball. That should be a prerequisite.
Now, how we would police this needs to be thought out.
I think that's an easy thing to say now, but it's harder to construct a ballot when you're actually doing it. In a 1980 election, there should still be a huge difference between the 15th best non-inductee to retire since 1970 and the best pre-1970 player non yet inducted (with the latter being significantly better).
Even though even with this ballot several voters seem to have completely written off NA and earlier stars (several of whom are continuing to clog the top of my ballot), I don't despair of Start, McVey, etc. ever getting elected.
Or, as a separate argument, given the way the ballots are structured, it should be pretty easy on a "4 players elected" year to get a candidate favored by old-timers up to at least 4th place, even if several of the newcomers write him off altogether.
Regarding the issue that the team-based system yields "too many" slots for modern day players, maybe we could cap the number of selections per year to 3. I would be in favor of this, and it may reflect the HOF going forward (given the recent changes to the Veterans Committee). I don't think anyone would have a serious objection to this cap.
Regarding the time lag issue (Joe's post #14), I don't think it is crucial to get it precisely "correct", as long as we do something along those lines. I actually like the time lag, with phase-in, that Joe presents above.
Does the current voting schedule take the existence of the Negro Leagues into account at all in its chronological distribution of HoM slots?
How many will be elected in 1918? You don't list that year.
Other than that, it looks good.
I'm largely ignorant of larger statistical issues that might be involved in the change-over, but insofar as I grasp those issues, it seems to me that this system would be fair to players.
I haven't done a very detailed analysis, but even though the new system will mean electing only one rather than two in the next year, by and large it increases the number of slots opened up in earlier elections. From 1908 to 1930, six more candidates would be elected under the new system. From 1930 to 1960, seven more candidates would be elected under the new system. Consequently, thirteen fewer players would be elected between 1961 and 2003. with about half the reduction coming during the 1980s.
Is it possible to have one thread where we then can access all the relevant threads (new eligibles year by year, HoM plaque room, links to positional threads from last year, etc.)? I think this would make it easier for everyone concerned.
Thanks!
Ideally, I'd like to see a system that accounts for the Negro Leagues somewhat more consistently with the rest of the system, but I'm not sure that's possible, in part because I'm not sure how the system handles contraction. Can/does/should it acknowledge it?
As long as we dont over-frontload, we can always elect missed guys later. Accurate is good, but any errors need to be on the side of voting too late, not too early.
>1892 - Ross Barnes
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main