 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Hall Of Fame » Why a HOF board?
Bob
I figured if a player was never an All Star, there's no way he belongs in the HOF. For position players, the top two players at each position in each league get in. So basically, if you were never in the top 25% at your position, you aren't on the ballot. I certainly don't think that's too restrictive. Of course, if you think I missed somebody, by all means add them to the discussion.
One problem with this method is that it does put some people on the ballot who are obviously not qualified -- guys who snuck in one year as a backup but were really pretty mediocre. However, I decided not to cut anybody off the ballot who met the above criteria simply because it might be difficult to know where to draw the line and I didn't think I should weed anybody out -- that's for the voters to decide. So basically, if you were ever an All Star and are retired, you're on the list, even if you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the HOF.
In real life, 75% of the voters have to include you on the ballot, which means 12 of the 16 owners have to say "yes" on a particular candidate. As I mentioned, I'll start posting the candidates (with links to their cards) on Monday.
Why a HOF board?
November 17, 2002 at 02:12PM View BBCode
I asked Tyson to create this so we could have one board just for these discussions -- and so it wouldn't clog up the Beta League Talk board. I've put together a list of candidates which I'll start posting next week. To take out all subjectivity, I included every player who a) appeared on the All Star team at least once and b) is retired.I figured if a player was never an All Star, there's no way he belongs in the HOF. For position players, the top two players at each position in each league get in. So basically, if you were never in the top 25% at your position, you aren't on the ballot. I certainly don't think that's too restrictive. Of course, if you think I missed somebody, by all means add them to the discussion.
One problem with this method is that it does put some people on the ballot who are obviously not qualified -- guys who snuck in one year as a backup but were really pretty mediocre. However, I decided not to cut anybody off the ballot who met the above criteria simply because it might be difficult to know where to draw the line and I didn't think I should weed anybody out -- that's for the voters to decide. So basically, if you were ever an All Star and are retired, you're on the list, even if you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the HOF.
In real life, 75% of the voters have to include you on the ballot, which means 12 of the 16 owners have to say "yes" on a particular candidate. As I mentioned, I'll start posting the candidates (with links to their cards) on Monday.
BC
Is there a way to create a comma delimited text file of x players? Sounds strange, but I would think it would be possible. We could then take any player on the ballot, throw them into a spreadsheet for side-by-side comparison instead of clicking on cards one-by-one.
Let's say all retired players could be thrown exported. Then all pitchers with over x amount of wins could be queried out (I personally think wins is a useless and relative stat, but it seems important to people). Or maybe players with a career average over .300.
Just a thought, I don't know how this db is setup or how this system works, but I've done it with mine and find it useful.
November 17, 2002 at 03:57PM View BBCode
I'm just curious.Is there a way to create a comma delimited text file of x players? Sounds strange, but I would think it would be possible. We could then take any player on the ballot, throw them into a spreadsheet for side-by-side comparison instead of clicking on cards one-by-one.
Let's say all retired players could be thrown exported. Then all pitchers with over x amount of wins could be queried out (I personally think wins is a useless and relative stat, but it seems important to people). Or maybe players with a career average over .300.
Just a thought, I don't know how this db is setup or how this system works, but I've done it with mine and find it useful.
Bob
November 17, 2002 at 06:33PM View BBCode
I actually have an Excel spreadsheet of all the players who appeared in the AS game and have retired. I don't think I can attach the file, but if you send me a U2U with your e-mail address I'll gladly send it to you.
dawgfan
1. Are we operating under the MLB standard of selecting a "class" after every season, where deserving candidates may get passed over initially and then are inducted in later seasons?
2. How restrictive do we want to make this Hall?
3. Are we giving some consideration for missed playing time for outstanding players that started 1950 in their 30's and thus didn't have long recorded careers?
----------------------
I also have some comments to make about choosing candidates: I think it's important to consider context when making these choices. We all come into this game with a preconceived notion of what stats should look like for players, but much of that is driven by context. For example, when I was growing up and starting to pay attention to baseball, a 30 HR season was very good, and reaching 40 HR was outstanding; 50 HR was almost unthinkable. Obviously, the game has changed in the last 20 years, and power totals have increased dramatically.
That's why it's going to be very interesting over the next 10-20 years to see how players like Rafael Palmiero for example do in HoF balloting - yes, he hit a lot of HR and had a high average, but given the context in which he played, was he truly outstanding? Similarly, I believe we need to apply the same analysis to the numbers we see within this Beta baseball universe, one in which pitching has been dominant.
I also think it's important to consider a player within the context of his position; while I don't advocated taking a decent player just because he was the best at his position, I do think that such a player warrents serious consideration.
The online spreadsheet BC has posted is an outstanding tool to help evaluate candidates; I recommend visiting that site, and using the auto-filter to look at specific positions. I think the most important things to look at are the player's OPS numbers (for hitters) and WHIP and ERA (for pitchers).
November 18, 2002 at 04:30PM View BBCode
Some questions on how we want this Hall of Fame to operate:1. Are we operating under the MLB standard of selecting a "class" after every season, where deserving candidates may get passed over initially and then are inducted in later seasons?
2. How restrictive do we want to make this Hall?
3. Are we giving some consideration for missed playing time for outstanding players that started 1950 in their 30's and thus didn't have long recorded careers?
----------------------
I also have some comments to make about choosing candidates: I think it's important to consider context when making these choices. We all come into this game with a preconceived notion of what stats should look like for players, but much of that is driven by context. For example, when I was growing up and starting to pay attention to baseball, a 30 HR season was very good, and reaching 40 HR was outstanding; 50 HR was almost unthinkable. Obviously, the game has changed in the last 20 years, and power totals have increased dramatically.
That's why it's going to be very interesting over the next 10-20 years to see how players like Rafael Palmiero for example do in HoF balloting - yes, he hit a lot of HR and had a high average, but given the context in which he played, was he truly outstanding? Similarly, I believe we need to apply the same analysis to the numbers we see within this Beta baseball universe, one in which pitching has been dominant.
I also think it's important to consider a player within the context of his position; while I don't advocated taking a decent player just because he was the best at his position, I do think that such a player warrents serious consideration.
The online spreadsheet BC has posted is an outstanding tool to help evaluate candidates; I recommend visiting that site, and using the auto-filter to look at specific positions. I think the most important things to look at are the player's OPS numbers (for hitters) and WHIP and ERA (for pitchers).
Bob
1. I think that is too complicated. I'd rather just vote on every player once -- if he gets 75% of the vote he's in. If he doesn't, he's out of the running for good. Just my opinion, though.
2. I like a fairly restrictive HOF, but that's just me. I think that's for each individual voter to decide. The 75% rule allows a mix of liberal and conservative voters. Just for reference, 3 people have voted on the current candidates so far. Two voted "yes" on 3 players, the other voted "yes" on 2 players.
3. Again, I think that's up to the individual voters. Personally, I give some consideration to players who were older when the league started, but it's tougher for them to get in. If someone only played 7 years, they'll have to be truly outstanding to get my vote.
I think it's exactly these types of questions that make things fun -- and realistic. There's always a debate about who deserves to get into the HOF. Does someone with a short but spectacular career get in? How about a guy who plays 20 years, is above average but never spectacular? Let the voters decide and the debates begin.
November 18, 2002 at 04:45PM View BBCode
My thoughts on dawgfan's questions.1. I think that is too complicated. I'd rather just vote on every player once -- if he gets 75% of the vote he's in. If he doesn't, he's out of the running for good. Just my opinion, though.
2. I like a fairly restrictive HOF, but that's just me. I think that's for each individual voter to decide. The 75% rule allows a mix of liberal and conservative voters. Just for reference, 3 people have voted on the current candidates so far. Two voted "yes" on 3 players, the other voted "yes" on 2 players.
3. Again, I think that's up to the individual voters. Personally, I give some consideration to players who were older when the league started, but it's tougher for them to get in. If someone only played 7 years, they'll have to be truly outstanding to get my vote.
I think it's exactly these types of questions that make things fun -- and realistic. There's always a debate about who deserves to get into the HOF. Does someone with a short but spectacular career get in? How about a guy who plays 20 years, is above average but never spectacular? Let the voters decide and the debates begin.
dawgfan
November 18, 2002 at 05:16PM View BBCode
Another point to consider, and one I haven't seen mentioned yet - not one of the candidates listed won an MVP award. Food for though when deciding on this group of players who's careers were started at midpoint...Pages: 1