Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 346

Thread: Team Halls of Fame general discussion thread

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    Added the teams to post 58 on the defunct teams (from the NL).
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  2. #62
    I want to use this thread as a general discussion thread for this project. If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, please post in this thread.

    Along those lines, first, some members have made suggestions to improve the Master Thread. I intend to make the Master Thread more expansive and user-friendly, just haven't got around to it yet.

    Second, and this is looking forward a little, but Jim Albright and I have talked about whether to tweak the format at all for expansion franchises. I'm thinking yes, mostly because it doesn't seem fair to provide the same number of votes for franchises that are less than 50 years old than as for franchises that may be over 130 years old. So here's what I propose for when we get to that point in a few weeks:

    1961-1977 Expansion Franchises (Rangers, Angels, Mets, Astros, Nationals, Padres, Brewers, Royals, Blue Jays, Mariners): Reduce the maximum ballot size to 12 players and 3 contributors.

    1993-1998 Expansion Franchises (Marlins, Rockies, Rays, Diamondbacks): Reduce the maximum ballot size to 10 players and 2 contributors, while also requiring that at least 6 ballots be submitted for the election to count. This last element is meant to address concerns that these more recent franchises might not have any deserving members (though I believe at least the Rockies and Diamondbacks have multiple viable candidates). As such, if a voter doesn't believe anyone is worthy, the voter should simply not vote, and there is a sufficient lack of ballots cast, no one will be elected for that franchise.

    Though, on the other hand, I could leave the ballot sizes as is in the thought that voters will not force a vote for say 15 players for a recent franchise if there clearly aren't 15 worthy players.

    Thoughts?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    I wouldn't object to those changes in the ballot size, but I don't think it's a huge issue, as 3/4 would have to agree on a candidate anyway to get them elected. Speaking only for myself, I am apt to abstain from the first election for any franchise where I don't have anyone I would vote for. I don't want to prevent the devotees of such franchises from the opportunity to elect someone, and when a 75% supermajority is required, a blank ballot amounts to trying to do just that. After the first ballot, I won't have any qualms about blank ballots if that's what I believe.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  4. #64
    I like the idea of shrinking the ballot size as you move on to the teams with shorter team histories, but it doesn't matter to me either way for reasons jalbright already mentioned.

    I do think that if anyone wants to submit a blank ballot for a given franchise, they should be required to justify the blank ballot at least for the 1961-1977 franchises as I can't think of a franchise out there outside of possibly the Marlins or Rays that doesn't have at least 1 player deserving of their franchise HOF. I can see a case for not electing anyone to a franchise HOF out of the recent expansion teams, however.

    How are you going to deal with the Nationals (in name when you get to them)? As a franchise, they seem to have absolutely no interest in their Expos era and have only been called the Nationals for a few years. The retired Expos jerseys were transferred to the Montreal Canadians arena when the Expos skipped town and most people here probably think of them as the Expos, still. There are no Nationals candidates from the Nationals era of the organization to my knowledge. It would seem to make more sense to call them the Montreal Expos when we get to them in this one unique case.
    Last edited by jjpm74; 01-20-2011 at 10:06 AM.

  5. #65
    To me it does make more sense to cover the Expos under that name. Say that we know the facts but we agree that too little time has passed to cover the Nationals at all.

    Ballot size makes no difference to me. I have said that I would put at least 50 people in the Braves, Cubs, or Cards hall of fame and after quickly completing a valid ballot for the Giants yesterday, I would say the Giants and maybe the Dodgers too. Add the Reds if we recognize/claim all of 1866 to 1881, which the Cincinnati Reds actually do. As a supporter of perhaps 30 Pirates and Phillies, I expect that I would put at least 15 players from several of the 1961-77 expansion teams (offhand I guess all but the Padres and Mariners).

    Ballot size makes no difference to me because I don't care about first ballot election as a distinction. If lesser Angels than Reds are elected, that's ok. If a few second-round Angels compare well with a few third-round Reds, that's ok. (I think it's more likely that all teams will have roughly comparable candidates available in a third round, even if the ballot size is 15 for all teams. Other voters will cast short ballots and ensure that we do not quickly elect some of the "first-round Angels" in my opinion.)

  6. #66
    If anyone is interested, I have updated the first post in the Master Thread by adding links and additional information. Here's a link, let me know what you think.

    When I get some time, I'll go back and update the individual team posts as well by adding more detailed information about the election results.

  7. #67
    It looks good.
    Probably I would have linked to the last pages of the round one elections, meaning the ones that report the tally. Probably I wouldn't change it.

    When there are multiple elections for one team, I would link subtly in one line.
    Braves Hall of Fame page
    Elections: round 1, round 2
    [two links]

  8. #68
    Import: I have moved this in from the Dodgers Team HOF thread where there is some discussion of the general issue at #15-21, so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beady View Post
    I was thinking New York was the last of the eight cities to be in place in the circuit, but of course it's true the franchise existed earlier. If one were being picky about it, I think it's probably the case that many or all of the franchises go back to the Western League in the 1890's.
    Under a narrow definition which covers the 1950s-60s moves, only Detroit and Milwaukee from the 1901 season went back to the 1899 WL. It's reasonable to call St Paul and the Chicago White Stockings identical; Comiskey retained his place as a director of league affairs and he was the primary owner. The liberal definition that covers the Orioles/Yankees would cover Cleveland (est. 1900) and Washington (est. 1901), at most. As I understand it, leagues sometimes awarded player reserve rights of one defunct team to a new entry, to help them get started and to keep some of the players in the league, but there was no continuous entity that owned those rights. I doubt they were protected under the National Agreement, only within the league.

    I have read contemporary newspaper sports sections in some AL cities, but I have not researched this matter to a conclusion, or I have not remembered it.
    Beady, you may be best placed and most interested in Grand Rapids or Columbus 1899 and Cleveland 1900. The league recruited the Buffalo Bisons (whom it dropped after one season; the club remained in business without an AL franchise) and established the Cleveland club from scratch. Did the league award any reserve rights to the Cleveland club led by Jimmy McAleer?

  9. #69
    There was some discussion about whether voting for mascots as contributors is acceptable. I've given it some thought and I think I going forward we should limit votes to actual individuals and not fictional mascots or "the fans." Of course, the person who dressed up as a mascot and/or created a mascot, is fair game.

    Also, I'm going to try to update the main thread this weekend with individual election results for each team's page.

  10. #70
    I had mentioned scaling back ballot size when we get to expansion teams (which will be this week), but I've reconsidered. People don't always read the rules, and I think it would become too time consuming to police, especially when we do later rounds and the order may be mixed up. So I'll leave the ballot size at 15 and 5 and hope voters use appropriate restraint instead of trying to fill up ballot spots on some of the more recent teams just for the sake of filling the ballot.

  11. #71
    Good decision.

    With no contributors elected on the first round the Boston Red Sox have set a record that will stand forever.

    P.S.
    It's astonishing to visit after more than one week and find my name still at the bottom of the page as most recent contributor to a few threads
    ... and find one-week old activity in the middle of the directory.
    Remember the good old days when the Veterans Committee would meet this fortnight?

    Pitchers and catchers now take all the attention from the Hall of Fame.

  12. #72
    imported from Orioles, round one:

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    Nine players is a record low.
    Three Browns scored 72.7% while one person voted a straight ticket of 15 and 5 Orioles (hwmongoose).
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    I think part of it had to do with the low turnout. We almost always get between 13-15 ballots, and that can make a big difference here. We had 11 ballots submitted this time. I imagine that if we had a twelfth ballot submitted, at least one of those three at 72.7% would have been elected, and that would have brought them to 75%.
    In theory the number of voters is important. The required share of votes is lowest when the number is a multiple of four and highest when the number is one less than a multiple of four. Here is what that means for this project. In round one for the 16 classic teams, the number of ballots has ranged from 11 (Cubs and Orioles, first and last in sequence) to 16 (Yankees). Ten is the minimum for a valid election according to the current rule.

    N ballots
    11 or 15 -- high standard (81.8% or 80% threshold)
    10 or 14 -- intermediate
    13 or 17 -- intermediate
    12 or 16 -- low standard (75% threshold)

    The data for round one show no clear pattern. We elected thirteen Indians and Tigers despite 14 and 15 ballots. We elected only nine Braves, Reds, and Orioles on 14, 12, and 11 ballots. Among those five extreme results, only the Orioles and Braves fit the expected effect. Perhaps a pattern will emerge if get 10-12 voters for most of the expansion teams.

    I'll spare a more complete report, or a useful graph, until we generate more data.
    (By the way, I don't yet know how to post a useful graph here. As a start: in what format can the scan of handmade graph be posted?)
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-03-2011 at 09:55 AM.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    In theory the number of voters is important. The required share of votes is lowest when the number is a multiple of four and highest when the number is one less than a multiple of four. Here is what that means for this project. In round one for the 16 classic teams, the number of ballots has ranged from 11 (Cubs and Orioles, first and last in sequence) to 16 (Yankees). Ten is the minimum for a valid election according to the current rule.

    N ballots
    11 or 15 -- high standard (81.8% or 80% threshold)
    10 or 14 -- intermediate
    13 or 17 -- intermediate
    12 or 16 -- low standard (75% threshold)

    The data for round one show no clear pattern. We elected thirteen Indians and Tigers despite 14 and 15 ballots. We elected only nine Braves, Reds, and Orioles on 14, 12, and 11 ballots. Among those five extreme results, only the Orioles and Braves fit the expected effect. Perhaps a pattern will emerge if get 10-12 voters for most of the expansion teams.

    I'll spare a more complete report, or a useful graph, until we generate more data.
    (By the way, I don't yet know how to post a useful graph here. As a start: in what format can the scan of handmade graph be posted?)
    Good stuff Paul. I definitely think the relatively low turnout supressed the number of electees for the Orioles. Another submitted ballot could have resulted in as many as three more players being elected.

    The difference with the number of electees with some teams though might have more to do with the talent for each team. The Tigers and Indians for example, both seemed to have a large number of players within the 15 allowed that pretty obviously merited election, and thus there was less dissension among voters. The Yankees however, have a pretty obvious group of maybe 6-7 players, followed by an extremely large deserving second tier of about 15 players, and that's where the dissension occurred, as the large group of players vying for ballot space kind of knocked each other out. Essentially, 15 spots was enough to form a consensus over a large number of Tigers and Indians players, while 15 wasn't enough for the Yankees.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Moot Point
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    I'll spare a more complete report, or a useful graph, until we generate more data.
    (By the way, I don't yet know how to post a useful graph here. As a start: in what format can the scan of handmade graph be posted?)
    What I did here was just copy an Excel chart and paste it into MS Paint. I saved the image as a PNG and then posted it as an attachment. I don't think it would have been readily viewable if I had been able to attach it as an Excel spreadsheet. So if you take your scanned handmade graph and do the same, you should be able to post it so people can view it, assuming it's not too big a file.
    *** Submit your personal HOF as your ballot for the Single Ballot BBF Hall of Fame! *** Also: Buck the Fraves!

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    Good stuff Paul. I definitely think the relatively low turnout supressed the number of electees for the Orioles. Another submitted ballot could have resulted in as many as three more players being elected.
    I intended to vote and never got to it, and if I had probably at least two of the candidates on the cusp would have gotten in, quite likely all three.
    “Money, money, money; that is the article I am looking after now more than anything else. It is the only thing that will shape my course (‘religion is nowhere’).” - Ross Barnes

  16. #76
    DJC, Thanks for the technical reply.

    I am skeptical that the effect will be important in this project. At the moment we have two huge counterexamples in the Reds and Tigers. We elected only 9 Reds despite the advantage of 12 voters. (Minimum 9 of 12 votes to elect, versus 9 of 11 for the Cubs and Orioles.) We elected 13 Tigers despite the disadvantage of 15 voters. (Min 12 of 15)

    For now I will simply wait until we have more teams with 10 to 12 ballots cast, I hope.
    ... Oh, I will look at the teams with less than 10 ballots, too, although the elections will be unofficial.


    P.S.
    The Reds have been the most surprising to me so far, nothing to do with the number of ballots cast, which adds only a tiny bit more surprise. Why does consensus about their greatest players fall short?

    The Red Sox with not one winning contributor are amusing.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-04-2011 at 09:23 AM.

  17. #77

    Count players with 1000 IP, 4000 PA

    Innings Pitched milestones with one team (number of player-team careers)
    2000, 1500, 1000 IP
    1 3 08 TEX
    2 5 14 LAA
    3 5 11 NYM
    2 9 14 HOU

    So the Astros have nine 1500-inning pitchers; the Senators/Rangers have three (bold).

    Here are the Innings Pitched leaders for these four teams.
    3045 Tom Seaver, NYM
    2675 Chuck Finley, LAA
    2544 Jerry Koosman, NYM


    Plate Appearances milestones with one team (number of player-team careers)
    8000, 6000, 4000 PA
    0 3 11 TEX
    1 3 09 LAA
    0 0 10 NYM
    2 6 15 HOU

    So the Astros have six 6000-pa batters; the Mets have none (bold).

    Here are the Plate Appearances leaders for these four teams.
    12503 Craig Biggio, HOU
    9431 Jeff Bagwell, HOU
    8480 Garret Anderson, LAA


    P.S.
    I have looked at 3000 pa and 2000 pa milestones. The four counts are 19,20,18,22 and 42,36,38,39. There may be little scope for variation in frequency of career milestones down at those levels, for these teams which have played 50 or 49 seasons.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-08-2011 at 09:56 AM.

  18. #78
    Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,538
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.
    I can understand that. My only concern was throwing out the results when you had 8 or 9 guys buying into one candidate, and that would be enough to elect if in fact you had 10 voters. The rest of the details are in your capable hands as the manager of the project.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Moot Point
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.
    In my opinion, the four most recent expansion teams really don't have enough eligible candidates for a substantial Hall of Fame. A lot of their best players are still active. You might consider ending Round One after the Blue Jays and Mariners elections are done. Alternately, you could have a joint Hall of Fame for the Rockies, Marlins, D'backs, and Rays.
    *** Submit your personal HOF as your ballot for the Single Ballot BBF Hall of Fame! *** Also: Buck the Fraves!

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •