Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Your Vote: 2018 Modern Baseball Era Election

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
    I won't give you a civic lesson - voting is not a right - but that was precisely my point: the vote can (and should) be taken away from BBWAA members who do not exercise it responsibly. At the very least, that's completely unfeasible in the larger realm of American politics.
    Every U.S. citizen 18 or older is entitled to vote, unless they lose the right due to criminality or mental defect. One must register first, but that doesn't negate the right, it's just a condition.

    I don't know exactly how you're defining "right", but if voting isn't a right, then neither is free speech, religious practice, or bearing arms.

    The right to vote was limited in the past, by race, gender, and going way back, by lack of wealth/property...that was wrong, and fortunately we've corrected those laws.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cougar View Post

      Every U.S. citizen 18 or older is entitled to vote, unless they lose the right due to criminality or mental defect. One must register first, but that doesn't negate the right, it's just a condition.

      I don't know exactly how you're defining "right", but if voting isn't a right, then neither is free speech, religious practice, or bearing arms.

      The right to vote was limited in the past, by race, gender, and going way back, by lack of wealth/property...that was wrong, and fortunately we've corrected those laws.
      Excuse me. Voting is a not a natural right - like freedom of conscious, of one's own labor, to contract freely, to defend one's self and one's property, etc. Those rights are protected by the constitution, not granted by it. Voting, on the other hand, is a privilege granted by law. There is no natural right to participate in an election. Were there no government of any kind, individuals would still retain and exercise their rights. Voting would not be among them. That's the distinction.

      As to whether the franchise should be restricted to people with a greater vested interest in the outcome of the election (heads of household, property owners, responsible citizens, etc.) that is your critical judgment, not a moral wrong and if you look at the results of elections as the franchise has been expanded, you must admit the quality of those elected has declined considerably. (You aren't alone in your critique, but it is just an opinion. Plenty of people who argue that the nation would be better off if, for example, the voting age were raised and people who did not pay taxes, own property or from whom the government was supporting them were not permitted to vote.

      But this isn't a political thread so let's stick with the issue at hand: the BBWAA and the fact that their ability to vote for the Hall of Fame is a privilege bestowed by the institution, not a birthright to which they are entitled.
      "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
      "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
      "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
      "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

      Comment


      • #33
        You certainly contributed to making it a political thread with your pontification and then claimed it wasn't a political thread.
        Last edited by NJRob65; 11-14-2017, 03:23 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
          Excuse me. Voting is a not a natural right - like freedom of conscious, of one's own labor, to contract freely, to defend one's self and one's property, etc. Those rights are protected by the constitution, not granted by it. Voting, on the other hand, is a privilege granted by law. There is no natural right to participate in an election. Were there no government of any kind, individuals would still retain and exercise their rights. Voting would not be among them. That's the distinction.

          As to whether the franchise should be restricted to people with a greater vested interest in the outcome of the election (heads of household, property owners, responsible citizens, etc.) that is your critical judgment, not a moral wrong and if you look at the results of elections as the franchise has been expanded, you must admit the quality of those elected has declined considerably. (You aren't alone in your critique, but it is just an opinion. Plenty of people who argue that the nation would be better off if, for example, the voting age were raised and people who did not pay taxes, own property or from whom the government was supporting them were not permitted to vote.

          But this isn't a political thread so let's stick with the issue at hand: the BBWAA and the fact that their ability to vote for the Hall of Fame is a privilege bestowed by the institution, not a birthright to which they are entitled.
          “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”Benjamin Franklin

          Alexander Hamilton famously said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end ."

          "[Democracy] can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." -A. Tyler

          "When the public discovers they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the [American] experiment will be over"-Tocqueville 1838

          "Democracy will cease to exist when people realize they can vote themselves more money"- Thomas Jefferson
          Last edited by JR Hart; 11-14-2017, 02:33 PM.
          This week's Giant

          #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

          Comment


          • #35
            My four are Garvey, Murphy, Parker, and Trammell. Thought I would not have an issue with any of the players on the ballot receiving the honor.

            As others have mentioned, I don't like Miller being on the ballot for the simple reason that he takes a vote away from a potentially deserving player. Executives should be considered separately. Thus I excluded him from my personal consideration.
            The Writer's Journey

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
              I don't get the voters who vote for less that 4 and leave Simmons off?? Where does he fall short?


              modern metrics coming
              Wait. What? Sabermetrics is a HUGE fan of Simmons. It was through Bill James that I came to realize how great he was. And Strat-O-matic (which like it or not is sabermetrics too) which had him as an OB machinbe. WAR puts him with 50 WAR anod over most catchers currently in the HOF. He is the only catcher in history with 50 WAR that isn;t in the real HOF. I didn't think of him as a HOFer UNTIL I looked at him through analytics.

              It was traditional voters who gave him 3.7% in his first BBWAA vote and kicked him off first ballot. Which given the emphasis you put on actual HOF voting to rank players (Grich stinks, etc.) - I am surprised you think of Simmons as highly as you do.

              1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

              1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

              1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


              The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
              The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by hairmetalfreek View Post
                My four are Garvey, Murphy, Parker, and Trammell. Thought I would not have an issue with any of the players on the ballot receiving the honor.

                As others have mentioned, I don't like Miller being on the ballot for the simple reason that he takes a vote away from a potentially deserving player. Executives should be considered separately. Thus I excluded him from my personal consideration.
                Marvin Miller is absolutely deserving of the HoF as are Luis Tiant & Alan Trammell, none of the others should be on the ballot. If Marvin Miller wasn't on the ballot, the most likely "substitute" candidate would probably be Dave Concepcion.

                Comment


                • #38
                  This was a pretty rotten ballot considering the depth of better quality players who were left off of it.
                  "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                  "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                  "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                  "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I went with Trammel, Simmons, John and Morris. I also would have taken Murphy.

                    I feel these are all lower to low end HOFers, but if any don't make it, I won't feel bad. Simmons and Trammel rank the highest, being lower rung HOF choices. The others are low end. They all have serious issues: Trammel - inconsistent offensively, Simmons - still not positive how to accurately rank his pitch calling and other defense, Murphy - flamed out early, John - plenty of poor years mixed in, Morris - poor ERA for HOFer.

                    Upon review, Tiant went up in my rankings but fell a little short still. In no one element was he overly impressive enough to push him over the top. Although if he does make it, he won't be the worst in the HOF by a long shot.


                    Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                    This was a pretty rotten ballot considering the depth of better quality players who were left off of it.
                    I disagree, the entire group of possibilities didn't overwhelm me. Sure maybe a Lou Whitaker could be in, but there is not a single player from the other thread who is a glaring omission. Those glaring omissions are the most important to get in.
                    Last edited by Toledo Inquisition; 11-15-2017, 10:17 AM.
                    Q. Which Hall of Famer outlived all but two of his teammates?
                    A. Bobby Doerr. R.I.P.


                    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


                    Go here for a link to all player links! In progress with over 250 names so far! http://www.baseball-fever.com/forum/...player-threads

                    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

                      Wait. What? Sabermetrics is a HUGE fan of Simmons. It was through Bill James that I came to realize how great he was. And Strat-O-matic (which like it or not is sabermetrics too) which had him as an OB machinbe. WAR puts him with 50 WAR anod over most catchers currently in the HOF. He is the only catcher in history with 50 WAR that isn;t in the real HOF. I didn't think of him as a HOFer UNTIL I looked at him through analytics.

                      It was traditional voters who gave him 3.7% in his first BBWAA vote and kicked him off first ballot. Which given the emphasis you put on actual HOF voting to rank players (Grich stinks, etc.) - I am surprised you think of Simmons as highly as you do.
                      SImmons may do well in WAR, but he is really subpar in WAA. Ideally, Simmons should have a 25.0WAA, a 2:1 ratio. Instead his WAA is 18.8. By contrast, Thurman Munson, who has a career WAR of 45.9, has a career WAA of 25.4. Gene Tenace has a career WAR of 46.8 & a career 27.9WAA. Darrell Porter has a 40.8WAR & a 18.3WAA. Thurman Munson has a career 25.4WAA and isn't in the HoF or even on the Modern Era Ballot.

                      Simmons who was underrated when he played, is now overrated. SImmons was the only candidate,ex-player, who wasn't on the BBWAA HoF Ballot for the full 15 years of eligibility, A few of the following candidates, who had both better career WAR & WAA, were on the BBWAA Ballot for a few years, Yes, Simmons is somewhat disadvantaged by being a catcher, but at least ten of these are better candidates:

                      Bobby Grich
                      Lou Whitaker
                      Reggie Smith
                      Rick Reuschel
                      Willie Randolph
                      Graig Nettles
                      Buddy Bell
                      Dwight Evans
                      Sal Bando
                      Keith Hernandez
                      Bobby Bonds
                      Dave Steib
                      Chet Lemon
                      Jose Cruz
                      Jerry Koosman
                      Ron Cey
                      Bert Campaneris
                      Jack Clark
                      Cesar Cedeno
                      Brian Downing
                      Toby Harrah
                      Wilbur Wood

                      Frank Tanana had more total career WAR but less total career WAA

                      The following had more career WAA but less career WAR then Simmons:

                      Fred Lynn
                      Ron Guidry
                      Gene Tenace
                      Thurman Munson
                      Willie Wilson
                      Steve Rogers
                      Davey Lopes
                      John Candelaria
                      Doug DeCinces
                      Andy Messersmith

                      Of the 9 player candidates, I'd rank Simmons 4th, at best, which doesn't mean I feel he's worthy of being on the ballot. In my view, only Trammell & Tiant, are worthy of being on the ballot.

                      1. Alan Trammell
                      2. Luis Tiant
                      3. Tommy John
                      4. Ted Simmons
                      5. Don Mattingly
                      6. Dale Murphy
                      7. Dave Parker
                      8. Jack Morris
                      9. Steve Garvey

                      There were rumors that certain writers found Simmons' personality & alleged drug use off putting and refused to vote for him.
                      Last edited by NJRob65; 11-15-2017, 11:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

                        Wait. What? Sabermetrics is a HUGE fan of Simmons. It was through Bill James that I came to realize how great he was. And Strat-O-matic (which like it or not is sabermetrics too) which had him as an OB machinbe. WAR puts him with 50 WAR anod over most catchers currently in the HOF. He is the only catcher in history with 50 WAR that isn;t in the real HOF. I didn't think of him as a HOFer UNTIL I looked at him through analytics.

                        It was traditional voters who gave him 3.7% in his first BBWAA vote and kicked him off first ballot. Which given the emphasis you put on actual HOF voting to rank players (Grich stinks, etc.) - I am surprised you think of Simmons as highly as you do.
                        He raked, especially for a catcher.

                        BTW I Love SOM and still play.
                        Last edited by JR Hart; 11-15-2017, 11:49 AM.
                        This week's Giant

                        #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                          This was a pretty rotten ballot considering the depth of better quality players who were left off of it.
                          I absolutely agree, but didn't expect otherwise, although I was surprised by the exclusion of Dave Concepcion. Of the ten candidates, 3 were worthy of being elected and being on the ballot: Marvin Miller, Luis Tiant & Alan Trammell. I hope at least that Miller is selected, but more importantly, that Jack Morris is not.
                          Last edited by NJRob65; 11-15-2017, 11:48 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Another thing, what's the knock on Dave Parker? He was arguably the best in baseball for a few years. Then he bounced back and was had an MVP caliber season in 1985.
                            This week's Giant

                            #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              At this point I am just trying to mentally prepare myself for the possibility that a committee of Hall of Famers, executives and BBWAA voters could buy into the craptastic Morris narrative and elect the least deserving player in a generation or two.
                              "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                              "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                              "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                              "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                                Another thing, what's the knock on Dave Parker? He was arguably the best in baseball for a few years. Then he bounced back and was had an MVP caliber season in 1985.
                                As someone who supported Parker's candidacy 20 years ago, I can give you my view.

                                The bottom line is that Parker wasn't great enough for long enough. (Frankly, that's the issue for everyone.) Parker's peak wasn't as dominant as I had previously thought years ago and that's pretty much his whole case - presumably a high peak based on his having been one of the most feared hitters in the game for a number of years. I have very fond memories of Parker when he came to Cincinnati and, later, when he played on the - gag, me - Oakland A's, but the resurrection of his career in his 30s was too little, too late by any measure.

                                It isn't that Parker wasn't a great player, but why Parker over Darryl Strawberry or David Justice or Tim Salmon? Why Parker over Roger Maris or Rocky Colavito or Tony Oliva? Where do you rank Parker, historically, among right fielders? I don't have a precise measurement, but he's closer to #50 for me than #25 and that isn't someone I care to advocate for.

                                Saying a player isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame doesn't mean he was crap. I would take Parker over, say, Jack Morris. For a time, Parker was a legitimately great player and one of the best in the game. You can't say that about Morris (or a bunch of other guys).

                                Having Dave Parker on this ballot but not Dwight Evans or Reggie Smith (who have substantially better cases) is the problem. Alan Trammell (best SS) and Ted Simmons (arguably the best C) from this era don't have the issue that Parker has, which is that he's too far down the list of eligible players from this era to merit a vote.

                                That's my take on it, anyways. Given the dearth of really great candidates on this ballot, someone naming Parker (or Dale Murphy or Tommy John, etc.) as their 4th guy isn't something that would get me worked up because they all have closer cases to Don Mattingly (as an example) than they do Trammell.

                                It's why the nominating process and the way the ballot is assembled are key to a positive outcome - the process should be pushing the best candidates to the forefront of the discussion an 5-6 of the players on this ballot are (IMHO) not the cream of their respective crop.
                                "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                                "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                                "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                                "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X