Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Playoff Hall of Fame project, group 12

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

  • jalbright
    started a topic Playoff Hall of Fame project, group 12

    Playoff Hall of Fame project, group 12

    Playoff HOF rules

    1. This project will start with 512 major leaguers selected by me. I started with the top 500 in BBref WAR, sorted out the guys who hadn’t retired, and added in major leaguers who made the actual Hall or who made it in some of our shadow hall projects. I added a few other suggestions and changes, and went with those 512

    2. Those 512 were organized randomly into 64 groups of eight. I’d prefer voters to rank them 1 through 8, with each player getting 8 points minus his ranking. I will accept votes that only name the four they think are the best HOF candidates out of the group. In that instance, the four named will be counted as being in fourth place, the other four as being in fifth place. This last provision is meant to help increase participation. I envision each election taking only one week, though in cases of holidays or other issues, I reserve the right to extend that time.

    3. I will go through the entire first round before proceeding to the second, the entire second before proceeding to the third and so forth. In the first round, four from each group will go on into the 1-0 bracket, and four will go on to the 0-1 bracket. That will yield 256 in each half.

    4. For the second round, we will start with the winners bracket. Half, or 128 will go to the group of 2-0 players. The other half will drop into the group of 1-1 players. Then we’ll get to the losers bracket. The winners will also go into the 1-1 bracket, yielding 256 players in that group. The guys in the first group who are 1-0 and then lose in the second round will fill in in four spots in the 32nd group of 1-1 players, then the second group of 1-0 guys to lose to go into the 1-1 pool will go into the 31st group and so forth to avoid as much as possible facing the same guys multiple times. The winners of the first 0-1 group will fill in the remaining four spots in the first 1-1 group, the winners of the second 0-1 group will fill in the remaining four spots of the second 1-1 group and so forth. The losers of the 0-1 group will fall to the 0-2 group.

    5. For the third round, the winners of the 2-0 group are inducted, and the losers of the 0-2 group are eliminated. That’s 64 in each of the inducted and eliminated groups. The losers of the 2-0 group go to the 2-1 group, which will provide 64 of the 192 players in the 2-1 group. The other 128 will come from the winners of the 1-1 group. I will assign the losers from the 2-0 group starting in the 12th group of 2-1 players and then filling in every third slot until they’re filled, again to try and minimize facing too many of the same players faced in earlier rounds. I will do the same thing for the winners of the 0-2 among the 1-2 players

    6. For the fourth round, the winners of the 2-1 group (96 of them) will be inducted, driving the total up to 160 inductees. Similarly, the losers of the 1-2 group are eliminated, meaning 160 of the original 512 are now out. The remaining 192 will be in the 2-2 group. For the 2-2 group, the first 2-1 losers will be in the first 2-2 group, the second 2-1 losers in the second 2-2 group, and so on. For the 1-2 winners, the first group goes to the 24th 2-2 group, the second to the 23rd, and so on.

    7. The 96 losers of the fifth round will be saved as reserves in case we need to replenish the pool of players when we go annual. The 96 winners of the 2-2 round will compete in the sixth round. The 48 winners of that round are inducted to bring us to 208 inductees. The 48 losers of the 3-2 round will compete in the seventh round. The 24 winners of the seventh round are inducted, which will get us 232 MLB inductees.. The 24 losers will be the first players to populate the pool to use against retired players.

    8. I will keep a list of the 12 players who went in as third or fourth place candidates in the seventh round as a reference for my two VCs, one for Japanese players, the other for players in a wide definition of Negro Leagues including any league with large numbers of Negro Leaguers, such as Mexico in the 1940’s, Cuba into the integration years, the Puerto Rican Winter League, the 1937 Dominican League, and so forth

    9. The point of this reference is that the middle of those 12 names should be used as one point of reference for what the floor should be considered to be for the VC selections. I will keep a list of the sixth third place candidates from the sixth fourth placers to aid people in determining where that middle point is. I will mandate that a minimum of five Japanese players must be inducted, and twelve Negro Leaguers. However, I will allow the VC voters to determine how many of the players in each group presented to them are over the floor level represented by the middle of the last 12 inductees list. I will add up the average number of candidates the VC members believe are over that floor for all groups in the category (Negro Leagues or Japan), and if it is higher than my mandated floor, that is how many candidates from that category will be inducted. If not, the mandated floor will be use,

    10. The VCs will have a playoff ranking within the category much like was used for the major leaguers. I will have to adjust the numbers to fit the number of inductees we determine and the number of candidates I offer to the VC.

    11. I won’t worry about ties except where they straddle the line between winners and losers in a group. In that case, the tie goes to the candidate getting the most first place votes, then the most second place, and so on to the last place in the group. If that does not break the tie, there will be a runoff election. If that remains tied, random selection methods such as coin flips or high card will be used to break the tie

    12. A quorum for the major leaguers will be six votes. I suspect I would accept a quorum of four for the VC groups

    13. People may vote on only the major leaguers if they wish. People may choose to only participate in one or both VCs. They may participate in the MLB players and only one VC or they may be part of all three.

    14. The VCs will follow the selection of the first 232 MLB players. I will probably select some players who are not selected by the VCs to be put in the pool, and maybe some others to be placed among the reserves. Until the number of inductees are determined for the VC groups, this decision will have to be put on hold.

    15. One issue is player/managers. It will be up to the individual voter on players to determine how much credit for managing the voter wishes to give the person for managing at the same time he played, with the instruction that if he was a part time player the credit given should be smaller than if he was full time. If he wasn't playing or just getting a few ABs, the managing credit should be minimal that year in the player vote. However, this project is exclusively about players, so if a man managed after his playing days, that managing should not be considered.

    16. I will put the lists I intend to use for the VCs out in advance of the deliberations of those groups to permit discussion of possible additions or omissions on my part. My reason for not doing so now is I expect additional research to take place between now and the time we’re close to getting to the VCs, and I’d prefer to come up with the final list only once, and in this environment, it should come closer to the end of the MLB group than now to allow for the insights from that research to be included.

    17. It seems certain there will be retirements and/or deaths of players between now and the end of the VC deliberations. Once the VCs are done, we will put those players in the pool and select two for each season to have passed since the beginning of this project. Once that is done, we will go annual, electing two per year from the pool.

    18. If we get over 40 players in the pool, we will have a playoff to cut the number to 30. One way we will use to avoid playoffs is to cut players from the pool is to drop players from the pool to the reserves if they fail to make the final election for inductees three times. Once that happens, they will be ineligible to return to the pool for three years. If the pool drops below 12 names, we will have a playoff for the candidates in the reserves to bring the list back up to at least 24 names in the pool. If there is a playoff among the reserves, I will probably cut the number of reserves to no more than 48.

    19. I will maintain lists of the inductees, those in the pool, and those in the reserves, I will also have available a post of the current round and the round to come for the information of participants

    20. This project is open to everyone member of Fever in good standing who has not been barred from similar projects.

    21. You have to rank all the players in the group. One omission from the group would be plugged in at 8th if I cannot get the voter to correct it on his or her own. If there are two or more open spaces, the ballot cannot be counted. If a voter sees fit to put PED guys or gambling-tainted players at the bottom of the list, that's within his or her prerogative.

    22. I will promise to count changes to your ballot if you 1) make the change less than five minutes before I close the balloting (I won't do it before 7 am Saturday without notice of an intent to do otherwise)., and 2) either PM me or post in the thread to notify me of the change. If you do not do the second, I'll try to keep up with changes, but I will not guarantee it. The first condition has no exceptions.

  • jalbright
    replied
    The four that move on to the winners bracket this time are Randy Johnson, Duke Snider, Carl Hubbell and Enos Slaughter. The rest move on to the loser's bracket. The official results:
    ....
    Code:
     
    77 Randy Johnson
    61 Duke Snider
    60 Carl Hubbell
    39 Enos Slaughter
    29 Buddy Bell
    21 Tony Oliva
    19 John McGraw
    2 Dizzy Trout

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    1. Randy Johnson
    2. Carl Hubbell
    3. Duke Snider
    4. Enos Slaughter
    5. Buddy Bell
    6. Tony Oliva
    7. John McGraw
    8. Dizzy Trout

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    bumping this up with about a day and a half or two left.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Originally posted by NJRob65 View Post

    Snider & Hubell aren't really an interesting comparison. Additionally, you already have Hubbell 2nd.
    I'm a man after my own heart.

    Leave a comment:


  • NJRob65
    replied
    Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
    Snider and Hubbell are an interesting comparison. Hubbell gets very little talk from any of us. I can't remember his name ever really coming up here. I might be putting Hubbell at #2 now.
    Snider & Hubell aren't really an interesting comparison. Additionally, you already have Hubbell 2nd.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Snider and Hubbell are an interesting comparison. Hubbell gets very little talk from any of us. I can't remember his name ever really coming up here. I might be putting Hubbell at #2 now.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigRon
    replied
    Interesting, pretty strong group.

    1. RJohnson- clear number 1, top 10 alltime pitcher
    2. Snider- around 50 as position player, just edges out
    3. Hubbell, around 25 as pitcher- I view Snider and Hubbell as having very similar careers
    4. Slaughter- I give him some wartime credit
    5. BBell- never a great player, but a good one for a really long time- a hair ahead of
    6. Oliva, a hair ahead of
    7. McGraw- great player, short career
    8. DTrout- a very good pitcher, but probably the only one on this list without a HOF argument

    I see 5, 6, and 7 as basically interchangeable
    Last edited by BigRon; 02-11-2019, 11:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    1. Randy Johnson
    2. Duke Snider sligggggghtly ahead of
    3. Carl Hubbell
    4. Buddy Bell slighggggggtly ahead of
    5. Enos Slaughter
    6. Tony Oliva sliggggggggthly ahead of
    7. John McGraw
    8. Dizzy Trout

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

    I'm surprised you don't like McGraw the player for the HoF. Seems like your type of guy even though he's all peak.
    If he had two or three more years like that, yes, I'd agree. I think he was very good, but just not enough for me. The very short career, all peak guys (Charlie Keller and Hughie Jennings also come to mind) aren't HOFers in my estimation. Heck, I'm a guy who isn't convinced that Mike Trout is a HOFer already, and wants him to have one more big year before acclaiming him to be a HOFer.

    Nomar had the same issue last round too...just not enough of a career.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post

    Thanks Jim, poor phrasing on my end.
    If you post enough, you're bound to run into that problem sooner or later. The only reason I posted is what you wrote sounded like this is a single elimination It's not quite a triple elimination format, but that's the closest model to what I've got set up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jar of Flies
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post

    Everybody has three at least three rounds. If you win the first three or even three of the first four, you're inducted. If you lose the first three or three of the first four, you're eliminated from further consideration. It gets more complicated after that, but it's spelled out in the rules (start with rule 7 for the 2-2 group)
    Thanks Jim, poor phrasing on my end.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
    Loaded ballot with everyone at least having an outside argument for HOF status or high hall of very good.
    ...
    4. Enos Slaughter - mid-level HOF with war credit, but he might miss the 2nd round with the stiff competition.
    Everybody has three at least three rounds. If you win the first three or even three of the first four, you're inducted. If you lose the first three or three of the first four, you're eliminated from further consideration. It gets more complicated after that, but it's spelled out in the rules (start with rule 7 for the 2-2 group)

    Leave a comment:


  • Jar of Flies
    replied
    Loaded ballot with everyone at least having an outside argument for HOF status or high hall of very good.

    1. Randy Johnson - last active pitcher with 4000 IP, will we see another...pushing inner circle status despite the late start of quality campaigns.
    2. Carl Hubbell
    3. Duke Snider
    4. Enos Slaughter - mid-level HOF with war credit, but he might miss the 2nd round with the stiff competition.
    5. John McGraw
    6. Buddy Bell
    7. Dizzy Trout
    8. Tony Oliva

    Leave a comment:


  • NJRob65
    replied
    1. Randy Johnson
    2. Duke Snider
    3. Carl Hubbell
    4. Buddy Bell
    5. Enos Slaughter-credit for military service
    6. John McGraw
    7. Tony Oliva
    8. Dizzy Trout

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X