Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baseball Fever Hall of Fame

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

  • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
    For me, the first thing I look at are peak adjusted OPS+. If a player "makes the cut", I then focus on counting stats, intangibles, period, park adjustment, etc...
    Beckley's 15-year peak OPS+ is 127. Evans' is 122. Beckley was a first baseman. Evans was a third baseman. Beckley played in the 1890s and '00s. Evans played in the 1970s and '80s. How is Beckley the more appealing candidate? What separates them to the point that Beckley is in and Evans is out?
    "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


    • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

      Originally posted by AG2004
      Finally, did the last paragraph of my 6:05 post last evening suffice as proof that I don't use win shares peak as my primery criterion for voting?
      Aren't win shares the first thing you look at with all other aspects more peripheral than anything else? If not, what are you looking at first and foremost? For me, the first thing I look at are peak adjusted OPS+. If a player "makes the cut", I then focus on counting stats, intangibles, period, park adjustment, etc...
      There's a difference between looking at a player's general win share profile and looking at "win shares peak" in particular. I try to take a look at the overall profile, with total career value, peak performance, and the numbers of great and/or good seasons all having importance. But I do not look at the peak in isolation when I first consider players. If I were looking at "win shares peak," first and foremost, those Keltner Lists wouldn't be so long.

      If Chuck Klein were being discussed, I would note that other outfielders with similar career-peak combination were not receiving votes for the BBFHOF, that he had only five seasons with over 20 win shares, and that he didn't show that he could play outside of the Baker Bowl (couldn't he have performed at an All-Star-type level in Wrigley Field when he was with the Cubs?). The major weaknesses in Beckley's case are his low peak and his inability to achieve more than 23 win shares in a season, even with schedule length adjustments. He has other problems, but it's easiest to focus the argument against him on those two flaws.

      Does this clarify matters?

      Comment


      • Yes it does. Thanks.

        Comment


        • Mickey Vernon a HOF Veterans Committee Pre-1943 & Baseball Fever Hall Candidate

          I will get back to you and post my ballot when I've given all candidates proper consideration, but one candidate I'd like to publicize was just placed on a list of only 10 candidates whose careers began before 1943, for election in December by the Hall Of Fame Veterans Committee. I suggest we follow the lead of the Vets' Committee, give him due consideration and ultimately our votes. I'm referring to standout first baseman, Mickey Vernon.
          Vernon was a two-time batting champion, wih nearly 2500 hits, a seven-time all-star, a four decade player (1939-1960) and one of best fielding first baseman ever, who is in the top five in several career fielding categories for first baseman, and is still #1, (the record holder) in double plays participated in by a first baseman. He had a great arm for a first baseman and initiated many of these DPs himself (the 3-6-3).
          While Vernon spent most of his career with the Washington Senators, a second division team most of the time, his oppurtunity for team greatness was not very good (although in his final season he was a player-coach with the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates , who would wind up "winning it all"), but this
          90-year-old still has prospects for individual greatness with the Hall's vote this December and with the current Baseball Fever election.

          -philliesfiend55-

          Comment


          • The weekly status report is that we've had 11 votes cast, and 8 voters from last election have yet to vote. Anybody with six votes needs to sweep all 8 of those votes and pick up another voter who didn't vote last time to make it. As no one at six had the support of more than 4 of the 8 who voted last time, I'm not going to discuss their quite slim chances of making it.

            That leaves five candidates who have received eight votes thus far: Jake Beckley, Darrell Evans, Keith Hernandez, Sam Rice and Vern Stephens. They all need a minimum of one vote, and, if four or less are cast, they need to sweep them. If 5 to 8 are cast, they can miss only one, and if 9 or more are cast, they can miss two. Unsurprisingly to those familiar with last election, Beckley and Evans head the group. Both had the support of six of the remaining eight. That gives them both a chance, but recent history suggests not to get too excited. The other three are longshots, and the odds go from long (Hernandez had the support of 4 of the 8) to longer (Sam Rice had the support of three of them) to longest (Stephens had the support of two).
            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.

            Comment


            • Either way, even if everyone shows up including this new voter, we'll still need a changed ballot unless we have another new voter and can get to 20 votes overall. Beckley's a lost cause but there's a few people that aren't down on giving Evans a go.
              1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

              1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
              1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
              1966 1974 1977 1978


              1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
              2013 2014


              1996 2006

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
                Either way, even if everyone shows up including this new voter, we'll still need a changed ballot unless we have another new voter and can get to 20 votes overall. Beckley's a lost cause but there's a few people that aren't down on giving Evans a go.
                I honestly believe that enough people are sour on Evans and Beckley that they are both lost causes. If you really want to get another player elected, focus on Hernandez and Stephens. Both have a lot less baggage than Evans and Beckley and both are better options.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
                  Either way, even if everyone shows up including this new voter, we'll still need a changed ballot unless we have another new voter and can get to 20 votes overall. Beckley's a lost cause but there's a few people that aren't down on giving Evans a go.
                  For Beckley, you may well be right. I'm not as sure the two yet to vote this time are as set against Darrell Evans, but they may be. Of course, a ballot not cast this time, especially by a holdout, would seriously change the landscape. Also, I'll point out that we're on a pace for 19 ballots, so if that one other voter comes in and everyone else votes, we'd have 20. As it stands, Darrell Evans and Beckley would be at 14 of the "known" ballots, and 15 of 20 would be 75%. So a new ballot could shake things up.

                  However, the folks on the ballot now have this and the next election. That last election before dormancy will have quite a few names to draw attention (Biggio, Piazza, Barry Bonds, Clemens and Sosa), and those candidates will dominate that election. I'd be surprised if anybody currently on the player ballot (except Pearce, and I think his best bet is as a contributor) can get elected that time around.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Roy Thomas before 1898

                    A few weeks ago in the "Progressive HOF" thread for 1915:
                    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
                    One point for Roy Thomas over Beaumont and everyone else is his skill at reaching base. Everyone's favorite measure OPS+ is based on the sum of on-base and slugging averages, which is an approximation. Statistical analysis shows that "one point on base" is more valuable than "one point slugging" so Thomas was a superior batsman despite OPS+ equal to Beaumont's. (Thomas +81 points above league on-base average, -10 points below league slugging average. Beaumont +31 and +47.) Thomas was also a great amateur player for several years before he turned pro, first at the University of Pennsylvania and then at the Orange Athletic Club, Orange NJ. In the field Bill James grades them A- and B+ where B+ may be average in centerfield.
                    I have read some coverage of the Cuban Giants in the New York Times. The Giants played frequently at Orange Oval. For all 1895-1897 games with sufficient detail reported, Thomas batted first (6g) and fielded center (7g) for Orange. Eventually he was the team captain.

                    The Oranges had some social standing and fielded a strong team. Maybe both were necessary in order to get box scores published by NYT. Using ProQuest digital search I hit only seven Giants box scores during those three seasons, six at Orange.

                    One '96 or '97 story mentioned four new players from U of Pennsylvania, same as Thomas in 1895.

                    Comment


                    • Well, with JW now voting for Darrell Evans, the project is a lock to make it through to its annual phase and elect its 250th player.
                      1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

                      1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
                      1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
                      1966 1974 1977 1978


                      1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
                      2013 2014


                      1996 2006

                      Comment


                      • Time for the weekly update. We've had fifteen votes cast so far, and four who voted last time yet to vote this time.

                        That makes my cutoff ten votes. Even at 10, a candidate needs to sweep at least five votes to make it. That means they need at least another voter to vote for them, which is certainly possible. Unfortunately, the two candidates who are at that level, Sam Rice and Vern Stephens, also need far better support from the guys who voted last time. Rice had the support of one of the four, and Stephens the support of none. Their chances of being elected this time are quite poor.

                        There are only two candidates with more votes, both at 12. They are Darrell Evans and Jake Beckley. At twelve votes, candidates can miss one vote of the next four, and two if we get more than that. Darrell Evans is in great shape, as he had the support of all four voters yet to vote. Beckley has a shot, though he only had the support of two of the four voters. The two voters yet to vote who didn't support him last time are likely to continue to vote and I doubt they're going to list Beckley. However, if the other two vote for him and there's new voter(s) who all vote for him, he can still make it.
                        Last edited by jalbright; 09-13-2008, 05:48 AM.
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • Checklist of ideas that I've been brainstorming for the annual elections

                          1) Have a brand new discussion thread & a voting thread stickied here, in the History forum and in the 19th Century forum. I'd even go as far as considering to stick this in Current Events since the ballot will feature players that recently retired.

                          2) Despite the impending election of Evans, there still should be at least a three week gap between our final tri-weekly and the inaugural annual election. I can't stress this enough because I'd really like to have the time to go all out and organize coherent, strong and greatly persuasive arguments for the candidates I support and hope the same can be accomplished for at least everyone earning 40% in our current election.

                          3) A delay period of about a week between the posting of the aforementioned discussion thread and the voting thread. This is of the utmost importance since I'd like for new voters to have a chance to peruse a lot of arguments, join in on the discussion, and vote being informed rather than quickly jotting together a ballot on the first day possible and running off.

                          4) Voting should be at least an entire month, if not longer. We could keep the discussion thread going for about six weeks and the voting for five. Every extra vote helps and since this is a major project (and now only an annual one), it's best that we allow for as many participants as possible along with plenty of opportunity for users to edit their ballots.

                          5) We should not elect contributors at the same time but rather go through the same process early in 2009. Having to vote on two ballots will discourage some newbies and make everything extremely cluttered.

                          6) A minimum bar of a five name ballot should be set. There is no excuse to not have five names on your ballot given that there should be at least two recent retirees that somebody supports along with a few in their queue. This will help us avoid the train being derailed by a lone "Pete Browning"
                          1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

                          1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
                          1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
                          1966 1974 1977 1978


                          1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
                          2013 2014


                          1996 2006

                          Comment


                          • interesting points blueblood

                            I have the hardest time voting in this thread, due to organizational issues. This is my own fault, but it seems I always have to longhand everything here.

                            Anyway, that being said, I like this project and I think blueblood has a number of great points, I like the idea of a long discussion period and adding more voting interest and the time allotment needed to go through the discussion part of the thread. That being said, I'm not sure what my opinions are worth on this project as it is still a perfect cluttered mess in my head and there are many, many others that would be able to respond to these suggestions much more poignantly than I.

                            So, for what's worth...I like your proposals blueblood.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
                              Checklist of ideas that I've been brainstorming for the annual elections

                              1) Have a brand new discussion thread & a voting thread stickied here, in the History forum and in the 19th Century forum. I'd even go as far as considering to stick this in Current Events since the ballot will feature players that recently retired.

                              2) Despite the impending election of Evans, there still should be at least a three week gap between our final tri-weekly and the inaugural annual election. I can't stress this enough because I'd really like to have the time to go all out and organize coherent, strong and greatly persuasive arguments for the candidates I support and hope the same can be accomplished for at least everyone earning 40% in our current election.

                              3) A delay period of about a week between the posting of the aforementioned discussion thread and the voting thread. This is of the utmost importance since I'd like for new voters to have a chance to peruse a lot of arguments, join in on the discussion, and vote being informed rather than quickly jotting together a ballot on the first day possible and running off.

                              4) Voting should be at least an entire month, if not longer. We could keep the discussion thread going for about six weeks and the voting for five. Every extra vote helps and since this is a major project (and now only an annual one), it's best that we allow for as many participants as possible along with plenty of opportunity for users to edit their ballots.

                              5) We should not elect contributors at the same time but rather go through the same process early in 2009. Having to vote on two ballots will discourage some newbies and make everything extremely cluttered.

                              6) A minimum bar of a five name ballot should be set. There is no excuse to not have five names on your ballot given that there should be at least two recent retirees that somebody supports along with a few in their queue. This will help us avoid the train being derailed by a lone "Pete Browning"
                              In short, not what I've signed on for, and not how I'm going to do it. There's going to be one more three week election, and then we're going to do a three week annual election with both contributors and players. After that, it's Classic's baby, and he's free to adopt or reject your thoughts. Your thoughts, though clearly well intentioned, mean more work managing a project I'm tired of managing. I'm not going to volunteer to stretch out the process of being done with it and doing more work in the bargain. Sorry.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Oh, no problem at all, Jim. I wrote all of that knowing full well that Classic would be the person needing to answer me back on it. Your work here running this thing has been absolutely commendable, from vote tallies, persuasive arguments and your handy voting thread - I'm absolutely certain this project wouldn't have been nearly as successful or as enticing to outsiders without your participation.

                                BUT, would you consider stickying the threads?
                                1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

                                1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
                                1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
                                1966 1974 1977 1978


                                1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
                                2013 2014


                                1996 2006

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X