Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baseball Fever Hall of Fame

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

  • #61
    BaseballProspectus has him -15 FRAA, career. Win Shares is a little kinder, giving him three GGs and putting him in the top 20 in career fielding WS at his position. I'm not saying he was a butcher at third, but he wasn't exceptional either. Maybe that's my real problem with Hack - nothing about him is exceptional. Good, not great hitter. Adequate fielder. Career totals are respectable but not eye-popping. Even going by sabermetrics, Hack's career is impressive - 316 WS, 90 WARP3 - but short of "no brainer" status, and while he had some very good seasons, he never had a string of MVP type seasons that would identify him as a great player. He seems to fall just short on every possible measure - maybe if you put it all together, you get a Hall-worthy player.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by abacab
      I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.
      The standards for 3B are different though, but I agree with you Hack doesn't really deserve it (although I think I may have put him on my ballot for lack of a better candidate). Hack played right after the spectrum jump, so little to no credit there, and he's not the best 3B between Baker and Mathews really (Heinie Groh).

      I don't understand why he's close to election and two of my favorites (Groh and Bando) can't get any support. I see them both as much better candidates at 3B than Hack.

      I don't see Hack having much of a peak either. His best season by Win Shares and WARP (1945) was during the war, and discouting that his three best WS years are 33, 30, and 26, which rates far below Bando and Groh.

      If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.
      Definitely agree there. Welch has never been on my ballot, and he probably never will be. He didn't even really last very long either. Just 300 wins, and 307 wins in all honestly really isn't all that impressive in the 1880s.

      Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.
      The Hall of Fame is for the best players of all time. If you feel Belle meets that criteria, you can vote for him. Belle is in my quene, but I don't think will quite make it next month. He'll probably see my ballot in June.
      Last edited by 538280; 04-26-2006, 01:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Freakshow
        Jim:

        As the new overseer here, I have a point of procedure question for you. It relates to this rule:

        A Players Ballot should list the 25 most deserving candidates (until we have elected at least 90% of the number of players in Cooperstown.)

        90% of 225 is 203 players. We now have 173, so this would imply that after we elect 30 more it will be permissable to submit ballots with less than 25 players listed.

        But, is this the right way to look at it? In that total of 173 are 13 players not eligible for the Coop: 7 who become eligible from 2007-2010; 4 Japanese players; and 2 who are "permanently" banned.


        Might it be reasonable to add these 13 to the Hall's total, making the threshold 90% of 238, or 214 players enshrined before short ballots are allowed? To me, this would be a better way to go. Otherwise, the project will grind to a halt well short of the Coop's total of 225 (and with at least two more to be added next year).

        First, let's take this discussion to the discussion thread, and leave the voting in the voting thread. Second, I don't think that your suggestion was in keeping with Brad's idea (the quoted material on this point was written by Brad), but I will listen to other points of view. Third, the only place it is marginally close to applicable is on the contributor ballot right now.

        Jim Albright
        Last edited by jalbright; 04-26-2006, 07:10 PM.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by jalbright
          First, let's take this discussion to the discussion thread, and leave the voting in the voting thread. Second, I don't think that your suggestion was in keeping with Brad's idea (the quoted material on this point was written by Brad), but I will listen to other points of view. Third, the only place it is marginally close to applicable is on the contributor ballot right now.

          Jim Albright
          This is my 900th posting!

          I think the spirit intended by Brad is embodied in this sentence from the Rules: We seek to match our wits against those of the National Hall of Fame in Cooperstown by comparing and contrasting our selections to their own. To me, this means that any system that falls well short of matching the number of players in the Coop fails the mission of the project.

          Once we start allowing short ballots, our number of electees per month will gradually atrophy. We may find it gets to be tough sledding to get our total up to the Coop's. This is the problem I'm trying to anticipate and prevent, anyway.

          Your third point I, frankly, don't understand. (Perhaps because I don't do the Contributors election.) Please explain.
          Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

          Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

          Comment


          • #65
            --We are closer to the real Hall's number of contributors than players. Short ballots are allowed on the contributor side, although there is still a minimum of 10. FWIW, I endorse Freak Show's proposition.

            Comment


            • #66
              Actually, Mark, we've got to get a few more contributors before short ballots are allowed under the rule promulgated by Brad.

              Let's start with my perspective on my role here. I was asked to take over an existing project in which I have been an active participant. The originator and, before now, only person to have run this project asked me to take it over, and I agreed. Brad may return and might want to resume these duties. Additionally, even if Brad doesn't return or want to resume these duties, it is entirely possible that at year's end or by the end of January next year, I will be looking to get out of this job. The reasons for this are due to factors in my life outside of BBF. I hope that it won't be necessary for us to have a third person running the project within the space of a year, but I cannot promise that will be the case. Therefore, I see myself very much as a caretaker of a going concern.

              Given that perspective and the fact the rule promulgated by Brad was the result of much earlier discussion on the subject of short ballots and is also IMO a clearly written rule, I am loath to change it. One thing which is not specified is how short a ballot is permitted, and given the fact it was Brad's notion that we should match wits with the HOF, I think a rule which indicates that ballots must contain at least enough names such that the minimum number of names which must be on a ballot when added to the number of players already elected to the BBF HOF would equal the number already elected to Cooperstown is acceptable. Thus, for example, if Cooperstown has 230 players elected to it and BBF HOF has 210, a ballot must have at least 20 names on it.

              One of my reasons for citing the fact that the contributor ballot is the one which is the one near the limit is that in terms of players, we are not in a situation where the issue is imminent. Indeed, if we could all somehow agree on the players to elect this month and arranged our ballots to elect the maximum our band of less than 30 could elect, we still would not reach the threshhold for players (I think with less than 30 voters we could theoretically elect a maximum of 26 players in a month).

              We will be facing the issue on the contributor side shortly, however. I welcome input, but since the rules here have not been up for a vote in the past, I will have to be persuaded either by overwhelming support for a position beyond what I have outlined here, or a logical argument why I should adopt a different position given the realities of the situation (the best angle being the continued health of the project given its goals). It may be that our coming experience with short ballots on the contributor side changes my perspective about short ballots on the player side.

              It should be pointed out that simply because short ballots are permitted, it is not certain such ballots will be submitted, much less how prevalent they will be.

              My own opinion is that logically, there is a limit to how many players we should elect and therefore the project will "grind to a halt" at some point. We have already had controversy that we are electing too many (remember wrgptfan?), and I think one of the reasons we have had concerns lately over the degree of participation both in voting and the discussion thread is the fact we are getting much closer to a point where there is a growing sense that we are nearing the end of the line. There are those like leecemark, freakshow and myself who wouldn't mind a larger number than in Cooperstown, but I think it is equally clear that some participants are getting to the point where they think we are electing marginal or worse candidates. I tend to think the rule Brad came up with is a fair compromise position.

              Jim Albright
              Last edited by jalbright; 04-27-2006, 04:21 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


              • #67
                --Brad had previously posted that contributor ballots could be from 10-15 names, starting with this month. Understood on your wish to serve as caretaker and not innovator though. Requiring at least enough names (when we get to less than 25 away) to match Cooperstown works for me.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Yesterday I was dissing players, so today I'll give props to my boys...

                  Max Carey

                  Carey was a master basestealer and centerfielder in the deadball era. He is considered one of the best fielding outfielders ever. He is still in the top 10 all-time in stolen bases. The dead ball era died out when Carey was in his 30s, but he adjusted and became a .300 hitter while continuing to be among the league leaders in steals. In his only World Series, Carey hit .438 as the Pirates came back from being down 3-1. Lou Brock is in the BBF Hall; Carey was Brock with better defense.

                  Elmer Flick

                  Flick was a star slugger at the turn of the century (I mean, the turn that happened 106 years ago, not the turn that happened 6 years ago). His career was cut short by stomach problems; otherwise, he'd probably be remembered as a legend today. In 1900, the NL contracted to eight teams (thus consolidating the talent), but Flick had his best year, hitting .367 with 110 RBI. From 1898 to 1907, Flick's lowest season OPS+ was 120, and it went as high as 172. He led the league in triples three times and stolen bases twice.

                  Rollie Fingers

                  Fingers is getting a bad rap on this site because his ERA+ of 119 is not impressive for a reliever, and because he was clearly not as good as HoF snub Gossage. Fingers also benefitted from playing on the Oakland mini-dynasty; on the other hand, he was one of the main reasons for their success. I think of Fingers as the Mariano Rivera of the 1970s. If you look at the World Series games in '72, '73, and '74, you'll be surprised at how many of them were very close games, and how many Oakland wins were saved by Fingers. He was named WS MVP in '74 after saves in each of the last three games, and he got more than three outs in each of those games. His AL MVP in the strike-shortened 1981, deserved or not, shows how respected he was in his time.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sockeye
                    Harold Baines
                    Jim Bottomley
                    Ellis Burks
                    Orlando Cepeda
                    Will Clark
                    Chili Davis
                    Darrell Evans
                    Dwight Evans
                    Andres Galarraga
                    Bob Johnson
                    Dave Kingman
                    Heinie Manush
                    Edgar Martinez
                    Fred McGriff
                    Al Oliver
                    Dave Parker
                    Tony Perez
                    Vada Pinson
                    Jim Rice
                    Jimmy Ryan
                    Enos Slaughter
                    Rusty Staub
                    Don Sutton
                    Mickey Vernon
                    Mickey Welch
                    Ordinarily, I would not comment on someone's ballot so long as it complied with the rules. There are exceptions to everything, and this ballot is (at least I hope) an exception--or should I say aberration? Given the history of this voter (Beltran for the HOF as a notable thread--it fits with this ballot), I cannot say that I am surprised by its quality, or more accurately, lack thereof. It is very heavily tilted toward players from 1960 onward, which is at least unusual. But what distinguishes it is its utter lack of agreement with the consensus of the group:

                    --it contains only 2 of the 14 players receiving less than 75% but 50% or more of last month's votes;

                    --it contains the grand total of ten names which received absolutely no support last month (most if not all for good reason, IMO);

                    --it contains four more candidates who amassed the sterling total of one vote each last month;

                    --it contains a mere five candidates receiving more than four votes last month;

                    --the candidates on this ballot received the whopping total of 81 votes last month, and average of 3.24 votes per candidate--and if we eliminated the top five vote getters from his ballot, the average would dip to 1.15 votes per candidate.

                    Jim Albright
                    Last edited by jalbright; 04-27-2006, 12:03 PM.
                    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


                    • #70
                      It's the baseball card approach. Looking at a certain set of numbers and those numbers alone, without the slightest hint of the context behind them.
                      Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                      Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                      Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                      Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                      Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        In the interest of full disclosure, I will use the same tests on my player ballot, deducting my vote in all cases and also eliminating the five candidates which were elected:

                        --8 of 14 in the 50-74% group;

                        --none where I was the sole voter naming the candidate;

                        --three where only one other voter named the candidate;

                        --seven where four or less other voters named the candidate;

                        --the 20 unelected names on my ballot, deducting my votes for them, still averaged 9.98 votes per candidate--which means I averaged more votes per candidate even after deducting my own vote and eliminating the elected candidates than all but two of the other voter's candidates received (his third best total was 8 votes).

                        Jim Albright
                        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


                        • #72
                          On the noted ballot:

                          While it does seem an "off" ballot, I'm seeing that there are 6 players similar to my ballot, which is more in agreement than other voters' ballots with mine.(see abacab's post) And I can't knock abacab's ballot in the slightest. And I have not heard much knock about my ballot.

                          Only maybe 5 of those players listed I would probably never vote for. Although I think there are many "more-deserving" available.

                          Why is "Beltran for the HOF" important. Beltran is not on this voter's ballot. And I don't see why totally unrelated and independant threads that a member posts or contributes to should be used to judge a member's ballot. It doesn't seem relevant to me.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Actually, I was judging the ballot on its own skimpy merits. I daresay I haven't seen anyone who has cast a valid ballot in the past six months or more who is so demonstrably out of step with the consensus of the group.

                            Jim Albright
                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by jalbright
                              Actually, I was judging the ballot on its own skimpy merits. I daresay I haven't seen anyone who has cast a valid ballot in the past six months or more who is so demonstrably out of step with the consensus of the group.
                              Recently, no, I do not remember a ballot quite like this. It does seem that there have been much more objectionable, yet "legal", ones in the past.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                The big problem with a ballot like that is the fact it serves to block candidates. There are only two on that ballot with a decent chance of election, so every other candidate has to get three votes just to balance this one ballot out.

                                I'd say ballots should have at least 10 of the 20 top candidates at the end of the month. Adding in the ties at 20, there were 22 such candidates last month. Our voters averaged having 13 of them on their ballots. I had sixteen, you (dgarza) had seven. That seven is a little low, but you have had better months. The ballot I'm questioning has virtually no chance of passing this pretty basic test.

                                Jim Albright
                                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

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X