Hall of Very Good Schematics

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

One of my favorite things on BBF is run a project series. I've had some decent ones and some bad ones. I'm willing to give this a try because I have no problem with people politely declining.

Some players do not deserve HoF enshrinement. They just weren't good enough. At the same time, they played at a level deserving partial recognition, similar to the status of being a multiple all-star or entering a team's HoF. Before I embark on this project, I'd like to get some input.

Who is a Gooder (someone belonging in the HOVG)? First, we will not induct nonplayers. Second, only players of a major league are eligible. We have a hard enough time dealing with Negro Leaguers as is, no need to get complicated. With these in mind, a Gooder is:

1. a player who IS NOT currently in the Hall of Fame
2. a player who is eligible for the Hall of Fame (ten seasons played and retired at least five years ago). This includes players who are on the ballot and are likely HoFers. We will adjust if they are elected.

Each round is broken down according to last name. There are eight rounds: A-C, D-F, G-J, K-M, N-P, Q-R, S-U, W-Z. Voters will submit ballots of 20-35 players. Anyone they believe is worthy of the actual HoF must be noted. Should such players receive 75% of HoF support, they will be omitted. Players receiving at least 75% of votes to be a Gooder will be inducted to BBF Hall of Very Good. The minimum amount of inductees per round is 20, whereas the max is 25. Should we go over/under these boundaries, then the next possible players are selected, either those with the most support or those nearest to 75%. It isn't the end of the world if we go over/under. Based on these guidelines the HoVG should hold somewhere between 160-200 players.

Thoughts?

[J W]

Since the proverbial Hall of Very Good is reserved for players who should not be Hall of Famers, I would say that voters consider NOT voting for players they believe should be in Cooperstown. In other words, if a player is too good for the Hall of Very Good he should not be elected. That will give us a better idea of where the heart of the HoVG lies.

For example, if Dick Allen is included in the A-C election I wouldn't vote for him, because I believe he is a solid Hall of Famer.

Also, consider lowering the WAR requirement for entry to 25.0 as there are a number of players I would consider voting for with a WAR between 25 and 30.

[Freakshow]

--I highly recommend you allow for subjectivity in deciding who is eligible. I would say that 30 WAR automatically gets you on the ballot (about 450 players). Some players less than that should be allowed, based on your opinion. The problem is no matter where you draw the line there are players just below it who are good candidates. Suppose you lower it to 25 WAR. Just below that line I see Charley Jones (24.9), Elston Howard (24.5), Lefty O'Doul (24.2) and Dan Quisenberry (23.9).
--I think you really need to specify the size of the HOVG, as that tends to establish a minimum standard for inclusion. Without this you have a Tower of Babel with every voter working from a different base, arguing past each other (like the HOF). I recommend either 207 (the current number of MLB players in the HOF) or a nice round 100.
--J W brings up your major obstacle, drawing the line between deserving HOFers and the Gooders. It's why I did the Purgatory project first. What you could do here is put all the candidates on the ballot, but have voters specify which players they're voting for who they would put in the HOF. So have Dick Allen on the ballot so everyone can weigh in on his case; allow him admission to the HOVG if he fails to draw enough HOF support.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Good stuff, guys. Instead of setting up a poll thread, would it be preferable to have everyone list who they believe is a Gooder/HoFer? For example, if I think that 20 guys with last names A-C belong in the HoVG, I just list everyone I want? Those I believe deserve the HoF will be noted?

As for the size, I'm thinking of a max of 25 and min of 20 inductees per round. A-C, D-F, G-J, K-M, N-P, Q-R, S-U, W-Z are the planned rounds. That comes to somewhere between 160-200, almost the size of the HoF. I want to keep it smaller because it gets to a point where players are quite indistinguishable. Voters must have between 20 and 35 players in their ballots.

And I'll scrap the WAR qualifier. I didn't realize how many players it still included.

[dgarza]

And I'll scrap the WAR qualifier. I didn't realize how many players it still included.

You probably would have had to adjust WAR levels for relievers anyway. 25 would have been too high. In some cases, 20 would have been too high.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Anyone else care to chip in or are all systems go?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

One more bump to see the interest then I'll start. Things are looking bleak. I'm hoping to rally support

[J W]

So if I have this right, we submit our ballots as we see fit, and the top 20-25 names are inducted per round?

I dunno, sounds more like a screening committee to me to come up with a nominee list. The results leading to election will be skewed towards players who would get 50-75% of the "omission" vote, and that list will end up looking much like some of our other projects.

I kind of like this idea if it's ok: subtract the "omission" vote from the "election" vote total, then take a smaller number of the highest rated players. That would give us the heart of the HoVG; our median "Gooders". With the HoF the idea is going from the top down... whereas with the HoVG the idea is going from the middle out. Does that make sense?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I kind of like this idea if it's ok: subtract the "omission" vote from the "election" vote total, then take a smaller number of the highest rated players. That would give us the heart of the HoVG; our median "Gooders". With the HoF the idea is going from the top down... whereas with the HoVG the idea is going from the middle out. Does that make sense?

That was actually my idea. After those omitted, I go right down the line. This was implied in my head, but after reading my first post I realize that it this wasn't evident. Sorry. But yes, your idea was my intention.

I'm going to get to work on this. I hope it ends up being something worthwhile. If not, I always have fun running 'em.