Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The BBF HoF All-Timeline

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

  • J W
    replied
    Well, it looks like there's not enough support to continue with the project. Thanks to those who PMed me with support.

    And, thanks everyone who took time to participate, any year from 1901 to 1933. As Mark said, if anything we got a very good look at the early years of baseball. The final results will be available on page one. I hope many of you will continue interest for the next project I conjure up, whenever that may be. :gt

    If there's anything you'd like me to help out with regarding the BBFHOF Jim, send me a PM. I know you do a lot of work/analysis for it. Meanwhile, you can go ahead and put the All-Timeline on your reference list.

    The End,
    -JW

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    I'm conducting a poll on whether or not to leave this thread stickied or move it to the Introduction/Resources thread. The poll also asks the same question about the monthly voting thread, the monthly HOF voting thread, and the Albright's musings thread. If there's no response, I'll leave things the way they are.

    I intend to give Timeline voters greater say about their thread, and HOF voters greater say on their two threads. If you don't care, don't vote. If you do, please cast your ballot in this thread: Leave threads Sticky or move them to Intro/Resource thread

    Thanks.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    right; for the BBFHOF there's always next time... whereas eligibility runs out in the All-Timeline.

    The, er, Hydra did not really keep anyone substantial out in this project. Most of the ballots that came from those 5 monikers were a full ten every year.

    I can say that John McGraw would not have made it in his last attempt without those votes.

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright
    This is where he had the greatest potential to do damage, since every vote omitting a player needs three to counteract it. Fortunately, I found few such cases other than Buck O'Neill in the BBF HOF project.

    Jim Albright
    Luckily, player, etc. do not drop off after a certain number of years in the BBF HOF project. I wich McVey would have made it...

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by yest
    another problem the Hydra could have caused is keeping players out of the hall for example in "1925" election Cal McVey got 14 out of 19 votes (73.7%) if the hydra kept him of both ballots he would have got elected 14 out of 18 votes (77.8)
    This is where he had the greatest potential to do damage, since every vote omitting a player needs three to counteract it. Fortunately, I found few such cases other than Buck O'Neill in the BBF HOF project.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • yest
    replied
    another problem the Hydra could have caused is keeping players out of the hall for example in "1925" election Cal McVey got 14 out of 19 votes (73.7%) if the hydra kept him of both ballots he would have got elected 14 out of 18 votes (77.8)

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    OK then--here's what we'll do:

    I'm setting a deadline of the end of the month (12:00 9/1/06). I would like to know how many voters still want to move forward. Indicate you'll still vote via PM as if you were sending a ballot.

    I'll make a determination based on the amount of participants.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Forget it--bad idea.
    Last edited by jalbright; 08-16-2006, 01:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --JW, You could narrow it down even further by only checking those with less than 85% of the vote. Or you could just let the past results stand, which is what I would probably do.
    --I agree there should be a minimum number of votes required for election. Your 9/12 seems reasonable to me. What I would not do is extend the voting in hopes of getting more votes. If the deadline arrives then anyone who doesn't have the minimum number of votes is not elected even if they get 75% support. We then we move on the the next year and they can try again.
    --We might want to set a lower threshold (6?) for guys who get unanimous support though to avoid their exclusion from the inner circle. If we go several elections in a row without sufficient participation then perhaps its time to put the project to bed. I think getting back on a regular schedule might put some life back into the Timeline and help us get past the scandal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freakshow
    replied
    Originally posted by J W
    I'd need to take a good chunk of time to go back and review/change all the elections. Like, a whole day. Progressing through time like this means every election will affect each ballot that comes after it. It'd be very complicated for me to figure out a good estimation of what would have happened... but I'll try my best if enough voters want me to. This is a solution, albeit a messy one--thank you.
    The recount idea was meant for the All-Timeline project, not so much for the BBFHOF. Yes, it is a dirty process, but more feasibly done with the A-T because of its smaller scope (fewer voters, fewer names per ballot, fewer players receiving votes, limited eligibility) compared to the BBFHOF.

    You could even limit the scope of the review to those players elected past the halfway point of their eligibility. That would be this group:

    C Roger Bresnahan - 13th, 78.95%
    1B Frank Chance - 13th, 78.95%
    OF Paul Hines - 14th, 78.95%
    1B Jake Beckley - 15th, 75.00%
    OF George Gore - 15th, 75.00%
    P Mickey Welch - 15th, 75.00%
    P Bob Caruthers - 20th, 75.00%
    SS Jack Glasscock - 21st, 84.21%
    OF Pete Browning - 22nd, 85.00%
    P Vic Willis - 23rd, 76.47%
    P Tony Mullane - 23rd, 76.19%
    SS Hardy Richardson - 23rd, 76.19%
    OF Jimmy Ryan - 24th, 89.47%
    C Charlie Bennett - 24th, 75.00%
    3B John McGraw - 25th, 77.78%
    Last edited by J W; 08-17-2006, 12:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • catcher24
    replied
    Jason - There is a very real chance that the Hydra had a more serious effect on the Timeline project as opposed to the BBFHOF due to the smaller number of voters involved in this project. In reviewing the election percentages, there are several players elected with less than 80% of the vote. If the guilty party was casting four votes for each of those players (constituting between 20 and 25 per cent of the total votes cast), he could have had a major impact. I think any player with 85% or more of the vote would have been elected regardless, but now anyone with less than that percentage has to be suspect. And unfortunately, I see in rereading the first two pages, that the individual in question was in this project from the start.

    All that being said, I think we should leave our results as is and move forward from here. A pretty high percentage of players were elected with 85% or more of the ballot, so that does reduce the number of players in question. And I have to believe that many of the players in question would have been elected anyway. I say what's done is done, don't try to rectify the problem - just go forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright
    I was surprised at the high number of borderline guys we were electing. Many squeaked through with no votes to spare. Now we know why.

    I know that when you're running a project you're happy to get as many voters as you can; you're not really looking for suspiciously similar ballots. I think what I would do is go back and recount each election and omit the duplicate ballots from the same IP address. That would give us a result we could trust. If this bounces a few guys out of the AT Hall, we could hold a special election for these players, one time, yes or no.

    As for continuing, I have usually considered six or seven ballots as sufficient to get a good result in projects that I've headed. YMMV. I'll still vote if the project continues.
    For some projects I agree, six-seven ballots are good... like rankings or categorization of current HOFers. I would really prefer more than that. I'm thinking a minimum of 12, 9 votes needed.

    I'd need to take a good chunk of time to go back and review/change all the elections. Like, a whole day. Progressing through time like this means every election will affect each ballot that comes after it. It'd be very complicated for me to figure out a good estimation of what would have happened... but I'll try my best if enough voters want me to. This is a solution, albeit a messy one--thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    Originally posted by dgarza
    I really like this project, but I do not enjoy the inconsistency of the deadlines. I wish it would move along a little faster. I'm not sure if Cerberus had anything to do with this or not.
    Cerberus... Hydra... I didn't know the perpetrator was Greek.

    If we do continue with this thing, I'm going to revise my policy on getting all the ballots in and perhaps go back to weekly ballots. Problem is, some weekends in the near future (last weekend of August, one weekend in September for sure) I will be out of state, and I do not own a laptop. At the very least I'd institute a hard 2-week deadline.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Catcher, I try to keep my sense of humor, though last week while I was spending way too many hours in detective work, it was hard. But we've "talked" enough that I know where you're coming from--and there's no denying I'm close to as obsessed by this project as the Hydra. I just channel the energy in more productive ways than he did.

    I must tell you it's a relief to have some public discussion of this, as otherwise it's hard to guage how the situation is being perceived. I welcome more such discussion in the BBF HOF discussion thread if anyone is so inclined, but this will suffice if no one wants to discuss this sad affair and its implications further.

    One idea I think would be ripe for discussion is freakshow's one of looking at the Hydra's influence on the results. I've indicated some of my difficulties with this--but not all the most important ones. Two of the sorest subjects in BBF HOF history are likely implicated--Pete Rose and Joe Jackson. Truthfully, those are the two of the three prime reasons (beyond the work for me) I'm not terribly in favor of reopening the can of worms in that project. Subsidiary but important ones are Negro Leaguers and Japanese players, which I already mentioned. It looks like a lot of work to reopen old wounds to me. I trust you can see why I question the wisdom of such a step--but I could have missed something, and maybe the group feels differently about it. However, if we're going to discuss that subject, I think we should move it to the BBF HOF discussion rather than hijack this thread.

    Jim Albright
    Last edited by jalbright; 08-15-2006, 09:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • catcher24
    replied
    Me, go overboard??? Guilty as charged!
    Glad you didn't take any offense. I tried to phrase it to indicate that I didn't think it was necessarily a bad thing, and in this case turned out to be good in that the cheater was caught. Nice work, Detective Albright! But as in real life, so sad someone thought they had to resort to nefarious means to assure attainment of their objective.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X