Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1920 Discussion

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

  • BBF VC Progressive HoF Election: 1920 Discussion

    Time seems right to get this going. First the rules and format:

    Members and Format: The Veterans Committee is made up of 12 members (we may expand later) who will meet every 5 years to deliberate and then vote to elect players, pioneers, and contributors to the Hall of Fame. There will be separate ballots for each category. The 12 current members are: ag2004, blueblood, classic, dgarza, doublex, freakshow, jalbright, jjpm74, leecemark, paul wendt, philkid3, and windycityfan. Anyone is free to participate in the discussions, but only these 12 members will vote.

    Players Voting: The voting for players will be in two stages, with a yes or no vote at each stagee. First members will vote on a master list, with to determined number of players with the most support making the final ballot. To be elected a player on the final ballot must receive at least 75% support from the VC. There is no limit or cap on how many candidates can be elected.
    - Pioneer and Contributor Voting: Given that the pool of candidates will typically be smaller for pioneer and contributors than for players, we will just have one final vote.

    Player Eligibility: All players that have had at least 15 years elapse from their first year of eligibility in the regular election will be eligible in the veterans election. Even if a player was dropped from the regular election ballot before 15 years elapsed, he must still wait for remaining of the 15 years to pass.
    - Additional Contributor Eligibility: If a player was elected in the regular elections, he may still be eligibility to be inducted as a contributor by the VC (Al Spalding being an example of this).

    The only thing left to decide in my mind is how many to put on the final ballots. I'm thinking as time goes by, the final players ballot could become larger due to the growing pool of players.


    With that out of the way, with a simple discussion putting together a master ballot. For players, generally, I'll go back through the regular elections and add anyone here that lasted at least one election there (I might become more discerning later as the pool grows). Just to be clear how this will proceed, we'll put together a large list, then vote on who on that list should make the final ballot. At this stage we're not necessarily voting on who should be elected, just voting on who deserves that final consideration. The top vote-getters will then go on a final ballot (I'm thinking 15-20 for the players right now), and we'll then vote for election, 75% electing.

    So this is my preliminary list of players:

    Oyster Burns
    Charlie Comiskey
    Larry Corcoran
    Frank Dwyer
    Bob Ferguson
    Mike Griffin
    Ned Hanlon
    Charley Jones
    Denny Lyons
    Bobby Matthews
    Tommy McCarthy
    Jim McCormick
    Ed McKean
    Cal McVey
    Levi Meyerle
    Tip O'Neill
    Dave Orr
    Lip Pike
    Hardy Richardson
    Mike Tiernan (assuming he's not elected in 1918, his last year of regular election eligibility)
    Joe Start
    Ezra Sutton
    Will White
    Mickey Welch

    Feel free to suggest additions. Also, it is fair now to consider pre-1871 playing for any of these players.

    Here's the tentative pioneer list as composed by JJPM. People on this ballot played almost entirely before the 1870s and because of the rapidly evolving game of the late 19th Century, I feel it is more appropriate to put them on a separate ballot.

    Asa Brainard
    Bill Craver
    Jim Creighton
    Candy Cummings
    Cherokee Fisher
    Davy Force
    George Hall
    Andy Leonard
    Fergy Malone
    Dick McBride
    Dickey Pearce
    Al Reach
    Harry Wright
    George Zettlein

    Here's a contributors ballot, also put together by JJPM (I added Spalding):

    Ferdinand Abell
    Doc Adams
    John T. Brush
    Morgan Bulkeley
    Alexander Cartwright
    Henry Chadwick
    Charlie Comiskey
    Bob Ferguson
    Ned Hanlon
    William Hulbert
    Ban Johnson
    Denny McKnight
    A.G. Mills
    Frank Selee
    Al Spalding
    Harry M. Stevens
    Chris Von der Ahe
    James Whyte Davis
    Harry Wright

    Again, members, please feel free to add to these lists.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 09-15-2008, 09:43 AM.

  • #2
    Al Spalding was already elected as a player. Players can be listed twice?

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, I thought we had agreed "no" to double inductions.
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
        Al Spalding was already elected as a player. Players can be listed twice?
        That was a mistake. I copied and pasted a list I posted before we elected Spalding.

        Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
        Yeah, I thought we had agreed "no" to double inductions.
        We didn't agree. I thought it over and I think if there are rare circumstances where a player we elected also contributed greatly to the game, it seems limiting to only have them as a player. It doesn't do justice to the contributions. A person did enough to be elected in each capacity exclusive of the other, I see no problem in honoring that. I believe the others sports Hall of Fames do that. This will be limited though to players elected in the regular election, because in that election we're strictly judging the players on their playing careers and aren't considering much of what else they may have contributed. If you feel we've already appropriately honored a person, such as Spalding, then you don't need to vote for him as a contributor.

        Comment


        • #5
          Lip Pike, Joe Start, Cal McVey, all played in the 1860s and here should be listed as pioneers, not players IMO. Listing them as players is what killed their chances in the regular elections. Ezra Sutton played prior to 1876 as well.

          On guys like Spalding, it seems redundant to consider them a second time when their off the field contributions are what pushed them over the edge in the first place.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
            Lip Pike, Joe Start, Cal McVey, all played in the 1860s and here should be listed as pioneers, not players IMO. Listing them as players is what killed their chances in the regular elections. Ezra Sutton played prior to 1876 as well.
            They'll stay as players because they were on the regular elections. The players ballot here will be entirely composed of players from the regular elections, as the players election here is meant to be a review. BUT, here you can consider their 1860s play. The difference here is that pioneer were players that were never in the regular elections.

            On guys like Spalding, it seems redundant to consider them a second time when their off the field contributions are what pushed them over the edge in the first place.
            It's not going to happen very often. But take a guy like Joe Torre. He is someone we can conceivably elect as a player. Should we then not be able to consider his separate career is a manager? If you don't want to vote for someone as a contributor, believing they've been honored enough as a player, then don't vote for that person as a contributor. It's as simple as that. Doesn't hurt to have them on the ballot though.

            Comment


            • #7
              Comiskey and Ferguson are listed as players, but only received player votes because of their off the field exploits. They don't need to appear on the VC players ballot, IMO since anyone who is on the VC who voted for them as players would be voting for them as contributors here. Neither one did enough as a player IMO. That may also be true of 2 or 3 others on the player list.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                Members and Format: The Veterans Committee is made up of 12 members (we may expand later) who will meet every 5 years to deliberate and then vote to elect players, pioneers, and contributors to the Hall of Fame.
                Why does the pioneers ballot need to recur every 5 years indefinitely? This is a set group of individuals, correct? What persons in the future, from the 20th Century, would qualify as a "pioneer" (in contrast to a "contributor")? How many such elections of these men should we have?

                Players Voting: The voting for players will be in two stages, with a yes or no vote at each stagee. First members will vote on a master list, with to determined number of players with the most support making the final ballot. To be elected a player on the final ballot must receive at least 75% support from the VC. There is no limit or cap on how many candidates can be elected.
                I like this format.

                Additional Contributor Eligibility: If a player was elected in the regular elections, he may still be eligibility to be inducted as a contributor by the VC (Al Spalding being an example of this).
                Strongly disagree, particularly if a guy's non-playing contributions are permitted to be part of the consideration in his election as a player. If someone's contributions merit a "double induction" then they ought to go in as a contributor.

                The only thing left to decide in my mind is how many to put on the final ballots. I'm thinking as time goes by, the final players ballot could become larger due to the growing pool of players.
                I'd recommend a maximum of 25.

                For the players, Burns, Comiskey, Dwyer and Hanlon are clearly not on par with the rest.

                Pre-1871 peformance definitely merits consideration.

                Contributors worth adding to the ballot, some of whom died not long after 1920: Frank C. Bancroft, O.P. Caylor, Henry Lucas, Francis Richter, Arthur Soden, Alfred H. Spink, George Stallings, and John Montgomery Ward.

                By the way, what's the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the contributor's ballot? Must the individual be retired? Dead?
                "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


                • #9
                  (my emphasis)
                  Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                  With that out of the way, with a simple discussion putting together a master ballot.
                  I can help with that and I'll be happy to vote. I will not be able to do research or much writing, less than my longest contributions on BBFHOF and Progressive players.

                  For players, generally, I'll go back through the regular elections and add anyone here that lasted at least one election there (I might become more discerning later as the pool grows).
                  . . .
                  So this is my preliminary list of players:
                  . . .
                  Feel free to suggest additions. Also, it is fair now to consider pre-1871 playing for any of these players.
                  Evidently you mean survived two elections, appeared on three ballots.

                  Among the two-and-out candidates, I believe Dunlap and Williamson were highest regarded by the baseball community; Williamson and York posted the best careers.
                  Here's the tentative pioneer list as composed by JJPM. People on this ballot played almost entirely before the 1870s and because of the rapidly evolving game of the late 19th Century, I feel it is more appropriate to put them on a separate ballot.
                  . . .
                  They played almost entirely before 1876. Several were quite young before 1871 and their careers center on the early 1870s.

                  Davy Force should have been on the regular ballot, and he was.

                  Some to add:
                  Jack Chapman (better as contributor)
                  Wes Fisler
                  Charlie Smith
                  Jimmy Wood

                  Here's a contributors ballot, also put together by JJPM (I added Spalding)
                  . . .
                  Charlie Comiskey, Ban Johnson, Harry M. Stevens [among others]
                  . . .
                  Again, members, please feel free to add to these lists.
                  Those three are still at work. Do you plan to cover men who are active?

                  Some to add:
                  William Cammeyer
                  Tim Murnane
                  O.P. Caylor
                  Al Spink
                  Ted Sullivan
                  Nick Young

                  Francis Richter is still at work. He belongs if you will cover active men.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                    I thought it over and I think if there are rare circumstances where a player we elected also contributed greatly to the game, it seems limiting to only have them as a player. It doesn't do justice to the contributions. A person did enough to be elected in each capacity exclusive of the other, I see no problem in honoring that. I believe the others sports Hall of Fames do that.
                    basketball, yes.
                    John Wooden and Lenny Wilkens, player and coach

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Classic View Post
                      Why does the pioneers ballot need to recur every 5 years indefinitely? This is a set group of individuals, correct? What persons in the future, from the 20th Century, would qualify as a "pioneer" (in contrast to a "contributor")? How many such elections of these men should we have?
                      It won't recur indefinitely. I'm guessing after the first few VC elections, we'll have done all we're going to do with the pioneers, and perhaps we'll incorporate the top remaining pioneers into the contributors ballot so as to not completely remove the possibility of election. But I do think at some point we'll abandon a separate pioneer section.

                      Strongly disagree, particularly if a guy's non-playing contributions are permitted to be part of the consideration in his election as a player. If someone's contributions merit a "double induction" then they ought to go in as a contributor.
                      I'll use this rare example again. What if we elect a player in the regular elections based on his playing career and then he goes on to be a great manager? Why not honor his managerial career just as we would honor any great managerial career?

                      For the players, Burns, Comiskey, Dwyer and Hanlon are clearly not on par with the rest.
                      They'll be on the preliminary ballot for now (maybe not Comiskey though who will be exclusively on the contributors ballot), and if you don't believe they belong, then you don't vote for them at the first stage and if they're clearly inferior, they probably won't make the final ballot. The first stage is meant to be pretty open, and we're just whittling down to the final list. Plus, at this juncture, we don't have all that many former-regular election players to look at, so we might as well include all the guys in the preliminary round that hung on for at least a year.

                      Contributors worth adding to the ballot, some of whom died not long after 1920: Frank C. Bancroft, O.P. Caylor, Henry Lucas, Francis Richter, Arthur Soden, Alfred H. Spink, George Stallings, and John Montgomery Ward.

                      By the way, what's the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the contributor's ballot? Must the individual be retired? Dead?
                      No clue. I've said a few times now that I'd like someone else to oversee this part if possible. I don't really feel my knowledge of contributors is good enough where I can effectively manage that ballot.

                      Also, you mentioned Ward there, he's someone we've already elected as a player, but might have enough distinct non-player contributions where he'd make it independently as a contributor as well.

                      To be clear here, I'm saying that it may be appropriate to elect a person in separate capacities if they did things in clear separate capacities. Again, the example of a person that has a great playing career, retires, and we elect him as a player, then goes on to a great managerial career, is perhaps most illustrative of this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
                        Evidently you mean survived two elections, appeared on three ballots.
                        I meant survived at least one, though perhaps the list I gave suggests otherwise? It's just an easy way for me to put a tentative list together as I have those "Dropped from Previous Election" sections in each regular election. As our pool of players becomes larger, I'll probably become more discerning and not just automatically include everyone that survived at least one election.

                        Anyway, the list I give is just a preliminary list and is really just suggestions. People are free to make suggestions to that list and I don't have a limit in mind at this point as most of the players will be scrapped in our first round of voting anyway.

                        Davy Force should have been on the regular ballot, and he was.
                        Noted, thanks. He'll go with the players then.

                        Those three are still at work. Do you plan to cover men who are active?

                        Some to add:
                        William Cammeyer
                        Tim Murnane
                        O.P. Caylor
                        Al Spink
                        Ted Sullivan
                        Nick Young

                        Francis Richter is still at work. He belongs if you will cover active men.
                        Like I said to Classic, I really haven't thought about eligibility for contributors. What's the consensus here? Can contributors be active and be eligible?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't care so much that contributor candidates are active, but I want to be sure we have a clear picture that their body of work in the sport is worthy. Also, the Hall gets generally better publicity for live over posthumous inductions. With those points in mind, I'd propose that they either be retired (dead being an extreme form of retirement), or at least 60 or 65 years old before being eligible.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                            I don't care so much that contributor candidates are active, but I want to be sure we have a clear picture that their body of work in the sport is worthy. Also, the Hall gets generally better publicity for live over posthumous inductions. With those points in mind, I'd propose that they either be retired (dead being an extreme form of retirement), or at least 60 or 65 years old before being eligible.
                            This sounds fair, but I'd even amend that to anyone who has been a contributor for at least 20 years, is retired or is over 65 years old. That 20 year provision would allow us to look at someone like Connie Mack in the context of when the actual HOF inducted him rather than waiting until 1940 or later (Mack was inducted in 1937).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                              This sounds fair, but I'd even amend that to anyone who has been a contributor for at least 20 years, is retired or is over 65 years old. That 20 year provision would allow us to look at someone like Connie Mack in the context of when the actual HOF inducted him rather than waiting until 1940 or later (Mack was inducted in 1937).
                              Totally agreed. A contributor has to meet at any one of the above criteria in order to be eligible.
                              "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

                              Working...
                              X