Net 54 Baseball HOF

[Runscott]

I spoke with Leon about this and he's okay with it, so I'm going to start brainstorming a way for us (Net 54) to create our own baseball HOF (humans, not cards). I think such a thing would actually hold some weight, as this is a well-respected board.

It's in the initial stages, so any ideas are welcome. I certainly won't make up the rules for 'induction' myself (I might not even vote), but it would be good to have a core group to process the brainstorming and come up with rules.

Some ideas to debate, keeping in mind that this could get complicated:

• pre-war only? start with players only?
• starting ballot contains only players that are already in?
• ...or add others to initial ballot (or supplemental ballot), list to be determined (e.g: Jackson, [Rose], Tenney, Lowe...)
• annual? every 6 months?

I've been messing around with this idea literally for decades - the wonders of the computer and the internet should make it a bit easier these days.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would be interested in something like that, Scott.

[EvilKing00]

I think its an amazing idea!

- starting with current players already in
- you can add a VOTE option to the thread where every member here can vote (only once) and make up a % they must get from this board, lets say 75%
-i would assume starting with current members you should go through them quickly as most will be voted in again with some exceptions.
- I would start with players already in and start from the date they were added, here is a site that list them and the years - http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/mlb_h...halloffame.jsp
- i would do a 3 month vote till we begin to catch up with the actual current HOF or we never will.
- adding OLD players (who deserve a thought) who didnt make it - in each vote from that era would be a cool idea

[z28jd]

I think the best thing to do would be to start with pre-majors and then work your way up by decade. So the first ballot would be the Wright bros, Creighton, Barnes etc. I would do players only first because things like executives, managers, umpires can all be done in large groups.

For the players I would have a little bio on each, even if it is a link and their stats. Then I would open it up for discussion for a couple days, then have the vote. I also think I would go with a less strict standard than the HOF. If you have a group of educated people, who discussed certain players merits, then as long as more than half of the voters say yes, then yes it is. If it's 50% on the dot, then tough luck Tommy McCarthy.

I really never understood the thinking behind 75% of the voters making them a Hall of Famer. If the group that is voting is supposed to be smart enough to cast the votes(we know they aren't all, so play along) then if a majority say they are a HOF'er, they should be in the Hall. What other voting system is there where a majority doesn't win?

Good luck with it, Scott. I'll help out with the bios until the baseball season starts, if you need it.

[wolf441]

There are guys that I've wanted to vote out of the Hall of Fame for years! I like the ideas so far. How often would we vote? What about monthly ballots? Or voting every other month so that we have one month of voting and one month to discuss the results. 100% on board!

[Robextend]

Whatever we all decide on, I am in. Sounds like a fun idea.

[bigtrain]

Sounds like a fun idea. I would love the opportunity to vote on a HOF as it could be a real elite group without the marginal HOFs that have been inducted in Cooperstown because they had friends on the veterans committee.

[Jlighter]

Would we include Joe Jackson or Pete Rose?

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Would we include Joe Jackson or Pete Rose?

i would vote for both

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Would we include Joe Jackson or Pete Rose?

You bet.

[z28jd]

If you truly want to make the voting group friendly, have a vote on every aspect you can think of, first.

Banned players?

Minimum playing time to be on ballot?

% of votes needed?

players only?


etc, etc

[jimivintage]

I'm in for the voting process. I know there are a few HoFers that I wouldn't necessarily be voting for, that's for sure.

[scooter729]

When I first read the headline, I thought it was going to be a post about establishing an HOF of best Net54 posters! Now THAT could stir up some controversy!

But upon re-reading, I think Scott has a great idea here (and MUCH better than where I thought he was initially going with it!)....

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by scooter729

When I first read the headline, I thought it was going to be a post about establishing an HOF of best Net54 posters! Now THAT could stir up some controversy!

I honestly thought the same thing.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by z28jd

...
So the first ballot would be the Wright bros,
...

I'm not interested in an aviation HOF, but we can consider doing that later.

[novakjr]

We should do ballots by era. It would help us in being a little more objective when it comes to the steroid guys...And to avoid situations like this years HOF ballot, where everyone is getting sandbagged because of steroids, I think we should place a "minimum"(maybe 5) on the number of players you must vote for in each era...

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm not interested in an aviation HOF, but we can consider doing that later.

Alright, either Scott isn't taking this serious or he doesn't know who Harry and George Wright are! I say we vote him out as our HOF president right now before he lets Phil Rizzuto in and leaves Buck O'Neil out! Boo this man!

[Leon]

This might start reminding me of the very first NY Dinner thread. It was all set then Crandall changed everything and I was out. The good news on this, for me, is I don't really have a personal interest in it. That being said the board is wide open to be able to be used in a constructive fashion, with Scott being the point person. Good luck guys.....

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Question, why? Why would we do this? It's not going to affect anything. We have several members who don't even follow the modern game, or necessarily the game itself. I mean we all have our own personal views who we believe as HOF'ers and collect to an extent of our beliefs. I sure do, I collect Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire etc signed rookies, even Rose cause I believe they should be in. But having a vote here isn't going to change that fact that they aren't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How about periodic votes for who should be OUT?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

This might start reminding me of the very first NY Dinner thread. It was all set then Crandall changed everything and I was out. The good news on this, for me, is I don't really have a personal interest in it. That being said the board is wide open to be able to be used in a constructive fashion, with Scott being the point person. Good luck guys.....

Exactly, I'm just an organizer/gatherer. I don't even plan on being a decision-maker, other than to work with others to determine what decisions board members are in favor of.

This is going to take a while to organize, so no hurry here. There's the brainstorming, then coming up with a workable plan and parameters, then the technical end.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Question, why? Why would we do this? It's not going to affect anything. We have several members who don't even follow the modern game, or necessarily the game itself. I mean we all have our own personal views who we believe as HOF'ers and collect to an extent of our beliefs. I sure do, I collect Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire etc signed rookies, even Rose cause I believe they should be in. But having a vote here isn't going to change that fact that they aren't.

Doing this would
#1 - be alot of fun
#2 - get a great talk going every time its time to discuss a player
#3 - get members who feel strongly about a certain player to get it off their chest
#4 - (stretching it here but) possably getting some buzz out there that the "fans" have some different ideas about different players, IE rose, jackson, or even the PED guys.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

Doing this would
#1 - be alot of fun
#2 - get a great talk going every time its time to discuss a player
#3 - get members who feel strongly about a certain player to get it off their chest
#4 - (stretching it here but) possably getting some buzz out there that the "fans" have some different ideas about different players, IE rose, jackson, or even the PED guys.

Makes complete sense, thanks for your opinion and clarification. I was not opposed to the idea, was just more curious as to why.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I'm all for it. I think the end results would be a very respectable group of N54 HOFers. And I'm on the side of Joe Jackson and Pete Rose being in as well.

Cool idea!

AndyH


.

[Kenny Cole]

Scott,

Have you looked at the voting rules for the Baseball Hall of Merit? Http://wwwbaseballthinkfactory.org//hall_of_merit/. It's limited to players only and their rules require an ability to defend your selection and otherwise generally makes sense to me. At least it could be used as a potential starting point. Just a suggestion.

[barrysloate]

We should vote players in solely on their accomplishments on the field, with their career statistics the most important factor. We don't care if they threw world series games, or placed bets on their own team, or took steroids, or beat their wife, or lied to Congress, or are surly and self centered. We want to see numbers!

[Chris-Counts]

I love the idea, but I hope the voters will take the time to at least glance at some of Bill James' writings on the subject. Many existing Hall of Fame voters clearly haven't. Today, we have the luxury of having better statistics to measure the worth of players than ever before. Let's use 'em ...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Scott,

Have you looked at the voting rules for the Baseball Hall of Merit? Http://wwwbaseballthinkfactory.org//hall_of_merit/. It's limited to players only and their rules require an ability to defend your selection and otherwise generally makes sense to me. At least it could be used as a potential starting point. Just a suggestion.

Thanks, I haven't but will check it out. After the brainstorming dust settles, I'll present some options to be debated. Another method would be to do the voting as close to the HOF's current way as possible, but probably allowing for a larger initial crop than in 1933.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

We should vote players in solely on their accomplishments on the field, with their career statistics the most important factor. We don't care if they threw world series games, or placed bets on their own team, or took steroids, or beat their wife, or lied to Congress, or are surly and self centered. We want to see numbers!

It's interesting that you would throw out the steroid issue in a Net 54 version of the HOF, which is the crux of what we've been debating here.

[barrysloate]

Scott- many of the guys who took steroids and have spectacular statistics, like Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc., would have made the Hall even if they never used. Let's see what rules we use to elect these guys into our HOF, and take it from there.

[bbcard1]

Let me toss this into the mix...what about we start out with an "inner circle" of the nine greatest players at their position. We will debate the merits of each position ...ok, I could go to 11...one RHP, one LHP and one reliever. From there, you add one player every three months. Only one....it could take a couple years or more for Mickey Mantle to make it in...exceptional players like Eddie Murray may get their turn....it would be pretty exclusive but there are those who argue that the real one isn't.

[frankbmd]

Hypothetically,

1. We create a Net54 Hall of Fame using a set of rules that we will all never agree upon then,

2. Somewhere down the line after the voting begins, Bill Bergen (2HRs, .170 lifetime), for example, gets elected to the Net54 HOF then,

3. Can I expect the value of my card to appreciate three fold?

Sort of like PSA creating a market for their product with their registry.

Now why didn't I think of that???? Thanks Scott, I'll PM my list of nominations.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Scott- many of the guys who took steroids and have spectacular statistics, like Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc., would have made the Hall even if they never used. Let's see what rules we use to elect these guys into our HOF, and take it from there.

What I meant was that I don't think there should be any rules restricting who gets on a Net 54 ballot, and certainly no 'Net 54 Commissioner' who bans certain players for life, based on his own sense of morals or integrity. It would be up to each voter to make his own mind.

But conversely, I don't think you should tell a voter that he HAS to vote for someone if he thinks their stats alone merit inclusion. If that were the only criteria, we could feed stats into a computer and spit out a HOF.

If anyone disagrees, please say so. Or say it ain't so.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Hypothetically,

1. We create a Net54 Hall of Fame using a set of rules that we will all never agree upon then,

2. Somewhere down the line after the voting begins, Bill Bergen (2HRs, .170 lifetime), for example, gets elected to the Net54 HOF then,

3. Can I expect the value of my card to appreciate three fold?

Sort of like PSA creating a market for their product with their registry.

Now why didn't I think of that???? Thanks Scott, I'll PM my list of nominations.

rofl - i would hope the level of baseball smarts on this board wouldnt have a guy with 2 hr and a 170 average even voted on let alone get in. basicly its about some of the fringe guys who made it who maybe shouldnt, some of the banned guys who havent even been on a ballot and the PED users. As well as some over looked damn good ball players who maybe should be in. Its a simple eunff concept, how bad can we really screw it up, lol

[Eric72]

This sounds like it could be quite fun. I would be happy to participate in selecting a Net54 HOF.

I like the approach suggested earlier in beginning by selecting a Starting 9 - or 11, it's all good - and expanding from there.

Great ideas, everyone.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Eric72

This sounds like it could be quite fun. I would be happy to participate in selecting a Net54 HOF.

I like the approach suggested earlier in beginning by selecting a Starting 9 - or 11, it's all good - and expanding from there.

Great ideas, everyone.

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric, I know you're picking Ashburn!

[camlov2]

I think this should be open to all players, not just those in the HOF already. As long as they are retired for 5 years I feel they should be allowed. This way net54 gets to voice their own opinion will regard to banned players.

Not sure how to limit the players on the first ballot, unless you make it 100 players long someone would complain that they can't vote for who they want to.

Looking forward to the first vote!

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by camlov2

I think this should be open to all players, not just those in the HOF already. As long as they are retired for 5 years I feel they should be allowed. This way net54 gets to voice their own opinion will regard to banned players.

Not sure how to limit the players on the first ballot, unless you make it 100 players long someone would complain that they can't vote for who they want to.

Looking forward to the first vote!

yep 100%, they were saying to begin the voting with players who are in already then catch up i believe to the rest

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by camlov2

I think this should be open to all players, not just those in the HOF already. As long as they are retired for 5 years I feel they should be allowed. This way net54 gets to voice their own opinion will regard to banned players.

Not sure how to limit the players on the first ballot, unless you make it 100 players long someone would complain that they can't vote for who they want to.

Looking forward to the first vote!

Lots of great ideas. I'll compile them all and return...

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Runscott

What I meant was that I don't think there should be any rules restricting who gets on a Net 54 ballot, and certainly no 'Net 54 Commissioner' who bans certain players for life, based on his own sense of morals or integrity. It would be up to each voter to make his own mind.

But conversely, I don't think you should tell a voter that he HAS to vote for someone if he thinks their stats alone merit inclusion. If that were the only criteria, we could feed stats into a computer and spit out a HOF.

If anyone disagrees, please say so. Or say it ain't so.

Agree 100% There shouldn't be any rules on who to vote for, just basic rules on how to vote and how the process will work.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Paul S

Eric, I know you're picking Ashburn!

Paul,

Tempting; however, I will show great restraint here and not jump the gun until the selection process is ironed out

[frankbmd]

Scott and all,

On a slightly more serious note than my prior post, this project will be driven by the rules. Do we want a more exclusive or inclusive Hall of Fame? One idea that I would offer is to have a fixed number of slots in our Hall, so that once filled to gain entry, a new player would not only have to be elected, but an existing player would have to be voted off the island. I would suggest that the number be 100, smaller than the current Hall. Players would not be absolutely ranked so the guy voted off could change based on whose getting in. I can hear the objections already, so as a corollary to the 100 man Hall (call it Hall A), a second(B), third(C) or fourth(D) tier could be added with similar transition rules for moving from one tier to another. Alternatively, given the interests of the Board, we could have multiple Halls with a fixed number of slots each for different eras (19th century, dead ball, interwar, postwar <1980 and modern). We could even have a wing called the "Juice" Bar for the McGwire & Bonds gang.

[z28jd]

I can't wait for the first discussion of a modern one-inning reliever comes up. I think it's laughable to put failed starters in the HOF over actual starters that put in 3x-4x the work. If more than 1/3 of your appearances are one inning or less, you shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame unless you also put up 200 wins as a starter first(basically I just covered John Smoltz's butt here).

I don't even like Sutter and Gossage in the hall, and they put in more than one inning many a time. Wait till they start putting in the actual one inning guys like Rivera and Hoffman, bleh. Then at least they can start making the case for Lenny Harris, Cliff Johnson and Smokey Burgess as pinch-hitters, and eventually Jack Reed will get in because who else could pinch-run and defensively replace Mickey Mantle any better!

I heard that Elroy Face already plans on crying the day Hoffman is elected

[wazoo]

Ed Cicotte, Ginger Beaumont, Dill Dahlen 2k12.

[paul]

I like the idea. There's another website that maintains a "Hall of Merit" and I like their approach. They mimic what the Hall of Fame did. In their first vote, only players who were eligible in 1936 are eligible. Then, in their second vote, only players who were eligible in 1937 are eligible. That way the Hall of Fame fills up first with old timers, and only later with modern players. But the old timers continue to be eligible perpetually so they can be voted in with the modern players too. Also, Negro Leaguers are eligible starting in the 1936 election, as long as they were retired by that time. They don't have to wait for the 1971 election when the Hall opened its doors to Satchel Paige.

[Texxxx]

I think this sounds like a lot of fun. I thought I would throw out a way of doing it, with refinements of course.
Start with everyone being able to nominate one person for the HOF.
The first vote will be for players that played before say 1910.
After getting all the nominations and discussing for a month, everyone gets 5 votes. The 5 players with the most votes are in. The next nomination will automatically have the 5 players just under the 5 that where voted in plus new nominations. This time it will include players that played prior to 1920. This goes on until we get to current date. Then we only have votes say every 6 months.
Just a thought.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I like Paul's idea.........

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by paul

I like the idea. There's another website that maintains a "Hall of Merit" and I like their approach. They mimic what the Hall of Fame did. In their first vote, only players who were eligible in 1936 are eligible. Then, in their second vote, only players who were eligible in 1937 are eligible. That way the Hall of Fame fills up first with old timers, and only later with modern players. But the old timers continue to be eligible perpetually so they can be voted in with the modern players too. Also, Negro Leaguers are eligible starting in the 1936 election, as long as they were retired by that time. They don't have to wait for the 1971 election when the Hall opened its doors to Satchel Paige.

sounds good ^

[Rich Klein]

My first htought was we need a NET54 Poster HOF

From the one-shot poster who set off the Joe Jackson thread to great consistent posters such as Dorskind and Crandall, we need to honor both the one-off great posts as well as the consistently thought provoking posts

Rich

[Butch7999]

Scott, having a strong interest in hockey and hockey history as well as in baseball and baseball history, we followed with considerable interest
a similar "revisionist Hall of Fame" project conducted some years ago by the SIHR (hockey's version of SABR).
Nominations for "virtual enshrinement" were presented by only members of a select committee, who then debated and voted on the nominees.
The process, which may give you some ideas on how to organize a Net54-selected Baseball HOF, is detailed here:
http://www.chidlovski.com/wwhhof/index.htm
http://www.chidlovski.com/wwhhof/rules.htm

The major question for a Net54 HOF project is raised by the size of Net54 membership and the widely varying level of participation
by Net54 members. Is everyone to be allowed to nominate and vote? Or will that activity be restricted to a certain smaller committee,
or to members with a minimum number of posts, or... ?
If nomination/debate/voting is to be limited to only a committee or to otherwise qualifying members, then any agreed-upon percentage
of "yea" votes between 51% and unanimity should enshrine a nominee.
If nomination/debate/voting is to be open to all members, then you'd probably want to go with a minimum raw total number of "yea" votes.

Just some early thoughts...

[Runscott]

Lots of good suggestions and ideas. I will compile, digest and regurgitate, but it will take a bit of time - I want to write up the options that you all have posted here (and sent via email), and present to a smaller group, and then we'll get started. Thanks and keep posting.