Net 54 Baseball HOF

[EvilKing00]

im thinking this NEW Net54 HOF - Needs its own "section" area

Thoughts?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

im thinking this NEW Net54 HOF - Needs its own "section" area

Thoughts?

Luckeystown - Nothing but Net

[Leon]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Luckeystown - Nothing but Net

I am open to making a section for it if the enthusiasm continues.....but will have to give some thought as to where it would be....and it won't be "Luckeystown" that is for sure....Maybe Net54baseball HOF ......, or something like that

[Matthew80]

Chiming in as an enthusiastic participator

[DerekMichael]

gil freaking hodges for gods sake!!!!

[bosoxfan]

Originally Posted by Matthew80

Chiming in as an enthusiastic participator

Me too!

[EvilKing00]

cant wait till the voting starts!

[Runscott]

We've had a board for a long time, and not had our own Net 54 HOF. So I hope everyone can be patient for a bit longer. The last thing that I would want to do is put something up that board members aren't happy with, and that didn't result from a consensus opinion. Thanks!

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by DerekMichael

gil freaking hodges for gods sake!!!!

I have seen his name on a couple of threads referencing the HOF. And I have held my tongue, but now I have to ask. Why? Why should Hodges be in the HOF? I can't find any good reason other than people liked him.

[SMPEP]

Sounds like a fun idea.

Count me in.

Cheers,
Patrick

[DerekMichael]

gil hodges was a fantastic player and manager, is a very important part of the history of both the dodgers and emts, he was very special, do some research on him ... in my opinion he has been royally snubbed

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by DerekMichael

gil hodges was a fantastic player and manager, is a very important part of the history of both the dodgers and emts, he was very special, do some research on him ... in my opinion he has been royally snubbed

Fantastic player? Not HOF caliber that is for sure. His stats are no where close to HOF caliber. He was merely a fan favorite.

[DerekMichael]

i disagree, strongly in fact, there are plenty of guys in the HOF with similar numbers if you want to do the research ... but thats cool, doesnt really matter anyways lol

[Runscott]

I wasn't going to say anything, because I thought the 'Hodges' comment would get ignored, but....

....can we please not use this thread for discussions about WHO should be included?

Thanks

[DerekMichael]

haha, sure, no problem

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I wasn't going to say anything, because I thought the 'Hodges' comment would get ignored, but....

....can we please not use this thread for discussions about WHO should be included?

Thanks

Someone did claim that Hodges should be included. Yet I have to strongly disagree with players making it with .273 career batting avg. That in a 18 year career actually even hit that average 7 years. His career slugging percentage isn't in the top 150 players. If I let people like him in then I would have to argue that Tino Martinez should be in as well.

So if we are going to talk about players that should be in, then you have to look at the players that others nominate and point out that they shouldn't be in.

Again if someone could give me a legitimate reason why he should be in I would love to hear it, because in my "research" nothing pops out as to why (besides being loved by everyone).

[DerekMichael]

andy,

i understand what you are a trying to say, and via private message i will show you my reasoning as to why gil hodges belongs in the baseball hof. i dont mean it in a snarky way at all, because this is actually a very fun part of the game and chatting about it is interesting, but i will show why i think hodges is a very worthy candidate, and you can tell me if you still disagree, which is fine.

sorry for disrupting the thread, i hadnt actually read the thread really and just went by the title, which was dumb, so my bad. very cool idea in general though.

[Eric72]

Friendly bump to encourage further discussion regarding Scott's idea.

Personally, I think this would be great. Ironing out the logistics would certainly take quite a bit of work; however, most likely well worth the effort.

If there is any way in which I can be helpful here, I am more than happy to volunteer.

Best Regards,

Eric

[camlov2]

looking forward to the first vote as well...

[deadballfreaK]

Awesome idea. I'm a fairly new member, but have been studying the game for half a century so I hope everyone gets to participate.

I would love to see presentations by experts on each era. I for one am fairly ignorant of the 1900s. I know who is in now, but would love to hear from people passionate about that era about who is really deserving and why.

My ideas for eras would be pre 1894, 1894-1919, 1920-1945, 1946-1968, 1969-1995, 1996-2007. The rules more or less became modern in 1894. The ball changed about 1919-20. Black players came in in 1946. The mound dropped in 1969. Steroids? Who knows? But that is 6 distinct eras IMHO. Basically 20-25 year blocks.

You could start at the beginning. Or vote one player from each era in. I think forget the present HOF. Everybody eligible. Start from fresh.

As far as guys with baggage: gambling, drinking, steroids, being a general pain in the butt, I say that people will vote their conscience on that anyway.

The top black players should be on the ballot for the pre Jackie Robinson eras. Not many stats, but plenty of stories.

[billyb]

Scott,
This gives the fans a chance to choose who they want to see in the HOF, and I believe this board would represent the fans with justice. Great idea Scott, good luck.
Players like Jackson and Rose, banned from the HOF means that we the fans are punished to, we do not get the opportunity to see them in the HOF. Rose, in particular, a player we all watched, banned for life, means our lives too, as we wont ever be able to see him inducted.

[oldcardboard]

I like the idea,very cool. Start our own HoF from scratch? Add to exsisting? Whatever direction is taken, should be fun.

[AMBST95]

I am a fan of Paul's recommendation in post #44. It seems to be the most thought provoking and provide the most opportunity for discussion, prior to a vote. Whether we want to limit our number of votes like the current hall is another discussion, but I like this approach because it won't overwhelm with too many serious candidates on the ballot and allows us to really focus on the players up for induction. We should create a set rule for the frequency of votes and I wouldn't recommend we go any more frequent than every month if you want these votes and discussion to have meaning. At 12 votes a year, we should catch up to the Hall in Cooperstown by 2020.

[Iron Horse]

Where do i sign up

[Runscott]

My apologies for the delay on this. I have been immersed in getting two articles completed for publication - one of them spun off the idea of the 1909-11 black 't206' cards.

I'll make this my current project priority.

[Fred]

Neat idea, I'd like to cast a few votes. Is there a limit to the number of players in the N54 BB HOF? I think the concept of different "eras" have been mentioned. I like the idea of a "pioneers" group that predates and includes players depicted on N172. After that we have the 19th/20th century categorey and so on and so forth. Sounds like fun!

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Would we include Joe Jackson or Pete Rose?

I would include both Rose and Jackson , and exclude any players who have been found to have taken any drugs that would have aided in their attaining stats

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by T206DK

I would include both Rose and Jackson , and exclude any players who have been found to have taken any drugs that would have aided in their attaining stats

Don't know if it will include post-wwii (probably not since this is a pre-war forum), but there definitely would not be any players 'banned' from voting.

[Eric72]

The first "class" of Net54 HOFers could be broken into six time periods, with a "starting nine" from each era.

6 periods X 9 players = 54

Voting could be very simple in this way. Define the time period (say, Pre-1876) and ask members to cast their vote on a starting nine. After voting has ended for that time period, tally them up.

The pitcher with the most votes gets in. All other pitchers will not get in on that ballot.

Repeat this with catchers. Then repeat with all four individual infield positions.

For simplicity's sake, perhaps the three outfielders with the most votes get in...no differential between left, right and center field.

Have voting rounds take place once each month. After six months, the Net54HOF would consist of 54 players. At that point, start again from the beginning. That would give all of the players from the 1st time period a new chance to make the Net54 HOF.

[AMBST95]

Originally Posted by Eric72

The first "class" of Net54 HOFers could be broken into six time periods, with a "starting nine" from each era.

6 periods X 9 players = 54

Voting could be very simple in this way. Define the time period (say, Pre-1876) and ask members to cast their vote on a starting nine. After voting has ended for that time period, tally them up.

The pitcher with the most votes gets in. All other pitchers will not get in on that ballot.

Repeat this with catchers. Then repeat with all four individual infield positions.

For simplicity's sake, perhaps the three outfielders with the most votes get in...no differential between left, right and center field.

Have voting rounds take place once each month. After six months, the Net54HOF would consist of 54 players. At that point, start again from the beginning. That would give all of the players from the 1st time period a new chance to make the Net54 HOF.

The downside to this voting pattern is there are not an equal number of HOF Caliber players at each position and some players who deserve recognition over another can be hampered because they played a certain position. I'm for setting a limit to the number of players picked for an era, if we go that route, but I don't think we should force ourselves to take certain position players when another player is more deserving.

[Runscott]

Others have posted similar ideas. I guess the problem I have with this way of going about it, is that you might have a person who's 'next best' at a position during an early 'era', who might be better than the 'best' player of any other era. With this system, he has to wait. I'm just going through everyone's ideas - not making the rules based on my own preferences - but my personal opinion is that it should be the best players. For instance, if you end up with too many outfielders and 'not enough' third basemen - sobeit.

I think the real Hall made some error judgement regarding banning and the way they set up inducting players from previous eras. Fortunately, we have reviewable history to go on, and no Kennesaw Mountain Landis, so if we want Hal Chase and Joe Jackson, we can have them. And none of us were buddies with Phil Rizzuto...I hope.

I'll have the ideas processed and regurgitated in useable form, by next week.

[Eric72]

Adam,

What you wrote makes sense. Guess the appeal of hitting the number 54 clouded my thinking.

Best Regards,

Eric

[EvilKing00]

cant wait to start voting!

[lharri3600]

I'm in!!

[Eric72]

Friendly bump...

[Runscott]

Ugghhh.....I've really been dropping the ball bad.

Looking at it now.