Net 54 Baseball HOF

Jlighter · #1 11-29-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

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.

novakjr · #2 11-29-2012, 11:25 AM

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...

Leon · #3 11-29-2012, 11:27 AM

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 · #4 11-29-2012, 11:41 AM

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 · #5 11-29-2012, 11:47 AM

How about periodic votes for who should be OUT?

EvilKing00 · #6 11-29-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

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 · #7 11-29-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

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.

Runscott · #8 11-29-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

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.

CobbSpikedMe · #9 11-29-2012, 12:05 PM

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 · #10 11-29-2012, 01:38 PM

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 · #11 11-29-2012, 01:45 PM

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 · #12 11-29-2012, 02:08 PM

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 · #13 11-29-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #14 11-29-2012, 03:51 PM

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.

Runscott · #15 11-29-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

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.

bbcard1 · #16 11-29-2012, 03:53 PM

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 · #17 11-29-2012, 04:38 PM

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.

billyb · #18 03-28-2013, 07:58 AM

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SOLD: 1889 Spalding Baseball Guide - William Hulbert HOF Photo (BGS Authentic)	bcbgcbrcb	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	12-14-2011 09:33 AM
FA: 1950's Callahan Baseball Card Set BOX EX Cond HOF Hall Fame Ruth Gehrig RARE !!!	DinoPro	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	10-30-2011 01:28 PM
LARGE List of Autographed Cards All Sports (1940s-2000s)	canjond	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	06-28-2010 01:38 PM
LARGE List of Autographed Cards For Sale - 1940s through 2000s (All Sports)	canjond	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	06-13-2009 06:54 PM
FS: Pre-war to 1980's sports cards (no baseball)	Archive	Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T	0	01-25-2008 04:44 PM