Net 54 Baseball HOF

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.