Hall of Fame Veterans Committee

[Trebro]

I would like to suggest, and offer to be a founding member of/help organize, a Veterans Committee for the BBA Hall of Fame.

[Dington]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I say no. I’m a small Hall guy. IMO if you’re not slam dunk enough to get in first try you shouldn’t be allowed in any other years.

[trmmilwwi]

To correct some old timers that have been left off and really should be in the hall, why not.

[BaseClogger]

I second this notion and would be happy to get involved.

[indiansfan]

I third the motion and would be happy to serve.

[pandan]

For me it all depends on how it is implemented.

I like the idea of a group of GMs reviewing past players from different decades (perhaps even taking suggestions from the broader GM group), writing something up (historical summary, re-stating their case for HoF), and adding them to the ballot for a re-vote, but I wouldn't want the same group to be able to add in whomever they think deserves it without getting input from the entire league.

[Trebro]

For me it all depends on how it is implemented.

I like the idea of a group of GMs reviewing past players from different decades (perhaps even taking suggestions from the broader GM group), writing something up (historical summary, re-stating their case for HoF), and adding them to the ballot for a re-vote, but I wouldn't want the same group to be able to add in whomever they think deserves it without getting input from the entire league.

I haven't thought too much about this but my initial thought was either re-adding them to the ballot or making the vote lopsided (like if there's 10 people on the committee, 9 have to vote yes). The goal here isn't to bloat the Hall, just to get a look at some candidates who may have been passed by for reasons unknown.

[GoldenOne]

Gents, this isnt the real world where these players feelings are hurt because they didnt make it in to the HOF. And none of the voters were offended by the players being voted on because they were mean to them in the locker room or during an interview. None of these guys were passed over because they may have been linked to gambling or PEDs or pedophilia.

I do not see the need for a Veteran's Committee.

[chicoruiz]

Are we imagining this as a permanent committee, or will it be just a group of GMs who will examine history, identify players who may have been unjustly overlooked, bring them up for a vote and then disband? I think a one-time only re-examination would be plenty.

[GoldenOne]

...players who may have been unjustly overlooked...

According to who? I would think that anyone that was around when the HOF voting took place for these "unjustly overlooked" players might take some offense to this.

There used to be whole forum threads (much like Ron did this year) for open discussions on each player on the ballot. I think a lot more attention was paid to voting during the timeframe of the guys you would be thinking about than the guys getting voted on the last few seasons.

Again, I do not see the need for a Veteran's Committee.

[BaseClogger]

Standards of admission change over time and this would be a chance to reevaluate those players with a contemporary lens.

[Dington]

Just out of curiosity, can someone give me three examples of players who would be elected today?

[recte44]

What we used to do for this is the Committee would select a player or two, that would then go on the ballot for one year and would either be elected or not.

[aaronweiner]

What we used to do for this is the Committee would select a player or two, that would then go on the ballot for one year and would either be elected or not.

Which I think is a good idea. I don't think we ever put one of them in the Hall though.

[recte44]

What we used to do for this is the Committee would select a player or two, that would then go on the ballot for one year and would either be elected or not.

Which I think is a good idea. I don't think we ever put one of them in the Hall though.

I think we did, a couple of times. There were certainly a couple of guys missed over the years. But it should be the exception to the rule.

[BaseClogger]

It's a writing/reading opportunity to look back at the league's history. If you don't want them in the HoF you can vote against them (in the format commish outlined). I can't imagine being against it.

[recte44]

Kurt's got the right idea. The history of the league is its' greatest asset. Looking at it more and talking about it can't hurt.

[Dington]

It's a writing/reading opportunity to look back at the league's history. If you don't want them in the HoF you can vote against them (in the format commish outlined). I can't imagine being against it.

I think it’d make a great feature or Media Guide piece.

[pandan]

For me it all depends on how it is implemented.

I like the idea of a group of GMs reviewing past players from different decades (perhaps even taking suggestions from the broader GM group), writing something up (historical summary, re-stating their case for HoF), and adding them to the ballot for a re-vote, but I wouldn't want the same group to be able to add in whomever they think deserves it without getting input from the entire league.

I haven't thought too much about this but my initial thought was either re-adding them to the ballot or making the vote lopsided (like if there's 10 people on the committee, 9 have to vote yes). The goal here isn't to bloat the Hall, just to get a look at some candidates who may have been passed by for reasons unknown.

For sure. I like the idea as a mechanism to look at players who were passed over, re-evaluate their careers and case, and put it up to a vote.

Can figure out specifics to how they're reviewed and who / how many get up to a vote (my POV is it should be simple and capped at ~5 players per year chosen by the committee), but an excuse to look at and discuss the league's history seems worthwhile and in line w/ the league's goals.

Gents, this isnt the real world where these players feelings are hurt because they didnt make it in to the HOF. And none of the voters were offended by the players being voted on because they were mean to them in the locker room or during an interview. None of these guys were passed over because they may have been linked to gambling or PEDs or pedophilia.

I do not see the need for a Veteran's Committee.

I see this proposal more as a way to review how players were evaluated then and now since I'm sure the bar for "HoF worthy" has shifted over time.

Although who knows, maybe there were a few "disruptive" or "outspoken" players who were unjustly excluded from the hall lol

[Trebro]

I think in an online league where GMs cycle through, there's a good reason to have a mechanism to take an additional look see.

I'm going to set up a poll shortly about the idea to gauge interest.