2035 Milestones and such, some HOF Discussion

[RonCo]

This is, maybe, a helpful conversation in that I intend to write a HoF guide post sometime. A few thoughts right now:

1) Brett has become the figurehead for the small hall conversation because this is a small set of people and he's the most vocal on the subject (he also makes a bit of a deal about not voting or protest voting). Shrug
2) I think talking about Brett in this fashion is like talking about Kyle when it comes to left-handed bias.
3) Ted is among many interesting people (like me!) who you can find talking about the same subject from different angles--or using inconsistent perspectives at times. Welcome to being human. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
4) An online league will ALWAYS have a different flair than the real HoF. Our players are different, the game's run environment is different, and the voters are of widely different levels of expertise and experience...we do not make our living by paying attention to and writing about the game of baseball like the BBWA members who vote for the real HoF.
5) The real HoF is a bit jacked, too. And filled with inner political squabbles.
6) One of the reasons the HoF is so difficult in an on-line league is that for many it's personal--and therefore it's also personal when someone else doesn't view it the same way (or doesn't respect it properly, or votes "wrong," or ...

Anyway...chat on. I can use your views to help prompt discussion points in my future post. In the meantime, though, remember that this is supposed to be fun. If it gets a bit pointed, back off and cool down for a moment, or just run with it and have fun at your own expense. Or whatever.

Tally ho.

[usnspecialist]

i think part of the tricky thing with asking why certain people are not in the HOF falls down to how our voting system is structured. There could be 8 people on a given ballot that I feel are worthy, but I have to rank someone 8 and that doesnt exactly do much to help them get in. I think if we went to a straight yes/no (potentially with more names on the ballot), you might see more of those borderline guys get in. Whether we should do that is a completely different matter and I leave that up to the governing board.

[RonCo]

The method of voting has changed back and forth over the years. We can certainly look at that again, I suppose--though I'm not sure where Matt is on it.

Ultimately, I think it's helpful to remember that if you're ranking a guy 8th who you don't think is worthy (but you're doing it because you have to fill the ballot), then it's quite likely that guy's not getting in. So do your best and don't fret it.

[usnspecialist]

[quote="RonCo"]The method of voting has changed back and forth over the years. We can certainly look at that again, I suppose--though I'm not sure where Matt is on it.

Ultimately, I think it's helpful to remember that if you're ranking a guy 8th who you don't think is worthy (but you're doing it because you have to fill the ballot), then it's quite likely that guy's not getting in. So do your best and don't fret it.[/quote

o dont get me wrong, I dont worry too much about it (I chose 8 as a somewhat arbitrary number). I was just using that as a point to illustrate why some of those guys that are on the border have a tougher time getting in. I have noticed with recent ballots that there seem to be 1-2 guys that are clearly on the top of everyone's ballot, and then a grouping from 3-9 that are subject to everyone's individual preferences followed by a few that seem to always be in the bottom. If that middle group just cannibalizes each others votes, it is really tough for anyone to get over the threshold needed for election.

[agrudez]

I think ranking the players every year is a more interesting discussion than who actually gets in. Honestly, I can't tell you how many - if any - old Barnstormers or Phantoms from when I ran the teams are in the hall because I don't care all that much. I just like to beat dead horses raw arguing with the wins+RBIs crowd.

[RonCo]

Also, note that the voting public today is different from the voting public even a decade ago--and considerably different than the voting public twenty years ago. Our league criteria can change merely because the voting GMs change. You can get upset about that, I suppose, but personally I think it's part of what makes an online league fun.

I'll say that having spent the past week or so digging into the Hall of Fame much deeper than I ever had, I think we've got a great representation of league. Perfect? How would I know? I've only been here 10 seasons. But if I look at the players and read the write-ups I'm getting I can get a flair for where we've been. Which is cool.

[RonCo]

I just like to beat dead horses raw arguing with the wins+RBIs crowd.

That's why you're the chief muckraker.

I think it's interesting to see at what point the Win and RBI (or all counting stats) actually begin to carry more value. They are, of course, dangerous stats to use to describe a season. They become interesting commentary when looking at a 4-5 year peak, and are often fair markers for at least beginning the discussion of the Hall. It's fascinating to see guys who don't seem to fit, then you look at their career counting totals and they "just miss" one or more of the standard counting stats.

500 homers is an example. 200 wins is an example. You can find a few guys below that total who make it in...you can find a few more above that total who don't. But as a whole, that seems to be an entry ticket to the conversation because it's hard to find a guy who won 200 games but wasn't a very good pitcher. So, in this way Wins carries informational value. Carry that to 250 wins, and you've got near certainty.

What this means is that for the BBA, if you tell me nothing but how many wins a pitcher has, I can often make a call and be "right." Under 200 and his career probably wasn't long enough. Over 250, just say yes. 200-250, it's time to go do some more research.

[RonCo]

Now, if the game itself fundamentally changes, and, say, starters begin to only go 3 innings all the time, then that equation changes.

And, if we end up with a weird outlier, then it's helpful if the league GMs have some time in advance to talk it through.

[RonCo]

Sandy Koufax is a Hall of Famer, regardless of the fact that his 165 wins is considerably lower than those totals.

[ae37jr]

I've dreaded HOF voting up until recently. For the first 4,5, maybe six seasons I either no idea who the players I was voting on were or only knew them for their post prime lingering. I know I should have immersed myself in the leagues history more, but at the time I was overwhelmed by learning about the 177 players in my organization and the 27 man rosters of 23-29 other teams. Every time the ballot came out I was like... ugh, who are these guys and how do I rank them.

I always tried my best. 500 HR, 3k hits, 300 wins, 500 saves were easy. I did try to bias positions. But my early voting was probably unintentionally disrespectful and off. I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt apathetically as a new GM and I think that might be part of the reason for some of the things discussed in the podcast. I almost feel like it should be optional to vote for your first 5 seasons. This would help get ride of some of the votes the make no sense and throw off the ballot.

[usnspecialist]

so I'm bored at work and able to listen to podcasts for once, going back and figured I would see how some of the favorite toy projections played out on this one. The number from the podcast is first, and the current favorite toy plus current totals are after. NOTE that for the favorite toy projections i will use this years stats as we are close to the end.

3000 HITS:
79% Gervasio Ridder 35% (2578)- ya this one isn't looking great, and frankly 35% seems really high given how ridder has gone lately
72% Dusty Rhodes 97% (2986)- this one is gonna happen before the end of this season barring injury. Of note he has a 95% chance for 3500 and 24% chance at 4000
90% Steve Dempsey 97% (2680)- that 97% seems really high, but what do i know. 23% chance to reach 3500

500 HR
69% Bunk Moreland 97% (476)- ya he should get this barring injury

600 HR
29% Bunk Moreland 79% (476)- knocking on the door of 500 before his 33rd birthday with no noticable drop-off is a great sign, but man 79% seems high

[crobillard]

72% Dusty Rhodes 97% (2986)- this one is gonna happen before the end of this season barring injury. Of note he has a 95% chance for 3500 and 24% chance at 4000

Bopper Kengos leads the BBA in career hits with 3900, so a 24% chance to reach 4000 is jawdropping.

[usnspecialist]

72% Dusty Rhodes 97% (2986)- this one is gonna happen before the end of this season barring injury. Of note he has a 95% chance for 3500 and 24% chance at 4000

Bopper Kengos leads the BBA in career hits with 3900, so a 24% chance to reach 4000 is jawdropping.

and don't forget all of these are actually a bit understated because they still have a month to add to the stats I used for "last season" as well as pad their totals. It gives him a 32% chance to reach 3900 for what that is worth.