 |
View Old Forum Thread
tim_ackley
In the 1975 Hall of Fame election, ten owners voted. The results are as follows:
1. Chad Coleman (SP) - 2 yes votes (20%) - Not Elected
2. Reggie Dunlop (1B) - 5 yes votes (50%) - Not Elected
3. Elmer Glue [aka Elmer Schulte] (CF) - 8 yes votes (80%) - Elected
4. Gil McDougald [aka Buzz Christian] (2B) - 8 yes votes (80%) - Elected
5. Rene Robert (SP) - 7 yes votes (70%) - Not Elected
6. Brook Underwood (RP) - 10 yes votes (100%) - Elected
7. Justin Upton (SS) - 10 yes votes (100%) - Elected
Each of the three nominees who were not elected garnered a minimum of two votes. Therefore, each qualified for automatic renomination. Each will be listed on the 1976 HOF ballot.
Congratulations to the new members of the TRL Hall of Fame! And congratulations to the owners who developed and managed these TRL legends.
The complete list may be found at Stats >> Hall of Fame. Also, the Hall of Fame message is the first of our League Messages.
Thanks to all who participated. For those of you who did not, I hope you consider doing so in future elections.
[Edited on 4-3-2009 by tim_ackley]
1975 HOF - Results
April 03, 2009 at 04:28PM View BBCode
I apologize for the delayed update. I have had a long, hectic work week.In the 1975 Hall of Fame election, ten owners voted. The results are as follows:
1. Chad Coleman (SP) - 2 yes votes (20%) - Not Elected
2. Reggie Dunlop (1B) - 5 yes votes (50%) - Not Elected
3. Elmer Glue [aka Elmer Schulte] (CF) - 8 yes votes (80%) - Elected
4. Gil McDougald [aka Buzz Christian] (2B) - 8 yes votes (80%) - Elected
5. Rene Robert (SP) - 7 yes votes (70%) - Not Elected
6. Brook Underwood (RP) - 10 yes votes (100%) - Elected
7. Justin Upton (SS) - 10 yes votes (100%) - Elected
Each of the three nominees who were not elected garnered a minimum of two votes. Therefore, each qualified for automatic renomination. Each will be listed on the 1976 HOF ballot.
Congratulations to the new members of the TRL Hall of Fame! And congratulations to the owners who developed and managed these TRL legends.
The complete list may be found at Stats >> Hall of Fame. Also, the Hall of Fame message is the first of our League Messages.
Thanks to all who participated. For those of you who did not, I hope you consider doing so in future elections.
[Edited on 4-3-2009 by tim_ackley]
bigmc9898
thanks again
bigmc
April 04, 2009 at 06:25PM View BBCode
thanks Tim for taking care of the HOF. i understand about having to take care of things at work. i think we all do. it not easy especially these days.thanks again
bigmc
npstamps
You have put in yeoman work in contributing to our league. It is very much appreciated!
Larry
April 04, 2009 at 07:49PM View BBCode
Tim,You have put in yeoman work in contributing to our league. It is very much appreciated!
Larry
tim_ackley
April 04, 2009 at 09:30PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Thanks, guys! I am happy to support our very fine, fun league.
DeepThreat
I'm considering putting together the player/pitcher of the year and gold glove stuff for the league. Still trying to think of a statistical format to award GGs. I only got feedback from a couple of people though.
April 04, 2009 at 09:58PM View BBCode
Tim, we can all understand work issues. Lord knows my past two weeks have absolutely sucked.... but I guess that's why they pay me the $1.50/day to put up with it. ;)I'm considering putting together the player/pitcher of the year and gold glove stuff for the league. Still trying to think of a statistical format to award GGs. I only got feedback from a couple of people though.
tim_ackley
a) to qualify for consideration, a position player must have started 2/3 of the team's games (108 games) at the position, and,
b) for qualifying players, evaluate fielding skill primarily based of fielding percentage (better fielders make fewer errors), the range factor (better fielders get to more batted balls and handle the ball more often), and the +/- total (again, better fielders make plays that poor fielders do not).
In addition, we might consider total chances and number of errors, but I believe the fielding percentage, the range factor, and the +/- total already have done so.
For catchers, we also should consider the caught stealing percentage and perhaps the number of steal attempts against per game (players do not run on catchers with cannons for arms).
What do you think?
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by tim_ackley]
April 05, 2009 at 04:32AM View BBCode
I like the Gold Glove idea. I suggest the following:a) to qualify for consideration, a position player must have started 2/3 of the team's games (108 games) at the position, and,
b) for qualifying players, evaluate fielding skill primarily based of fielding percentage (better fielders make fewer errors), the range factor (better fielders get to more batted balls and handle the ball more often), and the +/- total (again, better fielders make plays that poor fielders do not).
In addition, we might consider total chances and number of errors, but I believe the fielding percentage, the range factor, and the +/- total already have done so.
For catchers, we also should consider the caught stealing percentage and perhaps the number of steal attempts against per game (players do not run on catchers with cannons for arms).
What do you think?
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by tim_ackley]
DeepThreat
Here's the previous post:
Yeah, it would have to have those factors. Maybe something like [(.1RF + FPCT %) (100)] +/-. For Catchers [(.1RF + Field % + CS %) (100)] +/-.
In other words...
Matrim Cauthon SS Bal: 4.82 RF, .984 FPCT, +7.
Formula: (.482 + .984)100 + 7 = 152.0256
Juilin Sandar C Bal: 6.04 RF, 1.000 FPCT, 0, 43.5% CS
Formula: [(.604 + 1.000 + .435) 100] + 0 = 203.9000
If another SS or C with the minimum number of innings (still to be determined) has a higher total number... they are ranked higher than these two in terms of GG. If these two guys hold the highest total at their position, they win the GG. However, I'd like a better way to bring in +/- without it being the critical stat.
April 05, 2009 at 05:00AM View BBCode
I posted a formula on another thread that I came up with, but it can be greatly improved on. I'd like it to be strictly stat oriented and not a voted on thing like the RL GGs. As far as playing time, I think it should be referenced in terms of innings at the position. Say something like a minimum of say 1080 innings logged at a particular position (120 games). We may even want to knock that number down a bit for catchers.Here's the previous post:
Yeah, it would have to have those factors. Maybe something like [(.1RF + FPCT %) (100)] +/-. For Catchers [(.1RF + Field % + CS %) (100)] +/-.
In other words...
Matrim Cauthon SS Bal: 4.82 RF, .984 FPCT, +7.
Formula: (.482 + .984)100 + 7 = 152.0256
Juilin Sandar C Bal: 6.04 RF, 1.000 FPCT, 0, 43.5% CS
Formula: [(.604 + 1.000 + .435) 100] + 0 = 203.9000
If another SS or C with the minimum number of innings (still to be determined) has a higher total number... they are ranked higher than these two in terms of GG. If these two guys hold the highest total at their position, they win the GG. However, I'd like a better way to bring in +/- without it being the critical stat.
Pages: 1