 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Dynasty Leagues » Keller Stargell League » Hall of Fame-Need feedback
pecker247
As a group we can decide a few things so here are some questions that we need answered as a league.
1. Should we do nominations every 2,4, 5 years or longer? Doing it every year seems a bit overkill to me.
2. What percentage should a player get in order to be inducted? 75%, 80%?
3. How many minimum votes should a player get in order for it to count. For example we have 24 teams. If only 4 owners voted for a player and no one else voted then that seems a bit unfair to that player both good and bad? Should we have at least 50% of the leagues votes to count which is 12?
4. In order to cut down on someone being put up every time should we limit the amount a player has in order to get in? 3 times? 5 times, or should we put a time limit on it? 10 years, 20 years?
5. To prevent the league voting on 10 or 15 players each time should we limit the amount of nominations to 5 players per nomination round? 10 players per nomination round? Just want to prevent owners from having to cast their vote for 20 different players each time. Remember we have a 24 team league so it can be a bit daunting if we have a ton of nominations.
Any other ideas?
Hall of Fame-Need feedback
July 17, 2017 at 07:48PM View BBCode
At the end of this year will be the 15th year for this league. I was going to wait until the 20th year, but I will go ahead and post for nominations at the end of this year. Please keep in mind that we don't want to water down the Hall of Fame. It will be very tempting to nominate someone because he was the highest in a category, but keep in mind that we are only 15 years old. We WILL count stats from the two prior leagues of anyone that came from those older leagues. When we post for nominations please post for the combined stats if they had any stats from the prior league.As a group we can decide a few things so here are some questions that we need answered as a league.
1. Should we do nominations every 2,4, 5 years or longer? Doing it every year seems a bit overkill to me.
2. What percentage should a player get in order to be inducted? 75%, 80%?
3. How many minimum votes should a player get in order for it to count. For example we have 24 teams. If only 4 owners voted for a player and no one else voted then that seems a bit unfair to that player both good and bad? Should we have at least 50% of the leagues votes to count which is 12?
4. In order to cut down on someone being put up every time should we limit the amount a player has in order to get in? 3 times? 5 times, or should we put a time limit on it? 10 years, 20 years?
5. To prevent the league voting on 10 or 15 players each time should we limit the amount of nominations to 5 players per nomination round? 10 players per nomination round? Just want to prevent owners from having to cast their vote for 20 different players each time. Remember we have a 24 team league so it can be a bit daunting if we have a ton of nominations.
Any other ideas?
eragon
July 18, 2017 at 12:28AM View BBCode
I'll try to give a more detailed response later, but right off the bat, I think we need to be aware that the first year will probably get a ton of nominees. A lot of really great players have retired in the league's lifespan that played large chunks of their career in our previous respective leagues.
mmm6862
2: 75%
3: 50%
4: 10 years
5: 5 players
July 19, 2017 at 02:42PM View BBCode
1: every 2 years2: 75%
3: 50%
4: 10 years
5: 5 players
TRINITY731
2. 75%
3. 50%
4. I will go with 15 years, but a player would be dropped if they do not reach 10% of vote.
5. A limit of 10 players per vote should be doable.
July 20, 2017 at 01:29AM View BBCode
1. every 2 years2. 75%
3. 50%
4. I will go with 15 years, but a player would be dropped if they do not reach 10% of vote.
5. A limit of 10 players per vote should be doable.
Kingturtle
July 20, 2017 at 07:32PM View BBCode
We're renovating our kitchen ourselves. A little busy at the moment. I plan on responding in a few days.
Kingturtle
* There were ballots each season until we got caught up. After that ballots were every other season
* Prior to each ballot, each team owner was allowed to nominate one retired player (from any team, including their own). That helped limit the number of players on the ballot. Usually only 3 or 4 owners would nominate players.
* Players receiving votes in at least 75% of the ballots cast gained entry into the Hall of Fame. Players receiving less than 12.5% of the ballots cast were dropped from the next ballot (but could be renominated if an owner wanted to). Players who fail to reach 75% after seven years on the ballot were dropped from the next ballot. (but could be renominated if an owner wanted to)
* There was no minimum requirement of voters per ballot. Over 21 ballots, we averaged 9.3 voters (in a 16 team league).
With that system there was an average of 14.4 players on each ballot, and an average of 1.4 players entering the Hall per ballot.
I still have the Results in a Google Doc. I entered the league in 1979. I don't know how the ballots were done prior to that, but I was able to go back and see what the vote results were. In 1979, I became the Hall of Fame Commish and we owners came to an consensus on the rules I described above. It's pretty interesting to look at the doc now.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tkHjlGOHIF7G1LuBHwCq1NstRGUbCHfH1i5Pj_61VZk/edit?usp=sharing
* Green means: Received enough ballots to make the Hall of Fame.
* Red means: Received too few votes, and removed from future ballot. (they can always be renominated).
* Yellow means: Failed to qualify after 7 ballots. (they can always be renominated).
* Tan means: Successfully earned enough votes to be on the next ballot.
So, with all that said, here's what I'd suggest:
1. Do it every season for 4 times, and then go to every other season.
2. 75% or better to get in.
3. Result percentages should be calculated this way: Votes for the player divided by total votes cast. In the 21 ballots in the WSL, only three times did less than half the owners vote. If owners don't vote, that's their choice.
4. 7 ballots of getting at least 12.5% is what we did in WSL. Ken Dunning, Mike Peplowski, and Hank Estock each got into the Hall on their 7th ballot. Very dramatic! Also, if an owner wants to nominate a player that failed to get in, so be it. By restricting each owner to one nominee per new ballot, I doubt this will come up much. During my tenure as Hall of Fame commish in WSL, it happened only once in 21 ballots.
5. We should allow each owner to make one new nominee for each new ballot. Not every owner is going to nominate someone, and sometimes two or three owners nominate the same player. At first, the numbers may be high but it should level off. Some players will get in the Hall, and some players will miss the 12.5% cut off. In MLB, they usually have 30+ guys on the ballot. I don't think we will have it like that.
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by Kingturtle]
August 02, 2017 at 04:43AM View BBCode
So here's how we used to do it in the Willie Stargell League...* There were ballots each season until we got caught up. After that ballots were every other season
* Prior to each ballot, each team owner was allowed to nominate one retired player (from any team, including their own). That helped limit the number of players on the ballot. Usually only 3 or 4 owners would nominate players.
* Players receiving votes in at least 75% of the ballots cast gained entry into the Hall of Fame. Players receiving less than 12.5% of the ballots cast were dropped from the next ballot (but could be renominated if an owner wanted to). Players who fail to reach 75% after seven years on the ballot were dropped from the next ballot. (but could be renominated if an owner wanted to)
* There was no minimum requirement of voters per ballot. Over 21 ballots, we averaged 9.3 voters (in a 16 team league).
With that system there was an average of 14.4 players on each ballot, and an average of 1.4 players entering the Hall per ballot.
I still have the Results in a Google Doc. I entered the league in 1979. I don't know how the ballots were done prior to that, but I was able to go back and see what the vote results were. In 1979, I became the Hall of Fame Commish and we owners came to an consensus on the rules I described above. It's pretty interesting to look at the doc now.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tkHjlGOHIF7G1LuBHwCq1NstRGUbCHfH1i5Pj_61VZk/edit?usp=sharing
* Green means: Received enough ballots to make the Hall of Fame.
* Red means: Received too few votes, and removed from future ballot. (they can always be renominated).
* Yellow means: Failed to qualify after 7 ballots. (they can always be renominated).
* Tan means: Successfully earned enough votes to be on the next ballot.
So, with all that said, here's what I'd suggest:
1. Do it every season for 4 times, and then go to every other season.
2. 75% or better to get in.
3. Result percentages should be calculated this way: Votes for the player divided by total votes cast. In the 21 ballots in the WSL, only three times did less than half the owners vote. If owners don't vote, that's their choice.
4. 7 ballots of getting at least 12.5% is what we did in WSL. Ken Dunning, Mike Peplowski, and Hank Estock each got into the Hall on their 7th ballot. Very dramatic! Also, if an owner wants to nominate a player that failed to get in, so be it. By restricting each owner to one nominee per new ballot, I doubt this will come up much. During my tenure as Hall of Fame commish in WSL, it happened only once in 21 ballots.
5. We should allow each owner to make one new nominee for each new ballot. Not every owner is going to nominate someone, and sometimes two or three owners nominate the same player. At first, the numbers may be high but it should level off. Some players will get in the Hall, and some players will miss the 12.5% cut off. In MLB, they usually have 30+ guys on the ballot. I don't think we will have it like that.
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by Kingturtle]
pecker247
My whole goal is to prevent the Hall from getting log jammed. In the beginning with every league certain players get into the hall because they were the best at that time. When you go back and look at a Hall of Fame with a league that has been active for 70 or more years you will notice that in the beginning rather weak players got in and those same players wouldn't make it into the Hall if they were nominated 30 years later.
As it stands right now I see maybe ONE batter that could make the Hall of Fame and even he is pretty close. Tiny Leppert.
He had 455 Home runs 1569 RBI's. 2618 hits 369 stolen bases 1416 runs and batted right around .286 for his career. He also had 10 all star apps. He also had 2 World Series Rings.
Miles Riles will probably be someone that you will nominate. He had 459 Home Runs, 1484 Rbi's 2411 hits, 167 stolen bases, 1279 runs and batted .259 for his career. He had 6 all star apps and no rings.
I looked at the other leagues I have played in and NO ONE had ever made the Hall of Fame with that low of an average.
I am not picking on your player. I am trying to make a point. If I am saying that Tiny isn't a shoe in for the Hall then Miles shouldn't have a chance to make it. I am just trying to prevent the Hall from being overcrowded with above average players. That's all I am saying.
August 02, 2017 at 05:44PM View BBCode
Thank you all for your feedback. I will combine what everyone has said and hopefully come up with a streamlined procedure. I can tell you that some teams have stronger teams then others so to restrict an owner from only nominating one player seems a bit stringent. Also to prevent owners from having to look through 20 different nominees I do think it's a good idea to restrict the number to the best candidates for that season.My whole goal is to prevent the Hall from getting log jammed. In the beginning with every league certain players get into the hall because they were the best at that time. When you go back and look at a Hall of Fame with a league that has been active for 70 or more years you will notice that in the beginning rather weak players got in and those same players wouldn't make it into the Hall if they were nominated 30 years later.
As it stands right now I see maybe ONE batter that could make the Hall of Fame and even he is pretty close. Tiny Leppert.
He had 455 Home runs 1569 RBI's. 2618 hits 369 stolen bases 1416 runs and batted right around .286 for his career. He also had 10 all star apps. He also had 2 World Series Rings.
Miles Riles will probably be someone that you will nominate. He had 459 Home Runs, 1484 Rbi's 2411 hits, 167 stolen bases, 1279 runs and batted .259 for his career. He had 6 all star apps and no rings.
I looked at the other leagues I have played in and NO ONE had ever made the Hall of Fame with that low of an average.
I am not picking on your player. I am trying to make a point. If I am saying that Tiny isn't a shoe in for the Hall then Miles shouldn't have a chance to make it. I am just trying to prevent the Hall from being overcrowded with above average players. That's all I am saying.
Kingturtle
The WSL system worked well for over 30 seasons.
As for the "weak players" argument, you can't compare player numbers from different eras. Reggie Jackson should be compared to his contemporaries. Ed Delahanty should be compared to his contemporaries. Ed Delahanty's numbers should not be compared directly to Reggie Jackson's to judge who was better.
The fans and sportswriters in our SimDynasty world don't know that 500 HRs or 3000 Hits are Hall of Fame milestones. Lemmie Smajstrla, Bill McLeod, and Otto Ellsworth are most certainly a Hall of Fame candidate based on the Keller Stargell League world of 1984. Millie Riles being the first to 400 HRs means something the the fans of 1984. They don't know about baseball in any other way. We need to base this on what exists currently, not on what bigger milestones we anticipate in another 10 seasons.
In the WSL (which started in 1950), Luke Easter retired in 1957 and was elected into the Hall in 1960 with 80% of the vote. Here are his numbers: http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=1670962
His Hall of Fame worth was based not on MLB milestone standards of 2017. They were based on WSL milestone standards of a pretend 1960. And that's what we should be doing here.
August 03, 2017 at 02:36AM View BBCode
Restricting each owner to nominating one player isn't too stringent, actually. It prevents too many nominees occurring for each ballot, and it forces owners to take more care and consideration in their nominations. This way we are more likely to have ballots consisting mostly of quality choices. It keeps things more manageable. If I have two players in mind, I am going to have to choose the best one, and wait until next year to nominate the other one. That's also means that every year we will have new quality nominees.The WSL system worked well for over 30 seasons.
As for the "weak players" argument, you can't compare player numbers from different eras. Reggie Jackson should be compared to his contemporaries. Ed Delahanty should be compared to his contemporaries. Ed Delahanty's numbers should not be compared directly to Reggie Jackson's to judge who was better.
The fans and sportswriters in our SimDynasty world don't know that 500 HRs or 3000 Hits are Hall of Fame milestones. Lemmie Smajstrla, Bill McLeod, and Otto Ellsworth are most certainly a Hall of Fame candidate based on the Keller Stargell League world of 1984. Millie Riles being the first to 400 HRs means something the the fans of 1984. They don't know about baseball in any other way. We need to base this on what exists currently, not on what bigger milestones we anticipate in another 10 seasons.
In the WSL (which started in 1950), Luke Easter retired in 1957 and was elected into the Hall in 1960 with 80% of the vote. Here are his numbers: http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=1670962
His Hall of Fame worth was based not on MLB milestone standards of 2017. They were based on WSL milestone standards of a pretend 1960. And that's what we should be doing here.
pecker247
August 03, 2017 at 02:10PM View BBCode
I respectfully disagree, but that's what this board is for. Good debate. Personally I would of waited 25-30 years before even starting this Hall of Fame in this league, but I know some owners wanted to get it started. At the end of the day you have made your arguments and I have made mine. It's really up to the league to decide the rest with their votes. Kingturtle thank you for your feedback and responses. It's nice to see another owner to cares.
eragon
August 04, 2017 at 04:54PM View BBCode
I agree with Turtle. Player's stats should be evaluated in the era of the KSL they played in. For example, having the most HRs in KSL history after 15 years of existence is quite impressive, even if it seems to pale to totals that may be posted 40 years later.Pages: 1