oh boy! It's hall of fame voting time!

[maxthesax]

I have a set of statistics that I go by in selecting eligibility for the hall (and those stats have been adjusted upwards as the years have gone by) - basically I like to see players that are in the top 100 all time in some category - as more players reach that goal it becomes harder for current players and also means that some early era players may have gotten included when they would no longer be in that top 100.

When the hall was first introduced I went backwards to offer up some deserving players from the leagues' first seasons. At this juncture, with so little participation I think that having an "at large" vote would further complicate things and perhaps further inhibit voting. Many of the players you mentioned are probably deserving, but they had their chance back before all the bots and for whatever reason failed to make the grade. I believe we should stand on those prior decisions.

As for the current group - yep, marginal, although I was perhaps dazzled by Santana being in the top 50 in k's and that he had a really nice k/w ratio - although negatives are his marginal w/l pct and his rather high era.

As for Verlander... relief pitchers are a hard sell, and really, SD is stacked against relievers in general due to the "rally" factor. That he stands #14 all time in saves is his big plus; that and his consistency (10 fireman noms)... I suppose the way in which many managers use closers, that stat could be skewed, so it really makes it hard to judge their "star" quality - same goes for all star appearances - with 5 spots and only 8 closers per division, this isn't really a true barometer of greatness.

[spicoli306]

I appreciate the response, max. I can completely understand you not wanting to overcomplicate things.

I didn't mean it as a critique of the players you are selecting to nominate. The main point I was making was that we might be inducting more players from the recent group of retirees as compared to the players from the period between 1950-2000.

It hasn't become a big problem, but I think when mediocre relievers are making it in while more qualified former players are left out, it tends to muddy things.

[alanbannister]

Toronto votes for:

Verlander

[maxthesax]

. The main point I was making was that we might be inducting more players from the recent group of retirees as compared to the players from the period between 1950-2000.

It hasn't become a big problem, but I think when mediocre relievers are making it in while more qualified former players are left out, it tends to muddy things.

While several of the players you mentioned are certainly deserving, fact is that there were even better players who retired at that time like Deron Furguson and Don Cruise - I can't say why, when you can vote for 5, these other players weren't also invited in, but they weren't. It is a conundrum that there are weaker years than others (this last crop being one of them, and yes, if these older players were up against their likes, they'd probably be voted in). We've already pared down the eligibility rosters so the list isn't too cumbersome, so I really can't see how we can start adding names of those who failed to get in in the past - I'm certainly open to suggestion.

[spicoli306]

While several of the players you mentioned are certainly deserving, fact is that there were even better players who retired at that time like Deron Furguson and Don Cruise - I can't say why, when you can vote for 5, these other players weren't also invited in, but they weren't. It is a conundrum that there are weaker years than others (this last crop being one of them, and yes, if these older players were up against their likes, they'd probably be voted in). We've already pared down the eligibility rosters so the list isn't too cumbersome, so I really can't see how we can start adding names of those who failed to get in in the past - I'm certainly open to suggestion.

You're not hearing me right. I'm saying specifically that the current lack of great players to vote for is one of the primary reasons for lesser players being inducted. I agree with your assertion that you have limited the year-by-year nominees to only those that reach certain benchmarks. I also agree that you've started removing even more names because of lack of voting. In addition, you've kept the 5 year limit on the ballot. Finally, between 2131 (5) and in 2130 (3), 8 players have been removed due to being voted into the HOF. All of those things have pared the list of candidates to one that is lesser in overall quality.

Now, here's the subjective part. I'm saying that it is likely that more individual owners are voting for guys like Verlander and Dubiel because they are merely trying to select the best of the pack. Now, I understand anybody can choose to vote for no one. I could be wrong about rationalizing why certain types of players are getting more love than in the past, but IMHO the short list of nominees is part of the reason. As for how to remedy things, I'm not sure, but I don't think we're talking about the same things.

[maxthesax]

I see what you're driving at, vis a vis the talent pool. some owners may indeed by swayed by thinking that they have to vote for someone, and I myself, having assembled the list of prospects, probably am too generous in my picks (as realistically they wouldn't be on the list of prospects if they didn't have the credentials). We can argue all day whether Verlander or Dubiel are indeed worthy of inclusion, especially when there have been others who have gone before who have better stats and have not been included because the talent pool when they retired was much stronger (still, when you can vote for 5, you'd think that they would have made it... but that's another topic entirely).

I think that in theory, if we had better participation and a full 16 managers voting, you would get a more even response, but as it stands now... this past season we had only 6 managers participating - which effectively means that your no vote excluded Verlander... which is not a problem, as again, we can discuss the merits of a relief pitcher and the value of saves - which is half the fun of having the hall in the first place.

I'm thinking that perhaps going forward we can start including one pitcher and one position player from past seasons and see where that takes us - said players will have a two year eligibility run - kind of a last chance 2nd look. You've compiled a nice list to start out with, and if you'd like to continue in that capacity, that would be great (I know of one player who probably should receive consideration Dan Jiminez)... will this work for you?

[spicoli306]

I think that would be an awesome idea. I would definitely be willing to help out in any way, too.