Sunday, June 19, 2011

Hall of Fame

As you may (or may not) know, we have a Hall of Fame where the best players in SDMB OOTP history are enshrined.  Currently, there are three players so enshrined:

CF Michael Fay (2002-2014, Saskatoon)
SP Chad Nelligan (2004-2016, Seattle/Hickory)
SP Demarcus Ramirez (2002-2018, Saskatoon)

Currently, players are automatically enshrined to the Hall based if they meet any of the following criteria:

  • 3000 hits
  • 500 home runs
  • .300 batting average (min 2000 hits)
  • 750 VORP
  • 300 wins
  • 500 saves
  • 3.50 ERA (min 200 wins)

The topic of a Hall of Fame first came up a few years ago.  At that time, we chose to shelve the matter since we did not have enough of a history at that time to really consider enshrining players.  We may, at this time, now have enough history and may want to consider a process to enshrine players.  So, I'm using this post as a springboard for discussion on the matter.

There are several different approaches we can take.  We can:


  • Keep things as they are (automatic enshrinement upon retirement if statistical criteria are met)
  • Use a nominating and voting system
  • Use a combination of the two
  • Or something other process that someone wants to bring up.


So, what do you think?  What are your thoughts on the matter?  Let's keep this thread just for discussion.  After discussion, we'll begin making formal proposals.

Zev

6 comments:

  1. I say, let the system continue to automatically enshrine qualified players, and allow owners to nominate one player per season for voting on by the rest.

    For example, I feel that Troy Nelson should be in the Hall of Fame. He was an original expansion player, so he was already 31 when the league started. He only had about 100 career wins, but I'd say he was as good as any during his time.

    So, I would nominate him, using up my one nomination for the season. We would have a simple vote, and a majority of Yes votes (of the total of votes, not the total of owners) would get him in.

    I.E., I nominate Nelson. Six owners vote either yes/no, but four of the six vote yes, so he's in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Provided the Hall of Fame maintains a 66% or higher Amig. Representation level, I'm in favor of any system :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I think it is nice to have all of us vote on hall of fame members it would increase the admin load by our current Comishes. If there are cool with it, then I am cool with having a voting criteria, but with some of us new guys it might be tougher for us to be objective about players we never 'saw' play.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the combo platter approach proposed by Michael. Let the game continue to automatically induct certain players. And, let's allow nominations.

    The only tweak I'd offer to Michael's proposal is that at least half the owners (6) should have to vote on the Hall of Fame, one way or the other, and half of those voting should have to vote for induction in order for a player to get in.

    So, if only three people vote, the player doesn't get in even if the vote is 3-0. The minimum to get in would be a 4-2 vote. Kind of a bar against voter apathy allowing undeserving players to get in.

    This wouldn't necessarily need to be a big drain on Zev and Michael's time. Some owner with an obsession for the league's history [cough, cough, me!] might be willing to run the elections at the start of each offseason. Then, all the commissioners would need to do is put the player(s) elected into the Hall of Fame.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm down with Mack's addendum.

    As far as when to do the voting, I don't think it should be immediately after the season ends. I'd wait until at least the start of the new calendar year, as a flock of players retire on 1/1. We wouldn't want a Brett Favre situation here. :)

    I also think that Mack would be the best person to manage the election process.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd be happy to manage the Hall of Fame elections and can do it at any point in the season that is deemed convenient.

    Sometime in the offseason after January 1 makes sense for the reason Michael points out.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.