Tiger Hall of Fame

[DTroppens]

From what I gathered this are the people on the board in order of the time the post was received.

DTroppens
Tiger337
NATE
Redshark
DaYooperASBDT
Squid
Toledo Tiger fan
Tigercub33
estrepe
edman
Gartenspartan
dt35456884 (does anyone actually have dt's number memorized)
Brent
chasfh
Buddha
OMFool
Billfer
I think we have 17. Did I miss anyone. Maybe we should try to make it 20 for the 75% thing, but 17 with three "noncommittee" members would make 20 as well.

[Tigercub33]

I would gladly be on it - though I am much more of a recent history fella.

[DTroppens]

Count yourself in Tigercub.

[estrepe1]

As I posted in the other thread you can count me in.

[tiger337]

estrepe said he wanted to be on it.

[tiger337]

Edman too.

[GartenSpartan]

If you still need more people I would be happy to participate.

[DTroppens]

Now we are getting good numbers. Can anyone think of someone who really should be here that may have just missed this thread or the other one?

[redshark63]

Calling Bert, Bert???

It would be great if Bert was available.

He created the Tigers History Forum

[tiger337]

CHASFH and BUDDHA should be part of this.

[estrepe1]

dt35456884 should be asked as well.

[DTroppens]

The people that suggested the others - how about PMing them?

I'll see if I can beg other moderators or MWG to be a part of it. Then I think we have enough.

[dt35456884]

dt35456884 should be asked as well.

Thanks, I'll be glad to.

[DTroppens]

On that other thread I started from the people that put their name on the roll call. If anyone else said "this is a cool idea" but didn't post after the roll call I didn't notice because I didn't go back that far. I figured in a week most of those people that were still interested would post again. Then again, they may have not seen the start of the roll call either.

Maybe starting new here was a good idea to get all those people.

[NATE]

We have around 15. 16 would be a good number because we could then need 12 of 16 for the 75% or 8 for the 50%.

[estrepe1]

dt35456884 (does anyone actually have dt's number memorized)

I memorized it once I realized it was the years that the Tigers won the World Series.

Thanks, I'll be glad to.

No problem. I figured this would be something you would enjoy.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Chas would be a good choice, or any of our MVP's that care to participate. Chas may be hit or miss until he returns from his Fantasy Camp though?

[Brent]

I'd be interested.

[chasfh]

I'm in.

[Buddha]

I'll play.

[One Man's Fool]

If the opportunity still exists, I would like to do it.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Cool, that makes 16. Haven't seen Sabretooth in a while? He would be another good choice, along with I-Bert.

[squid]

billfer would be good too, if he has the time.

[billfer]

If there's room at the inn, I'd love to take part. I stopped following the other thread before the roll call was initiated and didn't see it pop up here.

(Thanks to squid for the heads up)

[billfer]

And just another thought - feel free to bash it to pieces - but this whole concept really is a tremendous idea and should it expand beyond Motown Sports?

I don't know about a real building being built, but at the least the concept of a virtual hall of fame with real legitimacy certainly seems attainable. This seems like the kind of thing that Detroit/Michigan baseball people would certainly embrace and enjoy participating in.

I'm thinking of the Don Lund SABR chapter, Dale Petroskey, the Mayo Smith Society, other baseball luminaries such as Ernie Harwell and the like. And we could exclude Rob Parker of course.

There are downsides to this as well in terms of who would get to vote, and who wouldn't and I quite frankly wouldn't want to be making those decisions. Plus, it would be taking a cool activity outside of a really great community and making a much bigger deal of it. Not always a good thing.

At the same time it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the concept actually applied within the next 5 years or so. Baseball Think Factory does a similar thing with the Hall of Merit because the baseball writers already have the Hall of Fame as their own. The Tiger Hall of Fame doesn't exist, so wouldn't it be cool to actually get to make the rules, and to be a part of it?

I'm not trying to come in late to the party and take this over or anything (and quite frankly don't want to). You guys already have it covered. I'm just more or less thinking out loud.

[redshark63]

And just another thought - feel free to bash it to pieces - but this whole concept really is a tremendous idea and should it expand beyond Motown Sports?

I don't know about a real building being built, but at the least the concept of a virtual hall of fame with real legitimacy certainly seems attainable. This seems like the kind of thing that Detroit/Michigan baseball people would certainly embrace and enjoy participating in.

I'm thinking of the Don Lund SABR chapter, Dale Petroskey, the Mayo Smith Society, other baseball luminaries such as Ernie Harwell and the like. And we could exclude Rob Parker of course.

There are downsides to this as well in terms of who would get to vote, and who wouldn't and I quite frankly wouldn't want to be making those decisions. Plus, it would be taking a cool activity outside of a really great community and making a much bigger deal of it. Not always a good thing.

At the same time it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the concept actually applied within the next 5 years or so. Baseball Think Factory does a similar thing with the Hall of Merit because the baseball writers already have the Hall of Fame as their own. The Tiger Hall of Fame doesn't exist, so wouldn't it be cool to actually get to make the rules, and to be a part of it?

I'm not trying to come in late to the party and take this over or anything (and quite frankly don't want to). You guys already have it covered. I'm just more or less thinking out loud.

Some real good ideas, Bill.

I may raise the ideas at the next Lund chapter meeting. Also, I may contact Greg Rhodes @ the Cincy HOF for his thoughts.

[tiger337]

And just another thought - feel free to bash it to pieces - but this whole concept really is a tremendous idea and should it expand beyond Motown Sports?

I don't know about a real building being built, but at the least the concept of a virtual hall of fame with real legitimacy certainly seems attainable. This seems like the kind of thing that Detroit/Michigan baseball people would certainly embrace and enjoy participating in.

I'm thinking of the Don Lund SABR chapter, Dale Petroskey, the Mayo Smith Society, other baseball luminaries such as Ernie Harwell and the like. And we could exclude Rob Parker of course.

There are downsides to this as well in terms of who would get to vote, and who wouldn't and I quite frankly wouldn't want to be making those decisions. Plus, it would be taking a cool activity outside of a really great community and making a much bigger deal of it. Not always a good thing.

At the same time it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the concept actually applied within the next 5 years or so. Baseball Think Factory does a similar thing with the Hall of Merit because the baseball writers already have the Hall of Fame as their own. The Tiger Hall of Fame doesn't exist, so wouldn't it be cool to actually get to make the rules, and to be a part of it?

I'm not trying to come in late to the party and take this over or anything (and quite frankly don't want to). You guys already have it covered. I'm just more or less thinking out loud.


I think there is definitely potential to turn this into a big deal rather than just a fun message board exercise. We could start the official Tigers Hall of Fame. Why not? It's a matter of much time people want to put into this.

[DTroppens]

I would rather have our own Hall of Fame that has people from our board voting actually. It would be great if we could get something started "officially" through the Tigers but the way I look at it, this is supposed to be something that we at the board agree on. The fun of it is supposed to be this is what we think - people we "know" think, our community. How many of us have seen posts on the board concerning those others named. As much as I love Ernie, he's not a part of the board. I am more excited to see what One Man's Fool thinks thinks rather than Ernie because this is something being derived from the board.

Now if this idea can be generated at a higher level, that's great. However, I don't think we should destroy our board.

We do have to get this going though.

[DTroppens]

I'd have to say everyone here is on the board....
1. Who votes:
a)Anyone on the board
b)The committee
c)The committe plus some members on the board that petition for it and maybe we chose who is on my some random raffle (maybe up to 10 more people).

I kind of like b. If people were interested, they would've done something in the two threads we have started. Maybe opening it up to 3-5 more voters from the regular message board, but not more than that.

2. I think we've decided we want to begin with earlier eras and work to the present. How do people think we should work the eras?
a) a player must've retired during that era.
b) a player must've played during that era.
c) a player must've played his "peak" years during that era.

b) is my answer. I like the idea that a player get extra benefits because he was on the team for a longer period of time. I think Trammell should have a shot in the 1970s as well as the 1980s and 1990. If the 1970s players can't handle him, too bad. If he did win in the 1970s it would open for more deserving athletes in the 1980s to make it as well. This would also give people in the 1960s who played in the 1970s a second shot as well. The 1970s weren't too great. Bridging this gap makes sure we just don't have players from an era regardless if they deserve it or not. And it's not like Alan Trammell is going to be voted into the 1970s HOF. He's being voted in the entire HOF. I like this way, although I can see the merits of c) as well. I don't like a) for one reason. What about the 1900s? We would have about 8 possibly legit guys and really it would be a very weak eight guys (just a number I threw out there). If we do it this way, I think we have to group 1901-1919 as one era.

3) How do we decide who makes it (percentages)
a) 50%
b) 75%
c) the top X make it based on the vote for each era ballot.

I like b) after we go through the eras and do this annually with whoever remains. That jives with the actual HOF and is cool. However, to get some people actually in it, I think we should say each era ballot has X number make it in (probably 3). Again, it's not like we'd get three for each strict decade if we do this and use option b) in question #2. More likely we'd get Lolich as a scrap left from 1960, possibly a Trammell or Whitaker in the 1980s and/or someone like Willie Horton, Lance Parrish, battling with a few decent 70s guys like LeFlore. So while there would be a 70's vote it's not like those people would be in automatically. If someone likes Rusty Staub for example, he'd probably not go in initially doing it this way, but in future years he could still get in with the 75% or 50% vote.

4) Who gets on the ballot and who decides?
a) Anyone from the era we are chosing (long)
b) Break it down to the people "we all know" were legit quality players.
c) Who needs an actual ballot, we can do our own homer work.

b) is my option. It looks like i"m putting all my options at b).

Who decides
a) the committee
b) a subtgroup of the committe.
c) someone makes an initial list and others add to it who they think needs to be there.

Any works for me. C) would be the easiest solution probably.

Let's get the ball rolling.

[tiger337]

I would rather have our own Hall of Fame that has people from our board voting actually. It would be great if we could get something started "officially" through the Tigers but the way I look at it, this is supposed to be something that we at the board agree on. The fun of it is supposed to be this is what we think - people we "know" think, our community. How many of us have seen posts on the board concerning those others named. As much as I love Ernie, he's not a part of the board. I am more excited to see what One Man's Fool thinks thinks rather than Ernie because this is something being derived from the board.

Now if this idea can be generated at a higher level, that's great. However, I don't think we should destroy our board.

We do have to get this going though.

That is fine but I have a question. We can certainly do this on the board just for us right now. However, if a group of us decides to expand this into something bigger once this is done, would this upset anyone here?

[DTroppens]

Hopefully I accurately updated the list.
If I'm right we have 17. That doesn't work for 75% or 50% but it would if we had three random "non-committee voters" to go with it. And I think we need to get others on the board who aren't on the committee involved a bit.

[tiger337]

(1) (b) as long as we feel we have all the people who want to be and should be involved.

(2) (a). I like the idea of pretending that we are going back in time and voting in 1920, 1930,etc for players who already retired.

(3) (b) but I also want to see a cutoff for people staying on the ballot. Part of the fun is not only seeing who makes it but also who gets enough votes to stay on the ballot.

(4) We should establish minmum criteria and stick with it. It can be liberal limits but I think we should pick something and stick with it. That also makes it easy to do searches so we can select people each era. The Sinnis Baseball Encyclopedia can easily be used for that.

(5) See (4) above.

[DTroppens]

Tiger337,
I would think it would be awesome if there was an "official" Tiger HOF. If something was created outside this board, I'd die to be part of it. If I can grab on your guys' coattails and be a part of that I'd love to. I just thought we should keep it going here though as well.

I can go with 2a) if we didn't start with 1909 but 1919.

[dt35456884]

(2) (a). I like the idea of pretending that we are going back in time and voting in 1920, 1930,etc for players who already retired.

I'm with you on this. I wouldn't even mind voting with every 5th year, though others might find that to be overkill. I for one don't think it would be a bad thing to draw it out. And if nobody is voted in on certain years, so be it.

I also think non-players have to be eligible. Jennings, Navin, Briggs, Harwell, etc.

[DTroppens]

dt,
first off I never realized the numbers were the Tigers WC years.

I think every five years would be overkill, unless we limited it to two an "era"

[estrepe1]

I think the most important first decision to make is where the cutoff should be for when players drop off of the ballot completely. We all know the ones that definitely will make it, what I am interested in is what the standards will be for borderline players.

Also should we have a cut off for how long the player should be a Tiger. I mean there are some very good players that only played for the Tigers for a short period. But if that was enforced we can't include Mark Fidrych since he only went one full season.

That is fine but I have a question. We can certainly do this on the board just for us right now. However, if a group of us decides to expand this into something bigger once this is done, would this upset anyone here?

Not at all. I would consider joining in or at least watching the process.

[DTroppens]

Aren't the cutoffs at 10% for the HOF? I'd say we should make it a tad higher to cut down on the ballots. Maybe 15% or 20%, but I'm not fighting for it. Keeping it at 10% is liveable. All the names don't kill me one way or the other. You do want to give people a fighting chance as long as we can.

[dt35456884]

Also should we have a cut off for how long the player should be a Tiger. I mean there are some very good players that only played for the Tigers for a short period. But if that was enforced we can't include Mark Fidrych since he only went one full season.Not at all.

I think the minimum should be one game played as a Tiger. The debate of how important length of tenureship is will be a good twist to the voting.

[DTroppens]

We talked about length of being a Tiger in the previous thread. I think that will sort itself out. If Mark Fidrych deserves to be in, he will eventually get in despite his record. I can't think of anyone else with as limited exposure as a Tiger that would make it. Since I don't think it will be an issue and I think everyone here will take their votes seriously, I say as long as we think a guy has even a smigid of crediblity, he be avaliable. I am sure there will people that will want to give a symbolic vote for people they know don't have one hint of a chance to make it. And that's fine with me. I've done that with my actual votes in real elections before and understand the importance of being able to do that.

Again, we can be the ones that make the ballot if there is actually a list of names.

[DTroppens]

If we really want to get this going. This has been painfully slow.
I'm making a proposal so we can get the ball rolling.

1. We create the ballot with a list of names of anyone any of us want to put on the list.
2. We will start with the year 1920 and for every 10 years vote on five names we fell deserve to be in the HOF based on players that are retired or at least not Detroit Tigers any more.
3. We will give the vote to the committee members. We will have 20 voters though with the rest of the spots being "given" to other people on the MBoard that want to have a vote. We will "randomly" select the ones earning that right with maybe one exceptions (the reason randomly is in quotes). It would be nice if the person has a history on this board of let's say at least 500 posts. That's not a huge cut and anyone with at least that many posts is someone we should know fairly well.
4. We will create the first ballot for Feb. 10th with each of us having to have our voting done by Feb. 17th at 5 p.m. They will be directed to one or two people here to add the votes.
5. People with 75% of the vote are in the Tiger HOF. People with 10% remain on the ballot to fight for another day. I would suggest that we do each era first and then take each person with 10% that remain after the "era" process is over and just have them all battle it out at the same time.

I think mounting names can be an issue since we are doing that 10 years at a time. This isn't the actual HOF where they are "mounted" one season at a time. We are going to see people being stuck on the ballot that may put people that we all agree eventually should be on the ballot from getting their 10 percent. By 1950 we'll have so many people that some may be voting for to get past this era-type of balloting that it may make it virtually impossible to get the people in that deserve it. I really think while we are going era-by-era, we should take the people with 10 percent of the vote and keep that list until we are done with the process through the year 2000. Then we'll put all the people with 10% with any possible new nominees onto a ballot. This will keep any strange things from happening which right now some may not think will happen, but if you think about it could be a serious issue.

6. When the votes are tabulated we'll post the results with number of votes in this folder on a thread so people can see them. We'll have one of us (or a few of us) write brief summaries of their careers with the Tigers. I would say nothing more than 150 words. People can add other info as the thread gets longer.

7. We repeat the process about every month until we get through to the year 2000. Once we do that we make it an annual thing with the people that remained on the ballot. Each ballot we will ask for new non-committee members to throw their name in the hat to do the voting.

I thought we needed to get this thing rolling better than we are. Here's a concrete idea. Now chip away at this, add to this or totally praise it. We need to cut this to the next week or so.

[billfer]

Just a thought here, but do we even want to include existing Hall of Famers in the balloting or are they just in already?

[Edman85]

I like the idea for five years at a time. It will be harder for guys to be lost in the shuffle if we do that. Again, we can start at 1920. While it would take twice as long, it would still be more accurate and thorough.

[dt35456884]

Just a thought here, but do we even want to include existing Hall of Famers in the balloting or are they just in already?

I don't think membership (or lack thereof) in the National Baseball Hall of Fame should factor into our balloting.

[tiger337]

If we really want to get this going. This has been painfully slow.
I'm making a proposal so we can get the ball rolling.



I think mounting names can be an issue since we are doing that 10 years at a time. This isn't the actual HOF where they are "mounted" one season at a time. We are going to see people being stuck on the ballot that may put people that we all agree eventually should be on the ballot from getting their 10 percent. By 1950 we'll have so many people that some may be voting for to get past this era-type of balloting that it may make it virtually impossible to get the people in that deserve it. I really think while we are going era-by-era, we should take the people with 10 percent of the vote and keep that list until we are done with the process through the year 2000. Then we'll put all the people with 10% with any possible new nominees onto a ballot. This will keep any strange things from happening which right now some may not think will happen, but if you think about it could be a serious issue.



This problem can be solved by making the cutoff 20%. A 10% cutoff means that they only need 2 votes (if there are 20 voters). That's not a lot of votes. 20% would mean 4 votes. I don't think players will get 4 votes unless they are good players and deserve to be on the ballot repeatedly.

I also don't think we should necessarily have to pick 5 players on each ballot. If there are not 5 deserving players, then people should not be required to vote for 5 of them.

[dt35456884]

I also don't think we should necessarily have to pick 5 players on each ballot. If there are not 5 deserving players, then people should not be required to vote for 5 of them.

Correct. Under no circumstances should we be forced to vote for a certain number of players.

[tiger337]

I like the idea for five years at a time. It will be harder for guys to be lost in the shuffle if we do that. Again, we can start at 1920. While it would take twice as long, it would still be more accurate and thorough.

I like that idea too.

[dt35456884]

Here's my suggestion:

1.) Vote every 5 years, beginning in 1915.
2.) Players, announcers, front office personalities, etc. are eligible.
3.) Detroit Wolverines and Detroit Stars are eligible.
4.) Nominees must be retired from their Hall of Fame capacity (not just have left the team).
5.) Committee agrees on a ballot of between 6 and 8 new candidates, in addition to candidates garnering 15-75% of the previous vote.
6.) Committee members vote on Detroit Baseball Hall of Fame candidates. Members can vote for up to four candidates.
7.) Committee members are in no way encouraged to use all four votes.
8.) Candidates receiving 75% of the HOF vote are in.

Let's go all out and do this right. Any objections to the above?

[whitecapwendy]

I have been following this thread. I do not know Tigers History enough to be a part of it, but am excited to watch how it comes out. I think you guys have a great idea. Instead of having a "Hall of Fame building" or something like that, here is a suggestion. I think you ought to keep it here in Motown, where we know we have quality decisions and not a popularity contest. Maybe once the decisions are made, maybe Comerica Park will allow an area for a "Motownsports Hall of fame" (wall or something). Maybe Motownsports as a group could come up with plaques or something with a written dedication to each of these players to hang on such wall or whatever. If that is not practical (or if not enough room), maybe one Hall of fame plaque with each Hall of fame winner listed. Go for it.

I agree that no one should be offended, since all were invited. There are probably others, like me, who while very interested in this idea, do not have the baseball knowlege that this core does. all were invited, but those who should be a part of it have accepted the challenge. Can't wait to see how it comes out.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Just a thought here, but do we even want to include existing Hall of Famers in the balloting or are they just in already?

I would say that if a player is in Cooperstown, then inclusion in a Tigers Hall of Fame is automatic. If he's good enough for all of baseball, then he is certainly good enough for the Tigers.

[tiger337]

I would say that if a player is in Cooperstown, then inclusion in a Tigers Hall of Fame is automatic. If he's good enough for all of baseball, then he is certainly good enough for the Tigers.

Not necessarily. A former Tiger could be in the Hall of Fame but made it because of what he did for other teams rather than the Tigers. It might be debatable whether that player belongs in the Tigers HOF. Eddie Matthews comes to mind.

[dt35456884]

I would say that if a player is in Cooperstown, then inclusion in a Tigers Hall of Fame is automatic. If he's good enough for all of baseball, then he is certainly good enough for the Tigers.

There are obviously players, Hall of Famers included, that are sure to be voted in. Trammell and Horton are certain shoe-ins. But we ought to just let it play out.

Not necessarily. A former Tiger could be in the Hall of Fame but made it because of what he did for other teams rather than the Tigers. It might be debatable whether that player belongs in the Tigers HOF. Eddie Matthews comes to mind.

Yeah. That too.

[tiger337]

Here's my suggestion:

1.) Vote every 5 years, beginning in 1915.
2.) Players, announcers, front office personalities, etc. are eligible.
3.) Detroit Wolverines and Detroit Stars are eligible.
4.) Nominees must be retired from their Hall of Fame capacity (not just have left the team).
5.) Committee agrees on a ballot of between 6 and 8 new candidates, in addition to candidates garnering 15-75% of the previous vote.
6.) Committee members vote on Detroit Baseball Hall of Fame candidates. Members can vote for up to four candidates.
7.) Committee members are in no way encouraged to use all four votes.
8.) Candidates receiving 75% of the HOF vote are in.

Let's go all out and do this right. Any objections to the above?

I like this proposal. What I would like to see us do is emulate the real HOF procedure as closely as possible. The difference would be that we would have a group of voters who are very knowledgable about a specific group of players. I think your proposal comes closest to doing that.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Not necessarily. A former Tiger could be in the Hall of Fame but made it because of what he did for other teams rather than the Tigers. It might be debatable whether that player belongs in the Tigers HOF. Eddie Matthews comes to mind.

OK, I wasn't thinking of that. Good point. Frank Howard would be in that group, too.

I guess what I was thinking was if a player is in the Hall of Fame based on what he did with the Tigers, then inclusion in a Tigers Hall of Fame is automatic. We still vote, but I'm guessing no one will exclude Ty Cobb, Hank Greenberg, Hal Newhouser, et al.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Here's a question. Does character count? I think, statistically, Denny McLain belongs in a Tigers Hall of Fame based on one season alone. There are two accomplisments that I think are safe for decades to come. One, is Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak and the other is Dennis Dale winning 31. But, after he retired, Denny was far from a saint.

[dt35456884]

Here's a question. Does character count? I think, statistically, Denny McLain belongs in a Tigers Hall of Fame based on one season alone. There are two accomplisments that I think are safe for decades to come. One, is Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak and the other is Dennis Dale winning 31. But, after he retired, Denny was far from a saint.

It's up to you. That's why we have independent voting.

I don't think it counts unless you're prepared to leave out Cobb.

[DTroppens]

TTF,
You vote for anyone you want to.

dt's ballot idea is a pretty good one, but I think we should include more than 6-8 players. I guess if we do it every five years that limit may work, but still every team usually has 8 starters in positions, a few relievers and others. I say limiting it to that number doesn't get a fighting chance. Plus I like the idea of someone being able to put out a vote for someone even if they don't think they are going to make it. Seeing the people that get 1 vote. I find myself looking at the players that got limited votes when the HOF vote comes out. I think if someone wants to do that for a player knowing that is a possibility, I don't think we should not do it.

The Wolverines and Stars - I don't know if I want them in the TIGERS HOF. I actually am doing a Negro League replay and can recite a decent number of Stars players. Also finding all the players can be difficult. I have a list of names of players for the 1922 and 1923 Stars, but that's about it. So a guy could've had two great years and not been really that outstanding. These are actually non-Tiger teams. If we want to make a Detroit chapter of the baseball HOF, I think that would work a bit better. Quick anyone name more than Turkey Stearns from the Stars. There, that's my point. But if we get info about players then maybe we can have a special committe induction. And Ernie Harwell - he's a broadcaster. We can make a special media HOF for Detroit media.

[DTroppens]

Get back to the Negro Leagues - Who here really knows anything about the talent on the Stars - enough that you feel you know their contribution to the team for the 5-6-7-8 years they were with the Stars? Like I said in the previous post I am actually DOING A REPLAY with the 1923 Stars. I can rattle off the starting lineup (well with mutiple guess right now) from that team and I have stats for the 1922 team, and I KNOW I'm not qualified. And with that brief knowledge I'm sure I know more than most here. Quick anyone here even name the Negro League organization's name. Tell me at least two teams in the NNL that year (that should help with the name). Tell me what Park they even played in. I really think making those selections as special committee selections when we get the information is a wiser choice that trying to chose apples to oranges. And having them in a Detroit Baseball chapter of the organization (along with the Wolverines) is not an issue. It's not worse or anything like that. But if we put them in a Tiger chapter of the organization, I don't think putting them in the same popular vote makes sense. Let's be patient, do some work to find info and do a 75% vote when we do get that information outside the Tiger players.

I think the HOF has more information about the Negro League players. At least that's what I've been told. Maybe we can get information on those players.

[squid]

First off I'll answer DT's questionairre...
1..B, but expand the committee as the popularity grows....just like the real HOF
2..A, but it should start 1900-1920
3..B, just like MLB HOF you need a % to stay on the ballot, I like the 20% rule with fewer voters
4...D, take nominations from everyone, hopefully with stats and/or intangibles to make them eligible, a second on the nomination adds them.

I would also suggest that whoever is on the committee that votes for the Tigers HOF is given 2-3 players to research so they can give perspective to the rest...but only until we get to the 50's...this will cut down on everyone having to research every prospective player.

Players already in the HOF aren't automatic.....but you know they'll be voted in.

Let's make this work....let the people speak and maybe, someday soon, WE WILL BE HEARD!!!!

[squid]

DT
Perfect example of my idea of taking nominations, and assigning voters to quantify/debunk said players. I, for one would love to look up pre 1950 Tigers or negro league players, just to learn more baseball history.

[Tigercub33]

I might have missed this - but, are the ballots secret? If they are not secret - are explanations needed as to why we feel said player should or should not be in the HOF?

I am excited about this - it will be an interesting endeavor

[NATE]

I might have missed this - but, are the ballots secret? If they are not secret - are explanations needed as to why we feel said player should or should not be in the HOF?

I am excited about this - it will be an interesting endeavor

I don't mind sharing/explaining who I voted for.

I am also excited about this endeavor and hope to participate in something that will enhance this fabulous web site.

[tiger337]

I might have missed this - but, are the ballots secret? If they are not secret - are explanations needed as to why we feel said player should or should not be in the HOF?

I am excited about this - it will be an interesting endeavor

I think the ballots need to be secret until all of them are in. Otherwise there will be bias. Once all the ballots are in, I have no problem with people knowing who I voted for.

[dt35456884]

TTF,
You vote for anyone you want to.

dt's ballot idea is a pretty good one, but I think we should include more than 6-8 players. I guess if we do it every five years that limit may work, but still every team usually has 8 starters in positions, a few relievers and others. I say limiting it to that number doesn't get a fighting chance. Plus I like the idea of someone being able to put out a vote for someone even if they don't think they are going to make it. Seeing the people that get 1 vote. I find myself looking at the players that got limited votes when the HOF vote comes out. I think if someone wants to do that for a player knowing that is a possibility, I don't think we should not do it.

I'd have no real problem with putting up to 10 players up for nomination every 5 years, just understand that it puts the total number of nominees up to nearly 200 for the whole thing. And I guess that's fine with me.

The Wolverines and Stars - I don't know if I want them in the TIGERS HOF.
...
Quick anyone name more than Turkey Stearns from the Stars. There, that's my point. But if we get info about players then maybe we can have a special committe induction. And Ernie Harwell - he's a broadcaster. We can make a special media HOF for Detroit media.

But isn't one of the fun things about this to learn more about these players? Sure, the Negro League players aren't familiar to many people. I see that as a reason to include them. Puts a nice twist on things. Helps us learn about a small but largely unknown part of Detroit professional baseball history. Anyway, I don't imagine that between the Stars and Wolverines that we'd induct many more than a half-dozen non-Tigers. Maybe 10 or 12 nominees total. I don't see that as a big stumbling block or a distraction from the Tiger players.

And I don't see the need for a special ballot for someone like Harwell or Navin. They weren't players, but they definitely deserve similar HOF distinction. We should just put them on the ballot. If anything we could just give the voters five votes every fifth year rather than four. Again, with the understanding that voters are in absolutely no way encouraged to use all five. This would certainly quell any fears of a deserving player ever being snubbed for someone like Harwell because there just aren't enough votes to go around.

[DTroppens]

No. No explanations are needed unless you want to throw them out there.
I'm guessing we'll probably have something like this

Stegman 17
Wockenfuss 15
Wagner 10
ect....
But if someone's vote looks like mine above or if 10 of us each vote for those three like I have up here, we will pretty much know the system really needs addressing.

[DTroppens]

dt,
I did mention I'd like to have them in, but again I think if we do do that (more the Stars than the Wolverines because good info is out there on the Wolverines and I know I can do a good job with them), I think us having special nomination sessions would work. That way when we do get enough info we can do a yes or no vote that way. This is how much work something like this can take. I know people like Bruce Petway may deserve a nod but getting the info for these people on a timely basis will be tough. I think it's only fair we do it in this sort of fashion. Plus trying to compare Tigers to Stars is virtually impossible. My guess is that both leagues were pretty good and comparable - at least with the most afloat Negro League teams. But that's a guess. Was Turkey Stearns clearly better than Bobby Veach? Was Veach clearly better? We will never know because it is apples and oranges to us. And we'd be doing this with limited statistical information (again a guy may have two .300 seasons with 200 ABs that we know of and really been a career .250 hitter).

I am not trying to shun them. In fact, I'm trying to give the Negro Leagues their proper due. I am out looking for books. I'm sure the book on Turkey Stearns, which I've been looking for for about 2 months now but can't find, is a great source. I know baseball library is a decent source and I know a site that I have bookmarked "Negro Leagues: Agate type" is a strong start (check out this site folks if you haven't). I'd say I'm a good year of good research from doing the Negro Leagues properly and I'm pretty sure I'm well "ahead" of most here in terms of that research.

I go to the library and look for Tiger statistics. I wonder if those newspapers would have the Stars info in there. Maybe we can cover a decade (1920s) and at least get that covered. I actually think if we take our time with the Negro Leagues we will not only do them better justice, but we may do some great individual research that can help all of us in our appreciation of the Leagues. Believe me, I've started doing this "tour" for a limited time and it's a fun tour to take. But it's going to be a long one. And I certainly don't want to take what is supposedly "common knowledge" and embrace it entirely if I don't have the info to back it up.

[DTroppens]

I think right now everyone would vote for Turkey Stearns and then just vote based on 1-2 pieces of info about other players that we know little about. I KNOW we have the people here to do MUCH BETTER than that.

[NATE]

I think the ballots need to be secret until all of them are in. Otherwise there will be bias. Once all the ballots are in, I have no problem with people knowing who I voted for.

tiger337, I asumed the same. I think the vote could be made public after the tally.

[DTroppens]

That's what I thought too. We'd take the tallies and post the results.


So let's get this going. We have two good proposals out there. I'm definitely willing to go with a lot of what dt had to offer. I still think announcers and owners should go in their own category or own vote, but I guess I can live without that. Another issue I have with that is I think every generation thinks their announcers should be in and we are going to judge based on really very little. I collect radio tapes of games and even I only have a handful of the announcers. We all would die for Harwell to be in there, but I'm willing to bet Ty Tyson was loved back in the 1930s to every announcer out there.

Can people here honestly say they have a great grasp on the announcers? I'm guessing if I don't, most probably don't either.

[tiger337]

I think there is enough information on Negro League players to include them. There are plenty of white players from the early 20th C that some people might not know that much about beyond their stats. Part of the fun of this is learning more about players that we don't know that much about.

If people don't think there is enough info available on Negro Leaguers to convince them of their HOF status, they can choose not to vote for them. I would use the same argument for the announcers.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Dave & DT, you have this off to a great start, couple comments:

1. Should stick with Tigers players, in the intial voting rounds. Can have a special section/committee look at broadcasters, Negro Leagues, and other Tiger employees, and vote on those separately somehow. They should be included, but why not get the players out of the way first. The other guys will probably require a sub-committee (Yes I'm looking at DT) :cheeky: to really research the issue.

2. 5 year stretch (retired during that time), list of 10, five vote maximum, and 20% to stay on all make sense to me. Definitely don't need more than five, but no minimum either.

[Tigercub33]

Can people here honestly say they have a great grasp on the announcers? I'm guessing if I don't, most probably don't either.

I really am only familiar with those of the late 80's and beyond

[redshark63]

Ty Tyson goes in on the first ballot!:wink:

[DaYooperASBDT]

FYI, I would be willing to serve as a vote tally person, or a backup. Just would need to know the election timeframes, so I remember to check my PM's etc.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Announcers: I would probably vote for anyone that held the job for 10 years or longer. I've never heard Harry Heilman. Heard Ty Tyson on a tape once. After that, we're talking 1970's and beyond, for my knowledge.

Tyson and Harwell would be slam dunks. Kell maybe.

Non-Tiger Players: Would those votes count against my max of five votes?

Slate of 10: How to? Draft a list, then vote on that list to boil it down to 10, then vote (max 5) ??

[dt35456884]

Plus trying to compare Tigers to Stars is virtually impossible. My guess is that both leagues were pretty good and comparable - at least with the most afloat Negro League teams. But that's a guess. Was Turkey Stearns clearly better than Bobby Veach? Was Veach clearly better? We will never know because it is apples and oranges to us.

That's also the case when it comes to comparing players across eras, though. The Negro League players should be judged according to how they stacked up against their own competition, just like major league players are.

I think this is being made more complicated than it really needs to be. Hell, I don't have a voluminous knowledge of every Tigers player. That's sort of one of the fun things about this HOF: learning more about players we weren't terribly knowledgeable of. We can agree on a short list of the best Stars and Wolverines and then it should be up to the voters to research the players and decide their worthiness, just as they did with respect to the Tigers players. Will information be harder to come by? Sure, but there will be far fewer players to research. And we can all share our own research with the rest of the board. We can really build a small library of info on these obscure players, right here at MotownSports. Hash it out and decide for ourselves when it comes time to vote.

[DTroppens]

dt,
No it isn't. We know the MLB. We have tons of articles. We have tons of reference materials. If you don't know who Dick Bartell is, you can find out in a matter of minutes on the internet or even by reading his book. And because the MLB statistical information is out there we can make a good judgement without knowing who he was just a day ago. We DON'T have that for the Negro Leagues.

You mention we can put the people up we think need to be on the list. My point is right now NO ONE here knows with any great knowledge who should be on the list. And because of that it's hard to make selections with them. If it takes a longer time getting the right people in, so be it. I want to do it right. I know we can do the Tigers with very little time. We could start this tomorrow and if everyone did their research in two days everyone would have legit selections (upto 1915) in that time. There's the huge difference. Right now we don't even know who should be on the list from the Negro Leagues. I think reading our positions we are pretty close to the same opinion here. I think sharing information about the Negro Leaguers would be awesome!

I suggest everyone start with that website I started with.

[DTroppens]

If we figure out what to do with the Wolverines, Stars and others in the Tiger organization I think we could pretty much do what dt35456884 stated.

I could probably make a 1915 list fairly quick by the end of the weekend. It will be a tinier fougher making sure the players are off the Tigers by 1915, but I would think that would last maybe a minute. Generally we know the people who came back after leaving and that list is very few. Trying to think of it, I can't think of any in this era.

[DaYooperASBDT]

1. Dave, should the first slate cover 1901-1915 then?
2. And include anyone who retired in that era?
3. Are you doing an exhaustive list, then we try to narrow to 10?
4. Do I ask a lot of questions? :grin:

[tiger337]

If we figure out what to do with the Wolverines, Stars and others in the Tiger organization I think we could pretty much do what dt35356884 stated.



Yes, it sounds as if who to put on the list is really the only decision under contention.

[DTroppens]

No those are questions we still never totally answered actually. I was going to cover players that were off the Tigers by 1915. Am I wrong with this assumption? No one seemed to hate the 1915 idea so going with it sounds good to me.

I will do that. I will make a large list and we can cut it down to whatever we want. But if I'm going to make a large list I don't see really any need to cut it down. Most of those people aren't going to get votes anyway and will be out quickly. But if others want to cut it I will go for that as well.

I'll do the list as soon as I know if they have to be retired or just "retired" as active Tiger players. This is a Tiger HOF and I really don't know if the future after the Tigers matters at all.

[DTroppens]

Tiger337, dt and all,
If we agree to make a ballot for the Negro League and the Wolverines when we have a sufficient amount of data, we can go on with the 1915.

Is it a go?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Any "cutters" we can use to pare down the candidate lists, like?
1. At least 462 PA's in one Tiger season
2. At least 50 IP in one Tiger season

I'm ready to vote the 1901-1915 list, I'm a go. Don't forget we need one or two
vote-counters! :cheeky:

[Mudman]

I wish I would have seen this thread earlier. As a student of the game's history I believe this to be an excellent idea with an unlimited growth potential. If more people are needed, I do believe that I have the knowledge and resources to contribute to the committee and would like to be considered.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Mudman and Just Some Dude, sorry you missed out on the first roll call. Perhaps in the near future we can discuss either an "alternates list" or an expansion of the committee size.

[NATE]

As a SABR member, I occasionally get publications on the history of the game. In today's mail, I received, "Deadball Stars of the American League".

With all of the posting going on, I forgot if we decided on how we are going to vote. I assume it is via a private message to someone?

[DTroppens]

We had this thread going in two different places for at least 15 days. Many times I saw it on the top of the Tiger folder list when I opened it up. I knew there were going to be some people upset but it's hard to believe if you were interested in something like this that the threads were never opened even once to see what was going on.

[DaYooperASBDT]

We had this thread going in two different places for at least 15 days. Many times I saw it on the top of the Tiger folder list when I opened it up. I knew there were going to be some people upset but it's hard to believe if you were interested in something like this that the threads were never opened even once to see what was going on.
In support of what Dave said, yeah if you don't log in here at least once per week, you are going to miss out on some activities, unfortunately.
Dave, no need to defend yourself at all, IMHO.

[DaYooperASBDT]

As a SABR member, I occasionally get publications on the history of the game. In today's mail, I received, "Deadball Stars of the American League".

With all of the posting going on, I forgot if we decided on how we are going to vote. I assume it is via a private message to someone?
Nate, PM your picks to DTroppens, he's tallying the votes for us.

[Mudman]

Mudman and Just Some Dude, sorry you missed out on the first roll call. Perhaps in the near future we can discuss either an "alternates list" or an expansion of the committee size.
I did miss the thread. I overlooked it because I thought it was a thread on the usual who are the Tiger HOFers. Until I saw the thread for voters needed did I realize it was something new.
Lately, I have seen so much hoopla on the Reds HOF with the Rose inclusion that I assumed the original thread Tigers Hall of Fame was simular. My bad.
I do have many nontypical references and correspondences with former players that I will help with any info that anyone may need. Let me know

[DTroppens]

Maybe we can do that. Add some of the voters to the committee. I'd be game for that. And if we can keep it to a number divisible by 4 (makes the 75% thing easier) that wouldn't bother me. What do others think.

[dt35456884]

Maybe we can do that. Add some of the voters to the committee. I'd be game for that. And if we can keep it to a number divisible by 4 (makes the 75% thing easier) that wouldn't bother me. What do others think.

I don't think it's a good idea to have many more than 20. This is going to be a pretty labor intensive project, with as many as 19 elections. I think we need a manageable group which will be around to give input, do the research, and cast their votes in a timely manner. You start having to wait for 28 or 32 or 40 ballots to come in, and it just gets to be like herding cats.

[DTroppens]

dt,
I can go either way. That's fine with me. I see merits both ways. It would be nice to have a larger group, but gathering that stuff can be pretty tiresome if people don't stay on the ball. I do think we need some "at large voters" so maybe we are stuck at this number.

[tiger337]

On one hand we need to keep this at a managable number. On the other hand, we don't want to alienate other board members by making this seem like an exclusive society. Counting more votes should not be a big problem. The problem is getting people to send them in. I suggest we add people to the group as alternates and do this:

Let's say we have 20 regular voters and a fixed group of 10 alternates. We let all of them vote but only count 20. For a particular election, we say everybody needs to get their vote in by a particular day. Let's say, 17 of the regulars do it on time and 5 of the alternates do it on time. We don't chase those 3 regulars who miss the deadline. Instead, we count the 17 regular votes and then randomly select 3 of the alternates who voted.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm thinking either 20 or 24 members for now, maybe revisit if the voting goes smoothly? If Ernie decides to join us, definitely bump it up to 24.

[tiger337]

I'm thinking either 20 or 24 members for now, maybe revisit if the voting goes smoothly? If Ernie decides to join us, definitely bump it up to 24.

I think we need to decide now if we want to expand. I don't think it would be good to have members jump in after 3 elections without having been part of the whole process.

[tiger337]

You start having to wait for 28 or 32 or 40 ballots to come in, and it just gets to be like herding cats.

The one good thing about having a larger group is that you can have a strict deadline
and still get enough votes. There will be no chasing people around. Either they pay attention or they don't get counted. We don't necessarily need to get the exact same number of ballots each time.

[Mudman]

Tiger337, dt and all,
If we agree to make a ballot for the Negro League and the Wolverines when we have a sufficient amount of data, we can go on with the 1915.
Please keep in mind the NL rule changes that were taking place in that erawhen comparing players, ie:1885 was the first year of legally using an overhand pitching delivery, from 1881-88 a strikeout went from three to four then back to three for an out, a base on balls bounced from seven to five and back through this span.
I do suggest that when the committee looks at the Wolverines that Charles "Lady" Baldwin be given some consideration (42-13, 2.24 in 1886, Typical of the day he gave up 194 runs of which only 121 were earned).
I love this era when the basic rules were coming into their own and the game started resembling the one we know and love.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I see we had ten applicants for the three open spots.

Here's my proposal:

- 20 voting members, plus seven alternates (the "losers" in Dave's drawing)

- Those 20 vote, unless a member is unable to vote that week. Voting member must indicate this in advance of the actual ballot, and request an alternate voter. Then we draw an alternate to vote in his/her stead (But draw alternates prior to the actual ballot)

- Alternates participate in the nomination process.

- If by some crazy good fortune we land Ernie, expand to 24 voting members (would still have 4 alternates).

[squid]

i still believe in expanding the voters as we gain momentum just like the real HOF.

[Tigercub33]

Lets see how the first couple of rounds go before we strat adding tons of people to the list. The 1915 thread was a bit hard to follow with those contributors (or maybe it was just the playesr were unfamiliar to me), I can only imagine what it would be like with any more.

[estrepe1]

Unless Ernie Harwell himself makes 21 joins I don't think we should go over 20.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Sounds like the consensus is to go with 20, and table any expansion proposals for now, without objection.

[DTroppens]

Darn,
I'm late in this. I was thinking 24 because we have some good numbers in the people that wanted to vote thread.

We can do this....
Open a poll in the Tiger history thread with our nominations and use the "entire Motowntigers.com population" as one vote. That would mean two at large people (if we stay at 20) and everyone on the board would get a chance to take part in one collective vote. This seems to be a way not to alienate people and keep it to a reasonable number. Also giving people a say may get more people besides ourselves excited about this process. If I voted for Summers and am hoping he makes it, I am going to look at the results. Also I am going to vote. I could see in time when this isn't "new" people without a say will get bored with it. A general election for the 20th nod keep everyone involved WITHOUT making it too tough on anyone here, still allow for two at-large voters and us keeping our votes. If I was gone for two weeks, missed out on this and saw a ballot, I would've definitely voted.


I think this solves a lot of issues.
1) It's not any more comprehensive than it is now.
2) We still have individuals "outside" the committee with equal say who gets nominated.
3) Everyone is involved that wants to thus creating more interest for the short and long term.

Of course, I think we can do this with 24 people. I would suggest if the three at-large voters want to join as permanent voters I would embrace that. We'd still have room for Ernie or anyone else that is interested.

I think creating a press release would be pretty cool as well. But doing that would mean more time and probably pushing back the next vote a bit. However, we may get some bites of legitimacy from major organizations or make other newsletters as well.

[estrepe1]

24 would be fine but I wouldn't want to go much bigger than that. I don't mind your plan.

I just am afraid of this thing getting so big that people don't get their votes in on time thus stretching this thing to no end. I also want to make sure that the people involved are willing to do the needed research it will take to know which players deserve to be voted for.

[dt35456884]

I think awarding one at-large vote to a free-for-all poll on the board could be a good idea. I'm not too familiar with what the poll feature can do here. Can we limit voters to the five selections using the poll feature? And is there any way to hide the poll results until after the voting deadline? I think that if it wasn't clear which nominees were "ahead" during the actual voting, it would give the poll vote more legitimacy.

[DTroppens]

The hiding feature, I'm not sure. I have done polls where you can limit the number of selections.

If we can't do it that way I could take all the polls in a PM and add them up. That would be a lot of work but I could do it. But having the results afterward readily available for the public to see in the form of a poll would work best because there would be no question who people voted for.

estrepe,
Those are clearly legit concerns. I look at who was on our at large list today and I saw a lot of good names - Oblong and Cruzer who earned at-large votes. I don't think they would slackers if they wanted to join. I'm sure a few of those on that list may enjoy it. I think Tiger337 mentioned as well if we didn't get all 24 then at least we'd have a large group to select from. And with deadlines well, they are DEADLINES!

If one of committee members miss the deadline, what do I do? Should I go to the alternates immediately after the final deadline?

[Edman85]

What if we let everybody who volunteered on the big board into the committee. If you don't vote by the deadline, your vote simply doesn't count. You lose the divisibility by four, but does it really matter if it takes 76% instead?

[estrepe1]

What if we let everybody who volunteered on the big board into the committee. If you don't vote by the deadline, your vote simply doesn't count.

That would work for me.

[tiger337]

What if we let everybody who volunteered on the big board into the committee. If you don't vote by the deadline, your vote simply doesn't count. You lose the divisibility by four, but does it really matter if it takes 76% instead?

I like this idea. There were a good number of volunteers who apparently did not know we were doing this before they saw the call for volunteers. I say let them in. After that, we close it. Then we'll have about 30 people. Then we can make strict deadlines and if people miss it, there will still be plenty of votes. I really don't think the counting of votes is an issue. It's getting people to vote on time which is difficult. I think having a larger group eliminates that problem because it won't matter if 5 or 6 people miss the deadline.

[Just Some Dude]

Mudman and Just Some Dude, sorry you missed out on the first roll call. Perhaps in the near future we can discuss either an "alternates list" or an expansion of the committee size.

No problem, just PM me if you need me. I am on the board everyday but I don't always check every thread.

[DTroppens]

Okay,
We can do that. One thing I was concerned with was people just being yahoos with their votes, but this doesn't seem to be a terrible concern. We will open it to everyone.

I will collect the PMs and figure out the winner. That really isn't that tough. I just have to clear some old PMs.

[DaYooperASBDT]

So we are expanding to 27 then, with 21 votes required for election? 75% would be 20.25. Or just round down to a nice even 20 for election? EDIT: I think T337 suggested 75% of the totals ballots cast instead, I'm good with that.

So we've expanded to 27, and Mr. Harwell would make 28. Sounds good to me. Was there any objection to using 75% of actual ballots cast?

PS I like the poll idea, that could be one at-large proxy vote, for a total of 28 then?

[whitecapwendy]

Bumping this up as a reminder of who enthusiastically joined and the interest at the beginning. Maybe those who originally joined will remember how fun this sounded back before it became work and join us again. Perhaps reading the first page or two will spark our enthusiasm to keep on keeping on.