Tigers Hall Of Fame - Q&A

[DaYooperASBDT]

CURRENT ELECTION DEADLINE - 5/2/2008 @ 12 Noon
(Carryover candidates + retired since 2005)

VOTING REQUIREMENTS:
Adhere to voting deadline. Maximum five player votes, can vote for less than five players if desired. Votes for non-players will not count toward your five-vote maximum for players.

To Vote: PM list of players & non-players you want elected to DTroppens. Use this format:

John Doe
Jack Doe
Jimmy Doe
Jason Doe
Jim-Bob Doe

Skipper Manager
etc.

List only the players and non-players you want elected. Please try to submit only one ballot, rather than rushing in a ballot, then having to revise it.

ALTERNATE VOTING ARRANGEMENTS:
From Dave: "If anyone ever can't make it on the board to vote, send me a PM. I'll give you my office phone number that has voice mail. I will give you my email address. I will give you a mailing address ..." etc.

NOMINATION PROCESS:
New Election Threads, for each 5-year period, will be posted weekly. Usually Friday or Saturday. To be eligible, that player's final Tigers season must fall within the past 5 seasons. For example, the 1920 election will include players whose final Tigers season was 1916-1920. We will nominate a minimum of ten players, if ten qualify.

Players with sufficient support in prior elections will be carried over to the current election. A list of all nominated players and non-players will be posted in the election thread. Members are encouraged to share information/links on the nominees in the election threads.

ELECTION PROCESS:
Players must receive 75% of total votes cast. Once the 2005 election is completed, committee intends to schedule annual elections, to consider newly eligible players, and to review older players that were not elected in past elections (procedures TBD).

COMMITTEE LIST (3/9/07) - (This will need to be updated)

Billfer
Brent
Buddha
chasfh
cruzer1
davidsb
DaYooperASBDT
DennisDubay
DoctorDetroit
dt35456884
DTroppens
edman
estrepe
Gartenspartan
Johnny Mac
Just Some Dude
lionstigersand...
LJK004
Mudman
NATE
Oblong
One Man's Fool
Redshark
Squid
Tiger337
Tigeraholic1
Tigercub33
tigerfan81371
Toledo Tiger fan
whitecapwendy

If you are interested in assisting with our HOF project, please PM DTroppens.

[Mudman]

Good idea...I was wondering where to ask a few things. I am heading to Lakeland in a few days and this limits my computer usage to once weekly until my return in April.
What is the time frame for nominations, discussions and voting for each "class"?
Are these always going to be in five year incriments?
The reason for this question is that I would have a tough decision considering someone eligible for consideration with only two years in a Detroit uniform overall but if the criteria is limited to a specific five year span then those 2 season now become 40% of the time span in question and will greatly impact my vote.

[DaYooperASBDT]

EDIT: Process changed on 2/1/07, fixed this post to avoid misinformation.

Mudman, to try to clarify one question, the player must have ended his Tigers career during that five year span, in order to be nominated. For example, Cobb played with Detroit from 1905-1926, so he can not be nominated until 1930.

Your vote should be based upon their entire career with Detroit. Keep in mind that if a player gets 15% of the vote, they stay on the ballot for the next election.

Our next election will be "1920", for players who retired from 1916-1920. But those who got 15% to 74% in the 1915 election will be carried over.

(Someone correct me if I screw up an answer!)

[Doctor Detroit]

:coffee:

[Mudman]

Mudman, to try to clarify one question, the player must have retired from baseball during that five year...
cool...I believed that was the case but became confused somewhere along the way and wanted it clarified...maybe I shouldn't stay up all night, every night reading and writing and still expect my brain cells to function and not to fall out by the roots. Thanks

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm assuming that Doctor Detroit missed the cut-off, and is not on the permanent voting list at present. If that's the case our committee now has 28 voting members.

I would hope that "non-members" will read the election threads, and contribute information to the discussions. The HOF is really taking off nicely now.

[whitecapwendy]

I am anxious to see how the first election comes out.

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm assuming that Doctor Detroit missed the cut-off, and is not on the permanent voting list at present. If that's the case our committee now has 28 voting members.

I would hope that "non-members" will read the election threads, and contribute information to the discussions. The HOF is really taking off nicely now.
I'd like to be considered. Who do I call?

[estrepe1]

Send a PM to Dtroppens.

[DTroppens]

Dr. Detroit,
Send the PM and you can be a member. We're not cutting off anyone. Chances are some will miss and I don't think anyone here wants to alienate anyone. DaYooper, to be honest I haven't updated the list, but I guess if I take my original list and add it with the people I rolled the dice with, I'd have it figured out. I think I will take the lists and have them next to me to see who votes come the end of the week. Actually I haven't voted myself and have only seen one person's votes - the first one that came across that I didn't meant to see.

Mudman,
If you are gone I will give you my home and office phone number to give me future nominations. I can even call you with the new nominees when they come around.

EVERYONE...
How often do we do this. Once every 4-5 weeks. Also does anyone want to help with writing brief summaries on each players' careers. dt35456984 had some fine pictures. We can use those. I can write some as well. And I think we want to keep these pretty brief. Really anything larger than this post here is too big. Maybe about double what would be on the Comerica Park statues.

I can do them all, but I think we all would want ownership in doing some of these.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I would be willing to post the season stats for each nominee, if that helps.
(breakdown by seasons)

[tiger337]

Once every 4 to 5 weeks sounds way to slow. At that rate, it will take 18 months to finish this. I really think we need to move faster than that or people will start to lose interest.

[Mudman]

I would be willing to post the season stats for each nominee, if that helps.
(breakdown by seasons)
Along similar lines I will try to post the "human" element. My library of baseball books contains thousands of volumes written over the past eighty+ years. I have lived a used bookstores and flea markets since the late sixties.
I find that the internet provides me with countless stats...more than I will ever understand but too often lacks the personalities, clubhouse contributions, first hand accounts and contributions outside the lines. IMO, the stats are a mere starting point.

[DTroppens]

We can speed it up. That was one of the issues with going once every five years.

[Mudman]

Once every 4 to 5 weeks sounds way to slow. At that rate, it will take 18 months to finish this.
I agree. I think that a week, maybe two to nominate and discuss each group and a week to vote is plenty of time.

[dt35456884]

I've already got all of the HOF classes sorted and ready to go. I'll have the new thread up as soon as the results of the 1915 elections are in.

I think especially being that it's still the offseason, we can expedite this a little bit. Without the distraction of meaningful games, we'll be able to knock out a couple decades before opening day.

[tiger337]

Along similar lines I will try to post the "human" element. My library of baseball books contains thousands of volumes written over the past eighty+ years. I have lived a used bookstores and flea markets since the late sixties.
I find that the internet provides me with countless stats...more than I will ever understand but too often lacks the personalities, clubhouse contributions, first hand accounts and contributions outside the lines. IMO, the stats are a mere starting point.

I'm more of a stat guy so it's stats that will drive my evaluations more than anything else. However, I do love to hear the human side of the game. They probably won't sway too many of my decisions but those kinds of books are probably even more interesting to read than stat books. Books like The Glory of their Times give me a feel for the players and the times that stats don't necessarily give me.

[estrepe1]

Along similar lines I will try to post the "human" element. My library of baseball books contains thousands of volumes written over the past eighty+ years. I have lived a used bookstores and flea markets since the late sixties.
I find that the internet provides me with countless stats...more than I will ever understand but too often lacks the personalities, clubhouse contributions, first hand accounts and contributions outside the lines. IMO, the stats are a mere starting point.

I am into stats and stats are going to drive all of my decisions in this thing. If someone has crappy stats but is a great personality I likely will not vote for them.

On the same note if someone is above average and is never on a championship team I will vote for them before someone that had crappy stats and was carried by other players to a championship.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Mudman, I do feel the "stories" will add flavor to the voting threads. I have enjoyed I-Bert and others' posts in the History thread. Maybe you will even want to post similar capsules as threads of their own?

Voting - I'm thinking two weeks per election is plenty of time, if everyone can handle that, especially DT and Dave (they have done most of the work to date).

[DTroppens]

We are getting info in quick.

And really the next batches should go faster. We have our process and we all know it. I'm guessing giving people a week to 10 days to make decisions is good enough.

[Mudman]

I doubt that the human element will sway voters nor is that my true intent unless I run across something like I had posted earlier in response to someones question as to why Elberfield was traded in 1903...

Elberfeld was accused by Tiger manager Ed Barrow of deliberately throwing games to get himself traded.

You will not find this in any stat book.

[estrepe1]

Oh I agree. I love the old stories in fact that is one of the things I am looking forward to in this project. Just saying that it won't change my vote one way or the other.

[cruzer1]

Whatever became of the Ernie participation idea?

[Edman85]

Whatever became of the Ernie participation idea?

No idea... it's up to the people who are able to contact him.

[Doctor Detroit]

I doubt that the human element will sway voters nor is that my true intent unless I run across something like I had posted earlier in response to someones question as to why Elberfield was traded in 1903...

Elberfeld was accused by Tiger manager Ed Barrow of deliberately throwing games to get himself traded.

You will not find this in any stat book.

Nice find.

[Doctor Detroit]

EVERYONE...
Also does anyone want to help with writing brief summaries on each players' careers. dt35456984 had some fine pictures. We can use those. I can write some as well.

I'd like to do a couple if you need some help. Just PM me the names when the time comes and give me a day.

[DennisDubay]

If i may interject a thought. I think if Mr. Harwell decided to get involved with this, that we utilize his memory in a more broader sense. I think we should have a "Wing" dedictated to Mr. Harwells choices ... he'll have much more information to give us about someone who, statistically, may be lacking ... and not thought of as a "hall-of-famer" ... but definetley is .. hope my thought has been worded in such a way that is understood.

[DaYooperASBDT]

If i may interject a thought. I think if Mr. Harwell decided to get involved with this, that we utilize his memory in a more broader sense. I think we should have a "Wing" dedictated to Mr. Harwells choices ... he'll have much more information to give us about someone who, statistically, may be lacking ... and not thought of as a "hall-of-famer" ... but definetley is .. hope my thought has been worded in such a way that is understood.I think that Ernie's choices would rate at least a "sticky" :classic: Actually we could use Mr. Harwell's presence here regularly, to keep some moderations in line! :wink:

[dt35456884]

I'm comfortable with keeping these elections as strictly an in-house project, at least as far as HOF decisions are made. I'm not sure how internet-savvy Mr. Harwell is, or even what his involvement on a 30-member message board committee even accomplishes.

I think what could really utilize Ernie's talents and give this project proper legitimacy is if we could sell him on doing a podcast. We would have to rely heavily on the talents of our fellow MotownSports members who have experience in radio or podcasting, and then there's the whole thing about contacting Ernie and getting him to sign on to the project (hopefully free of charge). But just imagine a 19-episode podcast series devoted to each HOF class, as hosted by Ernie Harwell. Now that would be terrific stuff.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm comfortable with keeping these elections as strictly an in-house project, at least as far as HOF decisions are made. I'm not sure how internet-savvy Mr. Harwell is, or even what his involvement on a 30-member message board committee even accomplishes.

I think what could really utilize Ernie's talents and give this project proper legitimacy is if we could sell him on doing a podcast. We would have to rely heavily on the talents of our fellow MotownSports members who have experience in radio or podcasting, and then there's the whole thing about contacting Ernie and getting him to sign on to the project (hopefully free of charge). But just imagine a 19-episode podcast series devoted to each HOF class, as hosted by Ernie Harwell. Now that would be terrific stuff.That would be beyond terrific!

[whitecapwendy]

Dr. Detroit,
Send the PM and you can be a member. We're not cutting off anyone. Chances are some will miss and I don't think anyone here wants to alienate anyone. DaYooper, to be honest I haven't updated the list, but I guess if I take my original list and add it with the people I rolled the dice with, I'd have it figured out. I think I will take the lists and have them next to me to see who votes come the end of the week. Actually I haven't voted myself and have only seen one person's votes - the first one that came across that I didn't meant to see.

Mudman,
If you are gone I will give you my home and office phone number to give me future nominations. I can even call you with the new nominees when they come around.

EVERYONE...
How often do we do this. Once every 4-5 weeks. Also does anyone want to help with writing brief summaries on each players' careers. dt35456984 had some fine pictures. We can use those. I can write some as well. And I think we want to keep these pretty brief. Really anything larger than this post here is too big. Maybe about double what would be on the Comerica Park statues.

I can do them all, but I think we all would want ownership in doing some of these.
Whatever everyone else thinks is good on timing. I may need that extra time once baseball season starts.
I am happy to help with some of the writing. Just let me know.

[redshark63]

Remember, some of these players already have threads in the History forum courtesy of Bert.

[whitecapwendy]

I am into stats and stats are going to drive all of my decisions in this thing. If someone has crappy stats but is a great personality I likely will not vote for them.

On the same note if someone is above average and is never on a championship team I will vote for them before someone that had crappy stats and was carried by other players to a championship.
There has already been one candidate that I loved stories about, but the numbers just did not add up.
My choices will be made on stats, but right now, all these guys are just names and numbers to me. I would love to hear the human element. I mean, we are researching these guys for a particular purpose, but I would like to get to know them as people as well. This human element will not sway my vote, but will help me to appreciate them as people as well.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Pete Rose knows something about the "human element" ........

[redshark63]

Pete Rose knows something about the "human element" ........

You are so correct. If you saw him play, you would have seen some of the intangibles he brought to the game, beyond the stats.:tired:

[whitecapwendy]

I'm comfortable with keeping these elections as strictly an in-house project, at least as far as HOF decisions are made. I'm not sure how internet-savvy Mr. Harwell is, or even what his involvement on a 30-member message board committee even accomplishes.

I think what could really utilize Ernie's talents and give this project proper legitimacy is if we could sell him on doing a podcast. We would have to rely heavily on the talents of our fellow MotownSports members who have experience in radio or podcasting, and then there's the whole thing about contacting Ernie and getting him to sign on to the project (hopefully free of charge). But just imagine a 19-episode podcast series devoted to each HOF class, as hosted by Ernie Harwell. Now that would be terrific stuff.
I would love to hear his take on these historical players as well. (any chance of getting a CD recording of this for each member of the committee? I don't have an i-pod) Wouldn't it be cool, if this were to be set up someplace at Comerica Park (or whatever) to have a button by each member of the HOF for people to push to hear Ernie Harwell's comments on each of the members? I think we could probably take up a collection or something to make that possible.

[Mudman]

Dr. Detroit,
Mudman,
If you are gone I will give you my home and office phone number to give me future nominations. I can even call you with the new nominees when they come around.
I may have solved the problem. Roger, Hueytaxi, is going to allow me to play on his laptop as needed. If anyone wants to contact me for any reason you can PM me through Roger. Thanks

[dt35456884]

(any chance of getting a CD recording of this for each member of the committee? I don't have an i-pod)

You wouldn't need an iPod to listen to an MP3 file.

[whitecapwendy]

I may have solved the problem. Roger, Hueytaxi, is going to allow me to play on his laptop as needed. If anyone wants to contact me for any reason you can PM me through Roger. Thanks
You should be able to log in on your own account on Rogers computer.

[Mudman]

You should be able to log in on your own account on Rogers computer.
Very true but if I happen to be at Winter Haven, Pirate City or somewhere he can always call me. I usually spend about half my days in Tiger Town and the rest wandering around the state. From arrival to departure I usually tack on about 2,000+ Florida miles.

[whitecapwendy]

Very true but if I happen to be at Winter Haven, Pirate City or somewhere he can always call me. I usually spend about half my days in Tiger Town and the rest wandering around the state. From arrival to departure I usually tack on about 2,000+ Florida miles.
gotcha, smart idea.

[Edman85]

There has already been one candidate that I loved stories about, but the numbers just did not add up.

I voted for him... :cool:

[DaYooperASBDT]

I voted for him... :cool:No way !!! I thought I was the only one ..... :nervous:

[DaYooperASBDT]

You are so correct. If you saw him play, you would have seen some of the intangibles he brought to the game, beyond the stats.:tired:Such a damned shame. Pete Rose IS baseball. But unfortunately, Pete Rose is also Pete Rose .........

[dt35456884]

I've been thinking about Edman's suggestion concerning non-player candidates, and I now agree that something special dispensation needs to be made for them. He brought up the riduclously stacked 1995 class, and even then he forgot to mention Paul Carey. At the end of the day, it's not fair or even particularly logical to force the players to compete with votes for non-players (managers, broadcasters, owners, team presidents, etc.).

What I'm suggesting is that non-players be nominated just as we nominate players, but voting for them will not count against your five-vote limit. So a vote for Sparky in '95 would not mean taking a vote away from a player. The elections would then carry on as usual, with a candidate needing 75% of the committee's votes to be elected and 15-74% to remain on the ballot.

[tiger337]

Pete Rose IS baseball. .

I don't think I'd go that far.

[estrepe1]

In order to be baseball wouldn't you have to be one of the top ten players ever? How about top 30?

[Edman85]

I've been thinking about Edman's suggestion concerning non-player candidates, and I now agree that something special dispensation needs to be made for them. He brought up the riduclously stacked 1995 class, and even then he forgot to mention Paul Carey. At the end of the day, it's not fair or even particularly logical to force the players to compete with votes for non-players (managers, broadcasters, owners, team presidents, etc.).

What I'm suggesting is that non-players be nominated just as we nominate players, but voting for them will not count against your five-vote limit. So a vote for Sparky in '95 would not mean taking a vote away from a player. The elections would then carry on as usual, with a candidate needing 75% of the committee's votes to be elected and 15-74% to remain on the ballot.

In fairness, I was wrong and some of those guys are on the 1990 ballot.

Another consideration I've had is if we are going to do annual elections every year. I was thinking we could have everybody who at any point got 40%, but got bumped later. This would enable us to have yearly elections that aren't biased towards current/recent players, and would give guys who got 60% of the vote one year and fell later because of the five vote limit. It would also allow us to keep this alive.

[DaYooperASBDT]

In order to be baseball wouldn't you have to be one of the top ten players ever? How about top 30?So you are no longer awarding longevity then? :classic:

[DaYooperASBDT]

DT and Edman have some good ideas, about non-players and dealing with players that didn't make the cut in the first go-round. Thoughts:

1. We need to vote in some non-players. Could have 5 votes for players, 2 votes for non-players. But doesn't the real HOF have a separate election for non-players? Just dealing with players is a pretty huge job. Plus we need to deal with negro leaguers and pre-1901 teams.

2. Edman, could we have a Veterans Committee? Restrict membership to our former MVP's + moderators? Or have an application process and pick ten people, then look at ALL nominees who garnered at least 15% in an election, but failed to be elected?

[Edman85]

2. Edman, could we have a Veterans Committee? Restrict membership to our former MVP's + moderators? Or have an application process and pick ten people, then look at ALL nominees who garnered at least 15% in an election, but failed to be elected?

I was thinking more along the lines of an annual election like the one we have going right now... with the intent of getting guys who slipped through the cracks plus those recently retired. The 40% threshold would be with the intent of making sure that guys originally almost elected in, say 1930, but go below 15% in 1935 because of a strong class. This would also enable us to have a full field to vote from every year.

The first would be January 2008, then January 2009, etc.

[dt35456884]

Edman's concern is valid, because if we run into a HOF class with three, four, or even five legit HOFers, a bunch of our carryover nominees could be stricken from the board in one fell swoop, even if they had been garnering 60% of the vote up until that point.

I think we should tweak the rules slightly so that any nominee who has averaged 15% of the vote in previous elections remains on the ballot. This mitigates the risk of a popular player being wiped out by one strong class.

[estrepe1]

So you are no longer awarding longevity then? :classic:

My thought process is longevity with the Tigers. If you go 1 season and are excellent that shouldn't be rewarded over the very good 4 seasons. However once you reach 12+ seasons you need to look at quality to judge between players. Longevity is about 10-20% of the equation.

You also need to take special considerations for certain era's. Take the WW2 era for instance. Hank Greenberg shouldn't be punished for losing 4 seasons of his career to the war.

Pete Rose wouldn't come close to my top ten.

[estrepe1]

Edman's concern is valid, because if we run into a HOF class with three, four, or even five legit HOFers, a bunch of our carryover nominees could be stricken from the board in one fell swoop, even if they had been garnering 60% of the vote up until that point.

I think we should tweak the rules slightly so that any nominee who has averaged 15% of the vote in previous elections remains on the ballot. This mitigates the risk of a popular player being wiped out by one strong class.

If you do it this way I think the average should be higher than 15%. Think about it if someone had carried 15% through 4 elections without gaining to higher than 20% should they be kept on the ballot if they drop below 15%?

[Edman85]

Well, I'm just saying to bring the guys back after we do the 5 year ballots. If the plan is to have a Tigers Hall of Fame, it should be active and living, inducting guys in 2008, 2009, 2010. We need some guys to vote on during those years.

Let's say for example Goose Goslin in his first season gets 50% in his first year (1940) I don't have the spreadsheet on campus. He then gets a bit of momentum and gets 60% in 1945. Then when 1950 comes around and a lot of those 1945 Series/WWII heroes retire, the five vote limit drops him down to 12% of ballots.

He would then be ineligible for the 1955-2005 ballots, but would be eligible for the 2008 ballot next year in addition to guys who have left in 2006-2007 and others in the same boat. This would enable us to keep this thing alive.

[dt35456884]

1. We need to vote in some non-players. Could have 5 votes for players, 2 votes for non-players. But doesn't the real HOF have a separate election for non-players? Just dealing with players is a pretty huge job. Plus we need to deal with negro leaguers and pre-1901 teams.

I tried to compile a fairly extensive list of non-players, and I can honestly say that there probably aren't more than 15 worthy nominees. In my mind it's not enough to worry about setting aside voting limits on those names. The non-players should just be nominated as they come along through the years. If you want to vote for them, you are free to without it counting against your vote limit. And if the non-players are deemed worthy they will join the HOF ranks. Otherwise they'll fall off into oblivion like the others.

[Edman85]

Pretty much all non-players are on the Tigers website: owners, announcers, presidents, managers, coaches...

[dt35456884]

Pretty much all non-players are on the Tigers website: owners, announcers, presidents, managers, coaches...

Yeah, the link you posted is what I was going off of to compile my list of the 15 or so non-players I thought deserved a shot. Of course, as with the player voting, the floor will be open to other suggestions for non-player nominees.

[estrepe1]

Well, I'm just saying to bring the guys back after we do the 5 year ballots. If the plan is to have a Tigers Hall of Fame, it should be active and living, inducting guys in 2008, 2009, 2010. We need some guys to vote on during those years.

Let's say for example Goose Goslin in his first season gets 50% in his first year (1940) I don't have the spreadsheet on campus. He then gets a bit of momentum and gets 60% in 1945. Then when 1950 comes around and a lot of those 1945 Series/WWII heroes retire, the five vote limit drops him down to 12% of ballots.

He would then be ineligible for the 1955-2005 ballots, but would be eligible for the 2008 ballot next year in addition to guys who have left in 2006-2007 and others in the same boat. This would enable us to keep this thing alive.

I can buy that situation.


Goose will be an interesting case. He is a clear HOF player in the MLB. However his best years were not with the Tigers. But he had that one moment.

It would be an interesting study to see what happens with him.

Yeah, the link you posted is what I was going off of to compile my list of the 15 or so non-players I thought deserved a shot. Of course, as with the player voting, the floor will be open to other suggestions for non-player nominees.

Where did he post the link? I would love to view that.

[dt35456884]

Well, I'm just saying to bring the guys back after we do the 5 year ballots. If the plan is to have a Tigers Hall of Fame, it should be active and living, inducting guys in 2008, 2009, 2010. We need some guys to vote on during those years.

Let's say for example Goose Goslin in his first season gets 50% in his first year (1940) I don't have the spreadsheet on campus. He then gets a bit of momentum and gets 60% in 1945. Then when 1950 comes around and a lot of those 1945 Series/WWII heroes retire, the five vote limit drops him down to 12% of ballots.

He would then be ineligible for the 1955-2005 ballots, but would be eligible for the 2008 ballot next year in addition to guys who have left in 2006-2007 and others in the same boat. This would enable us to keep this thing alive.

You're probably on to something here. Keeping this thing alive as an annual event even after we've completed the five-year classes is a great idea. And we'll need the historic players to field a legit class of nominees year in and year out.

The good thing is, we can take our time to hammer out the details on this. For instance, if a player qualifies for the annual vote with a 40% showing in the 5-year vote we're doing now (before being eliminated), would he need to garner 15% of the first annual vote in '08 to remain on the '09 ballot? It's something we can discuss, but I'm not sure there should be lifetime nominations given out. I think as we settle into a yearly balloting system, the qualifying players need to maintain a certain percentage of voters every year.

[Edman85]

One more thing to consider are guys who may be the odd man out as a result of being in a strong class with 6 people and may not get 15% off the bat.

So, the January 2008 ballot would have

-2006 and 2007 departures nominated via the normal process

-Any players recieving 15-74% in the 2005 election

-Any players recieving at least 40% of votes in any of the 5 year elections done during the current phase.

-Any other players not recieving 40% in any election, but recieving a nomination from the committee (*)


The January 2009 ballot would include

-2008 departures nominated via the normal process

-Any people recieving 15-74% of votes in 2008.

-Any other players not otherwise eligible may recieve a nomination from the committee (*)

*Players can only recieve two of these special nominations, after which they are no longer eligible for the Hall of Fame. Also, these nominations may not occur in consecutive years.


That's just an idea, that I think would allow this thing to stay alive.

[Edman85]

estrepe:

http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/det/history/index.jsp

[dt35456884]

If you do it this way I think the average should be higher than 15%. Think about it if someone had carried 15% through 4 elections without gaining to higher than 20% should they be kept on the ballot if they drop below 15%?

I don't think it's too much of an issue. The players who never garner much more than the minimum 15% of votes will eventually fall off. That seems pretty certain.

If we set the threshold to a 15% average rather than 15% in the most recent vote, we may avoid the whole scenario Ed brings up with Goslin. I would just as soon keep Goslin on the ballot if he is on the cusp of being elected just before running into a strong class. Maybe the following year is a very weak class. By waiting to eliminate Goslin until his average dips below 15%, he may only need to wait out the strong class before getting another crack at it five years later. And as far as Ed's proposed annual elections, in some cases we may avoid having to bring a popular player back for that, as he will have never been kicked off the list of nominees to begin with.

The only result of this will be a bigger pool of former nominees to choose from as we go forward in the 5-year voting, rather than less. To me this is not really a bad thing. And it works just fine in conjunction with Ed's annual voting beginning in '08.

What does everybody else think of this?

[estrepe1]

Yeah I know about that site I was just wondering if you had a specific list of the non-player people.

I read through the timeline. Good stuff in there.

[Edman85]

Check out the all-time roster on the lefthand side. I'm sorry, I should have pointed that out.

[DTroppens]

I didn't think that was a question. I thought we definitely were going to vote on an annual basis.

We are upping the percentages to 15%? I may have missed that or glanced right past it. I thought we were going to use 10%.

Really there aren't going to be a ton of holdovers.


What we can do when we get to the annual votes is have us select 10 worthy past candidates and put them on the ballot. They can be the highest vote getters that never made it in.

But once we are completed with this I can't imagine there being a ton of super worthy people left. I imagine there will be years where no one is voted in. And really that's not terribly shocking since we are selecting from one active team. Heck, only 2-3 make it a year when we look at all of baseball.

[DTroppens]

What we can do in the annual elections is start plucking at those non-player people. That way we always have someone going in even if it is not a player.

Herbie around the basepaths? Does he get a chance?

[Edman85]

What we can do in the annual elections is start plucking at those non-player people. That way we always have someone going in even if it is not a player.

I still like voting on the non-players along the way. It's not a big deal if dt already has them in the nomination database. It just seems weird to have a few elections that are just non-players.

[dt35456884]

I still like voting on the non-players along the way. It's not a big deal if dt already has them in the nomination database. It just seems weird to have a few elections that are just non-players.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around all these proposals, but we should absolutely have annual elections, and a mechanism for reviewing the "near misses" that may have been crowded out, due to an overabundance of candidates for that 5-year period.

I'm thinking keep it simple - look at all the guys that got 15%-74% in any election, then agree on a slate of candidates from that pool. If you don't get 15% in the annual election, you are dropped for good.

???

As for non-Tigers players, we need a process for
1. Wolverines
2. Negro Leaguers
3. Execs, broadcasters, scouts, other employees
4. Managers

DT is on the right track. Have "we" gathered names for all the categories I just listed?

[DTroppens]

The Negro Leaguers are going to take time. I've been reading up and am still looking for the Turkey Stearns book. I went to the library and it wasn't even there. I think I'm going to have a good grasp on the 1920s Negro League players within the near future. The toughest thing about the Negro Leagues is there are so few people that were on the team for an extended period of time. Some that people mention were here for 1 or 2 years while other strong players - but not quite as good - were here longer. I'm getting that from the 1920s right now.

[redshark63]

The Negro Leaguers are going to take time. I've been reading up and am still looking for the Turkey Stearns book. I went to the library and it wasn't even there. I think I'm going to have a good grasp on the 1920s Negro League players within the near future. The toughest thing about the Negro Leagues is there are so few people that were on the team for an extended period of time. Some that people mention were here for 1 or 2 years while other strong players - but not quite as good - were here longer. I'm getting that from the 1920s right now.

Dave,

Check MeL.

Here is search for the Turkey Stearnes book:

http://elibrary.mel.org/search?/tturkey+stearnes/tturkey+stearnes/1,1,2,B/detlframeset&FF=tturkey+stearnes+and+the+detroit+stars+the+negr o+leagues+in+detroit+1919+1933&1,,2

If a library near you doesn't have it, you can request an Interlibrary Loan from here and have it delivered to a library near you.

[NATE]

If this is the Tigers Hall of Fame, shouldn't we restrict it to players who played/contributed for the Tigers?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Nate, good question. I don't see the harm in having a primary section for Tigers players, and other sections for other Detroit baseball figures (like the real HOF).

Don't see a need to limit our scope. We've been trying to hammer out the details of how to cover everyone, without mucking up the current election process.

[dt35456884]

I think we're all open to including the Wolverines and Stars, but DTrop sold me on the idea that we ought to focus on the Tigers for now. We all have a lot to learn about the lesser known Detroit clubs, and we'll have our hands full with the Tigs as it is. Let's put the other teams on the backburner for now.

[Mudman]

I think we're all open to including the Wolverines and Stars...Let's put the other teams on the backburner for now.
My suggestion is to start a seperate thread for the Wolverines and another for the Stars plus a much longer timeframe (two months?) for discussion, nominations and consideration. The info will be harder to find and piece together. The NL rules of the 1880s changed considerably season to season and must be examined (for instance, 1885 was the first season a pitcher was allowed to throw overhand).
With these threads, everyones main focus can be on the Tigers elections while becoming educated on the Stars and Wolverines.
I am currently working on a book on the Buffalo Bisons (1879-1885) of the National League and have vast information of 19th century players. With my schedule (I would like to but...) it will take some time to post all that should be on the Wolverines' players and the impact of rule changes year to year.

[DTroppens]

Mudman,
I've been dealing with the 1920s NNL players right now (mostly because I have a small base with the 1921-1923 NNL seasons with statistics) and I think just the nominations are going to be challenging. I see people list studs that are in the HOF for ideas and then I look and see these players were with the Stars or Wolves for a year. I see others that were solid or even above average and they were here for much longer. But where's the middle ground. I think Fidrych is going to make our list and he only had one full season (actually it wasn't even a full season) and another solid start to another. After that he really has very limited appearances over the course of about four more years. It's going to be really tough for us to sift through these guys and make these decisions. And I'm only looking at one small period of time.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I would like to discuss the fact that six voters failed to vote. We should clarify the procedure and remove members that miss two votes, without showing cause. Propose the following:

1. Members must submit a ballot by the stated deadline. If they vote an "empty ballot", the PM to Dave must clearly state that. Not voting does not constitutute voting an empty ballot.

2. First missed vote, warning, second missed vote, member is removed from the committee unless the committee grants an excuse for that week/vote.

3. If a member is going to miss a vote, and advises Dave before the deadline, member is excused for that week/vote.

Sound good?

[estrepe1]

I don't think there should be an excuse unless the circumstances are really harsh.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I don't think there should be an excuse unless the circumstances are really harsh.Agreed. But they do happen so wanted to leave an out. But yes it should be something dire, absolutely. It doesn't take much to log in once per week.

EDIT: Wish you guys would discuss stuff in threads other than the election threads. I just found the lengthy discussion on this subject in the 1920 thread. I stuggle to find this stuff on a dial-up connection.

Dave, if you see fit to drop some people I'll support that, especially if the six that didn't vote have not even been logging in. We should display the voting deadline prominently in the first post of the election threads though.

[tiger337]

I agree that people who don't vote in two elections should be kicked out. However, I suspect we'll lose more members as we go along and if the total number of voters gets too low, we may have to expand again somehow in the future. I think getting people to vote and deciding who is on the committee will be two of our biggest challenges throughout.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Good point Lee. It's easy to sign up for something, but the time commitment can often turn out to be more than expected. That's just the nature of things.

[DTroppens]

We can give people one more chance. However, I am not going to send PMs to people for warnings. In fact I think letting actions speak for themselves is key here. If people vote this week for the second class I will accept them without a second thought. In fact all I have is a list on a notecard who didn't vote. It's not like I have it memorized and have negative feelings or anything. In fact a few I recall were shockers because I do respect those people. However, if we have to prod them to vote then I don't want people to be here at the risk of losing too many members. If we have 10 people I can live with that. We will have 10 quality members. But that's not going to happen. When we get to the 1960s you are going to see people wanting to join so they can vote for their favorites. Will we still have the same interest? Maybe not, but if we fall to 14 in the 1950s I think by the 1980s we will have people knocking on our door.


About the time committment thing - We gave something like TEN days to do research. And this was an easy era in my opinion. People from the 1907-1909 teams with little outside of that. And those others well documented. There are "dryer" eras in terms of team success that people know less about. I'm guessing most can't name more than 5 people from the 1920s or even during the war years. I'm guessing most don't know much about the 1945 team even. The 1950s probably not much either. Those may be tougher eras than this one. If people couldn't get this one done in 10 days with the fires burning for a new project, I'm wondering if they can do it for other eras that may be more difficult for lesser known eras. And someone could've even "faked" it and got this done. I could've named five off that list and made it look like a reasonable ballot. Heck if someone voted just Mullin and Schaefer that would've looked legit to me.

BTW,
I have the ballots and I write down who people voted for so I have a backup system. However, I have the memory of a rock so when I talk on these boards I have no clue who DennisDubay, Davidsb, dt or Tiger337 voted for. I think this is one time where my "blank slate" memory works well. I don't think we need someone adding ballots who is memorizing who is voting for what and starts individually politicking. I'm sure if someone votes for Schaefer four times, I'll memorize it but it will take that.

[DTroppens]

I can put a message on the Tiger folder and say who didn't vote please do so for the next election on Friday and to announce people to look at our first nominee.

P.S. Another issue is going to be keeping people from posting in our final selection thread. There are going to be times I will unlock that thing so dt can put the people in that deserve to be there. But we can't have people putting posts there. We can delete them, but I think we can see them as deleted message (or at least I can) and I don't want people seeing that stuff. So please people when you see that unlocked DON'T POST IN IT!

[DaYooperASBDT]

I think I may have been unclear on my comment on time commitment. If you volunteer for something, you should expect to invest a certain amount of time, at least enough to check in weekly and vote. Otherwise you have wasted everyone's time, including your own.

Just because it's human nature, that doesn't mean I'm cool with it.

[DTroppens]

I can't wait for the Donie Bush "he's crap" "he deserves consideration" conversations here.

He's one of my favorite players of all time because of the extremities involved with his career. Can't hit, can walk, can't field, a great defensive player - he's going to be fun.

[estrepe1]

I might vote for Bush after reading that many consider him one of the top 3 defensive players at SS.

[DaYooperASBDT]

If Ozzie Smith gets in to the regular HOF for his D, then that means I'm taking a long look at Donie Bush.

(Almost said "taking a long look at Bush", but .......)

[whitecapwendy]

I don't think there should be an excuse unless the circumstances are really harsh.
I can see if there is an emergency (hospitalization, etc) where someone might miss a vote, but needs to let Dave know in advance if possible, or as soon as possible afterwards. I think it is our responsibility to know when each deadline is and do the research to the best of our ability. This is a wonderful privilege we have that could easily have historical relevance. I think we all need to take this as a serious responsibility, and take the responisibility seriously.

[tiger337]

I might vote for Bush after reading that many consider him one of the top 3 defensive players at SS.

One of the top 3 Tigers defensive shortstops? Maybe. He doesn't have the reputation or stats as one of baseball's great defenders. I think he was a good fielder in terms of range but Bill James pointed out that he was horrible at turning doubleplays because he was of the old school philosophy that you go for one safe out. He played in a period where doubleplays were starting to get more popular and James said he didn't make the adjustment.

I agree with Troppens that Bush will be an interesting candidate. There are plenty of positives and negatives. I like the fact that he has longevity, played fairly good defense (maybe!) at an important position and drew a lot of walks. He couldn't hit though. He will be interesting.

[DTroppens]

Donnie Bush was considered an outstanding defensive SS early in his career but the stats really don't reflect that and he was poor at the DP. As Tiger337 pointed out later in his career he was considered a liability because he could not turn the DP. You can see how people are limited when it comes to him. Some may read he was a poor SS if they read the DP thing (I think the book on lineups mentions that) but it disregards earlier in his career when he was considered a very good SS. The times changed a bit during his career and he didn't adjust. Still his fielding percentages are awful. His range must've been pretty good. When I grade him for my games I give him a tiny plus for range but keep the errors there and as the years go on his DP ability goes lesser and lesser. In the 1900s and even early 1910s getting DPs may not have been as important as just getting out. However, as you go on offenses got better and getting two when you can was more important. As he's the SS you can see our DP numbers don't get much higher if at all and some teams end up turning 130 or 140 a year - almost double the number the Tigers did. Ralph Young is given a bit of heat for this as well.

Bush also had very poor power in an era that eventually a tad of power became important. Without looking right now I'm sure he must've had seasons he had more walks than hits, but when you add all those walks to a low .200 average, it doesn't look bad. It's amazing he walked that much considering he had no pop (I think half of his homers were inside the parkers, something like that) and he posed no threat with that bat.

I don't think anyone's career is filled with contraditions like Bush's. He also promoted a Negro Leagues vs. MLB players series in Indianapolis for a few years during the offseason. That means a little to me. If all being equal with others I'll let that give him a tiny bit nod.

[DTroppens]

I don't know this for sure but at the half-century mark I think he was named the Tigers' all-time shortstop. I'll have to check that one out.

[estrepe1]

One of the top 3 Tigers defensive shortstops? Maybe. He doesn't have the reputation or stats as one of baseball's great defenders. I think he was a good fielder in terms of range but Bill James pointed out that he was horrible at turning doubleplays because he was of the old school philosophy that you go for one safe out. He played in a period where doubleplays were starting to get more popular and James said he didn't make the adjustment.

I agree with Troppens that Bush will be an interesting candidate. There are plenty of positives and negatives. I like the fact that he has longevity, played fairly good defense (maybe!) at an important position and drew a lot of walks. He couldn't hit though. He will be interesting.

I think it was top 3-5 defensive SS in Tigers history.

[DaYooperASBDT]

OK, back to rules, schedule, etc. Here's a summary of information/questions from today. If I missed anything please advise, and I'll edit this post. I also have some requests for Dave:

1. Several members requested a thread with the schedule, deadline for submission, and a summary of FAQ. Oblong suggested no replies.

Request: I would like to post the voting schedule and rules in post #1 of this thread, or have Dave edit post #1 accordingly. Also may help to sticky the thread?

2. We have been discussing ground rules in multiple threads. This is causing confusion among members.

Request: Let's try to keep such discussions over here, and summarize rules in the first post of this thread, if no objections?

3. Voting schedule. Can we go ahead and post the whole thing?

Request: Dave, are you willing to stick with one election per week, deadline Friday midnight? Works for me. If OK, I can go ahead and generate the entire voting schedule through 2005 then?

4. Election Deadline - DT intends to post the deadline in the first thread of each election post. That should help also.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Some reminders from Dave on voting format/procedure:


P.S. If anyone ever can't make it on the board to vote, send me a PM. I'll give you my office phone number that has voice mail. I will give you my email address. I will give you a mailing address. Heck, if you live close I'll meet you at a school while I'm working to get your results. I don't care how I get them. I just want to make sure we do.



I suggest before you send your list you wait a day if there is still time to wait. Then look at it again and see if you still like your list. We had quite a few people turn in a couple PMs and that can make it confusing and adds chance at getting the wrong votes. I will always use the oldest PM when I add votes if that happens. I pretty much knew who I was going to vote for but I waited until late Wednesday to make my vote. There's no rush to get them here. I'll probably check them on Thursday to make sure everything is easy to understand and it gives us time if there are any questions, but if you give it to me tomorrow, I won't open it until Thursday anyway.



Also please make your votes this way..
John Smith
John Doe
Larry Jackson
Only names of people you WANT. Please don't put lists with people you don't want and the ones you do highlighted. If you have more names than you are supposed to, I'll PM you if there is time. If there is not I'll use only the top five votes.

[estrepe1]

I think adding a schedule post would be kind of easy and interesting to see how long this will take us at the current pace. Just assume 1 week for every set of players:

1901 - 1915 - February 9th at 12:00 AM
1916 - 1920 - February 16th at 12:00 AM
1921 - 1925 - Fabruary 23rd at 12:00 AM
1926 - 1930 - March 2nd at 12:00 AM
1931 - 1935 - March 9th at 12:00 AM
1936 - 1940 - March 16th at 12:00 AM
1941 - 1945 - March 23rd at 12:00 AM
1946 - 1950 - March 30th at 12:00 AM
1951 - 1955 - April 6th at 12:00 AM
1956 - 1960 - April 13th at 12:00 AM
1961 - 1965 - April 20th at 12:00 AM
1966 - 1970 - April 27th at 12:00 AM
1971 - 1975 - May 4th at 12:00 AM
1976 - 1980 - May 11th at 12:00 AM
1981 - 1985 - May 18th at 12:00 AM
1986 - 1990 - May 25th at 12:00 AM
1991 - 1995 - June 1st at 12:00 AM
1996 - 2000 - June 8th at 12:00 AM
2001 - 2005 - June 15th at 12:00 AM


That would give one week for every vote. And everyone would know that they have to get their votes in every Friday by midnight. I like that personally.

[tiger337]

If Ozzie Smith gets in to the regular HOF for his D, then that means I'm taking a long look at Donie Bush.



Smith and Bush should not even appear in the same sentence.

[whitecapwendy]

Once the baseball season starts, I have many responsibilities with pictures etc that often leaves me little time to sleep (kind of like working two full time jobs, but one doesn't pay) . research could be really challenging at that point. If anyone is inclined to make it every two weeks during the baseball season, that would be really nice. If it stays at one week, it will be a real challenge, but I am committed to this thing.

[Oblong]

April 27, May 18, and June 1 could be problems for me. Home tiger games that night. I'll be sending through a drunk ballot. "Yeah, uhh... John Doherty. He was cool".

[DaYooperASBDT]

Thanks for cranking out the schedule E. I'll post that above if Dave signs off on it.

[DaYooperASBDT]

April 27, May 18, and June 1 could be problems for me. Home tiger games that night. I'll be sending through a drunk ballot. "Yeah, uhh... John Doherty. He was cool".Vote early. Vote often !!! Oh wait we aren't in Chicago.

Thought you always voted drunk ??? :cool:

[Oblong]

see, that was supposed to be said in a Keanu Reeves voice because Doherty reminded me of Reeves.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Smith and Bush should not even appear in the same sentence.Not the same HOF's. :classic:

[estrepe1]

We can modify the schedule if people would like. I kept it at a week because this thing could really drag out if you made it 2 weeks. If we extend it to 2 weeks after the baseball season started it would go like this:


1901 - 1915 - February 9th at 12:00 AM
1916 - 1920 - February 16th at 12:00 AM
1921 - 1925 - Fabruary 23rd at 12:00 AM
1926 - 1930 - March 2nd at 12:00 AM
1931 - 1935 - March 9th at 12:00 AM
1936 - 1940 - March 16th at 12:00 AM
1941 - 1945 - March 23rd at 12:00 AM
1946 - 1950 - March 30th at 12:00 AM
1951 - 1955 - April 13th at 12:00 AM
1956 - 1960 - April 27th at 12:00 AM
1961 - 1965 - May 11th at 12:00 AM
1966 - 1970 - May 25th at 12:00 AM
1971 - 1975 - June 8th at 12:00 AM
1976 - 1980 - June 22nd at 12:00 AM
1981 - 1985 - July 6th at 12:00 AM
1986 - 1990 - July 20th at 12:00 AM
1991 - 1995 - August 3rd at 12:00 AM
1996 - 2000 - August 17th at 12:00 AM
2001 - 2005 - August 31st at 12:00 AM

[Oblong]

I was just joking. I personally think every Friday is good. As we get later into the decades it shouldn't be as hard to research.

[estrepe1]

I was just joking. I personally think every Friday is good. As we get later into the decades it shouldn't be as hard to research.


I figured you were just joking but Wendy mentioned she might need more time to research.

I agree that the later decades take less time than the early ones. I mean once we reach a class like the 1950 one for instance. How much research does one need to vote for players like Hank Greenberg?

[DaYooperASBDT]

That's not a bad-looking schedule either. Weekly is cool with me though.

[tiger337]

Not the same HOF's. :classic:

It would only be a good analogy if Bush was the best fielder in the history of the Tigers which he wasn't. Historians can't even agree as to whether he was a good fielder or not. I will still consider him though.

[estrepe1]

It would only be a good analogy if Bush was the best fielder in the history of the Tigers which he wasn't. Historians can't even agree as to whether he was a good fielder or not. I will still consider him though.

Yeah I don't know want to say which way I am going to vote, but his offense sure doesn't help him. The mixed reports on his defense make you wonder.

[whitecapwendy]

I figured you were just joking but Wendy mentioned she might need more time to research.

I agree that the later decades take less time than the early ones. I mean once we reach a class like the 1950 one for instance. How much research does one need to vote for players like Hank Greenberg?
Trust me, I will need to do as much research in the later decades as I will in the earlier decades. Remember, I have only really been a baseball fan since 2001, and irony of ironies really started getting into the Tigers in 2003 (no I will not take responsibility for that season :silly: ). It would help me to have a couple weeks during the season, but if people want to send me links and cheat sheets (biographies stats, etc) that might help. I have also ordered the Tigers baseball encyclopedia which will help me a great deal (right? I hope). I just want to do this thing right, and baseball season is a crazy time for me. I am committed to this and if it stays at a week, I will do it and somehow do it right. However, stretching it to a couple weeks might allow me to get a little sleep and not mess up the poor nursing home residents meals or laundry.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm glad you signed up Wendy. An advantage to coming in fresh is that you won't be "set in your ways" like I am! Well I'm trying to fight that and take a fresh look at all candidates. Knowing you I'm sure you will be an excellent, unbiased judge on this matter!

[whitecapwendy]

Thanks Yoop. I can guarantee unbiased, but will be working hard on the exellent. Any chance we can get the class of 1925 going? I am itching to get started.

[dt35456884]

Any chance we can get the class of 1925 going? I am itching to get started.

No. No chance.

Last week it made sense to put up the Class of '20 up a day or two before the 1915 votes were due. But now the number of classes are going to start to pile up. The last thing I want is for people to start getting confused as to who they're meant to be voting for this week.

I'm sure most people are aware of some of the names in the Class of '25. But I probably won't be unveiling that thread until Friday night when this week's results go official.

[DTroppens]

It's going to be a push getting this done every Friday night. I wouldn't be shocked that over time a week becomes eight days every now and then to the point that it becomes a Saturday to Saturday thing then a Sunday to Sunday thing.

dt,
are you going to be available Friday nights or Saturdays to do this every week?

[DaYooperASBDT]

I don't think anyone would begrudge you two a week off here and there, considering all the work you guys have put into this !!! We do have a very ambitious schedule, and schedules can be revised when we are actually interrupted by the realities of life. :wink:

Don't be afraid to tap myself, or some other folks, if one of you gets tied up with other stuff. Delegation is a key to sanity. :classic:

[Edman85]

It's going to be a push getting this done every Friday night. I wouldn't be shocked that over time a week becomes eight days every now and then to the point that it becomes a Saturday to Saturday thing then a Sunday to Sunday thing.

dt,
are you going to be available Friday nights or Saturdays to do this every week?

I'd be willing to help tally votes if you ever need a week off of it.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Dave, had a thought on non-players. Should we actually ask for a "Yes" or "No" on someone like Jennings? List the names of your players, then list each non-player with your "Yes" or "No" on each?

[dt35456884]

Dave, had a thought on non-players. Should we actually ask for a "Yes" or "No" on someone like Jennings? List the names of your players, then list each non-player with your "Yes" or "No" on each?

Let's see how the next elections go. We shouldn't need to baby the voters. It ought to be perfectly clear by now.

[DTroppens]

I don't know about the "Yes" and "No" thing.

First off we have no clue why people decided against Jennings. The voting process of him (which was clearly noted by dt a million times) is a guess, but just that. People simply wanted to keep managers off their lists because he wasn't a player for the Tigers (well he played like 10 games). I think changing things because some (and I voted for him as well and threw up this theory) of us are upset someone didn't make it makes little sense.

Second, if that was an issue then I think we are going to have issues two ways:
1. this involves more details to the ballot. If I what I said above was the reason, this only makes the ballot more difficult or easier to "forget something."
2. How do I add up the votes? If someone forgets to post a yes or no does that mean no? Does that mean not voting? Well if it's a "not voting" almost every additional guy will get on because I think we'll have a lot of people just not write it in it would mean a void vote. That's going to make it easier to get that 75%.

I think listing names will always be the easiest options. I didn't expect this to go without road bumps. That's kind of why I got tired with the process of how we were going to do this. We were (along with me) throwing out all these proposals and not getting anywhere. I think how we've decided to "rough" it has worked out well. I think it's the simplist measure and makes it easiest for us involved to do the extra work. I think this way is working out well and we should just stick with it. Jennings wasn't the travesty I think some thought. He'll most likely get in this time or even the next. And there is reason for some to think "why put managers in" before players. I was looking at the Michigan Hall of Fame and I COULDN'T FIND HIS NAME THERE EITHER. Maybe I missed it but I looked pretty good and even did an edit search. As much as some of want to think he was Jennings WASN'T a gimmie. Changing the rules because he didn't make it doesn't make sense to me.

If anything I think the thing that makes sense is cutting the nominations to about 5 people. Dt does the research. I know I can make decisions in a matter of an hour (and a matter of seconds like I did last night). I'm sure there are about three to five others (like Tiger337) that can too. I think by Saturday we can hash out this ourselves. Of course this hasn't been an issue yet, but when we get to an era that EVERYONE KNOWS something the nomination process can become a mess. The last thing I want is a big decision between John Wockenfuss, Tim Corcoran and Pat Underwood on this with 20 something people. I think about five of us can do a pretty darn good job ourselves.

[Oblong]

I have no issues with a small group deciding on the nominations.

I don't think we should do a yes/no thing. Just list the people you vote for. Changing procedures because one nominee is an overreaction. If this is the agreed upon method then we should stick with it and the results speak for themselves.

[whitecapwendy]

I agree. Just listing the names you are voting for not only makes it easy on the voter, it makes it easier on the people having to tally those votes. I think it was mentioned enough times that Jennings was not considered one of the 5 votes. Noone should have been confused. I was disappointed he didn't make it, but I am sure that those who did not vote for him had their reasons for not doing so.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Could someone give me a good summary of the criteria for a "carryover" candidate to remain on the ballot? Sounds like the procedure was tweaked a couple times?

[estrepe1]

If you average 10% of the votes over the ballots they stay on the ballot. So lets say George Uhle receives 20% of the votes this time. If he gets no votes next time he will stay on the ballot because he will still be at 20%/(2 ballots) = 10%.

[dt35456884]

Could someone give me a good summary of the criteria for a "carryover" candidate to remain on the ballot? Sounds like the procedure was tweaked a couple times?

Any candidate who has averaged 10% of the vote in previous elections remains on the ballot.

[dt35456884]

What E said.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Thanks guys, I made some changes in Post #1 to include that procedure.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Bumping this to reflect the changed deadline for this week. Is the change from midnight to noon permanent, or just for this week ???

[dt35456884]

Bumping this to reflect the changed deadline for this week. Is the change from midnight to noon permanent, or just for this week ???

It is permanent. Most people have their votes in by Friday morning so it shouldn't affect too much. Any of our last-minute voters will need to take note though.

[Oblong]

When was that decided?

[dt35456884]

It's just a logistics thing. Sometimes Dave and I have difficulty meeting up, going over the results, and posting the results when it is late Friday night. Gets to be 2 A.M. we're still combing over results sometimes. Moving the deadline up a little will be a help to us. Also we will be able to release the results Friday evening and get the next class out there. Gives people all weekend to do research for the next class if they so choose.

[DTroppens]

Oblong,
It's tough to sit around at 11:45 p.m. waiting to give the results at a timely basis not knowing if someone is going to make it or not. The move gives me and dt35456884 more flexibility to get it out even at a more timely basis for everyone sometimes before midnight. With spring and summer coming up that may be a nice option.
We had just about everyone's votes in by noon. I will be at work until 5 p.m. anyway, so we can drop it to that if people like, but it's nice to have an idea what the heck is going on at 5 p.m. for that night.

Alan has to figure which players we need to create posts for and I have to do my writing. Sometimes we get it done in advance (we actually have some things ready for people that never made it thinking they would) but it would be nice to know we can come in at 6 p.m. on Friday and do all this with plenty of time to spare after the results are in.

We figure we will get the results in by midnight every week still but it may be earlier. That may create some more excitment for others that see activity during Tiger games and want to see what we are doing. But more importantly it makes it much easier for us to prepare the Hall.

David

[Oblong]

I'm not questioning it. I was just curious if there was a discussion buried deep in some thread somewhere and I missed it.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Bumping this since the first post gives an overview of how the voting works.