Jump to content

Edman85

Veterans Committee's Proposals

Recommended Posts

Well, we are getting to the end of this phase of the project. I'd like to thank everybody (especially Dtropp and dt) for a fun project.

I just had some ideas about the Veteran's committee, since things seem to be fairly vague about how it's going to work. Here's my proposal for the project, followed by some justification as to why.

The process will start up every year in February. From February 1-March 1, a ballot addition process will take place. Each member of the committee has 10 points to distribute to players not on the ballot. They can assign up 10 points to any person who did not qualify for the particular year's ballot. On March 1, these points will be accumulated, and the top point-getter and ties will be added to the ballot.

I propose the voting take place throughout the month of March every year. The process would be the same (up to 5 player votes plus unlimited non player votes). Those on the ballot would include:

  • Vote-getters receiving 10% of votes on the previous ballot
  • (in 2008 only) Vote-getters who qualified for at least four ballots in the 1915-2005 phase of the voting.
  • Any former Tigers who meet the playing time criteria who retired since the last vote.
  • The additional player(s) from the ballot-addition voting.

Again 75% of votes would be required for election, and 10% of votes would be required to stay on the ballot. The increasing minimum to stay on the ballot would be eliminated.

Justification:

First, I wanted to get discussion going as to how this will work since a lot of the holdovers on the ballot now will likely be headed towards the Veteran Committee.

The ballot-addition process is simply a way to get guys that may have slipped through the cracks during this process onto the ballot. I'm sure we all have a few guys in mind who simply didn't get the support we all think they should have. Having the 10-point system enables us to give varying amounts of support to different candidates. Allowing people to use less than 10 points allows those that don't feel there are any reasonable candidates out there to keep from giving support they don't feel is deserved. The main point of this is to ensure that the book is never closed on players who got squeezed from the ballot. If we start voting 1-2 old-time players in every year, the ballot could get thin and some of these players will prove to be as worthy as some on the ballot.

Having the elections in Spring Training time allows us to see which players have retired, as most will happen over the course of early spring training or the offseason. Also, it will give us some baseball to talk about in the doldrums of February and March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually once we get to the vet's committee I think we should think about limiting the number of votes for non-players. The justification for doing the way we did now was that we didn't have enough players in that category and that they would take away from the players. Well by this point we have...

1. Gotten in most of the tremendously needed players into the Hall.

2. Have a larger list of non-players.

I would argue we either consider those people as one of our votes or limit the number of votes among those people.

- I don't see myself adding players up for nomination that aren't going to be on our original list. I think we've weeded them out pretty well. A process is fine but I think that was pretty extravagant for a nomination process.

- I think during the general election it would be very interesting if we added something like a "preferred" candidate to our lists. Maybe have a person weighted twice over the others. The only issue with that is it would make it very difficult to do voting at a straight percentage. So maybe it wouldn't work. But it's an idea to brainstorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this proposal, and also Dave's suggestion of lumping the non-players with the players.

Should we consider increasing the number of votes from five to ten ?? I know that's been brought up by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of increasing the number of votes. No one has to use all of them. Maybe up to eight if we lump all the candidates together?

I don't want eight people making it the first time. I'm hoping we get 1-2 every year. I'm guessing Earl Whitehill will be the first on the vet's committee to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still thinking 10 votes, because the pool of candidates will be significantly larger than the groups we are currently voting on. For example, I'm only looking at about eight players this week.

How many have qualified for the Vet's voting to date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negro League Players

We need to have a ballot on these players as well. I was reading the book on the Detroit Stars from the Holly library and had to return it. It has a great reference for statistical information - at least as well as we can expect to find.

I have been reading a few other books that I purchased, including that Negro League Encyclopedia (just an awesome book) and "Only the Ball Was White." We are going to find the Stars info a bit less "available" out there than other teams as they don't seem to be the "glamour" team. And really that makes sense since they really never won anything. However, Turkey Stearns was as good as any one in the Negro Leagues and actually was probably much better than some of the players we hear talked about "all the time." He just wasn't the colorful personality as the others so he didn't get the media attention as the others.

I plan on actually accumulating that information and getting a good list of potential nominations. I'll try to create standards of X at bats or IP just as dt did. However, I'm going to try to weed it to the best 15 or so players and in some cases that may not mean just those players. There were some HOF guys that played here just a season and I think at least during the nomination process we need to have people deciding if the should be on the ballot or not. I don't think it's right for me to say they don't deserve to be on it, although I'll probably not vote for them.

Maybe we do the Negro League players about two weeks after the final election here? That gives me a few weeks to gather the info. Then maybe two weeks for people to research? I think we need to give this more time as well since most of us don't know one player over another yet.

Wolverines

I have a book that has all the statistical data of those teams in it. It would be a matter of putting it together on a nice list - just like the Negro League players. Should we plan on doing these two together or seperate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't saved a list of them. I know dt has it. I would have to go back and look at all the elections (if I was at home it really wouldn't take long) to figure it out. I bet dt can give you a quick answer. But it's up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DT. Dave, I agree that we need some sort of special election, to induct some Negro Leaguers. Then we could just put the un-elected guys (getting 10%) in with the others in the Vet's Committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it would've been more than 16. I had 20 ringing like a good number, but that was a guess.

Thanks dt35456884.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sixteen guys have qualified for the VC.

What were the qualification standards again? I thought I might be one who qualified (I only missed 1 vote) - but that low number seems to indicate there might be some other standard I was not aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tigercub,

We were talking candidates not committee members.

You are on the Vet's committee.

Oh ok, fantastic.

Hopefully I can get in some of these guys I have been voting for (but who everyone else seems to not care for).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Siever

Ed Summers

Jimmy Barrett

Germany Schaefer

Jim Delahanty

Lu Blue

Bob Fothergill

Johnny Bassler

Heinie Manush

Billy Rogell

Bobo Newsom

Del Baker

Al Benton

Dick Wakefield

Hoot Evers

Charlie Maxwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are others that qualify but are still on the ballot that aren't listed there. For example Earl Whitehill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually once we get to the vet's committee I think we should think about limiting the number of votes for non-players. The justification for doing the way we did now was that we didn't have enough players in that category and that they would take away from the players. Well by this point we have...

1. Gotten in most of the tremendously needed players into the Hall.

2. Have a larger list of non-players.

I would argue we either consider those people as one of our votes or limit the number of votes among those people.

Agreed, we could have a 7-person limit, but new additions in the future (Leyland, Dombrowski, Dickerson, etc.) should get the same treatment as former non-players.

- I don't see myself adding players up for nomination that aren't going to be on our original list. I think we've weeded them out pretty well. A process is fine but I think that was pretty extravagant for a nomination process.

I think it's good to leave a window open in case the committee as a whole realize they made a mistake. I'd be willing to "proctor" this if need be, as it would just take a simple Excel sheet to tally. Perhaps, instead of having one guaranteed, we could have a minimum, but the minimum would be dependent on the ammount of people in the Vet's Committee.

- I think during the general election it would be very interesting if we added something like a "preferred" candidate to our lists. Maybe have a person weighted twice over the others. The only issue with that is it would make it very difficult to do voting at a straight percentage. So maybe it wouldn't work. But it's an idea to brainstorm.

That shouldn't be hard. We'll have time to agree on a process if needed. We could just have a double vote and increase the threshold to the equivalent of 90%. That said, I'd probably be opposed to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edman,

I think that final proposal is important because it changes the dynamics of the vote.

I'll use myself as an example. I haven't voted for Whitehill yet and really I have no intention to right now. I certainly have others on the Vet's list I would be concerned with before him as well. I'm going to be worried about Rogell and Maxwell and whoever. Well that's not going to change for anyone. People who want Whitehill are going to fight that as well and chances are no one is going to give much. Well, there should be something set where eventually the ones we "feel strongly most about" should be able to override people like - well me. If Whitehill is the strongest candidate for 50% of his voters, shouldn't we try to reflect that? I think it's a good idea to keep things moving and to get some of these people that probably deserve to be in (even if single individuals don't think so) to get in. Whitehill and Rogell are classic examples right now.

What should the percentage be and how do we create that is the troubles. We'd almost have to go to a 100% vote I'd think to get in. Or maybe we have it at 90% (or maybe even 100% still) and count the "preferred" candidate as 1.5 votes. People will get over 100% but that doesn't bother me.If we did this we may be able to keep the total votes down as well. The more I think about it, 10 is just too many votes. Even if someone voted for 10 people on vet list I want them to have to make decision which ones really are their "top of the top" of that list. I want myself to think who do I really think belongs of the six (making that number up) that I voted for previously. Maybe 7 is the right number. With the 1.5 preferred vote, five may still be the right number - or maybe 6.

I am not saying I have it figured out yet, but I think we need to create a dynamic that changes things up. We are not going to have a huge difference in the committee members so we need to do something. I know the field is different, but not that entirely different. I think something like this really makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

1. Voters can select up to 6 people on the ballot regardless if player/owner or whatever.

2. A vote can be distinguished as your preferred vote at a weight of 1.5 votes.

3. It takes 90-100% of the vote with the new weight system to be inducted.

We can even do this...

4. You can select up to 2 more players for the "protection list." They don't get a vote for the HOF but do get a vote that would count towards keeping them on the ballot for future seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vet's committee are different people than the actual HOF voters and that's why that "works" to a point. The dynamic has changed tremendously. Here the people are still the same. Something my dynamically change. The process is what is left and I think something like this would work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at that list we have already. I'd have to think - Rogell, Benton, Barrett are all in on my mind. Okay, who gets that preferred vote. Suddenly I have to do more thinking even with my "locks."

The next tier - Maxwell, Evers, Manush, O'Neill, Smith.

Well I can only vote for three of those if we go with six. But I can "protect" two. Which deserve to actually get a vote. Which would I rather fight for another day? I am making decisions within my own ballot that forces me to make better decisions.

It may keep people on the list for the vet's committee for a bit of time, but that's no concern to me now. At this point I want the list to remain lengthy so people get plenty benefit of the doubt. This is their last shot. Yet, people are going to fall off - especially early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things to chew on with respect to the Wolverines and Stars players:

1.) Dave, thank God you talked myself and the rest of us out of including these guys the first time around.

2.) I need more time to evaluate these guys. Two weeks after the end of the '05 elections just isn't enough. In fact, I'd like to hold off on them until the '08 elections. Or maybe hold an '07 election later this year. Truth be told, I'm getting a little fatigued. Not complaining, I am just going to need a break for a while.

Just my $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine. How about until September so we keep them going fairly often. That takes some of the pressure off of me and others to get this prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting a tad tired as well dt. Friday's are getting to be "routine" or that "thing I have to do." And really until about a couple weeks ago I never thought that way.

And you have a ton more that you do besides me. I can understand the burnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...