Jump to content

Edman85

Veterans Committee's Proposals

Recommended Posts

However I look at a guy like Harry Coveleski, who has been anywhere from 1 vote away from induction to getting totally shut out with zero votes, and I know that the slam-dunk candidates that have come along the way have made it extremely difficult for some of these second-tier guys who otherwise have a good shot to get in. Now they won't have to compete with those guys. That's why I don't support shaking up the induction criteria much.
We should look at whether we need to increase the number of votes though. The field will have at least 20 "hold-overs", so we could conceivably lose 10 or more guys after the first vote. We need to weed some out each time, I'm just wondering how quickly that should happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoop has a point there. If we increase the number of votes available, this does not mean that people have to use all of those votes. But on the other hand, if there are more than 5 candidates that someone thinks deserves to be in, it will make choosing very difficult. (I know, that is the point of limiting the number of votes--make us compare and decide)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, two elections... I like that idea based solely on the fact that it will help keep interest. But there are some issues with splitting it up into two elections.

First and foremost, there won't be many names on these ballots. Perhaps we should have a no drop-off rule for VC ballots. Having annual elections instead of elections every five years will have many more guys leaving the ballot than entering.

Because of the 5-1 year transition, the VC qualification should be changed to 20 years instead of 4 elections. If, for example, Bobby Higginson (who should be in) gets 50% of the votes in 2005, 2008, 2009, but gets bumped off the ballot in 2010, he should not make the Veterans Committee.

Also, I want to reiterate the importance of having a process to get eliminated players onto the Veterans Committee ballot. There are quite a few players, who due to the 5-vote limit, I personally did not get a chance to vote for and would like to see them get their full due. There are a lot of players (especially from the 50's and 70's) who got squeezed, and a process should be in place to give them life if enough people find such a process necessary. Also, such a process could be used to weed through Negro Leagues and Wolverines players and get them onto the ballot.

On top of that, the Veterans Committee ballot should be in early November and the annual ballot should be in late April-early May. Having the annual ballot in that time-frame allows the committee to have time to nominate retired players (remember, ex-Tigers aren't eligible until they retire: Wells, Clark, etc. have to wait). Having the Veterans Committee in early November avoids the playoffs and gives us a 6 month window between the two ballots.

Bear in mind that players like Coveleski and Whitehill if still alive in the voting would be on the 2008 annual ballot and not the Veterans Committee ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you posted, Ed.

We may need to combine the elections eventually, for lack of players on the annual elections ballot. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it I suppose. For now, I really think we can make it work for awhile. We may only have one or two or three new candidates each year (as you pointed out, Wells, Clark, hell Weaver's career may not last much longer) but I think following the 2005 elections we may have as many as a dozen carryovers. That's a big enough pool to carry on with legit annual elections for awhile. And those players deserve a fairer shake than just dumping them into the VC group all at once at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should look at whether we need to increase the number of votes though. The field will have at least 20 "hold-overs", so we could conceivably lose 10 or more guys after the first vote. We need to weed some out each time, I'm just wondering how quickly that should happen?

I agree with this. I'm going to go back and compute how many votes we each got per nominee throughout the process (on average). Usually we got 5 votes to distribute between 12 player candidates. Sometimes it was less than 12. Based on whatever ratio I reach, we can discuss expanding the number of votes available in the VC elections accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say there have been many people that I really wanted to vote for that I never got the opportunity. Those will be the ones I will vote for. Maybe there is 1-2 that may deserve consideration beyond that, but that's about it at least in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Edman's idea of VC candidates never getting cut from the ballot. If they made it, they should stay on.

The idea of the "super vote" just doesn't seem like a very good idea. I think it would be much more interactive if everyone got together in a thread or two and convinced the others of their opinions. Maybe even set up a chat or something like that. Instead of the "super vote," if you truely think someone belongs convince the rest of us. I may not post very often in the debate threads, but I always read them to make sure I didn't miss someone.

I also think the 5 votes per person is plenty, especially if the VC candidates aren't going anywhere. As for the non-players, I'm up for debate on that one. I think maybe limiting it to one or two non-players per year could be a good idea. Give 5 votes for players and up to 2 votes per class for non-players, in my mind, seems like the best comprimise.

I also think we should keep the 75% standard. I don't see any need to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I want to reiterate the importance of having a process to get eliminated players onto the Veterans Committee ballot. There are quite a few players, who due to the 5-vote limit, I personally did not get a chance to vote for and would like to see them get their full due. There are a lot of players (especially from the 50's and 70's) who got squeezed, and a process should be in place to give them life if enough people find such a process necessary. Also, such a process could be used to weed through Negro Leagues and Wolverines players and get them onto the ballot.
Agreed. Someone earlier proposed, for the vet's committee, that each committee member be able to nominate one player per election. That would be simpler than having a nomination election, perhaps.

If we don't drop anyone from the vet's list, then five votes might be enough.

Is there a danger, in the annual election, of someone like Whitehill being forever stuck at 50%, thus never getting to the vet's committee? Once we go to annual elections, we may need to shift all the "holdovers" to the vet's ballot, at least the ones that have been on it for 30-plus years. Or allow them to be nominated for the vet's ballot, i.e. allow votes for them during both the annual election AND the vet's election ??

OK, my head hurts now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good news regarding the VC ballot. I went back and crunched a few numbers on our elections going back to 1915.

Since that first ballot, we have averaged 19 player nominees per election (including carryovers). So on average, every time you voted you had up to 5 votes to disperse among 19 players.

It looks as though our 2007 Veterans Committee pool will have -- you guessed it -- exactly 19 players. Therefore I believe we should continue with the 5-vote player limit throughout the Veterans Committee elections.

The good news for the VC players: no more competing for those five votes with the 30-40 best and brightest in Tigers history. Those guys are already in, after all.

The bad news for the VC players: no more scrubs on the ballot to stand out against.

Will one or two top players be able to emerge in the VC vote every year? Or will the votes be dispersed enough that maybe nobody gets in? Who knows, but it should be fun to see how it all unfolds. At any rate, nobody said it would (or should) be easy to make it in to this HOF through the back door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is a ton of people will get 20-60 percent of the vote and no one will ever get in. I guess Whitehill will get in and so will Rogell possibly but that's it.

That's why I think we really need to change the dynamic somehow. Maybe dropping the voting to 66 percent if no one gets 75% but only one gets above that 66%. Maybe if no one gets in the first VC ballot then the second one the top vote-getter gets in automatically just as long as it's at least 50%?

I don't know. I really don't see anyone getting in beyond those two. Well, and maybe O'Neill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I see the votes every week and it does start sticking a little bit after awhile. I always am pretty good at being able to grasp what is going to happen well before it does once a person is a carryover. There hasn't been a single carryover I thought would eventually get in that didn't and vice versa. Sometimes initial votes surprised me a bit (McLain almost getting in the first election) but past that I think people know what's going to happen.

I can say I pretty much know which guys I want to make it and I'm not going to stray from those people. And really I don't expect anyone else do do anything different either. If you didn't vote for someone in the past, you probably aren't going to vote for them when there are 10 others on the list you have voted for in the past. Why would you? I think there are those very few that are right there close on everyone's list that can make it (Whitehill and Rogell) but after that people can argue the differences between Henneman, Evans, Evers, Hernandez, Killian and Maxwell to their blue in the face, but I don't see anyone having such a great compelling argument that they'll ever get that 75% It will be muddled in the 20s to 60s probably forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will definitely be a tough road, with only 5 votes, but as DT said, it should be tough. I guarrantee that Jimmy Barrett will be on my ballot every time, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be muddled in the 20s to 60s probably forever.

Maybe. Maybe not. There's no way to tell right now. The Veterans Committee ballot will be unlike any ballot we've been faced with thus far. I for one am really looking forward to it.

I don't like the idea of trying to massage numbers so that we can make it easier for this group. Look, they didn't get in. They failed to be elected. As much as I love a good number of these candidates, that's just the fact. And they're fortunate to have this fallback option.

I really think that in any one year, a half-dozen or so of the VC nominees can distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack. That means there's a good chance that the VC can be a legit (if difficult) path to our HOF. What more can we ask for? I think that's perfect.

Maybe we'll get one or two VC nominees in each year. Maybe we'll get one in every other year. Maybe it will be tougher than that. I'm okay with any of these scenarios. It's one week out of a calendar year. If a guy doesn't get the required 75%, so be it. We didn't get anybody in after the 1970 elections, after all. We won't lose sleep if history repeats itself.

And as with anything we've seen with the carryover nominees, it will be blatantly obvious after one election who the VC frontrunners are. Say Jimmy Barrett falls a vote short in the '07 VC Elections. That result will be made known plain as day to everybody. The next time around, the committee will put him over the top if it sees fit. If he can't pick up that one vote, well, so be it. Tough luck for him; the committee has spoken. Because the second time around, nobody will be able to honestly say "I really think Jimmy Barrett deserves to get in, even if he's not my absolute favorite candidate, and I would have voted for him if I knew he was close."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know which ones for certain should make it in, but probably about 5 to 7 should make it in. Of course this isn't the full VC list. Some of the ones on the ballot right now will eventually surface on it as well. I guess if people see that someone is high one vote, they may put them on their top 5 the next time (even if they are seventh on their list) if they feel they eventually belong. Try to collect the vote at the right time.

Another comment...

There was a comment about maybe us having a forum for discusssion. Well, we've had that here already and maybe 5 or 6 of us have taken advantage of it. And it's not hard to believe why others don't get involved. People discussing their votes can turn into a personal attack when all you are doing is something that can be fun. In this respect I feel we've failed this process somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another comment...

There was a comment about maybe us having a forum for discusssion. Well, we've had that here already and maybe 5 or 6 of us have taken advantage of it. And it's not hard to believe why others don't get involved. People discussing their votes can turn into a personal attack when all you are doing is something that can be fun. In this respect I feel we've failed this process somewhat.

So many people have spent a lot of time on the project, researching and whatnot. You get emotionally invested; tempers flare sometimes. But I'd like to think we've been pretty civil for the most part. Hopefully people let the other stuff roll off their back. I know I've probably been an *** from time to time. I regret that. BUT THERE'S STILL NO ****ING EXCUSE TO VOTE FOR ALVIN CROWDER!!!

(Just kidding. Sort of. :happy:)

I think most people just aren't interested in participating in the History forum. On the other hand, interest seems to have grown since we started the project. That's a wonderful thing. I myself never really participated in this forum as recently as six months ago. I honestly didn't know crap about Donie Bush or Jimmy Barrett. I've learned so much and I hope others have too. Despite our foibles I think it's been an incredibly successful project...something we can all be proud of for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dt,

That was one of the best things about this. I've been involved learning what I can about Detroit history for about 20 years and pretty seriously for at least 10 years now and I've always wanted to get involved in historical talks about the organization. Beyond the voting, all the learning people that otherwise didn't know about Donie Bush or Virgil Trucks and ended up voting for them makes this fun. I'm sure a lot of people learned a ton during this process and that's as rewarding as anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the schedule to have the special elections and vet committee elections this upcoming November and the 2008 elections around the beginning of the season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that works well. How about this

Nov. 2:1885 Wolverines

Nov. 9:1890 Wolverines

Nov. 16:1925 Stars

Nov. 23:1930 Stars

Yikes that's the day after T-Giving. Maybe move that up to Nov. 30?

The one small issue with this set up is the Stars did start in 1919, but 1920 makes little sense. Also the 1930 Stars would really be the 1931 Stars since they did play through that season. There also was a 1933 and 1937 Star team.

Maybe change the name to include those teams? But I don't think we can extend the Stars for another election because of those minor issues. I think we just deal with it as though they are 1930 Star nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So is the schedule to have the special elections and vet committee elections this upcoming November and the 2008 elections around the beginning of the season?

Yes. I think this is the best course of action.

At some point we may need to combine the elections for lack of names in the annual balloting, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. At this point I don't think it's fair to our most recent candidates to just be dumped into the Vet's Committee all at once. A guy like Harry Coveleski slugged it out for votes 80 years. I think we need to afford our more recent candidates the same kind of courtesy rather than just immediately chucking them in with everybody else just to consolidate things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that works well. How about this

Nov. 2:1885 Wolverines

Nov. 9:1890 Wolverines

Nov. 16:1925 Stars

Nov. 23:1930 Stars

Yikes that's the day after T-Giving. Maybe move that up to Nov. 30?

The one small issue with this set up is the Stars did start in 1919, but 1920 makes little sense. Also the 1930 Stars would really be the 1931 Stars since they did play through that season. There also was a 1933 and 1937 Star team.

Maybe change the name to include those teams? But I don't think we can extend the Stars for another election because of those minor issues. I think we just deal with it as though they are 1930 Star nominees.

We can work out the dates if people think it will be inconvenient with the holiday and all. I'm thinking the normal Friday evening routine ought to be doable. My Thanksgiving weekend is in total cruise control by then.

I'll defer to you at this point for the Stars elections. But based on what you're saying, maybe we just have a 1925 Stars Election and 1940 Stars Election. That might work pretty good in terms of splitting things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TGiving is no issue for me. I'm wondering if people will be on trips and stuff.

We can cross that bridge when it comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that works well. How about this

Nov. 2:1885 Wolverines

Nov. 9:1890 Wolverines

Nov. 16:1925 Stars

Nov. 23:1930 Stars

Are there that many Stars and Wolves players to really consider? Maybe there should be just one vote for each team. Put all the players/non players on one ballot and have unlimited votes, 75% gets in. Sorta like the real HoF did last year with that special Negro Lg election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, there will be more than one to consider for a few of those I'm sure. Even if there isn't we should allow people to make that decision. Still I am going to make sure that people know they can vote for 0-5 of them.

I can think of three Stars players that flat out deserve it right now. With two elections that would mean one would be killed right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no, there will be more than one to consider for a few of those I'm sure. Even if there isn't we should allow people to make that decision. Still I am going to make sure that people know they can vote for 0-5 of them.

I can think of three Stars players that flat out deserve it right now. With two elections that would mean one would be killed right there.

I apologize, I may not have been clear. I meant one week of voting for each team, vote for as many Stars or Wolves (depending on which week it is) you feel deserve, no limit on how many is on that weeks ballot, 75% of vote to get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We talked about that. I kind of like that as well. However, dt said we should remain consistent with what we have done and that makes sense as well. Plus if we have four weeks of nominations I think people will be more apt to take it serious than if we just shoot out two weeks of nominations. It's only four weeks and the numbers will be fairly limited so it shouldn't "feel" like four weeks, but it will feel more than a hiccup because it'll take more than 1-2 weeks to complete. I think maybe doing just one and then another quick one makes it feel like we are glancing over it as well instead of taking our time and really looking at a smaller list each week. I think that's a strength of dt's plan as well.

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...