BBF VC Progressive Election: Proposal

[DoubleX]

I was thinking about a VC process. What do people think about having a VC election every 5 years beginning in 1910? I'm thinking the VC will include players from the very early period (like Dickey Pearce), players whose eligility has expired (which will be no one yet in 1910), and players who were dropped due to lack of support?

I envision the VC serving as an oversight, something that looks back and serves to put in players that were overlooked (or were not eligible in the case of pioneer players). Thus, I don't want to have frequent elections, 5 years seems like a good interval, and I'd also consider having a lower support requirement - perhaps 2/3 support needed to get in through the VC. On one hand, the lower support requirement could be seen as diminishing the integrity of election, but on the other hand I want the VC to serve some purpose - the players are on the VC because they didn't get 75% in the regular elections, so I believe some other standard of oversight should be used. This will also be a safeguard against what some people see as questionable voting in the regular elections. For instance, right now we have guys like Harry Stovey, George Gore, Tony Mullane, John Ward, and George Wright, consistently getting strong support, but not quite enough. We are a small electorate, thus a few non-votes for a player can make a profound difference. Thus I think it's fair to be able to go back and reexamine these players every 5 years with a slightly lower threshold that guards against the shortcomings of a small electorate.

There would be no limit on VC eligibility, but I'll probably institute a ballot limit, maybe 40 or 50 players. Players appearing will be based on common sense, previous support, and voter input. A player might be dropped from one election and reappear in a subsequent one.

[jalbright]

If we're doing a VC, there's no reason not to somehow consider Negro Leaguers as well. The when and other details are certainly negotiable, but I don't think their inclusion in the process should be.

[DoubleX]

If we're doing a VC, there's no reason not to somehow consider Negro Leaguers as well. The when and other details are certainly negotiable, but I don't think their inclusion in the process should be.

Definitely Jim. I'd actually favor special elections just focusing on Negro Leaguers, but for simplicity, it could be incorporated in this VC process.

[leecemark]

--I think we could consider players who were deemed ineligible for the first election and men whose primary claim to the HoF came from non-playing endeavors. Ultimately I would, of course, like to see Negro Leaguers considered. Should that be while the color line still exists though. That would make our Hall of Fame infinately more progressive than MLB.

[Freakshow]

I generally do not support the existence of a Veterans Committee. As used by the HOF, the VC is used to undermine the selections of the primary electorate, creating a double standard for election.

Having said that, I think it would be fun and useful to conduct these elections of the overlooked. However, unlike the Coop, those elected should not be grouped with those elected in the main elections; VC electees should comprise a separate roster, highlighting the fact that these players are in a different class.

I suggest that the size of the VC roster should be a constant percentage of the Primary elections roster, say one-half. There would be a catching-up period, at first, to reach this percentage.

I suggest the VC elections should wait to start until players' elgibility begins expiring in the main elections.

I suggest the VC elections should not use a threshold system; rather, the number to be elected should always be specified before the election.

[DoubleX]

I generally do not support the existence of a Veterans Committee. As used by the HOF, the VC is used to undermine the selections of the primary electorate, creating a double standard for election.

I'm a little confused by some of your suggestions, so forgive me I'm going off point in addressing each:

Having said that, I think it would be fun and useful to conduct these elections of the overlooked. However, unlike the Coop, those elected should not be grouped with those elected in the main elections; VC electees should comprise a separate roster, highlighting the fact that these players are in a different class.

Does this mean that the VC election should not have any players that appeared in the regular elections, or that a player cannot simultaneously appear in both? If the latter, I agree, a player will not appear in a VC election until he is no longer eligible for the regular election. What I'm not sure on is whether a player dropped from the regular election will be eligible for the next VC election, or whether he'll have to wait at least 15 years from when he was first eligible for the regular election. I'm now thinking he'll have to wait, it seems unfair to let him go right to the next VC ballot, while a player consistently receiving 10% in the regular election has to wait 15 years. So a player dropped from the regular election will not eligible for the VC until at least 15 years has past since his eligibility began for the regular election.

I suggest that the size of the VC roster should be a constant percentage of the Primary elections roster, say one-half. There would be a catching-up period, at first, to reach this percentage.

This means the number of players elected? So if we elect 100 players regularly, we should elect 50 VC players? I think that's a good goal to shoot for, but I don't want to enforce any quotas.

I suggest the VC elections should wait to start until players' elgibility begins expiring in the main elections.

We could do that, then our first VC election would be 1920, since the last year of original eligibility is 1915. That would make sense particularly if we're not allowing players dropped from the regular election to be VC eligible until 15 years has past since their first year of regular eligibility. Otherwise, the 1910 and 1915 VC ballots would just be Dickey Pearce and some others. So yeah, I agree, it's probably better to wait until 1920.

I suggest the VC elections should not use a threshold system; rather, the number to be elected should always be specified before the election.

I don't quite follow here. Again though, I'm not keen on quotas. We elect however many we elect. The point of the VC though is to facilitate electing players that we've overlooked, and thus adopting something like 2/3 voting requirement could facilitate election serve the oversight purpose.

Alternatively, we could form an actual committee here. I'm thinking take 10-15 of us that regularly participate in these projects, and we'll devise some VC election process, and convene every 5 years (or weeks in reality) to deliberate about electing players through the VC.

Also, Mark brought up the fact that electing NLers at such an earlier stage would unfortunately be well out of line with the reality of the times. Thus perhaps we'd wait a few VC cycles before incorporating NLers.

[jjpm74]

Before going any further with this, who's going to be on the VC? Is everyone including Mr. "I'm only going to vote for Mickey Welch" going to have a say on who gets elected? If so, this exercise would be one of futility since we can't get any of these players elected using those same voters in the general elections.

EDIT:

On the Negro League guys, I think we should wait until 1946 before including them in keeping with the reality of the period.

[DoubleX]

Before going any further with this, who's going to be on the VC? Is everyone including Mr. "I'm only going to vote for Mickey Welch" going to have a say on who gets elected? If so, this exercise would be one of futility since we can't get any of these players elected using those same voters in the general elections.

That's one of the key questions I was ruminating about in my response to Freakshow. I see two methods we can use:

1) Use a lower threshold for election. I'd advocate for 67 (or 66.67%). That will help better guard against the damage done by votes like Sockeye's in the regular elections.

Or

2) We have a select committee comprised of 10-15 or so members here that participate regularly in these projects. In which case, we would devise an election process.

Three things I'm pretty certain about at this point though are:

1) VC elections will be infrequent. I like every 5 years, nice round number that pops up a lot in this process, and it's a nice period for reflection.

3) Assuming we do every 5 years, the first VC election would not occur until after all players who were eligible for the 1901 regular election have their eligibility expired, which is 1915. So I think 1920 would be a good year for the first VC election.

3) Unfortunately, I do think to be realistic, we'd have to hold off on the NLers for some time. I don't have an exact date in mind though. After integration makes sense on a lot of level, but I'm open to being progressive as well.

[Windy City Fan]

I like the idea of having 10 to 15 selected members form the VC. They should be able to induct pre-1871 stars, contributors, and anyone who didn't make the cut with the regular voting process.

I don't like the idea of a reduced threshold. Makes it seem like a player got in through the "back door". I think getting the approval of 75% of our 10 or 15 best voters is an impressive accomplishment. Getting 66% of the same voting pool that didn't elect you last time, isn't.

Five year intervals sounds good. I'm not opposed to including NeL stars from the first VC election, but I wouldn't flip out if we waited till MLB actually was intergrated.

[jjpm74]

This is just a suggestion, but here's a way to do this that might work if you favor an inclusive approach:

Conduct the elections every 5 years but have a separate election for players. For players, the ballot would consist of any player no longer eligible for election through the main selection process who either

1. received a high benchmark of over 33%

or

2. spent a full 15 years on the ballot

Have everyone voting cast a ballot of 5 then for the first election take anyone at or over the 50% threshold to "catch up" and anyone at or over the 66.67% threshold in subsequent elections. Any players that either receive zero support or appear on 5 consecutive ballots (25 years) gets dropped.

For pioneers, contributors, executives, umpires:

Have a separate ballot every 5 years starting the year after the first player's ballot.

Go with a committee approach to put together the ballot.

Have participants vote for a maximum of 15 and any that gets a threshold of 66.67% or better gets elected.

For NeLers:

Set up a committee to put together a ballot in 1946. Have people vote for as many as they want the first time around and then set a maximum for subsequent elections to be held every 5 years. For the 1st election, anyone that surpasses 50% gets in. In subsequent elections, go with 66.67%.

[Brad Harris]

I would suggest that the VC set a number of inductees and then facilitate a voting process where each election the best supported candidate/s earns induction rather than seeking a set percentage of the vote. In this way, voters would be forced to "rank" their choices and there wouldn't be any "none of them belong" (which completely contradicts the whole concept of a VC.)

Like Dan, however, I'll go on record as being against the creation of a VC, on principle, as an electorate which reviews the same candidates. A VC which reviews other kinds of candidates - contributors, non-MLB players, etc. - is much more satisfying.

If, however, in this project, the idea is that these players are, in fact, a "lower rung" on the ladder of greatness, then I can certainly get on that bandwagon. Either way, count on my support. Great idea to expand the project, Mike! :)

[DoubleX]

I'm thinking we'll go with the committee format. Aim for 15 members. How we elect players is still up in the air. I'd probably vouch for 75%, meaning 10 of 15 need to support rather than say we must elect X many players each time. I don't want a player to get in simply because someone had to, and I don't want to deny multiple players getting in only because X number could. If a couple of elections go by and we elect no one, we can reconsider to go by top vote getter gets in, but I think we'll be able to build enough support to get people elected.

I'm also open to expanding the VC to include managers, executives, umpires, and other notables (including coaches) in addition to pioneer players (e.g. Dickey Pearce), players that didn't make it through regular election and whose eligibility has expired, and eventually NLers (and perhaps Japanese players down the road as well).

I have no problem re-reviewing players that didn't make it through the regular election. The idea is for oversight, and thus a select committee would in theory be enlightened and be able to make up for what the regular elections overlooked due to having votes diluted in a larger voting pool.

The next issue would be how to create the ballot for each VC election. The best way might be to start a thread the year or two before for discussion. I don't want the ballot to be too long because it can get too distracting and it can be too much to type. I think 40-50 is for each 5 year election is more than enough to consider, but we'll dwindle it down to that 40-50 the year before.

[jjpm74]

I don't like the idea of lumping contributors, executives and pioneers with players. I also wouldn't set this up as a poll. Just have the 15 person committee submit their written ballots. Otherwise, that approach will probably work.

[Brad Harris]

Agreed the VC should have two elections; one for former players and one for all other contributions.

[jalbright]

I'd certainly separate players from contributors. Maybe we should do VC elections every two or three years, alternating players and contributors, such that either group would come up every 4-6 years.

[BlueBlood]

I say absolutely no VC. Just let players stay on the ballot indefinitely. Make the minimum requirement to stay on like one vote or better simply increase the amount of players we're allowed to vote for. I really don't see any reason why there is a cap in the first place. If we eliminated the 15 player maximum, some of us could vote for thirty candidates or so by the time we reach 1930 which wouldn't be bad at all because a player like Stovey would be just as viable, etc. Plus, we could then still keep the 5% rule.

[Freakshow]

I agree with BlueBlood and have advocated for the HOF to move in those directions with their rules. However, I sense that DoubleX wants to more closely imitate the HOF rules, for some reason. Given that, the players and contributers ballots should certainly be separate; the NeLers should also have their own ballot. Avoid mixing apples and oranges.

I agree with Classic on the set number of inductees. And rather than a 3/4 or 2/3 threshold, we should use MVP-style balloting, not a poll. As I've pointed at in the past, the mere existence of a VC establishes a fait accompli, an admission that there are deserving players who should be enshrined. So, elect the best player each time, making every election productive.

The Select Committee idea could work. Allow anyone to cast a ballot, but only count the votes of committee members. That way, after a couple elections, other voters may prove themselves expert enough to be added to the committee, thereby strengthening it.

I don't think that 40-50 players on the ballot is necessary. About half that many should cover all the viable candidates.

[DoubleX]

I agree with BlueBlood and have advocated for the HOF to move in those directions with their rules. However, I sense that DoubleX wants to more closely imitate the HOF rules, for some reason. Given that, the players and contributers ballots should certainly be separate; the NeLers should also have their own ballot. Avoid mixing apples and oranges.

I agree with Classic on the set number of inductees. And rather than a 3/4 or 2/3 threshold, we should use MVP-style balloting, not a poll. As I've pointed at in the past, the mere existence of a VC establishes a fait accompli, an admission that there are deserving players who should be enshrined. So, elect the best player each time, making every election productive.

The Select Committee idea could work. Allow anyone to cast a ballot, but only count the votes of committee members. That way, after a couple elections, other voters may prove themselves expert enough to be added to the committee, thereby strengthening it.

I don't think that 40-50 players on the ballot is necessary. About half that many should cover all the viable candidates.

I was advocating group more for efficiency and simplicity, rather than imitating the actual Hall. I don't really want to be in charge of running 3 or 4 different elections. I'm fine having as many elections as people want, but others will probably have to run them. I'll take on the VC players election, but I'll leave elections for NLers and contributors to someone else if we go that route.

If we go with the committee approach, I'm fine with figuring out another way to elect players other than a support threshold. I do however, want to avoid electing people for the sake of electing. If we elect someone through the VC, I still believe there has to be some kind of demonstrably strong consensus.

[BlueBlood]

If we were to take away the maximum cap, this certainly would be the right time to do it since the election process was already stalled by a certain Welch voter. We should give our thoughts on the newly eligible players for the next season in the previous season's thread. For example, in the 1907 thread, DoubleX should tell us the candidates he plans to put in the 1908 poll and then we can discuss who is viable, etc. The latest election, for example, should have had absolutely none of those guys on the ballot. It would make it easier to vote and encourage others to add players such as Barnes that they had been on the fence for before or uninformed of (people are more likely to do the research when there's less options)...

Some of us could certainly exceed the maximum votes right now. I voted for Ward earlier because I didn't know of future plans to have a contributor ballot. I would also seriously consider Welch and Pike if I actually had the space to vote for them.

[leecemark]

--I am no longer voting for a full slate, so expanding the ballot is a non-issue for me. I am not in favor of a VC ballot for the express purpose of giving a second look to those rejected in the initial balloting, although I'd be sympathetic to giving another chance to those who came up just short (say 50% at some point). I would prefer it be at least mostly for those not considered in the original voting; pre-1876 players, guys whose best claim is a non-playing role or who didn't play at all and eventually Negro Leaguers or other non-MLB players. Perhaps each Committee member could nominate a couple people each election (be they yearly, bi-yearly, every 5 years or whatever).

[Freakshow]

If we elect someone through the VC, I still believe there has to be some kind of demonstrably strong consensus.
Assuming the VC voting begins in 1920 and it votes in one player every 4 or 5 years, then this is not a concern; there will always be a full slate of deserving candidates.

[Paul Wendt]

If we were to take away the maximum cap, this certainly would be the right time to do it since the election process was already stalled by a certain Welch voter. We should give our thoughts on the newly eligible players for the next season in the previous season's thread. For example, in the 1907 thread, DoubleX should tell us the candidates he plans to put in the 1908 poll and then we can discuss who is viable, etc. . . .
(my emphasis)
This highlights a shortcoming in structure or BBF culture, I'm not sure which. It is the norm to start a thread with a poll open and for many votes to be cast immediately. If there is discussion it takes place after 30 to 100% of the people have voted. I don't know whether a small change in structure would make a big difference: starting the thread a few days before opening the poll. If that wouldn't make much difference, then it's "BBF culture".

The "progressive" nature of this project partly solves the problem in a different way. All but the weakest alternatives are automatically renominated for the next election, so discussion effectively eventually reaches all those who do read the threads, and misses only those who merely check boxes in polls before during work every day,

[Brad Harris]

Suggested Format
Every five years would translate roughly into every five weeks which is probably too much time between elections to maintain a robust discussion of the candidates, which is wholly necessary to a properly functioning VC (moreso than the initial elections) because the entire purpose of the VC's existence is to take a closer look at these guys. Holding the player election every 3 years would make more sense. That would provide the following format:

Week One: Ballot Formation
Week Two: Discussion of Candidates
Week Three: Voting

The ballot could be formed by posting an initial poll listing all qualified candidates (people who appeared on a 1901-19xx Hall ballot previously) and asking people to vote for the 25 best candidates. At the end of the week, the top 25-vote getters (plus anyone tied for 25th place) would be placed on the ballot.

Candidates would be discussed and I doubt more than two-thirds of those listed on the ballot will actually receive any serious consideration. This will change, of course, once we add players from the Negro and/or Japanese Leagues, thus maintaining a consistent sized ballot.

During the voting week, VC voters should be required to post their ballots (of no more than 10 names) in the thread. With the electorate being a small, constant number, tabulating the votes shouldn't take long and that will prevent the possibility of non-VC members influencing a poll result (i.e. more work). Anyone can post their "ballot" of course, but only the VC members would count. Just less work than a poll where you can't control who's vote is and isn't counted. ;)

As far as a contributor ballot, establishing what kinds of contributions are to be honored would be a good start and then I would suggest an election once every three weeks, with no formal ballot, two weeks of discussion (during Weeks 3 + 1 of the other VC election process) and a week of actual voting (during Week 2 of the VC "player election").

My two cents.

[Brad Harris]

When it comes time to add the Negro League players, here's what I would suggest doing. We'll be used to holding a tri-annual election so rather than say 1946 or 1947, let's just say we'll begin to include Negro League players in the first post-WWII (i.e. 1946 or later) VC Election and call it good.

For the initial ballot, I would suggest holding a special "Negro League" election for anyone who wants to participate as a member of our "Screening Committee" (during Week 1 of the VC process) in which we hold a poll of, say, the top 50 Negro Leaguers and the top 10 vote-getters are added to the VC ballot for the upcoming election.

That would leave the "MLB" player poll as only including the top 15 vote-getters that same week. Combining the two would give us the 25-30 player VC ballot we're already used to.

Since no VC member will be able to vote for more than 10 candidates on the VC ballot anyway, there's no point in including more than the 10 best-supported NegroLeaguers anyway for the most part. Remember that ties for 10th place would result in additional players being added to the ballot so there could be 11 or 12 negro leaguers on that first ballot.

In future Screening Committee votes, the remaining Negro League candidates could be phased in onto the VC ballot in similar fashion.

Something similar could take place for Japanese Leaguers, though I've no idea what would be an appropriate year in which to begin doing that. Any thoughts here, Jim?

[DoubleX]

I don't know if we need a whole separate week for discussion. I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion during the ballot format week and the voting week. Alternatively, we could just keep an active discussion thread going throughout, instead starting one every three weeks. That way the candidates will remain relevant in the off years, though discussion will obviously pick up closer to the election.

I still think I'd prefer to have the VC elections less frequently. I don't want to elect too many players through the VC, as I think that undermines the regular election, but I also think having the elections with less frequency will generate more excitement each time and perhaps facilitate electing a number of players at once (because there will be more pressure to elect players due to the wait). I still like 5 because it is a nice round number and it or multiples of it occur frequently in this process. Players have to be retired for 5 years, eligibility lasts 15 years, the drop rule is 5%, election is 75%. We'd keep with this theme if we started in 1920, as that is a nice round year to begin, but also because that would be 5 years since players with original eligibility had their eligibility expire. I would be amenable though to a more frequent time frame if the consensus wants, but I would not be agreeable to a yearly basis, and I'd probably need lots of convincing for every other year.

As for contributors, I don't see any problem with conducting that election simultaneously with the VC players election. We can separate the two and vote similarly to the BBF HoF, with each voter submitting a players ballot and a contributors ballot. This way they would be treated separately, but it would make the process a little easier by having it all in the same place.

As for who would count as contributors, I'd in be in favor of adopting a pretty broad definition for contributors (owners, managers, executives, coaches, umpires, media, innovators, and so on). I actually wouldn't mind seeing a separate managers ballot, but that might be too much.

As for NLers, the consensus seems to be to wait for NLers, so we'll call that a worry for another day (same with Japanese players).

Finally, I still favor having some kind of threshold for election. I don't want to just elect people for the sake of electing people. For instance, I don't want someone to get in because he had the highest voted total with maybe just 55%. We should have higher standards than that. My hope though is with infrequent elections, that will motivate people to be more accommodating of electing people.

[jalbright]

Something similar could take place for Japanese Leaguers, though I've no idea what would be an appropriate year in which to begin doing that. Any thoughts here, Jim?

If Double X wants to include the Japanese, I think I'd start them around 1960. That would be about the point Bessho and Starffin, who I would see as the first two reasonable candidates, would come into the picture. Moreover, with a late 1930's start and giving a reasonable career after the end of their deadball era ended with WW II, 1960 is about right if we allow a five year wait.

[leecemark]

--If I am a member of this committee I have to say upfront that I am extremely unlikely to vote for anyone I didn't find ballot worthy over the course of their 15 years on the ballot. The only exception might be a player who was one and done due to debuting on a very competitve ballot who didn't get a full review). The only players I could see us electing are those who the more dedicate (or obessive or whatever adjective you may prefer:)) already had strong support for, but who missed out due to unfamiliarity of the more casual voters participating (and I don't suggest limiting our regular electorate - the more participants the better even if it means players I support not making it).

[jalbright]

Any MLBer who had at least five years on the ballot and didn't get my vote would have a hard time getting it if I was on the VC committee. If Negro Leaguers and Japanese players go solely through the VC, they might take more time to hit my ballot.

[jjpm74]

I don't support Japanese players coming into consideration for this project. The Japanese players are welcome in a project like the BBFHOF but that's not the purpose or intent of this project. The way the current HOF is set up, it is geared towards this nation. I can tell you right now that if they are included and I'm on the VC I won't be voting for any of them.

[jalbright]

I don't support Japanese players coming into consideration for this project. The Japanese players are welcome in a project like the BBFHOF but that's not the purpose or intent of this project. The way the current HOF is set up, it is geared towards this nation. I can tell you right now that if they are included and I'm on the VC I won't be voting for any of them.

Frankly, if they are permitted, which is entirely up to Double X, and you do not revoke that stance, I would submit your refusal to even consider candidates deemed acceptable by the project should disqualify you from participation in the VC. Double X gets to call the shots in his project, not you, nor I--and if we are to participate, we should dance to his tune.

[jjpm74]

Frankly, if they are permitted, which is entirely up to Double X, and you do not revoke that stance, I would submit your refusal to even consider candidates deemed acceptable by the project should disqualify you from participation in the VC. Double X gets to call the shots in his project, not you, nor I--and if we are to participate, we should dance to his tune.

That will be a non-issue as I will have nothing to do with it if it turns into another platform to dump Japanese players into. Sorry, but they have no place in the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. :rolleyes:

EDIT: It'd be nice to see a project that doesn't turn into another touchy feely let's consider everyone in the world who plays baseball project and actually work within the parameters of the NBHOFM for a change, but I guess that's too much to ask around here.

[DoubleX]

Frankly, if they are permitted, which is entirely up to Double X, and you do not revoke that stance, I would submit your refusal to even consider candidates deemed acceptable by the project should disqualify you from participation in the VC. Double X gets to call the shots in his project, not you, nor I--and if we are to participate, we should dance to his tune.

Heh, I don't want to think of myself as such an authoritarian. I do have my own ideas for how we should do this, but I respect everyone here too much to not make this an open process, and suggestions are very much appreciated. I think in the regular elections, I've been pretty amenable to tinkering since I first threw the project out there (with one exception being the age rule as proposed by Freakshow).

Re Japanese players - right now, I generally don't see a problem with including them, but I can also see where jjpm is coming from. Not too long ago I might have felt the same as jjpm. Regardless, possible inclusion of Japanese players is well down the line, at least over a year away if we start in 1960 as you suggested (though I'd probably favor a later date), so I don't think it should be a huge issue at this juncture, just something to revisit when the time is right, and certainly not something to cause friction at this point.

Also, I've noticed some people have been phrasing their posts with "If I'm a member of the committee..." That should be non-issue for most everyone here, if not everyone (unless you don't want to be on the committee).

[Paul Wendt]

Heh, I don't want to think of myself as such an authoritarian.
I suppose Jim is only making it clear that you make the call. Depending on what happens along the way, before you finally make the call, that isn't very authoritarian, maybe not authoritarian at all.
I do have my own ideas for how we should do this, but I respect everyone here too much to not make this an open process, and suggestions are very much appreciated. I think in the regular elections, I've been pretty amenable to tinkering since I first threw the project out there (with one exception being the age rule as proposed by Freakshow).
That episode does show that you are open to tinkering.

[jalbright]

All I meant was somebody's ultimately got to make the calls on such issues--and that winds up being the guy running the project. If you choose not to take Japanese players, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is that if the rules say Japanese players are to be considered, and somebody on the board refuses to follow those rules and excludes Japanese players from consideration. If you agree to serve on a board like that, you've got to follow the rules. By the same token, if Japanese players are excluded, a ballot by me naming Sadaharu Oh would be out of bounds. I agree to abide by the rules--do you, jjpm74?

[Brad Harris]

All I meant was somebody's ultimately got to make the calls on such issues--and that winds up being the guy running the project. If you choose not to take Japanese players, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is that if the rules say Japanese players are to be considered, and somebody on the board refuses to follow those rules and excludes Japanese players from consideration. If you agree to serve on a board like that, you've got to follow the rules. By the same token, if Japanese players are excluded, a ballot by me naming Sadaharu Oh would be out of bounds. I agree to abide by the rules--do you, jjpm74?
Oh Jim...keep talking like that and you'll never get on the BBWAA. ;)

[leecemark]

--The VC will be set up in 1910, will it not? At that time the issues of Japanese Players or even Negro Leaguers need not be addresed since they clearly would not be in the scope of the project. We'll spend at least the first 35 years going over old ballplayers who got overlooked and/or contributors. When we get to the point where we need to address Negro Leaguers ,which I see as somewhere around the time the color line was broken, we can decide whether they are considered by the VC or a separate committee (although the sepearate committee would in our case be moslty the same people). If we an doing this anything other than annually, which looks to be the case, then it will be 1950 before we actually do any electing of Negro Leaguers. It would be at least 10 years after that before we could reasonablly consider adding Japanese Leaguers and, if so, what process we might use.
--This is not something to argue over at this time. Black baseball is nothing more than some ragtag barnstorming at this point and Japanese baseball doesn't even exist. Let focus on the group we will actually be considering and save these battles for later.

[jjpm74]

I agree to abide by the rules--do you, jjpm74?

I have no intention of being an obstructionist if that's what you're trying to imply. If they are included, I'll simply abstain from that part of the project.

[jalbright]

I don't support Japanese players coming into consideration for this project. The Japanese players are welcome in a project like the BBFHOF but that's not the purpose or intent of this project. The way the current HOF is set up, it is geared towards this nation. I can tell you right now that if they are included and I'm on the VC I won't be voting for any of them.

Then this:
I have no intention of being an obstructionist if that's what you're trying to imply. If they are included, I'll simply abstain from that part of the project.

Sorry if I read the first quote to indicate your willingness to be an obstructionist, but I think it is a more than reasonable interpretation of your own words. Let me be clear: my only comments about Japanese players were in response to a question raised by someone else, and even then was couched in terms of if they were included under the rules. I won't deny I would like to see them included, but that is not my call, and I intend to abide by the rules of this project so long as I participate. I simply ask that others who participate do likewise. I don't think there is a single thing which is unreasonable in that position.

[jalbright]

Oh Jim...keep talking like that and you'll never get on the BBWAA. ;)

I've got no chance of getting there, and even if I did, they'd probably keep me out for wanting to make sense of the process.

[jjpm74]

Then this:


Sorry if I read the first quote to indicate your willingness to be an obstructionist, but I think it is a more than reasonable interpretation of your own words. Let me be clear: my only comments about Japanese players were in response to a question raised by someone else, and even then was couched in terms of if they were included under the rules. I won't deny I would like to see them included, but that is not my call, and I intend to abide by the rules of this project so long as I participate. I simply ask that others who participate do likewise. I don't think there is a single thing which is unreasonable in that position.

That would be because instead of saying I won't be voting for any of them, I meant to write I won't be voting in any of them. It's funny how one preposition can change the tone of an entire statement.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. The NBHOFM does not include Japanese ball players among their ranks and as far as I know have no intention of adding them at a later date. If and when Ichiro gets in, it will be because of his dominant performance in the ML. The Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Japan (http://english.baseball-museum.or.jp/) does not include Babe Ruth and other American ball players among their ranks and focuses only on players and contributors to Japanese baseball. That is because these are national museums honoring national heroes.

I have no problem with the inclusion of an exhibit in Cooperstown about baseball in Japan or the upcoming baseball in Latin America exhibit. However, to include players from another nation in the plaque room would make a mockery of what the NBHOFM is intended to represent. While I admire what you've done as far as your research on Japanese baseball, I can't for the life of me understand why you want these players honored in Cooperstown alongside players like Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson who were stars of the national game.

[jalbright]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I've provided my answers to your question in my writings, both here and at baseballguru. If you don't agree, that's fine, but please grant my views the same respect you insist on for your own. Thank you.

[jalbright]

Here's some dates if you're considering Japanese players, with notes as to BBF HOF members who would be eligible:

1960: Starffin would be retired five years and is the first I'd advocate for among the players. There are managers and contributors I could point to as well by this point who would likely be eligible for VC consideration, but none in the BBF HOF.

1965 Masanori Murakami is the first native Japanese to compete in the majors with some success, but returns after two seasons in MLB under pressure from NPB authorities to Japan. Bessho joins Starffin as retired for at least five years by this time.

1975: Inao and Kaneda would join those retired at least five years. Tsuruoka (in BBF HOF as a manager) would also be eligible by this time.

1980 Sadaharu Oh retires, after garnering notice on this side of the Pacific for surpassing Hank Aaron's 755 career homers as a professional. Nagashima would join the list of those retired for at least five years. Manager Kawakami also becomes eligible.

1985 Five years after Oh's retirement, so now Oh and Nomura would be among those retired at least five years, with Harimoto to join that list in 1986. Harimoto would be the last of those we have voted in to date to become eligible.

[DoubleX]

All I meant was somebody's ultimately got to make the calls on such issues--and that winds up being the guy running the project. If you choose not to take Japanese players, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is that if the rules say Japanese players are to be considered, and somebody on the board refuses to follow those rules and excludes Japanese players from consideration. If you agree to serve on a board like that, you've got to follow the rules. By the same token, if Japanese players are excluded, a ballot by me naming Sadaharu Oh would be out of bounds. I agree to abide by the rules--do you, jjpm74?

I knew what you meant, I was just kidding around. For the sake of organization, I'll make the ultimate decisions, but suggestions are certainly welcome in reaching that point.

The VC will be set up in 1910, will it not? At that time the issues of Japanese Players or even Negro Leaguers need not be addresed since they clearly would not be in the scope of the project. We'll spend at least the first 35 years going over old ballplayers who got overlooked and/or contributors. When we get to the point where we need to address Negro Leaguers ,which I see as somewhere around the time the color line was broken, we can decide whether they are considered by the VC or a separate committee (although the sepearate committee would in our case be moslty the same people). If we an doing this anything other than annually, which looks to be the case, then it will be 1950 before we actually do any electing of Negro Leaguers. It would be at least 10 years after that before we could reasonablly consider adding Japanese Leaguers and, if so, what process we might use.

I actually don't know when we'll start. It was earlier suggested that perhaps we should not start until the 15 year eligibility for players originally eligible in the regular elections, lapsed. That's not until 1915. I then suggested 5 additional years for various reasons (none of which are all that important other than 5 years being a nice number that occurs frequently in this), so we'd start the VC in 1920 (a long time from now). But we could start sooner. The problem with started in 1910 is that we won't have many people to consider. We'll have a handful of the pioneer/player types that weren't eligible in the regular elections (Dickey Pearce, Candy Cummings), and if we did contributors as well (though elected separately), we have some people there, but we'd have no other players. Waiting a little longer could make things more interesting as we'd have more players and more contributors to draw from.

As for the Japanese players, if we do eventually include them which is well into the future, I have no problem with someone not voting for them based on their beliefs. That's why we have Jim here - to convince us to do otherwise. I have no doubt that jjpm will not be an obstructionist and contribute fairly in a VC process, so if on this one issue he's of a different mind, that's fine, and he can express that prerogative by not voting for those players, just as any of us would not vote for a player we personally deem as not worthy.

As for when we might include NLers and Japanese players....We have to be realistic here given that we're trying to proceed through time as if the future has yet to happen. With NLers, before WWII is probably unrealistic. WWII was really an impetus in many ways for changing perception and kick starting the civil rights movement. So perhaps a tentative date of 1945? It's slightly more progressive than MLB and much more than the actual Hall, but I just don't see such progressiveness being realistic before that.

With Japanese players, I'm thinking 1960 is too early of a date. I think we have to try to approximate when there was a palpable appreciation of Japanese baseball in America. I'm not sure what arbitrary date we can use, but I think it's probably more recently, especially with the influx of Japanese players into the big leagues.

[Brad Harris]

I don't think there'd have ever been any clamor for consideration of Japanese players in Cooperstown by MLB fans until perhaps Sadaharu Oh's retirement? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but North American media probably didn't even note Japanese baseball really until Oh's chase of Aaron's professional record. At that point, I think Americans were first introduced to the idea that Japanese baseball was a professional game on par (to a certain extent) with our own and that Japanese players - some of them - might certainly be able to play well in the Majors. Exactly how much progress this notion has made has been slow to take hold in reality, but Oh's initial eligibility (1985?) might be a reasonable "alternate history" here if we're trying to set an example.

[jalbright]

I knew what you meant, I was just kidding around. For the sake of organization, I'll make the ultimate decisions, but suggestions are certainly welcome in reaching that point.

.......................


With Japanese players, I'm thinking 1960 is too early of a date. I think we have to try to approximate when there was a palpable appreciation of Japanese baseball in America. I'm not sure what arbitrary date we can use, but I think it's probably more recently, especially with the influx of Japanese players into the big leagues.

I agree that wherever practical, it's best to get input from the main participants in a project. I've often found the others have excellent suggestions I had not thought of. One hopes that most times, a consensus is reached, so there's not much of a decision to make. There are circumstances where either expanded debate would take too long or won't work for other reasons, or simply that there is no consensus. That's when the person who's most responsible keeping the project moving has to step in and make the final decisions.

With that standard for Japanese players, I'd say that in keeping with the fives, 1980 would be the mark. Oh definitely got noticed as he neared and passed 755, which happened September 3, 1977. Oh retires in 1980 along with Nomura, which gives 1980 a little more spice. Everybody from Japan in the BBF HOF would have retired by 1981. If you push it off until Oh's eligible in 1985, that's OK, but I don't think it's appropriate to go later than that if they're being included.

Murakami would have been a sideshow but for the agreement between MLB and NPB that ensued from his situation.

[Paul Wendt]

I don't think there'd have ever been any clamor for consideration of Japanese players in Cooperstown by MLB fans until perhaps Sadaharu Oh's retirement? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but North American media probably didn't even note Japanese baseball really until Oh's chase of Aaron's professional record.
I'm not certain of this memory but I would have said chasing Babe Ruth's record.
. . .
There isn't much in the historical New York Times, relying on the keyword search for Sadaharu. One article, 1974-04-11 notes that Oh now pursues Aaron, not Ruth. A computer projects 860 home runs for Oh.

Many of you have access to historical NYT in which case see this article.

"Japanese Knock on Big-League Door"
BY LEONARD KOPPETT. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 14, 1971. p. S2 (1 page)

( One Japanese pro team is training and playing games in Arizona, one in Florida --the Yomiuri Giants. . . .
It seems clear that Tokyo will enter MLB if and when we have supersonic transport. The market is too big to ignore. )

[jjpm74]

Oh would show up in footnotes or did you know's on ESPN from time to time as a novelty. Prior to 2006, I never heard any serious mention of any Japanese players for the NBHOFM. The one player that gets into discussions is Ichiro Suzuki and that was for his accomplishments here in the major leagues. Outside of this site and a few articles on Baseball Guru, I've never seen or heard any serious discussion that considered Japanese players for Cooperstown. I looked through about 20 years of Baseball Digests to see if there was an interest there and I was overlooking it. I found 1 casual mention of Oh in one issue and that was when talking about the evolution of the home run in baseball. That's not even a passing interest.

[DoubleX]

Oh would show up in footnotes or did you know's on ESPN from time to time as a novelty. Prior to 2006, I never heard any serious mention of any Japanese players for the NBHOFM. The one player that gets into discussions is Ichiro Suzuki and that was for his accomplishments here in the major leagues. Outside of this site and a few articles on Baseball Guru, I've never seen or heard any serious discussion that considered Japanese players for Cooperstown. I looked through about 20 years of Baseball Digests to see if there was an interest there and I was overlooking it. I found 1 casual mention of Oh in one issue and that was when talking about the evolution of the home run in baseball. That's not even a passing interest.

I have to agree with this. I just can't recall any semblance of a palpable movement to recognize the quality of Japanese baseball until within the last decade or so, coinciding with guys like Nomo and Ichiro coming over. Sure there are certainly people out there, like Jim, that have long recognized the rich history of the Japanese game, but I don't think it would be realistic, even in the 1980s, for the Japanese game to have been given such consideration over here, such as to be considered for our national Baseball Hall of Fame. Outside the attention that Oh received 30 years ago, that was about it.

Anyway, I think this is all a moot point for now because it will be well over a year before this issue becomes relevant. Far more pertinent to right now is figuring out logistics notably:

1) Election format

2) Election process

3) Start date

4) Election intervals

5) Committee Members

[jalbright]

Oh would show up in footnotes or did you know's on ESPN from time to time as a novelty. Prior to 2006, I never heard any serious mention of any Japanese players for the NBHOFM. The one player that gets into discussions is Ichiro Suzuki and that was for his accomplishments here in the major leagues. Outside of this site and a few articles on Baseball Guru, I've never seen or heard any serious discussion that considered Japanese players for Cooperstown. I looked through about 20 years of Baseball Digests to see if there was an interest there and I was overlooking it. I found 1 casual mention of Oh in one issue and that was when talking about the evolution of the home run in baseball. That's not even a passing interest.

Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated has been saying this for quite some time--at least two decades and quite possibly dating to his August 15, 1977 SI feature piece on Oh, IIRC. Fred Ivor-Campbell did a piece for SABR's Baseball Research Journal or the National Pastime (not sure which) in 1992 which advocated for Oh in the Hall. Also, there are quotes of major leaguers who played in exhibitions against Oh which indicate they thought he was a HOF-caliber talent. See the end of part I of my baseballguru article on Oh. There's no doubt the issue picked up more steam with Nomo and then Ichiro, but it's at least been publicly discussed for over 30 years now.

[Brad Harris]

There's no doubt the issue picked up more steam with Nomo and then Ichiro, but it's at least been publicly discussed for over 30 years now.
The extent to which it has not is more telling of the quality of our public sports discourse than the quality of professional play in the Far East.

[Brad Harris]

I have to agree with this. I just can't recall any semblance of a palpable movement to recognize the quality of Japanese baseball until within the last decade or so, coinciding with guys like Nomo and Ichiro coming over. Sure there are certainly people out there, like Jim, that have long recognized the rich history of the Japanese game, but I don't think it would be realistic, even in the 1980s, for the Japanese game to have been given such consideration over here, such as to be considered for our national Baseball Hall of Fame. Outside the attention that Oh received 30 years ago, that was about it.
Of course it's also not realistic for voters in 1907 to be considering advanced metrics in their analysis of candidates' performance, but I thought part of the project was to bring a little "forward-thinking" to these elections. While the news media or fans in the United States certainly weren't clamoring for the induction of Japanese players in the 1980s - Ichiro has been the fulcrum of that debate becoming widespread - that's no excuse for the people running the Hall of Fame not to take an interest and try to educate fans with their inductions. You could probably apply the same logic to Cooperstown not holding the Special Elections on the Negro Leagues that they did in the 1970s. Sure Ted Williams gave an impassioned induction speech, but did you have a lot of fans and sportswriters in the late 60s, early 70s clamoring for the inclusion of Paige, Gibson, Charleston and Bell in Cooperstown? If the Hall could be innovative then, there's no reason it couldn't be equally visionary where an Oh or Nomura is concerned.

Far more pertinent to right now is figuring out logistics notably:

1) Election format

2) Election process

3) Start date

4) Election intervals

5) Committee Members
I like 1920 as a starting point, with an election every fifth year (1925, 1930, 1935, etc.) That will be easy for voters to remember and should give us a fair pool of ex-MLB candidates in the first election. It also seems to correspond nicely with future expansions of the candidate pool (1945, 1980).

[jalbright]

Some other info on Oh, and when it was published/discussed:

1) Oh's biography, in English, A Zen Way of Baseball, published in 1984.

2) My first forays onto the Web in favor of Oh came in early 2002.

3) My Baseball Research Journal article on Oh, largely derived from the web material, published 2004.

4) Warren Cromartie, in his autobiography, Slugging it Out in Japan indicates that Oh "was proud of the ton of mail he'd get from the States" in 1985--and Cromartie, as one of Oh's players and who gave his son the middle name of Oh out of respect for the man, should have some idea.

5) Bill McNeil's Baseball's Other Stars has a section on Japanese players, and calls for the induction of several into Cooperstown. It came out in 2000.

[DoubleX]

I like 1920 as a starting point, with an election every fifth year (1925, 1930, 1935, etc.) That will be easy for voters to remember and should give us a fair pool of ex-MLB candidates in the first election. It also seems to correspond nicely with future expansions of the candidate pool (1945, 1980).

I agree. The downside is we still have to wait a few months to get there, but I think the 1920 date works nicely. I think it's also nice to have forgotten names come up every five years.

[jjpm74]

Of course it's also not realistic for voters in 1907 to be considering advanced metrics in their analysis of candidates' performance, but I thought part of the project was to bring a little "forward-thinking" to these elections. While the news media or fans in the United States certainly weren't clamoring for the induction of Japanese players in the 1980s - Ichiro has been the fulcrum of that debate becoming widespread - that's no excuse for the people running the Hall of Fame not to take an interest and try to educate fans with their inductions. You could probably apply the same logic to Cooperstown not holding the Special Elections on the Negro Leagues that they did in the 1970s. Sure Ted Williams gave an impassioned induction speech, but did you have a lot of fans and sportswriters in the late 60s, early 70s clamoring for the inclusion of Paige, Gibson, Charleston and Bell in Cooperstown? If the Hall could be innovative then, there's no reason it couldn't be equally visionary where an Oh or Nomura is concerned.

You guys keep comparing apples to oranges here. How is it forward thinking to single out ONE professional baseball system from another country then proceed to enshrine their stars in a museum that is reserved for players who excelled in the U.S? Negro Leaguers were playing here in the U.S and being watched and enjoyed by fans here in the U.S. The Cuban league play was one small part of the equation that was looked at when deciding to enshrine blackball players in Cooperstown and AFAIK was not taken into consideration by the NBHOFM Veteran's Committee when deciding who to induct. Japanese baseball is not televised in this country. Very few people here can name one Japanese player outside of the ones that have come over here to play. HOF talk surrounding both Nomo and Ichiro have been centered on their play here in the US in the Major Leagues.

Japanese baseball is one of many professional leagues out there. Just because they happen to play in a country that has been documented by a handful of people here in the U.S (and yes, it is a handful of outspoken people...not a movement) is no reason to rewrite the mission of the NBHOFM.

[jalbright]

jjpm74: The mission statment of the HOF refers to a global audience. The name "National" is a byproduct of it's 1939 founding, which was a stretch back then, given that they never gave much consideration to the Pacific Coast--and we all know MLB didn't get there until 1958. Also, in 1939, men of color had no place in Cooperstown, because they had no place in MLB. Except for the West Coast and American Negro Leagues (who supplied the bulk of top players for Cuba and the soon to come Mexican and Puerto Rican Winter Leagues), there wasn't much top-notch baseball. Japan's league was 3 or 4 years old, depending on whether you count 1936's series of tournaments as a "season". In 1939, calling it the National Baseball Hall of Fame was a way of saying we're the place to put all the best ballplayers. Certainly, Cooperstown has behaved with that conceit ever since, though there have been at least one or two dozen players of similar caliber (depends on how many from Castro's Cuba can be shown to be that good) who have played outside MLB or the American Negro Leagues.

If MLB wants to cocoon in 1939 and lose the conceit that it has "all" the greatest ballplayers, I could live with that. I think the better course is to embrace the opportunity to be the home of all the greatest ballplayers, to the limits of our ability to identify same. Mark my words, though, some day (I don't know how far in the future) MLB will be doing business in/with Japan in a more lucrative way than they are now, and they will hit upon inclusion of Japanese players in Cooperstown as a means of furthering that business, and will pressure Cooperstown to agree--and the National Baseball Hall of Fame will fall into line to protect one of their greatest assets--their ties to MLB. Hockey and Basketball 's Halls have inducted international stars, without bringing ruin to their institutions, and I'm sure Cooperstown is big and strong enough to do just fine with it as well.

In the meanwhile, I'm simply trying to educate people that Japan has had some damned fine ballplayers plying their trade there--good enough to succeed with the elite any time, anywhere. What's the harm? Why the apparent anger?

[jjpm74]

In the meanwhile, I'm simply trying to educate people that Japan has had some damned fine ballplayers plying their trade there--good enough to succeed with the elite any time, anywhere. What's the harm? Why the apparent anger?

There's no anger on my end but I do not appreciate your dismissive "read my blog" replies. If you honestly want to convince the general population that Japanese players deserve their place in Cooperstown, the burden of proof as to why is on you to convince the vast majority who seem to share the views I've expressed (admittedly as a Devil's Advocate). Not the other way around. Ignoring me and talking around or pointing to a handful of written sources that do not even account for 0.5% of the written articles and books on baseball that have come and gone over the past 30 years is not going to accomplish this.

[jalbright]

There's no anger on my end but I do not appreciate your dismissive "read my blog" replies. If you honestly want to convince the general population that Japanese players deserve their place in Cooperstown, the burden of proof as to why is on you to convince the vast majority who seem to share the views I've expressed (admittedly as a Devil's Advocate). Not the other way around. Ignoring me and talking around or pointing to a handful of written sources that do not even account for 0.5% of the written articles and books on baseball that have come and gone over the past 30 years is not going to accomplish this.

I'm sorry, but I've written most all of it a dozen times before, and I've gotten tired of repeating myself. I realize it may be new to you, but it's very old hat to me. Would you prefer links to some pertinent posts? I can gladly go that far--but I am no longer willing to charge at that topic full bore like a bull going at a moving red cape. If that's satisfactory, I'm game. If not, I don't see that there would be enough gained to justify spending the time to meet your demands.

[jjpm74]

I'm sorry, but I've written most all of it a dozen times before, and I've gotten tired of repeating myself. I realize it may be new to you, but it's very old hat to me. Would you prefer links to some pertinent posts? I can gladly go that far--but I am no longer willing to charge at that topic full bore like a bull going at a moving red cape. If that's satisfactory, I'm game. If not, I don't see that there would be enough gained to justify spending the time to meet your demands.

What you post/say/how you want to respond is entirely up to you. You demand extensive detailed analysis whenever anyone posts something contrary to your view. It just seems odd to me that you are so dismissive when the shoe's on the other foot.

If you don't want to spend the time, then don't.

[jalbright]

Here, start with posts 28-36 on on this page. (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32451&page=2) At least those ought to cover the general issues of including Japanese players in the Hall. If I come up with more in my musings thread, I'll pass them along.

[jalbright]

A few more in the musings thread: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=517663&postcount=247

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=562592&postcount=290

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=512826&postcount=25

and I'll add this from Baseballguru, though I suspect by now it's getting repetitive: http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/analysisjalbright341.html

[jjpm74]

I think there's some confusion here. Is there an article out there somewhere that presents a compelling argument as to why the NBHOFM should open its doors to Japanese players? I've already read through all the info you've posted on specific Japanese players and am not questioning whether or not they were stars.

Right now I'm reading through the thread International Player's in Cooperstown. What I'm looking for is some inkling of support and reasons for that support outside of BBFever and BBGuru.

[jalbright]

The posts I've cited are not much about individual stars but about the general issue of whether or not the Hall should include Japanese players.

[DoubleX]

Guys, could we please move on from this Japanese discussion? It's a moot issue at this point as we are nowhere near a time when this debate is relevant to this project.

More pertinent to now, we need to work on the logistics, namely issues such as:

1) Election format

2) Election process

3) Start date

4) Election intervals

5) Committee Members

[jjpm74]

Election Format--one player's election every 5 years starting in 1920 and one contributor's election every 5 years starting in 1919. 1945 sounds like a good year to start setting up the Negro League committee. This could also conceivable done in 1943 as 1943 was the point in WWII where the civil rights movement starts to gain some momentum.

Process--casting a ballot with a set limit. (10? 15?) No polls.

For the rest, I'm in favor of a lower threshold for the 1st and maybe 2nd election. After that, 75% of the committee for election.

Committee members--15? 20? Indeterminate? This doesn't really matter to me.

[Brad Harris]

5) Committee Members
Given the average number of voters we have in our annual elections, I would recommend keeping this number somewhere between 6-10 to begin with and then expanding it as interest/participation increases.

[leecemark]

--Whatever number it turns out to be it needs to be divisable by 4 if we are requiring 75% support. If it was a 6 man committee, a player would need 5 of 6 to make it. 8 or 12 work.

[jalbright]

The number of committee members should be 8 or 12. If you can get enough people you're comfortable will continue to participate, I'd go with the larger number, and if not, I'd go with the smaller.

[jalbright]

Guys, could we please move on from this Japanese discussion? It's a moot issue at this point as we are nowhere near a time when this debate is relevant to this project.


jjpm:

In keeping with the above request, if you want to continue to discuss this, either start a new thread and advise me of where it is, or we can do this by PM.

[DoubleX]

I'm thinking 12 or 16 man committee. If we stay with 75% support needed, 9 votes would be needed with a 12 man committee and 12 with a 16 man committee. 12 is probably more realistic to start.

So looks like 1920 will be the start date. I don't see why we can't do players and contributors simultaneously, just fill out a separate ballot for each.

Then there are also guys like Dickey Pearce and Candy Cummings - what category would they go in? Would they be placed with the players, or somewhere else?

[jjpm74]

Then there are also guys like Dickey Pearce and Candy Cummings - what category would they go in? Would they be placed with the players, or somewhere else?

For guys like Dickey Pearce, Candy Cummings, Jim Creighton, and whomever else you might want to consider from the days before organized professional baseball, I'd designate them pioneers and lump them in with the contributors.

[Freakshow]

Not much time this week, but here's a proposed structure for the VC vote:


1. Forget the Hall’s idea of attaining some arbitrary threshold for election. We’re a veterans committee, charged to elect the very best candidate. Electing one player every five years will leave zero chance of some undeserving player stumbling into the Hall.
2. The major flaw with the system used by the Coop is it’s an ignorant binary system. Each candidate is either yes or no, with no opportunity for the voters to express their intensity of support. A candidate that one-quarter of the voters likes and half the electorate gives lukewarm support gets elected; a candidate that two-thirds of the voters are nuts about but almost nobody else gets is left out. We can do better. I think the system I will present here is more interesting and better reflects the opinion of the electorate, while still giving a yes/no opinion, if that’s what you like to focus on.
3. Forget the BBF polls. Again, that’s a limited system, can’t measure intensity, we can do better. My proposed system is very easily calculated on a spreadsheet.
4. Start by giving the voters a list of candidates. It can be pretty big, since we’re not doing a poll. But voters need at least that much guidance, to get them focused on the viable candidates and away from their idiosyncratic favorites.
5. Voters may list from one to ten names on their ballot. Again, we’re here to elect the best guy, no blank ballots. However, I think a limit of 10 is appropriate, since the primary electorate has picked up all the no-brainers, the VC field is much thinner.
6. For each player on his ballot, voters will assign a number from 1 to 3 to reflect their intensity of support for the candidate. The meaning of each number is something like this:
• 3 - serious error by the primary electors
• 2 - securely above the in/out border
• 1 - just over the in/out border

If you want to guard against a proliferation of inflated ratings, limit the 3’s to three on a ballot (or something similar).
7. Discussion of candidates should prove more interesting as arguments must be more precise (“is he a 3? a 1?), more comparing and contrasting, rather than simply discussing in/out. If someone you’re not voting for is getting a lot of 3’s, I think you’ll be more likely to consider him for your ballot than under a simple binary voting system, where it’s harder to judge how players are rated by other voters.
8. MAKE THIS AN OFFICIAL RULE: As commissioner you reserve the right to be a prick. You should be able to question any ballot or any vote. The voter should at least offer some minimal rationale to your query. If he ignores you or gives a blow-off answer, strike the ballot. The conscientious voters will support you. This insists on accountability. Hit-and-run voting is thus discouraged, while attention to the project is promoted.
9. The player with the most points is elected. This should usually be the guy named on the most ballots, but there could be interesting exceptions.

[DoubleX]

1. Forget the Hall’s idea of attaining some arbitrary threshold for election. We’re a veterans committee, charged to elect the very best candidate. Electing one player every five years will leave zero chance of some undeserving player stumbling into the Hall.

I do think we'll forgo using polls in this and voters will have to submit ballots, but isn't setting a fixed number of electees arbitrary in its own way? I don't want to elect a person just because we have, and on the flipside, I don't want to foreclose the possibility of electing multiple players that our consensus finds deserving just because only one can make it. If these elections are only every 5 years, they will be a seldom event, and we should strive to get in everyone we as a consensus feel is deserving each time. If that's 0, it's 0. If it's 5 it's 5. Thus, I'm heavily in favor of using some threshold to establish a consensus, probably either 75% or 67%.

EDIT: Also, in order to give this project more life, and as others have suggested earlier, we'll have a discussion thread the year prior to each election to hammer out a ballot. I don't want the ballot to be limitless, I want voters to be focusing on a set of predetermined players, but we'll determine that set the prior year.

[Brad Harris]

8. MAKE THIS AN OFFICIAL RULE: As commissioner you reserve the right to be a prick.
In the proud tradition of Landis, Kuhn and Selig...

[BlueBlood]

Thus, I'm heavily in favor of using some threshold to establish a consensus, probably either 75% or 67%.

I like the system proposed by Freakshow. How about the player has to make 80% of the ballots (only if this is a ten man committee, otherwise, 75% for a group divisible by four) and must average a 2.5 in the support factor?
Make a ballot of 10 mandatory, VC members can put a .5 next to a player they find borderline or a zero if they find them unworthy. However, they MUST rank the ten best candidates they deem fit for the Hall so they're not filling up the bottom of their ballot with people nobody else is supporting in order to be an obstructionist.

For example, here's a 10 member VC and imaginary results for Ross Barnes:

Ballot #1: Barnes is seventh with a 2
Ballot #2: Barnes is fifth with a 3
Ballot #3: Barnes is second with a 3
Ballot #4: Barnes is second with a 3
Ballot #5: Barnes is seventh with a 2
Ballot #6: Barnes is not on the ballot
Ballot #7: Barnes is fifth with a 3
Ballot #8: Barnes is ninth with a 2
Ballot #9: Barnes is tenth with a 1
Ballot #10: Barnes is ninth with a 1

First, we look to see if Barnes received a spot on at least 8 out of 10 ballots. He did. The point of this rule is for a VC member or two that feels very strongly against a candidate can eliminate them from the discussion early on and it requires over 75% support to make it to the next round, in line with the usual threshold.

Next, we average together all ten ballots including those that give Barnes a zero and those that don't list Barnes at all (same effect). In this case, we end up with a 2.0 - support for Barnes is not enough at this time to cross the threshold.

After the initial ten ballots and candidates receiving 2.5's have now reached the induction threshold, a discussion process with arguments back-and-forth over the worthiness of candidates receiving a 2.00-2.49 average will take place. Discussion starts at this point, rather than earlier in the election, because there's some candidates that are obvious shoe-ins for the VC and it would pointless to waste time typing and discussing the merits of those we would've elected anyway. We then only have to spend our time conversing over borderline cases and trying to convince (or dissuade) the other VC members over a candidate. Theoretically, we could end up with nobody in this range and the VC election will be short and sweet. Also, I dig this format overall because it doesn't really put a cap on the number we elect. We can go as high as 10 possibly which isn't a necessity if we're doing this every five years.

[jjpm74]

I like the system proposed by Freakshow. How about the player has to make 80% of the ballots (only if this is a ten man committee, otherwise, 75% for a group divisible by four) and must average a 2.5 in the support factor?
Make a ballot of 10 mandatory, VC members can put a .5 next to a player they find borderline or a zero if they find them unworthy. However, they MUST rank the ten best candidates they deem fit for the Hall so they're not filling up the bottom of their ballot with people nobody else is supporting in order to be an obstructionist.

For example, here's a 10 member VC and imaginary results for Ross Barnes:

Ballot #1: Barnes is seventh with a 2
Ballot #2: Barnes is fifth with a 3
Ballot #3: Barnes is second with a 3
Ballot #4: Barnes is second with a 3
Ballot #5: Barnes is seventh with a 2
Ballot #6: Barnes is not on the ballot
Ballot #7: Barnes is fifth with a 3
Ballot #8: Barnes is ninth with a 2
Ballot #9: Barnes is tenth with a 1
Ballot #10: Barnes is ninth with a 1

First, we look to see if Barnes received a spot on at least 8 out of 10 ballots. He did. The point of this rule is for a VC member or two that feels very strongly against a candidate can eliminate them from the discussion early on and it requires over 75% support to make it to the next round, in line with the usual threshold.

Next, we average together all ten ballots including those that give Barnes a zero and those that don't list Barnes at all (same effect). In this case, we end up with a 2.0 - support for Barnes is not enough at this time to cross the threshold.

After the initial ten ballots and candidates receiving 2.5's have now reached the induction threshold, a discussion process with arguments back-and-forth over the worthiness of candidates receiving a 2.00-2.49 average will take place. Discussion starts at this point, rather than earlier in the election, because there's some candidates that are obvious shoe-ins for the VC and it would pointless to waste time typing and discussing the merits of those we would've elected anyway. We then only have to spend our time conversing over borderline cases and trying to convince (or dissuade) the other VC members over a candidate. Theoretically, we could end up with nobody in this range and the VC election will be short and sweet. Also, I dig this format overall because it doesn't really put a cap on the number we elect. We can go as high as 10 possibly which isn't a necessity if we're doing this every five years.

This and Freakshow's proposal sounds unnecessarily complicated and will make this an exercise in futility. Think about how few of the no brainers have gotten in with 80% support let alone the guys with harder cases.

Just make it a 66.67% threshold for the first ballot then go to 75% after that. One-Ten person ballots; no polls, weigh each vote and each slot evenly and chuck any that are obviously just obstructive. Go with total votes as opposed to total ballots if you want a higher threshold. It'll eliminate the 1 person ballot weighing 3X as much against issues.

If it looks like too many "mistakes" are getting in, it can always be made more restrictive as we go along. If someone posts a ballot that gets questioned by another member and the person who submitted the ballot does not respond with some kind of justification, chuck it. It'll eliminate the people who just vote for the guys no one else votes for and pare it down. I doubt we'll be making too many mistakes with a high threshold and the accountability of actually having to submit and justify ballots as opposed to the hit and run practice associated with the general election.

[BlueBlood]

I don't see what's so complicated about the system I modeled from Freakshow's idea. A player needs to be listed on 75% of the ballots and from there needs to have the average opinion feel he's definitely over the HOF line and is sorely missing (a 2.5 average). The usual ballot process would be a little boring for a VC. It's pretty much the same as stripping the votes away from everyone who is not in the VC and electing via the same process. I don't agree with that all. I mean, if you want to go with that format, we could just form our own group right now and only allow ourselves to do these polls.

[jjpm74]

I don't see what's so complicated about the system I modeled from Freakshow's idea. A player needs to be listed on 75% of the ballots and from there needs to have the average opinion feel he's definitely over the HOF line and is sorely missing (a 2.5 average). The usual ballot process would be a little boring for a VC. It's pretty much the same as stripping the votes away from everyone who is not in the VC and electing via the same process. I don't agree with that all. I mean, if you want to go with that format, we could just form our own group right now and only allow ourselves to do these polls.

If we go with your system, we can chuck any possibility anyone will get elected since all it would take to keep someone out is 1 person. I'd rather not waste my time going through a process to elect no one. Maybe others will want to go through the motions. I don't know what each person's intention is.

[DoubleX]

Like jjpm said, I don't think this should get too complicated.

I also don't know how I feel about using a ballot system where voters must list and rank a certain amount of players. For instance, say voters have to list their top 10 choices in order, but say a certain voter believes only 4 players are Hall Worthy - we'd be making that voter list 6 players that he doesn't even believe should be in the Hall, but he in effect would have to supporting their Hall candidacy by including them at the end of his ballot for the sake of including them. That doesn't seem to make sense. Voters should only be voting for players they believe should be in, and should not, IMO, have to submit a ballot with players they do not believe should be in for the sake of submitting a ballot.

IMO, this should be a simple yes/no system. Either you think the player is in or not. The question then becomes at what point does a player have enough yeses to be in.

[jjpm74]

What if you put together a preliminary ballot then each participant can nominate up to three people (and can abstain if they feel all the top choices are already on the ballot) to add to the ballot. Once the ballot is established, each participant picks up to 5 people. Then the top vote getter (in the event of no 75% consensus) + anyone that might be over 75% (in the event that there's more than one person everyone agrees on) gets in? To avoid someone weak getting in, we can set the threshold minimum in the event no 75% candidates show up at 60% which is still a majority. That should take care of weak candidates and simplify things a bit and it gives us a good possibility that someone will get elected in each election.

[BlueBlood]

If we go with your system, we can chuck any possibility anyone will get elected since all it would take to keep someone out is 1 person.

By my system, it would take over a quarter of the electorate to discard someone right away.

For instance, say voters have to list their top 10 choices in order, but say a certain voter believes only 4 players are Hall Worthy - we'd be making that voter list 6 players that he doesn't even believe should be in the Hall, but he in effect would have to supporting their Hall candidacy by including them at the end of his ballot for the sake of including them.

That's exactly why I said they could put a 0 next to such a player that doesn't meet their standards. By listing such a player, they at least confirm that the player is in the Top 10 of candidates and deserves to be considered in the second phase, the points system.

And there has got to be a 75% minimum cutoff no matter what format we run with. Believe me, if we winnow down the voters into a VC, they'll certainly be electing people. Really, all they would be doing, is pushing through those getting 65% to 74% in our current poll. From looking at our in-thread ballots in previous years, I can tell that there's plenty we'd elect with 75% support. Uninformed voters and some unknown obstructionists are what's delaying the process. Anyway, I really don't want people to make it in from the VC with the highest total of votes but not 75% or getting in through a lower threshold like a 2/3 majority. That would equate to candidates earning 50% in our standard polls suddenly jumping into Cooperstown because they have another vocal supporter or two in the VC.

[jjpm74]

That would equate to candidates earning 50% in our standard polls suddenly jumping into Cooperstown because they have another vocal supporter or two in the VC.

Many very deserving candidates that came nowhere near 50% on BBWAA ballots landed in Cooperstown. What's wrong with that? Making the process a super majority will result in the same people getting 68% of the vote now gettng 68% of the vote and not getting in through the VC.

[BlueBlood]

I totally disagree on that because there are voters checking off the familiar names and running away. That's what's hurting us. If you took their ballots out of the running, there would be plenty above the 75% threshold right now.

[jjpm74]

I totally disagree on that because there are voters checking off the familiar names and running away. That's what's hurting us. If you took their ballots out of the running, there would be plenty above the 75% threshold right now.

No matter how the VC is set up, it's going to basically be the same people currently voting who will be making the decisions, so I don't see how anything will be accomplished by increasing the threshold or applying a ranking system on the ballots. I'm in favor of a let anyone who wants to participate approach on the condition that they actually reply with a logical justification for their ballot if a candidate's presence or absence is questioned by another member. If they don't, then their ballot is null and void.

[Brad Harris]

I'm in favor of a let anyone who wants to participate approach on the condition that they actually reply with a logical justification for their ballot if a candidate's presence or absence is questioned by another member. If they don't, then their ballot is null and void.
Why isn't that a requirement for any Hall of Fame project?

[BlueBlood]

Why isn't that a requirement for any Hall of Fame project?

Then we'd have the same 15 people involved with every project and nobody else.

Also, I'm for having a set number of VC members (10, 12, whatever) but they should rotate from a pool. Would be interesting if a few people are shuffled out and it leads to a candidate strolling in, etc. I dunno, I just keep coming up with new twists so it isn't the standard format of listing your ballot and making a few cases for/against a particular player.

[jjpm74]

Then we'd have the same 15 people involved with every project and nobody else.

Why? Are people allergic to replying to messages?

[BlueBlood]

Yes. When they click the instantly recognizable names and don't want to be called out for it...

[jjpm74]

Yes. When they click the instantly recognizable names and don't want to be called out for it...

So far, there's been a grand total of one person who was actually called out in any way in this project.

If someone's a small hall person, replying so might help. If someone doesn't support a particular candidate, stating that the person is below their threshold is probably enough. If someone is endorsing a lesser known candidate, actually giving some background information might help change some people's minds. Having a dialogue is important.

[BlueBlood]

Yeah, but he was brave enough to post. I'm sure those that only clicked four names didn't want to waste their time saying "I didn't look the other guys up", etc.

[jjpm74]

Yeah, but he was brave enough to post. I'm sure those that only clicked four names didn't want to waste their time saying "I didn't look the other guys up", etc.

If someone doesn't want to "waste their time" learning about the people they are voting for, why are they participating and why should their vote count in that instance?

[jalbright]

I think you guys are talking past each other right now. jjpm is correct that people should cast reasonable ballots or be expected to defend them. That's hardly an onerous standard. However, the 19th century is one many folks don't know much about, and, with the short schedules, rule changes, and so forth, it's harder than usual to get a good handle on how good these guys really were. Certainly, I feel that one can do a solid job if one is willing to spend some time educating him/herself on these guys--but the truth is, there's a limited number of people willing to put forth that effort. I suspect this is what Blue Blood is talking about, and, if so, he's put his finger on another truth. We run into this problem with the Negro Leagues, and when voting is permitted on foreign players, the foreign leagues. I'm not immune to this issue, as I can't find enough data to satisfy myself I can accurately assess players in Castro's Cuba vis-a-vis major leaguers, though I strongly suspect there are some HOF caliber talents in that pool, including but not necessarily limited to Omar Linares.

[bambambaseball]

Polls are better. Why force people to post?

[DoubleX]

Polls are better. Why force people to post?

Polls are definitely handy in that it gives you instantaneous voting. However, it's sounding like the VC will not be something that is opened up to the BBF public at large, but will take the shape of an actual committee with a finite number of members. Thus having a poll would attract votes that are not meant to be part of the process. Plus, the VC should be predicated on discourse, and I think a poll would somewhat undermine that as people might just vote and that's it.

[Brad Harris]

Polls are better. Why force people to post?
Gosh...why don't we just do away with all those pesky posts on the website and have a simple poll for each thread instead then? ;)

[jalbright]

Polls are definitely handy in that it gives you instantaneous voting. However, it's sounding like the VC will not be something that is opened up to the BBF public at large, but will take the shape of an actual committee with a finite number of members. Thus having a poll would attract votes that are not meant to be part of the process. Plus, the VC should be predicated on discourse, and I think a poll would somewhat undermine that as people might just vote and that's it.

Agreed. If we go to polls, there's little point in a VC. Polls don't help discourse in the least, and, as Double X says, that should be a key element of a VC.

[jjpm74]

What I'd like to see in a VC is the kind of discourse that's transpired over Ross Barnes applied to other players and contributors. This kind of discourse is healthy when looking at players who may or may not have been passed over by the standard election.

I don't know how doable it would be, but maybe instead of worrying about a threshold, we could take the top 5 (or top 10) who show up on the most VC preliminary ballots, then discuss and debate their merits, then end with a simple "aye" or "nay" for each.

[DoubleX]

I thought now seems like a good time to revive this thread and I'll use the quote below by Mark from the current election to get things going:

--I am agreeable to a framework for the VC that tells us who we can consider and what sort of accomplishments we should be looking at. I am not agreeable to anything that tells voters how to evaluate the candidates though.
--Perhaps the VC should be run on an entirely different format than the regular elections. I definately would not want to see the floodgates opened for a large number of backdoor players. We might decide ahead of time how many players and contributors we want to elect and then use weighted ballots. That number should not be more than 2-3 (if we are are electing every 5 years or 1-2 if the elections will be more frequent.

I envision how one evaluates players under the VC will be more flexible than here. For instance, I think it would be perfectly ok to combine McGraw's managerial and player careers (whereas, in the regular elections the two careers should be distinct once McGraw's playing career ended).

I also envision the VC as a second look, meaning that its standards might be a little lower than the standards here. Otherwise, it would be a superfluous exercise. I'm not talking about opening floodgates, but a player like Hardy Richardson, who consistently had strong showings here, might be good enough for the VC. Or a guy like Al Spalding, who might not get quite there on his playing career alone, could get over the top with the VC when other things are factored in. It's a way for a smaller group of us to give extra scrutiny to a few guys that may have just missed in the regular elections, perhaps due to a diluted electorate, or perhaps due to a lack of conversation at the time (there's been little discussion about Richardson, for example).

I'm not in favor of quotas though. These elections won't be conducted that frequently. I'm thinking ever 5 years right now, so I see nothing wrong with not having a cap. Would it be a travesty if say we elected 3 or 4 players through the VC every 5 years? I don't think so, and I'd be surprised if the number ended up much greater than that as I don't think we'll build a consensus around more than a very small handful of players, if even that many. Realistically, I'm thinking just naturally we'll probably elect no more than 2 or 3 players in most VC elections.

For me, the real logistical questions right now center around:

1) How to compose the ballot. I'm thinking we'll have a discussion thread a week or two before the actual vote and we'll try to come to some consensus over who should be on the ballot. I'm also thinking that players will automatically make the VC ballot, at least in the first few elections. Say every player that received over 50% of the vote in a regular election or something like that.

2) If we'll have elections for contributors, and if so, how to run that. I'm thinking these can be run concurrently with the VC players elections, but we'll separate into two ballots. I'm not sure what to do with a guys like McGraw and Spalding, but right now I'm thinking they'll be on the contributor ballot and everything they did, playing, managing, other contributions, is fair game.

3) How we elect people. Like I said, I don't want a quota, and that goes both ways. I don't want to keep us from electing however many people (though I think naturally we won't elect many at all), and I don't want to elect people for the sake of electing. We will have some kind of voting system, so maybe we'll just stick with 75%

[Freakshow]

I'm not in favor of quotas though. These elections won't be conducted that frequently. I'm thinking ever 5 years right now, so I see nothing wrong with not having a cap. Would it be a travesty if say we elected 3 or 4 players through the VC every 5 years? I don't think so, and I'd be surprised if the number ended up much greater than that as I don't think we'll build a consensus around more than a very small handful of players, if even that many. Realistically, I'm thinking just naturally we'll probably elect no more than 2 or 3 players in most VC elections.

I think this would be a mistake. :twocents: The word "quota" has acquired a negative connotation, so people think they're being virtuous by avoiding instituting a quota.

A quota is a prescribed number, an exact limit to be enforced. When applied to limiting human freedoms, it can very easily be a negative. However, in this case we should be defining the level of quality and not leaving it open to the possibility of being perverted into something undesirable.

You're the Commish, it's your call. Either you desire a Hall of Fame with a defined level of excellence for inclusion, or you leave open the chance of something less. Don't cop out.

[jjpm74]

--I support Adams and Reach as contributors. Spaulding I hope makes it as a player in the regular elections, but he would be #1 on my VC list if he doesn't. Pearce would be right behind. McVey I've been supporting, but I'd have to review his pre-NA and post-NL contributions to see if he has the kind of plusses (over and above his regular record) I want from a VC candidate.
--Joe Start needs to have some big pre-NA seasons documented to be a really strong candidate. I think he has them, but the case would need to be reviewed. Ditto for LIp Pike. Ezra Sutton I've been supporting for many years, but I don't think he has much in the way of "extra credit". I'll keep voting for him thru 1915, but don't know if that will carry over to the VC. Dick McBride may have a case, but I don't know it so soe persuading would be needed.
--Harry Wright should be an easy choice as a contributor. Perhaps Ned Hanlon. I'd also add Henry Chadwick, William Hulbert and Ban Johnson as strong candidates in the contributors category.

For all of these players, I'd almost rather we focus on their impact on the early game, be it on or off the field rather than looking at them the way we are looking at guys like Welch and Beckley. I don't necessarily support the election of that entire group, but it would be fruitful, IMO to discuss their merits as pioneers of the game. Some others I would like to look at more closely are George Zettlein, Asa Brainard and Dave Force. I'm sure there are a few others worth discussing neither of us have brought up.

In the case of Pearce and a few others, the conversation might also help with the BBFHOF contributors election as well.

One thing I don't want is the free for all we have in the general elections. If anyone can't be bothered to post in a thread and defend their opinions, they shouldn't be a part of the VC. I do agree that the VC should not become a "let's elect all the players who hit the 50% threshold the general election did not" free for all that the NBHOFM VC was for a while.

[jalbright]

I'll come in somewhere between Double X and Freakshow: particularly for a VC, a maximum makes sense--but I'm not at all sure that a minimum does. We already elected unfettered other candidates. This is a second bite at the apple--shouldn't we have some limits on how often this smaller group should be able to overrule the larger group? Of course, depending on how much of a maximum you set, it might be irrelevant. If we have to have a VC, shouldn't we limit that group to the best? Doesn't the idea of limiting the group to the best imply some sort of maximum?

I didn't like the Hall of Merit approach to elections for a long time--but I've come to see that by forcing people to focus on the best, there's much to recommend in that approach. My only continuing reservation with the approach is that if we went with a maximum of 2 players a month going forward, would the standards creep up or down over time--and how steep would that movement in standards be? Too steep would obviously be a problem--in either direction.

[jjpm74]

I'm completely opposed to setting a minimum or a maximum in the VC elections (think about when we first see the NeLers and how many of them we will in all likelihood agree on when the time comes; they've already waited 60 years at that point. Why force us to eliminate candidates we support??) and also think the VC players election should be separate from the VC contributors elections. If you're worried about too many people getting elected set the ballot size at a maximum of 10.

I personally think we'll be lucky to elect 1 an election even with no restrictions.

[Freakshow]

Why force us to eliminate candidates we support??) If you're worried about too many people getting elected set the ballot size at a maximum of 15.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

Why is establishing a specific level such a bad thing?

[jjpm74]

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

Why is establishing a specific level such a bad thing?

I'm referring to the idea of setting a limit as to how many/few we actually elect each VC election. I have no problem with restricting the pool of eligible candidates or setting a maximum we are allowed to vote for. If we set a maximum of 4 for the number we can elect in a given cycle and we have a consensus on 6 players, why should we then have to kick 2 out just to satisfy a silly quota?

[jalbright]

I'm completely opposed to setting a minimum or a maximum in the VC elections (think about when we first see the NeLers and how many of them we will in all likelihood agree on when the time comes; they've already waited 60 years at that point. Why force us to eliminate candidates we support??) and also think the VC players election should be separate from the VC contributors elections. If you're worried about too many people getting elected set the ballot size at a maximum of 10.

I personally think we'll be lucky to elect 1 an election even with no restrictions.

The Negro Leagues probably need to be handled a little differently, as they're not being dealt with by the general electorate. That changes the issue significantly. But the MLB guys going through the VC have already been passed on by the larger pool of voters.

[Freakshow]

The Negro Leagues probably need to be handled a little differently, as they're not being dealt with by the general electorate. That changes the issue significantly. But the MLB guys going through the VC have already been passed on by the larger pool of voters.
Absolutely.
=====================
John:

Here's my usual rationale.

The purpose of a Veterans Committee is to elect someone; you don't need a committee to elect nobody. So the system established should be such that you get at least one each time.

At the same time, electing people to the HOF is always aimed towards enshrining the best candidate(s). Putting in a boat load of, say, 5+ at one time goes against this ideal. It also dilutes the honor to be part of a mob.

So establish a goal. Don't set it in stone; be willing to modify it if circumstances indicate you should. When there's a backlog, such as there will be with Negro leaguers, allow another spot or two. If a "deserving" guy has to wait, it's because he wasn't the best candidate. Further scrutiny on him (or anyone) is a good thing.

[jjpm74]

Here's my proposal for players:

--Limit the VC to a number of people that is divisible by 4 (12 or 16 would probably be ideal).
--All players who appeared on the general ballot for at least 3 years who are not currently on the ballot would be eligible.
--Run the election every 5 years
-- If we insist on having someone elected each time, the player with the most votes and/or any player receiving 75% of the vote is elected. If not, any player receiving 75% of the vote is elected. If we want a maximum (say 4), and we end up with more than 4 in a given election, we'll then have a runoff to determine who is elected and who is not.
-Written ballots are mandatory and need to be posted.

For pioneers:

Set up a one time special committee to look at and decide on all players who's careers were focused on the 1860s and 1870s. Decide by straw poll who should receive special status in our HOF as a pioneer. These players should not be considered in the main VC player elections, IMHO.

For contributors: once every 5 years beginning the year after the 1st players election otherwise, same format as the players elections.

For NeLers: Set up a one time special committee as done with the pioneers and after that initial committee, NeLers not elected remain eligible in the player VC elections.

For Japanese players and Castro Cubans: set up a special committee to nominate and elect the best players from this league. For these players, I recommend jalbright have veto power since he knows more about them than just about anyone else out there.

LMK if this sounds like a good setup. If DoubleX wants, I'd be happy to help generate the list of eligible candidates for the 1st player pool as long as we can settle on it while I'm still off from work. I am off from work until the 21st.

[DoubleX]

The thing with the quota is that given the likely duration between elections, the quality of players on the ballot could vary, perhaps significantly. If there are 4 players we feel are worthy on the ballot, then we'll elect them. I don't think that's a bad number after 5 years of waiting. But I don't want to as a matter of rule curtail the possibility that we'll find that many players, and vice versa, I don't want to elect players for the sake of electing players if we find there aren't enough worthy players (or any).

Plus, in respect to having a maximum, I think it will naturally take care of itself. I really doubt that we'll form a consensus on more than maybe 3 or 4 players, and I'd be surprised if we elect any more than 2 or 3 with any regularity.

I feel pretty strongly against having any kind of number to shoot for or that will restrict us. Maybe I'd consider a maximum of like 5 players, which would be 1 player per year between elections, but again, I don't think it will be an issue as I just don't see us coming to a consensus on 5 players very often, if at all. We'll elect however many player we'll elect. I don't want to predefined how many should be worthy - we'll define who many should be worthy as we go.

We'll probably hold off on Negro Leaguers until around the time MLB is integrated. It's just realistic of how society and the game progressed. There was a lot of discussion about Japanese players earlier, and that's something that probably won't be revisited for a while. With other more pressing issues, I don't think it's worthwhile to dwell on what to do with Japanese players right now as it could be about a year until we might start electing them.

[jalbright]

Up to you, Double X. It's your project, and it may not make a great deal of difference, as this VC won't be going as wild as Frankie Frisch and friends did (If we did, I would feel physically ill). I will say that contributors are in the same boat as all but the major leaguers covered by our larger electorate. I think the VC should elect candidates not voted on by our electorate (or at least didn't get to consider nonplaying contributions such as McGraw's, Mack's, or Branch Rickey's), but we should not feel in any way compelled to add more major leaguers covered by the voters solely based on their play in the majors.

[DoubleX]

I have an idea about how to conduct these. How about doing this NFL Hall of Fame style, but modified. I think the NFL Hall of Fame process operates like a VC should - a moderate size group of people, knowledgeable about the game, locked in a room and hammering it out (as a sidenote, I do think a VC would benefit from some members who were in and around the game, such as HoF players and management, but we don't have that here).

Basically, we'd start off with a master list of candidates, and we'd have a round or rounds whittling down to a final list. Whereupon, we'll vote for induction on players on that final list. The vote will be simply yes or no at each step of the way.

Thinking it over, this is how I'd actually propose we do it:

- Stick with elections every 5 years
- The year before an election, we present a master list and through a yes or no vote, whittle that down to a final list with a yes/no vote. Right now, I'd propose either the top X number of vote getters make it to the final list (this won't be much of an issue is the first election because the pool will be pretty small, but further down the road, this can make things interesting when the pool is larger). Might consider adding a wrinkle that any player receiving a certain amount of support will automatically make the final cut in the next election.
- We'd also include players that might become eligible for the VC in the next year but are not eligible at the time of the preliminary vote. It would be like a precautionary measure to make sure they're not left out of the VC process should they not be elected in their final year of the regular election.
- I will acquiesce to calls for a minimum and maximum number of players elected. I'd propose we elect at least one player each VC election, but never more than 5 (one per year between elections).

So if we follow this process, we'll start in 1919 by discussing a master list of candidates, and then create a final list from which players will be elected in 1920. In the future, as the number of players grows, we'll probably have to be more discerning, but for now, at least these players will be on the master ballot (from which we'll make a final ballot):

As for who comprises the VC, I'm thinking 12-15 members is a good number to start with (likely 12). I can pretty much guess who would be interested, but if you are interested in being part of the VC, post here please. I caution though, that if you're someone who votes but doesn't really participate in the regular election discussion, you might not make the VC initially.

EDIT: Also if we do follow this process, the first election will obviously not have that many eligible players. Anyone who survived 15 years on the ballot will automatically make the master list, and we can add from there. So the master list will include at least:

Larry Corcoran
Charley Jones
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Mike Tiernan - Assuming he makes it 15 years, if not, we'll almost certainly add him anyway.
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mickey Welch

Other players to consider adding to the master list include:

Oyster Burns
Charlie Comiskey
Frank Dwyer
Bob Ferguson
Mike Griffin
Ned Hanlon
Denny Lyons
Bobby Mathews
Ed McKey
Levi Meyerle
Tip O'Neill
Dave Orr
Will White
Tommy McCarthy

Also, I'd prefer not to expedite VC eligibility for anyone dropped early from the regular ballot. If they were dropped, I still believe they should wait for their 15 year eligibility period to pass. For example, Nig Cuppy first appeared on the ballot in 1906, we dropped him after 1907, but his 15 years would not end until 1920, so he would not make it to the 1920 VC election.

[jjpm74]

Also, I'd prefer not to expedite VC eligibility for anyone dropped early from the regular ballot. If they were dropped, I still believe they should wait for their 15 year eligibility period to pass. For example, Nig Cuppy first appeared on the ballot in 1906, we dropped him after 1907, but his 15 years would not end until 1920, so he would not make it to the 1920 VC election.

Are you going to be able to keep track of that? If not, I think a player should have to wait at least 3 years for VC eligibility from the last time he appeared on the ballot rather than waiting a full 15 years. It'd be much easier to keep track of. Otherwise, I like the NFL approach idea.

Also, Dickey Pearce and several early baseball pioneers should be coming into consideration here. Not just retired players. I can help you come up with a list if you'd like.

[DoubleX]

Are you going to be able to keep track of that? If not, I think a player should have to wait at least 3 years for VC eligibility from the last time he appeared on the ballot rather than waiting a full 15 years. It'd be much easier to keep track of. Otherwise, I like the NFL approach idea.

I don't think it would be much more difficult than tracking 3 years. Either way, I'll have to go back through a number of elections and figure out when 15 years would have elapsed. For the most part, I'll only be adding players that carried over for at least a year, and I've already made finding those players easier because I have "Dropped From Previous Election" section in each election. So I'll just go look at the players who we dropped and see whether 15 years has elapsed for them. I don't run the risk, albeit small, that the VC will elect a player dropped from the regular election sooner than a player with the same period of eligibility in the regular election. There should be some consequence to being dropped from the regular election.

Plus, I'll also rely on you guys to kindly remind me when I've forgotten someone or suggest players that should be included that never received a vote in the regular election (though, if a player never received a vote in the regular election, it's a good bet they aren't a good candidate given our expanded voting rules).

Also, Dickey Pearce and several early baseball pioneers should be coming into consideration here. Not just retired players. I can help you come up with a list if you'd like.

They'll definitely be included. I'm not sure though whether we should include them alongside the players who were in our regular elections, or have a special pioneer/player section. Either way, I'd could definitely use help putting together a list of pioneers, as well as people for a contributors ballot. In fact, I wouldn't mind if someone else would take the reigns in putting the contributors ballot. I think we'll vote the contributors concurrently with the players, but have separate ballots for each.

[jjpm74]

IMO, a player should be on the ballot at least 3 years to be considered. This will help eliminate the 2 and done guys who got pushed along 1 year by 1 or 2 members (though the yeah/nay approach to putting together the ballot may help keep those players from appearing on the ballot).

[jalbright]

Here's my proposal for players:

For Japanese players and Castro Cubans: set up a special committee to nominate and elect the best players from this league. For these players, I recommend jalbright have veto power since he knows more about them than just about anyone else out there.

I wouldn't want actual veto power, though in practice I might hold something near to it if I spoke against someone, especially among the Japanese players. Nevertheless, I think folks should be able to ask for my thoughts and I'll happily give them. If they disagree with me on a specific case, that should be their privilege.

Except for contributors or pre 1870's guys, I think a three years minimum requirement is reasonable, though you could include something like an alternative (or simply use as an alternate) of five total votes, though guys getting that much support in two seasons would rarely not make it to three elections.

[leecemark]

--I think 5 players in any one election would be way too many. We are looking mostly at guys who have been reviewed and rejected by our general electorate 15 times. We should be conservative in over ruling that finding.
--I'm not sure that a minimum number of years on the ballot is a good requirement either. Sooner or later somebody who deserves serious consideration will get overlooked and dropped early from the ballot. There are a fair number of "one and done" candidates in the real Cooperstown vote that would be outrageous ommissions from VC consideration. Hopefully we will do better, but we are not immune to oversights. I'd suggest that players who last the full 15 years automatically get VC consideration and all other would need to be nominated and at least second (if not a stronger level of support demonstartaed) before they make the ballot.
--I would also be disappointed if guys whose claim to fame is mostly as players did not get voted on as such. Dickey Pearce's contributions were virtually all on the field. He may have been a pioneriin player, but baseball player is his claim to fame. For practical purposes he may be the only guy who we haven't already voted on as a player who I'd voe for as one, but I'm no expert on 1860s (or earlier) baseball and those who are may have others they think should be considered as primarily players.
--Oh, and sure I'd like to be on the VC :).

[jalbright]

Yes, I should have said this in the last post--I'll serve on the VC.

[jjpm74]

I'd also definitely like to participate in the VC portion of this project.

[DoubleX]

--I think 5 players in any one election would be way too many. We are looking mostly at guys who have been reviewed and rejected by our general electorate 15 times. We should be conservative in over ruling that finding.

I don't think so at all when you consider that the election is just once every five years, thus an average of one player per year. Plus, it's only a ceiling, not a requirement. In practice, I doubt we'll elect 5, and I'd be surprised if we elected more than 2 with any regularity. It's merely there for the rare and unlikely event that there are a number of worthy players in an election - I don't want to curtail that possibility with a low ceiling.

Additionally, if we only considered how the player did in his 15 years with the regular electorate, there would be no point of doing this. Part of the reason for doing this is to acknowledge that the regular elections are flawed in some ways, in that we really can't verify the overall knowledge and thoughtfulness of the electorate. We get hit and run voting and never hear from a number of voters. So this process is more focused and might make up for where the hit and run voting has diluted the regular elections.

--I'm not sure that a minimum number of years on the ballot is a good requirement either. Sooner or later somebody who deserves serious consideration will get overlooked and dropped early from the ballot. There are a fair number of "one and done" candidates in the real Cooperstown vote that would be outrageous ommissions from VC consideration. Hopefully we will do better, but we are not immune to oversights. I'd suggest that players who last the full 15 years automatically get VC consideration and all other would need to be nominated and at least second (if not a stronger level of support demonstartaed) before they make the ballot.

I agree with this for the reasons you said. From a management perspective, it is easier to spot the players that lasted a year or two in the regular elections, but it does seems harsh to forever be foreclosed to a vast number of players that for whatever reason, including the possibility of a very competitive ballot, didn't hang on long enough.

The natural solution, IMO, is to have the preliminary round I suggested (and perhaps rounds as the pool expands) of voting that creates the final VC ballot. We'll put on the more obvious players, and anyone who feels that a player should be added, can be added. It's as simple as that, and there's no harm in that. We'll let the process work itself out and chances are those players won't make the cut. From a practical standpoint though, I probably won't list many early exit players initially and will wait for a voter to suggest they be added for consideration.


--I would also be disappointed if guys whose claim to fame is mostly as players did not get voted on as such. Dickey Pearce's contributions were virtually all on the field. He may have been a pioneriin player, but baseball player is his claim to fame. For practical purposes he may be the only guy who we haven't already voted on as a player who I'd voe for as one, but I'm no expert on 1860s (or earlier) baseball and those who are may have others they think should be considered as primarily players.
--Oh, and sure I'd like to be on the VC :).

I still feel more comfortable with him as a pioneer. I mean, at what point do we stop going back in time and calling a person a player in the same sense that more modern people are players? Should we consider people who played rounders in the early 19th century? The fact is that the game Pearce played was very different in so many ways than the game that quickly evolved in the following decades. This applies to how the game was organized, the rules, the equipment, the style, structure, pretty much every facet of the time was in a much less developed state. I'd rather designate that small number of people from that period "pioneers," because they were laying the foundations for the game that would soon develop.

[BlueBlood]

:dance

That means I'd love to VC. Yes, it's a verb now.

[Windy City Fan]

--I think 5 players in any one election would be way too many. We are looking mostly at guys who have been reviewed and rejected by our general electorate 15 times. We should be conservative in over ruling that finding.
--I'm not sure that a minimum number of years on the ballot is a good requirement either. Sooner or later somebody who deserves serious consideration will get overlooked and dropped early from the ballot. There are a fair number of "one and done" candidates in the real Cooperstown vote that would be outrageous ommissions from VC consideration. Hopefully we will do better, but we are not immune to oversights. I'd suggest that players who last the full 15 years automatically get VC consideration and all other would need to be nominated and at least second (if not a stronger level of support demonstartaed) before they make the ballot.
--I would also be disappointed if guys whose claim to fame is mostly as players did not get voted on as such. Dickey Pearce's contributions were virtually all on the field. He may have been a pioneriin player, but baseball player is his claim to fame. For practical purposes he may be the only guy who we haven't already voted on as a player who I'd voe for as one, but I'm no expert on 1860s (or earlier) baseball and those who are may have others they think should be considered as primarily players.
--Oh, and sure I'd like to be on the VC :).

I do think 5 is too many if we're gonna cap it. Though, realistically, I doubt we'd ever elect that many folks in a single VC election. I'd prefer no minimum as well. If the VC decides for whatever reason that no one warrants selection, then so be it. The VC should be a vanguard against any oversights from the regular voting process, not a backdoor to the HOF. We don't want to water down our standards, but rather make sure they evenly applied.

Also, I see no reason not to consider one and done folks. Most of them aren't viable and will quickly be dropped from consideration, but in the event a reasonable candidate did fall victim to a one and done, I'd hate to see him forever locked out from consideration.

I'd agree about not expaditing eligibility for players dropped from the regular ballot. You gotta wait till your initial fifteen years are up before the VC will consider you.

Oh, and I'd love to join the VC.

[BlueBlood]

There should be no minimum or maximum. Whatever format we used (I still like my multi-leveled approach), there should be a relative bar. If we elect six in one-go, so be it since they all cleared the hurdle.

[jjpm74]

Here's a working list of player/pioneers for VC consideration. All of the players listed below had at the very least 4 years in the NA and many played in the 1860s as well. Anyone is welcome to add to it, remove players from it or comment on players on the list:

Doc Adams
Asa Brainard
Bill Craver
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Bob Ferguson
Cherokee Fisher
Davy Force
George Hall
Andy Leonard
Fergy Malone
Bobby Mathews
Dick McBride
Cal McVey
Levi Meyerle
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Al Reach
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Harry Wright
George Zettlein

Here's a working list of contributors. Feel free to add or remove or comment on any of them:

Ferdinand Abell
Doc Adams
John T. Brush
Morgan Bulkeley
Alexander Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
William Hulbert
Ban Johnson
Denny McKnight
A.G. Mills
Frank Selee
Harry M. Stevens (the concessions king)
Chris Von der Ahe
James Whyte Davis
Harry Wright

[philkid3]

I'm on my way out for lunch, but just checking in to say I'm down.

Also, I support having pioneers separate.

[dgarza]

but if you are interested in being part of the VC, post here please.
I am interested.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to read this thread more thoroughly.

[AG2004]

I accept the invitation to join the VC.

[DoubleX]

So far 9 of us are on board. I'm still waiting to hear back from Classic, Freakshow, and Paul Wendt. I'll also take dgarza's response as an affirmative unless he says otherwise.

In the meantime, I'd like for us to settle on election format and procedures. Here are the issues, followed by my stance right now:

1) Election Period: I've become set in every 5 years. I think this will help give meaning to the VC. To conduct this every year or every other year would detract from the significance of the regular election process, but by doing this at more extended intervals the VC would better perform an oversight function without treading on the regular elections.

2) Maximum and Minimum Electees: I've gone back and forth on this and I'm back in the camp that feels we should not have either. I don't want to elect players for the sake of electing players nor do I want to prevent election of otherwise worthy players because we've reached our quota (though in reality, I imagine we'll struggle to elect 2 or 3 with any regularity). For instance, if we set a minimum, we run the risk of electing someone who might only carry 50% support from us. That would appear to be lowering our standards quite a bit.

3) Election Method: I recently proposed a Round system, similar to what how the NFL Hall of Fame elects its players. I'm starting to think now that such might be superfluous. Nevertheless, it could add another interesting element to this and give us something to do in the period between elections and perhaps foster better familiarity with some of the players (as the VC should have a level of familiarity on the whole not present in the regular electorate). Under this proposal, I'll first submit a list of players eligible for the upcoming VC. This list will be almost entirely composed of players that carried over in the regular elections for at least 1 year. From that point, members can make suggestions to supplement the list. From that point, we'd have a yes/no vote of that master list to whittle it down to a final list. The final list will be a set number, say the top 20 votegetters for example, and we'll then conduct another yes/no vote to determine who, if anyone, gets in. I envision this would be a 2 week process in total.

4) Election Threshold: As I said above, I'm not in favor of minimums and electing players for the sake of electing. I'm thinking we'll preserve the 75% rule. This will maintain continuity with the regular elections and ensure that a player who gets in here does not have an easier path. To lower the standards here, IMO, would be to mitigate the significance of a player whiffing in the regular elections. If, however, after a few elections 75% proves to be too big of an obstacle in this small group, I'd be open to revisiting down the road. To start though, I think 75% is good.

5) Contributor Elections: As I mentioned in my PM, I would be appreciative if someone else can manage this part. We'll vote on contributors separate from players, but concurrently. We can use the same process as well (Round System and 75%). I also don't have any problems with electing a person in multiple capacities. For example, I see nothing wrong with Al Spalding being on the contributor ballot even though we already elected him as a player.

6) Pioneer Players: I'd rather not comingle pre-1871 players with post-1871 players. We already decided that was the line in the regular elections, and I think it should be maintained here. I want the pool of the players in the VC election to come directly from the pool in the regular elections. The VC players' election is meant to review players the regular election could have but did not elect, and thus pioneer players would not qualify. I'm not sure how to treat these players at this point though, in that should they be on the contributor ballot or have their own special section. Right now, I'm actually leaning towards putting them on the contributor ballot. It's just easier to manage.

7) Negro Leaguers and Japanese Players: Because this is a historical exercise, I think we should hold off on these players until considering them would be more historically apt. For Negro Leaguers, that's probably closer to at least the time of integration. For Japanese players, well that's a discussion that's probably around a year away in real time (assuming this project keeps going), so we can sort that out down the line.

[BlueBlood]

I agree with everything except allowing people to be inducted in multiple categories. Spalding's in, that's enough.

[leecemark]

--No isssues with the rules as you've laid them out Mike. I would have an issue to lowering the bar below 75% down the road "if we have trouble electing people at that level". I'd rather never elect a second chance player than lower the standards of election. If the VC becomes primarily a vehicle for selecting contributors and not players I'm fine with that.
--In practice I'm sure we wil elect some players, but I actully hope it is not many. Anybody who has been rejected for 15 years is at best a marginal candidate. I'll be supporting some who careers started before 1871 and, as cuch, did not get their total contribution considered. Once we get past those guys my vote will be VERY tough to secure. For the most part I'll be looking to support guys who were mostly players , but who have some additonal contributions that get them over the hump (although amny of those I've also voted for in the general election).
--Negro Leaguers we might either include or have a special election for as early as 1950. If we include them in the regular VC they will surely overshadow the major leaguers though. We'd have the elite of the Negro Leagiues squaring off vs the failed MLB candidates. If we eventually include Japanese players (who never made the move to MLB) I think that should be on hold until the 21st century. We may be more progressive and inclusive than Cooperstown, but we shouldn't be too far out in front - and there is little chance that pool will be considered anytime soon.

[leecemark]

I agree with everything except allowing people to be inducted in multiple categories. Spalding's in, that's enough.

--Agree here too. I wouldn't vote for a guy who is already in.

[Brad Harris]

So far 9 of us are on board. I'm still waiting to hear back from Classic, Freakshow, and Paul Wendt. I'll also take dgarza's response as an affirmative unless he says otherwise.
I'm in. Just assumed that was a given. ;)

1) Election Period: I've become set in every 5 years. I think this will help give meaning to the VC. To conduct this every year or every other year would detract from the significance of the regular election process, but by doing this at more extended intervals the VC would better perform an oversight function without treading on the regular elections.
I'd prefer every three years given that (a) there's no minimum number of inductees per election and (b) we'll be examining both playing and non-playing contributions.

2) Maximum and Minimum Electees: I've gone back and forth on this and I'm back in the camp that feels we should not have either. I don't want to elect players for the sake of electing players nor do I want to prevent election of otherwise worthy players because we've reached our quota (though in reality, I imagine we'll struggle to elect 2 or 3 with any regularity). For instance, if we set a minimum, we run the risk of electing someone who might only carry 50% support from us. That would appear to be lowering our standards quite a bit.
No firm opposition here so long as elections are held regularly.

3) Election Method: I recently proposed a Round system, similar to what how the NFL Hall of Fame elects its players. I'm starting to think now that such might be superfluous. Nevertheless, it could add another interesting element to this and give us something to do in the period between elections and perhaps foster better familiarity with some of the players (as the VC should have a level of familiarity on the whole not present in the regular electorate). Under this proposal, I'll first submit a list of players eligible for the upcoming VC. This list will be almost entirely composed of players that carried over in the regular elections for at least 1 year. From that point, members can make suggestions to supplement the list. From that point, we'd have a yes/no vote of that master list to whittle it down to a final list. The final list will be a set number, say the top 20 votegetters for example, and we'll then conduct another yes/no vote to determine who, if anyone, gets in. I envision this would be a 2 week process in total.
I'd be fine with this or a similar "whittling down" process.

4) Election Threshold: As I said above, I'm not in favor of minimums and electing players for the sake of electing. I'm thinking we'll preserve the 75% rule. This will maintain continuity with the regular elections and ensure that a player who gets in here does not have an easier path. To lower the standards here, IMO, would be to mitigate the significance of a player whiffing in the regular elections. If, however, after a few elections 75% proves to be too big of an obstacle in this small group, I'd be open to revisiting down the road. To start though, I think 75% is good.
Prefer to preserve the continuity of 75 percent unless we add a caveat in the VC that, for elections where no individual receives 75 percent, the guy with the highest total votes gets in.

5) Contributor Elections: As I mentioned in my PM, I would be appreciative if someone else can manage this part. We'll vote on contributors separate from players, but concurrently. We can use the same process as well (Round System and 75%). I also don't have any problems with electing a person in multiple capacities. For example, I see nothing wrong with Al Spalding being on the contributor ballot even though we already elected him as a player.
Will definitely be keen on participating here, but have enough going on that I can't give up the time. Plenty of qualified people to step up to the plate here.

6 Pioneer Players: I'd rather not comingle pre-1871 players with post-1871 players. We already decided that was the line in the regular elections, and I think it should be maintained here. I want the pool of the players in the VC election to come directly from the pool in the regular elections. The VC players' election is meant to review players the regular election could have but did not elect, and thus pioneer players would not qualify. I'm not sure how to treat these players at this point though, in that should they be on the contributor ballot or have their own special section. Right now, I'm actually leaning towards putting them on the contributor ballot. It's just easier to manage.
Either way seems fine to me.

7) Negro Leaguers and Japanese Players: Because this is a historical exercise, I think we should hold off on these players until considering them would be more historically apt. For Negro Leaguers, that's probably closer to at least the time of integration. For Japanese players, well that's a discussion that's probably around a year away in real time (assuming this project keeps going), so we can sort that out down the line.
That's fine. I would suggest no later than 1962 on Negro Leaguers and no later than 2001 on Japanese Leaguers.

[jjpm74]

On Negro Leaguers, I think we can even go a little proactive and set those elections to the same year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

I also am in favor of every 3 years instead of every 5 years.

It doesn't matter to me either way how we handle the pioneer players as long as we are handling them.

The rest looks good as you spelled it out.

[DoubleX]

No isssues with the rules as you've laid them out Mike. I would have an issue to lowering the bar below 75% down the road "if we have trouble electing people at that level". I'd rather never elect a second chance player than lower the standards of election. If the VC becomes primarily a vehicle for selecting contributors and not players I'm fine with that.

I'd prefer not to change the standards as well. However, I do want this to serve some function, which is to prevent players from being cast off into history and took a second look, just in case the diluted regular elections missed someone. If we're consistently not electing anyone, what's the point of doing these?

In practice though, I imagine the 75% level will allow us to elect a small and acceptable number.

Negro Leaguers we might either include or have a special election for as early as 1950. If we include them in the regular VC they will surely overshadow the major leaguers though. We'd have the elite of the Negro Leagiues squaring off vs the failed MLB candidates. If we eventually include Japanese players (who never made the move to MLB) I think that should be on hold until the 21st century. We may be more progressive and inclusive than Cooperstown, but we shouldn't be too far out in front - and there is little chance that pool will be considered anytime soon.

I'm thinking 1945 or 1950 is a good time to start with Negro Leaguers. For those who want to be more proactive than reality, 1945 would be a good year, and we could use the justification of the lessons from WWII and Landis recently passing, thereby removing a significant obstacle.

I'd prefer every three years given that (a) there's no minimum number of inductees per election and (b) we'll be examining both playing and non-playing contributions.

To be honest, other than I think 5 will give more meaning to the VC elections, I also don't want to have to run these more frequently. :)


No firm opposition here so long as erections are held regularly.


Sorry to all the kids out there, but I had to quote this. :)

[Freakshow]

OK, Mike, you persuaded me. Put me on the VC.

[philkid3]

I agree with everything except allowing people to be inducted in multiple categories. Spalding's in, that's enough.

What about a side vote where we vote on whether or not a player deserves an added designation?

Just an idea.