PDA

View Full Version : The BBF HOF Forum Collaboration Game


Freakshow
07-31-2008, 08:17 AM
This is an idea for a new project. Well, it’s too simple to call a project, so let’s call it a game. I invite someone else to step forward to be the game Moderator; if not, I can run it.

I stole this concept from someone who stole it from someone else. It’s kinda fun, even a little addictive. I think it would be a great addition to our site. This game doesn’t require any research, really. And it doesn’t need a constant moderator to baby-sit daily; I tried to write this so that the game runs itself. I tried to keep the rules simple and understandable.

The basic idea is we rank every player in history, taking turns listing the next name. Well, maybe we plan on the top 500 players initially. The collaboration we did recently (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=70849) in the History forum had a major flaw: it was an open game (anyone could play) with no recourse for bad selections. Overall, we had a pretty good group there, but we still had players listed a hundred places too high, like Pedro Martinez at #21, Trevor Hoffman at #85 and Sam Rice #106. I like the concept, but clearly, there must be some mechanism to discourage players from being listed too early. I’ve attempted to devise rules to curb such abuses.

First off, we’ll set up a signup sheet here for a week or two. I think we want a closed group; non-gamers can post comments, but only moves posted by Gamers are counted. Maybe limit it to 40 (50?) Gamers maximum. You don’t have to be a BBFHOF voter, but it would help if you already have a system in place for assessing hundreds of players. We’ll establish a rotation of Gamers, arranging the names randomly. If we really get a lot of Gamers (+20) we should pause after each round (or perhaps after every other round) and re-randomize, reordering the names for the next round. If we have enough room, we’ll allow latecomers to sign up after the Game has started, putting them at the end of the current rotation.

We’ll use Hall of Fame criteria for ranking players, so everything counts (character, managing, their overall contribution). Only players whose primary contribution was his play on the field will be considered for the list. So, Dickey Pearce, George Wright and Frank Grant should be considered; AG Spalding, John McGraw and Rube Foster should not.

Active players will be included, but they should be ranked on their value to date, not projecting them to how you think they will end up. Negro leaguers will be included. Credit for Japanese play can be given for players who played at least four years in MLB. (Or should we include all Japan League stars?)

Basically, Gamers have three options: 1) Add a player; 2) Remove a player; 3) Reinstate a player, then add a player.

1) Add a player - Pretty simple, just recopy the list, adding your guy at the bottom. Doing this means you’re OK with the previous two players listed. Place the statement, “[Gamer X] is now on the clock” to signify the end of your turn. More about “on the clock” later.
2) Remove a player – You may remove one of the last two names on the list, adding your player at the bottom. After your player’s name, place this statement in parentheses: “sorry, I had to remove [player X] – Xth time”. (The same player can be removed up to a maximum of three times; after that he stays put the fourth time he is listed.) Then place the “clock” statement to end your turn.
3) Reinstate and add – Before listing your player you can list the name of a player who was Removed in the previous turn. After the reinstated player’s name, place the word “reinstated” in parentheses. (You may not Reinstate and Remove in the same turn.) Then place the “clock” statement to end your turn.

On The Clock – A Gamer ends his official turn with the statement “[Gamer X] is now on the clock”. Gamer X has to wait at least an hour before he may post his official turn. This delay is to encourage discussion and feedback from the other Gamers as to the previous turn, as well as discussing the upcoming pick. They can try to persuade Gamer X to play his turn in a certain way. If Gamer X posts his turn early (<57 minutes after the previous turn) one of the other Gamers must alert him that he posted too early, that his turn is not official. In this case, after the required hour has passed Gamer X must make a post to reaffirm his turn or it will not count.

Unexcused Absence - Gamer X forfeits his turn if he has not posted his official turn (or reaffirmed his turn if posted too early) within 24 hours of being On the Clock. One of the Gamers should alert the Gamer following Gamer X that he is now On the Clock. Gamer X will be placed at the end of the round, if he requests to stay in the game; otherwise he will have no turn this round. This counts as an Unexcused Absence. A Gamer will be expelled from the game after two Unexcused Absences.

Excused Absence - If Gamer X knows he will be away from the game, he should make this known to the other Gamers before his turn comes up. This way, everyone knows to skip him and put the next Gamer on the Clock. Gamer X will be moved to the end of the current rotation if he requests it; otherwise we’ll simply skip his turn. This eliminates having the game on hold for 24 hours, keeping things moving.

Example of Play

Freakshow’s turn:

1. Babe Ruth

Paul Wendt is on the clock.
==========================
Paul Wendt’s turn (may Add a Name or Remove Ruth):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Honus Wagner

Classic is on the clock.
==========================
Classic’s turn (may Add a Name or Remove Ruth or Wagner):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays (sorry, I had to remove Honus Wagner – 1st time)

jjpm74 is on the clock.
==========================
jjpm74’s turn (may Add a Name, Remove Ruth or Mays, or Reinstate Wagner and Add a Name):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb

leecemark is on the clock.
==========================
leecemark’s turn (may Add a Name, or Remove Mays or Cobb. Wagner no longer qualifies for reinstatement, but may be added):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Barry Bonds

jalbright is on the clock.
==========================
jalbright’s turn (may Add a Name, or Remove Cobb or Bonds):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Honus Wagner (sorry, I had to remove Barry Bonds – 1st time)

ErikBedard is on the clock.
==========================
ErikBedard’s turn (may Add a Name, Remove Cobb or Wagner, or Reinstate Bonds and Add a Name):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Honus Wagner
5. Barry Bonds (Reinstated)
6. Walter Johnson

AG2004 is on the clock.
===========================
AG2004’s turn (may Add a Name, or Remove Bonds or Johnson):

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Honus Wagner
5. Walter Johnson
6. Ted Williams (sorry, I had to Remove Barry Bonds – 2nd time)

Chickazoola is on the clock.
===========================
These rules are not meant to be set in stone. We should be open to improvements to the rules, if actual play indicates a better procedure should be adopted.

In actual play, I would hope that the Remove option would only be used for players you think are listed significantly early, and not to replace guys you have coming up soon in your queue anyway

There is a potential pitfall in keeping the same order for each rotation. If you get a few like-minded voters bunched together, there may not be the desired check on questionable selections. Likewise, if you get a very different system following you, you may see every one of your selections Removed, which isn’t much fun. Re-randomizing the rotation would help alleviate these concerns, but that requires the Moderator to run that after each rotation (or periodically). If we have a large number of Gamers, this reordering would not have to be done too frequently. We’ll allow a 24 hour grace period after reordering for all the Gamers to check the new rotation.

The job of Moderator is pretty simple in this game. Since all Gamers are being asked to be aware of the sequence of play, the Moderator’s main job is to keep track of the list of Gamers (and reorder them, if we decide to do that) for each round of play. The lead post in the Game thread will be edited to reflect the current order of the list of Gamers. A roster of all players listed, in alphabetical order, should also be maintained in the lead post. The Moderator would also be the court of appeal for any questions on player eligibility, unforeseen events or any attempts to undermine the aims of the Game. Again, if anyone of you would like the job, it’s yours.

What I envision for this is a sort of Battle of the Heavyweight Systems. While the ranking is collaborative, the Game is competitive, in a sense; my system vs. yours. If you make an unusual choice in your turn, you should have an argument to back it up; otherwise the other Gamers are obliged to turn on you for screwing up the list. Each name will have to pass the scrutiny of at least two other voters before it becomes permanent. We’re collaborating to, hopefully, produce a better ranking than any one of us could produce on our own. Again, don’t nit-pick; if a guy is placed just a few spots higher than you have him, leave him alone.

Above all, we should maintain a spirit of cooperation. We’re working together to produce the very best rankings that we can. We seek to enlighten others, relying on the force of our evidence more than our rhetoric. We hope that all Gamers will engage in a civil discourse that has become the hallmark of this forum.

There will be no rush to get this “done”. Potentially, the game could continue for years, as long as a couple people want to continue listing players. If we average four turns per day, in a year we would rank nearly 1,500 players.

So, who’s game? Sign up in this thread if you’re interested. Comments and critiques on these rules are welcome. Three questions have been posed:
• Would someone like to be the moderator for the Game?
• Should we allow Japanese league players to be considered?
• Should we periodically reorder the rotation of Gamers?

leecemark
07-31-2008, 08:25 AM
--I'll play. I think you can simplify the "change of order" by doing it in serpentine fashion so the gamer who preceded you last time will follow you this time. Of course that would allow only one person to review the two choices made by the gamers at the end of the chain, which may not fit your concept. I do ike the mechanism for removing questionable choices. One person's overrating of a candidate should not obligate us all to be stuck with such.

jalbright
07-31-2008, 08:37 AM
Sounds interesting, and if my next two months were not potentially so crazy, I'd bite. As it is, I think I'll have to pass, with regrets.

Brad Harris
07-31-2008, 09:09 AM
Count me in.

Freakshow
07-31-2008, 09:14 AM
Sounds interesting, and if my next two months were not potentially so crazy, I'd bite. As it is, I think I'll have to pass, with regrets.
No problem. If this takes off, you can join in later.:crossfingers:

jalbright
07-31-2008, 09:26 AM
No problem. If this takes off, you can join in later.:crossfingers:

Thanks. Maybe things won't go that way--but I've got interviews and potentially a new job coming up, and if that works out :crossfingers: , I'm going to have a crazy stretch that won't mesh well with an "on the clock" project. If/when I'm more comfortable fitting such a project into my schedule, I'll be in touch.

Your call on Japanese players. Some like it (like me), others don't. I do think the Negro Leaguers should be included, though.

jjpm74
07-31-2008, 10:35 AM
I like the idea and I also think it should be open to all international players (particularly Linares and the Japanese stars).

BlueBlood
07-31-2008, 06:09 PM
I'll play. I would like to limit it to just MLB players though. Makes things easier for comparison's sake. We really have no idea what the correct place for Satchel Paige or Josh Gibson is, so if we limit ourselves to MLB at least it can stack up as the best of that league. We could do separate lists for the Negro and Japanese leagues after.

jalbright
07-31-2008, 07:02 PM
With all due respect, Blue Blood, excluding the Negro Leaguers is the kind of thing that turns me off to projects like this. Those men were subjected to a great injustice, and while it's difficult to deal with rating those guys with the others, some of them absolutely were as good. If you don't know much about them, maybe you should try learning. I'm sorry, but excluding them now is the kind of thing which perpetuates the racism of the past, and that annoys me a lot.

I'd like to see the others included, but I have to concede there are few good sources to plug them in, so I'm willing to not push that point. It is best if people don't have to listen to just me or whomever. But when it comes to the best of the Negro Leaguers, there's a lot of information available, from many different perspectives.

Part of the idea of these projects is for the participants (at least) to learn a little from their participation.

Freakshow
08-01-2008, 11:49 AM
I'll play. I would like to limit it to just MLB players though. Makes things easier for comparison's sake. We really have no idea what the correct place for Satchel Paige or Josh Gibson is, so if we limit ourselves to MLB at least it can stack up as the best of that league. We could do separate lists for the Negro and Japanese leagues after.
We have a pretty well established precedent on this forum for including the Negro leaguers in our all-time rankings projects. Refer to the 500 Player Pyramid (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79992&post=#17) results for an example from three years ago.

Japanese players I am much less inclined to include. They are an obsession for a select few here, but in general they are of little interest. The research on them, while intriguing at times, has a long way to go in establishing reliable translations of their statistics.

Erik Bedard
08-01-2008, 12:00 PM
I'm in. And I'm honored to be used as an example.

Brad Harris
08-01-2008, 12:21 PM
I'm in. And I'm honored to be used as an example.
I'm not. I'm reminded of that Groucho Marx quote. ;) But I'm in nevertheless. :rofl:

jjpm74
08-01-2008, 01:55 PM
Count me as signed up.

Windy City Fan
08-01-2008, 02:38 PM
I'll play too.

BlueBlood
08-02-2008, 02:20 AM
With all due respect, Blue Blood, excluding the Negro Leaguers is the kind of thing that turns me off to projects like this. Those men were subjected to a great injustice, and while it's difficult to deal with rating those guys with the others, some of them absolutely were as good. If you don't know much about them, maybe you should try learning. I'm sorry, but excluding them now is the kind of thing which perpetuates the racism of the past, and that annoys me a lot.

It's absolutely no problem as far as doing research here or there. I'd absolutely place Oscar Charleston, Satchel Paige or Josh Gibson into the game very early in fact. My whole point was that their ranking ends up being rather arbitrary and based on guesses with scant evidence. Not that I want to dismiss them outright but that I think they end up taken a space in every ranking that we have no idea whether or not to argue. If someone here lists Charleston as the best outfielder after Ruth, I'm sure nobody here will call them on it, and how can we?

Should we include them? Certainly. But only if there will be discussion of their merits (including the potential to have them re-ranked) and people actively trying to list Negro Leaguers later on once we've gone past Charleston/Paige/Gibson. In other words, I only want to see their inclusion if most everyone here is willing to go through the effort and not half-ass it. If that's the case, and everyone playing is in agreement, then by all means add them. I'll be the first to hit the books/internet in search of information.

jjpm74
08-02-2008, 09:13 AM
It's absolutely no problem as far as doing research here or there. I'd absolutely place Oscar Charleston, Satchel Paige or Josh Gibson into the game very early in fact. My whole point was that their ranking ends up being rather arbitrary and based on guesses with scant evidence. Not that I want to dismiss them outright but that I think they end up taken a space in every ranking that we have no idea whether or not to argue. If someone here lists Charleston as the best outfielder after Ruth, I'm sure nobody here will call them on it, and how can we?

Should we include them? Certainly. But only if there will be discussion of their merits (including the potential to have them re-ranked) and people actively trying to list Negro Leaguers later on once we've gone past Charleston/Paige/Gibson. In other words, I only want to see their inclusion if most everyone here is willing to go through the effort and not half-ass it. If that's the case, and everyone playing is in agreement, then by all means add them. I'll be the first to hit the books/internet in search of information.

This whole ranking with the exception of probably #1 will be arbitrary to a degree. That's what makes a project like this fun.:)

John Shoemaker
08-02-2008, 09:19 AM
Count me in.

Paul Wendt
08-02-2008, 09:40 AM
>Originally Posted by Erik Bedard View Post
>> I'm in. And I'm honored to be used as an example.

I'm not. I'm reminded of that Groucho Marx quote. ;) But I'm in nevertheless. :rofl:
In this case I must rest with the honor alone.
Yeah, Honus Wagner number two. How did you guess? I haven't worked out my list down to number three but I'm sure I can't put Paul Hines or Deacon White any higher than that!

Now I must try to spend most of 12-5 at the library. (Does that burnish my image? If a few of you know that it opens at 9 on Saturday, keep quiet.)

Yankeefan94
08-02-2008, 03:20 PM
Count me in, too. This is gonna be a lot of fun.

Freakshow
08-06-2008, 02:40 PM
Signed up here so far:

Freakshow
leecemark
Classic
jjpm74
BlueBlood
Erik Bedard
Windy City Fan
John Shoemaker
Yankeefan94
dgarza

That's enough to start with. Anyone else? I think more will sign up once they see how it goes. I'll get the game thread up in a day or two (unless someone else grabs the ball first).

dgarza
08-06-2008, 03:03 PM
We got up to #285 last time.

I think you could count me in.

dgarza
08-06-2008, 03:11 PM
We’ll use Hall of Fame criteria for ranking players, so everything counts (character, managing, their overall contribution). Only players whose primary contribution was his play on the field will be considered for the list. So, Dickey Pearce, George Wright and Frank Grant should be considered; AG Spalding, John McGraw and Rube Foster should not.

I would like some clarification on this.

1st of all, how do we determine the difference?

For example, Al Spalding should be considered as a HOFer based on his playing time alone. I don't see how he should be excluded. To me, that's his major contribution.

And while John McGraw is well noted as a manager, there seems little reason to leave out one of the better 3B of all time out of discussion, all the while leaving door open Tim Wallach.

Couldn't we just base everything on playing seasons only?

jjpm74
08-06-2008, 03:16 PM
Not that I'm thinking of ranking either of them, but are guys like Pete Rose and Joe Jackson eligible for this exercise? What about players who's careers were less than 10 seasons?

Freakshow
08-06-2008, 04:14 PM
Not that I'm thinking of ranking either of them, but are guys like Pete Rose and Joe Jackson eligible for this exercise? What about players who's careers were less than 10 seasons?
I think dgarza is right. We'll include Spalding, McGraw, Torre as players with no kicker for their other contributions. We'll go with the HOF classification: Hybrid candidates like Chance, Jennings, McCarthy, Schoendienst, we'll consider their whole careers; those players whose major contribution was non-playing will only have their playing considered. I think that's a good compromise.

Rose and Jackson are eligible, too. No penalty should be given for their non-playing behavior. Less than 10 years are eligible, of course. Evan Longoria, anyone?

jjpm74
08-06-2008, 04:20 PM
I think dgarza is right. We'll include Spalding, McGraw, Torre as players with no kicker for their other contributions. We'll go with the HOF classification: Hybrid candidates like Chance, Jennings, McCarthy, Schoendienst, we'll consider their whole careers; those players whose major contribution was non-playing will only have their playing considered. I think that's a good compromise.

Rose and Jackson are eligible, too. No penalty should be given for their non-playing behavior. Less than 10 years are eligible, of course. Evan Longoria, anyone?

To make it clear where the line is between hybrid and contributor, how does 3000 PA/1500 IP as a player when trying to set a distinction between player/contributor and contributor/player? That'll keep guys like Connie Mack out of this exercise and guys like John McGraw eligible. Active guys and guys who were not contributors wouldn't be subject to this minimum.

Freakshow
08-06-2008, 04:32 PM
To make it clear where the line is between hybrid and contributor, how does 3000 PA/1500 IP as a player when trying to set a distinction between player/contributor and contributor/player? That'll keep guys like Connie Mack out of this exercise and guys like John McGraw eligible. Active guys and guys who were not contributors wouldn't be subject to this minimum.
I'll have to look at that, how it effects various guys. I like objective standards, if they make sense when broadly applied.

But it may ultimately be that we'll do what I just described above: The guys the HOF calls player/contributor will have these roles added together in assessing their worth; the guys the HOF calls contributor/player will only have their playing career considered. The difficulty comes with players the Hall hasn't made a clear judgment on, like a Charlie Grimm, who has been classified both ways at various times.

BlueBlood
08-08-2008, 01:16 AM
I predict the re-ranking will be very heavy near the start and eventually tailor off. By the time we get to #150, I think most won't care as long as a given selection is reasonable. Like if you decide to toss a remaining right fielder in there and I consider him close enough to the other remaining RFs, I'm not going to object.