Hall of Fame Mistakes

[AstrosFan]

We all have our own definition of what makes a Hall of Famer. And many of us are simply appalled at what we see as terrible selections. I would like to start voting on the mistakes of the Hall of Fame.


Please Read These Rules Before Making Your Selections:


1. This is players only, which means players are to be judged on their playing career first. A player may receive a boost from a voter for other activities (managing, scouting, etc.), but those are only secondary considerations. But of course, do not judge a player solely by his numbers.

2. There are now 229 players in the Hall. I plan on putting a ballot of 25-26 each round, plus a none of the above option. You may vote for 0-15 players. If you think a player is close, but doesn't belong, and you have room on your ballot, check him as a mistake. A player needs to get 75+% of the vote to be dubbed a mistake. Since there will be much disagreement on who is a mistake, there is no need to limit yourself to the Rube Marquards and George Kellys of the Hall.

3. Please do not be shy. In participating in this project, no one is necessarily advocating the removal of anyone from the Hall. It is just a way to see who we would identify as mistakes made by the various election committees.

4. All players are eligible. Do your best when it comes to players you may have a hard time judging, like Negro Leaguers and 19th century players. You don't have to read an encyclopedia, but at least some research should help.

5. If a player receives less than 5% of the vote as a mistake, he becomes permanently ineligible. No one wants to belabor the point that Willie Mays is not a Hall of Fame mistake.

6. A player must have crossed the 50% threshold by his 10th try, else he is dropped, unless he has been gaining noticeable momentum. What constitutes noticeable will be up to me, though I intend to do my best to define it in a way that will appease as many as I can. Think Jim Rice or Bert Blyleven in the real HOF voting.

7. At some point, we will reach a place where we just aren't going to identify any more mistakes. At that point, the project will shut down, and I will list the players alphabetically, and include some statistics for everyone's benefit.

8. Please be careful when voting. I do not have the power to edit ballots, and I do not wish to bother the mods constantly to ask them if they can change things. Because of this, ballots will not be changed, except in the case of honest mistakes. Please contact a mod about this if it happens, but please be very careful when voting, so the moderators do not have to be bothered more than necessary.

9. This is probably obvious, but the players are listed alphabetically.

10. Please post your ballot in the thread.

11. Voting is open for one week.



Have fun.

[AstrosFan]

Shoot. I don't think I can edit the poll. Can a mod make a note in the poll title to read the rules before voting, that voters can choose between 0-15 votes, and add a "None of the above" option?

Sorry about the screw-up. I thought I had everything, but I guess not.

[AstrosFan]

Dave Bancroft
Jake Beckley
Chief Bender
Jim Bottomley
Roger Bresnahan

[jalbright]

Shoot. I don't think I can edit the poll. Can a mod make a note in the poll title to read the rules before voting, that voters can choose between 0-15 votes, and add a "None of the above" option?

Sorry about the screw-up. I thought I had everything, but I guess not.

I've added the None of the above option, and I've edited the title.

[AstrosFan]

I've added the None of the above option, and I've edited the title.

Thank you so much, Jim. I owe you big time.

[jalbright]

Thank you so much, Jim. I owe you big time.

You don't owe me a thing. It's part of a mod's job (and one of the easier and more enjoyable ones, I might add, because it's appreciated ;))

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

You didn't list a bunch of different players who are better candidates for the list: Waite Hoyt, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrel, Jesse Helms come to mind. Yet you list Banks, Aaron & Berra on the poll?

[AstrosFan]

You didn't list a bunch of different players who are better candidates for the list: Waite Hoyt, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrel, Jesse Helms come to mind. Yet you list Banks, Aaron & Berra on the poll?

They are listed alphabetically. There will be a number of rounds here. Hope that clarifies things.

[Gee Walker]

You didn't list a bunch of different players who are better candidates for the list: Waite Hoyt, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrel, Jesse Helms come to mind. Yet you list Banks, Aaron & Berra on the poll?

I agree. There's no way Jesse Helms should ever make the Hall of Fame. Bad enough that Jim Bunning became a senator. Of course, Walter Johnson was a Senator, but of a different kind...

[BlueBlood]

Going by the results right now...there's nobody we'd elect out of the Hall.

[AstrosFan]

Going by the results right now...there's nobody we'd elect out of the Hall.

I'm not so sure. Something is wrong with the poll. Every player's vote total is one less than the number of people who have voted. There have been 16 total voters, so the players with 11 votes should actually have 12, which is exactly 75%.

Edit: It's not every player. Sonofkirby is the one whose vote is not counting, though he is counted in the number of voters (16). Can anyone tell me why? Because this screws up the results.

[jjpm74]

This is a fun project, AF. Looking forward to seeing how these results compare to the original Hall of Mistakes results.

[jalbright]

I'm not so sure. Something is wrong with the poll. Every player's vote total is one less than the number of people who have voted. There have been 16 total voters, so the players with 11 votes should actually have 12, which is exactly 75%.

Edit: It's not every player. Sonofkirby is the one whose vote is not counting, though he is counted in the number of voters (16). Can anyone tell me why? Because this screws up the results.

Did he vote before I added the "none of the above" and voted for no one? Otherwise, I dunno.

That said, I can fix the totals if you know what the counts should be. You can PM me with the spots where someone's vote hasn't been counted, and I can make the corrections. Probably the best way is to tell me, for example, that Bancroft is undercounted by 1 (2, whatever the proper number is), as that way we won't get screwed up by additional voters between your sending of the message and my making the corrections.

[bambambaseball]

Did he vote before I added the "none of the above" and voted for no one? Otherwise, I dunno.


Did he vote the same time you added in the new field? Maybe he was in the process while you were updating the poll. Ive seen this happen with this type of message board before. Its a documented glitch.:reporter:

[bambambaseball]

Im surprised Im the only none of the above. None of the major mistakes are in this balott.:silent:

[jalbright]

Did he vote the same time you added in the new field? Maybe he was in the process while you were updating the poll. Ive seen this happen with this type of message board before. Its a documented glitch.:reporter:

Could be. Anyway, I've edited the poll totals to add one vote to everyone sonofkirby is listed as voting "for".

[AstrosFan]

Preachy eight it, Jim :)

[henrich]

I like the project AF.

Ashburn
Bancroft
Boudreau
Bresnahan

[AstrosFan]

Im surprised Im the only none of the above. None of the major mistakes are in this balott.:silent:

That's the point, though. It doesn't have to be a major mistake. Just anyone you feel does not have Hall of Fame credentials, no matter how close they are.

[bambambaseball]

That's the point, though. It doesn't have to be a major mistake. Just anyone you feel does not have Hall of Fame credentials, no matter how close they are.

There are mistakes. I agree there. I dont think anyone in tis balott is a mistake, though. :)

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I choose:

Ashburn
Bresnahan
Avrill
Aparicio
Baker
Beckley
Bottomley
Bancroft

- Gave Boudreau the benefit of the doubt, but he's bottom of the line, as shortstops go.

- Im on the fence as to whether Aparicio belongs. On one hand, he's probably a Top 7 all time defensive SS, who won 9 GG's and contributed mightily on the basepaths. On the other hand, he was a low average, low OBP, low power slap hitter who was a clear detriment to his team offensively. In fact, he lead the AL in Outs made 3 times and finished Top ten 12 times (yikes!). Very similar batting statistics to Ozzie Smmith although not quite as good with the glove.

- No opinion of the Negro League guys, as I do not know enough about them.

[bambambaseball]

I choose:

Baker


If you picked a full 15 people, this pick still wouldnt make any sense. :crazy

Frank Baker is easily a top 50 player. Hes one of the best 3rd basemen ever to play!

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

With only 5984 at bats, and 3 year peak (maybe 4 if you're stretching) + < 100 HR + <1000 RBI + marginally above avg back half of career, I'm pretty sure he shouldn't be there. He had an nice 3 year run from 1911-1913, but that does not make a career.

And I KNOW Frank Baker isn't a Top 50 player!

[bambambaseball]

With only 5984 at bats, and 3 year peak (maybe 4 if you're stretching) + < 100 HR + <1000 RBI + marginally above avg back half of career, I'm pretty sure he shouldn't be there. He had an nice 3 year run from 1911-1913, but that does not make a career.

And I KNOW Frank Baker isn't a Top 50 player!

What are you basing your 3 year peak theory on? Not CAWS. Thats for sure! Are you even bothering to adjust for 162 game seasons or did baseball just not exist before 1961 for you :confused:

I guess defense and team value also must mean nothing for you!

[bambambaseball]

In another project going on, Frank Baker just missed election going up against guys like Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Cap Anson, Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner the first time he was eligibel

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1376158&postcount=4

You dont know what your talking about.:rolleyes:

[Cowtipper]

Heavens to betsy someone has a differing opinion. Jeez.

[PVNICK]

I don't see anyone who just flat out does not belong, though soem I would not necessarily vote in myself.

[jjpm74]

For those who chose Cap Anson, does it have to do with his role in blocking minorities from playing MLB?

[KCGHOST]

Aparicio
Bender
Bottomley

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Someone voted against Wade Boggs??

I think we can guess who that guy was, right Bravesfan? :crazy

[Bravesfan1984]

Someone voted against Wade Boggs??

I think we can guess who that guy was, right Bravesfan? :crazy

what happened was i was going to vote jim bottomely but my finger slipped ooops:waving

[AstrosFan]

I don't see anyone who just flat out does not belong, though soem I would not necessarily vote in myself.

Then you should have voted for those players. The point of the poll is not for people to choose who were the worst mistakes, but to choose who they would not vote into the Hall of Fame. If 75% of the voters would not vote a person in the Hall, we are pretty comfortable in saying that person does not belong.

This is rule 2:

There are now 229 players in the Hall. I plan on putting a ballot of 25-26 each round, plus a none of the above option. You may vote for 0-15 players. If you think a player is close, but doesn't belong, and you have room on your ballot, check him as a mistake. A player needs to get 75+% of the vote to be dubbed a mistake. Since there will be much disagreement on who is a mistake, there is no need to limit yourself to the Rube Marquards and George Kellys of the Hall.

What that means is that anyone you would not personally vote for should be checked. Voters should not be checking the worst mistakes, they should be checking ANYBODY they think should not have been elected. Opinions on that are quite diverse, and it will be hard for a player to get the 75% vote. He will likely only reach it if he is truly a Hall of Fame mistake. But if everyone only checks the boxes of those they feel were absolute mistakes, rather than those they simply wouldn't vote for, it's going to be almost impossible to get anyone identified as a mistake.


I'm going to update the title of this thread so the same mistake isn't made, and try to remember to keep that in future rounds.

[Freakshow]

Then you should have voted for those players. The point of the poll is not for people to choose who were the worst mistakes, but to choose who they would not vote into the Hall of Fame. If 75% of the voters would not vote a person in the Hall, we are pretty comfortable in saying that person does not belong.

This is rule 2:



What that means is that anyone you would not personally vote for should be checked. Voters should not be checking the worst mistakes, they should be checking ANYBODY they think should not have been elected. Opinions on that are quite diverse, and it will be hard for a player to get the 75% vote. He will likely only reach it if he is truly a Hall of Fame mistake. But if everyone only checks the boxes of those they feel were absolute mistakes, rather than those they simply wouldn't vote for, it's going to be almost impossible to get anyone identified as a mistake.


I'm going to update the title of this thread so the same mistake isn't made, and try to remember to keep that in future rounds.I like the project. Fun way to run it. But you should have put this thread up for a few days to discuss the idea. Many heads are better than one and I have no doubt you would have avoided most of the problems you've run into. After discussion you can always add the poll to the thread later.

You might consider a do-over.

[AstrosFan]

The problems I've run into don't really stem from not holding a discussion on how to approach this. I knew exactly how I wanted to approach it, and I wouldn't change a thing there. They stem from people voting without reading the rules, either because they don't know they're there or they can't be bothered. It is my fault too, for not putting a notice in either the thread title or the poll title.

I suppose I should start this over, but the only thing I'm changing is that I will add a notice that people need to read the rules in the first post before they vote. If they continue to insist on voting only for players they see as egregious errors, rather than, as instructed, voting for any player they would not personally elect to the Hall, then I would probably let the poll die out, and not bother with the project. The only way this can work is if people follow rule #2 as it is stated, rather than coming up with their own definition of what constitutes a mistake.

Folks, prepare to switch over to the new and improved version. I'll need some time to get everything set up, but once I have it up and going, we should probably close this one down, so as not to confuse people.

I apologize for the mistakes. I hope we can jump out to as good a start with the number of voters as we did for the first version. It is just important that everyone follow the instructions, or else the project won't work.

[AstrosFan]

Dead thread: See redux thread.