I also agree on the one year waiting period. A guy should be eligibile the season after he retires.

Quote: Originally Posted By travisg on 1/14/2010Also, those 1936 HOF votes are fascinating. George Sisler got more votes than Lou Gehrig? Lajoie and Speaker got more than Hornsby? Perceptions have changed a bit over the ensuing 74 years

Gehrig was very active at the time, and Hornsby was still pinch-hitting occasionally. I suspect there were some voters who wouldn't vote for a guy who wasn't fully retired.

Uh, patrick has already said they'll be available the year after they retire.

i know i wrote that before reading the whole thread

Yeah but tec has been here since the first page. He shouldn't be echoing incorrect assumptions.

Are there going to be simulated induction ceremonies? I hope I can get a hotel room close by.



Will there be correspondances generated when "your" players are nominated and inducted? If the player wrote you to thank you for the opportunity or something along those lines.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/14/2010Yeah but tec has been here since the first page. He shouldn't be echoing incorrect assumptions

I'm a little slow in the morning.

This morning?

Sure, OK.

Why should the threshold be any number of AB/IP?

In real life it's 'played in 10 seasons'. Trust the owners to not vote a guy in if he isn't deserving, without tying it to arbitrary seasonal PA numbers.

The playing time threshold should be tied to a guys years of MLB service - if it hits 10, he should be eligible to be nominated.

That would allow us to vote in a guy who might have been a stud but 30 years old when the world started, even if he retired when he was 38 or something, with the idea that we can guess if he was a stud when the world started he was probably a stud before then too.

I don't think I want to guess at how awesome a player was BEFORE the world was created.

I'd be for dropping any nomination limitations. You can only nominate two per season. If you want to nominate a player because he's from your hometown, knock yourself out. That's probably fun for you. But, if he went 7 for 81 in his only BL season, no one is voting for him(except for maybe you). Who cares if he's on the ballot?

xactly. I like the idea of the limit on the # of nominations an owner can make per season. Like you say, you want to nominate 'joe average' cause of his name or hometown ... go for it. I will not vote for him.

I agree that the threshold for nomination should just be 10 ML seasons, period. The voters will decide if the guy was a HOFer.

I like the 10 ML seasons threshold too. Otherwise too many guys worth consideration will miss being eligible due to things outside our control (IP/AB missed due to injury, player age when the world started, converting a starter to a reliever, etc...)

However, on the other hand, MikeT23's observation alarms me. I don't particularly care if someone nominates a guy for some stupid reason (funny name, same hometown, whatever), but in the case of new owners, you might see someone nominating a guy because he thinks its funny, while ignoring people that played on the franchise before he took over and deserve legitimate consideration.

(Of course, thinking about it more, owners that would do that aren't serious enough about HBD to stick around for more than a couple of seasons anyway. And with eligibility preserved, I guess that would free the next owner up to nominate that deserving player.)