After taking a look at plague's "World Career Leaders" thread I started kicking around the idea of hosting a HBD verison of the GD Hall of Fame I put together a couple years back (http://wisjournal.com/forums/threads.asp?ForumID=41&TopicID=161517&PagePosition=1).

Candidates would be user submitted and stats are fairly easy to pull. Votes can be cast by a 10-12 user commitee or opened up to all active HBD users.

The GD version created some decent conversation/debate and a fair amount of interest. If there's enough interest here I will begin putting this together.

There's too much of a disparity between HBD worlds to make this a practical, good idea.

Some worlds have been highly competitive from season 1, and have been able to put up somewhat reasonable stats (engine tweaks aside) over the seasons, while other worlds have been completely 'tarded up and have produced players who have stats well outside reasonable deviation from the norm.

An "all worlds" HOF would be an exercise in comparing apples and oranges.

On the surface that makes some sense, but if you apply the disparity argument to real life you would make the case that Bob Gibson shouldn't be in the Hall because he pitched off a mound raised above the level of current ML'ers. Same could be said for the advantage enjoyed by any Pitcher of the pre-1921 "dead ball era", or hitters calling Ebbets Field, the Kingdome, or Wrigley Field home for the majority of their career. Sports comparisons are rarely "apples to apples". That's what makes the comparisons worth debating.

True. In real-life, knowledge about the era in which a HOFer played provides context around their stats.

How would your "all world" HOF do something similar? How can we distinguish between players who played in competitive worlds vs. 'tard worlds?

BTW . . . I'm not trying to be a dick and shoot down your idea. I'm just pointing out some of the problems that can come out of an exercise like this.

No issue on my end with the feedback or concerns. Might as well hear pros and cons before diving into it. In terms of distinguishing between World's it could be as simple as requiring the all candidates are submitted with some background data for the World's career leaders. As an example, player A hits .350 for his career, crushes 800 HR's, and collects 3500 Hits. Seems like a HOF no-brainer. If it turns out those numbers barely sniff his World's Top 10, maybe it's not such a no-brainer.

On the GD side I placed the burden of proof/support on the user submitting the player. Worked out pretty well and at last look the thread had generated 5000 or so views.

I agree with tecwrg there would have to be some type of context to keep the All-World HOF from being loaded up with 'tard world All-Stars.

I think there are probably a couple of ways to do that.

1. Limit the number for All-World HOF per world (ie for every 5 seasons completed you could have 1 guy). So a world with 15 seasons at most could have would be 3 All-World HOF guys. This would limit it to the cream of the crop from any one world

2. Since we are talking the best of the best looking at # of MVPs or Cy Youngs would separate the wheat from the chaffe. Even a player in a 'tard world with 5 MVPs or 6 Cy young would likely be a great player in any world.

The concerns are legit, and I think this is where the 10-12 person committee plays a big role. Easy enough within a small/experienced group to weed through some of the issues. The GD committee was comprised of most of the top users and really added a lot of credibility to the process.

I know there's a thread which ranks Worlds. Might also limit HOF'ers to the top "x" ranked Worlds to limit any fringe entries.

I thin if you put together a committee of top players to do the voting, world tard-ness will take care of itself...the committee will evaluate the world when determining whether or not the guy deserves to be in the all world HOF.

I think its a good idea as long as you leave it for the elite of the elite players. Consider there is 150-200 worlds. If you averaged out 2 players per world that would be nearly 400 players in the Hall of Fame. That sounds excessive. At this point even averaging 1 player per world might be excessive.

Once top players started retiring I was going to add in a Hall of Fame type category for obvious players like Donnie Brown and list their lifetime stats and achievements. There just has not been enough of the top end players to retire yet so I have avoided adding in that category.

When the GD version rolled out one of the main concerns was the initial class would include so many players it wouldn't carry much weight. As we actually gathered the players/stats it became pretty clear we over-estimated the number of legit HOF'ers. It was actually fairly easy to divide up the elite and the very good.

In terms of the committee, I think csherwood is dead on. Experienced HBD'ers have a decent grasp on the competitive balance of most Worlds. I had a lot of GD's elite coaches step up and help with the voting. If the same happens here, I think the Hall will fly.

bump for more feedback

csherwood has grabbed one of the committee spots.

One of the problems I think you'll run into is this:

A player with phenomenal stats that dwarf the league leaders in my world will immediately be met with skepticism. Like a hitter with 90 homers in a season. Coop has never had a 70 homer player and MG has never had an 80 homer season. But I assume 90+ homers has happened. My initial reaction is 'tard world and I'd immediately dismiss any player from that world.

i think this would be a pretty cool thing to see...