Truthfully, there should probably be a minimum number of games played for the franchise for nomination. It's 2510 PA/810 IP for team records. Seems like you shouldn't be able to nominate a player who doesn't even qualify for your team records.

Quote: Originally posted by kahrtmen on 1/20/2010These are just threshholds for nomination right? Each team will only be able to nominate players that have played for their franchise, so the list for each team will be very manageable, even if the only requirement is 10 ML seasons played. That is, unless, every owner sees the full list of all players who can be nominated, even if they can't nominate them personally.

The view options include an "All" option and the way that it is filtered is by rolling through every row and finding matches so all of the data is pulled for every request. This is already one hell of a query and for performance reasons we can't bring back that much data.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2010Looks like you lowered the pitching minimums too much.  

You may be right Mike. I was trying to get all of the long relief guys and the starters that may have converted to bullpen roles later in their career.

I can run the query with some higher values tomorrow and post the results, but it seems like most of you like those results. Is that a safe assumption to make?

Since we are only talking about nominations, I would guess that most people would favor the greatest amount of choices, leaving it to each individual world to determine who belongs.

I was just going by the 40% increase in position players and more than double increase in pitchers. But, if you compare the final numbers to the eligble under 10 year only, pitchers are still a little short by comparison with the lowered requirements. I don't think there's any way you're going to make everyone happy but I, for one, am not interested in filtering thru 480 players right off the bat. And, if they're never going to "disappear" from the nomination screen unless elected or failed to be elected after 5 nominations, the number will get unmanageable really quickly.

A couple hundred after 10 seasons sounds about right. 20 per year more or less.

I think that 10 gold gloves for the auto nom is a bit high. The most I could find in Yastrzemski world is a guy with 5, but I didn't look that long.
Also, I'm not sure if this has been covered, but it would be cool if there was an "awards" category in player records to easily look up who has won how many awards over the years. It takes a long time to look up who is auto nominated before it actually happens.

Quote: Originally posted by shobob on 1/20/2010I think that 10 gold gloves for the auto nom is a bit high. The most I could find in Yastrzemski world is a guy with 5, but I didn't look that long.
Also, I'm not sure if this has been covered, but it would be cool if there was an "awards" category in player records to easily look up who has won how many awards over the years. It takes a long time to look up who is auto nominated before it actually happens.

ditto, in summer of 49 we couldnt find anyone over 5 either, i dont see many players getting 10 in their career...i think dropping it to 7 would be reasonable

Feel free to nominate anyone with 7+ GGs yourself.

For someone to make the HOF based on GG's is pretty weak. They better be pretty damn good at hitting also. I think it's a stupid criterion for eligibility and is mainly there because they're trying to find the HBD equivalent of Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski, great fielders with mediocre offensive numbers.

Nomination does not guarantee induction.

No, but the auto-nominations should be candidates damned near worthy of unanimous induction, imho.

Why? Will auto-noms receive your vote regardless of production? Or will you look at all nominated candidates and figure out the 5 most deserving?


In your other worlds, of course. Canucks aren't allowed to vote in MG.

What I mean is that one shouldn't have to "waste" one of their two seasonal nominations on a 10-time CY winner. He'll obviously get inducted.

I'm trying to suggest that the auto-nomination standards can, and should, be high.

10 GG is pretty tough to find. In fact, no one has said "I've got one." I'd say it's "high".

Which is good.