No one reads your canuck-y posts. Too many "u".

I'm intrigued to see what HOF voting is going to be like. How much will historical ratings factor into play vs. stats? Its the HOF so I'll look at stats, but since HBD has had so many changes (massive park effects from Coors etc., the training bug, the steroid era) I'm probably going to factor in what I think the player would have done in the current setup versus what his stats were a fair bit.

As for Jamey Cambridge, I probably would vote for him, but it depends on the league. He's hurt by coming into the league at 25. He's good but not outstanding. His best year offensively (S7) comes after some suspicious improvements in contact and glove at the age of 30, after being stagnant for several years.

It would be nice to see them add OPS+ type numbers to the HOF ballots, so we can normalize the stats to account for 'tard periods (or fatigue bombs, depending on the year).

Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 1/14/2010
It would be nice to see them add OPS+ type numbers to the HOF ballots, so we can normalize the stats to account for 'tard periods (or fatigue bombs, depending on the year).

I wish they'd add OPS+ to the existing statistic pages.

The real question is should WifS save us the trouble and create a separate forum for the soon to be popular theme "Why didn't the league vote my player in the HoF!!!" Thanks for being the first on this subject.

He only averaged 153 Hits, 91 RBI, with a career .303 BA over 13 seasons. Maybe if he did that for 5 more seasons, but outside of two really good seasons in S5 and S7 it's a pretty non-descript career. In six seasons more seasons there are going to be 20 more guys with career totals that match him, do you want a HoF filled with guys like him. If a players totals aren't going to amaze anyone you really need a stretch of 5-7 years where a player was dominating IMO.

Here's a hint:

Don't open the thread if you're not interested in the topic. But, if you accidently do, don't comment.

You're welcome. I just saved a shitload of time in the future, buddy!

Vanity HoF request for borderline players on the HBD forum is no better than posting WW quality players on the WC in exchange for a good SP.

Still posting in this thread? How odd.

MLB HOF
24 players with 400 homers. 2 MIF(if you count Banks/Ripken. 0 if you don't).

.900 OPS 26 players. 0 MIF

A middile IF with 400 homers and a career .900 OPS would fare quite well in MLB.

And, for the record, I was just trying to get a feel for what people thought was HOF-worthy. In the HOF thread, people seemed to think that many HOF-material players were going to miss out under the proposed guidelines. I considered Cambridge borderline(until I looked at how many MIF in MLB matched up with him).

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/14/2010

And, for the record, I was just trying to get a feel for what people thought was HOF-worthy. In the HOF thread, people seemed to think that many HOF-material players were going to miss out under the proposed guidelines. I considered Cambridge borderline(until I looked at how many MIF in MLB matched up with him).

You cannot compare any HDB players (including Cambridge) with ML players in an effort to figure out who is worthy of the HOF. There are simply too many differences, not the least of which is the emphasis on offense and inflated numbers.

If you were to insist on comparing HBD to ML, then I think that actually kills discussion of Cambridge making it in. In ML, there are plenty of guys with many more seasons of being among the best in the league (all-stars) who can only go inside the RL HOF if they buy a ticket. Strawberry, for example, made 8 All-Star games... and garnered 1.2% of the HOF vote in his first (only) year of eligibility. There are probably (EDIT) dozens of 2-time All-Stars who got even fewer votes.

I can do pretty much anything I want. I'm almost certain that there are no rules on who you can vote for in the soon to be HBD HOF.

But, again, the point seems to be missed. The tone in the HOF thread was that a lot of worthy candidates would not make the cut. I think that's BS. So I dug around until I found a borderline candidate that I thought would be a good test. Shockingly(sarcasm) the thread didn't go anywhere near the subject matter I intended. As we near the end of page 3, only about a half dozen folks has said yes/no and provided an opinion on the player in question.

I stand corrected. 9 people have offered opinions.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/14/2010
I can do pretty much anything I want. I'm almost certain that there are no rules on who you can vote for in the soon to be HBD HOF.

But, again, the point seems to be missed. The tone in the HOF thread was that a lot of worthy candidates would not make the cut. I think that's BS. So I dug around until I found a borderline candidate that I thought would be a good test. Shockingly(sarcasm) the thread didn't go anywhere near the subject matter I intended. As we near the end of page 3, only about a half dozen folks has said yes/no and provided an opinion on the player in question.

Fair enough, you *can* do anything you want, but that doesn't make it a fair comparison.

As far as your perception of the ton of the HOF thread, I agree with you 100% and I also happen to agree it's complete BS. None of the handful of "no doubt" type guys will miss out on the HOF because there are too many of them.

In all honesty, I don't know what a "fair comparison" will be. We had the learning curve, the fatigue issue, the training bug and the still prominent tanking. All of those will effect numbers all over the place. MG, the world I'm using for my example, was pretty good in keeping offensive numbers from getting crazy. But, 10 seasons from now, we're not going to add a whole lot of 400 homer guys into the mix.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/14/2010
In all honesty, I don't know what a "fair comparison" will be. We had the learning curve, the fatigue issue, the training bug and the still prominent tanking. All of those will effect numbers all over the place. MG, the world I'm using for my example, was pretty good in keeping offensive numbers from getting crazy. But, 10 seasons from now, we're not going to add a whole lot of 400 homer guys into the mix.

Just my opinion, but I think the only fair comparison is going to be World-specific. I don't know how your guy only makes 2 AS games, but if there were that many better 2B over his career, that's what makes him more of a borderline guy. In my oldest World, as I mentioned before, I think he's a pretty clear cut HOF based on his numbers, but that's also because in my World I'm not sure *any* MI could stack up (so I'd expect him to have been a 4, 5, 6+ AS guy).