HOF Topic

smoelheim
Posts: 406 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 38 79
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by patrickm885 on 1/19/2010The distinguishing factor is Games vs. IPs. Relievers must average 50 games per season and starters must average 150IPs per season.

I don't understand what the confusion is. Do you guys actually have starters that average 50 games per season?

My bad. I read that as 50IP for relievers, not 50G. I thought both roles were being judged on their innings, and I didn't understand how you were determining what qualified as a...

Ah, forget it. You get the point. Thanks for the clarification.
1/19/2010 10:11 PM
patrickm885
Posts: 200 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 19 18 1 87 1
Prospect
dw172300:
The idea is still on the table, but we wanted to have this feature in first. The all worlds HOF and the franchise specific HOF will not be a part of this update and I think it's safe to say that these two features won't be in place for some time.

We only store the actual winner of the award and I don't feel that the award requirements require a modification.

I'm going to see how things look with some different qualifications. I may also change the requirements to only include the seasons in which they actually played. This should help some of the player's who were generated with ML years when the world was created.
1/20/2010 8:14 AM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
I've read the thread and I've yet to see any really good reason why you don't just use ML years as a criteria for possible nomination (similar to the way it is done with MLB). 10+ ML seasons and they can be nominated. (Not auto-nomination, just eligible for nomination.) This would also solve the one-time issue of players who had pre-S1 careers, allowing them to be nominated even though we have stats for fewer than 10 seasons.

Let the Worlds' owners separate the wheat from the chaff to decide who actually gets *into* their HOF.
1/20/2010 8:45 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By trsnoke on 1/19/2010
If every team gets 5 votes and it takes a minimum of 17 votes to induct a player, the max that any world can vote in in one year is 9, right? I'm sure it'll be less as some owners vote for their own fringe guys and some guys are consensus HOF, taking a lot of votes. The fringe guys may have a tough time making in unless not enough consensus guys have retired yet. I'll have to check my worlds' career leader boards to see how many no-brainers (imo) have retired. It'll make for some fun World chats!



9 would be the max but I think that would take some sort of orchestrated effort for that to happen. I think most involved worlds will only see 3-4 per season. That seems about right.
1/20/2010 8:54 AM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
1/20/2010 9:00 AM
volk
Posts: 286 (0)
Hall of Famer
14 1 1 11 62 133 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by zbrent716 on 1/20/2010I've read the thread and I've yet to see any really good reason why you don't just use ML years as a criteria for possible nomination (similar to the way it is done with MLB). 10+ ML seasons and they can be nominated. (Not auto-nomination, just eligible for nomination.) This would also solve the one-time issue of players who had pre-S1 careers, allowing them to be nominated even though we have stats for fewer than 10 seasons.

Let the Worlds' owners separate the wheat from the chaff to decide who actually gets *into* their HOF.

This makes sense, especially given the fact that, whatever the requirements, no team can nominate more than 2 players per year anyway. The argument that the ballot will become unwieldy doesn't hold water. 64 user nominations is still 64 user nominations, regardless of whether they averaged 200 plate appearances or 600.
1/20/2010 9:38 AM
mlhutch
Posts: 528 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 360
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by zbrent716 on 1/20/2010I've read the thread and I've yet to see any really good reason why you don't just use ML years as a criteria for possible nomination (similar to the way it is done with MLB). 10+ ML seasons and they can be nominated. (Not auto-nomination, just eligible for nomination.) This would also solve the one-time issue of players who had pre-S1 careers, allowing them to be nominated even though we have stats for fewer than 10 seasons.

Let the Worlds' owners separate the wheat from the chaff to decide who actually gets *into* their HOF.

+1
1/20/2010 9:46 AM
patrickm885
Posts: 200 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 19 18 1 87 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by zbrent716 on 1/20/2010I've read the thread and I've yet to see any really good reason why you don't just use ML years as a criteria for possible nomination (similar to the way it is done with MLB). 10+ ML seasons and they can be nominated. (Not auto-nomination, just eligible for nomination.) This would also solve the one-time issue of players who had pre-S1 careers, allowing them to be nominated even though we have stats for fewer than 10 seasons.

Let the Worlds' owners separate the wheat from the chaff to decide who actually gets *into* their HOF.

If we allow for this to happen the list will be very, very long and unmanageable. I addressed that a few pages back.
1/20/2010 9:50 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
My concern, with no minimums, would be homerism. If you nominate a player, it stands to reason that you'd vote for that player. So, if you nominate two of your players every year, you're only voting for 3 other players. Multiply that out for the entire world and you're not going to be electing very many players.

There really should be some sort of game played/pitched minimums. Just because a guy has 5 great seasons for you during a nice run then 5 seasons of benchwarming doesn't mean he's HOF material because you're throwing a gratitude vote at him.
1/20/2010 9:52 AM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by patrickm885 on 1/20/2010
Quote: Originally posted by zbrent716 on 1/20/2010I've read the thread and I've yet to see any really good reason why you don't just use ML years as a criteria for possible nomination (similar to the way it is done with MLB). 10+ ML seasons and they can be nominated. (Not auto-nomination, just eligible for nomination.) This would also solve the one-time issue of players who had pre-S1 careers, allowing them to be nominated even though we have stats for fewer than 10 seasons.
Let the Worlds' owners separate the wheat from the chaff to decide who actually gets *into* their HOF.
If we allow for this to happen the list will be very, very long and unmanageable. I addressed that a few pages back.


As volk mentioned, a limit on the number of nominations would address this very easily.

As far as homerism, two points -

1) you can't account for every owners' stupidity/stubbornness. If the owner "wastes" a vote on his scrub for 5 seasons in a row under the 10+ years (and really, no true scrub is going to get 10+ ML years because he'd eventually have to get a little paid), then he'd be just as likely to withhold the vote altogether.

2) what's the drawback to allowing World owners to determine how hard (or easy) it is to vote players in? In my opinion, it's the Hall Of Fame, after all, not the Hall of Good Players - but if at least 17 owners in some World out there want to elect 5 guys each and every season and water it down, so be it.
1/20/2010 9:59 AM
disaacs
Posts: 223 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 88 94
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By robusk on 1/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By disaacs on 1/19/2010

Those SP/RP requirements could potentially screw over a player like http://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=37494

He's currently over the 50G threshold, but a few seasons below that and he'll no longer be eligible, even though I believe he's clearly a HOFer. It will be moot if he can get 1 more AS appearance, but if he doesn't...then what?


Clearly?



None of you that responded to my quote play in my world, thus you have absolutely no clue how dominate this particular individual is. The guy has been a starter, a long-reliever, and a setup man, thus he isn't going to have the cumulative numbers to meet many of thresholds.

He was a starter for 1 season and a closer for 4 seasons prior to my acquisition of him, but in the 9 years since I acquired him, he's been predominately a long-reliever and a setup man. In those positions, he's not going to get a ton of wins, nor a ton of appearances, but IMO, he is of HOF caliber. If you were in my world, you would know. In the world, he's #1 in ERA, #2 in WHIP, #3 in K:BB ratio, #2 in OBP allowed, and #1 in slugging % allowed.
1/20/2010 10:03 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
1. As you well know, WifS does what they can to eliminate owner stupidity. Forcing a minimum for nominations is one of those things.

2. If it's a Hall of Fame and not a Hall of Good Players, I don't understand why you'd want to open it up to the whims of owner stupidity/stubbornness.
1/20/2010 10:04 AM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/20101.  As you well know, WifS does what they can to eliminate owner stupidity.  Forcing a minimum for nominations is one of those things.  2.  If it's a Hall of Fame and not a Hall of Good Players, I don't understand why you'd want to open it up to the whims of owner stupidity/stubbornness.  

People seem to get *very* mixed up over the massive difference between nomination and election.

Look at the guys who get nominated and voted on for the real HOF every year. Mike, you and I probably agree that the RL HOF has been "watered down", but that's not a result of guys like Dan Plesac or Greg Vaughn being nominated, but instead a result of [insert your least deserving HOFer here] being elected.
1/20/2010 10:13 AM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2010My concern, with no minimums, would be homerism.   If you nominate a player, it stands to reason that you'd vote for that player.   So, if you nominate two of your players every year, you're only voting for 3 other players.   Multiply that out for the entire world and you're not going to be electing very many players.  There really should be some sort of game played/pitched minimums.  Just because a guy has 5 great seasons for you during a nice run then 5 seasons of benchwarming doesn't mean he's HOF material because you're throwing a gratitude vote at him.

I'll use the "logic" I hear tossed out so often with respect to vetoes -

"If 16 other owners agree with me that he's HOF material, then he *is* HOF material. If not, no harm done."
1/20/2010 10:15 AM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
1/20/2010 10:21 AM
◂ Prev 1...17|18|19|20|21...25 Next ▸
HOF Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.