From: thebigdogs
To: The Advisory Committee
Sent: 8/16/2020 2:12:00 PM
Subject: Hall of Fame
Guys,
See if this works to communicate. [Use the comments section below to reply].
Here are a few of my thoughts:
Not sure what you guys thoughts are for guidelines for this committee but I think we should recommend 3 guys at the most. The last thing I want to do is take up everyone’s votes. I think guys can be nominated for 5 years, so those we need to look at are:
- Seanez (soonest off ballet based off of retirement 52)
- Tomilson (52)
- Guerrero (52)
- Feng (53)
- Diaz (53)
- Reyes (54)
Others:
- Narveson (????might be off this year)
- Harvey (????)
- Patel (????)
- Abreu (51)
- Dresden (53)
- Lowe (53)
- Tanner (54)
Guys can be nominated 5 times and I can’t tell how many times they have been nominated. Anyone know how to tell that?
I'm not sure how to figure out the number of tryouts each player has had either. Anyone?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete-----Original Message-----
From: pimpbotlove
To: mr_stickball
Sent: 8/19/2020 11:17:00 PM
Subject: HOF Procedure
Before we really get into the player talk, I think the most important thing is to formalize how we're going to make these recommendations. And how stridently we do so. Are we recommending a slate of five players? Three? Seven? Could be anything.
In my mind, we should have tiered recommendations. We want to provide guidance, but also give rank-and-file owners a voice in the process. They get five votes. The key is focusing their first few around several core players, and then letting them have agency with the rest.
Hence, I think what we need to do is select three players every year who are our "Lock" votes. We can't MANDATE that people vote for them, but we should come out in unison and say, "The committee would like all owners to vote for these three players." Hopefully, with the force of the committe and the commish behind it, it comes across that yes, all owners should check their first three boxes for these guys.
Then, from there, we say, "do what you like with your next two votes! But here are our recommendations for three additional players who we think are worthy of your consideration. Here's why." And leave it at that. That approach gives us (hopefully) 3 HOF'ers a year, and lets people have fun with the rest, while still getting good info from us. Bing bang boom.
Now, there may not be three players in an average year worth that kind of 'lock' treatment; but generally speaking, I think it's right to maintain the number for continuity and standardization purposes, and look, if we end up getting TOO many players into the HOF because of this -- well, then good problem to have, and we can address that then.
So hopefully you gents agree and we can move forward.
All that said, now get my player thoughts out of the way quickly -
Seanez and Tomlinson are both true greats, and deserve our support. Guerrero, honestly, is better than both of them in my mind. A Gold Glove centerfielder who put up a .920 OPS, 600 HR, 250 steals - I mean, the only players in our current HOF who have offensive #'s like that are corner outfielders or 1b/DH's. There's only one non-COF/1b/DH who comes close, which is Scott Sexton, and he played 3B, not as valuable a position on the defensive spectrum. The only primary CF in the hall right now is Mike Stokes, who has an OPS 100 points lower than Guerrero, and 150 fewer home runs. Guerrero isn't just a Hall of Famer - he's an upper-tier Hall of Famer, one of the very best to ever grace this world.
Narveson is a HOF'er too, with those exact #'s but far less defensive value, as just an average LF. After that, I'd go with my boy Feng the great, and then finally Wascar Reyes.
So under the system I'm semi-proposing, I'd advocate telling people to "lock" vote Seanez, Tomlinson, and Guerrero, and then giving a recommendation to Narveson, Feng, Reyes.
I second the notion of selecting three locks (I don't think that will be a dry well - ever), and i further think we should use something like a 5 Star rating on all of the other players, giving our owners a chance to vote for their favorite two but having our "five star ratings" as a general guide to our consensus opinion. For the five-star rating system, it'll be okay to say something like "HOF Committee gives Joe Blow (3.5 stars)".
ReplyDeleteRegarding Pimp's recommendations below, I can go with each one of the three "locks". I think of the "non-locks" listed, Narveson may be a "4.5 Star" and the others are "4 Stars" ... but I can be persuaded otherwise. In fact, I can see a couple even sliding down to 3.5 Stars.
Shall we hold a vote on each of the listed players, with the top 3 getting 5 Stars, for sure? This might be better than RANKING them, as it will be simpler.
HERE IS MY LIST (which is biased toward the overall recent HOF voting conducted for our World):
Lenny Tomlinson (5 Stars)
Trenidad Seanez (5 Stars)
Rio Guerrero (5 Stars)
Wascar Reyes (4.5 Stars)
David Feng (4.5 Stars)
Alfredo Dias (4.5 Stars)
Hugh Narveson (4.5 Stars)
Jeffrey Dresden (4 Stars)
Buddy Lowe (4 Stars)
Willis Tanner (4 Stars)
Darren Harvey (3.5 Stars)
Eric Patel (3.5 Stars)
Maicer Abreu (3.5 Stars)
Instead of everyone copying this list and giving their own star rating, it MIGHT be easier if each of you just points out where you disagree with my list. I can see moving guys a half star here, and a half star there, but it would be better to speak in those terms than just suddenly have 7 lists to dissect. Agreed?
-Stick