ArmchairGM HOF - The next step

by user Alex Holowczak

After the original post, we agreed it was a good idea. It seems there are a number of matters arising that need to be voted on, or discussed, in some way, in order to make progress. Either way, we could do with definite answers, rather than speculation. The five points listed below are furnished with my own opinions on the matters...

1. Criteria, or no criteria
I suggested 7 criteria that could be used to gauge the members. I however have changed my mind, that a debate/vote for each player that can be nominated. But what do you think? Criteria may be important... (see point 3)

2. Speciality
It was suggested that we used a five-tier (star, perhaps?)Hall, a la ESPN. People didn't want to copy this idea. Has anyone any other ideas? Or should we keep to the "everyone on one tier" format? Personally, I am for the former.

3. Proportional Representation
I.e. the balance of each sport in the Hall. I think it would be better to simply put anyone in that deserves to, irrespective of their ability. With a tier system, it won't make much difference. Considering it would be a cross-sport Hall, it needs to be agreed on which sporting achievements are equal. Or the standard for a Hall needs to be set (hence the criteria). I think this point needs most attention. What do people think about this point?

4. Knowledge of a Sport
I think, to overcome this hurdle, a person that thinks a player is deserving of a place in the Hall should write a persuasive article, and then the rest of the ArmchairGM commiunity can decide for themselves, through debates, or voting. Any other ideas? I think it is important that everyone's vote is equal, hence proportional voting would just confuse things unneccessarily.

5. People Let In
This didn't get covered as much as I hoped in the original article, but do people agree that players, coaches (managers), announcers (commentators, presenters), referees (umpires), perhaps even journalists should be let in? Why/Why not?

Looking back at the original post, this is all I can see for now. Please discuss any other problems/points for discussion underneath mine should you come up with any I have missed.

Date

Thu 06/15/06, 5:50 am EST

JuTMSY4Legend

1245 days ago

Score 2

I think we should have a set of criteria (i.e. championships) and if someone can persuade us to let someone in regardless of those criteria then its ok. Make it the standard but not the rule. Example: most agree Dan Marino was a great QB, but he lacks championships, however he deserves to get in...etc...

Also, 15 years is a lot for football, exception for RBs and so on

But Alex, this is a very good start

Permalink | Reply

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1245 days ago

Score 2

I think you are definitely on the right track here. I would love to do something that seperated the all-time greats from those that barely squeek in on a close vote. Also, are we making this one big hall of fame or seperating it by sport? I also like having a basic criteria to get in, but I agree that it doesn't have to be written in stone.

Permalink | Reply

SteaksammichRed-Shirting

1245 days ago

Score 2

Would this be a free for all where everyone would be nominating players at once until we have 10 articles a day on who should make it? Or would there be a limit to how many made it at once and a timeline (once a month, four times a year, whatever)

I do like the idea of the tiered system. I don't think it's a matter of copying ESPN because A)it was just a concept and was never followed through with and B)it was a Bill Simmons idea, not an ESPN idea. Simmons does answer a lot of his fan-mail. If someone sent him an email about it then he'd probably be all for it. He may even want to participate.

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

1245 days ago

Score 1

You're right steak

I think we should do it once a month

Plus, hypothetically, if we could get Simmons to even mention this in his stuff, we could get some great publicity.

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score -1

Perhaps their should be some initial entries into each sport, and then over time, it can be built from there, i.e. set the standard bearers for each category. Then it can be built up, say at a rate of a player a week/a month, or whatever. One player a month in the world of sports is a bit too few, so perhaps one every week might be better.

Permalink

RoblefkoLegend

1245 days ago

Score 2

First, we should start off by nominating players and voting for them without a set criteria...once we have a group of people that are voted in and voted out..then the criteria will sort of have been "unofficially created"...e.g. if Player A, B, and E is in and Player C, D, and F are out..when it gets time to debate Player G, we can then argue: Well G cant be in because he only hit 320 homers and Player C who isnt in hit 350...i dunno just an idea...

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

1245 days ago

Score 0

Makes a lot of sense rob... Yeh, can someone completely explain this...

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score -1

I agree - after a time the initial members will set the standard for the rest of the Hall. We need to be careful not to let too few players in, but similarly, not let too many in - it's going to be a fine balance.

Permalink

SteaksammichRed-Shirting

1245 days ago

Score -1

That's another thing...when is a player voted out? If a player doesn't have enough support the first time then is he out of it forever?

Permalink

RoblefkoLegend

1245 days ago

Score 0

Whats this "tier" idea? Im not fmailiar with the ESPN thing..can someoen lpease explain?

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score -1

Essentially, the most legendary legends are on top, while the people that scrape in are at the bottom. The rest go somewhere in between.

Permalink

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1245 days ago

Score 1

I think it would be interesting to not only debate whether a guy is in or not, but also then debate where they belong in the grand scheme of their sport.

Permalink

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1245 days ago

Score 1

I think we also need to leave wiggle room though or we'll just become a cheap imitation of the real HOF. Obviously we'll be different because I'm sure Rose or Shoeless Joe would get in, but I would also like to see a guy like Don Mattingly, who probably has no chance to get into the MLB Hall, to atleast have a fighting chance in ours. I think this is where a tiered system could really come in handy.

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

1245 days ago

Score 2

Perhaps a Pro and Con analysis before the voting?

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score -1

I like that idea.

Permalink

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1245 days ago

Score 0

Bill Simmons wanted to rearrange the Baseball Hall of Fame into a pyramid with, I believe, 5 different levels. The top being Ruth, Mays, Gerhig, etc... on down. To read the actual article you need to be an ESPN insider so I can't totally research it.

Permalink | Reply

RoblefkoLegend

1245 days ago

Score 3

Here's the way i picture it. If you want to nominate a player, you write an article nominating him, you can write one any time (we shouldnt limit it to once a month or once a week).. anyone can then edit that article to add more facts- i picture each article to have two columns- one fo rpros one for cons, which anyone can then edit)..also, each article will have two vote boxes (we dotn haev the technology to have two vote boxes on one page, but we are figuring out how to do it), one vote box to vote for him to make the hall, one to vote against him...and then we'll make a rule something like (after a minimum number of votes (lets say 1000), we stop and if has 51% yes votes, he's in...if 51% no votes hes out....(and if we want tiers, something like 90% yes, tier 1, 80% yes tier 2 etc..

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score -1

Sounds brilliant! However, 1,000 votes might be a bit steep, there are only 550 users at the moment! Perhaps something like 10% of the total users at the time would be a better idea. It may vanish if it takes a few days to work if posted as an opinion, so that needs to be bared in mind. Perhaps there ought to be a "Hall of Fame" section on the main page, which can be a place that everyone can put new people up for nomination, and showcase the Hall. The rest of what you say makes perfect sense. Would we be able to discuss the player on that page via comments, or would it be a secret ballet sort of thing? (Once the Hall is created, perhaps all of the members should have their own player profiles?).

Permalink

RoblefkoLegend

1245 days ago

Score 0

you can discuss on the page either by putting a comment or by editing the article and adding to th epro or cons column...the voting will be like we have now, only 1 vote per user (ip address), if someone writes a pro/con that you didnt think of, you can always unvote (provided the voting isnt over)...i think it has to be a set number (a percentage will be hard to keep track of (i.e. every dya someone will have to keep an eye out on how many registered users we have compared to how many votes)...i think a high number (like 1000) is fine, bc then we can nominate tons of players, but itll take a while for the voting minimum to be reached, so we dont have to worry about this project coming to an end too quickly..

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score -1

Sounds good!

Permalink

Bobbyjim45Draft Pick

1245 days ago

Score 0

I like this idea, but in order for it to truly work, users must only vote for guys they think definitely should be in. Otherwise, some fringe guys could get into upper tiers if users think that he's just barely over the "line".

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1245 days ago

Score 0

An idea just came to me... What if we left the voting permanently open, and as their % vote changed, so could their position in the tiers? Therefore, irresepective of the number of votes, it will be continuing to evolve as time passes. That way, as players careers develop, and pros and cons change, people could change their votes, and his status in tiers may drop. E.g. Bonds would have been in the top tier after 2002, but now his stock would have fallen.

Permalink | Reply

SteaksammichRed-Shirting

1245 days ago

Score 2

That could work for current players, but retired players definatley need to close at some point.

Permalink

CoreyisarealboyMajor Leaguer

1245 days ago

Score 0

What's to stop someone from "stuffing the ballots" and signing in to vote, signing out to vote, going on different computers to vote, etc.?

Permalink | Reply

SteaksammichRed-Shirting

1245 days ago

Score -1

That's probably possible, but it'd be a lot of work for something like this...There's also nothing stopping any of us from signing on to 3 different computers to give everyone else a - rating, but I think 99.9% of the people in the world wouldn't go that far.

Permalink

JuTMSY4Legend

1244 days ago

Score 0

What about eligibility. Right now most leagues require a player to be retired for X years. I think we should at least have a similar rule. Maybe make exceptions based on their tier (IE first tier guys shouldn't have to wait)

Permalink | Reply

DrpatriotAll-American

1244 days ago

Score 0

To keep things organized, I think that specific pages need to be made for each sport and position, where links can be posted for each nominee's nomination, for example an "NFL Quarterback Nominations" page, or a "MLB Shortstop Nominations" page. I am also of the opinion that players should have to be retired to join the Hall of Fame - no specific number of years, they just can't be playing the sport anymore. Perhaps coaches would be the exception to this rule. One way to solve the "tiers" conflict is to have a league Hall of Fame and a team Hall of Fame. To take a real-life example, NFL linebacker Andre Tippet is a member of the New England Patriots Hall of Fame, but not the NFL Hall of Fame. A similar process could exist here; if a player is not allowed into the league's hall of fame, he/she could be considered for their team's hall of fame. Perhaps four vote boxes on one player's screen (league Hall of Fame buttons and team Hall of Fame buttons) could simplify this process; if we're going to have two boxes, why not four?

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

1244 days ago

Score 1

How about something like a sport hal of fame (Football) and an all-time HoF for truly great players and sportsman alike...Example: We could put a guy like MJ in the all-time HoF, but a guy like James Worthy would only get to the Basketball HoF...

Permalink | Reply

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1244 days ago

Score 0

I think we need a secondary voting system if we are going to do the tiers also. You should be able to vote for HOF, team HOF and then if they make the HOF where they belong.

Permalink | Reply