My Hall of Fame Ballot

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you contending that the only qualification for the HOF is who has the higher OPS+ or VORP over the length of their career?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly the members of the Hall of Fame should match up closely with the list of the best players as best we can measure who the best players were.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a fine aspiration. However, the HOF already has a good number of peopel who weren't the best players, using those same measures. It's a subjective vote, and not nuclear physics. I mean, truly, if it's only supposed to be the most precise scientific evaluation that determines who goes into the HOF, then ballots are utterly meaningless, because voting is irrelevant. Just go to the calculator.

Because we *do* have voting means we vote using criteria we're allowed to use, and subjectivity comes into play. I explained what my criteria were. At least one person thinks I'm a moron, but then, that person would seem to be one who thinks all elections are moronic on their face, and that determining election results should be about what is statistically optimal.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why did you bring him up in the first place? When we were debating who should make the HOF, you brought up Bill James, yet he agrees with me. The only way it makes sense is if you believe that someone has a good chance of making the HOF is an argument for them actually making the HOF.

Do you see why I'm confused?

[/ QUOTE ]

My only mention of Tim Raines was that he was really close, in my opinion, but comes up just short. I wasn't drawing a comparison of Raines to Rice, per se, it was you who brought in the direct comparison, but alluding to me diminishing walks.

I suppose to the extent that we're all typing out our ballots, we're all comparing each eligible player to every other eligible player, but not really, because you can vote for more than one.

As for referencing voters and predictions, it's only because this is probably one of the only years in which I think my ballot would end up matching the final results -- not because I think a ballot should reflect what the final results should be.

I'm not saying I vote for Rice and not for Raines because Bill James says Rice is more likely to make it than Raines. I really only brought that up to reflect that even Bill James acknowledges that making it into the HOF is not simply based on an objective sabremetric evaluation of who's best, and that votes may have subjective criteria.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't a moron because you put Rice and not Raines on your ballot. You're a moron because you've failed to provide any legitimate evidence to support your opinion while completely disregarding all evidence from the other side. Your thesis isn't the problem, it's the substance in the essay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've posted evidence (e.g. MVP voting results). Whether you choose to give it any probative value or credibility is your option. However, your failure to give it any consideration does not make my opinion moronic.

There is certainly evidence in support of HOF candidacies of both players. The fact that different voters place different weight on different factors does not make either voter right or wrong. A vote is an expression of one's opinion, that is all. This is not the SATs, it is a ballot.

[Jack of Arcades]

I'm still confused. Yes, historically, the best players have not always made it, and sometimes undeserving players make it. But why, then, should we adopt this pattern of voting if we can acknowledge that these were mistakes?

[MikeyPatriot]

Again, your opinion is not moronic. The way you choose to defend it is.

MVP voting results are not a good barometer of why player A is deserving and player B is not, by itself. And you continue to disregard the evidence other people have brought forward.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
Mondogarage,

Please post examples of me insulting, berating, disparaging, verbally abusing, trolling, or slinging mud people.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not you who has been slinging mud. We are simply disagreeing, rather stridently, I might add. I did consider you trolling when you first questioned my exclusion of Raines without having actually submitted your own full ballot, but once you did so, that was cleared up.

Mikey seems to be the only one calling me a moron, but that's probably only because tuq isn't posting in here right now.

[Jack of Arcades]

Then why did you say this?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, while you continue to berate others for having opinions that diverge from your own, the truth is, your disparagement of others is about as relevant as your opinion of who the better player is, when it comes to actual HOF voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acting like a victim is unbecoming.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

are you guys considering tht Jim Rice was the most FEARED hitter for a stretch in the late 70's????

hmmm???


srsly, who is more deserving: Jim Rice or Darrell Evans?

[Jack of Arcades]

Rice had a higher peak, but Evans played longer and at a more important position. I think both are on the outside.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still confused. Yes, historically, the best players have not always made it, and sometimes undeserving players make it. But why, then, should we adopt this pattern of voting if we can acknowledge that these were mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really saying "hey, it's always been broken, so let's continue to vote undeserving players in". What I am saying, though, is that if you reduce the "voting" to a purely objective mathematical equation (say, a composite of VORP+ and OPS+, for the sake of discussion), then you no longer have an election anymore. What you have is something akin to the BCS.

What I'm saying is that in an election where actual people form actual opinions, those opinions can (and are) often based on weighing different criteria differently from another voter, and that's perfectly legitimate.

I'm old enough to have watched Rice's career, and Raines' career. I'm hardly a Red Sox fan (okay, I was when they had Schiraldi, Owen, and Clemens, but only because they were all from UT). But I recall being far more in awe of Rice when watching him play than I ever was of Raines.

Obviously, that's a very subjective criteria. But is that an inappropriate criteria in determining who goes on my ballot? If so, then why is the HOF even based on the voting of a bunch of writers?

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why did you say this?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, while you continue to berate others for having opinions that diverge from your own, the truth is, your disparagement of others is about as relevant as your opinion of who the better player is, when it comes to actual HOF voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acting like a victim is unbecoming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was, inaccurately, attributing Mikey's insult to you, and I was wrong. I apologize.

FWIW, I'm nobody's victim, and my pointing out someone else's insults is not claiming victimization. I'm secure enough in my opinion that, pointing out someone's use of name calling isn't a claim of victimization -- just illustrating another's method to try to claim superiority. I am not referring to you, in this regard.