It's been eight months since we last looked at the Half-Baked Hall, which I believe is the appropriate amount of half-bakedness. There seemed to be general agreement that it had become kind of a slog for some people, yours truly included, and after giving some significant thought to the matter (at least more than Murray Chass), some changes will be implemented in order to speed things up and hopefully keep things interesting.
My Stuff
- The real Hall of Fame ballot always includes guys everyone knows have zero chance of ever making it, like Matt Stairs. While it can be fun to talk about those guys on occasion, the Half-Baked Hall has had many a player that I am confident 100% of you would have been fine never mentioning. For example, Mike Smith. He received zero votes. Anybody remember Mike Smith? Ergo, I will be a little more critical of who I place on the ballot. Thus far, my general criteria has been 30 WAR or a player who otherwise significantly contributed to the game or was notable in some way. I plan on upping the threshold to around 40 WAR. With the exception of 1800s players and modern day relievers, it is doubtful that any nameless hitter from the 1930s with 30.8 WAR is going to receive election, or get anywhere close. Of course, this is a benign dictatorship, and I will gladly place players on the ballot that I miss if someone makes a mildly convincing case.
- Right now, each player stays on the ballot for six cycles. I remain comfortable with this amount. So far, several players have been elected on the 5th or 6th ballots after discussion and lobbying, and I like giving players that opportunity. However, according to the spreadsheet, no player has been elected by us ever having received lower than 48% on any ballot (and they were 1800s players). I think it is clear that it is unlikely that if a player starts out with 26% of the vote that they are going to be elected within six cycles, so I will be raising the threshold to stay on the ballot. Now a player that drops below 40% on any ballot will be dropped.
- These changes will surely help us get through the years faster, hopefully soon to players that some of us saw play. Of course, it is possible a deserving player will be unfairly dropped due to these rule changes. It is for certain that periodically we will hold reconsideration ballots, much like the veterans committees. However, this will not be a selected group of voters; everyone will participate. It is just another periodic look at some guys perhaps with new perspective (or new WGOM voters).
Your Stuff
Of course, all of this is possible because of you guys. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Some questions:
--Should we keep "Maybe" as a voting option?
--How quickly should we hold each vote?
--Do people still want to do player write-ups?
Any thoughts are welcome as I want this to be enjoyable for everyone and not feel like a chore.
Right now, the following roles are still assigned for help:
Nibbish: Stats spreadsheet
DaneekasGhost: Results spreadsheet
hungry joe: Plaques
Expect a new ballot sometime in the next couple weeks. For now, enjoy the new plaques below of previously enshrined Half-Baked Hallers.
I like the new rules.
I never used Maybe and don't intend too. But given that others do, I don't care if you keep it or not.
I like assigning write ups to interested citizens and would continue to participate.
Like free, I don't use Maybe. I'm fine with changing my mind on a player a vote or two in, but with reconsideration ballots I think the utility of a Maybe hedge is far lower.
True. I think the point of the maybe vote is for voters to gauge other people's opinions before they've formulated their own, lest someone fall of while they're making up their mind. It makes sense given we're sometimes evaluating players we've never heard of before.
I do wonder, though, if it's necessary to have the "maybe" option for more than one ballot.
Never used Maybe.
I used it a lot when I was voting because I could "pass" on evaluating a player and still get my ballot in.
I'm no baseball writer or historian, and I felt I couldn't always take the time to evaluate borderline cases or those I'd never heard of.
Since you were one of the most frequent users of the "pass," how many passes do you feel are necessary? Three as we have had?
Whatever you were using was good for me.
Don't put too much weight in my opinion, as I haven't been voting for some time and don't promise to get back to it.
Another question
We've typically done 30 players per ballot. I wouldn't go higher, but I am wondering if people feel like 30 is too many.
To illustrate what I was hoping for above, if we eliminate those who no longer qualify under the new rules (and have 30 per ballot), the next ballot could cover 1946-1950. Five years a pop will definitely help speed things up.
I think a ballot covering more years is desirable, both because it seems likely support engagement and because it creates a bit more of a cohort feel, where players are considered against a broader group of their contemporaries.
This first one has the nice bonus of finally getting us firmly into the Integration era.
Technically, it gets us into the era. But it will be a few years before a black player will have retired and be on the ballot. Not long, though!
You're right; I don't know why I was thinking the HBH was tied to debut year instead of retirement year.
I do not find 30 to be too many.
I vote to keep the maybe option and will try to stay up to date with the voting sheets.
I agree with the maybe option and will happily continue to update the stats spreadsheet.
30 seems like a good number.
I didn't mind the format we had, but I can understand the complaints so I don't have any issue with the proposed changes. Now that I can access there wgom at work it'll be easier for me to participate.
I'm happy to continue with write-ups, and I've used maybe on occasion.
When does the Half-Baked Veterans Committee get formed?
You are the committee. You have no power, though.
there's a Simpsons meme there, I'm sure
No opinion on "maybe". Still willing to do write-ups. I think getting into a new era is going to help, but I wouldn't mind smaller ballots. 30 sometimes seems like too much when I want to do my own tire-kicking on a guy. Otherwise it seems like I'm just deferring to the randomly assigned write-up person.
yeah, I found myself researching independently less often as of late, but I also think part of that is the era instead of the amount of people. But I do hope for more tire-kicking.
This is certainly more work, but... I wouldn't mind two reviewers of close cases? And maybe less review of the locks?
Hmmm. Good idea. We certainly don't need somebody to stump for Mel Ott. On the other hand, without reviews of new players, I may not have any quotes for plaques 🙂
There's nothing stopping someone from doing an additional review if they didn't think the first one made the case strong enough for a "borderline" player. Besides who gets to pick who the close calls are? Also I like the fact that we do reviews of slam dunk players. Maybe if someone gets assigned a Mel Ott, he or she can pick up another review.
There's nothing stopping someone from doing an additional review
I think you overestimate human nature.