Tag Archives: featured

WGOM Half-Baked Hall

WGOM Half-Baked Hall: Baseball’s First Twenty Years (1871-1890)

113 Comments

1871

Welcome to the inaugural induction session for the WGOM Hall of Fame! I truly hope this experiment can be fun, educational, and most importantly, half-baked.  As I write this, we have 33 Citizens who have requested a ballot.  If your name is not on the following list, and you would like a ballot, please e-mail me at WGOMHallOfFame at the google.

AMR, Beau, Ben, BrianS, CanOfCorn, CarterHayes, ccRob, cheaptoy, Daneeka's Ghost, Davidwatts, Dread Pirate, Eric B.B., FirstTimeLongTime, Geoff, Greekhouse, hungryjoe, JeffA, kg2005, MagUidhir, New Britain Bo, nibbish, Philosofer, Punmanbowler, Rowsdower, rpz, Scot, Sean, spookymilk, strategery, UncleWalt, yickit, Zack.

Instructions And Other Miscellany

1, We are not voting in this post. When discussion is over, I will send each of you a private ballot (with further instructions). Even if you don't plan on voting, feel free to join the conversation. I don't have an end date for discussion. We'll just see how it goes. When the discussion tires, we'll have the vote.

2. Not everyone on the ballot are people I believe belong in the Hall of Fame, or sometimes, even in the Hall of Very Good. I list players that could conceivably get some type of argument or had otherwise influential careers that could be fun to discuss.

3. I will not be listing stats, real Hall of Fame status, or any other indicators on the main post, as I don't want to influence the voters in this way. All influencing (including by me) will be done in the comments section.

4. There are no rules to the discussion other than being WGOM friendly. Stats are welcome, as are passionate pleas about how the guy should belong in the Hall because he brewed beer in his basement.

5. We will be doing plaques for those elected. Feel free to offer stuff to put on the plaques. I'd like to make them fun, like the Butters plaque from last week.

6. If you would like to add someone to the ballot that I missed, please put their name in the comments section. If at least one other voter seconds the motion, I'll add them to the ballot.

7. I will be adopting the ideas of Sean and Dread Pirate regarding long-term ballot status for players. When you vote, you'll be able to vote YES, NO, or MAYBE (i.e. No, but keep them on the ballot).

8. With 33 voters, players would require 25 out of 33 votes (75.8%) for election. I'm not sure yet when we'll kick people off the ballot, as I'd like to get a good feel for the voting patterns. Right now, I'm thinking if a player gets 20% of the electorate (7 out of 33) to say YES or MAYBE, I'll keep them on. If this proves to make the ballots too big, we can raise that percentage. Feel free to discuss below.

The Ballot

Continue reading WGOM Half-Baked Hall: Baseball’s First Twenty Years (1871-1890) →

MLB

The WGOM Hall of Fame

32 Comments

Every year I want to not care about the Hall of Fame vote because of all the faults of the system everyone here knows about. But every year I still get upset when someone does something like leave Greg Maddux off the ballot. One thing I always enjoy is our yearly discussion and vote about the Hall of Fame. Some people here are small hall, and some are big hall, but everyone here seems to be reasonable with their decisions. So why not create our own Hall of Fame?

If there is enough interest, I would like to make this a year-long or so project. Every member of this site would be a potential voter. Going back to the 1800s to start, I would put out a ballot for a certain period of time (say, eligible players from 1900-1902). For a few days, we could discuss the candidacies of players. Then we'd have a private ballot. Finally, an induction post along with plaques courtesy of Hungry Joe.

Here are some ground rules I would propose, subject to change and open to suggestion.

1. I will not use the 10 years in the league criteria, as the ballots could become very large. There will also be no preliminary voting period, which would be cumbersome. Rather, for a given time period, I would list retired players (no 5 year wait needed) who achieved, say, a certain number Wins Above Replacement. That threshold is to be determined, but I was thinking somewhere around 30 WAR. That would leave off guys like Hall of Famers Lloyd Waner, Rolling Fingers, and Bruce Sutter, but would include around 800 players (500 batters, 300 pitchers), including the likes of Kent Hrbek and Rick Sutcliffe. To break it down, that could be about 32 ballots of 25 people per ballot.

2. Every player will be ONE AND DONE. No waiting on the ballot for fifteen years. We either vote the guy in when it's his turn, or we don't. One exception: for guys who receive a certain percentage of the vote (say, forty percent), they would get a second chance at some point. But that's it.

3. No minimum number of votes per ballot.

4. 75% 'yea' to get induction.

5. Ballots will become public unless you otherwise request they remain private.

6. The Hall of Fame plaques will have a touch of WGOM spirit, hopefully with humor on most of them. For example, here's an example plaque if someday we were to elect Drew Butera.

Andrew Drew Edward Butera

7. I'm ambivalent about the Negro League players, as we don't have a lot of statistics to go by. If people want a special ballot for them, great.

I would love for this to be a celebration of baseball history. I figure we'd learn more about historical players and have some fun with it, too. Perhaps we'd even get a good debate going here or there.

Please comment below on your general interest on the idea, and if you have any recommendations. For example, I would like to hear people's thoughts regarding the threshold for being on the ballot (especially for relievers) and how we'd determine what goes on the plaque. Also, I would like people's thoughts on whether or not they think they could get burned out on the whole process, and how we could best avoid that. For example, two ballots per month would make the project last about a year and a half with the above numbers.

First Monday Book Day

First Monday Book Day: Food for Thought

66 Comments

 

Late last year I admitted to myself that I was in a reading rut. I'd been reading history almost exclusively for two years as I plowed my way through coursework. I had read a ton of great books, but had ceased enjoying them. I was overdue for a change of pace before I burnt myself out. So I wrote a Book of Face post asking for suggestions of good graphic novels or comic book series, thinking those were about as far removed from academic history as possible. I hadn't picked up a work in either genre since I read Persepolis in 2007 or so, and it seemed like time was ripe. I got a ton of good suggestions, made up a list, and started reading. Not everything I've read has been great, but one book emulsified a hilarious concept and captivating execution without breaking: Chew, Vol. 1: Taster's Choice, which collects the first five issues of the comic book series of the same name.

The premise of Chew is brilliant: Tony Chu is a detective, but not just any detective. Chu has a special power: he is a cibopath, a taste psychic. Give Chu something to eat and he knows, from soup to nuts, everything about it (provided the evidence is fresh enough). As you might expect, this rapidly becomes a source of great humor and (for unseasoned readers) more than a little queasiness.

Thanks to a deadly avian flu pandemic, chicken has been outlawed in Tony Chu's America. Because nothing tastes like chicken, a healthy black market for the real thing springs up. Chu quickly rises beyond his initial assignment, finding himself drafted into the FDA's special crimes unit, an agency with (near as I can tell), the combined powers of the FBI, DEA, and Homeland Security. The mystery Chu is investigating quickly goes pear-shaped when his brother (a chef) becomes entangled.

Sometimes great concepts only enjoy half-baked execution, but the world of Chew is consistently crisp. The artwork is effervescent, but smoothly shifts to a darker register when things get unsavory. Chu's partner is described as "the love child of Orson Welles and a grizzly bear," and displays infectious zest for his work.

I've read several other reviews of this book, and not one has mentioned the character names. A small thing, perhaps, but they amuse.

Like Malört, Chew might not be to every reader's taste. Some might find the humor cloying, or might find the premise too gut-churning to continue. To me, however, Chew is positively rib-tickling.

What books have you been devouring?