Circle of Greats Future Voting Rounds

As the Circle of Greats project approaches the final weekly voting rounds, I invite your feedback on:

(a) how those final rounds should be handled; and
(b) what our next HHS “project” might be

More after the jump.

Here’s my plan for the remaining weekly voting rounds.

COG Wrap-Up

The columns at the right showing counts by WAR range are the number of players with the indicated career WAR who will become eligible in that birth year. Those player counts are based on the proposed criteria below for COG eligibility for the group whose careers straddled the 19th and 20th centuries.

(a) played majority of career games since 1901; or
(b) played majority of seasons and 40% of career games since 1901

Based on the above and assuming that players above 80 WAR are likely COGers, any holdovers will probably need to be elected by round 113 or in any open rounds following round 120 (eligibility for open rounds will be remaining holdovers ONLY).

I do invite your feedback on the proposed schedule of future voting rounds, and on the eligibility criteria for players to be included on ballots for these rounds. And, if you have some ideas on future “group projects” that we might pursue, please suggest these as well.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike L
Mike L
9 years ago

Thanks for the future breakdown. I’d like to see a fresh spreadsheet showing the WAR, of all current inductees, grouped by their dominant position. We already have a few controversial choices, so, as not to do an injustice to high quality players who could be left out who were better than some of our iffier picks, it would be nice to define our floors on selections. Then we might get a better idea of whether we really need extra rounds, and if so, how many.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
9 years ago

I would like to have 3-5 extra voting rounds…
… and then 3-5 voting rounds in which we vote players OUT.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

I think most of us have agreed that such a process would be unfair. If we’d retained the same electorate for 120 rounds, sure – then it would just be rectifying our own mistakes. But seeing as we have less than a half-dozen voters who have participated the whole time, one electorate nullifying the selections of another seems disingenuous. I really wouldn’t mind doing some sort of project by which we rank the members of the COG from 1-121 (or more, depending on what happens with the election this year!), just to see what it looks like. But, personally speaking,… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Oh, Doctor! Imagine the volume of hot air we could blow as we argue over the ranking of 121 players. But I like the idea of doing some extra exercises with the CoG, given all the effort that’s been put into constructing it by so many.

Perhaps we could use the CoG as a candidate pool for carving Mt. Rushmores for each position. (Maybe a couple of Mt. Rushlesses for RP and DH.)

(Speaking of doctors, Doc, I’ve been wondering whether that’s your real title now.)

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago

Yeah, I get why that wouldn’t be as fun. I actually thought it would be pretty easy, though. Just have everyone rank players 1-121, average the placement, and you’d see something. It wouldn’t be THAT hard or time-consuming… but mostly because I’m fascinated by the idea of the result.

As for my title, no, I’m not a Dr. That may come sometime down the road, if I feel so inclined. For now, my title is technically “Rev.,” but while I think the idea of “Rev. Doom” is hilarious, I think I’ll just stick with the moniker I already use!

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Well, maybe Rev. Doom is best saved for a political blog. In any case, I’ve always thought the Dr. thing is much overrated anyway, unless you’re actually curing the masses (and maybe Rev. is just as good for that.)

You’re right: crunching several dozen lists of 1-121 would be interesting. It’s the follow-up posts that might get a little longwinded.

oneblankspace
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

doctor is Latin for teacher. Some say that academics should not have let the physicians take over the title.

And then there’s Dwight Gooden.

no statistician but
no statistician but
9 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

I’ve only been an observer and commentator, not a participant, in this exercise, but the idea of voting players out once they’ve been enshrined is a singularly unpleasant approach to what is, after all, just an imaginary proceeding. 1) It implies that the whole affair is so flawed that it requires an unprecedented massive corrective. 2) It invites a spirit of malice and sour grapes. 3) It will inevitably be led by those who wish to replace supposed “marginal” candidates whom a majority of voters have approved with other “marginal” players who haven’t made the cut , and it will… Read more »

Mike L
Mike L
9 years ago

i agree with NSB @5. My point in asking for a spreadsheet on WAR of inductees sorted by position was to better identify relative injustices on omission, not admission. I am not for evicting people, and to expand on Dr. Doom’s point about the electorate, we have both different and fewer voters than we did when we started. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to finish what Birtelcom designed, and add perhaps three additional rounds, one for players born after 1920, the second, for player born before, and the third just out of the remainder. Or, three… Read more »

brp
brp
9 years ago

For a future project – it might be fun to pick a year for each franchise as the “best” or some other criteria (most interesting? worst?) and then do a feature about that squad.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
9 years ago
Reply to  brp

Or how about selecting what were the most interesting ML seasons or most interesting pennant races.

David P
David P
9 years ago

Next project? I’d love it if we re-voted the MVP and Cy Young awards. Not necessarily all of them, but perhaps the close and controversial ones. And add in the years when these awards didn’t exist. A big project for sure for one that I think would be quite enjoyable!

oneblankspace
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

…or those years when previous MVP winners were not eligible.

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

Yes, that too OBS!

Paul E
Paul E
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

David P.
Agreed….as long as it doesn’t turn into an absolute WAR-value-be-all-end-all-one-stat rationalization. How’s that for hyphen-propensity!?

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Paul E: Given what we’ve seen with COG voting, I doubt that would happen. Yes, WAR is valued in these parts but voters value lots of other things as well.

Mo
Mo
9 years ago

I second david p. Revote the awards.

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Mo

Wow, cool….someone seconded my idea!!! 🙂

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

Make it a third! I’d especially love to do some of the years when people actually REMEMBER the races. I think one thing (admittedly among many) that cost the COG a lot of its steam was the fact that, as it went backwards, people had less and less expertise. I think that, eventually, revoting MVPs would just be looking at WAR and all of us agreeing. Doing seasons that many (most – heck even ALL) of us remember would be much more interesting, to me at least.

Luis Gomez
Luis Gomez
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Did you hear that, George Bell? Bring back that MVP award!

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Willie Stargell acknowledges the unwisdom of his 1979 co-NL MVP award, but submits his 1971 season for your MVP re-consideration.

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Ah cool, my idea has traction! BTW, the 1979 NL MVP award that Kahuna Tuna mentions would be fascinating. The top two in WAR that year were Winfield and Niekro. But they were both on teams that lost 90+ games. Third and fourth in WAR were Schmidt and Hernandez. They were both on teams with winning records but on teams that finished 3rd and 4th in the standings. Dave Parker was the best player on the best team but he was a distant 5th in WAR. The Reds won the NL West that year but their best player was Bench… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

I think it would be cool to start off with some ideas, then take nominations for more. Here are some races I think would be worth considering (MVP only, although Cy Young would be an option, too):

1979 NL
1979 AL
1981 AL
1984 AL
1987 NL
1987 AL
1995 AL
1996 NL
1996 AL
1998 AL
2006 AL

That’s just a start (I tried to stay relatively recent, and with years where the person who “should have” won wasn’t obvious). There are, of course, others, but these are the ones that most interest me.

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

What??? No Trout-Cabrera fight???

Brent
Brent
9 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

1985 AL, as a Royals fan, I would say Brett, but if the Right Yankee had won it, I wouldn’t mind

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
9 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

1999 AL is also a very interesting year to debate, IMHO. You have a ludicrous offensive season from Manny Ramirez, a great all-around year from Roberto Alomar, one of the greatest pitching seasons ever from Pedro Martinez, and Derek Jeter’s best season according to bWAR.

Brendan Bingham
Brendan Bingham
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

I also like the idea of reconsidering MVP and Cy Young awards (thanks for suggesting it, David!). The 1970 AL MVP award (Boog Powell beating out Tony Oliva, Harmon Killebrew and Carl Yastrzemski) should be especially fun to debate.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago

I actually thought of that one, but decided it was a little too long ago for many of us as commenters. It is certainly an interesting one, though, as are 1985 AL and 1999 AL, as mentioned above. Any/all of those would be great!

Brendan Bingham
Brendan Bingham
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Sadly, Dr., I’m old enough to remember the 1970 season. Also interesting, although a bit before my time, is the 1962 NL MVP race.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I would like to see the 1951 AL, it was not too long ago for me. There was a controversy over whether it should have been Berra or P Ned Garver.

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Doug: Two questions that would need to be answered (in addition to what years to include): 1) How many people would we vote for? Would we do it like the current voting, listing candidates from 1-10? That would lead to more accurate results but also lead to more work for you and the voters. Or do we just vote for who we think should have won the award? That leads to less accuracy but less work. Or perhaps something in between? 2) Would open ballots work on a project like this or do we need a closed balloting process? Have… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

Obviously, you were asking Doug, but I’ll throw in my $0.02. I would like to see “ranked” lists, so long as we outlaw strategic voting. Obviously, that would have to be on the honor system, but I think people here tend to behave morally when asked to do so. The issue with ranked lists is that ten players is WAY too many. I think five would do. Especially the longer ago a season was (and the fewer of us remember it), it gets to be difficult to do the voting by anything other than just looking up numbers. But I… Read more »

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doom: I tend to agree that 5 would be a good compromise. And we could probably eliminate most strategic voting by not having a running tally of votes and just post the total at the very end. A few people may tally on their own but I doubt many people would be motivated to do so.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

I think there could be one use of a running vote tally. I was thinking that we could take nominations as to what the next “round” would be along with each vote. You could vote for your five candidates, and (at the end) post what you’d like to see next. Like, if we were voting for the 1987 AL MVP, I might have a ballot that looked like this: “1. Wade Boggs 2. Alan Trammell 3. Roger Clemens 4. Frank Viola 5. Teddy Higuera Next Round: 1979 NL MVP” We COULD keep a running tally on just the next rounds.… Read more »

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

Interesting idea Doom though I’m not sure there’s be much consensus around what year to do next.

I guess the other issues are:

1) Is vote switching allowed (assuming it was based on the discussion that took place)?

2) How long should voting be kept open? I would personally advocate for something less than the 9 or so days given to the COG rounds.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

If it were up to me, this is what I would do. I’d have a round open for 7 days total (and the next round can start immediately, unlike the COG, because the next round is not dependent on the previous one. I would say that the first four days, no voting is allowed. The first four days are exclusively for discussion. Discussion may continue thereafter, but once we reach day 5, voting can begin. No vote-switching is allowed, because (hopefully) 4+ days have already been given to consideration. If someone wanted to condense that to five days (3 for… Read more »

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  David P

Doom: I agree with the idea of a discussion before voting begins. Though to make it work, I think it would be best to have two different threads. Otherwise people may be unsure when voting opens.

Paul E
Paul E
9 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Doug,
Are you suggesting we possibly rank the players by position? I am all for that – you know, at this point, is Pujols better than Foxx? Or, for that matter, where exactly are Beltre and Rolen on the 3b list? Or Chipper versus Brett and Boggs? That kind of stuff or are you suggesting a general list by position to see where we might be “short”?

David Horwich
David Horwich
9 years ago

Just a couple of thoughts –

1) I don’t think we really need another redemption round at this point; we’ve picked over the marginal candidates pretty thoroughly by now.

2) As per the comments @3 and @5, I’m not in favor of de-electing candidates; although there are a handful of players in the CoG who I wouldn’t have put there, I don’t think we’ve made any glaring mistakes.

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
9 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

Counter-thoughts: 1) One more redemption round around 1880 will re-stock for the 1878-77 and 1872/71 battles. Lyons, Faber, Coveleski, Drysdale and Wheat all fell off recently and may be joined by others these next few years. Would be a final chance – for example, it would be a shame if Dawson fell after taking so long to get on the ballot but could never return. By 1870, there won’t be slots left for marginal candidates except thru HOF additions (which new birth years will refresh the ballot for). The next redemption would be the 10th one I believe. 2) Agree… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

1) I don’t strongly object to a last redemption round – I can always choose to abstain, as I have once or twice before.

2) Conducting a poll rather than an election at the end does sound like it’d be fun – one more chance to vote!

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
9 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

I wouldn’t mind the poll at the end, either. That would be kind of a fun wrap-up. I just don’t want us to think we can officially vote people “out.” To me, that’s against the spirit of the COG.

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
9 years ago

Final rounds ideas: I think the candidates are strong enough to warrant separate 1872 and 1871 elections, because of carryover from 1876, 1874, and decent 1873 and 1872 choices. Willis and Waddell will be fun in 1876 and one or both may linger on the backlog. Wagner is an obvious win for 1874, with LaJoie carrying over to 1873. Wallace would be pushed to 1872-1 against Clarke and McGinnity, and none of those three have a chance in 1870 or pre-1870 with Davis and Young. To compensate, we could combine 1884 and 1883, two fairly weak years left (Bender/Magee/Cicotte/Quinn duking… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
9 years ago

One thing Doug’s useful chart omits is that birth year 1971 has 1 player in the 80+ WAR column (Pedro), 1 in the 60-80 WAR column (I Rodriguez), not to mention 3 in the 40-60 WAR column. Martinez I assume is a no-brainer, and Rodriguez has a strong case, so it might be better to have the 1971 election earlier than the next-to-last (certain) round of voting. Perhaps move it up to follow the 1880/redemption round week?

oneblankspace
9 years ago

Some of the remaining rounds are nine days; others are 10. I would recommend the rounds with Thursday 26th November and Friday 25th December be 10-day rounds rather than 9, since many of us will be doing things other than slaving by our web browsers on those days.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
9 years ago

If we re-vote the MVP awards, do we do it with with an open-to-interpretation as to what ‘most valuable’ means (as does the BBWAA)? Or do we set parameters? The Cyclone award is more straightforwardly ‘best pitcher’. But MVP? Is that best overall player? Is it ‘without this guy his team wouldn’t have been in the hunt for the playoffs?’ Is is ‘he got screwed over in the past so we’ll give him a lifetime achievement award’? Obviously what we do here is to argue those very points. I guess I’m suggesting we make that a central part of the… Read more »

David P
David P
9 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo: Only looking at WAR to the third decimal point??? Unless I’m allowed to look at WAR to the 4TH decimal point, I’m taking my ball and going home! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Seriously, I would assume that we would allow people to define MVP however they wanted. And that the definition would be part of the conversation.

oneblankspace
9 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

from the BBWAA website: http://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/ Dear Voter: There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier. The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: 1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners… Read more »