HoF and Awards

[BRice14]

Is there anyway to change the HoF qualifiers? I think they're a little low. Also, anyway to add awards or significant accomplishments to PSPN, such as the Triple Crown?

[Amaroq]

Not currently, no.

I think those would both be great additions for next year's edition.

[SittingDuck]

OK, I meant to create a thread on this, and I believe it is important to PSBB in the long run, so I would like this considered strongly for the next version. I and others have never been very satisfied with the awards situation in PSBB.

Awards such as Cy Young, MVP and All-Star are subjective in that they are awarded based on people's opinion. Other awards are clearly objective or concrete, such as HR King or SB Leader and so forth. These are simply based on stat totals and the issue is settled.

It is with the former awards - the subjective awards based on opinion - that argument and discussion has waged since whenever each award has been created. In fact, the origin of the MVP itself was based specifically on another award that, when first awarded, caused controversy. The MVP was derived out of that.

OK, so history lesson over, what is the argument? That we as users should and must be able to define the parameters for such relatively 'important' aspects of our own little baseball worlds. I personally take beef with much of the awards criteria in baseball these days, as do many people. The last thing I want to do is deal with it in a game I've bought. PSBB gives me great satisfaction and that can only be heightened by the ability to control the figurative 'media idiots' in our little PSBB worlds. Otherwise, it is having someone else's interpretations impressed upon us, and given how much we can affect in PSBB, that to me seems non-sequitur.

So, we need the following abilitites in 2008:

* Control over HoF criteria + ability to enshrine or remove players
* Control over major awards criteria like Cy Young and MVP
* All-Star selection criteria (a distant third, IMO, as for whatever reason it often does a good job)

Those are the two major areas - everything else is somewhat cute and dandy, but as far as seasonal and career awards go, that should ultimately get the job done.

[Edward]

I believe the CY Young award is based on the Bill James Formula.
Which is a good thing.
the MVP is way too heavily tipped towards RBI leader.
that needs to be fixed.

I also think Post Season Awards would be helpful.
Triple Crown mentions is a must.

HOF needs an overhaul for sure. What would be cool is if at the end of the year a ballot is generated for the retired players and you just vote them in yourself.

[SittingDuck]

Not sure about what the Bill James formula actually is as I haven't seen it. But I want to think that any award voter would have a problem with a #1 reliever with 6 starts (Luis Tiant for Cleveland in '66) getting the Cy Young.

*aaaaack*

[Edward]

Bill James Cy Young Formula
Wins times 6
minus Losses times 2
plus Strikeouts divided by 12
plus Saves times 2.5
plus Shutouts
plus Runs Saved ( runs not allowed by the pitcher, compared to a pitcher with a 5.00 ERA ((5*IP/9)-ER) )
plus 12 points for pitching for a first place team.

I'm pretty sure Shaun said that this was in the game.

[SittingDuck]

Thanks. Your point on MVP and RBI is 100% on. Here is the most recent example (as of 5 minutes ago):

1966 AL League MVP
Boog Powell
.246 BA, 44 HR, 108 RBI, 310 TB, .805 OPS in 630 ABs

His teammate:
Frank Robinson
.293 BA, 45 HR, 107 RBI, 343 TB, .889 OPS in 622 ABs

Change it.

[SittingDuck]

Wins have always, always, always been an overblown stat value in baseball. Just incredible. Is the value, or let me say 'effort' required to record a win as a starter the same as a reliever? No.

Ridiculous.

And to me, a loss by a reliever is a BIG black mark against the pitcher. It is quite telling. More pertinent than a 'W', IMO.

[Edward]

maybe in our lifetime wins is an overblown stat.
But back when these guys went the distance all the time. It was at the least a telling stat.

Bert Byleven is the player who suffers the most from stict validation on wins. I think (??) he is the all time hard luck loss pitcher
and also has the least amount of cheap wins.

Shaun, if i get the criteria for the hard luck loss & cheap win
would you be interested in added into the game.

But W/L is still a good barometer. I prefer Teams W/L when the starter pitches.

so many ways to examine a simple game. that's the beauty for me.

[Edward]

sitting duck, check your almanac.
I bet the rbi leader is the MVP every year.

[rowech]

w/l is the most useless stat in all of baseball.  Who was the best pitcher last year?  Clemens.  Best pitcher in 1987?  Nolan Ryan who went 8-16.  The problem with W/L is it's a team stat...not an individual one.  I can have a 0.00 ERA and still, in theory, lose every single game I pitch in if my offense doesn't score anything and makes a couple of errors every  game. 

[SittingDuck]

Well, I think Edward's point is very good.  Before the proliferation of relievers, ad nauseum, the 'W' meant a lot more.  So did the save.  I guess this is why, to me, the LOSS is a more telling value.

But you're right - so many, many ways to interpret this beautiful game.

The more I research things, the more I wish I had been able to watch what my father and stepfather could have watched when they were growing up.  My father, born in 1944, could have (and probably did) watch the post-war era.  My stepfather, born in 1942, would have witnessed the 50/60's.  Wowwwwwww...........

Not sure if anyone here gets Sports Illustrated, but there is an incredible article in there on Johnny Unitas.  I highly recommend reading it.  It will make any football player wish he could have seen that era.

[Walewander]

I think the main thing that I want to see for 2008 is control over these aspects of the game. If that isn't going to be implemented, I'd love to learn how to program a couple of Add-ons for myself - my Best Pitcher award would go to the pitcher who lowers the league ERA the most - this takes into account guys with a little higher ERAs who were absolute workhorses - and my MVP would go to the player who creates the MOST runs in the season.

[SittingDuck]

I thought about this a little further and here is what I recommend. I think it makes it easier on Shaun and gives us total control:

Keep the awards process as it generally is (maybe tweaking the MVP a bit). However, make each award edittable by the user. IOW, I can cast the true 'vote' and reinstall the pitcher for Cy Young that I feel is appropriate. The user would have to do this after each awards processing but before the end of the season processing began. This would get it into the HTML Almanac properly.

Point is, it gives proper control that every user I've ever heard talk about this subject wants - the ability to ultimately control awards and not be subject to criteria they don't even know about. So what if a major geek wants to put all his players in there? What does that matter to anyone else? It's his game, although I would find it a pitiable reflection.

So I'll cast my lot for "I as user get final say and can modify before the archiving of the Almanac".