WON HOF 2013 discussion

[Childs]

What happened with Belemay wasn't that people thought he was great when he played (they didn't), or instantly after he retired (they really didn't). It's that over time, being 20-14 PPG-RPB and 7th on the RPG list made him look better than he was. It was Stats, not how people thought of him in the era, or how he reflected it.

 

So in turn, people coming around after that enshrinement (and frankly even before it) to point out that his stats are wildly inflated and he wasn't really that great isn't revisionism. It's dealing with what got him in (Stats) with deeper analysis (Contextualizing those Stats), along with pointing out how he was thought of in the era. It's actually trying to correct what was revisionism.

Okay, but if saying that Bellamy was underrated and suffered from playing on bad teams and being traded a lot instead of putting up his early numbers for the Knicks, who he probably would've been drafted by in an ordinary year, is revisionism then is Dave's point correct or are you advocating deeper analysis and contextualization?

 

Reassessing careers is easier in baseball and basketball, because we have detailed statistics and fairly refined notions of which numbers are important. Bellamy's record isn't all that hard to read. He had one of the best rookie years in NBA history, even if the raw numbers look inflated because of pace and because he played on a bad team. The next few years, he was still an All-Star but on the decline. And then he hung around for 10 years as a good/decent player who had peaked when he was 22. If you know how to read the stats at all (which OJ and jdw do), that's exactly what they show. It's exactly what the awards voting from his era shows. I feel like he's generally been rated properly.

 

If someone says, "Hey, what about Walt Bellamy," we have pretty good tools to address the question. With wrestling, we often don't. Or the tools require a lot of work on the voter's part.

[mookeighana]

I find it really strange that Sting is on the ballot, but Lex Luger is not.

Luger fell off the ballot in 1998. He never really had another big run in a major company after WCW so I don't believe Dave saw a big reason to put him back on the ballot unless a bunch of voters said they wanted to vote for him. Sting fell off that year too but he later joined TNA and was treated as a big star there, so at least the argument was made that added something substantial to his career after the first time he fell off.

[Grimmas]

I find it really strange that Sting is on the ballot, but Lex Luger is not.

Luger fell off the ballot in 1998. He never really had another big run in a major company after WCW so I don't believe Dave saw a big reason to put him back on the ballot unless a bunch of voters said they wanted to vote for him. Sting fell off that year too but he later joined TNA and was treated as a big star there, so at least the argument was made that added something substantial to his career after the first time he fell off.

 

That at least makes sense.

 

However, I feel like the guys who fell off the ballot the first few years got a raw deal.

[Dylan Waco]

Taue just now got back on this year too which is really shocking if you think about it.

 

I wouldn't vote for Luger, but I honestly think he's a better candidate than Sting.

[Bix]

http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-sto...iscussion-point

 

Hall of Fame discussion point

 

This is from Houston Mitchell, who is my leading adviser on the Hall of Fame, and just wondering what people think of this suggestion:

 

Was thinking about your Hall of Fame last night and looking at the tremendous number of names on the ballot.

 

The Baseball Hall of Fame, which I consider the finest and most well thought-out sports Hall of Fame in the world, has the following rule: IF you are on the ballot for 15 years and don’t get elected, you drop off the ballot. One of the things this does is open up the ballot, clearing it of deadwood, guys like Dick Murdoch, who is probably never going to get elected and who isn’t going to add anything to his Hall of Fame credentials, since he has passed away.

 

Since most people don’t like to turn in blank ballots, or, if they voted for five people last year, they will want to vote for five the next, if Murdoch isn’t on, then that person is going to give more consideration to CM Punk next year, because suddenly, in the voter’s mind, he has an open spot on his ballot since he can’t vote for Murdoch. (I use those two names just as an example). The 15 years and out rule also helps the older candidates, because the other thing this rule does is force people who would never really think hard about Murdoch to give him more serious consideration if he knows this is the last year he will be on the ballot. Sort of a “What, this is his last year of eligibility? Let me go over his credentials again.” That is basically put Jim Rice in the baseball Hall of Fame. He was elected in his 15th and final year of eligibility in 2009, because many voters took a closer look at his candidacy, knowing it was the last time they could vote for him.

 

I would recommend you consider doing something like this, especially now that you have more than 10 years of voting. Next year, you announce that people who have been on the ballot 15 years will drop off the ballot.

 

As always, just a recommendation. Any decision you make I totally support. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Don’t know why I never thought about it before now.

[Steven]

Yes if it clears up space like Owen Hart and Edge (eventually/hopefully), no if they're just going to start throwing in people like Owen Hart or Edge due to a lack of names.

[Grimmas]

The question is, who has been on for 15 years?

 

You would have to give everybody one last shot and let people know its their last year next year then.

 

I am for it though. If you did that, and raised the eligibility criteria then the hall of fame would be in amazing shape.

[mookeighana]

So, who would be in the most jeopardy?

 

I'm not sure all of these guys have been listed since the first voting ballot, but they were all on 2008 and 2013 ballots...

 

Blue Panther

Carlos Colon

Curt Hennig

Dick Murdoch

Enrique Torres

Fabulous Moolah

Gene & Ole Anderson

George Gordienko

Gran Hamada

Ivan Koloff

Jimmy Snuka

John Tolos

Karloff Lagarde

Kiyoshi Tamura

Mark Lewin

Owen Hart

Red Bastien

Seiji Sakaguchi

Sgt. Slaughter

Sting

Vampiro

Villano III

Volk Han

Wilbur Snyder

The Assassins

Tim "Mr. Wrestling" Woods

Rock & Roll Express

[Steven]

If you did that, and raised the eligibility criteria then the hall of fame would be in amazing shape.

That's not going to happen. Dave was talking about possibly lowering the needed percentage from 60% to 50% and being talked out of it. I'd imagine if thoughts like that are in his head, he won't be raising anything.

 

Question: Why does Dave seem to think less names going in is bad? Does the WON get a surge of subscribers around HoF time and less people going in means that might die down? He's also mentioned wanting to get rid of some of the deadwood so I'm not sure if that's the actual reasoning.

[mookeighana]

Does the WON get a surge of subscribers around HoF time and less people going in means that might die down?

Having looked at the # of new accounts on F4W/WO website in the past, I can tell you that October/November/December were actually the period of lowest # of new accounts in previous years. It's March/April Wrestlemania months that usually bring in the biggest annual timeframe.

[Matt D]

Does the WON get a surge of subscribers around HoF time and less people going in means that might die down?

Having looked at the # of new accounts on F4W/WO website in the past, I can tell you that October/November/December were actually the period of lowest # of new accounts in previous years. It's March/April Wrestlemania months that usually bring in the biggest annual timeframe.

 

There's a stat for everything.

[KrisZ]

Here is how the NFL HOF does it and the model that I think would be the best for this one.

 

To be eligible for the nominating process, a player or coach must have been retired at least five years. Any other contributor such as a team owner or executive can be voted in at any time. Unlike the Baseball Hall of Fame, which explicitly waives its five-year waiting period for players who die during that time or while active, the Pro Football Hall of Fame has no provision to waive its waiting period.

 

Fans may nominate any player, coach or contributor by simply writing to the Pro Football Hall of Fame via letter or email. The Selection Committee is then polled three times by mail to eventually narrow the list to 25 semifinalists: once in March, once in September, and once in October. In November, the committee then selects 15 finalists by mail balloting. Nine members of the Selection Committee also serve as a subcommittee known as the Seniors Committee to screen candidates who finished their careers 25 or more years prior. The Seniors Committee then adds two finalists from that group which makes a final ballot of 17 nominees.

 

The Selection Committee then meets the day before each Super Bowl game to elect a new class. To be elected, a finalist must receive at least 80 percent support from the Board, with at least four, but no more than seven, candidates being elected annually. If less than four candidates get 80 percent of the vote, then the top four vote-getters will get in that year. If more than seven get 80 percent, then only the top seven vote-getters will be inducted.

[Al]

Baseball's model works because they've operated more or less off the same model (excepting the Veterans Committee) for 75 years. There's some older players who are always going to be up for debate, but largely anyone who played before 1980 has been definitively judged. Wrestling, due to the young age of this Hall of Fame, lack of footage from the pre-1980s era, etc., has the opposite problem. The early eligibility rules make the problem worse. If you impose a limit for years on the ballot, you'll quickly have a dearth of candidates available.

 

For any relevant Hall of Fame, you want inductees. You don't want a huge glut of inductees every year (the WWE Hall is quickly growing too big, too fast). But no inductees for say, two consecutive years will absolutely kill interest in the process. And Dave's Hall of Fame is probably his best marketing tool. People who don't usually read the Observer care about who gets in. So ideally, any workable Hall of Fame process is going to allow a small stream of inductees.

 

KrisZ's observation of the Football Hall of Fame is a good one. An open nomination process can allow even the rank and file Observer readership to have their share of the process. They can't elect someone, just nominate someone. Create a smaller election committee, say 24 or so well educated voters. Not only would you have a better final voting pool, but it's easier for that pool to select quality candidates when they can get together (assuming online) and hash out credentials.

 

Lowering the standard to 50% is a bad idea. You can maybe consider a system where you select one old-timer, one foreigner each year (the top candidates), but simply lowering the bar will get the one borderline guy you want in, and several other borderline guys you don't want.

[Matt D]

Does someone get a plaque when they get in?

[jdw]

If Sayama were on the ballot this year, I'd voter for him. Easy, and I'd have a hard time thinking of anyone on the ballot this year other than Matsunaga who I would vote ahead of him if I was limited to 1 vote.

Sayama's reputation is one of work and influence as much as drawing, at least that's my understanding of it.

Sure, for some people. But what puts him over the top as a HOF candidate?

 

* Great Worker

 

There are people who think he's a great worker. Whether he is a great worker is debatable. I'm not sure if he were a Brian Pillman level guy who didn't draw and had no influence that *anyone* thinks Sayama's "work" would be enough to get him in.

 

* Great draw

 

This is a harder one to put a finger on.

 

We hear ratings tossed out. We have nothing to truly compare them to: the full 70s of NJPW and AJPW ratings, the 80s ratings for both, and their respective time slots. We just don't have a full picture of that.

 

In turn, ratings don't always mean "drawing" because it's not like TV was NJPW's major cash cow. It was running shows. So what type of data do we have from 4/81 - 8/83 of what NJPW drew, what they drew before and what they drew after? In addition, how well do we have that data broken down to split off the 1983 stuff to comp it with 1982 to see if there's an Choshu Turn impact? In addition, how well to we have the date broken down to deal with the IWE Invasion relative to what NJPW was doing before. There are a lot of moving parts there, and we have... hardly anything of much use.

 

So I don't think "Big Draw" alone puts him over.

 

 

* Big Influence

 

Not sure is anyone is arguing that one. It is what puts him over for most. I'm not even going to go into Innovation because that's pretty open to debate, and just stick with Influence. It's pretty much what gets him in regardless of the rest.

 

 

If he were on the ballot this year, I'm sure opinion on his work wouldn't be an issue as the sphere of Dave influence regarding his work is greater than our circle, but I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be any revisionist arguments about how good a worker he was.

I'm not sure it would matter. John Cena got in, and in that sphere of influence it's not exactly like he's thought of as a "great worker". Dittos Rock. Dittos Trip.

 

 

Theoretically, that would weaken his case, at least in the eyes of this board. It wouldn't stop him going into the Hall because he's not a work only candidate, but it's the best example I could come up with for "judging work on how it was viewed at the time" vs. "judging how it's viewed now." I don't really have a problem with judging through 1982 eyes in this context. I think the problem with Dave's argument is when he dismisses things out of hand because nobody thought so at the time.

It's not really an example you've come up with out of thin air. Dave has gone to the Sayama's Work defense spot when people have been critical of him. But in the end, it really has nothing to do with whether Sayama is a HOFer or not. He'd get in easy, and he'd get in for influence.

 

 

Okay, but if saying that Bellamy was underrated and suffered from playing on bad teams and being traded a lot instead of putting up his early numbers for the Knicks, who he probably would've been drafted by in an ordinary year, is revisionism then is Dave's point correct or are you advocating deeper analysis and contextualization?

He'd be someone like Sasaki to Dave:

 

For years Dave wouldn't think he was a HOFer because he saw Sasaki's career, and he really wasn't at the level as package as the rest of the Top Guys from that era. Sasaki and Taue... those would be his left overs from what we could consider the Big 8 of that generation of heavies.

 

The someone would put together a list of all the Big Cards and Big Shows that Sasaki "headlined". Dave might not read it carefully or think about it much, and would think, "Holy shit... Sasaki was a bigger star than I thought." Then someone else would pull out a list of ****+ matches that he was in. Wouldn't have to be overkill, but a list going back to 1990 (IWGP Tag win) through some point in the 00's (at least the Kobashi match), and Dave might think, "Okay... he was in more good matches than I thought, and for a long time."

 

At which point on a superficial level of thought and analysis Dave would "see" him as a HOFer.

 

It's not really revisionism. Dave didn't think Sasaki was shitty, and then thought he was "at his best a good worker for a lot of years." Dave didn't think he was a shitty draw and then suddenly thought "he was a bigger star that he'd been given credit for." Instead, Dave always knew he was a pushed guy in NJPW, that they had plans for him, that he won honors and headlines a fair number of Dome and Budokan / Sumo Hall cards. He also knew he was a solid worker at his best, and was in a fair number of good cards. So it's not really revisionism to go from that Solid Base of a HOF candidacy to a Strong Candidacy as you have more information/thought on him... which is how Dave would see it.

 

Sasaki isn't a 180.

 

With Bellamy, it's not people thought he was shit. They thought he was a good player, and he had a long career, and he did some stuff. But they didn't really think he was GREAT~! After he retired, as the years went on, as we got futher removed from guys putting up 20-14 career numbers (or 30-20 in a season), his numbers started looking even better. So on a superficial level of thought and analysis, voters thought of his as a HOF.

 

John

[jdw]

Hall of Fame discussion point

 

This is from Houston Mitchell, who is my leading adviser on the Hall of Fame, and just wondering what people think of this suggestion:

For fuck's sake... there's advice on a HOF where nothing has changed about it for more than a decade other than Dave handing out more and more ballots? Well... and adding Europe and the gerrymandered Oceania/PR categories? Can we blame a poorly thought out "Other" category on Houston?

 

I'm also pretty stunned that it took Dave 17 years to figure out that there's a 15 year limit on being on the ballot in the Baseball HOF.

 

John, who wonders how many years it will take Houston to mention that after the 15 years the guys who don't make it in eventually become eligible for the Vet Committee to put in...

[jdw]

Yes if it clears up space like Owen Hart and Edge (eventually/hopefully), no if they're just going to start throwing in people like Owen Hart or Edge due to a lack of names.

This would clear space to let Edge in, which was very much implied in what Houston was saying.

[Dylan Waco]

I am not completely opposed to the idea of dropping guys after a certain length of time but I have real concerns with it and it presents some real problems.

 

How would it apply to guys already on the ballot? It's easy to say guys would be grandfathered in for a few years, but which guys and where is the cut off?

 

How would this effect the ability for people to come back on the ballot? For example Hans Schmidt fell off, came back on and eventually got voted in. Other guys have come off and on more than once. Will this be disallowed now? If not when is this a case where we count the cumulative total number of years on the ballot against them or the total number of years from the first appearance to the last appearance, even if they were off the ballot for several years in between?

 

There is already the "death bump" where guys croak and get in or their numbers go through the roof. The idea of a "time is up" bump could be a real problem.

 

Another thing that concerns me....

 

It should be hard to get into a Hall of Fame. A lot of the guys in danger of falling off under such a system would be guys like Murdoch who have had consistent support, just not enough to get in, whereas more recent additions would be added and have a great deal of time on the ballot. In and of itself that isn't the worst thing in the world, but I know for a fact that there are voters who will use there ten votes to the max every single year. If you start eliminating some of these guys like Murdoch, I fear that far less worthy "new" guys will get votes they never would have otherwise solely because people want to use all ten slots. I also think it's probable it would stop or discourage new research on guys who had already "failed," which would shift the focus to debates about who is more deserving Randy Orton or Shinsuke Nakamura. That is not a good thing.

[ohtani's jacket]

Reassessing careers is easier in baseball and basketball, because we have detailed statistics and fairly refined notions of which numbers are important. Bellamy's record isn't all that hard to read. He had one of the best rookie years in NBA history, even if the raw numbers look inflated because of pace and because he played on a bad team. The next few years, he was still an All-Star but on the decline. And then he hung around for 10 years as a good/decent player who had peaked when he was 22. If you know how to read the stats at all (which OJ and jdw do), that's exactly what they show. It's exactly what the awards voting from his era shows. I feel like he's generally been rated properly.

 

If someone says, "Hey, what about Walt Bellamy," we have pretty good tools to address the question. With wrestling, we often don't. Or the tools require a lot of work on the voter's part.

The numbers can be argued, what's harder to combat is the rap that he was apathetic. Here are a couple of interesting articles on Bellamy from before he died that explore his career:

 

http://prohoopshistory.com/2012/10/17/the-...-hawks-bullets/

http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=400

 

The latter has some pretty decent research; the author's taken his time at any rate. But I do wonder if there's a substitute for actually having "been there", because that rap that he didn't play hard enough, was detached and couldn't win is easy for a guy like Simmons to slip into as I think he did in his basketball book, and the numbers are there to support it if you don't buy the expansion team theory.

 

There are a lot of excuses thrown out on Bellamy's behalf, but perhaps that's because his rep was a little unfair. When I brought Bellamy up I was thinking more along the lines of the more recent trend (I think it's a recent trend) of taking a deeper look at 60s numbers (Wilt, Robertson etc.) to determine why they put up such huge numbers, which is not analysis that I think factors into Hall of Fame perception, but rather a million was Wilt overrated internet arguments.

[ohtani's jacket]

We hear ratings tossed out. We have nothing to truly compare them to: the full 70s of NJPW and AJPW ratings, the 80s ratings for both, and their respective time slots. We just don't have a full picture of that.

Some of this we can piece together.

 

The time slots were as follows:

 

NJPW

 

4/6/73 to 9/26/86, Fri 20:00-20:55 (later 20:00-20:54)

10/13/86 to 4/6/87, Mon 20:00-20:54

4/7/87 to 9/87, Tue 20:00-20:54

10/5/87 to 3/88, Mon 20:00-20:54

4/88 to 4/93, Sat 16:00-16:54

4/93 onward, Sat 0:00-00:54 (later 0:00 to 0:30)

 

AJPW

 

10/7/72 to 3/31/79, Sat 20:00-20:55 (later 20:54) or 23:45 to 0:39 (depending on baseball)

4/79 to 9/85, Sat 17:30 to 18:24

10/19/85 to 3/26/88, Sat 19:00-19:54

4/3/88 to 4/1/90, Sat 10:30-11:26

 

The ratings are probably available from Video Research at a cost.

[Cox]

I think the best way to handle candidates falling off the ballot is to follow the baseball model: drop the "Historical US and Canada" part of the ballot, form an actual Veterans Committee consisting of 10-20 historical reporters who know their shit for older wrestling, and after wrestlers fall off the mainstream ballot, they become veteran's-eligible 5 years later. That keeps the modern candidates ballot free of wrestlers who are clearly never making it in (Owen Hart, Curt Hennig, Jimmy Snuka, Seiji Sakaguchi, etc). Honestly, I think Murdoch has a better shot of making it in through a veterans committee anyway, and I think it would benefit the HOF to have a clearly defined definition of when older wrestlers move over to the "historical" ballot. I mean, I still don't know why Koloff moves over to the historical ballot in 2018, but there is no defined time for Murdoch to move over to that ballot when his time as a headliner ended at roughly the same time as Koloff's.

 

As for Edge, I don't think he's going to make it. He has gone from 18% to 46% to 37% and remained stagnant at 37% again this year. With Cena on the ballot last year, dropping from 46% to 37% made sense, and with Cena off the ballot and a lack of strong candidates on the US side, he figured to bounce back into the 46% range, and possibly pass the 50% range, setting him up for a 2014 election. Instead, he remained stagnant and his support is leveling off. He's already retired, so he's not going to do anything to improve his own case. The ballot gets tougher in the next few years with modern candidates CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, and (arguably) Randy Orton being added as guys with better credentials than he has...who probably won't go in right away, either. Really, short of RNR, Koloff, and Murdoch all going in next year, removing the last of the 80's wrestlers from the ballot who really impair his chances, I can't see him ever really making it unless he really starts building some positive momentum.

[Matt D]

Can someone break down the argument that got Saito in? I'm not questioning it. I'm just curious. I've liked what I've seen but I don't know his credentials.

[Dylan Waco]

I'll be honest, no one has ever really been able to explain how or why Saito got in. I say that as a pretty huge fan of the guy and someone open to the idea that he is a good candidate. He was someone who Dave said was voted on in huge numbers by actual Japanese voters - a group that also voted in huge numbers for Sakuraba, Funaki and Steve Williams all of whom are sort of controversial inductions to one degree or another. The feeling from many is that he benefited a ton from being in the Japan category, when you could easily argue that he should have been in the U.S. category. I sort of see him as a guy who could go in either. My own thought is that the Japanese voters may have seen him as a guy who was a true international star in that he was a rare Japanese star who was someone of note in Japan and actually was also well pushed (to varying degrees to be fair) in the States. Sort of like how I think Ultimo benefited from the theoretical idea of him being a big international star, even when he wasn't all that much of a star.

[kjh]

Saito also gets credit for being an important figure in Choshu's revolutionary Ishingundan group, including his famous matches in 1987 with Antonio Inoki.

[Childs]

Would everyone here agree that Japan is the most overrepresented sector in the HOF? I realize Taue is still on the outside looking in, along with Han and Tamura. But it seems like most of the borderline Japanese candidates have gone in, where roughly equivalent U.S. stars have lingered on the ballot. I say that as an impression, without any real analysis behind it.