Dukasaur wrote:agentcom wrote:I think the original idea is a good idea--the one that said a small scoreboard. But I would say that it should be an "All-time" scoreboard, so that active players could be on it. All-time 100 top points achieved, games played, medals won, and maybe some others.
I would also exclude anyone who has been guested in one way or another.
While allowing active players in a Hall of Fame isn't common in sports (at least the American ones with which I am familiar), since players can come and go, I think it's necessary. Also, you wouldn't want to discourage someone from coming back because it will mean their name will leave the hall of fame (or incentivize a multi for the same reason). But disallowing people who broke the rules from entering a Hall of Fame is common and probably fitting here.
It may be common, but it makes a mockery of the whole thing. Fame is defined as "the state of being known by many people" in its most fundamental sense. When someone like Pete Rose, who is known to pretty much every baseball fan on the planet, is excluded from the Hall of Fame, it isn't Pete Rose who suffers. It is the Hall of Fame itself which loses relevance. Slowly but surely the Baseball Hall of Fame has changed from an "Oh my God I gotta go there!" to a "Yeah maybe we'll stop there if we have extra time on the way back."
Real fame comes just as much as from evil deeds as from good deeds. Well, perhaps more so. A scoreboard that tries to play Jiminy Cricket is not going to command any respect. Would you visit a World War II museum that tried to pretend the Nazis didn't exist?
I was afraid that my post would lead to a Pete Rose discussion, but since we're here ...
Allowing Pete Rose into the Hall would be like lifting his permaban. (I can't believe I just typed that sentence.) So we can keep going with the analogy, and I can still agree with both you and me
. I agree with you that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame and I agree with me that permabans should remain off the scoreboard. I suppose we could extend the analogy further and say that only people who achieved high rank by cheating should be taken off the HOF, but those whose indiscretions were unrelated to the game (forum bans) could be allowed on. Regardless, I think that this one issue isn't what would hold up this suggestion, and I note that you're in favor of it in some form, this point on
how it should be implemented notwithstanding.
More problematic is Mets point. However, it could still be implemented from here forward (like many sports records that are disclaimed by wording such as "since the [NFL] merger" or "in the modern era [of baseball]"). Sufficient records exist to record games played, medals won, and a host of other categories for all players. But for points, you could track them from a short time ago and forward with accuracy. You could probably reach back farther than that with some work. And you could go all the way to the beginning of CC with a little bit more work and an asterisk denoting any estimations/assumptions.