tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post6426057639034351685..comments2024-03-26T02:16:22.309-07:00Comments on parinella's blog: Hall of Fame discussionparinellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802604259779936852noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-38217419347870123752010-03-23T17:51:22.451-07:002010-03-23T17:51:22.451-07:00kenny should be in. there is no question about it...kenny should be in. there is no question about it. put an asterisk next to his name, footnote the damn allegations and be done with it. this deserves some discussion, but this thread seems a bit much for what should be a no brainer.<br /><br />perhaps worth considering: was there ever action taken against him by the league regarding his spirit (probation or reprimand)? this whole HoF stuff is new and this idea of setting a precedent, of making an example of dobbins is a bad call. let him in, and add more emphasis on spirit for potential inductees of later years when the league's formal focus (and associated impact) on "spirit points" was more well documented, known, or understood.bayson22https://www.blogger.com/profile/01313117549958579129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-67333214779937293142010-03-16T15:07:21.739-07:002010-03-16T15:07:21.739-07:00I have a personal beef with the hall of fame's...I have a personal beef with the hall of fame's of other major sports. I tend to believe that they have devolved into "halls of pretty good". For example, people are really debating whether Fred McGriff should be in the hall?<br /><br />Thus I tend to believe, probably to a fault, that HOF votes should be unanimous or you don't get in. Make it something really special. <br /><br />Using this criteria, and basing my judgment on having competed with Ken (my first flushing summer league captain) and against him and teams he coached, I cannot believe this was not a slam dunk. He was the most hyper-competitive person I have ever played with/against, and he raised the game to a level I don't believe it had seen before. I guess sometimes trailblazers are not respected for the change they brought.<br /><br />On the other hand there are plenty of people I have played with or against that have been egregious cheaters. Ken wasn't someone who would even come to mind for me if forced to compile this list. To say that he swung National Championships with cheating seems like an accusation that cannot stand without significantly more explanation. <br /><br />I truly hope this is rectified during the next vote. Let's fix it an move on to other votes that will be significantly tougher to determine, such as the one Jacob brings up previously.<br /><br />flashdavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07506342006198612030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-57577686426209288922010-03-11T12:32:48.312-08:002010-03-11T12:32:48.312-08:00I think it's ridiculous that Kenny isn't i...I think it's ridiculous that Kenny isn't in, and definitely makes it hard to take the HOF seriously.Alex Pozzynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-27508138731535608242010-03-09T11:34:06.150-08:002010-03-09T11:34:06.150-08:00Bill Simmons is an ESPN writer who has a conventio...Bill Simmons is an ESPN writer who has a convention he refers to as the VP of Common Sense. This VP is someone that reviews organizational decisions as a guard against over-analysis that leads to some obviously incorrect conclusions. If there was a VP of Common Sense at the UPA that person would undoubtedly object to any decision/system that denied KD from being a first ballot HoF’er. <br /> <br />The facts are simple and incontrovertible: NYNY was the first dynasty of our little sport; KD was the cornerstone of said dynasty. As such, KD is the definitive positive control for any scoring function or algorithm that is used to determine HoF worthiness. If KD doesn’t come up as a sure-fire first ballot HoF inductee, the system is inherently flawed. It’s just common sense.johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-73123676165782332682010-03-08T18:23:01.788-08:002010-03-08T18:23:01.788-08:00Henry, I don't know much about KD, but I think...Henry, I don't know much about KD, but I think that trying to give highly subjective numerical ratings and then add them up to figure out who the top players of all time are is a bit like trying to justify why you love your partner based on numerical ratings of their physical features, personality, finances and musical tastes, plus an extra 20% for sense of humour. It just doesn't capture what's really important.<br /><br />I think you'd get more mileage by writing out why you feel that your 1st-5th place choices deserved to have that ranking. There would still be debate, but you wouldn't have to justify a highly arbitrary(both rating and weighting) method of mathematical summary to support your decision.<br /><br />I'm not saying you'd end up with a different decision, just that you wouldn't have to worry that the method by which you made the decision had become more important to the outcome than the evidence.Yaacovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146211779150098171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-19054699604600945922010-03-02T10:55:49.437-08:002010-03-02T10:55:49.437-08:00Wow, folks are interested in this topic!
I know a ...Wow, folks are interested in this topic!<br />I know a little of Henry, enough to state the following; if KD was from pittsburgh he would be in the HOF! I hope henry works on the attitudes of some of those pitt kids and doesn't just look the other way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-32483701128685123672010-02-24T11:31:35.114-08:002010-02-24T11:31:35.114-08:00jacob,
Thanks for bringing us back to the topic. ...jacob,<br />Thanks for bringing us back to the topic. Good effort at framing the questions.<br /><br />On #1, Henry is the only one to apply a numerical scale (and he is interested in constructive feedback on the scale), but the others more subjectively used the feedback. Henry said that even with the 1/10, it was close, so maybe a 3/10 would have been enough for him to vote for Kenny, and perhaps one or two votes would have been enough to get him elected. This makes it very close to the limit of whether to even bother assigning a number and instead, as you say, just make it a threshold and be done with it. I don't think treated this lightly and said so-and-so didn't meet the "spirit threshold", but tried to weigh it.<br /><br />Or perhaps it can be used to refine the scale. Imagine a player who would be a 3/10, say he made questionable foul calls and was a bit overaggressive on the mark and fouled a lot, though you never got the impression that any particular call was an intentional violation. Should this matter at all? If so, how much better would he have to be than an 8/10 in order to be the better HoF candidate? (I'm using 3 and 8 instead of 1 and 10 because extreme cases seem to change the calculus a little, as there is something extra to being the "best ever" (or "worst ever").)parinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802604259779936852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-86539631550290133672010-02-24T10:19:30.040-08:002010-02-24T10:19:30.040-08:00OKOKUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003155252108497737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-33070001575522495642010-02-24T08:44:59.250-08:002010-02-24T08:44:59.250-08:00There _are_ guidelines, which I pointed to. Ultima...There _are_ guidelines, which I pointed to. Ultimate has already provided more official guidance than the others, a lot more in some cases.<br />My point was that no matter how much you quantify it, it is still a matter of judgment. How good was his defense? How important was it to have his defense and offensive combination compared to another? Does it matter that his defense was at that level for only a short time? Etc.parinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802604259779936852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-61104522495221479272010-02-24T08:39:11.151-08:002010-02-24T08:39:11.151-08:00hey anonymous....."purposly spinning things t...hey anonymous....."purposly spinning things to annoy other people"?????? how about henry etal purposely spinning things to annoy ken and his supporters (the NON spirit zealots)? anrent henry and his pals the ones being the techno weenies here. and if youre gonna talk that much shit about me at least own it. dont hide behind "ananomous".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-4191940015021458452010-02-24T07:37:47.452-08:002010-02-24T07:37:47.452-08:00"In no sport are there detailed rules governi..."In no sport are there detailed rules governing how people are supposed to vote."<br /><br />Mr. Parinella, surely you see the irony of using this fact as a basis for not laying out hall of fame induction guidelines for the sport of ultimate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003155252108497737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-56093305706089515692010-02-24T07:22:59.469-08:002010-02-24T07:22:59.469-08:00In no sport are there detailed rules governing how...In no sport are there detailed rules governing how people are supposed to vote. In all cases, it's basically the collective opinion of the voters on what makes a Hall of Famer. The UPA provides guidance on that question, but it's just guidance. http://upa.org/hof/what_makes This list is based on the Keltner List, an attempt by Bill James to help people be more rigorous in their analysis of baseball candidates.<br />----<br />Baseball:<br />Here is what the baseball HoF site says:<br />Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.<br />Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.<br />----<br />Football:<br />http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/SelectionProcessFAQ.aspx<br />I can't seem to find anything there that suggests what criteria they use, other than scrutiny of the playing records.<br />---parinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802604259779936852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-16031159276109802752010-02-24T06:13:34.495-08:002010-02-24T06:13:34.495-08:00It seems like people are GUESSING about whatever s...It seems like people are GUESSING about whatever system is used for the HOF voting and that seems unnecessary. <br /> It encourages cretins like Toad (use a dictionary) to purposefully spin things to annoy other people ... <br />and even when we get well intentioned analytic comments, they're based on limited and incomplete information. <br />It's not a mystery WHO the voters are (that's listed on the UPA website and they all look like major winners and pillars of the community), <br />but where can we find something on the UPA website that tells HOW the voting is done ... <br />not anything confidential like which individuals voted for who or their reasoning, but just HOW the people running this thing do what they do. <br />I can also see on the UPA website that there is some mention of spirit and leadership blah blah as part of the decision, but there's no detail. <br />C'mon, Henry, Jim (and it looks like John Conway is a voter too). <br />Don't reply because Turd is trying to goad a response (he's too almighty a blogger and it's foolish to challenge him when he's wielding his big keyboard weapon of righteousness) ... <br />but you or someone from the UPA or something could clarify a little about the bigger picture of how things work. <br />Turd seems to be proposing that the voting is based on grudges and where you played ?? Shithead.<br />But what about those women voters -- not sure how they'd have any grudges against KD ... hell, what DO they use to make their voting decisions.<br />Oh, forget it, I've changed my mind -- please don't post back. That would just be educational and nowhere near as fun as conspiracy theories and blog sport for droolers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-70575254461484079212010-02-24T04:29:22.084-08:002010-02-24T04:29:22.084-08:00i thought henry mad it crystaly clear that "t...i thought henry mad it crystaly clear that "the process" HAD TO remain secret so that people could be brutally hionest while, at the same time, not have to be fearful of losing friends. Yea, i know.....what a crock a shit, right?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-73358077371571703102010-02-23T16:59:54.962-08:002010-02-23T16:59:54.962-08:00Getting back to this whole thing being bigger than...Getting back to this whole thing being bigger than Dobyns:<br /><br />The questions we have arrived at boil down to:<br /><br />Assuming first that a player played well enough to earn induction into the hall of fame and second that their conduct makes their being inducted debatable, (1) What criteria does the committee use to resolve this dilemma?; (2) Is this criteria proper?; and (3) To what extent should the committee make public the details of its implementation of this criteria? <br /><br />As to (1); Henry seems to have laid out here what criteria the upa used in choosing not to induct Dobyns. The testimony of Dobyns' former teammates/opponents regarding his alleged cheating appears to have been the critical reason for not inducting him. It is fair to assume that no amount of high play would counter this damning evidence, so there was no real need to invent or use a "balancing test." However, the "point of no return" regarding the extent of alleged cheating which would bar induction is not clear. <br /><br />As to (2); I believe, as most ultimate players probably do, that in principal, it is proper to bar from the hall of fame great players who cheated a lot. (John Gerwertz of NYNY will likely be kept out of the hall of fame on this basis, despite playing in 10 upa open nationals finals and winning 6 ... or was it 11 and 7?) <br /><br />However, when making the decision to refuse induction to great players, the committee must rely on more than just a general guiding principal- there should be some specific guidelines involved. In this particular decision, I can't shake the feeling that cheating; really a subset of bad sotg, was simply conflated with general lack of sotg. Some of the complaints about Dobyns related to cheating, but some simply related to his not being nice. The "not being nice" complaints probably ended up counting towards whatever vague "cheating scale" the committee was using. <br /><br />As to (3); I believe that the committee should be as public as possible regarding the details of its induction decisions. The hall of fame committee is relatively new and will naturally go through some growing pains. Democratic feedback (ex: induct more than 3 or 4 players per year) may help the committee grow more effective. Good feedback will be facilitated by sharing of information.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003155252108497737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-32502426455902179652010-02-23T14:42:23.715-08:002010-02-23T14:42:23.715-08:00that whole big long post of rebutals that THIS is ...that whole big long post of rebutals that THIS is what you choose to focus on......you ARE a bore.....and kinda a wus too.<br /><br />spin it anyway you want jim, it obvious to any thinking person that the vast majority of posts here(including yours, no?) have concluded that ken should be in.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-48721210180253043562010-02-23T14:09:35.529-08:002010-02-23T14:09:35.529-08:00Several of the IN on your list said that if player...Several of the IN on your list said that if player X is a cheater, he shouldn't be in. Only some said they knew him from playing against him.<br />Boor is not bore. A boor is a person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement; a douchebag.parinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802604259779936852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-27916873883372927512010-02-23T13:17:16.343-08:002010-02-23T13:17:16.343-08:00and we can add yet another name to the SHOULD BE I...and we can add yet another name to the SHOULD BE IN list. seriously jim, varied perspectives and new points????? either ya think he should be in or ya dont......its really THAT simple. whats NOT "simple"(to understand) is how ken has such overwhelming support here yet not so much with the hof voters. Oh shit, i think i just offered a "new perspective". brownie points for me, eh?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-50099570742231947732010-02-23T13:05:35.289-08:002010-02-23T13:05:35.289-08:00Boy this thread has deteriorated somewhat. I play...Boy this thread has deteriorated somewhat. I played with him for two seasons and against him probably 6 or 7 times and I never saw him cheat. He may have pushed it pretty close at times but I literally never saw (that I recall) him intentionally violate the rules. I think he should be in.Douglas T Lilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09274114972225926352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-57209347229894894862010-02-23T11:11:12.787-08:002010-02-23T11:11:12.787-08:00c'mon jim.....dont make this out to be more in...c'mon jim.....dont make this out to be more intricate than it is. Its a basic sacred vs secular proposition, isnt it? and when you say i "drownd it all out".....you are simply giveing me too much creedance. That, or you are simply being overly exagerating for effect. I mean, its not like my posts are preventing others from chiming in......unless, of course, they simply want to avoid the brutal honest truth.....which i ALWAY bring. THEN AGAIN I'M IN THE SAME CAMP AS MOST OF EM THUS FAR, SO......As for the reaserch, THERES NOTHING TO RESEARCH.....other than who voted, which i quickly looked up after you directed me where to go. How you can say that the upa HAS NOT BEEN a consistantly spirit centric entity is beyond my comprehension though......AND i'd be willing to bet the lot of the voters were at one time upa administrators to one extent or another. And i dont think i remember charging that anyone is disgruntal because the beat them down so effotlessly (besides you anyways), i think they are just uppity pricks like henry that are using THIS opportunity to tell him(although not in words) now what they didnt have the balls to tell him back then. as for the boston contigency.....are you at all aware of how that one bostonite voted? I'M A BOOR?????? YOU are one of the stalest, most white bread mfs ive ever run accross in this sport. and, again, dont blame me for henry "takin his ball and going home". I'm sure if he had his pals backing him hed still be hanging around. Me, on the other hand, i fight my own battles and being outnumbered dosent phase me in the least. So at least i aint no puss. And from what i can remember, even the spirit zealots that chimed in (inclusing yourself) that said blatent cheaters shouldnt be in the hall DIDNT charge ken with BEING a blatent cheater......or were asking for evidence that ken WAS a blatent cheater......cause you know, WHO THE FUCK ISNT? Is steve dugan a blatent cheater???? acording to him he is. IMO, any blatent cheating that happens in this sport should fall directly on the idoot administrators that ENABLED it by producing such and idiotic arbitration system which lets people like steve dugan CHEAT THEIR WAY INTO A WORLDS FINALS. I seriously doubt ken ever pulled out anythin THAT drastic in his day......SO LOOK OUT STEVE DUGAN, and DO expect to pay for that inequity when you time comes up (IF it comes up). as for the photos btween 94 and 00 when boston took over by default, it seems youve already counted them up......so you tell me?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-62136740593022927432010-02-23T10:29:18.981-08:002010-02-23T10:29:18.981-08:00Productive: give and take, multiple voices offerin...Productive: give and take, multiple voices offering varied perspectives, bringing up new points. All drowned out by a shouter. Yes, you added life, but not after a while. You spend 20 hours complaining, and not one hour researching. Do you even know who the voters are? you have been told that "the UPA" is not a single constant entity and that the hof selection is 95% independent of the UPA, yet it never sinks in and you continue to claim that the UPA is out to get Ken because the UPA couldn't best his team 20 years ago, even though they have elected two of his teammates as Players and one as a Contributor. You claim that "Boston guys" are behind this, but only one is a voter (if by that term you mean "guys who lost to nyny while playing with Boston"; Herrick, Fields, Cohn, Lust and Dunlap also played in Boston but didn't play for Titanic). You are a boor who insults and then claims victory when your opponents no longer feel like slinging mud. Several have chimed in to say that blatant consistent cheaters should not be in the Hall, but you write them off as "spirit zealots", because who else would think that way?<br />and btw Mr. Lifetime Member, why don't you go back to the newsletter between 1994 and 2009 and see how many pictures of me there are before you make yet another baseless accusation.parinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802604259779936852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-85972801317644816062010-02-23T10:28:16.354-08:002010-02-23T10:28:16.354-08:00just to put things in perspective.....
those that...just to put things in perspective.....<br /><br />those that chimed in that believe ken SHOULD BE in the hall.....<br />phil<br />robert<br />dan<br />corey<br />dj<br />jim<br />toad <br />jacob<br />dan<br />anonymous<br />al<br />kyle<br />john<br />knappy<br />dick<br /><br />those that chimed in and felt kd SHOUD NOT be in the hall<br />henry<br />dexter<br /><br />now could/SHOULD this little samlpe group count as a staw poll......or any other kind of "poll"? when the evidence is THIS overwheling in relation to such an injustice arent "rants" and "crossing the line" appropriate?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-42704259031886209272010-02-23T08:59:03.170-08:002010-02-23T08:59:03.170-08:00jim, you say its not too late for this thread to b...jim, you say its not too late for this thread to be "productive". so what exactly were you hoping or anticipating that this discussion would actually "produce"(that it already hasent)?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-30479754513009232872010-02-23T08:08:57.838-08:002010-02-23T08:08:57.838-08:00prior to responding to jims "basless accusati...prior to responding to jims "basless accusation" i had a thought.....but didnt want it to get conflated with my reply to jim.<br /><br />that thought is.......does anyone find it piculuar that much of henrys argument was that he was representing "the sport" or "the culture of the sport" in his snubbing of ken, YET NOT ONE PERSON has chimed in here in support of henrys decision. In fact, even the spirity types (you know who you are) are chiming in IN DEFENSE OF ken. This tells me, plain and simple, that 1, we have the wrong people in charge of voting in the hofers AND/OR 2, that those people that have been granted the privilidge to represent ALL OF US are failing miserably at doing so......or its both.<br /><br />And whats really funny is that henry elluded to ken bailing on the hall due to this one thread......as opposed to his(henrys) own actions. what a laugh....and what world is that dude living in?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994039.post-40520070662696113552010-02-23T07:58:59.408-08:002010-02-23T07:58:59.408-08:00well let me say that me "going over the line&...well let me say that me "going over the line" is what brought your thread back to life......so doing such MUST have its benefits too, no? But i would like for you to explain to evereybody HOW and WHERE i "went over the line" (BE SPECIFIC NOW.....other wise YOU are the one making a baseless accusation). And what line are you talking about? surley we ALL have owr own "line", right? Obviously i crossed YOUR line(that dosent seem hard)....but did i cross jacobs line, windy cities line or ananymouses line? lets see if THEY agree with you. If they dont chime in in support of this accusation then its obvious i didnt cross THEIR lines. And please reference any AND ALL of my "baseless accusations". Since this whole thing is essentially about spirit surley my contention of an overt overemphisis on spirit isnt basless. Maybe you are refering to ken TREMENDOUS EXPOSURE in upa mags. the wierd thing to me is that there was relitively the same stuff happening "around ken" that was happening "around YOU", yet you didnt get a fraction of the publicity/FAME (photos or ink) that ken got......moons either. and both yall are probably classified as upa spirit types to most. As for my behavior, maybe i do get a little colorful in expressing myself......bfd. surley weve ALL encountered MUCH MORE enthusiasm and excitablitity and any ole average ult-debate, so whats the big gripe. also, me being insecure is a pretty baseless accusation in itself......so are you gonna repremand knappy for doing the same (while behaving pretty immaturely himself as well) ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYONE THAT HAS APPEARED ON THIS THREAD (except henry) is in aggrement with me on kens unjustified treatment. as for dick NOT being anonymous.....simply put down a last name as i dont know which "dick" it was, do you?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487308883670986008noreply@blogger.com