Demonic Tutor

Magic: the Gathering in the UK

Full details - http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/HallOfFame.aspx?x=mtgevent/ho...

 

We now have the ballots for what is looking like the toughest selection year to date (and just in case you didn't realise, I am on the Hall of Fame Selection Committee, and have seen since it's inception).

 

Just looking at this year's class alone it would be very easy to fill, most if not all, of the ballot with the just new candidates - Anton Johnsson, Tomoharu Saito, Gabriel Nassiff, Eugene Harvey and and Katsuhiro Mori (all statistically in the top 12 players on the ballot).

 

Similarly, it would be increadibly easy just to make a selection from the previous classes - Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz, Brian Kibler, Tsuyoshi Ikeda, Alex Shvartsman and Bram Snepvangers  (all statistically in the top 8 players on the ballot).

And then there is the statistical option - Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz, Anton Jonsson, Brian Kibler, Tsuyoshi Ikeda and Tomoharu Saito.

 

But what about the candidates that have achieved more than just being a player - Bram Snapvengers (player, active judge, active TO and a pillar of the Dutch community), Scott Johns and Ben Stark (both had to throw away their PT career when they joined WotC, the later provides some of the most relevant commentary today - see "Why Legacy players Suck"), Craig Jones (offered increadibly insightfull written coverage and is renknowned for providing one of my favorite annecdotes - it involves an ashtray, a Moscow stip club, the 2nd floor, right, meowing and vomit), to name but a few.

 

So what are your thoughts, who should be voted for, who shouldn't and more importantly why?

Views: 69

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

re: the "Legacy players suck" article - that is run by Bill Stark, WotC employee and no relation to player Ben Stark who is on this list.
I don't know enough Magic history to recognise, let alone know much about, all of the players on that list, but I do see several i've followed, read articles, and through them been influenced by since I started playing 3/4 years ago.

One opinion i'll share though, is that I feel it would be a waste to vote in players who would not use the privileges they'd receive, who won't continue to be heavily involved with Magic and be positive ambassadors for the game going forward. As such, i'd be biased towards voting for players who still regularly play at high level now - Kibler, Chapin, Parke, Nassif, Snepvangers, Saito, Wafo-Tapa, etc.

Also, while I obviously have no personal experience of this, I hear some players have allegations of cheating made against them (Saito, Long), while others have been a "force for good" against such behaviour (Pikula), which I would take into account as well.
Someone said in an article (I forget who) that there's no point just voting based on results- Wizards could do a hall of fame like that without getting people to vote.

Since it's "your vote" who are the people on the ballot that you would most like to keep playing? The pros who you most enjoy watching/ hearing about.
I think Pat chapin deserves a spot in the Hall of fame, if not in his original ballot, at least now, while his performances are not always the best his decks still do well and his contributions to magic theory mean that pretty much any player will come across him as they delve into the game.

Nassif and Saitou both deserve a place simply for their extraordinary records, I mean I think Nassif is 5th in life time pro points and Saitou not far behind. I also agree with Dan Barrett that while some of the older players do have very good records too, Steve OMS should almost certainly be in the hall of fame already, preference should definitely go towards the active faces of the game.

Bram snepvangers has both an excellent record and i've heard is an extraordinarily active member of both the Dutch and European community as a whole so he should almost certainly get in.

I think there is definitely an argument for Kibler being in the hall of fame, for his exceptional performance as of late but certainly not an automatic inclusion.
I think Nassif is obvious. Great ambassador for the game, pheonomenal record and he might well turn up to a bit more if he wasn't losing quite so much money by not playing poker.

Likewise Saito, allegations of shadyness aside, deseserves it on what he has achived.

Apart from those 2 its more of a judgement call. Plenty are in the conversation on record, but I reckon at least one of Snapvengers, Chapin and maybe Kibler should get a vote on a contibution to the game ticket.

Maybe craig Jones on pure nationalism? (though its a little bit of a waste becuase i'm pretty surehe has no chance this year)
Jason - First question is 'Cheaters (past or present) or no?' If no, that could easily take out Mori, Saito, and some of the hangovers from previous ballots.

Nassif seems like the one auto-include, I'm not sure why he's not on your statistical list? 9 Top 8s and over 400 points is kind of ridiculous, and the best on the ballot by a mile. I would say that someone like Bram with good numbers over a huge period and with all of his other achievements should be recognised.

Kibler has had a crazy comeback year or so, but his overall numbers aren't particularly special, so a vote for Kibler would be in recognition of his other 'intangibles' - the writing, the nature of being one of the big personalities on the tour. Chapin has very mediocre numbers, so that again would be pretty much a pure personality vote (and depends on whether you have the same opinion of convicted drug dealers as cheaters, of course.) Anton and Scott Johns both have that 5th Top 8, which puts them in a very elite class results-wise. If you're big on anti-cheating, a ballot with no Mori or Saito and with Pikula is a pretty strong 'message' ballot :)

Also, agree with Dan on biasing towards players that will actually use their permanent Level 3 to stay on / get back on the tour.
I think nassif isn't on the statistical list as at least one of the stats is median finish over peak 3 years, so someone like wafo-tapa is absurd in that regard but not very strong otherwise, whereas Nassif has a median finish of 43rd at his peak, and its pretty much the same across the ten years hes been on tour

Tom Reeve said:
Jason - First question is 'Cheaters (past or present) or no?' If no, that could easily take out Mori, Saito, and some of the hangovers from previous ballots.

Nassif seems like the one auto-include, I'm not sure why he's not on your statistical list? 9 Top 8s and over 400 points is kind of ridiculous, and the best on the ballot by a mile. I would say that someone like Bram with good numbers over a huge period and with all of his other achievements should be recognised.

Kibler has had a crazy comeback year or so, but his overall numbers aren't particularly special, so a vote for Kibler would be in recognition of his other 'intangibles' - the writing, the nature of being one of the big personalities on the tour. Chapin has very mediocre numbers, so that again would be pretty much a pure personality vote (and depends on whether you have the same opinion of convicted drug dealers as cheaters, of course.) Anton and Scott Johns both have that 5th Top 8, which puts them in a very elite class results-wise. If you're big on anti-cheating, a ballot with no Mori or Saito and with Pikula is a pretty strong 'message' ballot :)

Also, agree with Dan on biasing towards players that will actually use their permanent Level 3 to stay on / get back on the tour.
I'm unconvinced by how highly that particular statistic should be valued. To take that particular comparison, Wafo's peak median finish sounds great, but his conversion rate of Tours to Top 8s is less than half of Nassif's (2 from 23 vs 9 from 46.)

Max Botten said:
I think nassif isn't on the statistical list as at least one of the stats is median finish over peak 3 years, so someone like wafo-tapa is absurd in that regard but not very strong otherwise, whereas Nassif has a median finish of 43rd at his peak, and its pretty much the same across the ten years hes been on tour

Tom Reeve said:
Jason - First question is 'Cheaters (past or present) or no?' If no, that could easily take out Mori, Saito, and some of the hangovers from previous ballots.

Nassif seems like the one auto-include, I'm not sure why he's not on your statistical list? 9 Top 8s and over 400 points is kind of ridiculous, and the best on the ballot by a mile. I would say that someone like Bram with good numbers over a huge period and with all of his other achievements should be recognised.

Kibler has had a crazy comeback year or so, but his overall numbers aren't particularly special, so a vote for Kibler would be in recognition of his other 'intangibles' - the writing, the nature of being one of the big personalities on the tour. Chapin has very mediocre numbers, so that again would be pretty much a pure personality vote (and depends on whether you have the same opinion of convicted drug dealers as cheaters, of course.) Anton and Scott Johns both have that 5th Top 8, which puts them in a very elite class results-wise. If you're big on anti-cheating, a ballot with no Mori or Saito and with Pikula is a pretty strong 'message' ballot :)

Also, agree with Dan on biasing towards players that will actually use their permanent Level 3 to stay on / get back on the tour.
Tom Reeve said:
Jason - First question is 'Cheaters (past or present) or no?' If no, that could easily take out Mori, Saito, and some of the hangovers from previous ballots?

I think it depends on what the suspension was for.

I didn't feel that Olivier's second suspension warranted not voting for him, and the same would be the case should Stuart Wright ever make the ballot.

However blatantly cheating (Mike Long) or being a continually disruptive influence at tournament, that argues with tournament officials, doesn't follow direct instructions (unless it suits them) and involvement in generally shadey activity (lying / cheating) probably would (hmmm?).
Olivier's second suspension maybe not, but his first was for fairly blatant bribery. Saito was suspended for 18 months for collusion in a Top 8. Did you read Ted Knutson's article from yesterday? Definitely worth a look; http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19818_Feature_Article_Hall_...

And yeah, I can understand the argument about disruptive influence etc.

Jason Howlett said:
Tom Reeve said:
Jason - First question is 'Cheaters (past or present) or no?' If no, that could easily take out Mori, Saito, and some of the hangovers from previous ballots?

I think it depends on what the suspension was for.

I didn't feel that Olivier's second suspension warranted not voting for him, and the same would be the case should Stuart Wright ever make the ballot.

However blatantly cheating (Mike Long) or being a continually disruptive influence at tournament, that argues with tournament officials, doesn't follow direct instructions (unless it suits them) and involvement in generally shadey activity (lying / cheating) probably would (hmmm?).
david williams should get in for putting a non-disgusting face on magic. seriously he's like one of the only pro players who isn't a total goon.
but what's a goon to a goblin?

Philip Dickinson said:
david williams should get in for putting a non-disgusting face on magic. seriously he's like one of the only pro players who isn't a total goon.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by Thomas David Baker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service