The Pro Tour Hall of Fame is a very big deal.

I don’t like to use the word very, as it’s often superfluous. I tried several opening statements, but the simplicity of using very won out. My vote as a member of the Selection Committee for the Hall of Fame is one of the few opportunities I have to shape the future of Magic.

I don’t have exact numbers, but it’s safe to say that for almost everyone reading this, the Pro Tour Hall of Fame won’t mean anything personal. Maintaining qualification for the Pro Tour is already a tough quest—earning the right to be discussed for Hall of Fame voting is a sieve that only the best players can make it through. If playing at the Pro Tour is aspirational for the average competitive player, the Hall of Fame is the reason the best keep coming back.

The fact is that, for most players, the Hall of Fame is meaningless, but for those at the top, it matters more than almost anything else. It’s prestige. It’s money. It’s byes. It’s voting “based upon the player's performances, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, and contributions to the game in general.”

To wit, these are everyone eligible for this year’s vote:

• Nico Bohny
• Marcio Carvalho
• Andrew Cuneo
• Willy Edel
• Gerard Fabiano
• Ivan Floch
• Eric Froehlich
• Justin Gary
• Mark Herberholz
• Richard Hoaen
• Tsuyoshi Ikeda
• Michael Jacob
• Scott Johns
• Robert Jurkovic
• Martin Juza
• Tomohiro Kaji
• Tzu-Ching Kuo
• Shingou Kurihara
• Osyp Lebedowicz
• Marijn Lybaert
• Tom Martell
• Makihito Mihara
• Katsuhiro Mori
• Andre Mueller
• Kenny Oeberg
• David Ochoa
• Jamie Parke
• Brock Parker
• Paul Rietzl
• Tomoharu Saito
• Terry Soh
• Yuuta Takahashi
• Gerry Thompson
• Robert van Medevoort
• Guillaume Wafo-Tapa
• Craig Wescoe
• Shouta Yasooka
• Adam Yurchick
• Matej Zatlkaj

I won’t be discussing all of them individually since others have done so already. I take all of those requirements seriously, as I said in my Hall of Fame ballot article last year: “Many of us on the Selection Committee without Pro Tour experience take our ballots with upmost sincerity and consideration.” While how the Selection and Player voting blocks work (and what that could mean) changed, my position on casting the best ballot I can hasn’t. (Fact: The number of Hall of Fame voters was rising, but it has fallen this year with the changes as well.)

Though not everyone appreciated the changes in voters.

I’ve been pulling tweets and discussions of this year’s ballots, and the best pieces are below. Underlying my ballot and reasoning is the summary of candidates Paul Jordan prepared, which is also a great place to read a bit about every candidate. Comparing candidates’ stats against the baseline of the current members provides a litmus test with numbers: Do they look close? Who stands out from the rest? Paul’s short list of nine that met at least eight Hall of Fame minimums is a good place to start, but stats themselves aren’t everything, and the process isn’t clear. One of the biggest pieces I read about the Hall of Fame this year was Patrick Chapin’s breakdown on whether the Hall is skewed to U.S. (American) players. (Spoiler: His look said it isn’t, but it’s worth a read for the comments, too.)

There’s so much to digest that it’d be too much for one article. Instead, I’m just going to hit the highlights and assume you’ve done your homework, too, as it’s what I have to do every year.

On Players, Talent, and Why Voting Matters

There is no “perfect” Hall of Fame ballot. I used to believe there were plenty of awful ballots, but I’ve begun to accept that it’s a voting system meant to intentionally create debate. For example, take this statement:

I disagree vehemently with the idea of putting Saito on my ballot, and a quick Google search returns discussions and litanies about his numerous suspensions. While I can’t speak for the past and those previously voted into the Hall of Fame, I do consider it important to keep the “integrity, sportsmanship, and contributions to the game in general” part of the requirements in mind.

Saito may be an expected write-off, but what about a contentious one? Jon Finkel responded to my ballot last year regarding Wafo-Tapa:

While my Gchat with Blake Rasmussen—then “just” a coverage and Gathering Magic writer—used the word cheats, it was shorthand for the general dishonesty I found in Wafo-Tapa’s situation. While no amount of carefully worded compliment and respect for his skills as player I could provide here would read as anything other than a pandering bit of fluff, the facts of the situation are clear: Wafo-Tapa was not given a God Book for New Phyrexia and was asked by Lotus Noir writer and Worlds 2010 champion (and longtime friend) Guillaume Matignon to help him review the set. Matignon breached his NDA with the magazine and Wizards, but more importantly, Wafo-Tapa was given a decision to avoid compromising himself with the easiest move possible: Saying “non” to Matignon.

Instead, he joined in a literal cabal of players working with the full set known, and he colluded with others under the clear assumption that it would never be known.

How long it had been going on, what effect it had on his (or other players’) performance at events, and who else aside from the four identified were involved throughout is murky at best, but Brian Kibler, himself a Hall of Fame member among numerous other accolades and achievements, had this to say about it:

His breakdown of the 2014 Hall of Fame candidates is as awesome as Paul Jordan’s, and I suggest reading it as well even. And in the interest of transparency, it’s clear the prevailing opinion is that Wafo-Tapa should be in the Hall of Fame; from what I can tell, he’s certainly not hurting for votes.

Florian Koch inspired some great discussion with his look at “improving” the stats available for ranking and comparing candidates, and his ballot summed up what many have said about Wafo-Tapa:

Ultimately, I think both “sides” are right because that’s how values work at a fundamental level: Perspective means everything when it comes to determining right from wrong. Mine remains unchanged.

(You’ll note I cleverly included numerous ballots worth seeing in my breakdown above. There’s more than just Wafo-Tapa to be had there.)

One of the most peculiar ballots I read about was Osyp Lebedowicz’s. His thrust was from an optimization angle on “adding people back” to the Pro Tour who would provide the most benefit for Wizards. While his approach isn’t how I would handle things (or included as a valid method given the instructions provided for voting), he brings up interesting people in Tsuyoshi Ikeda, Mark Herberholz, and Justin Gary.

Ikeda in particular is compelling:

Without commenting on Chapin’s statement that winning a Pro Tour matters much more than just the same number of Top 8s, Ikeda is someone I’ve heard mentioned, pointed to, and favorably remembered. If I wanted to follow Osyp, it’d make perfect sense given Makihito Mihara’s obvious bump in performance over the past year, propelling him firmly onto ballots this year.

Mark Herberholz can be summed up with both his high regard in the Pro community as well as this video:

Perhaps Ben Stark put the argument against players like Herberholz best in his comment here:

And while I voted to Justin Gary last year, each class must be measured individually within its own context: Stats and eligible players mean every year requires review. Also, there was this discussion that you can take for what it’s worth:

That’s all just around three players I found interesting to consider, let along potentially vote for. All of this information I shared so far isn’t mean to create a narrative or set up my moves, but to illustrate how divisive, broad, and nuanced the discussions can be.

This would be hard to follow and digest even if I didn’t have a vote.

My Official Ballot

Where did all my reading eventually lead to? Unlike some other topics—the San Diego Comic-Con Magic promos, for example—I’ve stayed almost silent on the Hall of Fame discussions. I don’t have a decade or more of experience watching, reading, interviewing, and writing from competitive events. I don’t have the skill—demonstrated or built—to play at the level of Hall of Fame candidates. The time leading up to the ballot deadline is one of increasing anxiety for me. How do I meld my limited, human experience with the collective knowledge and perspectives of the community?

The answer is always challenging, but this is where I landed for 2014:

1. Makihito Mihara

A former World Champion with arguable the “best” finishes record among this year’s candidates, he narrowly missed my vote last year and did exactly what I would have hoped he did to earn it this year. There’s little truly interesting to discuss when it’s a player of this caliber, and I haven’t seen any debate about whether he’s deserving.

And as a reminder, longevity (or lack thereof) is not something to punish or reward:

2. Paul Rietzl

Paul’s stats are solid, though he’s one of the many clustered at four Top 8s (with his one win giving him an edge in most comparisons). While I’ve liked Paul from my interactions with him at events, I wanted someone else to speak to the type of player he is. Level 5 judge and all-around awesome guy Jason Lemahieu did it for me in his 376 Words on Paul Rietzl:

I not only think Paul is a great player who’s proven his skill, but he’s one of the players who puts integrity on display, too. That’s the type of skill and contribution to the community I want to see continue.

3. Willy Edel

A quick Google search turns up plenty of wild stories about Edel and his playing history. From early in his career to even much more recently, statements and claims about his sportsmanship have come up. It’s a cloudiness that hard to clear up and won’t ever improve with time—memories grow worse, and Google never forgets.

I can’t reconcile it all in a way that doesn’t involve some act of faith, but I’m willing to show I can believe in the best absent strict evidence of the worst.

While Brian Kibler, via Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa, vouches for his integrity and Rich Hagon trumpets his support, it was the quiet coverage writer Mike Rosenberg’s look back over Edel’s history without even a mention of the flares that convinced me. (Research also led me to this interesting article by Rich Hagon, worth a read just for the section on Edel and former Pro standout Gadiel Szleifer.)

Are Edel’s stats “better” than others? No, and I won’t argue that in the least. But everything I can find from some of the people I respect the most tells me Edel is making a big difference in the Magic community he interacts with, and that’s something I want to see more of.

4. Justin Gary

His stats are incredibly solid, and while some (including myself) may find “campaigning” of any sort distasteful, it doesn’t change what he accomplished in his career. In looking at his stats head-to-head against others in Jordan’s top nine, his generally lead the way. Seeing that number of Top 32s and Top 64s is exactly the type of career consistency that I want to find in Hall of Fame members, though I’ll admit there are many right behind him.

That’s All

For the first time, I’m casting a ballot that isn’t full. There are so many players a hair’s breadth away that it’s absurd: Froehlich, Juza, Lebedowicz, and Yasooka were all seriously considered for the fifth slot, with Martell, Ikeda, and more right behind. It isn’t that any or all of these players don’t deserve their places on other’s ballots, but that what I want to see is a Hall of Fame filled with those carrying aspirational qualities, both in the game (stats) and from the sidelines (contributions and integrity).

With the deadline looming, I’m still open to being convinced otherwise. Show me where I’m wrong, what I may have missed, and why I should alter my ballot before sending it in.

As you’ve seen: I’ll listen and weight everything I can get my hands on, and I look forward to wringing them hard again next year.