Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, November 27, 2006

1992 Ballot Discussion

1992 (December 26)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

547 160.2 1963 Pete Rose-LF/1B
388 147.7 1967 Tom Seaver-P
329 119.1 1970 Bobby Grich-2B
349 108.6 1965 Tony Perez-1B/3B
296 88.4 1970 Cesar Cedeno-CF
287 89.7 1971 Toby Harrah-3B/SS
269 88.0 1971 George Foster-LF
245 77.1 1971 Dusty Baker-LF
202 79.9 1970 Vida Blue-P
221 62.6 1971 Chris Chambliss-1B*
185 63.4 1969 Bill Russell-SS
194 59.9 1972 Ben Oglivie-LF
195 50.4 1971 Dave Kingman-1B/LF
165 50.1 1976 Jason Thompson-1B
159 45.4 1974 Bruce Bochte-1B
152 43.7 1973 Gorman Thomas-CF
133 51.2 1975 Dennis Leonard-P
139 44.6 1977 Steve Kemp-LF*
126 45.8 1971 Jim Slaton-P
123 48.7 1975 John Denny-P
138 36.3 1974 Al Cowens-RF (2002)
134 36.6 1974 Cliff Johnson-DH/1B
119 38.6 1976 Omar Moreno-CF
129 33.1 1974 Enos Cabell-B/1B
107 41.4 1971 Terry Forster-RP
106 38.5 1973 Steve Yeager-C

Players Passing Away in 1991
HoMers
Age Elected

87 1973 Cool Papa Bell-CF
83 1956 Luke Appling-SS

Candidates
Age Eligible

92——Happy Chandler-HOF/2nd Commissioner
89 1939 Smead Jolley-LF
86 1947 Leo Durocher-SS
83 1953 Bill Byrd-P
82 1954 Bucky Walters-P
79 1951 Bobby Estalella-CF/LF
77 1953 Roy Cullenbine-RF
76 1963 Walker Cooper-C
75 1956 Ken Keltner-3B
74 1961 Hank Majeski-3B
71 1955 Frank Gustine-2B/3B
69 1962 Hoot Evers-LF/CF
64 1973 Smoky Burgess-C/PH
63 1970 Pete Runnels-2B/1B
56 1977 George Brunet-P
53 1979 Chris Short-P
43 1982 Clay Kirby-P

Upcoming Candidate
32 1993 Alan Wiggins-2B

For the umpteenth time, thanks to Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 27, 2006 at 11:54 PM | 307 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 01:53 AM (#2259459)
I never understood the fascination with ink (who cares if aplayer leads the laegue in runs scored or RBI?), but we are currently electing the last 15-20 guys in the HOM, None fo them are going to be clear cut cases. With that in mind I will take the guy who who was truly excellent for a period of time and Wynn is one of those guys. Others of course will disagree, take the guy who was pretty good for a long time, for instance, but we are at the edges, there will be disagreement.
   202. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:15 AM (#2259566)
I take it that you'd prefer not to have one, which is OK by me.

Well, the time between Christmas and New Years is kind of a hiatus, since the election actually starts after that.

1967: 12/26/05
1968: 01/23/06 (two weeks)


We had the HOF election during that time last year.
   203. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:19 AM (#2259575)
An outfielder who really can't play centerfield

Wynn wasn't a bad center fielder. He wasn't Garry Maddux, but he was good.
   204. jimd Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:31 AM (#2259595)
We had the HOF election during that time last year.

That's the hiatus I'm referring to. A cessation of HOM activities for a week or two, with alternative discussion to give the incorrigibly addicted amongst us something to post about. ;-)
   205. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:39 AM (#2259609)
That's the hiatus I'm referring to. A cessation of HOM activities for a week or two, with alternative discussion to give the incorrigibly addicted amongst us something to post about. ;-)

:-)
   206. rawagman Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:01 AM (#2259842)
1992 prelim
A fair bit of reevaluating this year. The real ballot will go into more detail. For a tantalizing hint, spot the releiver on the prelim....

1)Tom Seaver (PHOM)
2)Pete Rose (PHOM)
3)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
4)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
5)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
6)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
7)Edd Roush (PHOM)
8)Nellie Fox (PHOM)
9)Quincy Trouppe (PHOM)
10)Bobby Grich
11)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
12)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
((12a)Bill Freehan))
((12b)Biz Mackey))

13)Bobby Veach
((13a)Willie Stargell))
14)Orlando Cepeda
((14a)Ken Boyer))
15)Al Oliver
2nd half
16)Wally Berger
17)Reggie Smith
18)Dizzy Dean
((18a)Juan Marichal))
19)Bus Clarkson
20)Ernie Lombardi
21)Roger Bresnahan
22)Al Rosen
23)Mickey Welch
((23a)Jim Bunning))
((23b)Billy Pierce))

24)Sparky Lyle
25)Dick Redding (PHOM)
26)Chuck Klein
27)Tony Oliva
28)Charley Jones
29)Jim Bottomley
((29a)Joe Gordon))
((29b)Dobie Moore))

30)Addie Joss
((30a)Cupid Childs))
   207. Juan V Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#2259913)
My look at newbies:

Seaver: #1. No questions asked.

Rose: He would be #2, but I think he´s closer to Grich than to Seaver. He gives my sistem, which depends a lot on position, a lot of grief, but I´m comfortable with where it places him. I consider him as a first baseman, but his time elsewhere puts him ahead of the likes of McCovey.

Grich: He will be #2. I believe Grich vs Carew would´ve been interesting.

Perez: He won´t be on my ballot, but he will be close. He scores similarily to Beckley, with more prime and less career (Jake´s career advantage is large enough to beat Atanasio's prime advantage).

Harrah: I´m putting him on 3B, and he´ll be in my Thirties.

Cedeño: He´ll be on that neighborhood too. I have him just a wee bit lower than GVH/Duffy. What if...

Blue: Had a couple of strong seasons, but not enough to make a solid prime. He´s hanging on the edge of my consideration set.
   208. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 13, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#2259933)
to give the incorrigibly addicted amongst us something to post about. ;-)

And the just plain incorigbile too! I'm going to home that week, on vacation, with nothing to do!!!! Ack!
   209. TomH Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#2260408)
Controversial pre-Holiday post

(I need to give Eric something to be busy and incorrigible about…)

The method commonly used of evaluating and comparing players by their best N seasons is a bunch of HOOEY.

I got to thinking about this while contemplating Wynn/Bonds/Smith, and so I will use some of those outfielders as examples in my explanations. However, let me state upfront that I am not out to bash Jimmy Wynn or his voters. Last election I was the median Wynn voter (14th on my ballot), and I’m sure I would rank him higher than 90% of all baseball fans. Also, I do not have Bonds or Smith on my ballot, so it’s not like I’m trying to push their cause either. But, without further ado….

PEAK vs PRIME vs CAREER (NOT!)

We have different views on what is most important. This discussion is not about that. Backers of Charlie Keller and Jake Beckley may never see eye-to-eye.

CONSISTENCY vs OCCASIONAL AWESOMENESS

Let’s say Charlie Keller, on a scale of 1 to 10, was consistently a quality 9 ballplayer (all numbers used are for examples only). Jake Beckley was a 7, for much longer. Voters will differ on which has more value. Joe Basic graphic depiction:

…………Keller ________
Beckley -------------------

But what about these players:
. . . . . . . _ .. _
Peaky __/ \_/ \_ ...score each year: 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 10 8 6

Steady __--------_ score each year: 6 8 8 8. 8. 8 8 ..8 8 6
.. . . . . . . . __
Prime ___// . \\_ ..score each year: 6 6 6 8 8 10 10 8 8 6

All three had avg scores of 7.6, and 8.0 in their 8-year best periods. 'Prime', because his best years were together, was for a while the consensus ‘best player’, so I can see where some voters would take him over the other two. Let’s show them using the somewhat common method of descending-order seasons:

Peaky 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6
Steady .8 .8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6
Prime 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6

Okay; now Prime and Peaky are dead ringers. Steady gets shafted (shaft, verb, to be unduly dismissed despite being deserving, my own definition) by many voters because “his best seasons weren’t as good; Peaky has him in seasons 1 and 2, and Steady only catches him in his 7th & 8th best years”.

Well, I think this method and criterion are 90% poppycock. What great benefit did Peaky’s team derive for getting an alternating great year with a so-so one, instead of two good ones? Miniscule, guys, miniscule. Bread crumbs. Rubbish, I say. It’s one thing to argue that player A established himself at a higher level than player B. It’s another thing to take player A who had some outstanding years mixed in with clunkers and somehow assign huge weight to the good years and little importance to the dross (hey, so what if his 15th best season wasn’t so hot…). Yes, Jimmy Wynn ought to get a lot of credit for hitting 33 home runs in the Astrodome in 1969 while playing CF. And he also ought to be discounted for hitting Two Oh Three with 7 HR in 1971!

Consistency is a PLUS, isn’t it? Don’t GMs and managers LIKE having players who can be counted on to perform year after year? If Wynn (and Johnny Edwards) had played well in 1971, they would have had as good a team as the division-winning Giants. Seems like the bad is just as important as the good. But by using this put-the-years-in-descending-order scheme, we are grossly over-playing the “great year” card, and severely discounting the “lousy year” one.

One more example:

PlayerA 60 46 44 42 20
PlayerB 46 44 42 40 40

Look, PlayerA wins the 4 best years! PlayerB only has the advantage in year 5! "A" must be lots better! Oh, but all I did was take B’s two seasons of “40” and turn them into one “60" and one “20”. But it bumps A’s other year’s down one order-rank each, so they are matched up against different years of B. If we looked, rather, at how the years actually occurred in time:

PlayerA 42 20 60 46 44
PlayerB 42 40 40 46 44

Whats the difference? Not much! But ooooh, PlayerA looks so much better by the first analysis. Bunk, bunk, my friends, all bunk.

I know, I know, I probably dismantled a straw man or two along the way here, and likely the number of us who put a large amount of stock in this method is not huge. But it Does come up very frequently in our posts. So I'm unloading both barrels.

Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds and Jimmy Wynn, were, for their careers, equally good players for about equally long. Smith was maybe a little less good, but for a little longer. At any given reasonable length of time, any of the three could be considered the best established player. Wynn has probably a SMALL edge in established prime/peak, and if you want to count that as a plus, sure, go ahead.

But this ‘5 best WARP’ and ‘8 best WS’ analysis? Well, after thinking about it for the last few days, I say…… <u>BALDERDASH</u>!


An early Ho Ho Ho Merry Christmas to all!
May the ghost of peak seasons past never darken my door!
   210. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#2260446)
The argument for weighting best seasons more heavily is the Pennants Added argument. The likelihood of a randomly selected team's making the playoffs/winning the pennant does not follow a linear relationship with wins above average or replacement, but rather an exponential one. In your second example, PlayerA and PlayerB contribute the same number of regular season wins, but more teams would make the playoffs over that five-year span with PlayerA than with PlayerB.
   211. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:59 PM (#2260467)
If there are three players with similar career value why wouldn't you take the guyw ith teh higher peak? What if one of the players played at a belwo average level in order to catch up? Why is that meritorious? Hell, my system even gives Wynn the bigger prime. The only reason I used 7 seasons in my Wynn/Smith post is because I didnt' want to write down every single season. And if you are someone who values peak, and you don't seem to be, then why should it matter than a certain plaeyr catches up by having many average or slightly below seasons? if Wynn has four seasons better than Smith's best (and both WS and WARP says that he does) I am not sure that similar career values are relevant.
   212. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#2260478)
I think that perhaps he's not making a pure career voter argument, but rather an argument for consecutive peak rather than simply best seasons--it doesn't sound like TomH is going to show much love for Darrell Evans. I personally don't care much whether peak seasons were consecutive or not.
   213. Michael Bass Posted: December 13, 2006 at 09:13 PM (#2260498)
My system doesn't account for it, and I don't think there's an easy way to do so, but Tom has at least a partially good point.

Player A: 2 2 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 2
Player B: 10 2 10 10 2 2 10 2 10 2

A system which takes into account career value, total value over average, and/or best "X" years (not consecutive) will like them both equally, but I have the real strong feeling that Player A is more valuable.

Like I said, my system doesn't account for this, and it's hard to see how to do so effectively, but it's something to think about.
   214. TomH Posted: December 13, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#2260508)
The Pennants Added argumenr is a valid one; but it is a SMALL factor; maybe a 10 plus a 0 = a 5 plus a 5 1/2.
   215. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#2260564)
Does anyone have Michael Wolverton's Pennants Added equations from the 2002 BP Annual?
   216. DL from MN Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2260573)
> PlayerA and PlayerB contribute the same number of regular season wins, but more teams would
> make the playoffs over that five-year span with PlayerA than with PlayerB.

Is that really true? Consistent production is valued by general managers because it makes organization planning so much easier. Most GMs would prefer to have steady above average performers at most positions because they can't predict the big year from the other guys. Getting all the big years to line up is a really big dice roll. I know upside is valued but so is consistency and I'd say they're valued at approximately the same dollar amount. Jeff Suppan is likely to make as much as Jason Schmidt this offseason.

I would guess "all other things equal" your statement would be correct but in baseball you can trade players, move people around to new positions, etc. You're not likely to make the moves you need to win if you can't count on your player to perform. If I was a GM valuing players I'll take the consecutive peak guy first followed by the consecutive very good guy and last would be the up and down player. The first guy is going to get the big 5 year deal, the 2nd guy will get two moderate 5 year deals and probably make the same money in the end. You can supplement with the 3rd type but you can't count on them in any given year. Those guys are the GM killers.
   217. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:50 PM (#2260592)
I see, you were commenting on the consecutive years argument Tom. I actually agree with you there, if two players each have 5 MVP tyep seasons I could care less if they come consecutively spread apart. I know a GM would value the former but I don't think we should act like a GM, instead looking at the value that a player produced. Here I am with you.

However, I am not really sure about this in the context of Wynn v. Smith. First, because Wynn's best years are better whether or not they came consecutively or not. And second, because any best X consecutive years, so long as the X is more than like 5 years, wouldn't be too impressive for Wynn becuse of his bad, I would say anamolous, 1971.
   218. Juan V Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#2260598)
On the other hand, we are (by definition) dealing with complete benefit of hindsight. By this, I mean that we "know" who will have the big year, and when. I don´t think comparing this to the decisions a GM makes is viable, since a GM makes calls about an uncertain future, and we are deciding based on a registered past.

Defining value as "increase on the probability of winning games/pennants/WS", I don´t think there is a difference between a scattered and a concentrated peak. There are no "externalities" between seasons, allowing past success to be carried over in an explicit way (the games won in 2006 won´t help my team win games in 2007, to state it more clearly). I guess one could say that consecutive big years make a team more likely to be a consistent contender, hence making it easier to attract more talent, but that´s a tenous connection.
   219. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#2260599)
Also, the way I measure peak is by value accumulated over a long baseline (say 25 WS or 8 WARP). This way a long, low peak (some may call this a high prime) guy like Billy Williams or Al Kaline is an easy choice for the HOM for me. I find this more sueful than best 3 years or best 5 years. Maybe this is why I am one of the top consensus guys here.

And by the way, under this system, Wynn has 39 WS over 25, Smith has just 9. Bonds has 22 (I believe) which is something close to what Cepeda and F. Howard have.
   220. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 13, 2006 at 11:21 PM (#2260631)
(I need to give Eric something to be busy and incorrigible about…)

You shouldn't have. But you did! You're my new favorite HOM elector. ; )

The argument for weighting best seasons more heavily is the Pennants Added argument. The likelihood of a randomly selected team's making the playoffs/winning the pennant does not follow a linear relationship with wins above average or replacement, but rather an exponential one. In your second example, PlayerA and PlayerB contribute the same number of regular season wins, but more teams would make the playoffs over that five-year span with PlayerA than with PlayerB.

I think this is the vital question. Nate Silver studied this and found that the sweet spot is about 92 wins (in today's game). If an otherwise average team can add ten wins to their roster in any form, the pennant-winningness and corallary revenue enhancement are tremendous. Sure for a 65-win team adding anyone helps, but when you're at 87 wins and, to use an inflamatory example, you swap in a Peak Pete Rose for Peak Jake Beckley and pick up two wins (or 20 runs or 32 vs 26 WS) you're getting close enough to that sweet spot where the extra little bit of peak makes a substantial difference as Dan points out above.
   221. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 13, 2006 at 11:49 PM (#2260663)
I think Juan's probably right that looking at a GM's-eye view might not be the best since we are, indeed, looking at actual value, not probablistic value. Although GMs should have a pretty good idea of what value ought to be (which isn't to say they do, just that they should), so there's some crossover.

Speaking retrospectively, as part of answering the question How likely would a team be to win a pennant with this guy on it?, I looked at every pennant winner since 1903 and logged the sked-adj WS total of their best position player. Then I figured the cumulative likelihood that a team with a player with a given WS total would win the pennant. Which means that for a 25 WS guy, for instance, I figured what percentage of all pennants were won by teams with best-players at 25 or fewer WS.

OK, so the results looked like this:
WS OF   # TEAMS  CUM PCT
TM LDR           PEN WNRS
--------------------------
  
58        1    100.0%
  
57        0     99.7%
  
56        1     99.7%
  
55        0     99.3%
  
54        2     99.3%
  
53        0     98.7%
  
52        0     98.7%
  
51        2     98.7%
  
50        0     98.0%
  
49        1     98.0%
  
48        1     97.7%
  
47        3     97.4%
  
46        2     96.4%
  
45        1     95.7%
  
44        4     95.4%
  
43        3     94.0%
  
42        2     93.0%
  
41        9     92.4%
  
40        5     89.4%
  
39        8     87.7%
  
38       18     85.1%
  
37       18     79.1%
  
36       22     73.2%
  
35       16     65.9%
  
34       17     60.6%
  
33       15     55.0%
  
32       25     50.0%
  
31       12     41.7%
  
30       13     37.7%
  
29       22     33.4%
  
28       16     26.2%
  
27       15     20.9%
  
26       19     15.9%
  
25       10      9.6%
  
24        7      6.3%
  
23        6      4.0%
  
22        4      2.0%
  
21        1      0.7%
  
20        1      0.3%
  
19        0      0.0


So to read this chart... Let's take Beckley's best peak year. I have it adjusted to 26. 26 WS would lead 15.9% of all pennant winning teams historically speaking. I have Rose's top season at 38, which would lead 85.1% of all pennant winners historically.

This chart does NOT tell you what percentage of all 38 or 26 WS seasons were pennant leaders, only what percentage of pennant=winning teams were led by a player with 26 or 38 WS. If you know what I mean.

Anyway it's interesting to me, I don't know about you. Each added win share to the leader's total represents about 5% more pennants historically. There's a couple particularly sweet spots:
28 to 29, increase of 7%
31 to 32, increase of 8%
35 to 36, increase of 7%

I mean it's only like 300-something pennants (I included divisions but not WCs), so maybe it's not entirely big enough of a sample, but these little sweet spots seemed worth noting.

Also after 41 WS, each addition WS represents fewer and fewer pennant-winning teams, presumably due to the relative rarity of such seasons.
   222. Paul Wendt Posted: December 14, 2006 at 12:43 AM (#2260718)
Mark S. (jsch)
you were commenting on the consecutive years argument Tom. I actually agree with you there, if two players each have 5 MVP tyep seasons I could care less if they come consecutively spread apart.

not to speak for Tom, so I urge you to reread, jsch
   223. Jim Sp Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2260767)
The argument for weighting best seasons more heavily is the Pennants Added argument.

No, the peak argument is that in a higher level league, long career/low peak players are career minor leaguers.

The "pennants added" argument only justifies career voters who want to give a little bit of credit for peak.
   224. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#2261077)
I'm not sure you're right about that, Jim Sp. If a 10-WARP season adds as many pennants as two 5-WARP seasons, then Pennants Added winds up weighting peak pretty heavily, no?

Dr. Chaleeko, I'm all too familiar with Nate's research on the playoff payoff--my NY Times piece was based on his work--but I don't think that's what Pennants Added is about (except that making the playoffs, not simply being above average, is what really matters, but "flags fly forever" held true long before free agency). Rather, if I understand the concept, it's that Pennants Added answers the question, "If this player were placed on a randomly selected team for each year of his career, how many more pennants would his teams win?"

Example: If 90 wins = the playoffs, let's say, then the guy who is 5 WARP two years in a row can take an 85-89 win team there twice, while the 10-WARP guy can take an 80-89 win team there once. What the research showed is that there are more than twice as many 80-85 win teams as 85-90 win teams. So let's say that in two years, the league (without the player in question) looks like this: 94 wins, 90, 87, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 81, 80, 79, 78, 76, 73, 69. The guy who is 5 WARP in consecutive years is worth four pennants: he takes the 87- and 85-win teams there twice each. The guy who is 10 WARP in year 1 and nothing in year 2 is worth 8 pennants: he takes the 87, 85, 84, 83, 82, both 81, and 80-win teams there once each.
   225. DL from MN Posted: December 14, 2006 at 06:46 PM (#2261382)
> Also after 41 WS, each addition WS represents fewer and fewer pennant-winning teams,
> presumably due to the relative rarity of such seasons.

Devil's Advocate: after 41 win shares you can't really help your team win MORE pennants because you have it clinched. Therefore any performance greater than 41 win shares should be lopped off. The guy with a 57 and 41 is not really better than the guy with 41 and 41.

I don't believe that but it shows these discussions can lead to silliness.

I think the problem people are having is not giving the slight extra nudge of a really good season over a mediocre one. The problem I have is with people voting Al Rosen over Jake Beckley because Rosen had a 12, 10 and 9 WARP season and Jake Beckley didn't have any. Rosen also only had 5 seasons over 5 WARP while Jake Beckley put up 14 seasons over 5. (And Bob Johnson put up 13 over 6.5). If you're significantly better than an average player for a long period of time, you're adding pennants. A system that adds up the number of seasons over 30 Win Shares really isn't valid.
   226. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 14, 2006 at 06:59 PM (#2261403)
Devil's Advocate: after 41 win shares you can't really help your team win MORE pennants because you have it clinched. Therefore any performance greater than 41 win shares should be lopped off. The guy with a 57 and 41 is not really better than the guy with 41 and 41.

Interstingly, the highest adjusted season ever, Honus's big year, like 61 or 63 adjWS, didn't win a pennant. There aren't too many seasons above 41 WS, so the sample dwindles to very small numbers and makes it difficult to draw too many conclusions. Which is what I meant to say but didn't say well enough to be clear about.
   227. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 14, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2261429)
Interstingly, the highest adjusted season ever, Honus's big year, like 61 or 63 adjWS, didn't win a pennant.

Obviously, The Flying Dutchman didn't know how to win, Eric.
   228. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#2261441)
The problem with PA is this: It allows for incremental pennants, like .1 and .2. In the real world, those round down.
   229. Chris Cobb Posted: December 14, 2006 at 07:51 PM (#2261463)
The problem with PA is this: It allows for incremental pennants, like .1 and .2. In the real world, those round down.

Not true. When a player is an average contributor to a pennant-winning team, he is himself adding maybe 1/15 of a pennant, so .1 PA added for a single season is quite an exceptional amount. We have inductd a lot of players whose career PA total is less than 1.
   230. Daryn Posted: December 14, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#2261466)
Here is a prelim ballot, with comments only for the newer candidates. I'm willing to be challenged on Perez, but I think I have him in the right spot as a career voter.

1. Pete Rose -- #1 all time in times on base, 5th in runs, 10 time top 10 MVP candidate. Inner circle.
2. Tom Seaver – Bob Gibson with longevity makes him an easy #2, but I think I leave him out of my top 10 pitchers of all time. I started watching baseball in 1977, so I only saw three of his very good seasons – I’d probably be more impressed if I had started following in 1967.
3. Lou Brock, of
4. Jake Beckley, 1b
5. Mickey Welch, p
6. Burleigh Grimes, p
7. Tony Perez – this might be a bit high, but I am comfortable with it. 34th all-time in total bases, no black ink – the weight of his career totals push him above what otherwise looks like a definitional bubble candidate’s resume.
8. Dick Redding, p
9. Nellie Fox, 2b
10. Addie Joss, p
13. Rollie Fingers – he is a real borderline closer for me. As of 1992, I think he is meritorious, so I have him here and could have him as high as 10th (though I think I have found this spot for him – I definitely like Tiant better and I am pretty sure I prefer him to the three hitters directly below him). If he is still on the ballot in 2006, he might move down.
14. Orlando Cepeda, 1b
15. George Van Haltren, of

18. Bobby Grich -- takes Boyer’s spot on my ballot. Perhaps I’m underrating middle infield defence.
   231. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#2261470)
Daryn, what position do you see Perez at? And does that affect your ranking of him?
   232. Daryn Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#2261471)
Somehow I chopped off:

11. Browning
12. Tiant
   233. Daryn Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2261479)
I consider Perez to be a firstbaseman. I haven't given him credit for playing all those games at 3b. That obviously hurts him, as I basically give him zero "points" for defence. Though perhaps the credit I allocate for defence isn't quite enough (or maybe just right) since most of my defence first or defence important candidates are in my 15 to 30 range (Grich, Traynor, Leach, Aparicio, Schang, Bresnahan, Munroe, Doyle). Fox is the exception. I simply think the replacement level for defence is very high.
   234. Chris Cobb Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#2261483)
Daryn,

Why Perez over Staub? I have trouble separating them, but you seem to view them as quite different.
   235. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#2261492)
Why Perez over Staub?

Last time I checked, WARP liked Perez quite a bit more.
   236. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:26 PM (#2261496)
Why is it that so many career guys seem to think that us peak guys only look at peak and nothing else, with no other adjustments? Do I ever make posts about career guys only looking at total WS? If I do I am sorrym but I dont' relaly think they do. It is actually a little demeaning I must admit. While I use sort of the system that DL says is invalid (seriously? invalid?), does anyone think that peak voters use only that system? Why is it that peak ovters are people who only look at one thing while career voters think they are the reasoned ones who look at everything and only disacrd peak because of their well-reasoned thought and research? The difference is a diference in opinion as to what makes a player great, what is really of value, etc. Nothing else. Let's get over ourselves. The other guys aren't any less logical and less reasoned, they just have a different opinion on a very central question.

And I am not sure that the electorate is really trending peak that badly. Yes, Dobie Moore was elected (but so was Ernie Banks and I am not sure they were that disimlar of candidates) but were Childs, Boyer, or Sewell really peak candidates? I don't think so. Kiner was. As for pitcher, we seem to have no problem electing career pithing candidates, outside of Grimes and Quinn who else is there that isn't elected? Phil Niekro will go in easily. And how many long career, low peak position player candidates are there really? Most guys with long careers get elected because they usually had a nice peak. we are talking Beckley, Rice, maybe Staub and Perez right? That isn't very many.

And in the backlog we are dealign with secnd level career #'s (Beckley's adj. 380 WS is not in Ruth, Cobb, Rose, Williams territory) and second to low first grade peaks (I have Keller's peak as similar ot a lot of top level guys). I would choose the latter, it isnt' like we are really lacking guys with eye popping career numbers. It's just that those guys usually have big peaks as well.
   237. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:35 PM (#2261512)
My query to Daryn just gave me the motivation to just get down to looking at the issue myself.

Perez played about 30% of his career (by PAs) at 3B, 65% at 1B. As a 3B, I'd see him as about even with Nettles, 18th-19th all time through 1993 (Boggs and Molitor---if he's a 3B) had essentially passed Perez by this point, I think). As a 1B, Perez would be about 19th there too. So 19th betwen the two. We're at a point where positional balance says there's about 16 guys at each position and change (by back of envelope fudge math). So 19 as of then doesn't quite make him an obvoius "in." I don't necessarily hold guys to a tight litmus test like that, particularly when they are close to the "in" bunch, and particularly as we close in on the latter stages of our project, and I begin asking whether I want more 1Bs or more SSs or what.

One thing I wanted to know about Perez is, Who are similarly positioned guys in my rankings but at other positions?

C: Tenace/Lombardi/Schalk
1B: Cepeda/Vernon (no credit)/Beckley
2B: Randolph/Evers/Gordon (no WW2 credit)
3B: Nettles/Rosen/Elliott
SS: Boudreau/Bancroft/Fregosi
RF: Keeler/Heilemann/Dawson/Cravath (no credit)
CF: Carey/H Wilson/Ashburn
LF: Kelley/Stargell/F Howard

This is a pretty mixed bag. The catchers, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS don't feature nearly as many guys getting widespread support as do the OF slots (despite two inductees). Given that these OFs nearly all seem like they are as good or better candidates as Perez, I have to think that he doesn't get much help there. In the infield, I'm not wild about any of those catchers, nor any of the 1Bs, and I didn't support Gordon among the 2Bs or Boudreau all that highly. I don't currently support Elliott nor Bancroft. MWE will be pleased to see Evers' name on there. ; )

I guess all I'm finding is just what I knew, that Perez is a borderliner's borderliner, a guy with a pretty good prime, nothing unusual peakwise, and a lengthy career with plenty of hang-on time. As someone who likes a little more juice, it's not something I find too compelling. I've already made the 1981 adjustment, so his profile doesn't have any special crediting scenarios that could change his relative position among the candidates.

So my initial assessment of Perez is that he's more likely to fall into my pHOVG than jump onto my ballot, though I am open to hearing arguments about why I shouldn't let that happen.
   238. Juan V Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#2261522)
My prelim

1: Tom Seaver
1.5: Pete Rose
2: Bobby Grich
3: Quincy Trouppe
4: Ale Oms
5: Gavvy Cravath
6: Jimmy Ryan
7: " Wynn
8: Tony Lazzeri
9: Bob Johnson
10: Charley Jones
11: Rollie Fingers
12: Luis Tiant
13: Gene Tenace
14: Jim Fregosi
15: Charlie Keller. Catch me on a different mood and I´ll say Beckley here. But I´m finding it increasingly hard to justify having him all that far from Johnson and Jones
   239. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:36 PM (#2261567)
1992 prelim

Seaver and Grich look to make my PHOM, Rose will have to wait until 1993 most likely

1. Seaver
(Rose - I haven't decided yet but I am leaning toward a boycott)
2. Keller
3. Grich
4. Duffy
5. Redding
6. Walters
7. Wynn
8. Trouppe
9. E. Howard
10. Browning
11. Cravath
12. Dean
13. Oms
14. Fingers
15. GVH or Rosen
   240. Chris Cobb Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#2261576)
It's interesting to see the size of the boycott taking shape.

I estimate that if 10-12 voters boycott Rose, Grich will win election in 1992. I don't think there's evidence yet that the boycott will be that extensive, but there isn't evidence that it won't be, either.
   241. Mike Webber Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2261580)
Mark S. (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:26 PM (#2261496)
Why is it that so many career guys seem to think that us peak guys only look at peak and nothing else, with no other adjustments? Do I ever make posts about career guys only looking at total WS? If I do I am sorrym but I dont' relaly think they do. It is actually a little demeaning I must admit.


Why is it that so many career guys seem to think that us peak guys only look at peak and nothing else?

Because sometimes guys that call themselves peak voters write things like this:

16. Mark Donelson Posted: November 20, 2006 at 12:25 PM (#2242226)
I’m an extreme peak voter; career numbers matter very little to me, except as a tiebreaker.


And,
Because every now and then we get thhings like this with some bizarre peak arguement to justify it like this:

22. Phil Hughes a Condom ('zop) Posted: July 04, 2006 at 09:24 AM (#2086906)
My ballot:
…..
Not on Ballot:
--Al Kaline: Sustained verygoodnees. I fail to see why he should be picked over centerfielders like Duffy or Wilson, or corner guys like Kiner or Keller. Heck, I don't even think he'll compare favorably to guys like Ken Singleton or Bobby Murcer when they come up. From a peak POV, he's a thoroughly mediocre candidate.


And peak voters are "stuck" supporting divisive candidates like Jennings, Moore, and Keller. The last two also have the problem of needing "projected" credit to make their case, which also makes the peak arguement more strained.

Mark, I honestly believe that is why.
   242. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:03 PM (#2261588)
Mike you hit the nail on the head for me in terms of my perception of some of the peak voters.

BTW, I will be boycotting Rose for year 1. I believe Joe Jackson is the only other player I've boycotted, and I had to look back at the 1926 ballot to confirm it, so even he was a borderline call for me (due to the questions surrounding if he actually tanked).
   243. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:08 PM (#2261594)
Does anyone have Michael Wolverton's Pennants Added equations from the 2002 BP Annual?


Dan, they are definitely somewhere here in the Hall of Merit. I would think a site search or a google on my name and Pennants Added would have to find the formulas . . . I'll try to find them for you now. I'm not sure where I've put the book.
   244. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#2261598)
I'm tempted to boycott, but I ultimately have to believe that I either never vote for him, or I vote for him. I'll have a clean conscience either way (rationalizing is a strength, as you all know), so I'll just vote for him this year.

General question: Would it be unconstituational for a voter to have him on the ballot but not at the actual placement they'd have him at? Like let's say instead of boycotting I put him at 15, say, even though I have him at 1 or 2 or 3? A kosher quasi-boycott? Or is that right out?
   245. Chris Fluit Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:24 PM (#2261614)
My preliminary ballot. PHoM for 1992: Tom Seaver and Dobie Moore. Almost got around to finally inducting Don Drysdale into my PHoM but decided that I'd rather not take two pitchers in one year. Plus, Moore had been the highest player on my ballot who wasn't already in my PHoM.

1. Tom Seaver, P (n/e): scattered black ink from 1969 to 1981, including a couple of dominant years in 1971 and 1973. 300+ career wins with a career winning percentage over .600 and a sub 3.00 career ERA that was .78 better than the league. Peak, prime, career, rate stats, cumulative stats: Seaver's got it all.
2. Dick Redding, P (2). PHoM- 1975. A big peak in the late '10s with a long enough tail in the '20s to give him decent if not earth-shattering career numbers. I'm still holding out hope that Redding can make his way back to the top.
3. Nellie Fox, 2B (3). PHoM- 1976. I didn't expect to be voting for Fox again this year.
4. Quincy Trouppe, C (4). PHoM- 1977. Still the best catcher available.
5. Lou Brock, LF (5). PHoM- 1985.
6. Alejandro Oms, CF (6). PHoM- 1984.
7. Burleigh Grimes, P (7). PHoM- 1984.
8. Hugh Duffy, CF (10).
9. Don Newcombe, P (8). PHoM- 1987. I have no qualms about being Newcombe's best friend.
10. Orlando Cepeda, 1B (14).
11. Luis Aparicio, SS (12). PHoM- 1987.
12. Rollie Fingers, RP (13).
13. Jake Beckley, 1B (15).
14. Pete Browning, CF (n/a). Onto my ballot for the first time.
15. Pie Traynor, 3B (n/a). Makes the ballot as the best available third baseman, and yes, I did take a second look at Dandridge, Elliott, Kell, Leach and the peak-heavy guys like McGraw, Rosen and Williamson before confirming that I was right to have Traynor ahead.

A few notes: After electing a bunch of infielders- including a few who were on my ballot like Boyer and Moore- I tried to balance that out by taking another look at outfielders and first baseman. The result is that several "bat" guys moved up relative to other positions: Duffy jumped over Newcombe, Cepeda jumped over Aparicio and Fingers, Browning jumped over Traynor and a couple of others. Nothing too drastic- the biggest jump was for Browning who went from top 20 to 14.

Rose: one-year boycott, otherwise I'd actually have him ahead of Seaver
Grich: I like him as an Orioles fan, but I just don't see the numbers to push him ahead of other players at his position such as Doyle and Monroe; he's actually in the spot where I used to rank Childs, another 2B I didn't vote for
Perez: a slightly lesser version of Beckley, which isn't an insult from me the way it might be from others
Wynn: not good enough for not long enough
Roush: the fourth-best centerfielder but I already have three- Oms, Duffy and Browning- on my ballot
Keller: I admit that he had the reputation of a great player, but even with war credit he wasn't great for long enough
   246. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#2261620)
OK, a quick search found some people asking me for the formula, and me saying I didn't have it handy, but I'd get back to it. I don't think I did . . . so here goes.

The name of the article is actually called 'The Problem with "Peak"' . . . page 470.

It uses what is called the cumulative normal distribution function. He gives the function, essentially based on how you'd put it into Excel (which is what I've done).

Pennants(w) "=Normaldist{w,g[E(Ppct)-E(Rpct)]},g{[stdev(Ppct)^2+stdev(Rpct)^2]^.5},TRUE"

What is in quotes there is basically how you enter it in excel, you have to add the fourth argument "TRUE" to the equation for it to work properly. Use "(" or ")" instead of the other fancy separators, they are just there to make it easier to read.

w = players number of wins over replacement (I always scale to 162).

g = average number of games played during the season (I always scale to 162 - he uses each season individually, I think - the important thing is to be consistent with w and g).

E(Ppct) = the expected (average) winning% of a pennant-winnner (I use all AL/NL seasons from 1876 through the current election - through the 1990 election this is .626, he uses .612).

E(Rpct) = the expected (aveage) winning% of all teams (.500)

stdev(Ppct) is the standard deviation of pennant winners (.047447 through 1990 election, he uses .045). I consider any team that makes the playoffs a 'pennant winner' for purposes of pennants added.

stdev(Rpct) is the standard deviation of all teams (.094406 through the 1990 election, he uses .084).

Then you have to subtract the probability that his team would have won the pennant without him.

Pennants(w) = Pennants(w) - Pennants(0)

That basically means you need to figure the player's pennants, then figure the pennants for a player with 0 wins above replacement and subtract it from the player's pennants to get pennants added.

He then shows a graph that has a slight upward curve (his description) and says that 10+0 is worth 15% more than 5+5 and 30% more than 2+2+2+2+2. Of course those numbers assume your replacement level is set correctly at 0 - which isn't true for WARP or Win Shares. I usually quote 10-15% because my factors are different than his (and floating as we move up through time). He only uses 1900 to present, which I think is a mistake for a project like this, since we go all the way back to 1871 (and beyond - Dickey Pearce and Joe Start, for example).
   247. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#2261623)
"General question: Would it be unconstituational for a voter to have him on the ballot but not at the actual placement they'd have him at? Like let's say instead of boycotting I put him at 15, say, even though I have him at 1 or 2 or 3? A kosher quasi-boycott? Or is that right out?"


I don't think that's 'kosher' - the boycott was intended to be an either/or thing.
   248. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#2261662)
Thanks, Joe, appreciate the clarification. For those counting, I will not boycott Rose.
   249. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#2261674)
Moore didn't need or get any "extended" credit, not from me. He actually played for the Wreckers, that's not "extended" or "extra." I mean, geez, some anti-peak voters don't even want to admit to peak candidates' entire careers. ;-)

Keller is different.

>And peak voters are "stuck" supporting divisive candidates

What?

I guess Boyer was "divisive." We should all NOT VOTE for players whose candidacies are "divisive"? If Boyer and Fox are not divisive and Moore is, somebody explain to me how we know the difference.
   250. Mark Donelson Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:25 PM (#2261706)
were Childs, Boyer, or Sewell really peak candidates?

Childs comes closest, IMO (and he's the only one of the three I've supported). Boyer's somewhere in between, while I find the idea of Sewell as a peak candidate truly bizarre.

Because sometimes guys that call themselves peak voters write things like this:

As I mentioned on the other thread (the '91 results one), I should probably tone that statement down. There's an implied "compared to the rest of you guys" in there that, I realize, there's no particular reason anyone should know I mean. I do pay attention to career. I admit it! I do!
   251. Mark Donelson Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:36 PM (#2261716)
And peak voters are "stuck" supporting divisive candidates like Jennings, Moore, and Keller.

As opposed to career voters "stuck" supporting divisive candidates like Cool Papa Bell, Beckley, and Van Haltren (say)?
   252. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 15, 2006 at 12:07 AM (#2261753)
Childs comes closest, IMO (and he's the only one of the three I've supported). Boyer's somewhere in between, while I find the idea of Sewell as a peak candidate truly bizarre.

All three are more prime candidates than anything.
   253. Mike Webber Posted: December 15, 2006 at 02:02 AM (#2261862)
Moore didn't need or get any "extended" credit, not from me. He actually played for the Wreckers, that's not "extended" or "extra." I mean, geez, some anti-peak voters don't even want to admit to peak candidates' entire careers. ;-)


How cool is it that you can look up the population of Hawaii in 1920 with a few key strokes just to argue about a shortstop?
1920 Census - Hawaii pg 85

I'm fully willing to admit that Dobie Moore was one of the finest players on an island with 255,000 people where baseball had been a popular sport for 30 or 40 years.
   254. Mike Webber Posted: December 15, 2006 at 02:08 AM (#2261867)
As opposed to career voters "stuck" supporting divisive candidates like Cool Papa Bell, Beckley, and Van Haltren (say)?


Yeah, were not too happy having to defend Lou Brock, Rusty Staub, or Jim Kaat either.
   255. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#2261961)
I don't really understand either the peak-lover OR career-lover people - which is why they call me "Mr. Consensus"!

All kidding aside, I like great peaks and steady primes and long careers. Why can't they all be good paths toward greatness?

I seem to be a little unusual, perhaps, in that I don't care about career counting stats or extra totally average seasons. I do like a lot of above-average/though not overwhelming seasons (Fox, Beckley, etc.).
I guess that leans "prime," but I don't limit that to 5 or 7 or 9 or whatever. I like primes with legit tails, maybe is the way to put it.
   256. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2006 at 03:41 AM (#2261964)
I may already be counted, but I don't boycott, either.
Seaver is way ahead of Rose for me; Rose and Grich and Fingers may battle for my No. 2 in a close race.
   257. Paul Wendt Posted: December 15, 2006 at 06:58 AM (#2262077)
1920 Census - Hawaii pg 85

I'm fully willing to admit that Dobie Moore was one of the finest players on an island with 255,000 people where baseball had been a popular sport for 30 or 40 years.


There is no evidence that Alexander Cartwright introduced baseball to Hawaii. He arrived August 1849, was appointed "Chief Engineer of the Fire Department of the City of Honolulu" December 1850. His sons played baseball at school in the 1860s.
Nucciarone biography of Cartwright

Nucciarone's first listed reference is one 2002 winner of a SABR "best article" award (and the reason I know something about this before reading her biography just now), namely
Ardolino, Frank. "Missionaries, Cartwright, and Spalding: The Development of Baseball in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii." NINE: A Journal of Baseball History & Culture 2 (Spring 2002), 27-45.
   258. sunnyday2 Posted: December 15, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#2262165)
I'm a peak voter who would have Rose #2. It's not like I'm boycotting him because he's a career candidate.
   259. TomH Posted: December 15, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#2262281)
If we're gonna elect a backlog OFer....
how about Indian Bob?
Johnson thumps Jimmy Wynn in career RCAP, 319 to 203. This already accounts for the RF-CF thing.
Johnson was a beter hitter (OWP). Johnson, given a pinch of MiL credit and schedule lenght, easily had a longer career.
Using one of my FAVORITE :) tools, Johnson beats Wynn in their best 7 RCAP years
Johnson 54 53 39 35 32 30 25
Wynn.... 53 39 37 34 29 26 24
Johnson's fine 1944 was a war year; however, Wynn's fine 1969 was an expansion year; he was no where near MLB's best player.
Win Shares tells a different story, but in this case, I believe WS is out to lunch.
   260. Juan V Posted: December 15, 2006 at 07:52 PM (#2262433)
I stil like Wynn better, but I wouldn´t frown on a strong case on Indian Bob´s favor. :-)
   261. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 15, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#2262454)
Constitutionality question:

If I have Rose and Grich essentially tied in my system, which I do, can I put Rose at 2 and Grich at 3 to "combat" the boycotts? Or is that unconstitutional, and I will have to find further granular information to segregate the two?
   262. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2006 at 08:39 PM (#2262483)
- I have Johnson well ahead of Wynn;
- Melky, I suspect that IS unconstitutional as strategic voting. You have to pick one as better than the other, no boycott factored in.
   263. DavidFoss Posted: December 15, 2006 at 08:43 PM (#2262490)
If I have Rose and Grich essentially tied in my system, which I do, can I put Rose at 2 and Grich at 3 to "combat" the boycotts? Or is that unconstitutional, and I will have to find further granular information to segregate the two?

I can't imagine that being constitutional. Anything against your own judgement that is done to combat the ballots of others just doesn't sound right.

But if they are *really* tied -- I can't imagine players that different being that 'tied' but playing along here -- then you could really come up with any sort of tiny little tie breaker you want. Rose played in more hitter-friendly parks, Rose had more lineup protection, Rose didn't field as well... I mean its really easy to make up a "tie-breaker" that is not unconstitutional.

Its a bit hard to believe they are really tied though... :-)
   264. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 15, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#2262503)
Re #262 - That's extremely unconstitutional Melky . . . Strategic voting is kind of our equivalent of the gambling ban - it completely distorts the entire project, essentially giving one voter's opinion more weight than the others. Thanks for asking, that is much appreciated and a good example for others :-)

It would be best if you can find a way to separate the two that doesn't account for a boycott in any way.

Besides, if you have them essentially tied - why would want to nudge Rose higher than Grich or Grich higher than Rose with regards to a boycott? What your saying is that you really don't care which is elected first, if you have them tied, right?
   265. Al Peterson Posted: December 15, 2006 at 08:59 PM (#2262515)
Bob Johnson and the case of the missing Win Shares

Many HOM years ago Chris Cobb presented some data comparing various OFs when Joe Medwick was gaining support for election. I'll reproduce one of them here containing a 10-year prime look at what is now 3 HOMers and one guy on the outside. Of course some of the BRAR/FRAR numbers have changed but let me stay with the original data.

Medwick      Averill      Johnson     Sisler
5901 PA      6647 PA      6323 PA     6105 PA
*
1476 g       1485 g       1459 g      1374 g*
142 OPS+     136 OPS+     137 OPS+    142 OPS+
.308 EQA     .307 EQA     .308 EQA    .305 EQA
-14 FRAA     15 FRAA      -8 FRAA     53 FRAA
179 FRAR     309 FRAR     183 FRAR    206 FRAR
--           --           --          30 PRAR
515 BRAR     548 BRAR     528 BRAR    509 BRAR
213.7 bws    215.0 bws    189.5 bws   209.8 bws
34.8 fws     51.9 fws     28.2 fws    19.1 fws 
(7.5 pws

The thing to note from the numbers was the missing 20+ batting Win Shares for Bob Johnson when many other numbers seemed to point to nearly identical offensive production. His fielding Wins Share were lower than Medwick, a possible nod to the circular argument of bad teams must be made of bad team defense, each of whom then is a bad individual fielder. Minor thing but a suppression of fws.

If you bump Indian Bob by a logical amount of WS, missing due to being part of some pretty bad A's teams, you end up with a better peak, better prime, more career. Add in a year or two of MiL credit you have a very nice candidate.
   266. DL from MN Posted: December 15, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#2262524)
> I wouldn´t frown on a strong case on Indian Bob´s favor

I've been voting him in the top 5 for 20 years now. I think he's around the 40th percentile.
   267. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 15, 2006 at 09:08 PM (#2262529)
Thanks for the feedback - My system loves middle infielders who can field and hit, and do both at their peak, hence why Grich and Rose are in a virtual dead heat. I'm leaning Rose right now, because if you remove the decline years, he's much better than Grich. However, yesterday I was leaning Grich. I'm not sure yet which way I'm going to go here.

Again, thanks for the clarification.
   268. jhwinfrey Posted: December 16, 2006 at 01:04 AM (#2262802)
Here's my preliminary ballot for '92:

1. Tom Seaver: Terrific.
2. Burleigh Grimes: A distant #2.
3. Orlando Cepeda
4. Jake Beckley
5. Charley Jones
6. Dick Redding
7. Edd Roush
8. Quincy Trouppe
9. Pete Browning
10. Alejandro Oms
11. Nellie Fox
12. Tony Perez: A very long career and a decent peak. I think he's Hall-worthy.
13. Rollie Fingers: Looking ahead, I think Fingers is significantly ahead of Sutter and Garber.
14. Reggie Smith
15. George Foster! I guess if I have Smith on my ballot, I have to vote for Foster. I doubt he'll get much support, but he's got good career length, very good peak value, and was one of the great sluggers of the '70s.

20. Bobby Grich: My system uses Gray & Black Ink to rate league dominance. Grich's lack of ink puts him 9 slots behind Nellie Fox, whose Go-Go Sox years netted him more ink.

47. Cesar Cedeno: A much better hitter than I had previously thought.

51. Chris Chambliss: A much better fielder than I had previously thought.

64. Vida Blue: Just a notch ahead of Sparky Lyle.

73. Toby Harrah: Down in Bill Mazeroski territory.

NR. Dusty Baker: Below the Dizzy Dean Line.

Pete Rose: Boycotted. I believe that betting on baseball, while a player or a manager, is a crime punishable by exclusion from the Hall of Merit. I'm secretly hoping that he gets inducted this year so I don't have to evaluate him in '93. Either way, the doors to my PHoM are barred to Charlie Hustle forever.
   269. DavidFoss Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:14 AM (#2262920)
Tom Seaver – Bob Gibson with longevity makes him an easy #2, but I think I leave him out of my top 10 pitchers of all time. I started watching baseball in 1977, so I only saw three of his very good seasons – I’d probably be more impressed if I had started following in 1967.

You might be more impressed if you started following in 1987, too. Its funny how childhood memories are affecting our evaluations. In this case it doesn't matter, of course. :-)
   270. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:23 AM (#2262923)
Huh, I started following Seaver in '69 - yeah, pretty frigging good.
His teams couldn't hit AT ALL.
Seaver had what to me is a classic pitcher frame - might seem almost stocky for a hitter, but just built to deliver the ball hard. Plus he was smart. Clemens of his day? In some ways.

He had that laugh that was basically a girlish giggle, but pretty contagious nonetheless. And his wife, Nancy, was the classic American blonde. Quite the All-American couple.

69 Mets were not the only Cinderella team, but what a story they were, and Nolan Ryan pitching long relief no less.
   271. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#2262929)
>think I leave him out of my top 10 pitchers of all time. I started watching baseball in 1977,

So, like, Walter Johnson nand Lefty Grove aren't in the top 10 either?

Is Babe Ruth in your PHoM?
   272. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:33 AM (#2262932)
#269:

Hitters--Cepeda, Beckley, Jones, Roush, Browning, Oms, Perez, Reggie2, and I guess Foster will pick up 6 pts
Gloves--Trouppe, Fox, and, and, and, surely there's more?

No, Grich #20, 5 slots after George Foster. And with Beckley and Perez, it's not like this is a peak ballot.

I'm sure I'm just missin' somethin' here.
   273. jimd Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:33 AM (#2262933)
The plan is to be back in time to cast a full ballot on 12/26.
Should events cause that to not be the case, this ballot may be used in its stead.

01) Tom Seaver -- terrific
02) Bobby Grich -- nearly a Frankie Frisch equivalent in my system
[Pete Rose -- boycott for obvious reasons; I agree with John Murphy here]
03) Bucky Walters
04) Jimmy Wynn
05) Ken Singleton
06) Jim Kaat
07) Fielder Jones
08) Bobby Bonds
09) Fred Dunlap
10) Pie Traynor
11) Luis Tiant
12) Elston Howard
13) Thurman Munson
14) Tony Perez -- not surprising that he was a good fielder at 1b; most conversions from third are
15) Dave Bancroft

Foster and Blue both have cases that might make them ballot-worthy on a more peak-oriented ballot than mine is.
   274. Daryn Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#2262946)
>think I leave him out of my top 10 pitchers of all time. I started watching baseball in 1977,

So, like, Walter Johnson nand Lefty Grove aren't in the top 10 either?

Is Babe Ruth in your PHoM?


I'm assuming this is a joke Marc, but just in case it's not; my evaluation of him has him at about 11-15 all-time behind mostly guys who played between 1880-1980 -- I was just saying that part of my evaluation of him is coloured by the fact that I actually saw him pitch when he wasn't that great. Just like if someone started watching baseball in 2006 had to vote on Randy Johnson, they may suffer from some cognitive dissonance when they hear people describing him as one of the most dominant pitchers of his era.
   275. Daryn Posted: December 16, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#2262957)
Why Perez over Staub? I have trouble separating them, but you seem to view them as quite different.

For me, it is a bunch of little things. There's the shiny career totals in hr, rbi and total bases that Perez wins handily but interestingly, since I talk a lot about being a career voter, I like the number of times Perez was a legit MVP candidate (I count 3 or 4 to Staub's one). That relegates Staub to the Beckley type of career, and he comes up about two (maybe three) adjusted seasons short of Beckley.

All that said, I think you are right that I have underrated Staub -- I have now moved him up to 27. It must be my anti-Montreal bias creeping in.

Not much between 10 and 30 on these ballots as it is.
   276. DavidFoss Posted: December 16, 2006 at 04:46 AM (#2262971)
I was just saying that part of my evaluation of him is coloured by the fact that I actually saw him pitch when he wasn't that great. Just like if someone started watching baseball in 2006 had to vote on Randy Johnson, they may suffer from some cognitive dissonance when they hear people describing him as one of the most dominant pitchers of his era.

Yeah, that's what led me to make the remark. Catching only the lesser half of a great career can cause one to underrate a player. It doesn't affect the opinion of older players with similar career shapes. There's lots of great players with front-loaded careers like George Sisler, Al Simmons, Robin Roberts, etc. I can judge there whole career objectively because I never saw any of it, but if I just caught the last 6-7 years of any of those guys then I would have to work to get the mental picture of their older lesser selves out of my head.

Becoming aware of baseball around 1980, my main memories of Bench, Yaz & Perry are as old guys who were shadows of their former selves. Rusty Staub was a ricketty old pinch hitter, Jim Kaat was an older-than-dirt lefty in the pen, Frank Tanana was a journeyman junkballer. A fan who came of age in the 1990s might have trouble believing that Tony Gwynn stole as many bases as he did. Fans of the 2000s probably can't figure out how Greg Maddux dominated as much as he did without having "great stuff". etc etc etc
   277. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2006 at 05:01 AM (#2262987)
>I was just saying that part of my evaluation of him is coloured by the fact that I actually saw him pitch when he wasn't that great.

Yeah, I assumed you had mis-stated. All of us crossed a threshold from players we'd never seen to ones we had at some time or other in this project. It's just that it sounded like you weren't really trying to be objective about him. I'm sure you are.

My first memories are of the 1957 World Series--Minnesota was Braves territory and there was a lot of excitement, especially when they won. I heard Harvey Haddix' famous 1959 game on the radio. The first time I ever heard Roy Campanella's name was the news of his car crash. Maz' home run was an early highlight, I remember it today a lot better than stuff that happened much more recently.

But I have no problem understanding that Ted Williams and Stan Musial were not always these geezers. Robin Roberts, OTOH, was a stiff and it was hard to understand he'd been a superstar.
   278. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2006 at 05:39 AM (#2263003)
>I was just saying that part of my evaluation of him is coloured by the fact that I actually saw him pitch when he wasn't that great.

Yeah, I assumed you had mis-stated. All of us crossed a threshold from players we'd never seen to ones we had at some time or other in this project. It's just that it sounded like you weren't really trying to be objective about him. I'm sure you are.

My first memories are of the 1957 World Series--Minnesota was Braves territory and there was a lot of excitement, especially when they won. I heard Harvey Haddix' famous 1959 game on the radio. The first time I ever heard Roy Campanella's name was the news of his car crash. Maz' home run was an early highlight, I remember it today a lot better than stuff that happened much more recently.

But I have no problem understanding that Ted Williams and Stan Musial were not always these geezers. Robin Roberts, OTOH, was a stiff and it was hard to understand he'd been a superstar.
   279. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2006 at 04:10 PM (#2263122)
Crap, computer ate my message.
Well, I found that Grich basically matched Rose in prime OPS+, with bonus to Grich for great 2B play.
But Rose had a long tail, and was a lot more durable for a lot longer. Very close, I lean Rose by a nose - and here comes Fingers.
I may go Seaver-Fingers-Rose-Grich-Browning-Fox-Johnson-Beckley...

Perez has the right top 2 and top 4 seasons, but modern 1B-OFs do it for a top 8 or so. Bonus for five years at 3B, but it's not quite enough. He was a borderline Hall guy, too, who got in on the "clutch hitter" myth. This Mr. Clutch was .238 AVG and .291 OBP in the postseason, for example, in 172 AB.
Cedeno had the right age 20s career, but alas he skipped the 2nd part.
Harrah had 3 to 5 really big years, but neither eyesight nor stats told you he could really play 3B or SS. A little underrated, but let's not overdo it.
Wow, Foster is better than I thought! Very nice 4 and 6 years deep, but has nothing left to add, too bad.
Vida Blue also fares a little better then expected. But even dismissing the 0-5, 6.01 ERA in 14 starts in 1983 (!) doesn't save him.

Ok, I guess I just retyped a lot of it.
   280. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 16, 2006 at 05:32 PM (#2263156)
Dale Murphy is a guy that surprised me when I found out that he was actually good. I remember his days with the Phillies and Rockies, not the Braves.

I also want to say that I don't get the support for George Foster. I have Foster with two sesaons where he was a viable MVP candidate in WS, which is very low for an OFer. For instance, Why Foster and not George Burns? Bobby Veach? Even Rocky COlavito seems about even to me. And thsi doesnt' mention guys like Frank Howard, Ken Singleton, and Bobby Bonds that I have a good distance above Foster. But as for the first few players I mentioned are we forgetting about older OFers who were jsut as good as these new guys?
   281. sunnyday2 Posted: December 16, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#2263194)
I saw Colavito and Foster and I'd say they were vaguely similar as hitters (not so much in the OF), and I would take Rocco in a heartbeat. Foster really had one year that put him on the map. Even his second best season wouldn't have been good enough to get noticed in the context of a HoF or HoM.
   282. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 16, 2006 at 06:31 PM (#2263198)
Joe Dimino, if I'm doing the math right, I find that a 10-WARP season is worth 15% more than two 5-WARP seasons, and a 15-WARP season is worth 29% more than three 5-WARP seasons. Is that right?
   283. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 17, 2006 at 01:16 PM (#2263684)
Dan, from my PA sheet, updated through the 1990 ballot, here are some examples, PA wise.

Pen+  WAR mW+1
.012  1.0 .012
.024  2.0 .013
.038  3.0 .013
.052  4.0 .014
.067  5.0 .015
.083  6.0 .016
.100  7.0 .017
.118  8.0 .018
.136  9.0 .018
.155 10.0 .019
.175 11.0 .020
.195 12.0 .020
.216 13.0 .021
.237 14.0 .021
.259 15.0 .022
mW
+1 is the marginal value of the last winNote how this increasesbut the rate of increase slows as you go further up the ladder


So a 15 = .259, 5+5+5 = .067*3 = .202 (after rounding). So I get a 15 as being 28% more valuable than three 5's. And a 10 as being 15% more valuable than 5+5. So yes, you are doing it correctly. My numbers will change slightly as each year gets recorded in the books.

But don't forget you have to fix the replacement level first if you are going to apply something like this to 'straight out of the box' Win Shares or WARP.
   284. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 17, 2006 at 01:22 PM (#2263685)
Just want to point out to everyone to check out the new 'neutralized stats' at baseball-reference.com Very helpful for putting short-season guys into perspective compared to modern players.

Ezra Sutton 2800 career hits, Jake Beckley 3148, etc. . . . very nice to be able to see it without having to do the work yourself. Sean adjusts everyone to a 162 game season and a 750 R/Team environment.
   285. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 17, 2006 at 01:26 PM (#2263689)
Also note, however, that the rate stats tend to be lower for the years with more errors, even though they are 'normalized', because to get a team down to 750 runs per 162 games with all of those errors means there didn't need to be much offense otherwise . . .
   286. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 17, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#2263703)
I was just saying that part of my evaluation of him is coloured by the fact that I actually saw him pitch when he wasn't that great.

But that's why we have B-R.com for. :-)

Seriously, I never understood writers moaning and groaning about guys such as Carlton and Neikro playing when they "should" have retired. It's not like someone placed their copies of their baseball encyclopedias under lock and key so they couldn't remember what Lefty and Knucksie did in their prime. If Carlton and Neikro wanted to play until 100, I would have been rooting them on (not so much the owners :-)

Even as a kid, great players such as Mays, Killebrew, and Kaline were shells of the players they once were, but my baseball cards, biographical data, and anecdotes suggested those last years were not anywhere near being representative of their career or peak value. Not that I forgot their last years, but my "memories" are more influenced by their halcyon days of the Fifties and Sixties from all of my reading and television viewing.
   287. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 18, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2263977)
Seriously, I never understood writers moaning and groaning about guys such as Carlton and Neikro playing when they "should" have retired.

It makes for copy. I didn't say good copy, just copy.
   288. djrelays Posted: December 18, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#2264428)
To the folks at the Hall of Merit, from a Prime Lurker--

Many thanks for another great year of dissertations, documentations and standard (and some not so standard) deviations.

I'm particularly enjoying the discussion of whether or not Bobby Grich is underrated.

I can't wait for next Monday morning when I get to unwrap the latest balloting to see who has voted for Bobby "The" Gri(n)ch on Christmas Day!

And to all, a good night!
   289. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#2264434)
Nice post, djrelays. Thanks!
   290. Chris Cobb Posted: December 19, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#2264666)
From Chris Fluit's ballot:

Grich: I like him as an Orioles fan, but I just don't see the numbers to push him ahead of other players at his position such as Doyle and Monroe; he's actually in the spot where I used to rank Childs, another 2B I didn't vote for

????

Grich vs. Doyle vs. Fox vs. Traynor

Grich 125 OPS+ (.290 EQA) in 2008 g -- above average to great defense
Doyle 126 OPS+ (.294 EQA) in 1857 adj. g -- below average to terrible defense
Fox 94 OPS+ (.261 EQA) in 2466 adj. g – above average to great defense
Traynor 107 OPS+ (.276 EQA) in 2041 adj. g – above average to great defense

So here’s a very quick analysis of these three lines, going into more detail where necessary.

On Monroe (who isn’t on your ballot) well, since we don’t have numbers on Monroe you have to make up your mind about him.

On Doyle (who isn’t on your ballot): Given that Grich has 1 season playing time on Doyle, trails him by a very slight margin in offensive value and is certainly far ahead defensively, I don’t see how you can’t find the numbers to push Grich ahead of him.

On Traynor (who is on your ballot at #15): Grich is way ahead of him offensively in equivalent playing time and has equivalent or superior defense. (Both were probably good enough defensively to have played shortstop, but were shifted off that position to the next slot down on the defensive spectrum because their teams had brilliant defensive shortstops.) How can Grich possibly rank behind Traynor?

On Fox (who is on your ballot at #3): Grich is way ahead offensively, they are equivalent defensively, but Fox has 3 seasons of playing time on Grich. I suppose this comparison depends on how you rank peak vs. career, but Win shares has Grich at 329 career win shares to Fox’s 318 season-adjusted win shares (no strike adjustment for Grich), while WARP has Fox at 98.7 adj. WARP1 and Grich at 115.0 WARP1, so if you are looking at career _value_ Grich has it all over Fox.

In sum, all the numbers I see suggest that Grich should be high on your ballot. What numbers are you looking at that lead you to hesitate about placing him ahead of Larry Doyle, let alone Traynor and Fox?
   291. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 19, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2264680)
I'll admit I'm behind on the discussion, so a question to save me the effort of catching up on several threads tonight: I just got my Hardball Times Annual, and there's an article there analyzing outfielder's arms using all of the Retrosheet data since 1957. I'll post the information if nobody else has done it yet. Has anyone seen anything like that?

(There's also a rank-all-the-pitchers article, but it's a)severely timelined and b)career-heavy, so it would probably produce more heat than light.)
   292. Daryn Posted: December 19, 2006 at 03:42 AM (#2264687)
I have Grich and Traynor adjacent to each other just off the ballot, Grich ahead.

So I took a close look at what Chris said and realized that perhaps I wasn't neutralizing the counting stats well enough (I don't think OPS+ works well at the extremes in era comparisons). I looked at the new tool on BBRef to neutralize stats and still saw that Traynor compares well to Grich with the exception of walks and a bit of power. I would agree that there is a a gap between them and it is hard to make the argument for Traynor over Grich without ignoring or underestimating context, but I would ask all the Grich fans to take a look at Traynor's neutralized stats and Grich's and ask themselves if Grich is battling Rose (and therefore well above the backlog) how come Traynor can't sniff the bottom of the ballot. Traynor didn't have 6 top 8 MVP finishes (compared to Grich's 1) for nothing.
   293. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 19, 2006 at 04:51 AM (#2264754)
Here's the outfielder arm info, as researched by John Walsh. The basic methodology is to compare each OF's result to the average for that year in 5 situations (Single/Runner on 1st, Single/Runner on 2nd, Double/Runner on 1st, Fly Out/Runner on 3rd, Fly Out/Runner on 2nd), measuring kills/holds/advances, and converting that into a run value based on the Run Expectancy. All runs are given in "2002 value".

I'll give the career totals, and the Runs/162 opportunities, which is apparently equivalent to a season. (This doesn't include pre-1957 years, and for different reasons 1984-85 and 1999 are excluded). All HoFers are included, as well as any HoMers or candidates that he gives the numbers for, and anyone else in the top 5 at a position. It isn't complete, but most of the people we're interested in are here. And all of the guys at the bottom of the lists are at the bottom of the complete list.

<u>Right Field (Player--Runs--Runs/162)</u>
Roberto Clemente -- 67.1 -- 5.4
Jesse Barfield -- 58.8 -- 8.3
Larry Walker -- 51.3 -- 4.9
Raul Mondesi -- 44.8 -- 5.5
Johnny Callison -- 43.3 -- 4.3
Dwight Evans -- 30.8 -- 2.6
Rusty Staub -- 28.9 -- 3.0
Bobby Abreu - 26.6 -- 4.0
Al Kaline -- 26.5 -- 2.9
Vladimir Guerrero -- 25.3 -- 3.6
Hank Aaron -- 24.9 -- 2.4
Ichiro Suzuki -- 18.5 -- 3.3
Dave Winfield -- 17.7 -- 1.7
Dave Parker -- 14.3 -- 1.5
Rocky Colavito -- 12.6 -- 1.9
Pete Rose -- 11.5 -- 3.0
Sammy Sosa -- 6.2 -- 0.5
Reggie Jackson -- 0.3 -- 0.0
Frank Robinson -- (-15.5) -- (-2.3)
Ken Singleton -- (-29.2) -- (-4.2)

<u>Center Field (Player--Runs--Runs/162)</u>
Andy Van Slyke -- 44.2 -- 6.4
Jim Edmonds -- 41.1 -- 4.5
Ken Griffey, Jr. -- 40.4 -- 3.1
Andruw Jones -- 36.5 -- 4.7
Andre Dawson -- 35.5 -- 5.1 (Dawson's RF numbers are not given, but are described as "only average")
Kenny Lofton -- 31.1 -- 2.8
Willie Mays -- 28.8 -- 2.0
Cesar Cedeno -- 17.4 -- 1.9
Vada Pinson -- 15.4 -- 1.4
Kirby Puckett -- 13.9 -- 1.9
Reggie Smith -- 12.5 -- 2.3
Willie Davis -- 12.1 -- 0.9
Dale Murphy -- 10.9 -- 2.2
Mickey Mantle -- (-6.9) -- (-1.1)
Robin Yount -- (-14.0) -- (-1.9)
Richie Ashburn -- (-19.3) -- (-4.0) (He's missing his first 10 years)
Johnny Damon -- (-22.5) -- (-3.1)
Bernie Williams -- (-44.3) -- (-3.7)

<u>Left Field (Player--Runs--Runs/162)</u>
Carl Yastrzemski -- 67.3 -- 5.5 (There may be a Fenway bias in the data)
Barry Bonds -- 33.2 -- 2.2
Bobby Higginson -- 26.6 -- 5.1
Bernard Gilkey -- 24.1 -- 4.0
B.J. Surhoff -- 22.5 -- 4.9
Willie Stargell -- 19.7 -- 3.0
Rocky Colavito -- 18.3 -- 5.6 (Total: 30.9 -- 3.2)
Jim Rice -- 15.8 -- 1.8 (Again, possible Fenway effect)
Pete Rose -- 13.9 -- 3.3 (Total: 25.4 -- 3.2)
Manny Ramirez -- 6.8 -- 1.7 (He does note that Greenwell and O'Leary don't have good numbers)
Tim Raines -- 6.2 -- 0.6
Frank Robinson -- (-0.7) -- (-0.2)
Billy Williams -- (-1.1) -- (-0.1)
Rickey Henderson -- (-10.7) -- (-0.7)
Roy White -- (-30.5) -- (-2.9)
Lou Brock -- (-30.6) -- (-2.3)
Frank Howard -- (-33.4) -- (-6.2)
   294. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 19, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#2264759)
Just to clear up one thing: The "bottom guys" line only refers to the very last person, although White, Brock & Howard are 3-2-1. And this doesn't include 2006 either - just caught that.
   295. DavidFoss Posted: December 19, 2006 at 04:56 AM (#2264760)
I looked at the new tool on BBRef to neutralize stats and still saw that Traynor compares well to Grich with the exception of walks and a bit of power. I would agree that there is a a gap between them and it is hard to make the argument for Traynor over Grich without ignoring or underestimating context, but I would ask all the Grich fans to take a look at Traynor's neutralized stats and Grich's and ask themselves if Grich is battling Rose (and therefore well above the backlog) how come Traynor can't sniff the bottom of the ballot.

I *love* this new toy, but I'm not completely sold on whether the "Willie Davis Method" is anything more than a toy. What's the toy/tool verdict on this one?

That said, Grich has him by 40 points of OBP and 32 points of SLG. That's not insignificant. That's a 125-107 OPS+ advantage. Now its not inconceivable that the in-out line for this type of medium-glove position is somewhere between those two which puts Grich safely above the backlog and Traynor struggling to compete with the Bob Elliotts and the Sal Bandos. I don't see an inconsistency here.
   296. rawagman Posted: December 19, 2006 at 06:56 AM (#2264818)
Devin - don't spoil it for me. I'm still waiting for my HardballTimes copy. Shipping to Israel, while quicker than one might expect, is still a few days behind local shipping.
   297. Daryn Posted: December 19, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#2265094)
I *love* this new toy, but I'm not completely sold on whether the "Willie Davis Method" is anything more than a toy. What's the toy/tool verdict on this one?

I'd have to vote toy -- there are all sorts of things that don't get accounted for -- look at the neutralized stats of the short season pitchers.

That said, I treat it the same way I treat Sim and Monitor and Standards scores -- worth looking at as a sanity check.
   298. KJOK Posted: December 19, 2006 at 10:55 PM (#2265280)
I *love* this new toy, but I'm not completely sold on whether the "Willie Davis Method" is anything more than a toy. What's the toy/tool verdict on this one?

I'd have to vote toy -- there are all sorts of things that don't get accounted for -- look at the neutralized stats of the short season pitchers.


The "Willie Davis Method" really only applies to hitters, not pitchers.

Pitchers are being normalized you a different method. I think it's a good method, but it will produce some strange looking results for 19th century pitchers due to usage patterns.
   299. ronw Posted: December 20, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#2265412)
Pitchers are being normalized you a different method. I think it's a good method, but it will produce some strange looking results for 19th century pitchers due to usage patterns.

No, not at all. Of course Al Spalding would have a career record of 891-71 with a 1.18 lifetime ERA if he pitched in a neutral era. That's why he is in the HOM. :-)

Others

Bobby Mathews 1118-241, 1.86 ERA
Pud Galvin 804-252, 2.34
Tommy Bond 793-155, 1.82

OK, maybe its a toy.
   300. ronw Posted: December 20, 2006 at 02:27 AM (#2265414)
On Baseball Prospectus Translated Pitching Stats

Al Spalding 77-116, 5.40 ERA
Bobby Mathews 143-163, 5.06 ERA
Pud Galvin 186-172, 4.46
Tommy Bond 91-123, 5.32

OK, maybe that is a toy too.
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0365 seconds
49 querie(s) executed