I'm asking a question to which I have neither much of an opinion, much of an answer, nor much of an agenda other than connecting two dots.

Elsewhere I noted that Sutton's average PF was well below average. His career ERA+ is below 110. He threw a ton of shutouts. Is it likely that his number of shutouts is influenced by his home parks? He threw 39 at home and 19 away.

The comparison to Blyleven started out this line of thinking, I think, and Bly was 26/34 H/R in shutouts. Is Blyleven the unsual one, or Sutton? Or are shutouts just random?

Eric, shutouts need to be normalized just as much as any other stat. While Sutton most likely took advantage of his parks above and beyond the average pitcher did, I doubt he would have had close to 58 shutouts in the same parks that Blyleven pitched in. As for Rikalbert, he might be #5 in career shutouts if he had been pitching in neutral parks. How many shutouts would he have had in '73 in Chavez Ravine?

Its the "page turn".

We might call it the Seger effect.

We might call it the Seger effect.

I don't know which version I like better. Probably Seger's because that was the one that I grew up with, but Metallica's rocks, too.

Yeah, but my post was #202 . . . so the 200 or 201 thing should have been resolved by then, right?

If Torre and Freehan went in, then there's an excellent case for Simmons.

Here is a summary of the top catchers since baseball's integration:

Johnny Bench......13.1, 12.0, 11.1, 10.9, 9.5....(56.6)....122.1
Gary Carter.......11.9, 10.3, 9.9, 9.8, 9.5....(51.4)....117.8
Ivan Rodriguez....10.7, 10.1, 10.0, 8.4, 8.2....(47.4)....120.2
Yoggi Berra.......10.5, 10.5, 9.5, 9.5, 8.6....(48.6)....116.3
Carlton Fisk......10.4, 9.6, 8.7, 7.5, 7.4....(43.6)....118.3
Mike Piazza.......12.1, 10.6, 9.9, 9.1, 8.9....(50.6).....97.5
Joe Torre.........11.1, 9.9, 8.9, 8.5, 7.8....(46.2)....103.9
Ted Simmons........9.3, 8.7, 8.6, 8.3, 7.8....(42.7).....98.6
Roy Campanella....11.4, 11.3, 9.2, 8.0, 7.0....(46.9).....70.6
Jorge Posada......10.5, 10.1, 9.0, 8.5, 8.0....(46.1).....70.7
Lance Parrish......8.7, 8.5, 8.1, 7.3, 7.0....(39.6).....88.2
Bill Freehan......11.2, 9.6, 7.9, 6.8, 5.6....(41.1).....76.2
Thurman Munson.....9.6, 9.5, 7.9, 7.8, 7.7....(42.5).....72.9
Gene Tenace.......10.2, 8.3, 7.9, 7.6, 6.8....(40.8).....72.4

Since Freeham has apparently been inducted, just out of curiosity has Parrish and Munson been incducted. If Campanella and Freehan are in, it would appear that Simmons is a no-brainer

Dimino Posted: February 02, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2291030)
kwarren - I'm not as worried about the pre/post integration comparisons as most. You had a lot of things come along to offset the talent boost from integration - other sports, wars (the kids who died 1941-45 that we never heard of would have been in their primes during integration), expansion, etc.. After 1961, the expansion effect is huge. Baseball expanded by 50% from 1961-69.

I think the integration boom has been vastly overstated by most. By the time it was really in full gear in the early 1960s baseball expanded by 25% in 2 years, more than enough to offset it.

|Whatever rationale you want to come up with to minimize the difference in MLB between the early 1900's and now, you must deal with the following rather obvious fact when comparing Clemens to Johnson and Young and similarly Bonds to Ruth.

Up until 1947 all major league players were drawn from a pool of "white American males between ages 20 and 40". In the early 1900's this would amount to between 15 and 20 million people.

Major league baseball today draws from baseball players from over 100 countries and all races encompassing the whole world. The total pool of potential players is over 500 million.

The talent pool is at least 25 times larger now, but the number of teams has not even doubled. It is much harder or less likely to excel now than in the early 1900's, and the skill difference between the best players and the worst players in the league is much smaller now. Same for a comparison between elite players average players in each time period.

Another consideration is that up until the introduction of Tommy John surgery and arthroscopic surgery any young pitcher who blew out his arm in the minors was history, and this happened to about five pitchers in each major league organization every year. In today's environment these pitchers have successful surgery and often retain or even exceed their former skill level, thus further increasing the talent pool against which today's player must compete.

Parrish is not yet eligible.
Munson got 5 votes, and 40 points, in the last election. I think he's gotten as many as 10-12 votes. I have voted for him on occasion.

If Campanella and Freehan are in, it would appear that Simmons is a no-brainer

Campanella can't be fairly analyzed using WS or WARP, since they don't include his fine NeL and MiL years.

k,

There has been continuous discussion about how to fairly compare players from different eras. The larger talent pool today has been discussed a lot. My take on the discussion:

Yes it was easier for Babe Ruth et al--the really elite players--to dominate in the old days. So when comparing Ruth to Bonds and the like, that is a factor. But of course we have never compared Ruth to Bonds. The really elite players of the olden days were all inducted long ago, so such comparisons are really not germane.

The really critical comparisons are between borderliners. And again, yes, it was easier for the old time borderliners to dominate. I think we have been reasonably cognizant of that. What it comes down to is--is the 5th best LFer of the '20s better than the 5th best LFer of the '60s, and etc. etc. You can't go strictly by the numbers, I don't think. But just as it was easier for that guy in the '20s to put up some good rates, players today have the advantage in putting up cumulative numbers--longer seasons, better conditioning and health and medical and etc. We probably regard it as something of a wash. It comes down to cases.

The other factor to consider is this. Just because the talent pool is larger today--and I would dispute that it is truly 25X, because of the competition from other sports, but obviously it is larger. Can we agree to say 10X for the sake of discussion? This does not imply that there are 10X as many HoMers, for 2 reasons.

1. HoMers are outliers. They exist way way out on the extreme right end of the Bell curve, and the raw numbers found at the center of the curve has little to do with what is going on at the ends.

2. We're talking here about value, not ability. There is still only one World Championship available. There is one MVP, there is one all-star per position. Individual players impact pennant races today about the same way they did 100 years ago. They have the same opportunity today that they did then. The constraints on value are pretty much the same. So a player today, even if he is better conditioned, etc., can still only accumulate so much value.

IOW, I'm not entirely sure how the "talent pool is bigger," while a fact, actually affects or should affect our deliberations. If the argument is that players are better today, you don't need a bigger talent pool to support that. You've got better conditioning, better coaching, etc., going for you there, too. Players today probably are better, though again, the best of the best being outliers, you can't simply assume so. But even if they are better, should there be more of them in the HoM? No, because we're interested in value not ability, and because a pennant is a pennant.

Yes it was easier for Babe Ruth et al--the really elite players--to dominate in the old days. So when comparing Ruth to Bonds and the like, that is a factor. But of course we have never compared Ruth to Bonds. The really elite players of the olden days were all inducted long ago, so such comparisons are really not germane.

My post was in response to a comparison of Clemens to Walter Johnson and Cy Young.




The other factor to consider is this. Just because the talent pool is larger today--and I would dispute that it is truly 25X, because of the competition from other sports, but obviously it is larger. Can we agree to say 10X for the sake of discussion? This does not imply that there are 10X as many HoMers, for 2 reasons.

1. HoMers are outliers. They exist way way out on the extreme right end of the Bell curve, and the raw numbers found at the center of the curve has little to do with what is going on at the ends.

I totally agree.

2. We're talking here about value, not ability. There is still only one World Championship available. There is one MVP, there is one all-star per position. Individual players impact pennant races today about the same way they did 100 years ago. They have the same opportunity today that they did then. The constraints on value are pretty much the same. So a player today, even if he is better conditioned, etc., can still only accumulate so much value.

The elite player today is competing against a tougher level of competition. He may be every bit as good as a dominant player 100 years ago, but his stats, or margin of superiority, will not appear as dominant.


IOW, I'm not entirely sure how the "talent pool is bigger," while a fact, actually affects or should affect our deliberations. If the argument is that players are better today, you don't need a bigger talent pool to support that. You've got better conditioning, better coaching, etc., going for you there, too. Players today probably are better, though again, the best of the best being outliers, you can't simply assume so. But even if they are better, should there be more of them in the HoM? No, because we're interested in value not ability, and because a pennant is a pennant.

I, in no way, think that there should be more players in the HOF today. That was not my point. My point is that Ruth, Johnson, Young, Wagner etc appear to be more dominant versus their peers than today's stars is because their peers were somewhat weaker, relatively speaking, than today because of the size of the talent pool from which players are selected.

I suspect that the largest driving force in how newcomers fare on a voter's ballot is how that voter ranks on the consensus scale.

On the low end, some voters probably have 15-25 guys who they think are obvious HOMers, so far overlooked. In that frame of mind, the newcomers have a tough time on their hands.

But those of us who have had most of our 'favorites' elected already, I guess we would tend to score the newcomers highly - not due to timelines and such.
For instance, I see Sutton as borderline in some ways, although I like the Rixey-Wynn-Faber types generally.
But since I see very few if any of my leftovers as 'must-be-HOMers,' that bodes well for Sutton on my ballot.

So I think our consensus of Sutton's career may be reasonably similar.
But where he'll rank? I'll bet it's all over the board.

Here's another one of my offense-only charts, featuring four corner outfielders - one (George Foster) who has been eligible for a while, two (Jose Cruz, Don Baylor) new to the ballot this year, and one (Jim Rice) not yet eligible.



Some comments: about that outlier best year Baylor had, his MVP year? By this measure each of Cruz and Foster had a year that good and Rice a better one. It's not that hard to pick out Cruz as the top player on this particular list - he maintained being a good player for longer than the others, he had the most defensive value, and, while I don't like to give allowances for this sort of thing, the Cardinals did mishandle his career.

But none of these players is particularly close to the offensive neighborhood of Frank Howard, Reggie Smith, or Ken Singleton. Cruz comes the closest to making my ballot, but I don't think he's quite in my top 30.

Here's another one of my offense-only charts, featuring four corner outfielders - one (George Foster) who has been eligible for a while, two (Jose Cruz, Don Baylor) new to the ballot this year, and one (Jim Rice) not yet eligible.

Cruz 57 50 49 37 34 34 29 28 19 15 11 11 11 4 3 2 -2 -6 -8
Baylor 57 37 33 31 26 21 18 16 13 12 11 8 8 6 3 1 1 -1 -6
Foster 58 46 45 40 37 32 30 21 11 7 4 2 1 -2 -3 -3 -8-13
Rice 64 49 42 38 28 23 20 13 11 11 8 0 -1 -2 -3 -8


Some comments: about that outlier best year Baylor had, his MVP year? By this measure each of Cruz and Foster had a year that good and Rice a better one. It's not that hard to pick out Cruz as the top player on this particular list - he maintained being a good player for longer than the others, he had the most defensive value, and, while I don't like to give allowances for this sort of thing, the Cardinals did mishandle his career.

But none of these players is particularly close to the offensive neighborhood of Frank Howard, Reggie Smith, or Ken Singleton. Cruz comes the closest to making my ballot, but I don't think he's quite in my top 30.

Here's a WARP comparison for all these guys which does incorporate defense:

Ken Singleton....11.1, 10.4, 9.6, 9.2, 8.1..(48.4)..91.0
Jose Cruz........10.5, 9.5, 7.9, 7.6, 7.2..(42.7)...96.0
George Foster....11.6, 9.8, 9.7, 8.9, 8.1..(48.1)...88.4
Jim Rice.........10.4, 9.4, 9.1, 8.2, 7.4..(42.5)...89.2
Reggie Smith......9.7, 8.9, 7.3, 6.8, 6.4..(39.1)...91.4
Frank Howard......8.8, 8.5, 8.3, 7.1, 6.3..(39.0)...73.0
Don Baylor........8.3, 8.0, 5.9, 5.8, 5.8..(33.8)...74.1

This summary again shows how silly the notion that Jim Rice had a Hall of Famer career really is. He is no better than Ken Singleton, Jose Cruz, or George Foster in either career peak, best season, 2nd best season, or career WARP and nobody is seriously pushing for these guys to be inducted. Somehow the perception is out there that he was better than these guys.

Unfortunately, I expect that Rice will one day be inducted, and then we will have a new and even lower bar for the arguments....well if Jim Rice is in then "so and so" should be in.

Unfortunately, I expect that Rice will one day be inducted, and then we will have a new and even lower bar for the arguments....well if Jim Rice is in then "so and so" should be in.

What bar is Rice lowering that, say, Chick Hafey didn't lower decades ago for corner outfielders (I don't include Tommy McCarthy because he had some pioneer support)?

What bar is Rice lowering that, say, Chick Hafey didn't lower decades ago for corner outfielders (I don't include Tommy McCarthy because he had some pioneer support)?

The BBWAA entrance bar? Not that I like to distinguish between both classes of Hall of Famers.

The BBWAA entrance bar? Not that I like to distinguish between both classes of Hall of Famers.

kwarren might have a point if he were referring to the BBWAA entrance bar, but I'm with you about distinguishing between both classes. Who does this when debating who belongs or doesn't belong in the HOF? Not too many people.

What bar is Rice lowering that, say, Chick Hafey didn't lower decades ago for corner outfielders (I don't include Tommy McCarthy because he had some pioneer support)?

Everytime an undeserving player gets inducted it waters down the prestige of being a member, and dilutes the creditability and quality of the institution as a whole.

It's like watching a high-class posh neighbourhood disintigrate as standards are continually lowered forcing the people who care about such things out.

Everytime an undeserving player gets inducted it waters down the prestige of being a member, and dilutes the creditability and quality of the institution as a whole.

I have no disagreement with that statement of yours, kwarren.

While I follow these discussions closely, I have never quite figured out what "timeline" means. I gather that it's an attempt to compare players from different eras more fairly, but what methodology is done to achieve this, or what the basic concept behind it is, I don't know.

Could someone either briefly explain it to me, or point me to a thread where the concept is explained?

Thanks.

Timeline actually means the opposite--it means comparing players from different eras less fairly ;-)

Speaking as a FODP (Friend of Dickey Pearce), which is to say anti-timeliner.

Bill James intro'd the terminology timeline in the TBJHBA. He derives WS numbers for players, then deliberately and systematically devalues the WS of older players. Discounting progressively as one goes back in time is "timelining." James then double-whammies the old-timers by not adjusting for shorter season lengths.

A good example is at 1B where Dan Brouthers and Roger Conner earn 355 and 363 WS respectively despite playing short seasons. When TNBJHBA came out, those were the 7th and 8th best totals ever, and their best single season totals of 34 and 36, again, accumulated in short seasons, were still the 11th and 12th best ever. Yet the two of them end up as the #18 and #22 1B of all-time. Their achievements have been discounted, or "timelined." Similarly, Jake Beckley has 318 WS. As of 2002 when TNBJHBA came out that was 15th best all-time, yet Beckley was rated 52nd. That's timelining.

At SS, Bill Dahlen has 393 WS, 5th best ever, yet is rated #21.

In CF, Max Carey has 351 and is #23. Kirby Puckett has 281 and is #8.

Nobody is saying you don't have to adjust for the fact that it was easier to dominate--well, maybe some are. But there are timelines out there that are just a bit too steep, James e.g.

As to the notion that Jim Rice would be lowering the bar to Cooperstown if he got elected, I'm with John's initial reaction. John, don't give in! The fact is that there is not a player on the BBWAA ballot who has passed the 5 percent test (that is, who is not a 1st year) who would lower the ballot. Not one. And some players who have failed to get 5 percent are clearly better than some HoFers.

So, no, Jim Rice could/would hardly be lowering the bar.

This is not to say that aren't arguments against Jim Rice. Like, if we're going to be systematically harder on modern players than on the old-timers; if we're only going to elect half as many of the modern players than of the old-timers; then we should doubly try to get the right ones. So if Jim Rice is not the best candidate available, then we should elect whoever is.

That would be a valid argument against Jim Rice, IMO.

But the lowering the bar argument is just not plausible until they give Hafey and G. Kelly the boot.

I, in no way, think that there should be more players in the HOF today. That was not my point. My point is that Ruth, Johnson, Young, Wagner etc appear to be more dominant versus their peers than today's stars is because their peers were somewhat weaker, relatively speaking, than today because of the size of the talent pool from which players are selected.

While I follow these discussions closely, I have never quite figured out what "timeline" means. I gather that it's an attempt to compare players from different eras more fairly, but what methodology is done to achieve this, or what the basic concept behind it is, I don't know.

I was talking today to my art professor friend about the very subject of timelining---in art history. My friend, Arthur, told me about how two art-history profs he knew would literally stand nose-to-nose arguing whether Picasso was fit to hold Michelangelo's paint brush...and vise verse. The one prof thought that no good art had been made since around the time of the Dutch Masters, while the other thought that 20th century art featured so much more intellectual, medial, and technical interest that it blew away the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

So I'm imagining this argument as our baseball argument playing out in an art/academic setting, when Arthur pointed out something else, namely the introduction of linear perspective. Linear perspective totally revolutionized representational art...just like the home run revolutionized baseball. It creates a convenient dividing line between the really old way and the newer way. Anyhow, I'm not an art historian, and I don't really know exactly how this stuff all works, but the notion that a comparison between Michelangelo and Picasso drew forth the same kinds of arguments and the same intensity of feeling that timelining arguments do in the baseball world. Kind of cool.

As to the notion that Jim Rice would be lowering the bar to Cooperstown if he got elected, I'm with John's initial reaction. John, don't give in!

My reaction is still the same as my initial one was, Marc. I don't think Rice could remotely lower the bar any lower than it has been already. But what I did agree with kwarren about was that as more subpar candidates get elected, the credibility of the institution will be further eroded.

Jim Rice is only a viable candidate because he is generally overrated by the voters. If he gets elected, and remains overrated by succeeding generations of voters until he is forgotten, then he will not "lower the ballot" or "the bar", because voters will make comparisons to Jim Rice as they know him, not Jim Rice as sabrmetricians know him. If he gets elected and succeeding generations of voters gradually know him as sabermetricians do --significantly, before he passes from the comparison set-- then he will lower the whatever.

The fact is that there is not a player on the BBWAA ballot who has passed the 5 percent test (that is, who is not a 1st year) who would lower the ballot. Not one.
. . .
But the lowering the bar argument is just not plausible until they give Hafey and G. Kelly the boot.

Sure there is. There is no practical sense in which Chick Hafey or George Kelly define any ballot or bar (or floor). No one, voter or sabermetrician, compares a candidate with Hafey or Kelly and uses it to make a case for that candidate. In general they have faded from view. Among scholars they have well-established status as mistakes, among the poorest HOF players. Dan Greenia sets the mistakes aside and uses the 20th or 25th percentile as a reference point. Perhaps that is Chuck Klein or Bill Terry rather than Hafey or Kelly?

A quick review of the top of my ballot and the new candidates before the balloting opens:

If the indications are that we will elect Phil Niekro, Ted Simmons, and Don Sutton, that's fine with me: they will be 1, 2, 3 on my ballot.

Simmons is clearly an outstanding candidate. He's below Bench/Berra, but he's far above the in-out line.

Sutton is not so outstanding, but Howie speaks my mind when he says that, although Sutton isn't tremendous, he's ahead of a backlog which is made up (almost) entirely of players who are right on the in-out line. Sutton's 15 above average seasons make for a lot of peak value, just distributed differently from that of a very high-peak player. The only player with possibly that many above average seasons whom we have not elected is Rabbit Maranville, whom WARP1 sees as having 15 above average seasons, but WS sees Maranville as having only 7.

Nettles remains a challenging case. Part of the difficulty in assessing him concerns the level of competition in the 1970s AL. How much was it affected by expansion?

I set my provisional in/out line on a per-decade basis by counting up the team years for that decade, comparing them to the total team-years in major-league baseball (with adjustment for NeL baseball prior to integration) and assigning that decade a proportional number of the 231 HoM slots open through the 2007 election. I then rank in order all the players who earned a plurality of their win shares within a given decade (with some all-time greats who were dominant in two decades, i.e. Wiliams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, etc. split between two decades) and set the provisional in-out line at the level of the player who, by this method, gets the last slot.

In my combined system, the in/out line for the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1980s is right around 350 combined wins (WS/3 + WARP, with career value, total peak value and 5X peak rate summed in each system). For the 1950s, player 18 is Nellie Fox at 350.78. For the 1960s, player 20.5 is Ken Boyer at 353.9. For the 1980s, player 26.5 is (I think) Dave Stieb at 348.12. The consistency of this line leads me to believe that I am setting the bar at about the right place for these three decades, with expansion being ever so slightly offset by a growing pool to increase the quality of competition.

For the 1970s, however, player 24.5 is Luis Tiant at 360.33, followed by Graig Nettles at 359.45. This is considerably higher than the provisional in-out line for the surrounding three decades, and about the same as player 20 for the 1940s, Bus Clarkson at 359.97.

I see three possible explanations for the higher performances of the 1970s:

1) a slightly greater concentration of top players than usual
2) a slightly greater concentration of top players created by my somewhat arbitrary method of grouping players by decades
3) a result of expansion weakening competition levels somewhat.

There is a similar pattern in my results for the 1930s, but for that decade it is clear that the quality of play was higher than in the 1910s and 1920s and that there was a greater concentration of top players than usual both in reality and in the arbitrary decade grouping. So I lowered the in-out line for that era to slightly below the 1920s that preceded it.

For the 1970s, I don't know that the evidence of stronger competition is so clear, and so I am uncertain how to place Nettles on my ballot. My plan at this point is to be cautious but not dismissive, putting him slightly below Nellie Fox, and seeing what new information about the 1970s emerges in the course of discussion.

Bruce Sutter and Ron Guidry are both closer to the in-out line than I had expected. They are close enough that a minor alteration of my system, or a small subjective adjustment could put them in contention for a ballot spot, but they are headed for the 30-45 range at this point. I am more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a starter from 1975-1990 than to a reliever from that same period, as we are short on the former but not on the latter.

I imagine we will really dig in to starting pitchers of this period when Stieb and Morris hit the ballot in a few years.

Cruz and Concepcion are farther down. Even WARP1, which greatly favors strong defenders, only gets Concepcion to the in-out line in my system, and as I am inclined to believe that it overrates gloves somewhat (a nice compensation for WS underrating them), I conclude that Concepcion falls short. Both WS and WARP agree that Cruz falls short also. It's imaginable that if his career had gotten better traction in the 1970s, he would be a HoMer. But he didn't.

>as more subpar candidates get elected, the credibility of the institution will be further eroded.

That still begs the question of what a sub-par candidate is.

As I said, a sub-par candidate would be anyone who is not the best candidate available.

But this also begs the question of whether the credibility of the institution doesn't already suck big time. Electing the right candidate--that is to say, the right borderline candidate, I mean, anybody can elect Cal Ripken--but electing the right borderliners might enhance its credibility, but right now I don't see how it can go any lower.

>There is no practical sense in which Chick Hafey or George Kelly define any ballot or bar (or floor). No one, voter or sabermetrician, compares a candidate with Hafey or Kelly and uses it to make a case for that candidate. Dan Greenia sets the mistakes aside and uses the 20th or 25th percentile as a reference point. Perhaps that is Chuck Klein or Bill Terry rather than Hafey or Kelly?

I'm with DanG on that. But we're talking here about the credibility of Cooperstown and the HoF voting process. Today's problems are different than the problems of earlier generations, but the problems are cumulative. Cooperstown as an institution is burdened by all the problems throughout the years. So players who are as good or better than not only Hafey and G. Kelly but also Terry and Klein cannot really lower the credibility of the institution.

Maybe they can affect the present day voting and/or reflect upon the validity of present day voting. But present day voting is only one of Cooperstown's many burdens.

C Cobb: If the indications are that we will elect Phil Niekro, Ted Simmons, and Don Sutton

Been out a lot, haven't read thru all of the prelims, so I don't know if Chris is accurate, but I'm hesitant on Sutton, and a bit surprised that a guy who is all career and little peak would jump right to the top of many ballots (excepting voters who are primarily career-oriented, of course).

Sutton looks a lot like Beckley. We've argued him since the Bronze Age, and we are going to rush Don right in?

Is Sutton obviously better than Tiant? They look pretty close:
RSAA
Tiant prime 1964-79 195 runs
Sutton prime 1968-82 167 runs

Tiant about 17 career runs better as a hitter (RCAP 5 vs -12)

Tiant had 4 post-season starts. Pitched 34 innings, 2.6 ERA, team won all 4 games. Just as impresssive as more famous guys like Gibson and Morris. Sutton's post-seasons were kinda average.

Tiant had much better peak stats, by most measures.

Sutton has much more impressive career totals.

I'll check out Sutton's thread before voting, and he may wind up ahead of Loouis Loouis, but he will NOT make my top 7; and given the choice between another 70s pitcher and Bucky Walters, I hav ea clear preference for Bucky.

I have Sutton as better than El Tiante, but it is surprisingly very close, Tom.

I've just finished calculating my WARP statistic (which has been discussed at great length on various Dave Concepción threads) for NL non-catcher starting position players from 1893-2005. I'd like to post the data in spreadsheet form along with a detailed explanation of the metholodology. Any chance I could get a HoM thread?

Any chance I could get a HoM thread?

Sure, Dan. What name would you like to give the thread?

Dan Rosenheck's WARP Data?

Dan Rosenheck poops his pants!

I'll probably go with Dan's selection, 'zop. :-D

I'll have the thread up sometime today.

If the data is in spreadsheet form, you could post the xls (or csv) files to the yahoo group.

how do i do that?? i didnt know there was a yahoo group.

HOM Yahoo Group

We could still have a thread for discussion, of course.

If the data is in spreadsheet form, you could post the xls (or csv) files to the yahoo group.

That's actually more preferable, David. I always forget about that site.

how do i do that?? i didnt know there was a yahoo group.

Hall of Merit Group

You'll need to register first if you haven't done so at Yahoo, Dan.

C Cobb: If the indications are that we will elect Phil Niekro, Ted Simmons, and Don Sutton

Been out a lot, haven't read thru all of the prelims, so I don't know if Chris is accurate, but I'm hesitant on Sutton, and a bit surprised that a guy who is all career and little peak would jump right to the top of many ballots (excepting voters who are primarily career-oriented, of course).

Sutton looks a lot like Beckley. We've argued him since the Bronze Age, and we are going to rush Don right in?

In supposing that we might be moving toward electing these three, I was following the lead of DavidFoss, who put forward the idea, back around post 180, that this seemed to be the trend, and that those who thought we should choose otherwise ought to speak up about it.

I don't know how systematic David was in gathering data to make this assertion, but I was noting that it would correspond with my view.

Speaking in terms of voting patterns, it seems unlikely that any candidate from the old backlog will get more than 10 elect-me votes this year or appear on more than about 50% of ballots, and I think it is pretty likely that Sutton wil top both of those figures.

Speaking in terms of merit, I don't see myself as primarily a career-oriented voter but as a voter who is willing to recognize that career value has merit, and Sutton has a ton of it. I noted that Sutton has 15 above-average seasons and that we have elected every player with that many. ronw lists Sutton with 14 all-star seasons. He was an above-average player for a long time, and a reliable innings-eater for an even longer time. That, with apologies to karlmagnus, is more than Beckley, who didn't last as long and who had more weak seasons in the course of his career (I see his as having 12 above average seasons). Beckley is on my ballot, and Tony Perez (another career candidate with a dozen above -average seasons) is very near my ballot, but Sutton's record is significantly more impressive than either of theirs.

Sure, Tiant's peak was better than Sutton's and I don't oppose the election of Tiant, but Sutton had many more productive seasons than Tiant. That's just too much to set aside in favor of Tiant's relatively small peak advantage.

I don't know how systematic David was in gathering data to make this assertion, but I was noting that it would correspond with my view.

I was just trying to generate discussion before the voting started. Too often its midway through the voting week before people suddenly realize that borderline-newly-eligible is destined for induction and they feel cheated that they didn't get enough of a chance to mount a case against the guy (or for their favorite backlogger).

Quincy Trouppe and Nellie Fox only got 272 and 270 points last year, so a newly eligible really doesn't need *that* much support to go in first ballot. I wasn't that systematic so to speak but judging from comments and some prelims it looked like Sutton & Simmons were going to be able to come up with at least the 300-400 points.

The Yahoo group says there is not enough space for my 1.5MB file. Any suggestions?

Nevermind, I got it up at http://www.mindspring.com/~cooberp/WARP.zip. That has both the data and the explanation/methodology. I hope you all find it useful!

In Sean Forman's latest plug for the new baseball-reference PI, he posts a list of the Teams with the Greatest Number of Hall of Famers since 1901

No surprise that the Ruth/Gehrig era Yankees dominate the list with Frisch's Giant and Cardinal teams well-represented as well (they had some legit stars on those teams too, I suppose).

Seeing players inducted as managers adds a bit of quirkiness to the lists (especially considering that HOF managers don't count as part of the total).

Fewer other surprises with the 50s Indians/Dodgers and 60s Giants scoring well. The 33-34 Pirates were loaded with HOF-ers as well as the 1927 Senators and the 1925 White Sox.

(FYI - the list of teams with 5 HOF-ers appears to be truncated so the list can fit on one page).

A slight quibble - the teams with the greatest number of Hall of Famers list includes teams with players such as Leo Durocher and Walter Alston, who were inducted as managers. While I'm certainly not going to disrespect Alston's achievements as a manager, it's a bit misleading to consider him as a Hall of Fame player...

Yeah, managers-as-players but not managers-as-managers certainly adds quirkiness to the lists. Its just similar to lists that a few people post here about HOM-ers so I thought it might be worth a mention.

Nobody is saying you don't have to adjust for the fact that it was easier to dominate--well, maybe some are. But there are timelines out there that are just a bit too steep, James e.g.

How does one make that determination. That's like saying that I agree with speed limits, but the ones were using are too high or too low.

As to the notion that Jim Rice would be lowering the bar to Cooperstown if he got elected, I'm with John's initial reaction. John, don't give in! The fact is that there is not a player on the BBWAA ballot who has passed the 5 percent test (that is, who is not a 1st year) who would lower the ballot. Not one. And some players who have failed to get 5 percent are clearly better than some HoFers.

So, no, Jim Rice could/would hardly be lowering the bar.

We're not talking about lowering the bar (or comparison to the poorest player in the HOF). We are talking about lowering the standard, prestige, integrity, and credibility of the Hall. The more non deserving players that are inducted, the less respect one has for the Hall and for it's members. And Jim Rice is not deserving, which far too many voters can't seem to grasp. See post 221 and 222.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion of course. But this is like when Yogi said, Nobody goes there, it's too crowded.

If Rice gets more votes than somebody else, then there's a consensus in his favor. If they put in a guy with fewer votes, that would be a problem.

YOU don't think Jim Rice is desereving and so the HoF's credibility will be lowered for YOU. Fine.

For me, it would be lowered if they elected, say, Neifi Perez or Smokey Joe Wood. But considering who is already in there, my opinion of the HoF would not be any less if they elected Jim Rice. My opinion of them might improve a little if they elected Will Clark first, but it wouldn't go down if they didn't. It's too low already.

Rob W, can you provide how much better Sutton came out in your win value system than simply by using his runs allowed?

Annoyed by Jim Rice's support? Heck, I'm already bitter that Tim Raines is going to be shafted, and they still have 10 months before the voting starts!

An' I'm not sayin' Jim Rice is a HoFer or a HoMer. It's just this fetish of keeping out qualified players (Trammell, et al) as if that makes up for the fact that George Kelly and Freddie Lindstrom are in there. Two wrongs are two wrongs, one more than one, it makes things worse, not better. Or if the fetish is just keeping Jim Rice out, well, it's that its part of this fetishistic pattern. And I think half of the anti-Rice thing is anti-Rice, half of it is the anti-modern fetish talking. I'm not sayin' which one kwarren is 'cuz I don't know.

The Hardball Times has an article up naming the best 40 pitchers of all-time based on Win Shares above Bench, their own metric. There are three pitchers on that list (all in the bottom 6 or 7) who are eligible for the Hall of Merit but have not been elected: Quinn, Mays and Cooper. I don't support either of them, but I thought that was interesting.

Quinn, Mays and Cooper. I don't support either of them, but I thought that was interesting.

Especially relevant this year is that Don Sutton clocks in at the bottom of the list at #40. #40 is pretty good, but as you say those other guys are above him in this particular metric.

Well, I think we have established fairly conclusively that win shares overrates Carl Mays because it doesn't take his outstanding defensive support sufficiently into account, but Cooper (who is on my radar screen but down in the 40's) and Quinn (who I've always dismissed as a quirk of Joe's system) deserve another look.

My upcoming ballot will put Tommy John smack dab on top of Jack Quinn.

>Well, I think we have established fairly conclusively that win shares overrates Carl Mays ...but Cooper ...and Quinn deserve another look.

First, Vic Willis.

I like Cooper best among Willis, Quinn, and Mays...as you all know. Presumably the article likes Wilbur, not Mort.

First, Vic Willis.

I agree. I was looking over my pitcher rankings recently and decided that I was underrating Willis. I moved him up accordingly and he's now top 20- and likely to go top 15 when we hit the backlog elections in the late 1990s.

An' I'm not sayin' Jim Rice is a HoFer or a HoMer. It's just this fetish of keeping out qualified players (Trammell, et al) as if that makes up for the fact that George Kelly and Freddie Lindstrom are in there. Two wrongs are two wrongs, one more than one, it makes things worse, not better. Or if the fetish is just keeping Jim Rice out, well, it's that its part of this fetishistic pattern. And I think half of the anti-Rice thing is anti-Rice, half of it is the anti-modern fetish talking. I'm not sayin' which one kwarren is 'cuz I don't know.

I would have no problem with Trammell going in, and I don't know a thing about George Kelly or Freddie Linstrom. To me, Rice is not even close, and the fact that he gets so much support and press clippings that will likely put him in eventually makes tha Hall of Fame and/or the voting process look a little silly.....again. It's a little annoying to have a sport where the people covering it can't even figure out who the best players out, or would rather not, making the voting nothing more than a glorified popularity contest.

Let's take a look at some potential outfield candidates:

Albert Belle....13.7, 12.3, 11.4, 11.3, 10.5...(59.2)....90.0
Dwight Evans....11.9, 10.6, 9.3, 9.3, 7.8....(48.9)...119.1
Andre Dawson....10.7, 9.1, 9.1, 8.0, 7.9....(44.8)...109.5
Jimmy Wynn......11.0, 10.8, 10.0, 10.0, 9.2....(51.0)....93.4
Dale Murphy.....11.5, 10.3, 10.2, 9.8, 9.3....(51.1)....91.6
Ken Singleton...11.1, 10.4, 9.6, 9.2, 9.1....(49.4)....91.0
Bobby Bonds.....10.2, 9.3, 9.2, 9.0, 8.9....(47.6)....93.2
Rusty Staub.....10.0, 8.7, 7.9, 7.1, 6.8....(40.5)...102.7
Jose Cruz.......10.5, 9.5, 7.9, 7.6, 7.2....(42.7)....96.0
Jim Rice........10.4, 9.4, 9.1, 8.2, 7.4....(44.5)....89.2
Fred Lynn.......11.1, 9.2, 8.1, 6.8, 6.7....(45.9)....87.5
Jose Canseco....12.5, 9.4, 8.6, 6.9, 6.6....(44.0)....87.8
Dave Parker.....10.3, 8.8, 8.6, 8.5, 7.9....(44.1)....86.3
Reggie Smith.....9.7, 8.9, 7.3, 6.8, 6.4....(39.1)....91.4

How can we even be thinking about Rice when there are outfielders like Albert Belle, Dwight Evans, Andre Dawson, Jimmy Wynn, Dale Murphy, Ken Singleton, Bobby Bonds, and Rusty Staub who are light years ahead of him and whom are still waiting their turn.

Does anyone have historical home run component park factors? I could really use them for my pitcher evaluations...

Chris Cobb:
The only player with possibly that many above average seasons whom we have not elected is Rabbit Maranville, whom WARP1 sees as having 15 above average seasons, but WS sees Maranville as having only 7.

How do you count?
It doesn't seem to be BRAA + FRAA > 0

Does anyone have historical home run component park factors? I could really use them for my pitcher evaluations...

Dan - Did you mean only HOME RUN, or are you looking for all components (doubles, triples, etc.)?

If you need only HR's, I have the data that will allow you to easily calculate them. If you need all components, that data I don't believe exists outside of the "Retrosheet Years" of 1957 to current, although I do have a file of estimated component factors.

number of seasons, WARP1 > 2.0
19 Lave Cross
17 Maranville

rawagman, 1994 Ballot #12:
Pete Browning and Charlie Keller take big hits this week - I realize how much they lacked in-season durability - maybe we should ask ourselves - is it easier for a good hitter to put up higher rates when not playing every day? Same with pitchers. We know that releivers have higher rates and we seem to agree that it is at least partially a result of not pitching as much as starters. So why not take this into account when looking at those hitters who have enormous rate numbers but weren't playing every day. As a side note, I think that Edd Roush played close enough to every day to justify the faith in his rates.

Relievers work regularly with less playing time and in a corresponding sense more rest than starters.

Catchers tend to work less than 7-position players in the same way, regularly, perhaps 10% less today and 40% less one hundred years ago.

But 7-position players with low workloads --low durability measured at the season level-- commonly play not at all for part of the season during holdout, suspension, injury, etc, and play every game for most of the season. Why should there be any tradeoff between playing time and playing quality?

The analogy to relievers may pertain only to low workload, low measured durability associated with genuine rest days or with platooning, which is not common in the careers of plausible HOM candidates.
Norm Cash? and late Graig Nettles?

Paul - I am thinking about the trend (not sure if that's the best word here, but please bear with me) of great seasons fizzling down the strech run. Witness John Olerud's semi-recent run at .400.
This also can be seen in the single game. How many no-hitters are broken up in the ninth? I think it's fair to say that there are more 8-inning no-hitters than 9 inning versions.
As a side note, I undersatand, and try to compensate for, catchers' usage patterns and don't look at rate as much in regards to releivers.

How do you count?
It doesn't seem to be BRAA + FRAA > 0

No, that wouldn't be a good measure of average, since FRAA is position-specific, and BRAA isn't.

I calculate "average" in WARP1 by looking team-level statistics. For a number of teams equal to 1/4 of all teams in a league, I

1) record team games
2) For the team, calculate BRAR-BRAA; FRAR-FRAA; PRAR-PRAA; to find the difference between replacement level and average for all players on the team in the aggregate.
3) I then use the pitcher-specific fielding data to find pitchers' FRAR-FRAA, which I then subtract from the team FRAR-FRAA difference and add to the PRAR-PRAA difference, to put pitchers and position players into different pools.

4) I then calculate RAR for an average position player from the team data [(BRAR-BRAA)+(FRAR-FRAA)-(pitchFRAR-FRAA)]/8
and
5) I then calculate RAR for an average pitcher from the team data [(PRAR-PRAA)+(pitchFRAR-FRAA)]*(avg. IP by starting pitcher that season/total team IP)
(average pitcher usage values I have already calculated separately)

6) average RAR values are then converted into win values by dividing by 10 (not entirely in keeping with WARP system, but close), and the values from each of the sample teams in the league (which can vary by up to about .3) are averaged.

Using this measure of the WARP1 of an average player, calculated for each league-season, I can find the amount that a given player was above average in any season.

Not a perfect system, but that's how I do it at present.

KJOK, just home runs, nothing else. I'd be *extremely* grateful if you could pass that along to me--today, hopefully, so that I can vote in this election! cooberp@gmail.com.

A question on the Negro League MLE's that have been published on this site--what major league are they being translated to? The actual MLB of the years in question (and if so, AL or NL)? Or some standardized-for-all-time league? And if it's the latter, what are its characteristics (R/G, stdev of wins above/below average per season, etc?

A question on the Negro League MLE's that have been published on this site--what major league are they being translated to? The actual MLB of the years in question (and if so, AL or NL)? Or some standardized-for-all-time league?

For the ones that I have done, the MLEs are translations/projections into the actual MLB for that year. From 1920-29, the seasons alternate between NL and AL, with NL in odd-numbered years, the AL in even-numbered years. From 1930 on, the MLEs are translated into the National League.

i think all mine are 1930 onward, and i did NL except where a guy had played in the AL that year.

Guys, I'm setting up the Vets' Committee ballot tomorrow. Question: should I just set one up solely for the players or should I also set one up for the mangers/executives/umpires, too? I'm personally leaning towards the latter.

Let me know what you guys think.

i'm all for players and the rest too.

Will we mock the vet vote the same way we did for the BBWAA version?

Will we mock the vet vote the same way we did for the BBWAA version?

IMO, they deserve more scorn than the BBWAA, Ryan.

Anybody got MLE's for Dick Redding?

That's not what I meant by mock, but touche.

That's not what I meant by mock, but touche.

Oh, you meant as in imitate. Sorry about that. :-)

Yes, we will mock them.