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, April 16, 2007

1998 Ballot Discussion

1998 (May 7)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

339 143.6 1970 Bert Blyleven-P
337 117.8 1975 Gary Carter-C
312 108.8 1976 Willie Randolph-2B
316 92.1 1977 Jack Clark-RF/1B
298 89.3 1974 Brian Downing-LF/DH/C
210 88.0 1979 Dave Stieb-P*
244 70.8 1978 Carney Lansford-3B
246 68.7 1980 Pedro Guerrero-1B/RF
166 65.7 1982 Jesse Barfield-RF
163 61.6 1978 Jim Gantner-2B
177 56.2 1982 Von Hayes-RF/1B
168 59.5 1980 Mike Scioscia-C
158 59.3 1976 Mike Flanagan-P
141 50.5 1979 Ken Oberkfell-3B
128 54.5 1977 Floyd Bannister-P
153 41.4 1984 Alvin Davis-1B
120 39.0 1984 Brook Jacoby-3B
116 40.7 1978 Don Robinson-P
106 40.3 1980 Dave Smith-RP
103 40.5 1978 Dennis Lamp-RP

Players Passing Away in 1997
HoMers
Age Elected

90 1955 Buck Leonard-1B
70 1968 Richie Ashburn-CF

Candidates
Age Eligible

98 1938 Joe Hauser-1B
95 1942 Ray Benge-P
91 1944 Woody English-SS
90 1951 Dolph Camilli-1B
90 1954 Thornton Lee-P
88 1953 Billy Jurges-SS
82 1956 Johnny VanderMeer-P
80 1956 Eddie Miller-SS
75 1964 Bobby Adams-3B/2B
69 1971 Dick Donovan-P
68 1972 Roy McMillan-SS
59 1975 Curt Flood-CF

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 16, 2007 at 06:05 PM | 243 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 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. TomH Posted: May 01, 2007 at 11:32 AM (#2350808)
BP unfiltered today has info on batters getting thrown out stretching hits. One of the leaders of the past years (1970 to present) is Reggie Smith, who 26 times was gunned down while going for an extra base.
   202. TomH Posted: May 01, 2007 at 11:34 AM (#2350811)
Paul W, thanks for the tip - SABR bio project had some good info on Chance; not a lot, but yes he apparently had a lot of broken fingers while catching early on.
   203. TomH Posted: May 01, 2007 at 01:11 PM (#2350855)
a humorous oddity about Chance - never noticed this before, until last night I looked at the pbp data from the 1906 thru 1910 World Series - how often would you find a guy who had a lifetime OBA of .394, SLG of .394, and a bunch of stolen bases; bat CLEANUP for his team?
   204. DL from MN Posted: May 01, 2007 at 10:07 PM (#2351272)
"(4) Oms (3rd)--The contemporaries thought he was an All-Time great and the numbers (as thin as they are) back them up. Moved way up as others slide down the ballot. His case has no holes."

With this comment and the suggestion earlier that I look at Oms, I re-read his thread. I think I'm more confident in my ranking in the 40s though he moved up slightly. Oms' OPS+ was MLE estimated at 125 - considerably below Reggie Smith, Bob Johnson and Bobby Bonds. That's Jake Beckley, George Sisler, Kiki Cuyler and Heinie Manush territory. Granted Oms played a lot of CF, but so did Reggie Smith. Bobby Bonds and Bob Johnson were very good corner OF who played some CF. In addition he played in the 20s and 30s and we certainly have enough OF from this era.

My conclusion: relatively low OPS+, not a defensive whiz, good era representation = plenty of reasons to keep him off the ballot. I can't see myself moving him ahead of Bob Johnson, Reggie Smith or Bobby Bonds unless new MLEs produce 10 extra points of OPS+.
   205. mulder & scully Posted: May 01, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2351307)
Continuing my intermittent (sp?) look at players close to my ballot with Larry Doyle.

Pluses: He could hit. Now, Dan R (I think) has said that (replacement?) second basemen and first basemen were similar as hitters in the deadball era. and that second basemen, specifically Doyle, as hitters should be compared to first basemen.

Anyway, going with the thought that first and second basemen were similar as hitters, I thought I would compare Doyle with first basemen of his era - Konetchy, Daubert, Merkle, Chase, Saier, Hoblitzel, McInnis, Sisler, and Gandil. Oh, and Chance as well.

Doyle's OPS+ is 126 compares to the following:
Chance: 135
Sisler: 124 (about 155 before the eye problem)
Konetchy: 122
Saier: 120
Daubert: 117
Chase: 112
Hoblitzel: 111
Merkle: 110
McInnis: 105
Gandil: 103

Doyles' top 10s in OBP / SLG / OPS+ / Runs Created: 5 / 7 / 7 / 5
Sisler: 5 / 6 / 7 / 8
Konetchy: 2 / 5 / 5 / 5
Chance: 5 / 3 / 4 / 3
Daubert: 3 / 2 / 6 / 5
Saier: 1 / 3 / 3 / 3
Chase: 1 / 4 / 1 / 3
McInnis: 2 / 2 / 2 / 2
Hoblitzel: 1 / 1 / 1 / 2
Merkle: 0 / 2 / 1 / 1
Gandil: 1 / 0 / 0 / 0

I see Doyle as bettered by George Sisler among Deadball-Era first basemen as a hitter. And compared with other second basemen, Lajoie and Collins are much better, but no one else is close.
The first Chalmers MVP people thought a great deal of Doyle as he did win the 1912 MVP while still playing below average defense - for what its worth. He didn't lead the league in offensive categories either.

Minuses: Ummm, he had feet of clay?
Here are Doyle's rank among the 8 regulars at second base in the NL in his every year as a starter at fielding percentage and range:
1907: 8th (.917 to avg .952) and 8th (4.14 to avg 5.12)
1908: 8th (.935 to .954) and 8th (4.62 to 5.03)
1909: 5th (.940 to .938) and 8th (4.27 to 4.66)
1910: 8th (.930 to .952) and 8th (4.64 to 5.05)
1911: 6th/7th (.944 to .952) and 8th (4.34 to 5.03)
1912: 7th (.948 to .955) and 8th (4.84 to 5.09)
1913: 7th (.955 and .955) and 6th (5.08 to 4.92)
1914: 3rd (.959 to .949) and 7th (4.73 to 4.89)
1915: 5th/6th (.947 to .955) and 4th (4.82 to 4.79 - 6 players between 4.62 to 4.85)
1916: 2nd (.960 to .951) and 2nd (5.50 to 4.74)
1917: 6th (.952 to .956) and 7th (5.06 to 4.96)
1918: 2nd (.969 to .957) and 7th (4.68 to 5.11)
1919: 6th (.956 to .960) and 6th (5.25 to 5.14)
1920: 5th/6th (.967 to .963) and 8th (5.02 to 5.45)

Was any of the range factor related to strategic decisions by McGraw? After his first few years, it looks like he fielded the ball pretty clean, but his range was almost always awful. Slow first step? Bad baseball instincts? Positioning problems? Did the shortstop take all the stolen base attempt throws? Anybody have any information other than he was bad?
   206. Chris Cobb Posted: May 01, 2007 at 11:28 PM (#2351389)
His line for 1917 in Chicago, away from McGraw, is pretty similar to his lines in New York with McGraw.

That's one additional data point in favor of the conclusion that he was a bad fielder.
   207. mulder & scully Posted: May 02, 2007 at 06:58 AM (#2351973)
Good point Chris,

Something which seems odd to me: Doyle's range ranking in 1912, 1913, 1917, and 1919. In 1912, Doyle is about 5% below average, but finishes last in range. In 1913, he is over the average, but still 6th. In 1917, he is over the average and is 7th. And in 1919, he is over the average and is 6th. I guess the back-up second basemen are really bad defensively to pull the league range factor down that far. Any other input?
   208. rawagman Posted: May 02, 2007 at 07:13 AM (#2351978)
m&s - nice comparison of Doyle to other 1B hitters - I might now consider moving Doyle up a little for the next election.
However, before saying that he hit better than all 1B of the deadball era after Sisler, you should also include Ben Taylor in your comparison.
   209. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 02, 2007 at 01:04 PM (#2352009)
Mulder & Scully--to be precise, replacement 2B were about equal to replacement 1B from 1906-15, and yes, I think that 2B and 1B production can be compared freely without a positional adjustment for that time period. But by 1918-19 things were already changing a lot.
   210. DavidFoss Posted: May 02, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2352181)
yes, I think that 2B and 1B production can be compared freely without a positional adjustment for that time period

This has come up before. These types of "spectrum inversions" happen from time to time. Mostly due a shortage of stars at the 1B position rather than an increase in the replacement level of 2B. 1B was still the "easier position" in that players gravitated towards it as they got older. You couldn't just point to the two guys playing 2B & 1B in 1910 and come to the conclusion that they had equal defensive skill. I don't know why Doyle should be punished because the league chose to put weak hitters at 1B. (i.e. No HOM 1B between Anson & Sisler). Was 2B the glove position it was today? No. I favor treating 2B back then like 3B today. Doyle fares very well against guys like Cey, Bando, etc.
   211. mulder & scully Posted: May 02, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2352206)
I am not punishing Doyle. I think the point is that the offensive production of first basemen and second basemen can be compared without having to make any allowances for positional differences. Second base still has an increased defensive responsibility. Doyle is so impressive to me because you can compare him to white first basemen as a hitter and he is better than they are (Sisler excepted). Also, he played a tougher defensive position, not well, and there are no second basemen close to him in production in his era. You have Lajoie and Collins in the stratosphere, then Doyle, then everybody else.
   212. Paul Wendt Posted: May 02, 2007 at 09:09 PM (#2352523)
observation FYI, FWIW, add your own disclaimer.

McGraw's 1Bmen Fred Merkle (Doyle's contemporary) and George Kelly (the next long-timer) were considered very good fielders, at least. Baseball Magazine sometimes identified Merkle as the best in the game. There were others, perhaps 3-5 people sometimes called maybe the best. This was after Chase, before Sisler. 12-20 months ago I turned all the pages of every issue 1908-1922~ and this is in the vast class of things that I skimmed without taking notes. Many many articles touched upon identifying the best players in the game. 1911-1915 or so there were observations that Chase was the best in his younger days but he has slipped and A, or A and B, or {A, B, C} are now the best. McInnis and Merkle, Mack's man and McGraw's, may be A and B.

McGraw infielders Art Devlin and especially Art Fletcher put up some big numbers of Fielding Runs (Pete Palmer's old, deprecated measure) and big range factors, I presume (because Fielding Runs is a fancy relative range factor).

McGraw was a magnificent batter himself, only a decade before Doyle & Merkle.
   213. Paul Wendt Posted: May 02, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2352531)
McGraw infielders Art Devlin and especially Art Fletcher

3B and SS, Doyle's part-contemporaries.
This may be artistic confusion on my part, should be simply Fletcher?
   214. mulder & scully Posted: May 02, 2007 at 10:41 PM (#2352622)
A comment about Charley Jones.

Some have mentioned that his career was too short as a reason for not voting for him. Did any of you vote for Elmer Flick?

(goes and checks the Flick election results...)

He received 44 votes out of 45 ballots.

(There is NO CREDIT FOR BLACKLISTING among any of the following numbers.)
I ask because if you look at how many team seasons they played, they are almost equivalent. Jones had 9.34 team seasons and Flick had 9.95 team seasons. Jones had a 149 OPS+ as did Flick.
Jones and Flick are very comparable in several other measures:
Win shares in 3 straight years, season length adjusted to 154 games: Flick 96, Jones 98
Win shares in best 7 years (my prime measure): Flick 223, Jones 211
Defense: Both are C rated by win shares
Win Shares all-star: Flick 5, Jones 4 (Flick had 3 one-league years, 10 two league. Jones had 6 one-league and 5 two-league)
STATS all-star: Flick 6, Jones 5
OBP compared to league: Flick +.066, Jones +.051
SLG compared to league: Flick +.098, Jones +.108

Black Ink: Flick 23, Jones 20 (Jones had more time in one-league system, than Flick)
Grey Ink: Flick 179, Jones 162 (see above)

Top 10s in OBP / SLG / OPS+ / Runs Created:
Flick: 8 / 7 / 9 / 7
Jones: 6 / 8 / 8 / 6

One of these players had his last productive year at age 31.
One of these players was among the 7 oldest players in his league the last five years of his career - when he was an all-star 3 times.

One of these players made the HoM in 3 years - with no controversy.
One of these players made the HoM ballot for the 101st time.
   215. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2007 at 11:18 PM (#2352657)
Though it's a little more complicated than that since Jones played a few years in the AA (giving him blacklisting and longetivity credit helps counter that, IMO), Kelly, Flick is not a bad comp at all.
   216. Brent Posted: May 03, 2007 at 04:16 AM (#2353044)
DL from MN wrote:

With this comment and the suggestion earlier that I look at Oms, I re-read his thread. I think I'm more confident in my ranking in the 40s though he moved up slightly. Oms' OPS+ was MLE estimated at 125 - considerably below Reggie Smith, Bob Johnson and Bobby Bonds. That's Jake Beckley, George Sisler, Kiki Cuyler and Heinie Manush territory. Granted Oms played a lot of CF, but so did Reggie Smith. Bobby Bonds and Bob Johnson were very good corner OF who played some CF. In addition he played in the 20s and 30s and we certainly have enough OF from this era.

My conclusion: relatively low OPS+, not a defensive whiz, good era representation = plenty of reasons to keep him off the ballot. I can't see myself moving him ahead of Bob Johnson, Reggie Smith or Bobby Bonds unless new MLEs produce 10 extra points of OPS+.


Three points in defense of Oms:
(1) Oms was a good center fielder; I don't think it's appropriate to compare him directly to corner fielders without adjusting for the difference in fielding contribution.
(2) His OPS+ is depressed somewhat by his career length -- the MLEs show him playing regularly through age 42. His MLE OPS+ through age 34 was 138.
(3) Just as there is a case for minor league credit for Johnson, there is similarly a case for Oms. He was playing at the highest Negro League level in 1917 at age 22, but then played in a Cuban provincial league for which statistics are not available. His MLEs start in 1921 at age 26, but I give him credit for one extra season in 1920. (I give Johnson credit for two minor league seasons.)

While there are pros and cons for each of these players, I have Oms ranked ahead of them based on his defense and his excellent prime from 1921-29.
   217. mulder & scully Posted: May 03, 2007 at 04:23 AM (#2353049)
John,

You are correct about Jones having the benefit of playing in the AA, but 1. Flick had his prime as the number of major league teams doubled, and 2. Jones was from North Carolina and one of the first "Southerners" to be in the majors. He may not (can someone fill me in please) have had an opportunity to play in the National Association before age 26 because of simple geography. Not that I give any pre1875 credit. Just saying the length of Jones' career may be hindered because of where he was from and how Eastern/Midwestern the NA was.
   218. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 03, 2007 at 07:12 PM (#2353483)
DavidFoss, the number of stars has no bearing on my calculations of replacement level and thus positional weights. Those are based on the *worst* three regulars in each league at the position.
   219. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 03, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2353511)
2. Jones was from North Carolina and one of the first "Southerners" to be in the majors. He may not (can someone fill me in please) have had an opportunity to play in the National Association before age 26 because of simple geography. Not that I give any pre1875 credit. Just saying the length of Jones' career may be hindered because of where he was from and how Eastern/Midwestern the NA was.


Though Jones was born in NC, he was living in Indiana by age 10 and began his professional career there.

As for his pre-NA career, while I don't give him any credit for it (since I have no idea how good he was), it would be great if we knew what he did at that time.

BTW, I have Jones at #5 on my ballot, so don't think I'm not in your corner about him, Kelly. :-)
   220. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 07, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2356826)
I'll just throw this out there: should Phil Rizzuto get MLE credit for 1940? He was playing his second year in AAA at Kansas City. I'm not sure whether his 1939 was quite good enough to serve as a "Look at me!" year. OTOH, Frank Crosetti had not been particularly good in 1939 (.233/.315/.332 as the leadoff hitter), and was downright terrible in 1940 (.194/.299/.273). As Neyer points out in his Blunders Book (which is where I got this idea), if the Yankees had, at the least, called Rizzuto up mid-season, they probably would have won at least 2 or 3 more games, and tied or won the pennant. He should have been in the majors in 1940 - but I will admit that an additional half-season isn't likely to be decisive.

BTW, I just was looking at Phil's b-r page, and the guy who's sponsoring the page is using to say he should be kicked out off the HOF. Classy.
   221. Paul Wendt Posted: May 07, 2007 at 05:43 AM (#2356841)
Lots of HOMers are available at baseball-reference, probably all of them cheaper than Phil Rizzuto.
   222. EricC Posted: May 07, 2007 at 12:45 PM (#2356915)
1998 prelim. New players in bold. I plan to submit this
as my final ballot this evening.

1. Gary Carter
2. Bert Blyleven
3. Wally Schang
4. Tommy John
5. Willie Randolph
Most similar players: Frisch, N. Fox, Schang, Kent, Dahlen
6. Brian Downing
Most similar players: Da. Evans, Dw. Evans, Dea. White, Frisch, Bi. Williams
7. Jack Clark
Most similar players: R. Smith, Burkett, Heilmann, Cepeda, Singleton
8. Rusty Staub
9. Norm Cash
10. Orlando Cepeda
11. Elston Howard
12. Reggie Smith
13. Mickey Vernon
14. Ken Singleton
15. Gene Tenace

Downing will raise eyebrows. I have double-checked the numbers, and
reconsidered my assumptions, and am more or less satisfied that he
belongs there. The reason that he ends up so high is a combination of
every quirk in my system breaking in his favor: catcher "bonus" for the
catcher years, treatment of DH as a position in itself,
(legitimate) timelining, and consideration of league strength.

I would love to vote for Dave Stieb , as he's one of my personal
favorites. Most similar pitchers are Appier, Saberhagen, Key, Cone, Lemon,
and Pierce, a set of excellent, but borderline pitchers. Stieb, alas,
ends up below my in/out line.
   223. TomH Posted: May 07, 2007 at 01:26 PM (#2356962)
a meta-question that may beg for more discussion; Eric's ballot reminded me of it.

DH: no defense, easiest position to fill, should be worth less than even first basemen or lousy corner OFers, right?

Well, I'm not so sure. A few studies have been done that show most players hit worse as DHs than when they play the field (needs to go look up specific studies instead of posting vague statements). If true, then a DH who OPS's 850 may be more valuable than a 1B with the same ##s.

This will impact B Downing among others
   224. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 07, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2357129)
Of course that 1B is making plays in the field, so I would disagree, even if the offense is worth more.

I am pretty bearish on DH's, at lesat a guys whose peak was at DH. As I see it making one play in the field is giving your team more defensive value than a DH does. If a DH is 0 then I am not sure that I buy anything less than 0.

It is easier to accept at the end of a career when a player wouldn't be losing much defensive value, but a guy like Edgar Martinez and, especially, David Ortiz may be a tough sell for me.
   225. Paul Wendt Posted: May 07, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2357143)
Frankie Frisch is a most similar player for both Willie Randolph and Brian Downing?
Did he catch in the minors? vision improve while he was on the Veterans Committee?


Tom's point is that service as DH may be interpreted as taking a hit for the team in one's batting achievements, so that 850 at DH corresponds to 900 at 1B or something like that. Pending the size of "something like that" and the value of bad defense at 1B, a "DH bonus" may be appropriate. Such a DH bonus would be kin to a "relief pitcher penalty" that corrects for ERA advantage.
   226. Paul Wendt Posted: May 07, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2357172)
Al Peterson, Ballot #84:
4. Norm Cash (2). Count me as one who sees him as a viable candidate. Maybe the Tigers used him optimally by sitting him vs leftys. Still did a lot of good things.

The word "still" suggests that Al sees "used him optimally by sitting him" as a negative, rather than as mitigating his less-than-full playing time. It is a negative, and it may be handled as a negative adjustment kin to that for relief pitcher advantage, and akin to the positive adjustment TomH envisions for the DH disadvantage.

(I don't know how often Cash did sit against a lefty. If that explains his playing time, it was not limited to over-the-hill seasons --a la Graig Nettles?)
   227. sunnyday2 Posted: May 07, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2357213)
Well, we didn't used to hear about such things back in the day, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty good that Cash probably came to the ballpark not in condition for a rigorous game of hardball some days.
   228. Sean Gilman Posted: May 07, 2007 at 08:36 PM (#2357515)
One player pre-integration, EricC? What do you consider "(legitimate) timelining?"
   229. EricC Posted: May 07, 2007 at 10:44 PM (#2357689)
What do you consider "(legitimate) timelining?"

I consider "legitimate" timelining as attempts to correct possible inherent reverse-timeline biases in sabermetrics (Bill James NBJHBA: If I didn't introduce a small time-line adjustment, I'd have 75 or 85* players from the first half of the [20th] century in the top 100. I can't believe that's right or logical ), without penalizing the greatest players from the past (note only ~2 19th century players in James's top 100).

In my timelining, harsh at it is, there are ~9 19th century players in the top 100, e.g. Anson, Ewing, Brouthers, and many more in the top 200.

*This strikes me as an exaggeration, but I believe that the main point is valid.
   230. Sean Gilman Posted: May 08, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2358367)
So, how exactly does it work?

What reverse-timeline biases? Are they only "possible"? How many players from the 1970s in your top 100, considering you have only 9 players from the first 40 years of professional baseball (from which the HOM has over 40 in 200 selections)?

I think you'll have a tough time defending James's NBJHBA timeline as legitmate.
   231. TomH Posted: May 08, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2358487)
A reverse-timeline bias is when one fails to recognize that a 150 OPS+ in 1877 should not be compared with a 150+ OPS in 1977, for reasons that have been richly discussed.

Eric's 9 19th century players out of 100 should be compared with the upper 40% of our HoM (when complete), which might be about 15.

I get 15 of my 100 for the 1800s, but that includes 4 tweeners (Young, Dahlen, Delahanty, G Davis), so it's only 11 'exclusively' in the 1800s.
   232. Sean Gilman Posted: May 09, 2007 at 06:51 AM (#2359142)
Eric's 9 19th century players out of 100 should be compared with the upper 40% of our HoM (when complete), which might be about 15.

Why?
   233. Sean Gilman Posted: May 09, 2007 at 06:54 AM (#2359143)
A reverse-timeline bias is when one fails to recognize that a 150 OPS+ in 1877 should not be compared with a 150+ OPS in 1977, for reasons that have been richly discussed.

No, that's called being fair to all eras, a pennant is a pennant, yadda yadda, etc etc.
   234. TomH Posted: May 09, 2007 at 12:19 PM (#2359187)
No, it's not.

Being fair to all eras and recognizing that a pennant is a pennant means that if it was a whole bunch tougher to put up shiny stats in 1980 than it was in 1870 or 1910, ignoring the above by simply using the shiny stats of earlier years to show how much "better" the players are is downright silly.

One example: Check out the ERA+ leaders by year on bb-ref.
From 1900 to the late teens the fifth-place finisher in each league averages about 140.
By the mid 1950s, the typical 5th place man is at about 130.

I hope we would agree that that a 130+ ERA in 1910 is NOT as "meritorious" as a 130 ERA+ in 1955.
   235. TomH Posted: May 09, 2007 at 12:22 PM (#2359188)
Eric's 9 19th century players out of 100 should be compared with the upper 40% of our HoM (when complete), which might be about 15.

Why?


Because Eric's list is top 100, while the HoM roles will be about 250.
   236. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 09, 2007 at 12:25 PM (#2359192)
No, it isn't being fair to all eras, Sean, because the standard deviation in 1877 was far, far higher than the standard deviation in 1977. So a 150 OPS+ bought you far fewer pennants in 1877 than it did 100 years later.

I'm no friend of black or gray ink, but using them does serve as a (brute and inaccurate) adjustment for standard deviation (just remember to account for league size!). Or you could just apply my League Adjustment figures (available in the StDevs and Rep Levels spreadsheet in my .zip file in the Hall of Merit Yahoo group) to WS/WARP to do a precise, correct adjustment.
   237. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 09, 2007 at 12:28 PM (#2359194)
haha, TomH, you beat me to the punch.
   238. sunnyday2 Posted: May 09, 2007 at 12:41 PM (#2359205)
Or you could just list the top n hitters of each decade (or other time period of your choice) and find that a 150 probably gets you a #5-6 in the 19C and a #10-15 in the golden age and a #8-10 now, and act accordingly.
   239. Sean Gilman Posted: May 09, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2359523)
If I didn't make it clear, I know we've been all over this before.

One preintegration player on a 1998 ballot is absurd though, clearly an example of a too harsh timeline.

Because Eric's list is top 100, while the HoM roles will be about 250.

And right now it's 200 and there are 40 19th Century players. Eric has less than half that.

No, it isn't being fair to all eras, Sean, because the standard deviation in 1877 was far, far higher than the standard deviation in 1977. So a 150 OPS+ bought you far fewer pennants in 1877 than it did 100 years later.

Your adjustments strike me as reasonable, Dan. It can be measured, is not evenly applied chronologically, has a rational basis, doesn't muck about with unprovable assertions of "league quality" and leads you to produce ballots that are historically balanced.
   240. Sean Gilman Posted: May 09, 2007 at 07:00 PM (#2359543)
In other words, what you guys (Dan and Tom) are talking about is not timelining, which Eric claims he does to "correct possible inherent reverse-timeline biases in sabermetrics (Bill James NBJHBA: If I didn't introduce a small time-line adjustment, I'd have 75 or 85* players from the first half of the [20th] century in the top 100. I can't believe that's right or logical ), without penalizing the greatest players from the past (note only ~2 19th century players in James's top 100)."

Why would the standard deviations you guys are talking about be unique to sabermetrics?
   241. Paul Wendt Posted: May 10, 2007 at 09:36 PM (#2360309)
I get 15 of my 100 for the 1800s, but that includes 4 tweeners (Young, Dahlen, Delahanty, G Davis), so it's only 11 'exclusively' in the 1800s.

All four played the full decade 1891-1900 in the majors, so you will not get any flak even from me in counting them all fully in a tally of 19th century players. On the other hand please count Frank Chance nary!


239. Sean Gilman Posted: May 09, 2007 at 02:50 PM (#2359523)
If I didn't make it clear, I know we've been all over this before.

One preintegration player on a 1998 ballot is absurd though, clearly an example of a too harsh timeline.


No, at this stage of the project one may believe that all the first and second tier (but I don't know how many tiers there be!) 19c players have been elected. Ones 1998 ballot is not a top 15 where only one from before WWI or only one pitcher or only one Negro Leagues player should raise a red flag. 1 of 15 means m+1 of n+15 where m and n are observable (approximately) only for those participants who maintain and report their PHOMs.

--
Don't suppose that I am negative on 19ers. I'm all for 19c players, of course. I would elect at least one more, at least 50 years ago (Charley Jones), I would not delete Jake Beckley now, and I think that some others may be worthy. (Dunlap and Williamson would certainly be in my top 25 at this stage of the HOM process and I have a nagging feeling about Sol White, although I don't expect to live long enough to resolve the nag.)

About a month ago I nearly completed a current top 25, not fully ordered, but despite all the good work by Chris Cobb, Gary A, KJOK, and Eric Chalek --take no offense if I leave you out-- I don't know what to make of White, Monroe, Taylor, and Oms, at least (although Oms is clearly in my top 25).
   242. Sean Gilman Posted: May 10, 2007 at 09:51 PM (#2360324)
It's not just one 19th Century player, that seems perfectly understandable (though I have three on mine). It's one player pre-1950s that strikes me as bizarre.
   243. Chris Cobb Posted: May 10, 2007 at 09:55 PM (#2360330)
Paul,

I'm going to have more on Taylor next week, soon as I get my spring grades in! With the help of Gary A's great data, we can now get a good look at the majority of his career, I think.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6666 seconds
68 querie(s) executed