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

Sunday, July 29, 2007

2002 Results: Two Shortstops (Trammell and Smith) and One Pitcher (Stieb) Are Now Hall of Meriters!

In his first year of eligibility, Tiger All-Star Alan Trammell scored an impressive 86% of all possible points for induction into the Hall of Merit.

Close behind him was fielding legend Ozzie Smith with a very strong 85% of all possible points in also his ballot debut.

Last but not least was Blue Jay great Dave Stieb as he became our third inductee this “year.” In his fifth year of eligibility, he received 27% of all possible points.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Pete Browning (almost looks like a sure bet in 2003!), Roger Bresnahan, Charley Jones, Bob Johnson, Andre Dawson (fine debut!), Cannonball Dick Redding and Tony Perez (back in the top-ten!).

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Alan Trammell           1011   48  18 14  4  2  1  4     1  2  2               
 2  n/e  Ozzie Smith              999   48  18 14  3  1  2  3  2  2  2              1   
 3    5  Dave Stieb               314   24   1     3     3  1  1  2  3  1  1  4  2     2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    4  Pete Browning            300   19      2  4  2  1  1  1  3  1  1  1  1        1
 5    8  Roger Bresnahan          271   19      1  2  2  1  2  3  2  1  1  1     2  1   
 6    6  Charley Jones            270   18   4        1  2  2  1  1  1  2  1  1  1  1   
 7    9  Bob Johnson              250   19            2  4  3  2     2  1  2  2        1
 8  n/e  Andre Dawson             235   18         1  2  1  4  2  1     1  2  1  1  2   
 9    7  Cannonball Dick Redding  232   14   1  2  2  2  1     2        1  2  1         
10   14  Tony Perez               230   17   1     2  4  1     1     1     1  1  1  1  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   10  Hugh Duffy               222   17   1        3  2  1  2     1     1  3  2  1   
12   12  Kirby Puckett            214   16      1     1  5  2     1        3     1  1  1
13   17  Tommy Leach              211   15         1  2  3  1  1  2  1  2  1     1      
14   11  Bucky Walters            210   15            3  3  3  2  1     1           2   
15   13  Gavvy Cravath            206   18      2     1        1  1  2  2  2  1  2  1  3
16   15  Alejandro Oms            186   15   1     1  2        1     1  2  2  2  1     2
17   16  George Van Haltren       181   12   1  1  1  1  1     1  2  1  1     1     1   
18   21  Graig Nettles            161   15         1           1  1  3  2  1  1  2  1  2
19   19  Luis Tiant               155   13         1  1  1     1  2  2        1  1  1  2
20   18  John McGraw              149    8         5  1     1                       1   
21   25T Mickey Welch             145   10      1  1  2     1  1        2     1        1
22   25T Lou Brock                144   10      2  1        1     1  1  1     2     1   
23   24  Bus Clarkson             144    9      1  2     2        1  1  1     1         
24   23  Reggie Smith             140   12                  1  3  3        2  1  1  1   
25   28  Burleigh Grimes          134   12         1  1     1  2        1     1     2  3
26   33  Norm Cash                130   11         1     1  1  1  1  1        1  2  1  1
27   31T Rusty Staub              129   11               1  1  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  1   
28   20  Tommy Bridges            129    9            2  2  1  2     1           1      
29   36  Vic Willis               124    9      1  1     1  1        1  1     1  2      
30   29  Orlando Cepeda           122   11            1  1     2  1  1           2  2  1
31   22  Dizzy Dean               111    7      2  1     1              1        2      
32   27  Phil Rizzuto             110    9                  2  3        1  1  1  1      
33   34  Larry Doyle              106    8         1  3           1              1     2
34   31T Ken Singleton            103   10         1           1     1        3  1  2  1
35   30  Dave Concepción           97    8            1  1  1     1  1     1     1     1
36   35  Dale Murphy               91    9                  1  1        2  1     2  2   
37   37  Bobby Bonds               89    9                  3                 2     2  2
38   39  Bob Elliott               87    9                        2  1     2  1     2  1
39   44T Tommy John                87    6         1     1  1  1           2            
40   38  Ben Taylor                80    7         1              1     1  1  1  1  1   
41   41  Dave Bancroft             80    6         1        1     1  1     1     1      
42   40  Pie Traynor               78    7         1              1  2              1  2
43   46  Carl Mays                 76    7               2        1     1        1     2
44   43  Wally Schang              71    6      1        1              1        1  1  1
45   42  Elston Howard             67    6            1        1        1  1  1        1
46   44T Chuck Klein               64    5      1     1                    1        2   
47   47T Vern Stephens             62    5            1              2  1  1            
48   59  Frank Tanana              59    4      1           2                          1
49   49  Don Mattingly             54    5   1                             1        2  1
50   50  Sal Bando                 49    5                           1  1  1  1     1   
51T  47T Bill Monroe               46    4                  1     1     1           1   
51T  51  Lance Parrish             46    4                        1  1  1  1            
53   54  Frank Chance              45    4            1              1     1           1
54T  52  Addie Joss                45    3   1                       1        1         
54T  68  Rick Reuschel             45    3         1                 1  1               
56   55  Wilbur Cooper             43    3      1                 1                 1   
57T  58  Buddy Bell                42    4                        1  1        1  1      
57T  57  Lefty Gomez               42    4                     1  1              1  1   
59   61  Ernie Lombardi            41    3         1                 1              1   
60   60  Tony Oliva                40    2   1           1                              
61   62T Thurman Munson            36    3                     1        2               
62T  65T Tony Mullane              33    3                        2                 1   
62T  65T Urban Shocker             33    3                  1        1                 1
64   62T Don Newcombe              32    3                     1           1     1      
65   53  Ed Williamson             32    2         1                       1            
66   64  Sam Rice                  31    3                     1           1        1   
67   56  George J. Burns           30    3                              1  1  1         
68   69  Rabbit Maranville         28    3                        1           1        1
69   82  Ron Cey                   24    3                              1           1  1
70T  86  Jim Kaat                  24    2                        1     1               
70T  70  Jimmy Ryan                24    2                           2                  
72   73T Jack Quinn                23    2            1                                1
73   76  Ed Cicotte                23    1      1                                       
74   75  Jack Clark                22    2               1                             1
75   84T Bill Mazeroski            22    1         1                                    
76   73T Bruce Sutter              21    2                              1  1            
77T  77  Frank Howard              20    2                              1     1         
77T  67  Johnny Pesky              20    2                              1     1         
79   84T Dizzy Trout               19    2                        1                    1
80   92T Fred Dunlap               17    2                                    1  1      
81   83  Brian Downing             17    1            1                                 
82T  71T Jim Rice                  16    2                                    1     1   
82T  78  Dave Parker               16    2                                       2      
82T  79  Al Rosen                  16    2                                 1           1
82T  71T Bobby Veach               16    2                                       2      
86   80  Luis Aparicio             16    1               1                              
87   87T Sam Leever                13    1                        1                     
88   87T Hack Wilson               11    1                              1               
89T  90T Fielder Jones             10    1                                 1            
89T  90T Leroy Matlock             10    1                                 1            
89T  92T Jack Morris               10    1                                 1            
92T  94T Jim Fregosi                9    1                                    1         
92T  87T Tony Lazzeri               9    1                                    1         
94T n/e  Charlie Hough              8    1                                       1      
94T  94T George Kell                8    1                                       1      
94T  96T Mickey Vernon              8    1                                       1      
97T n/e  Dutch Leonard              7    1                                          1   
97T  96T Bill Madlock               7    1                                          1   
99T  99T Dick Lundy                 6    1                                             1
99T  99T Al Oliver                  6    1                                             1
99T n/e  Gene Tenace                6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Levi Meyerle(96T), Carlos Morán(81), Mike Tiernan(99T).
Ballots Cast: 49

Thanks to OCF and Ron Wargo for their help making sure that the tally is correct.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 29, 2007 at 04:27 PM | 120 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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. TomH Posted: August 08, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2477196)
but not much different than OPS+...
   102. Jim Sp Posted: August 08, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2477203)
To be specific, OPS+ weights (league/park adjusted) OBP and SLG equally, it is not league/park adjusted OPS.
   103. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 08, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2477211)
sunnyday, well, I think that's because 1.7*OBP + SLG correlates to run scoring better than raw OBP + SLG does.


Has anyone checked, however, to see whether the fit to run scoring is better when you weight OBP at 1.7*SLG? I think here that you want the model with the best fit, not necessarily the one with the highest correlation.

-- MWE
   104. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 08, 2007 at 09:05 PM (#2477222)
Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between fit and correlation?
   105. DavidFoss Posted: August 08, 2007 at 09:23 PM (#2477256)
To be specific, OPS+ weights (league/park adjusted) OBP and SLG equally, it is not league/park adjusted OPS.

Yes. OPS+ already gives OBP a bit of a boost simply because OBP is a smaller number. OPS+ is the equivalent of using:

(lgSLG/lgOBP)*OBP + SLG

the coefficient lgSLG/lgOBP is going to vary, but in 2007 its about 1.28 or so.

1.7 is quite high. I've seen it, but I've also seen 1.4.
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 08, 2007 at 09:34 PM (#2477269)
Agreed sunny - there is nothing wrong with RBI.

As long as you account for RBI opportunities . . .


That last sentence needs to be in bold, because it's extremely important.
   107. DavidFoss Posted: August 08, 2007 at 09:57 PM (#2477285)
It's not an all or nothing deal. Justin Morneau doesn't always make an out.

Its not an all or nothing deal the other way around either. If Joe Mauer were to swing at those strikes right down the middle, he's not always going to get a hit out of it.

For people out there who don't actually *watch* Twins games, there's a current frustration amongst Twins fans concerning Joe Mauer's plate discipline. It seems too easy for the opposing pitcher to get ahead in the count by grooving the first pitch right down the middle. Any negative outcome can then be easily blamed on this hole he had to work himself out of. When given time to reflect, its hard to complain too much about a .299/.389/.435 hitter, but *in the moment* the called strikes cause some consternation amongst offense-starved Twins fans.

Justin's a bad example though. His OBP is fine. He's just having a better year at the plate than Joe is. All the metrics agree.

The 'classic' example is Robbie Alomar/Joe Carter. Joe got a little too much RBI-credit for Robbie's OBP abilities.

And some of it is what Esteban said back in #92. There's been a campaign amongst saber-types to convert people's thinking away from AVG and RBI and this has often focused on demonstrating how players with a low-walk rate are "overrated". I think the campaign has been won for the most part. OBP and SLG are plastered everywhere now whereas 20 years ago it was almost impossible to even find. The victory means that the campaign needs to stop. There's a generation of fans who don't know that a player used to be almost completely defined by his batting average. They've now created players who are now "so overated they're now underrated". :-) Guys like Gwynn and Suzuki can still be worth a ton.
   108. sunnyday2 Posted: August 08, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2477317)
BTW, I agreed with all the statheads last year--Joe Mauer was more valuable than Justin Morneau. But this year with their BA being closer (almost equal), I'll take Morneau's extra slugging over Mauer's extra OBA.
   109. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 09, 2007 at 05:52 AM (#2478333)
what's the difference between fit and correlation?


Remember that what we are talking about here is a linear regression of the form

y = a + bx + R

where R is the residual error - the difference between what the regression line predicts for "y" and what the actual value of "y" is.

Correlation is a measure of the relationship between y and x - if x and y are positively correlated, y increases as x increases. It says nothing about the magnitude of the residual errors - you could be wildly overestimating or underestimating actual run scoring, and it wouldn't matter one bit as long as the variables move in tandem.

Fit, on the other hand, is a measure of how small the residual errors are. Since what you are presumably trying to figure out is the actual impact of OBP/SLG on run scoring, I'd think you'd want a model that gets you as close to the actual runs scored as possible - which may or may not be the one that has the highest correlation between OBP/SLG and runs.

-- MWE
   110. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 09, 2007 at 12:45 PM (#2478431)
sunnyday--I imagine that's before accounting for the fact that Mauer catches and Morneau plays first.

Mike Emeigh--but isn't the square of the correlation equal to the percentage of variance accounted for? The higher your r-squared, the lower your residuals...no?
   111. DL from MN Posted: August 09, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2478653)
I believe y=2x+10 and y=2x+1000 would get a very high r-squared but they wouldn't have a good fit.
   112. Paul Wendt Posted: August 09, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2478671)
isn't the square of the correlation equal to the percentage of variance accounted for?

yes

The higher your r-squared, the lower your residuals...no?

the lower your sum of squared residuals, yes.

The residuals should be examined for patterns. Is there any pattern to "where" the residuals are unusually large in absolute value? any pattern to where the residuals are negative or positive?
"Where" means where in the data set. One might say "when" because residual patterns by date are likely to be important in this data. But there may be an important residual pattern by on-base-plus or slugging-plus, for example, which might reveal that any linear model is a poor one.

I wonder whether there is a good way to display the residuals graphically in a file that is not too large.
   113. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 09, 2007 at 04:35 PM (#2478691)
but isn't the square of the correlation equal to the percentage of variance accounted for?


Yes.

The higher your r-squared, the lower your residuals...no?


Not necessarily.

The formula for r is:

cov(x,y)/sqrt(var(x)*var(y))

r (and therefore r-squared) does NOT address the magnitude of variance in the residuals - which I think should be the area of interest here - only the relationship between variances in the dependent and independent variables.

-- MWE
   114. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 09, 2007 at 04:41 PM (#2478708)
The residuals should be examined for patterns. Is there any pattern to "where" the residuals are unusually large in absolute value? any pattern to where the residuals are negative or positive?


This is absolutely correct - but not done very much, at least in terms of applied statistical analysis of baseball. More often, players/teams that don't fit the model are dismissed as outlyers rather than being subjected to the type of analysis that Paul suggests.

-- MWE
   115. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 09, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2479113)
Ideally, I think what you want to do here is fit a model of this sort:

Runs = a + b1*(hits/PA) + b2*(OB-not-hit/PA) + b3*(EB/PA) + R

where OB-not-hit is times on base that are not the result of a hit (I would include ROE, if you have it), and EB is extra bases.

The other option that you have is to do what Mark Pankin did. This, too, has some issues - the underlying assumption that a player's performance is relatively constant across any specific situation being the biggest one - but it's more appropriate for an individual player in context.

-- MWE
   116. Rick A. Posted: August 10, 2007 at 02:10 AM (#2479653)
Howie,

Bridges 3685

I've got Bridges with 3675.
   117. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 12, 2007 at 07:04 AM (#2481868)
From the category of "Stuff you should absolutely not care about", since I have a database that counts up the point totals from my votes (and I just updated it), I decided to figure out how much I'd contributed to the top 50 list. From those given, here's the one's I've contributed the most to, by percentage.

1. Bill Monroe, 17.6%
2. Tommy Leach, 8.3%
3. Quincy Trouppe, 6.8%
4. Spotswood Poles, 6.4%
5. Mike Griffin, 6.4%
6. Dickey Pearce, 5.8%
7. Dick Redding, 5.5%
8. Lip Pike, 5.0%
9. Joe Sewell, 4.9%
10. Jim McCormick, 4.4%
11. Wes Ferrell, 4.1%

I don't think it means anything (I haven't voted for Poles, Griffin or McCormick since the early '40s), but what the heck. I think I might have tabbed my Monroe % as even higher than that, but I didn't actually guess.
   118. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 12, 2007 at 07:21 AM (#2481874)
Another totally useless piece of knowledge: Luis Tiant has managed to accumulate 159 points in my PHoM voting without ever making my official HoM ballot. He comes in 17th a lot. (Next highest is Nellie Fox at 78, and he's gotten some of those points since he's been elected, although he wouldn't be making the ballot anyway.)
   119. Paul Wendt Posted: August 12, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2481917)
For the also-rans wing of the Hall of Merit website, the person who voted each candidate highest/longest may be asked to draft the text of his citation.
   120. Paul Wendt Posted: August 12, 2007 at 02:50 PM (#2481933)
The vote for Alan Trammell and Ozzie Smith must be the closest match we have seen.
1  n/e  Alan Trammell  1011   48  18 14  4  2  1  4  1  2  2   ; and one off ballot
 2  n
/e  Ozzie Smith  999   48  18 14  3  1  2  3  2  2  2  1   ; and one off ballot 


My statistical instinct says That's incredible.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3146 seconds
49 querie(s) executed