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

Saturday, February 05, 2011

2012 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion

2012 (November 28, 2011)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

311 57.3 1991 Bernie Williams-CF
232 44.2 1993 Tim Salmon-RF
194 39.5 1994 Javy Lopez-C
211 31.3 1995 Edgardo Alfonzo-3B/2B
157 45.4 1995 Brad Radke-P
222 14.5 1986 Ruben Sierra-RF
166 23.0 1992 Brian Jordan-RF
170 13.0 1993 J.T. Snow-1B*
166 14.4 1993 Jeromy Burnitz-RF
162 17.1 1992 Eric Young-2B
126 30.5 1991 Jeff Fassero-P
120 30.8 1990 Scott Erickson-P
140 23.2 1996 Bill Mueller-3B
143 20.5 1995 Phil Nevin-3B/1B
153 11.9 1993 Vinny Castilla-3B
148 12.9 1995 Carl Everett-CF/RF
142 13.7 1996 Matt Lawton-RF/LF
121 26.0 1999 Corey Koskie-3B
100 24.0 1992 Pedro Astacio-P
135 12.2 1996 Joe Randa-3B
125 13.9 1991 Jose Vizcaino-SS/2B

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 05, 2011 at 01:12 PM | 341 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 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4
   301. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 21, 2011 at 05:15 AM (#4020832)
I'll be submitting my ballot tomorrow, as usual.
   302. Nate the Neptunian Posted: December 21, 2011 at 05:41 AM (#4020841)

Can't a discount for a known steroid user be justified on a "value versus ability" basis? We have lots of voters who don't like Concepción and Campaneris because they think that they were "the best of a bad lot" rather than actual HoM talents--in other words, that their value exceeded their ability. That is certainly constitutional. So why can't fra paolo say that Palmeiro's value exceeded his ability because of chemical enhancement?


I agree. It's clear a voter can't discount a player's numbers for moral or off the field issues after their 1st year of eligibility, but I think an argument for discounting steroid users' stats can be made on a performance level. It'd be like discounting the numbers of Bichette or Galarraga (not that either of them are in any danger of being elected) because a voter thinks that conventional park factors don't fully account for the effects of Coors Field in the 90s. That may or may not be correct, but it's clearly constitutional.

Not that I would do this in practice. I think it opens a huge can of worms, and would be difficult if not impossible to do accurately.
   303. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM (#4020888)
I definitely support an extension. Anything to maximize participation.
   304. fra paolo Posted: December 21, 2011 at 02:07 PM (#4020901)
Not that I would do this in practice. I think it opens a huge can of worms, and would be difficult if not impossible to do accurately.

Like a lot of things, all this depends on degree. By limiting the discount, it offers a way of buying time for more information to emerge. I consistently apply three sorts of 'discounts', usually a rough adjustment of 5-7 per cent to my prime ueberstat totals or to individual season ueberstat totals, purely in the specific 'head-to-head' phase of my ballot composition. I don't adjust the career value of a player at all.

One discount is to 'segregation era' players, whether Negro Leaguers or 'White' Leaguers. I apply this one least consistently, because it damages the cases of the Negro Leaguers, who have been victimized enough.

Another is to the Second World War's major leaguers. It cost Bucky Walters one of his 'MVP seasons'.

The third is to the 'Steroids Era'. I adjust both pitchers and batters by a small amount because we don't know how reliable this period's statistics is to other eras. It's related to my comment about Redding — there's an element of uncertainty, and we can't undo a vote. With perpetual eligibility, one can wait and see. As more players from this era appear on the ballot, one can get a better sense of their context.

As a sort of 'fun benchmark', I think of the middle 1980s as the moment when players need no discount. The major leagues were thoroughly integrated, there was no war and there weren't many questions about the ball or park effects or PEDs or whatever. Then, in 1987, we get the first question mark for a while.

My full ballot comment would reveal that Palmeiro's main problem is that by WSAB he was only once the best player at his position, as a DH in 1999. If one holds the lack of quality as strike against Traynor's many times as 'the best at his position' that season, Munson has a much better record than Palmeiro as an also-ran in a time of a 'star glut' at his position.

I still owe DanR a comment about his WARP system, but I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment with my Christmas guests, who arrived from Blighty yesterday.
   305. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2011 at 03:30 PM (#4020935)
I just sent an email to the group, to try to get a gauge of how many extra ballots an extension could bring. We'll have at least 23, but would definitely want more.
   306. dan b Posted: December 21, 2011 at 03:52 PM (#4020954)
I will have my ballot in today.
   307. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2011 at 04:21 PM (#4020982)
Besides karlmagnus and yest (who I noticed), who voted last year that hasn't this year?
   308. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#4021008)
First - gnomestani's ballot is a veiled insult. You can't count it.

Second - I'm not sure how someone can support John Olerud and not like Ben Taylor.
   309. Mike Webber Posted: December 21, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#4021095)
Second - I'm not sure how someone can support John Olerud and not like Ben Taylor.


I'm not sure what this is referencing. Is there anyone that likes Olerude and doesn't like Taylor?

Oh, I guess it's me. Since I didn't list him among my just off the ballot group by position. I'll look again, and it is possible I didn't see the seamheads info until after I posted my ballot.

I guess I always thought of him like Fred McGriff, Mickey Vernon, big career value but no peak to distinguish him from the pack, where as Tony Perez and Olerude at least had some MVP type seasons.

If he is more like Keith Hernandez though, that is a different thing. However, even with the Seamheads data I'm not sure how to make this distinction.
   310. ronw Posted: December 21, 2011 at 06:18 PM (#4021124)
All right Mike, I'll bite. Why do you add an "e" to the end of Olerud's last name?
   311. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2011 at 06:50 PM (#4021166)
Ben Taylor has several seasons where he looks like the best first baseman available. His competition isn't the greatest but it's not a bad distinction. Got Melky? had Olerud ranked as the 8th best player available.

I also strive to achieve a degree of positional balance by grouping players together in sets so that at least 3 pitchers, 1 catcher, 3 2b/3b/ss, 1 cf and 3 1b/rf/lf appear on my ballot. - fra paolo


I try to balance positions in my PHoM but not on my ballot. My look at the HoM says we're quite short on pitchers and have plenty of 1B/OF types.
   312. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 21, 2011 at 06:51 PM (#4021167)
I'd love to do more digging on this - but I do feel like there are all sorts of goofy things with the fielding numbers for those Yankee teams.


Couple things of note:

The Yankees had a right-side skew on their ball in play distribution - they had more balls in play hit to right and right-center than you would expect even after accounting for batter and pitcher handedness.

Yankee Stadium of Bernie's era required that the LF and CF play deeper than they would (or in some cases could) in other ballparks. The penalty for allowing gappers to LCF was higher than in other parks because of Death Valley.

Positioning your fielders is a risk-reduction activity. Fielders can't get to every ball, so you pick and choose where you position your fielders with the idea of minimizing the damage on the balls that they won't get. What this means is that a reward for, or penalty against, an individual fielder is not totally a result of his individual skills as a defender. The team may choose to place a fielder in a position where he can't get to as many balls that other fielders at the position do handle, in an effort to reduce the overall cost to the team of plays not made.

In my opinion, you should look at team defense as well as individual defense when evaluating fielders. It's certainly possible to have a poor fielder in the context of good team fielding, of course, but it's very unusual to have a group of poor fielders - especially at key positions - on a team that ranks among the best in the league at run prevention and hit prevention.

-- MWE
   313. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2011 at 07:14 PM (#4021189)
Now we have Patrick W with Palmeiro 2nd, Olerud 7th, Perez 8th and Ben Taylor not mentioned. I can understand supporting those players AND Ben Taylor. I can understand not supporting any of them. I can't understand supporting guys like that but NOT Ben Taylor.
   314. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 21, 2011 at 07:15 PM (#4021194)
With regards to Olerud and not Taylor, Olerud's case is buoyed by the two 8+ WAR seasons. I don't see anything in the numbers on Taylor that say he was that good at his peak. Taylor is in my consideration set, just off ballot.
   315. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2011 at 07:25 PM (#4021203)
I don't see anything in the numbers on Taylor that say he was that good at his peak.


Taylor's MLE numbers are regressed to the mean and smoothed out. You aren't going to find a peak there. If you look at the seamheads data he had a terrific 1921-22 back to back.
   316. Mike Webber Posted: December 21, 2011 at 07:42 PM (#4021227)
All right Mike, I'll bite. Why do you add an "e" to the end of Olerud's last name?


Both of my girls have won school spelling bees, in fact my oldest was 5th last year at the state spelling bee.

Clearly those genes come from their mother.

I'd like to blame it on auto correct but I'm just horrible.
   317. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2011 at 08:57 PM (#4021313)
2) Lee Smith-RP


Murphy - I really don't understand this ballot. Do you really believe major league general managers would have traded Rick Reuschel or David Cone straight up for Lee Smith, perhaps even tossing in a prospect to sweeten the deal?
   318. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 01:17 AM (#4021523)
I just received this from John: "Might as well extend it to next week, Joe. I could use the time tonight for other things anyway. :-)"

Any objections?
   319. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2011 at 03:46 PM (#4021746)
I object to extending to next week. I will be unable to comment after tomorrow. I'd like this done by then. I imagine the people waiting on a site upgrade would like to get the voting finished as well.

For some reason I'm logged in at my work computer so I'm able to continue to post from there. I've tried several times to get my password reset so I can post at home but it seems to go into a void never to return. E-mails to the site admins don't get returned. I still can't post a thread here for the MMP. I hope the site upgrade takes care of this because it is incredibly frustrating. This is one of the least usable internet sites I frequent. If the site upgrade doesn't help I think we should seriously consider moving to the SB Nation blogs.
   320. rawagman Posted: December 22, 2011 at 04:47 PM (#4021819)
DL - what browser do you use?
   321. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 05:45 PM (#4021899)
DL - I just sent you the most current email I have for Jim F . . . I wonder if you had the wrong one? He's usually very good about responding quickly.

Dan R - how much work are we talking for you to add 2006-2011 to your WAR stats? Is there grunt work that someone could help you with to make that happen? It would be very helpful.
   322. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2011 at 05:56 PM (#4021914)
DL - what browser do you use?


Firefox at work. IE at home. Is the browser the reason why the password reset function doesn't work at all?
   323. Chicago Joe Posted: December 22, 2011 at 06:26 PM (#4021951)
Firefox at work. IE at home. Is the browser the reason why the password reset function doesn't work at all?


If you go to tools, options, security, you can click on "saved passwords" and then "show passwords" and you should be able to see your password on the work computer.
   324. rawagman Posted: December 22, 2011 at 06:33 PM (#4021959)
IE can be tricky with cookies. I don't go anywhere near it. Try Chrome.
   325. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#4021964)
No password listed for this website.
   326. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 07:47 PM (#4022035)
DanG commented about Jack Fournier and PCL credit over on the ballot thread.

Joe, since you give minor league credit to Quinn and Cravath, have you looked at Fournier closely? Spent most of the 1917-19 seasons (age 27-29) tearing up the PCL. The thinking of the day is he didn't have the glove a 1B needed, despite being one of the AL's top five hitters. So the Chisox screwed around with him, replacing him with Gandil in 1917 and letting Fournier go to the west coast. He continued working on his "D" and when the Sox eventually wanted him back for 1919, Jack wanted nothing more to do with Comiskey, preferring to play another year out in his native west coast. Branch Rickey snapped him up the next off season and the rest is history. Fournier's discussion thread is interesting.


That is interesting DanG . . . Looking at DanR's numbers it looks like had a bad (for him) year in 1916, 1.1 WAR in a little over 1/2 a season - but he was still clearly MLB quality. Why did he only play a little over half a season in 1916? Manager's choice? Left for PCL? Injury?

Also shows his fielding as getting considerably worse in his brief 1918 stint and by 1920 it was costing him about .8 WAR a season.

Definitely seems reasonable to give him credit for 1917-1919. How much playing time did he get in the PCL? Was he hurt at all?
   327. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 07:49 PM (#4022038)
DL - I'd just clear all of your cookies on the IE browser at home - assuming you don't mind having to re-log into other sites.

But I'd echo just use another browser - if you like Firefox at work, just install it at home. You can even sync your bookmarks and open tabs across the browsers in Firefox, which is pretty cool if you log into multiple computers.
   328. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 08:02 PM (#4022046)
Back to Fournier . . . looking at his thread, it looks like they gave him equivalent credit for his 1920 in 1919 and his 1921 in 1918. About half of his 1921 value in 1917. I don't think that really looked at his fielding value - so I'll compute those separately. Working that into DanR's numbers would look something like this.

Anyone know how long the PCL seasons were in 1917, 1918 and 1919?
   329. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2011 at 08:32 PM (#4022077)
clear all of your cookies on the IE browser at home


How does that help me determine my password? I don't know my password to this site. I can only post because I'm already logged in on this computer (w/Firefox). I have tried several times to get the password reset but I'm convinced the password reset function on this site is as useful as trying to get my refrigerator to reset the password.
   330. Howie Menckel Posted: December 22, 2011 at 08:55 PM (#4022090)
Last time that happened, I reset the password to be a word that comes to mind when I think of the login features here.
Ironically, that makes it easy to remember!

true story
   331. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 08:58 PM (#4022093)
Well, it depends. I can do simple hitting using 2005 replacement levels and my preexisting standard deviation equation pretty easily. Now, if there have been any changes to the defensive spectrum since '05, I'd have to update the worst-regulars average, which is a bit more work. I'd have to download new baserunning and DP avoidance numbers, and I think my subscription to BP has lapsed. And then the really big issue is defense. A lot of the stats I based my numbers on (like PMR and most importantly STATS database-based UZR) aren't even published anymore. How do you suggest I calculate FWAA?
   332. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 09:49 PM (#4022150)
Well yeah, you can't update the password without knowing the old one. Didn't realize that. Let me look into it.
   333. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 22, 2011 at 10:07 PM (#4022178)
Joe:

It looks like the PCL seasons were scheduled for ~180 games between 1917 and 1919, but I'm pretty sure the season was cut short due to WWI in 1917.

-- MWE
   334. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM (#4022262)
Dan R - I have no clue how to suggest you calculate FWAA - you are the smart one!

Maybe you could work something with Dewan's +/- system? That seems to have the most promise for me of the recently minted metrics.

Regarding the BP stuff . . . if that's the difference, I'll drop the $5 to get you a month subscription to download what you need . . . seriously, I'd paypal it over to you as thanks.
   335. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 11:08 PM (#4022274)
I'll respond on my WARP thread, Joe Dimino.
   336. DanG Posted: December 24, 2011 at 07:26 AM (#4022927)
Definitely seems reasonable to give him credit for 1917-1919. How much playing time did he get in the PCL? Was he hurt at all?
Anyone know how long the PCL seasons were in 1917, 1918 and 1919?
In 1917 Fournier was with the White Sox at the start of the season, before joining the LA Angels. They played about 210 games, with Fournier appearing in 144 games. That length of schedule was normal for the PCL in those days.

The 1918 PCL season was ended on July 14, with Fournier playing in all 104 games for LA. He was signed by the Yankees and played in 27 more games.

In 1919 I believe the season may have been shortened. LA played about 180 games with Fournier playing in 169.

Fournier's SABR bio is informative.
   337. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 24, 2011 at 05:37 PM (#4023021)
Thanks DanG . . . that will help me come up with some better MLE's.

It's still not going to be enough for me to support electing him, I don't think. I've got him at .615 DanR Pennants Added with only MLB credit. You need about .8 as a hitter to even get into the serious consideration set. .9 makes you a very serious candidate.

To get him to .9, he'd need credit for 1917-1919 at roughly the level of his 1915 and 1923-25 levels. I think that's probably a stretch, since in the MLE's on his thread, he was credited more along the lines of his 1920-21 level of play.
   338. Fridas Boss Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:04 PM (#4024417)
When will the BBTF HOF ballot thread be made available to the masses?
   339. DL from MN Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#4024424)
When will the BBTF HOF ballot thread be made available to the masses?


Good question. Better question - who is going to count ballots if we have a HoF thread?
   340. Mark Donelson Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#4024434)
Better question - who is going to count ballots if we have a HoF thread?

I'm happy to help, if someone who knows how it's usually done will either be part of the tallying team as well, or at least tell me how I should go about it.
   341. OCF Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:34 PM (#4024455)
I'll be around to count.
Page 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8263 seconds
49 querie(s) executed