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, December 01, 2014

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot

Welcome to the 2015 Hall of Merit Ballot thread. Balloting is open from now (December 1) through December 15 December 22, 2014 at 8 p.m. EDT.

I’ve posted this the last several of years, but as a reminder:

“This has been an issue in the past, so I’ll repeat it now for clarification . . . the posting of the ballot to the discussion thread for new voters is not just a formality. With the posting of the ballot you are expected to post a summary of what you take into account - basically, how did you come up with this list? This does not mean that you need to have invented the Holy Grail of uber-stats. You don’t need a numerical rating down to the hundredth decimal point.

You do need to treat all eras of baseball history fairly. You do need to stick to what happened on the field (or your best estimate of what would have happened if wars and strikes and such hadn’t gotten in the way). You may be challenged and ask to defend your position, if someone notices internal inconsistencies, flaws in your logic, etc.. This is all a part of the learning process.

It isn’t an easy thing to submit a ballot, but that’s by design. Not because we don’t want to grow our numbers (though we’ve done just fine there, started with 29 voters in 1898, and passed 50 eventually), not because we want to shut out other voices. It’s because we want informed voters making informed decisions on the entire electorate, not just the players they remember.”

So if you are up for this, we’d love to have you! Even if you aren’t up to voting, we’d still appreciate your thoughts in the discussion. Some of our greatest contributors haven’t or have only rarely voted.

********

Voters should name 15 players, in order. Thanks!

Don’t forget to comment on each of last year’s top ten returnees. As a reminder those guys are:

Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Sammy Sosa, Kenny Lofton, Jeff Kent, Luis Tiant, Bobby Bonds, Buddy Bell, Phil Rizzuto, Ben Taylor.

Vic Willis and Gavy Cravath were named on at least ten ballots each; Hugh Duffy and Sal Bando had strong support as well.

Newcomers on the 2015 ballot. Note, the WAR numbers below are a bit outdated. Generally they are a bit low.

WS WAR Name-Pos 
430 63.3 Gary Sheffield-RF
326 89.6 Randy Johnson-P
289 65.3 John Smoltz-P
256 73.5 Pedro Martinez-P
303 44.2 Carlos Delgado-1B
287 42.7 Brian Giles-RF/LF
219 42.6 Nomar Garciaparra-SS
191 27.3 Cliff Floyd-LF
161 27.8 Darin Erstad-1B/CF
189 16.8 Mark Loretta-2B/SS
177 18.5 Rich Aurilia-SS
175 17.6 Jermaine Dye-RF
114 26.1 Jarrod Washburn-P
125 18.0 Troy Percival-RP
138 11.1 Kevin Millar-1B
128 11.8 Tony Clark-1B
JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 01, 2014 at 10:49 AM | 181 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. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4866680)
Welcome, Adam! Great to see you participating!

@98: DL, this used to be the Hall of Win Shares and BP WARP. But as someone who uses BBREF WAR as the basis for my system, I do so many adjustments and substitutions that it really becomes a personalized WAR. What I love about WAR in general is that as long as something is denominated in runs or wins, it can get swapped in or out for anything else, which means WAR is endlessly customizable.
   102. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4866710)
I enjoy the different perspectives on WAR and hope that people use the data to meet what they believe constitutes Merit.
   103. Harvest Posted: December 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4866719)
But as someone who uses BBREF WAR as the basis for my system, I do so many adjustments and substitutions that it really becomes a personalized WAR.


Speaking as a new voter, I'm generally in agreement. Although I do lean on the numbers from Baseball-Reference when starting out my evaluations, those numbers end up shifted around and re-weighted to reflect my own definition of value, and after that I award various brownie points that are generally not WAR-based, so my final list ends up looking very different from that of someone who decided to rank each candidate by bWAR, or that of Dr. Chaleeko for that matter.
   104. Chris Cobb Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4866862)
Time to Vote!

First, to simplify things for the ballot counters (following Brock's example), here's the ballot in simple form:

1. Randy Johnson
2. Pedro Martinex
3. Curt Schilling
4. Mike Mussina
5. John Smoltz
6. Gary Sheffield
7. Buddy Bell
8. Sammy Sosa
9. Bert Campaneris
10. Kenny Lofton
11. Jim McCormick
12. Bobby Bonds
13. Kevin Appier
14. Luis Tiant
15. Brian Giles

Second, an overview of the METHODOLOGY

My method. For position players, I develop my rankings by working with four comprehensive metrics: the wins above replacement developed by Dan R, Baseball Reference, Fangraphs, and Baseball Prospectus. I add together career WAR, career WAA, and 5 times the player’s peak rate per 162 games during player’s best five consecutive seasons to get a value in each system that includes both peak and career. Then I average the value from each system to get a composite value. I also break out, as a cross-check, the fielding values at position for these four systems plus DRA to see how disagreements about fielding value are influencing the different conclusions of the systems. (For 2016, I plan to incorporate DRA systematically, and possibly additional measures for catchers and other fielding metrics, if I can find good sources for all of them.)

For pitchers, I base my ranks on Baseball Reference’s data: fielding-independent pitching data has its uses, but it’s just not as accurate a representation of a pitcher’s total quality as one that includes a consideration of how the pitcher worked with his fielders. I used to have a complicated home-grown system for pitchers, but its results were so similar to what I would get following a much simpler analysis using Baseball Reference that it seemed simpler to switch. I try to balance period differences for pitchers by including both WAR and RAR/10, WAA and RAA/10 as career measures and by calculating peak both by summing the 5 best consecutive seasons and on the basis of peak rate times IP+, which I calculate by dividing the pitcher’s IP during their peak by my best estimate of what an average SP’s innings were during that 5-year period. I also look at Fangraphs WAR for pitchers as a cross check.

Once I have a composite value for each player, I rank order players in each decade by composite value and identify a theoretical in-out line for that decade based on the adjusted number of top-level professional teams in North American baseball during that decade. (For the Negro Leagues, I estimate how many major-league level teams could probably have been fielded out of the pool of players excluded from the majors who were playing in Black and Latin-American Baseball at that time.) I then determine how far above or below this in-out line each player in that decade is. I compare players directly to their contemporaries and indirectly to players from other periods because, although the WAR systems I am using are adjusted for league strength, some further adjustment is needed, as the composite value at the in-out line has been gradually declining across baseball history. It is at about 130 for the 1880s, 125 for the 1900’s, about 120 1950-1990, and about 117-118 for 1990 to the present. By this measure, I think that players before 1950 are somewhat overrepresented and players since 1970 somewhat underrepresented in the HoM, so when comparing two otherwise equal players, I tend to give preference to post-1970 players.

Then, based on the composite value and the in-decade ranking, with awareness of positional balance, the range of possible fielding values, and the limits of quantification, I put my ballot together. (Composite value and in-decade ranking are highly consistent across eras until one gets right down to the in-out line, where they are more divergent. It’s very useful to have two views to choose from at that point.)

I'll put the detailed comments in the next post
   105. Chris Cobb Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4866865)
2015 Ballot Explanations. Part I: On the Ballot


For each player listed, I provide last year’s ranking (#), the player’s composite value in my system (Total = #), the rank above the in/out line for the player’s decade, and some commentary. (Some of the very top players had enough value in two different decades to have a ranking in each one.)

(#) = 2014 ballot ranking (n/e = not eligible) (n/r = not ranked)
Total = score in my system

1. Randy Johnson (n/e). Total = 220. Rank = 24 above 1990 in/out line; 27 above 2000 in/out line. Easy #1 on this ballot. My system, in the aggregate, sees Johnson as almost exactly even with Greg Maddux. It would have been interesting to see how they would have matched up head to head.
2. Pedro Martinez (n/e). Total = 194.4. Rank = 23.5 above 1990 in/out line; 25.5 above 2000 in/out line. Easy #2 on this ballot. During his peak, he was the best pitcher ever on a per inning basis, and I’ve certainly never seen a pitcher who was more fun to watch at work. Even though he was never a workhorse like Maddux or Johnson, his in-season durability was still well above average prior to his 2001 injury. He’s just behind Johnson in the rankings for the 1990s and the 2000s, but there’s still a big gap between their values.
3. Curt Schilling (2). Total = 176.4. Rank = 19.5 above 1990 line; 22.5 above 2000 line. Schilling was excellent, but he’s still only the fifth-best pitcher of that era, trailing Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez. That group of pitchers, along with some top hitters, has kept Schilling short of election so far, though I think he’ll go in this year. Schilling’s superior peak gives him the edge over Mussina, even without considering his remarkable post-season performance.
4. Mike Mussina (4). Total = 168.4. Rank = 19 above 1990 line; 22 above 2000 line. Just behind Schilling. Mussina was excellent throughout his career, but lacks a well defined peak. Could have won 300 games if he had chosen to continue.
5. John Smoltz (n/e). Total = 150.4. Rank = 13.5 above 1990 line. Smoltz is clearly behind Mussina a bit in both durability and effectiveness, but he’s a solid HoMer nonetheless, easily in the top half of the Hall.
6. Gary Sheffield (n/e). Total = 146.5. Rank = 13 above 1990 line; 15.5 above 2000 line. What a hitter! The big question on Sheffield is not whether he was a bad defender but how bad he was. Estimates vary by as much as 13 wins for his full career. If he was as bad as the least favorable estimates, he’s a marginal HoMer; if he was as good as the best estimates, he’d be ahead of Mussina. Splitting the difference, I have him behind Smoltz but above the backlog. He won’t be elected for a couple of years yet, but he won’t fall into the long-term backlog.
7. Buddy Bell (6). Total = 140.7. Rank = 9 above 1980 line. Very similar to the already elected Nettles, except that he peaked earlier and higher and had less value later in his career. All four WAR systems I can consult (Dan R., BBref, Fangraphs, BP) show him as one of the top 2-3 position players in the backlog, and even the very SS-friendly Dan R WAR puts Bell ahead of all of the SS candidates as my system calculates merit, so I think this placement is pretty solid. The level of agreement about the quality of his defense is very high, with every comprehensive metric seeing him as outstanding, +15-20 defensive wins for his career, and DRA agrees, too. Bell is a player who deserves a much closer look when we get into the backlog, and I am pleased to see that he appears to be climbing to the top of the backlog. An above average hitter and a great fielder at a plus defensive position, with a strong peak and a solid career.
8. Sammy Sosa (7). Total = 136.5. Rank = 7 above the 1990 line. All four WAR metrics show Sosa to be comfortably above the in-out line. He had a great peak, and he was a very good player before his peak because he was an excellent defender in right field during the first half of his career.
9. Bert Campaneris (8). Total = 133.7. Rank = 4.5 above the 1970 line. My placement of Campaneris is based on Dan R’s WAR, not a composite, because I’m persuaded by Dan’s arguments that BBref’s positional adjustments miss the boat on shortstops of the 1965-85 period. Regardless of exactly where Campaneris should rank, it’s clear that he was the most complete player of any shortstop between Banks and Yount, so I am comfortable with his election. DRA backs up the idea that he was an excellent defensive shortstop, and he was definitely much better with the bat than Aparicio or Concepcion. Jim Fregosi may have had a better peak, but, like Nomar Garciaparra (about whom more later), Fregosi seems a couple of above-average seasons short of the career value needed for the Hall of Merit.
10. Kenny Lofton (9). Total = 130.5. Rank = 5 above the 1990 line. Two years ago I wrote: “Lofton is terribly underrrated—I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t even get the 5% he needs to stay on the BBWAA ballot—but he was an outstanding player.” Unfortunately he didn’t, but it looks like he is getting more notice with the HoM electorate. He’s more of a career candidate than a peak one, but he was highly effective when he played for a long time, and most systems see him as an outstanding defensive centerfielder. BP is an outlier on this, but (a) I trust them the least of all the metrics I consult, and (b) even with the view of him as an average defender, BP’s numbers lead to an assessment of him as borderline in my system, so I am quite comfortable about having him near the top of the backlog.
11. Jim McCormick (10). Total=144.7. Rank = 4 above 1880 in-out line). It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that McCormick’s exclusion from the HoM is a significant oversight, if one credits bbref’s WAR as an accurate way of evaluating 1880s pitchers. His overall value appears very similar to Charles Radbourn’s and superior to Pud Galvin’s, even after his lights-out performance against sub-replacement level competition in the 1884 UA is appropriately discounted. Less complex metrics suggest that he was probably the best pitcher in baseball over the three-year period of 1880-82, which is a solid peak. He’s not quite as outstanding re his contemporaries as Lofton, so he slots just behind him. I believe we’ve elected too many 1880s players, so I am not anxious to press borderline cases (see my comments on Fred Dunlap and Ed Williamson below), but McCormick is not a borderline case.
12. Bobby Bonds (11). Total = 128.5. Rank = 3.5 above 1970 in-out line. Dan R, BBref, and Fangraphs have Bonds just inches above what is basically the all-time in-out line of 120 points. BP likes him much better: he is the top backlog position player in their system. He lacks the great peak of Sosa, but his prime was better, on average. As with Campaneris, my confidence in him as a player to advance out of a pool of highly similar players is buttressed by the fact that he was a complete player, and by the fact that highly competitive decade of the 1970s is still somewhat underrepresented in the HoM.
13. Kevin Appier (15). Total = 125.6 Rank = 4 above 1990 in-out line. After careful study of the candidates near the borderline in the decades since 1990, I have moved Appier up in the rankings slightly. I saw him pitch only after his injury, when he was a battler without great stuff, but he was brilliant in the first half of the 1990s. The strength of his peak and his workmanlike run of above-average seasons after the peak ended make him the last eligible post-1980 pitcher whom I solidly support for election. He’s closely trailed by Chuck Finley, who had a very solid career but lacks a peak (sort of Mike Mussina light), and Orel Hershiser, whose career follows a very similar pattern to Appier’s, but whose quality both before and after his injury was a smidge lower than Appier’s.
14. Luis Tiant (12). Total = 127.3 Rank = 2.5 above 1970 in-out line. An uneven career, but he’s got a couple of great seasons and a lot of very good ones. Pitching in extreme hitters’ parks probably took a bite out of his IP totals relative to his contemporaries as well.
15. Brian Giles (n/e). Total = 122.9. Rank = 2 above 2000 in-out line. I wasn’t expecting Giles to make my ballot, but here’s where he ends up. He could drop in my assessment, as there are still active players whose peak fell in the preceding decade who could pass him in the rankings, but no one is certain enough to do so for me to proactively lower him a notch. Given the strength of the backlog, there’s no danger that we’ll elect him before his last active contemporaries either pass him or retire. This ranking is based purely on Giles’ major-league work: no minor-league credit was included.
   106. Chris Cobb Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4866869)
2015 Ballot Explanations. Part 2: Off the Ballot


Off the ballot is very much a work in progress, as I’ve been trying to catch up with the replacement level revisions at Baseball Reference and Fangraphs, with the new NeL data at Seamheads, and the fielding values of DRA. I am far from finished. So, rather than present my near-but-off-ballot candidates in rank order, I’m going to review the players whom I currently see as at or above the in-out line for each decade. Everyone who is more than 2 above their decade in-out line is on the ballot, with the exception of players from the 1910s (I’ll address that set in detail.) These are the players that, in some order, should fill spaces 16-50 (or so) in my rankings.

2000s
On the in-out line: Jeff Kent. I would support Kent for election, but he’s the last player from the 20-aughts that I would support, and like Giles, he might be passed by someone still active. If it looks like we are underrepresenting infielders from this era, he could move up.

A few spots below the in-out line: Nomar Garciaparra. Nomar troubles my system, and I think we’re going to need to discuss his case carefully in the next decade or so. Others have mentioned that he has a Hughie-Jennings-type case, and I definitely see that, too. Jennings’ peak was more impressive than Nomar’s in that Jennings was the best player in baseball during his peak, and Nomar was not. However, Nomar was facing much stiffer competition. If one goes by Baseball Reference’s WAR and looks at Nomar’s peak in the most favorable way—looking at the best 6 years over a 7-year stretch, only Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez were better from 1997-2003. Moreover, again looking at peak this way, Nomar has the best peak of any eligible, unelected position player since World War II. With this pitcher-heavy ballot, we’re in a mild position player drought, of course, and there will be better peaks coming along soon, but everybody who has a better peak than Nomar will be elected immediately. If Nomar was that similar to top-half of the HoM players at his peak, is it sound to keep him out because injuries prevented him from having anything like a normal decline phase? We’ve clearly passed on modern players whose careers have been injury shortened or fell off the table for other reasons: Albert Belle, Dale Murphy, Tony Oliva, and Jim Fregosi come to mind. But Nomar was quite a bit better than any of them (Fregosi is the closest and is perhaps most worth reconsideration of this group, aside from Nomar). His peak is highly comparable to Ralph Kiner & Charlie Keller, both of whom had shortened careers due to injury, and both of whom . Other metrics may not treat Nomar so favorably, and I’ve cherry-picked his peak by using it to define my sample, but the fact is that he averaged over 6.5 WAR a year for six years, when he wasn’t injured. That’s near MVP level, every year for six years. We haven’t left out anybody who was that good yet, and I’m not yet comfortably with concluding that we should now. But I haven’t put him on my ballot this year, either.

1990s
2 over the in-out line: Chuck Finley Total = 118.9
1 over the in-out line: Robin Ventura Total = 117.2
on the in-out line: Bernie Williams Total = 117.1
1 below the in-out line: John Olerud Total = 115.1

By my reckoning of decade-based quotas, Finley, Ventura, and Williams all ought to go into the HoM at some point. None of them reach the 120-point threshold that is more or less the historic post-WWII in/out line, however, so I’m not sold on their worthiness based on in-decade ranking. The fact is that nobody is strongly championing any of them, and I don’t see enough myself to push against a consensus with which my own numbers largely agree. I have Ventura slightly ahead of Kent, however, so as Kent gets more discussion, Ventura ought to be a part of that.

1980s
on the in-out line: Chet Lemon Total = 122.8
1 below the in-out line: Orel Hershiser Total = 119.4
2 below the in-out line: Dwight Gooden Total = 119
3 below the in-out line: Jose Cruz Total = 113.4

By my reckoning, Lemon should be fairly near the ballot, but he’s not on the radar, so his good looks in my system may be a quirk of it. Hershiser is below the 1980s in-out line, but he has a better total than Chuck Finley, and his peak fell in a difficult-to-dominate decade, so I’d be inclined to add another 1980s pitcher to the HoM before another 1990s pitcher (after Appier). Gooden has a similar but slightly weaker case: otherworldly for a couple of years, but a very short peak indeed. Cruz had been far enough down that I hadn’t been thinking about him much, but the news that he looks strong in DRA brings him back into the discussion. Recent discussion of catcher defensive value could put Tony Pena into this group as well.

1970s
.5 above the in-out line Sal Bando. Total = 118.2
.5 below the in-out line Ron Cey Total = 115.5
1.5 below the in-out line Gene Tenace Total = 114.8

Bando has been heavily discussed. The basic question is whether BB Ref’s WAR gets it right on him or not: I hope that clarity about which of his numbers are real and which are illusion will be arrived at in the next few years. Cey and Tenace both seem slightly but clearly a bit short of HoM standards, though Tenace’s catching work needs a fresh look with the arrival of new metrics. He’s not near the in-out line now, but Thurman Munson is another player that new insight into catchers’ value should cause me to put into my consideration set.

1960s
on the in-out line Norm Cash Total = 119.1
2 below the in-out line Willie Davis Total = 114.3
4 below the in-out line Luis Aparicio Total = 110.6 (Dan R WAR)

Cash has good numbers, but the fluky peak year and the platooning weigh against him. Davis looks clearly short, but his career value is well above what it normally takes to have an HoM career, so I keep an eye on him to see if something will emerge from his career that has been overlooked previously. Aparicio is a similar case, and he’s one of the premier shortstops of the drought period, which also leads me to keep an eye on him. Jim Fregosi is another I am going to be reexamining carefully from this decade, in light of the similarities of his case to Nomar Garciaparra’s.

1950s
1 below the in-out line Don Newcombe Total = ???

We’ve elected everyone I’m sure we should from this weak decade, and a couple I am now pretty sure we shouldn’t have. Newcombe has his supporters, though, and he’s a tricky enough case with NeL and MiL credit, and the low standard-deviation era in which he pitched that I am keeping an eye on him: I need to fully understand the case that his supporters are making.

1940s
1 above the in-out line Phil Rizzuto Total = 120.9
?? Hilton Smith Total = ???

I’ve supported Rizzuto’s election for some time, and he’s the player I’d most likely have at #16 if I had gotten my off-ballot players ranked. He’s been on my ballot most of the time for the last decade or more, but he was pushed off a deep ballot this year. When it’s mostly players near the borderline, Rizzuto will rise quickly. Smith has some very strong supporters, but I’ve never understood the case. He’s a player I continue to think about, however.

1930s
three below the in-out line Bob Johnson Total = 124.6

This period is somewhat overrepresented in the Hall of Merit, and we have elected everybody whom I see as worthy and several more beyond that. Johnson has pretty strong numbers: his total score is the highest of any 20th-century position player not on the ballot, though, despite his being below his decade’s in-out line, and I like him better than the elected Medwick and Averill among outfielders, so he stays closer to my ballot than his “three below” ranking would otherwise suggest.

1920s
1 above the in-out line Urban Shocker Total = 126.2
?? Dave Bancroft
?? Wally Schang
?? Sam Rice
Shocker was on my ballot last year. I like his case. Because his career was ended by illness, he lacks the decline-phase years that add a bit of bulk to most HoM cases, so I think he’s underrated by the numbers just a bit. I’ve started to look closely at DRA for the 1920s, and Bancroft, Schang, and Rice are three players whose cases become a lot stronger when DRA is factored in. The 1920s are very well represented, so I’m leery of putting a bunch of additional players in from this decade, but these players merit another look. 1-2 of Shocker + these guys might still be reasonable from the 1920s if they end up over the decade’s in-out line.

1910s
In no set order: Gavvy Cravath, Ben Taylor, Wilbur Cooper, Eddie Cicotte, Art Fletcher, Harry Hooper, Bobby Veach.

Alone among the pre-WWII decades, the 1910s are underrepresented according to decade quotas. There are three spaces available above the in-out line, spots that have long been held by Cravath, Taylor, and Cooper, with Cicotte on the line and Fletcher, Hooper, and Veach immediately below. I long supported Cravath, but his home-road splits are so extreme that I am not sure I can still support a player who seems a creature of a single ballpark. I’m finally doing formal MLEs for Taylor, and initial results put him around Ed Konetchy offensively, so unless there are reasons to posit a substantially longer career than Konetchy or historically great fielding value, Taylor would fall a bit short. Trying to get a read on his fielding value is my next project. Cooper and Cicotte trail Shocker and Willis among 1900-1930 pitchers, so I have advocated for neither one. Fletcher, Hooper, and Veach have long been out of direct consideration, but they are DRA darlings, with 10-15 career wins shifting their way if the DRA numbers are accepted, which could move them ahead of Cravath, Taylor, Cooper and Cicotte. The top pair of them would have a strong argument to go straight to my ballot. This era is going to need a lot of attention before 2016, but it seems like at least a couple of players from this group belong in the high backlog.

1900s
on the in-out line Vic Willis Total = 125.8
3 below the in-out line Joe Tinker Total = 118
also paying attention to Frank Chance, Tommy Leach, and Fred Tenney

This is an overrepresented decade. Willis looks now like he should be in, but a better read on the contextual value of fielders might well push him down a few spots in the rankings. Willis had great in-season durability in an absolute sense, but for his era he wasn’t as much of an outlier as he appears: his IP+ during his peak was 121, while McGinnity was at 147, Walsh at 150, and Mathewson at 129 during the same decade. He’s ahead of Waddell, Brown, and Plank. Willis’s problem was that as he added huge numbers of innings, his effectiveness declined in ways that it didn’t for McGinnity, Walsh, and Mathewson, so their biggest bulk seasons and most lights-out seasons go more or less together, where Willis’s don’t. DRA loves Joe Tinker’s fielding, and that could bring him back up. Chance is always an intriguing peak candidate. Fred Tenney also shows up as a historically great defender in DRA, so he’s getting another look for that reason.

   107. Chris Cobb Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4866872)
2015 Ballot Explanations. Part 2 continued: Off the Ballot, 19th Century

This last bit wouldn't quite fit in the previous post.


1890s
1 above the in-out line Ted Breitenstein Total = 120.8

I think Breitenstein has been overlooked: the 1890s was the worst decade ever to be a pitcher, I think, and Breitenstein had the further disadvantage of pitching well for bad teams. I haven’t revisited the rankings in the 1890s in a while, so I am not sure Breitenstein will hold this spot relative to his peers, but, if he does, he’ll remain in my top 25, with a good chance of getting a ballot spot as the superstar glut at the top clears out.

1880s
1 above the in-out line Fred Dunlap Total = 134.6
on the in-out line Ed Williamson Total = 131.1

The current numbers that we have on these two 1880s stars strongly suggest that it was a mistake not to elect them and to elect Hardy Richardson, Monte Ward, and Pete Browning instead. At the time they were elected, I supported Richardson and War over Dunlap and Williamson, based on the data we had in those days. (I never supported Browning.) If we work to correct mistakes of this kind by electing Dunlap and Williamson, however, we would be doing so at the expense of more recent players whose spots they would be taking. Given the murkiness of baseball value in the 1880s and before, am I so confident that the new data is better than the old? Not so much that I’m ready to vault this pair onto my ballot, although I have had Dunlap on my ballot in recent years, and he has a very good argument to be in the top 10 off-ballot players. But I wouldn’t rank him ahead of Rizzuto or Ventura, for example, two other infielders who are one spot above the in-out line for their decades, and whose decades are not yet “fully” represented in the HoM.

1860s and 1870s
2 below the in-out line Tommy Bond Total = 126.9
3 below the in-out line Davy Force Total = 116.9

I don’t advocate for either of these players, but they are the best unelected from the very early professional game. I am planning to see if DRA revolutionizes my view of the 1870s players, in which case Force could have his case revitalized. Bond was a truly great pitcher for a few years, but he needed at least one more to get to the level of the 1880s stalwarts.
   108. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4866922)
Chris - thanks for putting so much time and thought into your process and sharing it with us
   109. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 22, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4866939)
This is *Devin McCullen*'s ballot:

Well, I said I was going to get this one in on Sunday, and I haven’t gone to bed yet, so I’m counting it.

My ranking system isn’t that specific. It’s based more on BB-ref’s WAR than anything else, but I still have WS and old WARP totals on my spreadsheet. I use Humphrey’s DAR in some cases, but I can’t say I’ve applied it systematically.

I also try to include both peak and career candidates, but tend to lean more towards the career when push comes to shove. When I talk about WS or WAR rate, that’s per PA.


Johnson, Pedro and Glavine make my PHoM this year.

1. Randy Johnson (new) An obvious pick, one of the top pitchers of all time. Makes my PHoM this year.

2. Pedro Martinez (new) Not a lot of question here either. As a Mets fan, I’m still bummed he wound up pitching so little for them, but the Wilpons have done much worse things with their money. Makes my PHoM this year.

3. Curt Schilling (3) Kind of surprised I wind up with him ahead of Glavine and Mussina, but they’re very close, and most of the adjustments you can make favor Schilling. Has an extremely strong prime, and impressive postseason numbers. Made my PHoM last year.


(3A. Tom Glavine)

4. Mike Mussina (5) Got a lot less publicity than Schilling and Glavine (despite all the time with the Yankees), but just about as good. Have to believe that at some point the HoF will notice the obvious.

5. John Smoltz (new) Also very close to the Schilling/Glavine/Mussina bunch, but comes out at the end of the list, mostly because of the reliever phase – not that he wasn’t a great one, but it’s still not worth as much.

6. Gary Sheffield (new) Best position player candidate, I think, but I don’t see him too far ahead of anyone. He didn’t have a standout peak, but he maintained a lot of offensive value over a long career.

7. Bus Clarkson (6) Parallels Elliot’s career, but with war credit he comes out ahead, and he presumably had more defensive value. (Quick comparison to Alomar – WS 344 to 376 in 1900 fewer PA, OPS+ 123 to 116, 3B/SS to 2B. Even deflating the MLEs a bit, that looks pretty close to me.) Made my PHoM in 1997.

8. Luis Tiant (8) He had some outstanding years, and contributed long enough to build up a decent career value. There were a lot of great pitchers in his era, but that happens sometimes. Moved ahead of Redding because they’re very close, and I can’t ignore the argument that MLB info is more certain. Made my PHoM in 2005.

9. Bobby Bonds (7) More of a prime candidate than anything else, but his peak and career values aren’t bad either. Even with Smith’s election, I still think 1970’s OF are a bit underrepresented. Made my PHoM in 2008.

10. Dick Redding (10) Seems to have a pretty good peak, and also has somewhat of a career argument. I still tend to think he’s close enough to Mendez that they both should be in or out. Made my PHoM in 1973.

11. Bob Johnson (12) I'm impressed by his consistency, he was an above-average player every year for 13 seasons, plus he got started very late in the bigs, so I will give him at least 1 year of minor league credit. I think the era considerations have been a little overblown, and I still don’t think Joe Medwick was any better than Bob. Made my PHoM in 1992.

12. Phil Rizzuto (11) Accounting for the malaria as an effect of the war helped him move up a couple of spots. With war credit, it’s pretty clear he’d have more career value than Stephens. Peak is a different issue, but he’s not that far behind Stephens, and he did have a few excellent seasons. Might deserve Minor League credit for 1940 (I’m not counting it at the moment.) Made my PHoM in 1997.

13. Kenny Lofton (13) This is mostly because of his total WAR, but he does generally look better than the other CF candidates. I’d like to get some clarity about his defense.

14. Sammy Sosa (9) Slips a bit, the most recent version of WAR were kinder to Bonds and Johnson, who were more consistently good. Has a slightly higher peak, but he was also allowed to hang around longer. 609 homers are impressive, but a 128 OPS+ is not.

15. Gavvy Cravath (15) With the basic 07, 09-11 additions, this is where I have him. A better peak than Johnson, but less consistent. WAR isn't quite as fond of him as WS, but he compares well to Kiner & Keller. Made my PHoM in 1987.

16. Tommy Leach (18) Doesn’t do great by WAR, although a lot of the other 3B candidates are in the hard-to-differentiate 70s clump. Excellent fielder at important positions, OK hitter. One of the most complete players on the ballot. Made my PHoM in 1940.

17. Norm Cash (14) A lot of good years, but I really think he's the Beckley of the 60s, with a shorter career (although that's not really much of a criticism), and the fluke year. Even if you take 1961 out, he’s still clearly ahead of Cepeda and Perez in WS and WARP rate. He really does look pretty similar to Hernandez, and for some reason has 6 Win Shares Gold Gloves to Keith's 1. Made my PHoM in 2003.



18. Ben Taylor (16) A solid candidate who might have been overlooked. 3rd-best 1B in the Negro Leagues, a good hitter with an outstanding defensive rep. Also did some pitching early on. I have him as the best overall 1B of his era – Sisler was better at his best, but that just didn’t last long enough. Made my PHoM in 2009.


19. Tommy Bridges (17) Very hard to differentiate between Bridges and Cone. Like Johnson, extremely consistent, which I feel is a strength. I am giving him war credit, but not minor-league credit.

(19A John McGraw)

20. Bill Monroe (19) Has dropped, partly because of new guys, but also because those 1912-14 numbers don’t look good. A good player at an important defensive position, with a great reputation for his fielding. People like to promote the 1890s as underrepresented, but that doesn't mean the 00s and 10s are overrepresented. (Well, maybe from 15-20 on my ballot.) Made my PHoM in 1939.

21. John Olerud (22) I understand the comment that McGriff looked more like a Hall of Famer, but Olerud was just perpetually overlooked. He clearly had significantly more defensive value than McGriff, and the offensive difference is not huge (OPS+ 134-128). Olerud looks better by the comprehensive metrics, and I think he’s ahead of the Crime Dog.

(21A David Cone, 21B Ralph Kiner, 21C George Sisler – that’s actually up about 20 spots, since I decided I’d been undervaluing his peak. I know nobody cares, but I just felt it should be noted.)

22. Don Newcombe (20) Basically the only pitcher candidate left from the 50s, and he has an interesting argument – see the discussion in the Belle thread about alcoholism. And he gets less attention from the HoF people than Gil Hodges or Allie Reynolds. Read about the Yankees and Dodgers in the 50s, and tell me who people thought was a better pitcher.

But I have to admit that even with all the extra credit, there isn’t quite enough to keep him ahead of Cone and Bridges.

(22A Andre Dawson)

23. Jeff Kent (23) A little lower than I thought he’d be, but he didn’t have that many great years. Seems pretty similar to Lazzeri to me. Kent & Olerud missed out on being a left side with both the Blue Jays & the Mets.

24. Dizzy Dean (26) Does have a really good peak argument by some metrics, but he stands out less by WAR than he did by the other ones.

25. Cesar Cedeno (21) Outside of the big total WAR difference, I don’t see a lot differentiating him in value from Lofton. (Yeah, that’s a pretty big ‘outside of’)

(25A Sam Thompson)

26. Vern Stephens (29) Close to Rizzuto, but with the wartime discount and the sudden dropoff after 1950, not quite there.

27. Jack Clark (25) An overlooked quality player.

28. Urban Shocker (32) He is a good candidate, but his career is a bit too short, even with the ½ year war credit.

29. Tony Lazzeri (28) He was the best backlog MLB candidate at his position until Kent showed up. Compare him to Larry Doyle, who some people vote for. Their career lengths are similar, Doyle was a better hitter, but not much, and Lazzeri was a much better fielder.

(29A Charley Jones)


30. Thurman Munson (24) Didn’t hit quite as well as Bresnahan, but Roger also accumulated a fair amount of hanging-around value, even by WAR.

31. Bernie Williams (27) A really good player when he was at his best, but everything says the defense was so bad in the second half of his career that it keeps him away from the ballot.

32. Bob Elliott (30) I’m comfortable putting him ahead of the 70s group now. He’s got a case for being the best 3B in baseball in the late 40s, those guys simply don’t.

33. Tony Perez (31) He does have a good peak, but his late-70s years aren't much above average. And for a mostly 1B guy, even his peak OPS+s aren’t impressive.

(33A Hughie Jennings)

34. George Van Haltren (33) Wins the “Wait, why did I have this guy so high?” award. I don’t reject all peak arguments, but I’d take his consistency over Duffy’s big years. Made my PHoM in 1972.

(34A Graig Nettles)

35. Bucky Walters (35) Would be higher, but when you consider a wartime discount, his 115 ERA+ really isn’t impressive.

(35A Roger Bresnahan,)

36. Fred McGriff (41)
37. Joe Tinker (36)
38. Jose Cruz (38)
39. Orlando Cepeda (49)
40. Sal Bando (48)

(40A Pete Browning, 40B Rollie Fingers)

41. Kevin Appier (37)
42. Dale Murphy (34)
43. Eddie Cicotte
44. Elston Howard (44) WAR absolutely hates him, giving him almost no value outside of his 4-year peak. Even with credit for military service, the slow pace of integration & being stuck behind Yogi, you can’t get that record into a HoM-worthy career. Other metrics are not so harsh, but I can’t just ignore something so striking.

Made my PHoM in 2004. Have to admit I probably made a mistake here. Looking at my voting history, this probably would have wound up with Ralph Kiner in my PHoM.

45. Kirby Puckett (39)
46. Vic Willis (46) I think he’s pretty comparable to Cicotte – he’s more of a prime/career guy, but the total is about the same. If we’re looking for pitchers, the 20s & 30s (Bridges/Dean) are the underrepresented eras. Willis isn’t a bad candidate, but I don’t see anything special about him.

47. Ron Cey (40)
48. Bobby Veach
49. Dolf Luque
50. Dave Bancroft

51. Frank Chance
52. Carl Mays
53. Buddy Bell (56) Like I’ve said, I definitely have a lower opinion of the gang of 70s third basemen than a good portion of the electorate. There’s already several enshrined, and then you’ve got Bando, Cey and Bell all at the same time. And even within that, I don’t see any particular reason to pick out Bell.

(BTW, I know this is cherry-picking, but I have a database with each HoMers primary position in each season. In 1975 there are 7 third basemen, and 6 outfielders. What I’m saying is, vote for Bobby Bonds. Same initials! J)

54. Albert Belle
55. Tommy John
56. Ken Singleton
57. Mike Griffin
58. Gene Tenace
59. Pedro Guerrero
60. Dutch Leonard

61. Lou Brock
62. Johnny Evers
63. Lee Smith
(63A Nellie Fox)
64. Luke Easter
65. Brian Giles
   110. Esteban Rivera Posted: December 22, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4866969)
Finally managed to log in! Here my 2015 HOM Ballot. Pitching dominates my ballot this year.

1. Randy Johnson – Easy selection for the top spot this year.

2. Pedro Martinez – That peak carries him over all other candidates save Johnson.

3. Curt Schilling – Slightly edges ahead of Mussina.

4. Mike Mussina – The more complete starter career places him ahead of Smoltz.

5. John Smoltz - The closer years add value but are what place him behind Schilling and Mussina overall.

6. Sammy Sosa – Numbers inflated somewhat due to era but still an impressive run.

7. Gary Sheffield - At the moment actually prefer Sosa to Sheffield, although they may flip flop in the future.

8. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 1890's. Was an outstanding defensive outfielder.

9. Ned Williamson – Agree with others that we have missed on him.

10. Tommy Bond – His dominance during his time places him on the ballot.

11. Vic Willis –Blame the cohort analysis for making me take another look at Vic. Helps fill the late 1890’s cohort on the pitching side.

12. Bob Elliott – The post someone made about holding his outfield time against him was true in my case. Not as much an outfielder as I had previously thought.

13 Don Newcombe – After going over and reworking the different types of credit I give to the players in my consideration set, Newcombe slots here.

14. Mickey Welch - The 300 game winner. The discussion of the past couple of years has made me realize that Welch should be a HOMer. Is not that far behind Keefe.

15. Ben Taylor- On my ballot for the first time. Helped by the Seamheads numbers in solidifying my assessment of him.


Noteworthy holdovers/newcomers not on ballot:

Phil Rizzuto – The deluge of new candidates in recent years have knocked him off my ballot. As candidates clear he should pop back up.

Dick Redding – Too much uncertainty surrounding him to put him on my ballot. The numbers on Seamheads are not helping him.

Luis Tiant – His problem is the lack of innings in an era where most great pitchers had the bulk.

Gavvy Cravath – One of the enigmas in terms of career interpretation. His career in the majors combined with my interpretation of the other information places him just off ballot.

Kenny Lofton – Bubbling under, not fully convinced on the defensive valuations of some metrics.

Jeff Kent – Also just off ballot.

Bobby Bonds - May need to reevaluate him more fully but he is behind the outfielders that made my ballot.

Buddy Bell & Sal Bando - A bit unsure if the defensive systems are correctly crediting third base vs. shortstop defense for their era.
   111. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 22, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4866972)
Esteban, did you do anything to resolve the issue, or was it just kind of magic? Any advice for others would be appreciated, thanks!
   112. Esteban Rivera Posted: December 22, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4867006)
It was more repeated attempts turning into dumb luck (or magic if you prefer). I thought I had logged in at one point but it quickly kicked me out (page did not exist message,followed by not recognizing my user name and password for a few tries). It finally worked when I tried the log in from the home BTF screen. Don't know if that helps anyone else (although I had no issues logging back in this time to post this message).
   113. Chris Fluit Posted: December 22, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4867037)
Ben Taylor (N/A): Admittedly not that knowledgeable about his case, but have not found a compelling reason to push him into the Top 15.


Don't give up on Negro Leaguers too easily. We've done a pretty good job of electing players from the Negro Leagues but many of us still find one or two players worth voting for (even if we can't agree on who those might be). If Taylor isn't to your taste, you might want to take a look at Dick Redding, Bus Clarkson or a handful of other credible candidates.
   114. adarowski Posted: December 22, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4867175)
I appreciate the new voters but worry this will just become the Hall of Baseball Reference WAR.


It's an input, for sure. And one I value quite a bit. But I certainly don't follow it blindly. Even the modifications I've made in Hall Rating are just a basis for my personal Hall. There are 32 players in my Personal Hall who are not in the Hall of Stats. I also try to take the time to understand what can go into these high WAR totals (like with Larry Walker or Rick Reuschel). A bigger criticism of my Personal Hall has been my devotion to 19th century players (I chair the SABR 19th Cent. Overlooked Legends committee), though it seems that's a "flaw" you all share, too. :)
   115. Howie Menckel Posted: December 22, 2014 at 08:07 PM (#4867203)

did I hear a final buzzer?
   116. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 22, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4867206)
Ding ding
   117. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4868274)
106. Chris Cobb Posted: December 22, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4866869)
2015 Ballot Explanations. Part 2: Off the Ballot
Off the ballot is very much a work in progress, as I’ve been trying to catch up with the replacement level revisions at Baseball Reference and Fangraphs, with the new NeL data at Seamheads, and the fielding values of DRA. I am far from finished. So, rather than present my near-but-off-ballot candidates in rank order, I’m going to review the players whom I currently see as at or above the in-out line for each decade. Everyone who is more than 2 above their decade in-out line is on the ballot, with the exception of players from the 1910s (I’ll address that set in detail.) These are the players that, in some order, should fill spaces 16-50 (or so) in my rankings.


Great analysis Chris!!!:

15 additional guys I was wondering where you had the following/if you can share some insights on these fellows as they fall in line mostly with the types of guys you mentioned with the off-ballot intriguing candidates:
Jim Whitney
Tony Mullane
Bill Monroe
Eddie Cicotte
Babe Adams
Wilbur Cooper
George Uhle
Burleigh Grimes
Kiki Cuyler
Tommy Bridges
Johnny Pesky
Perucho Cepeda
Roy White
Albert Belle
Carlos Delgado

A few observations if you are to fully integrate DRA/RE24/FIP:
Jeff Kent gets a healthy bump from both DRA (-11) and RE24 (+54) that he rises above the 90s guys remaining.
Nomar Garciaparra comes across unfavorable with DRA (-9) and doesn't move the needle at RE24 (+11), but his peak is SO strong that he has to remain in contention.

Robin Ventura is very underwhelming after using DRA (+66), although RE24 moves him closer to consideration (+67).
Bernie Williams drops a notch with RE24 (-54) and remains fairly neutral with DRA (-61).
John Olerud moves from outside of normal consideration to very intriguing with DRA (+116) and RE24 (+68)

Chet Lemon is also knocked down a bit by DRA (+105) relative to others, he clearly falls below the line if we award credit for RE24 (-113)
While Orel Hershiser and Doc Gooden appear very close by BREFWAR, Gooden is a slam dunk with FG/FIP based WAR, so I give him the edge, along with potential MLE credit...Baseball Gauge also prefers Doc.
Jose Cruz is a hall of meriter if we believe in DRA (+155) and RE24 (+160).

Sal Bando is mainly a BBREF stud from what I can tell, Dan R, Baseball Gauge/DRA (-47), and RE24 (-67 BBREF) drop him off the list.
Ron Cey is a relative minus with DRA (+9) but a plus with RE24 (+50).
Gene Tenace is neutral/positive for DRA (-8) and RE24 (+10), although he might deserve some MLE credit for blocking/outstanding minor league seasons.

To post pre 1970s guys in future comment:
   118. Chris Cobb Posted: December 26, 2014 at 12:33 AM (#4868381)
BleedtheFreak asked

15 additional guys I was wondering where you had the following/if you can share some insights on these fellows as they fall in line mostly with the types of guys you mentioned with the off-ballot intriguing candidates:

Here's a quick survey of what I think I know or don't know about these guys:

Jim Whitney & Tony Mullane -- Two-way players are hugely difficult to figure out, so I don't believe I have a clear read on either of these guys. Mullane I am skeptical about because his strong work was in the early AA, and I remained unconvinced about the quality of the league. Whitney has a better league case. But how many more 1880s guys are we going to put in?

Bill Monroe -- Seamheads data suggests he didn't hit after 1909. I'd like to run MLEs on the Seamheads data before I make a full call, but his case has to be a peak one, and eyeballing the numbers I'm pretty doubtful about that. No way I'd prefer him to Willis or Tinker without a big surprise from the MLEs.

Eddie Cicotte -- He's in the scrum with Cravath, Taylor, Hooper, Veach, Fletcher, and Wilbur Cooper for the 1910s borderline spot. With no Series-throwing penalty, I've got him at 117. I don't have any plans to re-do my pitching system, so where he ends up depends on how the others move around him. If one writes off 1919 for throwing games, his case is gone.

Babe Adams -- Not close. Among his contemporary pitchers, he trails not only Cicotte and Cooper but also Nap Rucker.

Wilbur Cooper -- He's in the 1910s mix, but he's the least likely to rise to the top, I think. I have him at 111 right now. I need to re-do the WWI adjustments for him, but I don't think it moves him ahead of Cicotte, et al.

George Uhle -- Deserved more attention than he got, but not close now. If one really boosts 1920s pitchers for a low SD era (as I think Dan R does), then he comes up, but my system has Shocker at 125 and Uhle at 108. Not close

Burleigh Grimes -- My system doesn't like him much at all (or didn't, he probably needs updating). But he's below Uhle

Kiki Cuyler -- Just looked at him in DRA, which doesn't move the needle much at all. He needed to be an excellent defender in CF to get close to the in-out line, and it doesn't appear that he was. For the 1920s, I have him a bit ahead of Uhle, but he's still 4-5 spots down from the in-out line, spots that are filled by extra electees from that decade.

Tommy Bridges -- Not close.

Johnny Pesky -- I haven't reviewed his case in a long time. My last analysis of him had him close enough to Rizzuto that I probably ought to look at him again.

Perucho Cepeda -- I know very little about him.

Roy White -- Not close: below Bando, Cey, and Tenace on my 1970s depth chart. DRA loves his fielding, though--looks like it adds 15 wins to his resume, which would be enough to get him back into the conversation about the 1970s in-out line.

Albert Belle -- Not close, and I don't know of any unexamined data that would shift him closer. BBRef has him at about 40 career WAR. His peak is strong, but it's nothing special around the HoM. There are a dozen better unelected position player peaks since 1960, again by BBRef, but I haven't seen any stats that tell a vastly different story.

Carlos Delgado -- Likewise. He's a low 40's WAR on BBRef, and I don't see anything out there that changes that.

So, in sum, from this group the ones that I don't know enough to rule out are Whitney, Mullane, Monroe, Cicotte, Pesky, Cepeda, and White. I'm very doubtful about Mullane, Monroe, and Cooper, ignorant about Cepeda, puzzled by Whitney, and curious about what Pesky and White will look like will a fuller set of inputs on their fielding value. With Cicotte it's others' value that I'm uncertain about.

Unless somebody shows me something new re Adams, Uhle, Grimes, Cuyler, Bridges, Belle, or Delgado, they're not part of the borderline group.
   119. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 26, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4868510)
Jim Whitney and Tony Mullane - agreed that this is one of the toughest tasks, not to mention Charlie Buffinton as another fine candidate.
I knocked Buffinton out of the mix with use of Fangraphs WAR.

I need to review my usage of Baseball Gauge WAR, my initial calculations brought McCormick below Whitney/Mullane, but not sure if I made an error, removing this puts McCormick on equal footing with Whitney and above Mullane after AA discounts.
McCormick is awesome with BBREF and Whitney with FG WAR, but as you say, how many 1880s guys are we going to elect?

Just happy that we passed on Mickey Welch from this group.

Agreed on Bill Monroe, the main thing keeping him in my sights was a comment Gary A made a few years ago about the best unelected Negro Leaguers, and his being mentioned on a short list.

Eddie Cicotte comes up strong under all systems except maybe Joe D's PA, a 109 Hall of Stats ranking, borderline/in without docking for throwing games, out otherwise.

Babe Adams on the fringes across the board in the 75-100 range in all systems I review, 107 Hall of Stats rank, I have him even with Wilbur Cooper, 99 Hall Rating, Nap Rucker at 99.7 Hall Rating, looks good in Joe D's PA, falls short with FG WAR, maybe I am under-estimating his peak, he was pretty awesome at times using the old Baseball Prospectus WARP?

George Uhle scores in the Top 75 for my BBREF/FG WAR/Baseball Gauge calcs, 88 Hall rank, his case depends on valuation of offensive value.

Burleigh Grimes at 96 Hall rank and Top 80 across BBREF/FG WAR/Baseball Gauge, another guy who depends on offense, has been a Dan R guy before.

Kiki Cuyler at 87 Hall rank, With the stellar start to his career, does Kiki deserve any MLE credit?
In the 1921 Class B Michigan-Ontario League, Cuyler posted a 317/494 AVG/SLG, 6th best for qualifiers.
He played in Class B in 1922, this time in the South Atlantic League, posting a 309/503 AVG/SLG, 4th best for qualifiers.
Cuyler moved up to the Class A 1923 Southern Association, posting the best AVG/SLG at 340/514 for qualifiers.
If he were playing in the PCL, would he have been elected already, like Earl Averill (enshrined in 1961), who is inferior to Cuyler.
148 OPS in first season at age 25.
DRA for 1930s outfielders:
Bob Johnson (44), Kiki Cuyler (16), Medwick (-23), Averill (-118)...incorporating DRA makes Medwick look like a clear mistake and Averill into the Roush/Fox/Fingers/Lemon bucket of 5 guys I am sad were elected. Johnson is at/above the line while Cuyler is at/below for me.

Tommy Bridges - 97 hall rank, short on BBREF, Top 75 by other methods, but falls off considering excess of 1930s candidates.

Johnny Pesky - MLE/WAR credit at peak levels needed, so understandable, but still quite impressive with DRA/Dan R replacement levels.

Perucho Cepeda - seconded on lack of data/knowledge available, James Newburg/Yoenis Cespedes ran MLEs showing him with a solid/strong peak/prime and over 60 career WAR, strongly supported at Baseball Fever.

Roy White - 86 hall rank, agreed that well shy of consideration unless DRA is used.

Albert Belle - 74 hall rank, like White, tough to fathom, but DRA shows him as -1 career/average defender...is this possible considering his reputation...studies have recently shown Mike Piazza to be solid defensively, just awful at throwing out baserunners...maybe Belle is the same? -40 RE24 FG.

Carlos Delgado - 75 hall rank, Dan S did MLE credit dating back to the early 1980s some years ago and had Delgado as one of the most criminally blocked players, so maybe some substantial credit is the only way for Carlos to be considered? Like Belle, seen as average fielder, +13 in the field by DRA. +40 RE24.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and lively discussion on these guys, as well as the guys you have off ballot, all of them fall into the gray area of not clearly HOM worthy or unworthy for me.
   120. DL from MN Posted: December 26, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4868517)
Need to keep Monroe in mind for the MMP this year
   121. Chris Cobb Posted: December 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4868702)
Re Albert Belle and DRA:

I've just put Albert Belle and Nomar Garciaparra through my system with DRA traded in for BBRef's rField values, and the result is that it basically flips them. With season-length adjustments for 1994 and 1995 and DRA for fielding, Belle sits on the in-out line and Garciaparra drops out of sight.

Correct evaluation of the 1990s Cleveland outfield is looking increasingly important, as three HoM cases are bound up with it. Manny has enough bat that he will be elected easily regardless of how his fielding is evaluated, though the speed at which he enters will be affected. If Lofton was just the a bit above average centerfielder that DRA sees, his case is quite a bit more doubtful than if he was the +100 CF that Total Zone sees. If Belle was average in the outfield as DRA sees, he has a case. If he was the -63 butcher Total Zone sees, he's completely out of the picture.

I did some poking around on this matter a year or so ago, and the main thing I remember finding was that the Cleveland pitching staff was exceptionally ground-ball oriented. (I had some other observations, but I don't remember off the top of my head what they were.) Eric Chalek has posted that DRA seems to underrate arm values, which, since Lofton had very good one, could be a factor. Has anyone else done any more work on this outfield?
   122. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4868717)
Chris Cobb, yes, DRA underrated arms because it only takes baserunner kills into account. This drastically inflates the arm value of Brock or Staub, whose assist totals were high because people ran on their weak arms more often. BBREF's ROF (see fielding pages for indivual players), include holds and the lack of them where PBP data is available. To get a sense of how important this is, Dewey Evans and Al Kaline combine for less than 10 arm runs between them in DRA but ~100 in ROF. Five wins of value per man.

Chris, DRAW seems to have wider range of values than Rfield, so I use two-thirds DRA and one-third Rfield to get two opinions and to keep things a little tighter.
   123. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 28, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4868925)
I use two-thirds DRA and one-third Rfield to get two opinions and to keep things a little tighter.


Thanks for sharing, can/do you also have a personal hall of merit/not hall of merit you can share.
I find it most interesting/enlightening when we discuss the 200-300 range greatest players, rather than the much easier Top 1-200 guys.

Was wondering how Wally Schang came out as #9 for your ballot, do you value catchers more highly than the electorate, as you also have Munson on ballot, or are they valued higher than guys like Freehan/Bresnahan/Torre, etc.

I appreciate the ballsy placement of Bobby Veach relative to the rest of us, he sure is a slam-dunk DRA guy. And agreed that Veach, Sheckard, and Clarke are more CF than LF defensively.

Like Chris, do you have a subset of guys you can share just off ballot (maybe 15-25).

Do you have any strong thoughts on the Negro Leaguers remaining/whether we have made any mistake elections?

Do you factor in the replacement levels that Dan R uses, as he makes persuasive and logical arguments for Bert Campaneris and against Sal Bando, etc.

And the toughest, what type of system do you have for pitchers. I have tried to blend Joe D's PA, BBREF WAR, FG WAR, Baseball Gauge WAR, etc. into one formula which often yields good, but maybe not the best results. Any strong feelings on the 1880s guys?

Thanks for the help/lively discussion guys!
   124. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 28, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4869096)
Bleed,

Lots of questions. Might need a couple posts to do that.... But the first thing I want to say is that I'm no genius, and it's quite possible I'm doing stupid sh*t I shouldn't, so I'm kinda scared to drop all this on you guys. I've been home brewing for a couple years now.

Anyway glad for feedback.

It's probably better for me to answer bigger questions then go to granular ones. Everything is based on BBREF WAR and DRA, but with some special modifications I made myself. These mods may not be for everyone, I'll admit. They reflect only my own view of things. I'm going to do a lot of explaining not because you guys don't already know it but because it's helpful for me to get it down, and I want to be accurate.

Since you asked about pitching, I'll go there first. I'll use Bob Gibson's 1968 as an example. When I put a p in front of something, it means pitching only. For example pRAA = pitching runs above average. A b is for batting.

1) Adjust pRAA for STDEV
Dan R has a more comprehensive approach, and I've taken a very simplistic approach that I would not defend a dissertation on. :) For every league in history, I found the STDEV of the pRAA/IP of every ERA-qualified pitcher, as well as those to within a quarter of that total. For 162-game seasons, that's >~120+ innings. Then I found the average STDEV across all seasons. Finally, I divide the historical average by the season to create an adjustment factor. I use that adjustment factor at half-strength because it seems like the smart thing to do. I apply this factor to the pRAA. Gibson had 58.6 pRAA, and the STDEV adj. factor happens to be 1.0, so 58.6 * 1.0 = 58.6, of course. That's his STDEV adjusted pRAA.

Now, let me take a step back for a second from this. If you look at a scatter plot and you were to draw a line, the STDEVs from about 1900 bounce from year to year but they do have central tendencies that we might expect. Looking for a moment at hitting, the AL of the 1950s/1960s has a much higher adjustment factor than the NL. Why? Because the NL had nearly all the great black players, so the dispersion of ability is wider even though the NL was the better league. The AL actually had very narrow STDEVs, so its adjustment factor is higher. BBREF WAR already makes calculations about the quality of leagues, so I mostly just go with them and avoid making characterizations about league quality. The point of this adjustment is that with a wider dispersion of ability, the outlying performances raise the league average, which affects the RAA (Dan R once pointed this out about Babe Ruth). And the opposite is true in low-STDEV leagues. I'm trying to simply find the happy medium here. It should be noted, however, that for pitchers, STDEVS in the early days (up to about 1900) are crazy high. They decline pretty quickly, but man, it's like a circus. Some would say that this looks like a timelining issue. What it actually does is to help see through what I call the "Shoenfield Effect." Dave Shoenfield wrote a piece last January where he showed that career WAR totals have declined since about 1920. The further back you go, the better the players look. This is modernization, reflected in STDEV, at work, not an indication that pre-1920s players were better than later generations, but it's paradoxical. I personally believe that we probably erred on the side of too many 19th Century players, in part because we may not have considered the importance of this effect at the time. Self included! Good on Dan R for bringing STDEV to our attention. So that's a lot of background on the whys for this.

2) Figure STDEV adj pWAA
Now I need to put this back into wins. So I take the raw pRAA and divide it by the raw WAA to get the R/W conversion, then I apply it to the STDEV adj pRAA. In this case, the R/W was 6.8, and 58.6 / 6.8 = 8.6 pWAA. Yeah, the 1968 NL was really run-starved.

3) Adjust for usage
I suspect this will be controversial, too. I have lots of trouble knowing what to do with the huge differences in innings pitched between different generations of pitchers. And, frankly, if we just take IP and pWAR at face value, then we'd have waaaaay too many 1880s pitchers. There's a ton of second and third tier 1880s pitchers in the top 100 pWAR. So what I've done is found the third-highest IP total in MLB for every year. I take a five-year rolling average weighted 50% on year n, and 12.5% each on years n +/- 1 and n +/- 2. I want to place pitchers into a familiar frame of reference, so I divide those rolling averages into 230, which is approximately a year 2000 third-place finisher in IP. The result is the adjustment factor that I'll use. However, I want to conserve the above-averageness of a pitcher because that's where the greatness lies (IMO), even though it is a function of the IP total. So what I do is to apply the adjustment factor only to the wins between replacement and average. This knocks down the 1880s guys considerably without maiming them. Even still, there's too many among my top 100 because of their hitting. But what can we do about a thing like that. Gibson in 1968 had 2.8 Wins between replacement and average. The usage adjustment for that year is .75, so I multiply 2.8 * .75 and get 2.1 Wins between replacement and average.

4) Figure eqWAR1 (eq = equivalent, or eric's quirks) by adding together number two and number three: 8.6 + 2.1 = 10.5 (rounding error). I have two more things to do.

5) Give some October credit
I am very conservative about October credit. Since I'm denominating in Wins, I can't just willy-nilly go tacking on Wins from October. And once you start looking into this question of postseason wins, you get lost fast because there's too many variables and too small a sample that's too skewed to draw much from. Plus there's questions about opportunity (aka Whitey Ford vs. Ernie Banks) as well as about the relative value of each tier of playoffs. Blech. On the other hand, arms only seem to have so many innings in them, and I want to acknowledge that. (I don't feel that way about hitters.) My current solution is to credit pitchers with average-level performance for all October IP. Yes, even for shutouts or blowouts. So I multiply October IP by 0.00992 (an approximation for the value of IP greater than replacement but below average). For Gibson in 1968, this is 27.0 * 0.00992 = 0.3. Adding that to our previous total is 10.5 + 0.3 = 10.8 eqpWAR. I'll point out that no matter how you work up October innings, you won't be adding too much value to a pitcher. Whitey Ford, for example, threw 146 October IP. At his regular rate of WAR accumulation that's like 2 WAR. Even if you think the WS should count double, that's 4 Wins. That can swing an election, but Whitey is an extreme case (among the pre tiered playoffs guys).

6) Adjust hitting for usage*
Because I'm essentially taking away innings from pitchers, I also want to be consistent about their time at the plate. So I adjust their bWAR (batting WAR) with the same usage adjustment factor as I used for adjusting their pitching. Because some pitchers pinch hit or make occasional forays into the field, I split apart their batting and pitching WAR in the most simple way by dividing their G at P into total G. I then apply the adjustment to the result, then the non-P bWAR is conserved and added back. For Gibson in 1968, he batted in 35 games, and he pitched in 34. He had 0.63 bWAR, so 34 / 35 * 0.63 = .612; .612 * .75 usage adj = bWAR 0.47 at P; then add back the 0.018 non-p bWAR to get 0.49 bWAR

*For guys like Ward and Caruthers and Ruth, I have a separate way to do this that gets more granular about apportioning their PAs between P and not-P.

7) Sum it all up
OK, take our 10.8 pWAR from number 5, add 0.49 bWAR from number 6, and we have 11.3 total WAR, about 0.6 fewer than BBREF's 11.9 total WAR.

Gibson had 81.9 pWAR and 8.0 bWAR in his career for a total of 89.9 WAR. I have him at 80.6 total WAR through my evaluation system.

In addition, for pitchers before PBP data, I give their relief innings a boost to account for the starter/closer thing in the mold of Brown/Grove/Dean. I don't think I do this well yet.

I will not claim perfection here by any stretch, and I am open to feedback, but I'm not a statistician so please keep suggestions relatively simple. ;) Here's a quick look at how this changes things. Here's the 1st, 11th, 21st, etc... pitchers in total career Dr. C WAR. I don't use straight career WAR as my sifting device (more like a JAWS type approach), so this is not to be construed as a final ranking:
                BBREF                 DOC C
RK   NAME          WAR     RK    WAR
===========================================
1    C Young     168.4      2  147.0              
11   W Spahn     100.1     10   93.5
21   P Martinez   84.0     14   83.3        
31   R Ruffing    70.4     41   59.0
41   L Tiant      66.7     40   59.1
51   D Cone       62.5     35   61.0
61   D Vance      59.9     46   56.9
71   F Tanana     57.9     67   52.5
81   J Whitney    55.6    n/a   31.0 (>150)
91   B Pierce     53.2     76   49.4
101  J Kaat       51.4    110   43.3 

     DOC C                 BBREF
RK   NAME          WAR     RK     WAR
============================================
1    W Johnson   152.0      2   165.6      
11   B Blyleven   88.7     13    95.3
21   E Plank      78.2     17    89.8
31   J Palmer     62.4     34    69.4 
41   R Ruffing    59.0     31    70.4
51   O Hershiser  55.7     77    56.8  
61   C Sabathia   53.5     85    54.7
71   E Rommel     50.7    110    50.1 
81   J Koosman    48.4     87    53.9
91   G Uhle       47.0     80    56.0  
101  D Martinez   44.5    113    49.3


I'll work through the other question and your specific pitching question coming up, but getting this out there will show why my rankings look the way they do.
   125. Chris Cobb Posted: December 28, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4869123)
Dr. Chaleeko wrote:

Some would say that this looks like a timelining issue. What it actually does is to help see through what I call the "Shoenfield Effect." Dave Shoenfield wrote a piece last January where he showed that career WAR totals have declined since about 1920. The further back you go, the better the players look. This is modernization, reflected in STDEV, at work, not an indication that pre-1920s players were better than later generations, but it's paradoxical. I personally believe that we probably erred on the side of too many 19th Century players, in part because we may not have considered the importance of this effect at the time. Self included! Good on Dan R for bringing STDEV to our attention. So that's a lot of background on the whys for this.

This is a very important point. I missed the Schoenfeld column and I don't have the data sets and skills to calculate standard deviations, but my development of decade by decade provisional quotas based on the number of teams shows the same effect clearly. If each decade going forward through history is to have proportionate representation, the value that is considered HoM-worthy has to decline. I would second Dr. Chaleeko's sense that we have erred on the side of too many players, not just from the 19th century but from all pre-WWII/integration decades.

Given this circumstance, I would suggest that it usually makes sense to support pre-1940 players only if it appears that they were somehow overlooked and are better than a number of their contemporaries who have already been elected. If a player is "the next one in line in the backlog" in a pre-1940 decade, then "the next one in line in the backlog from a later decade is generally to be preferred in order to maintain fairness to all eras.

Or you can incorporate standard deviations into your metrics.
   126. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 28, 2014 at 08:05 PM (#4869127)
So, Bleed, as for your questions about 1880s pitchers, let me just set aside the Negro Leaguers for a second, and do some figurin' that I hope doesn't look like HOM heresy.

We have, I think, about 226 guys whose careers are primarily based on their MLB records. What does a balanced representation of eras look like with that many honorees? There's a few ways to look at this question. But let's just take team-seasons. In a 16-team league there are 16 team-seasons. This is my favorite way to look. We could use the sum of all games played that year, but that really screws the 19th Century. We could define the number of "non-crappy" players in the league and use their cumulative WAR or PA something to see what the real talent pool is, but that's incredibly messy. Team-seasons matches the idea that a pennant is a pennant is a pennant, one of the founding ideas of the HOM.

Excluding the Feds and UA, there have been 2,594 team-seasons through the year 2009 (which is the retirement year of our 2015 class). 10.6% of those seasons occurred in what we might call the early days of baseball: 1871-1892. (It makes no difference if we include the pre-NA days since all those guys retired by 1892.) And 10.6% of all MLB honorees is 24. The following guys can be said to be HOM players of the pre-NA through 1892 era:
Clarkson
Galvin
Keefe
Radbourn
Spalding
Caruthers
Ewing
Bennett
White
Anson
Brouthers
Connor
Start
Barnes
McPhee
Richardson
Sutton
Glasscock
Pearce
Ward
Wright
Jones
Stovey
Browning
Gore
Hines
O'Rourke
Pike
Kelly
Thompson
McVey.

I think I got them all, and that's 31 guys, already 7 above the 24 suggested by team-seasons. But it's not really 31 because some guys played a lot after 1893. By the same token these fellows all played a little before 1893:
Beckley
Burkett
Delahanty
Jennings
Keeler
Kelley
Nichols
Young
Rusie
Hamilton
Dahlen
Davis
McGraw
Childs
Griffith.

So I took each of the 46 guys above, and I used G or IP to determine what percentage of their MLB careers lay in each season 1871-1892. For example, 1% of Pud Galvin's innings reside in 1876. For each season, I added up the percentages for each of the 46 players to get a cumulative number for that season. For the period in question, there are 30.6 seasons of play by HOMers, which is 6 more players than suggested by team-seasons.

If team-seasons is an apt approach, then we are about 28% above the figure suggested above for optimal balance from the early game. That's not to say that we can't be one or two over, there shouldn't be a hard quota, but if we want balance and fairness for all eras, then we have to consider whether we have taken HOM slots from fellows in some other equally deserving time period (probably from the post-War era or the 1970s, but I haven't run those yet). Based on my own estimates, my feeling is that while we should continue to be fair, of course, the time for this era is kind of over. We've stripped the cupboard pretty well bare, and adding anymore of these guys causes chronological balance issues and is possibly unfair to other eras.

In case anyone is curious, the 1871-1880 represents about 3.3% of all team seasons, 1881-1890 about 6.2%, and 1891-1892 about 1.1%. During those respective periods, by team-seasons we'd project 7.5 players, 14 players, and 2.5 players. The actual inductee count is 9.4, 16.7, and 4.5 respectively. About 2 more than projected for each period.

So while, Bleed, you specifically asked about pitchers, my response would be that we shouldn't take anymore players at all from that time. At the softest, I'd say we should proceed with extreme caution in voting for players during that period.

Naturally, mine isn't the final word on this, and I could be waaaaaay off base! So I hope others will share how they look at the question so that perhaps a consensus can gel about whether it's time to gently put this era to bed.
   127. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 28, 2014 at 08:07 PM (#4869128)
Chris Cobb, I think I just said the same thing in many more words in the subsequent post! A coke to you, I think.
   128. DL from MN Posted: December 28, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4869135)
I like [Bob Johnson] better than the elected Medwick and Averill among outfielders


ditto
   129. Howie Menckel Posted: December 28, 2014 at 09:02 PM (#4869138)

ditto
   130. DL from MN Posted: December 28, 2014 at 09:03 PM (#4869139)
I keep going through Chris's comments above. For the most part I agree completely but wanted to add my thoughts.


1990s
The bottom of the 1990s looks weaker than other decades

1970s
I also like your on-ballot players Tiant and Campaneris. Not sold yet on Bonds or Bell but also like them better than Bando.


1940s
1 above the in-out line Phil Rizzuto Total = 120.9
?? Hilton Smith Total = ???

I’ve supported Rizzuto’s election for some time, and he’s the player I’d most likely have at #16 if I had gotten my off-ballot players ranked. He’s been on my ballot most of the time for the last decade or more, but he was pushed off a deep ballot this year. When it’s mostly players near the borderline, Rizzuto will rise quickly. Smith has some very strong supporters, but I’ve never understood the case. He’s a player I continue to think about, however.


I also like Bus Clarkson here. I think it is a bit unexpected that we're relatively underrepresented and still made mistakes (Willard Brown).


1930s
three below the in-out line Bob Johnson Total = 124.6

This period is somewhat overrepresented in the Hall of Merit, and we have elected everybody whom I see as worthy and several more beyond that. Johnson has pretty strong numbers: his total score is the highest of any 20th-century position player not on the ballot, though, despite his being below his decade’s in-out line, and I like him better than the elected Medwick and Averill among outfielders, so he stays closer to my ballot than his “three below” ranking would otherwise suggest.


I also agree that the 1930s are relatively overrepresented but think we elected the wrong players.


1910s
In no set order: Gavvy Cravath, Ben Taylor, Wilbur Cooper, Eddie Cicotte, Art Fletcher, Harry Hooper, Bobby Veach.


I like the list but think you have neglected mentioning Cannonball Dick Redding who looks at least as good as Wilbur Cooper.


1880s
1 above the in-out line Fred Dunlap Total = 134.6
on the in-out line Ed Williamson Total = 131.1

The current numbers that we have on these two 1880s stars strongly suggest that it was a mistake not to elect them and to elect Hardy Richardson, Monte Ward, and Pete Browning instead. At the time they were elected, I supported Richardson and War over Dunlap and Williamson, based on the data we had in those days. (I never supported Browning.) If we work to correct mistakes of this kind by electing Dunlap and Williamson, however, we would be doing so at the expense of more recent players whose spots they would be taking. Given the murkiness of baseball value in the 1880s and before, am I so confident that the new data is better than the old? Not so much that I’m ready to vault this pair onto my ballot, although I have had Dunlap on my ballot in recent years, and he has a very good argument to be in the top 10 off-ballot players. But I wouldn’t rank him ahead of Rizzuto or Ventura, for example, two other infielders who are one spot above the in-out line for their decades, and whose decades are not yet “fully” represented in the HoM.


Agree that Williamson instead of Browning would have been a better choice.

1860s and 1870s
Agree that these have been picked clean. Having 150 elections helps these guys a lot compared to players from the 1970s.
   131. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 28, 2014 at 10:21 PM (#4869151)
Excluding the Feds and UA, there have been 2,594 team-seasons through the year 2009 (which is the retirement year of our 2015 class). 10.6% of those seasons occurred in what we might call the early days of baseball: 1871-1892. (It makes no difference if we include the pre-NA days since all those guys retired by 1892.) And 10.6% of all MLB honorees is 24...that's 31 guys, already 7 above the 24 suggested by team-seasons.


Pre-NA includes nearly a full career value from Dickey Pearce, and close to a quarter of Joe Start, George Wright, Ross Barnes, Lip Pike, and Cal McVey each...we could maybe claim that 2 of the 7 excess spots are allotted to pre-NA play.

I have Sam Thompson as a mistake selection, while Pete Browning and Harry Stovey fall outside of my person hall as well.
Taking out these 3, we would be 2 over the suggested total.

Guys from the bottom quarter of the hall of merit/just outside personal hall:

Position Players: John Ward (tough to nail split between pitcher/position player), Charley Jones (blacklist), Hardy Richardson (International Association), Ezra Sutton (gold by old Sean Smith WAR, borderline with new, clearly out with DRA), Lip Pike/Cal McVey (pre-NA cases), Ed Williamson (contemporary opinion on defense says worthy, metrics?), Fred Dunlap (how to value UA season, hurt by DRA).

Hurlers: Tommy Bond, Bob Caruthers, Jim McCormick, Jim Whitney, Tony Mullane.

The Hall of Merit has elected 7 from this group, who are the 5 best if we have to boot 2?
If one of the 5 best are from the unelected we should consider them for the ballot?
But like Chris mentioned, none of the unelected are so obviously above the already elected that the decision is quite difficult.
The blended numbers I have show Ward, Jones, Williamson, McVey, and Bond as most worthy....but it feels like a crapshoot.

Doc, Chris, DL, all, any strong or thought provoking feelings?
   132. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 29, 2014 at 12:42 AM (#4869177)
Great stuff guys.

One thing on the quota (Dr. C in #126) ... You can't go all the way to 2009. There are many qualified players playing in 2009, that aren't eligible yet.

I think we assumed a typical Hall of Merit career around 16 years and split the difference. So I would only count team seasons through 2001 in establishing a quota for a 2015 ballot. Hope that helps. If you move that number too close to the present you'll always over-quota the modern era.
   133. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 29, 2014 at 12:44 AM (#4869178)
Also, Tommy Bridges should get some war credit too. That gets him on my ballot.
   134. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 29, 2014 at 01:05 AM (#4869181)
DL,

I took a deeper look at the era-based representation question. I realized that from 1989 to now, there are candidates either not yet eligible or still active. Those players should not count yet and by counting them, I was skewing the honoree numbers away from pre-1989 seasons. I addressed that by looking for a group of not yet eligibles and active players who seemed like reasonably good chances to be HOMers. I then subtracted them out of the projected number, which does increase the available slots for all seasons prior to 1989.

I'm choosing to roll the pre-NA play into the 1870s because otherwise, it's a complete nightmare to figure out.

I then compared how many we've elected to the projected amount for each season and grouped seasons where it made sense to do so based on any patterns I saw. Remember, MLB only.

Here's the goods with raw variance vs projected and percentage variance:
Early game (1871-1892):   +3.3   +12%
Pinball 90s (1893-1900):  +4.4   +48%
Deadball (1901-1924):     -4.9   -13%
Liveball (1925-1942):     +3.7   +13%
WW2 (1943-1946):          -2.5   -40%
Integration (1947-1960):  +0.6   + 3%
Expansion (1961-1976):    +0.8   + 2%
Parity (1977-1992):       -3.5   - 9% 
Contemporary (1993-2009): -2.1   -10%


Or to look decade by decade with the variance vs project by raw total and percentage:
1870s: +0.5  + 5%
1880s: +0.8  + 5%
1890s: +6.4  +54%
1900s: -0.3  - 2%
1910s: -3.5  -13%
1920s: -0.1  - 0%
1930s: +2.4  +15%
1940s: -1.9  -12%
1950s: +0.3  + 2%
1960s: +0.5  + 2%
1970s: -0.6  - 3%
1980s: -2.9  -12%
1990s: -1.0  - 5%
2000s: -0.7  -10%


Based on this information, my recommendation would be that we:
1) absolutely never again elect whose career centers on the 1890s
2) be extremely cautious of the early game through 1892 and probably not elect any other MLB players from that era
3) be extremely cautious of the Liveball era and probably not elect any other MLB players from that era
4) focus attention on Deadball-era MLBs---especially 1909-1923
5) focus attention on the Parity era---especially 1977-1988
6) focus attention on the early part of the Contemporary era 1993-2000.
7) Not worry too much about 1947-1976, and if we take a guy or two, that's fine but don't take a nutty or anything.

However, this does not include any Negro League players. That would require an entirely separate assessment. For my own clarity, I tend to think of the NgL guys as occupying a block of slots based on the demography of the NgLs. As in, how many NgL candidates should we take based on its population and the knowledge that its STDEVS were probably very high indeed. We might well have already exceeded that number or be on the brink of it. (Though I haven't dug up the numbers to actually know it.) I also did not include candidates such as Doby and Minoso who realistically needed racism credit to get over the line and are hybrid candidates.

Regarding that latter-day candidates toward the fringier end don't look as compelling, well, yeah. A big part of that is the Schoenfield Effect. But that might mean we should bear in mind that Hugh Duffy stands out more because of contextual factors than, say, Jose Cruz or Roy White might. Doesn't mean he's actually a better candidate.

If you pressed me for what guys I'd look at in the Deadball, Parity, and Contemporary eras, well, I use DRA heavily, and that will show through so YMMV (all in alpha order):
Deadball: Bancroft, Wilbur Cooper, Art Fletcher, Hooper, Leach, Schang, Shocker, Tinker, and Veach
Parity: Buddy Bell, Jose Cruz, Hershiser, maybe TJ
Contemporary: Appier, Edmonds (for 2016), Chuck Finley, Kent, Chet Lemon, Lofton, Mussina, Phillips, Sheffield, Smoltz, Sosa, Bernie Williams

Again, I don't know that I have the right answers, just putting this forth because I think it's important and hoping that others will follow on with their ideas about chronological balance/fairness to eras.
   135. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 29, 2014 at 01:09 AM (#4869183)
Joe, I was busy doing the very thing you suggested. Another criss-cross post. Cokes are on me, boys!
   136. DL from MN Posted: December 29, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4869214)
Deadball: Bancroft, Wilbur Cooper, Art Fletcher, Hooper, Leach, Schang, Shocker, Tinker, and Veach


I like Gavy Cravath, Dick Redding, Schang, Leach, Shocker and Bancroft. Based on this analysis I think I'm going to look at whether I'm overrating Tony Mullane.
   137. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 29, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4869448)
I'm choosing to roll the pre-NA play into the 1870s because otherwise, it's a complete nightmare to figure out.

I then compared how many we've elected to the projected amount for each season and grouped seasons where it made sense to do so based on any patterns I saw. Remember, MLB only.

To look decade by decade with the variance vs project by raw total and percentage:

1870s: +0.5 + 5%
1880s: +0.8 + 5%
1890s: +6.4 +54%
1900s: -0.3 - 2%
1910s: -3.5 -13%
1920s: -0.1 - 0%
1930s: +2.4 +15%
1940s: -1.9 -12%
1950s: +0.3 + 2%
1960s: +0.5 + 2%
1970s: -0.6 - 3%
1980s: -2.9 -12%
1990s: -1.0 - 5%
2000s: -0.7 -10%


My personal breakdown by decade of Hall of Merit electees (total and total without Negro Leaguers), plus the frontloggers and potential/likely future candidates.

Please share your insights if I have misplaced players into a less preferred decade:

1860s: (1) Dickey Pearce

1870s: (9) Cap Anson, Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright

1880s: (20) Charlie Bennett, Pete Browning, Dan Brouthers, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Connor, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Paul Hines, Charley Jones, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Jim O’Rourke, Old Hoss Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward

1890s: (18/17) Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delehanty, Frank Grant, Clark Griffith, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley, John McGraw, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, Cy Young

1900s: (18/15) Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Rube Foster,Pete Hill, Home Run Johnson, Nap Lajoie, Sherry Magee, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, Jimmy Sheckard, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Rube Waddell

1910s: (17/12) Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Heinie Groh, Joe Jackson, Walter Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Jose Mendez, Ed Roush, Louis Santop, Tris Speaker, Cristobal Torriente, Ed Walsh, Zach Wheat, [emSmokey Joe Williams

1920s: (20/11) John Beckwith, Oscar Charleston, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Willie Foster, Frankie Frisch, Goose Goslin, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Dick Lundy, Biz Mackey, Dobie Moore, Alejandro Oms, Eppa Rixey, Bullet Rogan, Babe Ruth, Joe Sewell, George Sisler, Dazzy Vance, Jud Wilson

1930s: (28/20) Earl Averill, Cool Papa Bell, Ray Brown, Mickey Cochrane, Joe Cronin, Bill Dickey, Martin Dihigo, Wes Ferrell, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Josh Gibson, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Billy Herman, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Joe Medwick, Mel Ott, Satchel Paige, Red Ruffing, Al Simmons, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry, Arky Vaughan, Paul Waner, Willie Wells

1940s: (19/15) Luke Appling, Willard Brown, Lou Boudreau, Joe DiMaggio, Bobby Doerr, Bob Feller, Joe Gordon, Hank Greenberg, Stan Hack, Monte Irvin, Charlie Keller, Buck Leonard, Johnny Mize, Stan Musial, Hal Newhouser, Pee Wee Reese, Enos Slaughter, Quincy Trouppe, Ted Williams

1950s: (19) Richie Ashburn, Ernie Banks, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Nellie Fox, Whitey Ford, Ralph Kiner, Bob Lemon, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Willie Mays, Minnie Minoso, Billy Pierce, Robin Roberts, Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, Warren Spahn, Early Wynn

1960s: (21) Hank Aaron, Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, Jim Bunning, Roberto Clemente, Don Drysdale, Bill Freehan, Bob Gibson, Al Kaline, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Willie McCovey, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Ron Santo, Joe Torre, Hoyt Wilhelm, Billy Williams, Jimmy Wynn, Carl Yastremski

1970s: (24) Johnny Bench, Bert Blyleven, Rod Carew, Steve Carlton, Darrell Evans, Rollie Fingers, Carlton Fisk, Rich Gossage, Bobby Grich, Reggie Jackson, Fergie Jenkins, Joe Morgan, Graig Nettles, Phil Niekro, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Rick Reuschel, Pete Rose, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Ted Simmons, Reggie Smith, Willie Stargell, Don Sutton

1980s: (23) Wade Boggs, George Brett, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Dennis Eckersley, Dwight Evans, Tony Gwynn, Rickey Henderson, Keith Hernandez, Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tim Raines, Willie Randolph, Cal Ripken, Bret Saberhagen, Ryne Sandberg, Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith, Dave Stieb, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Dave Winfield, Robin Yount

1990s: (23) Roberto Alomar, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Craig Biggio, Kevin Brown, Will Clark, Roger Clemens, David Cone, Tom Glavine, Ken Griffey Jr, Randy Johnson, Barry Larkin, Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Mussina, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, John Smoltz, Sammy Sosa, Frank Thomas, Larry Walker

2000s: (25) Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltran, Adrian Beltre, Jim Edmonds, Jason Giambi, Vladimir Guerrero, Roy Halladay, Todd Helton, Derek Jeter, Andruw Jones, Chipper Jones, Pedro Martinez, Joe Mauer, Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez, Scott Rolen, CC Sabathia, Johan Santana, Curt Schilling, Gary Sheffield, Ichiro Suzuki, Jim Thome, Chase Utley

Feel free to quibble with the exact 2000s guys, but ~25 could be likely/elect worthy.
   138. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 29, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4869521)
Notable Eligibles from Chris Cobb’s list, my supplement set, a vote in the 2015 election, or a top vote getter all-time

1870s: (2) Tommy Bond, Davy Force

1880s: (6) Fred Dunlap, Jim McCormick, Tony Mullane, Mickey Welch, Jim Whitney, Ed Williamson

1890s: (4) Ted Breitenstein, Hugh Duffy, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren

1900s: (7) Frank Chance, Addie Joss, Tommy Leach, Carlos Moran, Bill Monroe, Joe Tinker, Vic Willis

1910s: (9) Babe Adams, Eddie Cicotte, Larry Doyle, Gavvy Cravath, Art Fletcher, Harry Hooper, Dick Redding, Ben Taylor, Bobby Veach,

1920s: (9) Buzz Arlett, Dave Bancroft, Wilbur Cooper, Burleigh Grimes, Dolf Luque, Carl Mays, Wally Schang, Urban Shocker, George Uhle,

1930s: (7) Tommy Bridges, Perucho Cepeda, Kiki Cuyler, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Bob Johnson, Ernie Lombardi

1940s: (8) Bus Clarkson, Luke Easter, Bob Elliott, Johnny Pesky, Phil Rizzuto, Hilton Smith, Vern Stephens, Bucky Walters

1950s: (2) Elston Howard, Don Newcombe,

1960s: (4) Luis Aparicio, Norm Cash, Willie Davis, Jim Fregosi

1970s: (16) Sal Bando, Bobby Bonds, Lou Brock, Bert Campaneris, Cesar Cedeno, Dave Concepcion, Ron Cey, Tommy John, Thurman Munson, Dave Parker,
Tony Perez, Jim Rice, Frank Tanana, Gene Tenace, Luis Tiant, Roy White

1980s: (10) Buddy Bell, Jose Cruz, Doc Gooden, Orel Hershiser, Chet Lemon, Dale Murphy, Tony Pena, Kirby Puckett, Mike Scioscia, Lee Smith

1990s: (12) Kevin Appier, Albert Belle, Carlos Delgado, Chuck Finley, Luis Gonzalez, Jeff Kent, Kenny Lofton, Fred McGriff, John Olerud, Tony Phillips, Robin Ventura, Bernie Williams

2000s: (2) Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles
   139. DL from MN Posted: December 29, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4869542)
1930s: (28/20) Earl Averill, Cool Papa Bell, Ray Brown, Mickey Cochrane, Joe Cronin, Bill Dickey, Martin Dihigo, Wes Ferrell, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Josh Gibson, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Billy Herman, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Joe Medwick, Mel Ott, Satchel Paige, Red Ruffing, Al Simmons, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry, Arky Vaughan, Paul Waner, Willie Wells


Those are the guys I don't like as much as Bob Johnson. I'd probably take Tommy Bridges over Ruffing and Ferrell.
   140. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 29, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4869573)
DL agreed on Bob Johnson versus the 4 bolded guys:

My feedback regarding Doc’s suggested slots per decade:

So the updated 1870s/1880s only show +1.3 instead of between 6 and 7?...if so, Pete Browning and Harry Stovey out with Ed Williamson in would be the changes to my personal list. Cobb has highlighted Dunlap and McCormick as two others to consider.

Doc’s notes show +6.4 from the 1890s, I have two guys outside my personal hall with no additions (Jake Beckley and Sam Thompson)…if I am correct about Beckley and Thompson, did we still elect 4 too many? Should Frank Grant, Clark Griffith, Joe Kelley, and Bid McPhee also be in question, or Hughie Jennings, John McGraw, or Willie Keeler if you prefer? Hugh Duffy is the only remaining 1890s guy with considerable support.

Agreed regarding the 1930s being 2+ over, Earl Averill and Joe Medwick are two easy ones for me to boot, while Cool Papa Bell, Billy Herman, possibly Mule Suttles, and Bill Terry are all borderline candidates, with Bell and Terry outside my hall. Tommy Bridges and Bob Johnson were the only 1930s guys with multiple votes in 2015.

The 1910s are shown as 3.5 guys short, while I have Edd Roush well short of worthy from the elected, I have Eddie Cicotte, Gavvy Cravath, Art Fletcher, and Bobby Veach in my personal hall, adding 3. Dick Redding and Ben Taylor have also been shown strong support.

From the 1980s short 2.9 pile, no mistake elections have been made, while I have Buddy Bell, Doc Gooden, and Jose Cruz in my personal hall, adding , and Doc probably has some intriguing arguments in the queue for Orel Hershiser.

With the 1940s needing 1.9, I would take ballot guys Phil Rizzuto and Hilton Smith, Johnny Pesky makes my personal hall, and we should keep an open mind to Bus Clarkson and Luke Easter’s candidacies…I am even for this decade with Stan Hack falling just outside the line, with Willard Brown and Bobby Doerr barely in. Bucky Walters was almost elected in previous elections, although his case depends on the credit apportioned to him versus the excellent fielders he had behind him.

For the 1990s, 1 player is shown short, does this mean we should only be electing 1 remaining or we have only reached one short currently? So we will elect Mike Mussina and John Smoltz for 2 spots, with Sammy Sosa as an obvious 3rd, while Kenny Lofton and or Jeff Kent are in line to be elected once we hit backlog candidates. Kevin Appier and Lofton are in my personal hall, while Kent straddles the fence currently...am I overrating 1990s guys?

Please note that I whiffed on including Jorge Posada on the 2000s lists, he easily be more swapped with Bobby Abreu.
   141. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 29, 2014 at 06:39 PM (#4869610)
Answering more of Bleed's questions from 123 but not in the order posed...

Do you have any strong thoughts on the Negro Leaguers remaining/whether we have made any mistake elections?
As noted previously, I don't have any strong opinions about how many we've elected until someone studies the question.

Do you factor in the replacement levels that Dan R uses, as he makes persuasive and logical arguments for Bert Campaneris and against Sal Bando, etc.

I don't, no.

Was wondering how Wally Schang came out as #9 for your ballot, do you value catchers more highly than the electorate, as you also have Munson on ballot, or are they valued higher than guys like Freehan/Bresnahan/Torre, etc.
To answer this question well, I needed to figure out how many players we have at each position. Because so many players play multiple positions, I used BBREF to figure out what percentage of the time a HOMer spent at each position he played (with SP and RP by GS vs GIR). Then I added the percentages up by position. For MLB players only, I got this:
C:   13.8 (6.1%)
1B:  26.3 (11.7%)
2B:  19.7 (8.8%)
3B:  18.4 (8.2%)
SS:  18.2 (8.1%)
LF:  22.5 (10%)
CF:  17.9 (8.0%)
RF:  20.0 (8.9%)
DH:   4.1 (1.8%)
SP:  54.8 (24.4%)
RP:   9.0 (4%)

NOTE: I realized that I'd inadvertently put Tiant into the HOM last night doing the chronological stuff. I now count 225 MLB HOMers, not 226.

Looking only at the MLB guys, C is the area of sorest need.

I used Seamheads to see what the NgLers percentages looked like where available, and did some guessing about how much time to allot to those that weren't available (example: I used Minoso's 1949-1950 MiL fielding appearances and gave him two years of 100 G at 3B for his pre MiL time, and I used Lefty Grove's SP/RP split for Paige's). Here's what this estimated breakdown for our 30 NgLers looks like:
C:   3.9 (13%)
1B:  2.6 (8.7%)
2B:  2.0 (6.7%)
3B:  1.3 (4.3%)
SS:  4.1 (13.7%)
LF:  2.7 (9.0%)
CF:  6.0 (20.0%)
RF:  1.9 (6.3%)
DH:   0.0 (0.0%)
SP:  4.2 (14.0%)
RP:   1.2 (4.0%)

SP looks very low because guys like Rogan, Brown, Mendez, and Williams also played other positions frequently. In Mendez's case, so frequently that he's only got 38% of his fielding games on the mound (Rogan is 35%).

When we combine these together, the HOM looks like this:
C:   17.7 (7.0%)
1B:  29.0 (11.3%)
2B:  21.7 (8.5%)
3B:  19.8 (7.7%)
SS:  22.4 (8.7%)
LF:  25.4 (9.9%)
CF:  24.5 (9.6%)
RF:  22.1 (8.6%)
DH:   4.1 (1.6%)
SP:  59.0 (23.1%)
RP:   10.3 (4.0%)


Looking at things this way (which is admittedly not going to be perfect due to estimations so I encourage everyone to take a stab at it), catcher, third base, and starting pitcher seem like places we should be zeroing in on for sure. First base is someplace we should avoid from the backlog. But I think this also depends on how we look at things. If we believe that the NgLs had a special set of conditions that tended to push the best players to C, SS, and CF, then we may want to consider whether that means we should think separately about MLB players who were not subject to the same sorts of funneling into positions that the NgLs were. In that case, we should perhaps try to balance the MLB positions separately from the NgL positions. I'm not sure what the best approach is.

Anyway, this is a long, rambling response about Wally Schang. I see a deficiency in HOM catchers, and Schang and Munson help equalize things. They would push catchers up to nearly 7%. After that, however, the pickings are very, very slim. I-Rod comes along in 2017, and Posada in 2019, then no one until Mauer in...what, 2030? Despite this, I'm no fan of Ernie Lombardi whose BBREF data doesn't have enough PBP to assess his awful baselining and GDP problems, which are probably -5 to 7 WAR or more between them. Gene Tenace only spent 59% of his time behind the plate. After that, you're into Sandberg, Porter, and Parrish, and I don't think they are all that close, really. So at some point we have to accept that catching is somehow limited by the brutality of the position, but Schang and Munson are well qualified to round out the group until I-Rod shows up.

I have two other Bleed questions to address, which I'll do when I can.
   142. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 29, 2014 at 06:50 PM (#4869623)
Bleed in 140, remember these were MLB only lists, so I'm not advocating for any NgL guys to substitute for them. I would advocate for someone else to study how many NgLers is enough. I would personally lean more closely on the first list rather than the decade by decade. Te decades are arbitrary endpoints, and I've identified the patterns of need or concern more clearly in the first list and the recommendations afterward.

It so happens that Schang is both a catcher (which we really need) and from an era (deadball) that we also need to fill out a little. He scores on both the need based accounts as well as in being well qualified (in my eyes that is, YMMV).
   143. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 30, 2014 at 12:29 AM (#4869721)
Bleed in 123

I find it most interesting/enlightening when we discuss the 200-300 range greatest players, rather than the much easier Top 1-200 guys.
Like Chris, do you have a subset of guys you can share just off ballot (maybe 15-25).


I’ll roll your question about just-off-ballot and 200-300 range players into one answer.

I’ve gone position by position, including the ten best players left at each, anyone who got a vote in the last two elections, and soon-to-be-eligibles. The players with a + are ones I would strongly consider voting for. The ? are one’s I’m really on the fence about. Just for the purpose of sifting (not officially ranking) players, I use a JAWS ripoff that I call CHEWS (Chaleeko’s Equivalent War System). It uses my own modified WAR and weights the 7-year peak term more heavily, which, mathematically, makes it come in a little lower than JAWS does for all players. Pitchers come in lower than hitters, so don’t compare one group to the other. Since BBREF takes JAWS to the tenths place, I’ll follow suit. These are my modified WAR figures only for MLB players, no MiL /NgL/War credit shown, see notes.

CATCHER
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
I Rodriguez +  45   82   61.4
HOM MEDIAN               55.5 (Dickey)
Schang      +  34   62   47.0        
Munson      +  41   52   45.8
HOM 75% LINE             45.2 (Bresnahan)
Posada      +  38   50   43.6
Tenace         37   50   42.9 (dif maker <60% Catcher)
Lombardi       33   53   41.7 (cons est of rBser and rDP)
Kendall        32   45   38.3
Parrish        32   46   38.2
Sundberg       32   45   38.1
Clements       32   43   37.0
Porter         30   43   36.2
Farrell        28   45   35.6 
McGuire        29   43   35.4
E. Howard      30   31   30.2
T. Pena        way off my board, no offense
M. Scioscia    way off my board, no offense


FIRST BASE
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
Thome       +  43   75   57.5
HOM MEDIAN               57.1 (Sisler)
Helton      +  49   65   56.0
HOM 75% LINE             53.3 (Murray)
Olerud         40   60   49.1
Berkman        39   54   45.8
Tenney         37   56   45.5
Chance         40   52   45.4
T. Perez       38   53   44.6
Camilli        42   46   43.9
Hodges         39   49   43.4
Cash           34   54   43.3
Konetchy       35   53   43.3
Fournier       39   47   42.7 (no MiL credit)
Delgado        37   48   42.1
Cepeda         35   50   42.0
McGrIff        35   50   41.7


SECOND BASE
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
HOM MEDIAN               57.2 (Whitaker)
HOM 75% LINE             50.2 (McPhee)
Dunlap         47   52   49.1 (UA discount not enough)
T. Phillips ?  38   61   48.4
Kent        ?  37   58   46.5 
Lazzeri        36   50   42.5      
Evers          35   51   42.3
Pratt          33   49   40.6
Frey           34   43   38.2
Stanky         36   40   37.7
McDougald      33   42   37.3
Knoblauch      35   39   36.7
Gilliam        30   43   36.3 (no NgL)


THIRD BASE
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
C. Jones    +  43   78   58.5
HOM MEDIAN               55.2 (Boyer)
B. Bell     +  43   69   54.7
Rolen       +  43   67   53.7
HOM 75% LINE             52.9 (J. Collins)
Leach       +  42   65   52.3 (or CF, whichever)
Williamson     44   55   48.7 (1884 Park effect understated?)
Bando       ?  40   55   46.6
Cey            38   54   45.6
Elliott        35   52   42.4
Harrah         35   51   42.1
Ventura        34   52   42.1
L. Cross       32   53   41.3
Ma. Williams   35   48   40.8  
Traynor        32   47   38.6
Rosen          37   36   36.7


SHORTSTOP
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
HOM MEDIAN               60.3 (Cronin)
Fletcher    +  49   63   55.5
HOM 75% LINE             52.8 (O. Smith)
Tinker      +  41   67   52.8
Jeter       +  40   66   51.9 (Bad D… M Emeigh has disagreed in the past with DRA)
Bancroft    +  42   58   48.8
Campaneris     37   56   45.2
Fregosi        39   48   42.9
Stephens       37   49   42.1
Garciaparra    40   42   41.3
Peckinpaugh    33   51   41.1
Maranville     35   45   39.5 (no War credit)
Bartell        33   47   39.2
Concepcion     33   44   38.4
Rizzuto        34   41   37.4 (no War, ~42 w/ credit; no malaria from me)
Aparicio       29   48   37.2
Pesky          33   35   34.1 (no War, ~39 w/ credit)
  

LEFT FIELD
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
HOM MEDIAN               57.1 (Raines)
Ramirez     +  41   75   56.3
Veach       +  47   64   54.4
B. Johnson  +  39   62   49.6
Roy White   ?  43   55   48.5
Jo. Cruz    ?  38   61   48.4
HOM 75% LINE             47.1 (Medwick)
Belle          42   46   43.9
Foster         40   48   43.4
L. Gonzalez    34   53   42.5
Selbach        37   49   42.5
K. Williams    39   47   42.5
G. J. Burns    38   46   41.4
J. Rice        37   47   41.2
Brock          32   44   37.8


CENTER FIELD
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
Griffey Jr. +  54   81   66.3 
HOM MEDIAN               59.6 (Ashburn)
Edmonds     +  45   69   56.0
Adr. Jones  +  48   64   55.1
Lofton      +  40   66   52.1
W. Davis    +  39   62   49.2
HOM 75% LINE             48.9 (Gore)
Be. Wms.    ?  40   56   47.0
Griffin        39   56   46.7
C. Cedeno      41   53   46.6
C. Lemon       38   56   46.5
Butler         37   56   45.4
Duffy          38   53   44.9
Damon          34   57   44.8
W. Wilson      38   52   44.3
Puckett        37   52   44.0  
Da. Murphy     41   46   43.1
Van Haltren    30   45   37.1


RIGHT FIELD
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
HOM MEDIAN               55.8 (Crawford)
Sheffield   +  40   66   51.7 
HOM 75% LINE             51.1 (Winfield)
Bo. Bonds   +  42   61   50.3
Sosa        +  43   59   49.8
V. Guerrero +  41   60   49.7
Hooper      +  35   66   49.1 (>50 w/ DRA arm adj.)
S. Rice     ?  36   62   47.8 (~48.5 with DRA arm adj.)
Abreu       ?  38   60   47.4
Nicholson      40   49   44.1
Giles          38   51   43.7  
Cuyler         38   50   43.3
Oliva          40   45   42.5
J. Clark       32   54   42.0
Tiernan        38   47   41.9
D. Parker      37   42   39.4
Cravath        35   40   37.3 (No MiL but ~42 with it)


STARTING PITCHER
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
Mussina     +  43   81   60.3
Smoltz      +  40   77   56.5 
Halladay    +  49   62   54.7
HOM MEDIAN               52.5 (Feller)
Tiant       +  41   59   49.0
Willis      +  44   53   48.2
Shocker     +  42   54   47.7
Hershsier   +  40   56   47.1
HOM 75% LINE             46.8 (Radbourn)
J. Santana  +  44   51   46.8
Appier      +  42   53   46.6
Pettitte    +  34   61   46.1
C. Finley   +  38   56   45.8
Cicotte        41   51   45.5
Rommel      ?  39   51   44.5 (Unsure re my <1946 RP credits)
Gooden         38   51   43.9 (Peak too heavy on 1985)
Buffinton      45   43   43.8
Oswalt      ?  39   49   43.6
Walters     ?  40   48   43.4
Tanana         36   53   43.3
McCormick      42   46   43.3 (UA at career avg.)
Dean           42   44   43.2 (Unsure re my <1946 RP credits)
Uhle        ?  40   47   43.2
W. Cooper   ?  39   48   43.1
Langston    ?  39   48   43.0
K. Rogers      35   53   43.0
John        ?  33   55   42.7
Rucker         41   43   42.2
Guidry         37   47   41.7
Viola          40   44   41.7
Quinn          32   53   41.2 (no MiL)
B. Grimes      39   44   41.2
D. Trout       37   47   41.2
B. Adams       38   45   41.2
Mullane        37   46   41.0 
Key            35   48   41.0 
W. Wood        41   41   40.9
Bond           42   38   39.8
Bridges        33   47   39.2
Luque          33   42   37.3
Welch          38   37   37.2
C. Mays        33   41   37.0
Joss           34   38   36.0
Newcombe       33   36   34.2    
L. Gomez       33   35   34.2
Leever         28   34   30.8 (No teaching credit)

NOTE: I don’t give pitchers War credit as a counterbalance to the risk of pitcher attrition.


RELIEF PITCHER
NAME            7  Car.  CHEWS
================================
Rivera      +  37   71   52.5
L. Smith       27   34   29.9


Lot of info there, but hopefully it makes sense!


   144. DL from MN Posted: December 30, 2014 at 08:47 AM (#4869753)
Question Dr. C - are your numbers for the recent players strike credited? I think Dan R's WAR already gives that credit but need to doublecheck.
   145. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4869780)
For MLB players only, I got this:

C: 13.8 (6.1%)
1B: 26.3 (11.7%)
2B: 19.7 (8.8%)
3B: 18.4 (8.2%)
SS: 18.2 (8.1%)
LF: 22.5 (10%)
CF: 17.9 (8.0%)
RF: 20.0 (8.9%)
DH: 4.1 (1.8%)
SP: 54.8 (24.4%)
RP: 9.0 (4%)

Here's what this estimated breakdown for our 30 NgLers looks like:

C: 3.9 (13%)
1B: 2.6 (8.7%)
2B: 2.0 (6.7%)
3B: 1.3 (4.3%)
SS: 4.1 (13.7%)
LF: 2.7 (9.0%)
CF: 6.0 (20.0%)
RF: 1.9 (6.3%)
DH: 0.0 (0.0%)
SP: 4.2 (14.0%)
RP: 1.2 (4.0%)

When we combine these together, the HOM looks like this:

C: 17.7 (7.0%)
1B: 29.0 (11.3%)
2B: 21.7 (8.5%)
3B: 19.8 (7.7%)
SS: 22.4 (8.7%)
LF: 25.4 (9.9%)
CF: 24.5 (9.6%)
RF: 22.1 (8.6%)
DH: 4.1 (1.6%)
SP: 59.0 (23.1%)
RP: 10.3 (4.0%)



Imperfect but proxy method is to review total estimated elected, total elected, total elected excluding Negro Leaguers:
Apologies if any of the numbers are off:

Catchers: (24/21/17) Johnny Bench, Charlie Bennett, Yogi Berra, Roger Bresnahan, Roy Campanella, Gary Carter, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Buck Ewing, Carlton Fisk, Bill Freehan, Josh Gibson, Gabby Hartnett, Biz Mackey, Joe Mauer, Cal McVey, Mike Piazza, Jorge Posada, Ivan Rodriguez, Louis Santop, Ted Simmons, Joe Torre, Quincy Trouppe, Deacon White

First Basemen: (25/21/19) Cap Anson, Jeff Bagwell, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Miguel Cabrera, Will Clark, Roger Connor, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Todd Helton, Keith Hernandez, Buck Leonard, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Johnny Mize, Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Albert Pujols, George Sisler, Joe Start, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome

Designated Hitter: (1/1/1) Edgar Martinez

Second Basemen: (24/23/22) Roberto Alomar, Ross Barnes, Craig Biggio, Rod Carew, Cupid Childs, Eddie Collins, Bobby Doerr, Nellie Fox, Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Joe Gordon, Frank Grant, Bobby Grich, Billy Herman, Rogers Hornsby, Nap Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Joe Morgan, Willie Randolph, Hardy Richardson, Jackie Robinson, Ryne Sandberg, Chase Utley, Lou Whitaker

Third Basemen: (22/20/18) Dick Allen, Frank Baker, John Beckwith, Wade Boggs, Ken Boyer, George Brett, Jimmy Collins, Darrell Evans, Heinie Groh, Stan Hack, Chipper Jones, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, John McGraw, Paul Molitor, Graig Nettles, Brooks Robinson, Scott Rolen, Ron Santo, Mike Schmidt, Ezra Sutton, Jud Wilson

Shortstops: (27/25/21) Luke Appling, Ernie Banks, Lou Boudreau, Joe Cronin, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, Derek Jeter, Home Run Johnson, Barry Larkin, John Henry Lloyd, Dick Lundy, Dickey Pearce, Pee Wee Reese, Cal Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, Joe Sewell, Ozzie Smith, Alan Trammell, Arky Vaughan, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, Willie Wells, George Wright, Robin Yount

Left Field: (24/23/23) Barry Bonds, Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delehanty, Goose Goslin, Rickey Henderson, Charley Jones, Charlie Keller, Joe Kelley, Ralph Kiner, Sherry Magee, Joe Medwick, Minnie Minoso, Stan Musial, Tim Raines, Manny Ramirez, Jimmy Sheckard, Al Simmons, Willie Stargell, Harry Stovey, Zach Wheat, Billy Williams, Ted Williams, Carl Yastzremski

Centerfield: (32/29/21) Richie Ashburn, Earl Averill, Cool Papa Bell, Carlos Beltran, Willard Brown, Pete Browning, Max Carey, Oscar Charleston, Ty Cobb, Andre Dawson, Joe DiMaggio, Larry Doby, Jim Edmonds, George Gore, Ken Griffey Jr, Billy Hamilton, Pete Hill, Paul Hines, Monte Irvin, Andruw Jones, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Alejandro Oms, Jim O’Rourke, Lip Pike, Edd Roush, Reggie Smith, Duke Snider, Tris Speaker, Turkey Stearnes, Cristobal Torriente, Jimmy Wynn

Rightfield: (25/24/24) Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Sam Crawford, Dwight Evans, Elmer Flick, Vladimir Guerrero, Tony Gwynn, Harry Heilmann, Joe Jackson, Reggie Jackson, Al Kaline, Willie Keeler, King Kelly, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson, Pete Rose, Babe Ruth, Gary Sheffield, Enos Slaughter, Sammy Sosa, Ichiro Suzuki, Sam Thompson, Larry Walker, Paul Waner, Dave Winfield

Relief Pitchers: (4/3/3) Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, Mariano Rivera, Hoyt Wilhelm

Starting Pitchers: (74/71/64) Pete Alexander, Bert Blyleven, Kevin Brown, Mordecai Brown, Ray Brown, Jim Bunning, Steve Carlton, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Clemens, David Cone, Stan Coveleski, Martin Dihigo, Don Drysdale, Dennis Eckersley, Red Faber, Bob Feller, Wes Ferrell, Whitey Ford, Rube Foster, Willie Foster, Pud Galvin, Bob Gibson, Tom Glavine, Clark Griffith, Lefty Grove, Roy Halladay, Carl Hubbell, Fergie Jenkins, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson, Tim Keefe, Sandy Koufax, Bob Lemon, Ted Lyons, Greg Maddux, Juan Marichal, Pedro Martinez, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jose Mendez, Mike Mussina, Hal Newhouser, Kid Nichols, Phil Niekro, Satchel Paige, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Billy Pierce, Eddie Plank, Old Hoss Radbourn, Rick Reuschel, Eppa Rixey, Robin Roberts, Bullet Rogan, Red Ruffing, Amos Rusie, Nolan Ryan, CC Sabathia, Bret Saberhagen, Johan Santana, Curt Schilling, Tom Seaver, John Smoltz, Warren Spahn, Al Spalding, Dave Stieb, Don Sutton, Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Smokey Joe Williams, Early Wynn, Cy Young
   146. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4869801)
Slicing the position list in previous post:

24 21 17 C
25 21 19 1B
1 1 1 DH
24 23 22 2B
22 20 18 3B
27 25 21 SS
24 23 23 LF
33 29 21 CF
25 24 24 RF
4 3 3 RP
74 71 64 SP
283 261 233 Pos

8.48% 7.42% 6.01% C
8.83% 7.42% 6.71% 1B
0.35% 0.35% 0.35% DH
8.48% 8.13% 7.77% 2B
7.77% 7.07% 6.36% 3B
9.54% 8.83% 7.42% SS
8.48% 8.13% 8.13% LF
11.7% 10.2% 7.42% CF
8.83% 8.48% 8.48% RF
1.41% 1.06% 1.06% RP
26.1% 25.1% 22.6% SP

As Doc said, reapportion Negro Leaguers needs to be considered, a stab to start with: 8 CF split to 2 LF, 4 CF, 2 RF, 1 SS moved to 3B

24 21 17 C
25 21 19 1B
1 1 1 DH
24 23 22 2B
23 21 18 3B
26 24 21 SS
26 25 23 LF
29 25 21 CF
27 26 24 RF
4 3 3 RP
74 71 64 SP
283 261 233 Pos

8.48% 7.42% 6.01% C
8.83% 7.42% 6.71% 1B
0.35% 0.35% 0.35% DH
8.48% 8.13% 7.77% 2B
8.13% 7.42% 6.36% 3B
9.19% 8.48% 7.42% SS
9.19% 8.83% 8.13% LF
10.2% 8.83% 7.42% CF
9.54% 9.19% 8.48% RF
1.41% 1.06% 1.06% RP
26.1% 25.1% 22.6% SP
   147. DL from MN Posted: December 30, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4869818)
11.7% 10.2% 7.42% CF


12% CF is one reason why my PHoM doesn't match the HoM and probably explains why I have Kent ahead of Lofton.
   148. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4869838)
Agreed that we are short 1-2 MLB catchers, although Thurman Munson is the only I feel strongly about adding. I have Gene Tenace and Joe Torre in a dead heat, am I underrating Torre and should Tenace make my personal hall? Wally Schang is awesome when factoring in DRA, but he isn't close when I focus on Dan R or Sean Smith WARs. Yadier Molina is the only guy Doc that I can see with a strong argument currently for future candidates, although Buster Posey could make it soon also. Are we underrating defense so much that a Tony Pena type should make it?

Third base also seems light, electing Buddy Bell and or Tommy Leach would help with this.

As DL has noted many times, starting pitchers might be short changed, but whom can we rally around?
I understand that Don Newcombe and Hilton Smith might take too much projection, but would be nice if Urban Shocker made it.

Taking your decade and positional balance into account
My rough Top 20 backlog, excluding front-loggers Mussina, Smoltz, Sheffield, and Sosa:

1. Brian Giles
2. Phil Rizzuto
3. Tommy Leach
4. Buddy Bell
5. Thurman Munson
6. Bert Campaneris
7. Don Newcombe
8. Urban Shocker
9. Kenny Lofton
10. Hilton Smith
11. Dave Bancroft
12. Doc Gooden
13. Johnny Pesky
14. Kevin Appier
15. Vic Willis
16. Jose Cruz
17. Art Fletcher
18. Bobby Veach
19. Gavvy Cravath
20. Starting Pitcher slot
   149. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4869850)
I'd probably take Tommy Bridges over Ruffing and Ferrell.


Would be interesting to see the argument for Bridges, as I don't see him above Ruffing or Ferrell looking at any of the systems I review.
   150. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4869863)
12% CF is one reason why my PHoM doesn't match the HoM and probably explains why I have Kent ahead of Lofton.


Agreed that too many were elected, I have Averill, Bell, Browning, and Roush outside of my personal hall.
To improve the balance, I would advocate for a C, 3B, SS, and SP (maybe Munson/Schang, Bell/Leach, Rizzuto/Campaneris, and Newcombe/Shocker)

Updating the spread to account for the changes noted above would yield the following:
8.83% 7.77% 6.01% C
8.83% 7.42% 6.71% 1B
0.35% 0.35% 0.35% DH
8.48% 8.13% 7.77% 2B
8.48% 7.77% 6.36% 3B
9.54% 8.83% 7.42% SS
9.19% 8.83% 8.13% LF
8.80% 7.42% 7.42% CF
9.54% 9.19% 8.48% RF
1.41% 1.06% 1.06% RP
26.5% 25.4% 22.6% SP

This would pull SS to the lead/tied with RF and CF would be in largely equal apportionment.
Pitchers would increase to ~28%.

Kent is intriguing, but I would go with Lofton at the current time, the only centerfielder I would consider PHOM worthy that hasn't already been elected that is eligible.

I would add that Bobby Bonds and Luis Tiant are prime Top 20 candidates for post 148.
   151. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4869958)
Re 144
Shot answer, yes.

Longer answer, all batters are adjusted on a seasonal basis for:
-sked
-STDEV of bWAA/PA
-inclusion of DRA (2/3 to 1/3 with rfield except 1:1 before 1892)
-use of rOF instead of DRA arm ratings
-adj to DRA for NYY LFs before 1975
-adj for Green Monster LFs
-adj for all COL OFs
-catcher bonus based on historical usage patterns (similar to the pitcher usage described above)

Re 148
Yes, Yadi and Buster for sure. Also Joe Mauer who I already have about as good as Cochrane.
   152. Chris Cobb Posted: December 30, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4870022)
Here are my proposed changes to Decade Groupings of Elected Players as listed by Bleed the Freak in post 137 above. The shifts I am proposing would move players to the decade in which they had the most value according to Baseball Reference WAR (except for Joe Start, whose peak almost certainly fell in the 1860s but is not documented on the Baseball Reference site).

Joe Start – Shift from 1870s to 1860s

Sherry Magee – Shift from 1900s to 1910s

Ralph Kiner – Shift from 1950s to 1940s

In my system, I divide the following HoMers between two decades. Except in the case of Start, I have simply accepted Bleed the Freak’s single-decade placements of these players, which I think generally reflected the decade in which they had greatest value, but I present the divisions, in case they are of interest.

1860s and 1870s – Joe Start
1870s and 1880s -- Cap Anson, Paul Hines, Jim O’Rourke
1880s and 1890s -- Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor
1890s and 1900s -- Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Cy Young
1900s and 1910s -- Honus Wagner
1910s and 1920s -- Pete Alexander, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Tris Speaker
1920s and 1930s -- Turkey Stearnes
1930s and 1940s -- Ray Brown, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige
1940s and 1950s -- Stan Musial, Ted Williams
1950s and 1960s -- Henry Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Willie Mays
1960s and 1970s -- Carl Yastrzemski
1970s and 1980s -- Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan, Mike Schmidt
1980s and 1990s -- Roger Clemens, Tony Gwynn, Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken
1990s and 2000s -- Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling
   153. Chris Cobb Posted: December 30, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4870043)
Here are my suggested changes to the Decade Groupings of Notable Eligibles, as listed by Bleed the Freak in post 138 above. Again, the shifts I am proposing would move players to the decade in which they had the most value according to Baseball Reference WAR.

Elston Howard – shift from 1950s to 1960s (non-ML credit could tip toward 1950s, but vast majority of major-league WAR is from the 1960s)

Carlos Delgado – shift from 1990s to 2000s

Jeff Kent – shift from 1990s to 2000s

Perhaps they go without saying, but Mike Mussina, Gary Sheffield, and Sammy Sosa are still candidates.

Mussina should go in the 1990s (I divide him between the 1990s and 2000s)

Sheffield, by Baseball Reference WAR, goes to the 2000s, even with strike credit (I divide him between the 1990s and the 2000s)

Sosa goes in the 1990s.
   154. Private Godfrey Posted: December 30, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4870088)
This discussion is very interesting to me, especially Dr Chaleeko's CHEWS tables. Thanks, chaps.
   155. Jose Bautista Bobblehead Day Posted: December 30, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4870102)
Bleed, if you go by Baseball Prospectus' catching metrics, Russell Martin and Brian McCann also look like strong future candidates. Martin, McCann, and Molina are already above my HOM standard, and Posey should cross it next year.

Mike Scioscia also gets a boost after adding RE24. Tony Pena drops off my ballot, though he remains above my HOM standard, along with Munson, Kendall, Posada, and Sundberg.
   156. DL from MN Posted: December 30, 2014 at 06:22 PM (#4870211)
Short answer on Tommy Bridges is his WAA totals. I vote career but WAA figures in as a measure of overall quality.
   157. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4870219)
Ok, Bridges has them beat pure pitching, but maybe it depends on what source used for pitching/hitting combo.
Bridges is at ~26 + credit, with Ruffing ~30, and Ferrell ~37 WAA BBREF.
   158. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 30, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4870221)
Yoenis, with your use of Max Marchi's data, who do you have for a top ~ 30-35 catchers ranked all-time...if we are short on guys, maybe some enlightening discussion will help us all. We seem to agree on Munson and others are joining the crowd, but Kendall and Sundberg are intriguing, and like you mentioned, RE24 data makes Scioscia interesting as well. I have a hard time placing the non-Munsion guys ahead of part-time catchers Torre and Tenace, but I am maybe understating catcher defensive value. Darrell Porter seems close and is helped by RE24 while Wally Schang is awesome with DRA. Elston Howard is a tough but compelling character too.
   159. Jose Bautista Bobblehead Day Posted: December 30, 2014 at 11:14 PM (#4870316)
HOM Rating includes a positional adjustments and a curve to adjust for quality of play over time. My WAA zeroes out any negative seasons.

Rank Player HOM Rating adjWAR adjWAA
1 Carlton Fisk 208 96 66
2 Mike Piazza 201 85 60
3 Buck Ewing 191 80 59
4 Gary Carter 180 85 55
5 Johnny Bench 179 86 58
6 Ivan Rodriguez 175 79 46
7 Roy Campanella 168 86 58
8 Russell Martin 164 61 45
9 Yogi Berra 162 84 56
10 Brian McCann 159 60 44
11 Joe Mauer 148 60 41
12 Yadier Molina 146 55 38
13 Ted Simmons 143 72 46
14 Joe Torre 133 72 44
15 Mike Scioscia 132 57 40
16 Javier Lopez 125 52 35
17 Charlie Bennett 124 51 36
18 Tony Pena 118 55 34
19 Gabby Hartnett 117 66 41
20 Wally Schang 114 61 40
21 Bill Dickey 114 65 41
22 Deacon White 113 51 27
23 Jason Kendall 113 52 26
24 Thurman Munson 110 55 36
25 Jim Sundberg 109 54 32
26 Jorge Posada 107 46 26
27 Jason Varitek 101 41 23
28 Mickey Cochrane 99 58 36
29 Gene Tenace 98 52 33
30 Smoky Burgess 96 51 35
31 Darrell Porter 96 50 29
32 Buster Posey 88 30 22
33 Bob Boone 86 45 23
34 Ernie Lombardi 79 51 29
35 Elston Howard 76 47 27 
   160. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 03:28 PM (#4871028)
Updated breakdown by decade of Hall of Meriters and consideration set guys with improved breakout from Chris Cobb:

1860s: (1.5) Dickey Pearce

60s/70s: Joe Start

1870s: (9) Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright

70s/80s: Cap Anson, Paul Hines, Jim O’Rourke

1880s: (18.5) Charlie Bennett, Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Charley Jones, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Old Hoss Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward

80s/90s: Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor

1890s: (17.5/16.5) Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Ed Delehanty, Frank Grant, Clark Griffith, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley, John McGraw, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson

90s/00s: Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Cy Young

1900s: (18/15) Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Rube Foster, Pete Hill, Home Run Johnson, Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, Jimmy Sheckard, Bobby Wallace, Rube Waddell

00s/10s: Honus Wagner

1910s: (17/12) Frank Baker, Max Carey, Heinie Groh, Joe Jackson, Walter Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Sherry Magee, Jose Mendez, Ed Roush, Louis Santop, Cristobal Torriente, Ed Walsh, Zach Wheat, Smokey Williams

10s/20s: Pete Alexander, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Tris Speaker

1920s: (22.5/14) John Beckwith, Oscar Charleston, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Willie Foster, Frankie Frisch, Goose Goslin, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Dick Lundy, Biz Mackey, Dobie Moore, Alejandro Oms, Eppa Rixey, Bullet Rogan, Babe Ruth, Joe Sewell, George Sisler, Dazzy Vance, Jud Wilson

20s/30s: Turkey Stearnes

1930s: (26/20) Earl Averill, Cool Papa Bell, Mickey Cochrane, Joe Cronin, Bill Dickey, Martin Dihigo, Wes Ferrell, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Billy Herman, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Joe Medwick, Mel Ott, Red Ruffing, Al Simmons, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry, Arky Vaughan, Paul Waner, Willie Wells

30s/40s: Ray Brown, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige,

1940s: (20.5/15) Luke Appling, Willard Brown, Lou Boudreau, Joe DiMaggio, Bobby Doerr, Bob Feller, Joe Gordon, Hank Greenberg, Stan Hack, Monte Irvin, Charlie Keller, Ralph Kiner, Buck Leonard, Johnny Mize, Hal Newhouser, Pee Wee Reese, Enos Slaughter, Quincy Trouppe,

40s/50s: Stan Musial, Ted Williams

1950s: (18) Richie Ashburn, Ernie Banks, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Nellie Fox, Whitey Ford, Bob Lemon, Minnie Minoso, Billy Pierce, Robin Roberts, Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, Warren Spahn, Early Wynn

50s/60s: Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Willie Mays,

1960s: (20.5) Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, Jim Bunning, Roberto Clemente, Don Drysdale, Bill Freehan, Bob Gibson, Al Kaline, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Willie McCovey, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Ron Santo, Joe Torre, Hoyt Wilhelm, Billy Williams, Jimmy Wynn

60s/70s: Carl Yastrzemski

1970s: (24) Johnny Bench, Rod Carew, Steve Carlton, Darrell Evans, Rollie Fingers, Carlton Fisk, Rich Gossage, Bobby Grich, Reggie Jackson, Fergie Jenkins, Joe Morgan, Graig Nettles, Phil Niekro, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Rick Reuschel, Pete Rose, Tom Seaver, Ted Simmons, Reggie Smith, Willie Stargell, Don Sutton

70s/80s: Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan, Mike Schmidt

1980s: (22.5) Wade Boggs, George Brett, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Dennis Eckersley, Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez, Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tim Raines, Willie Randolph, Bret Saberhagen, Ryne Sandberg, Ozzie Smith, Dave Stieb, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Dave Winfield, Robin Yount

80s/90s: Roger Clemens, Tony Gwynn, Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken

1990s: (24) Roberto Alomar, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Kevin Brown, Will Clark, David Cone, Tom Glavine, Ken Griffey Jr, Barry Larkin, Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, John Smoltz, Sammy Sosa, Frank Thomas, Larry Walker

90s/00s: Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, Gary Sheffield

2000s: (24.5) Carlos Beltran, Adrian Beltre, Jim Edmonds, Jason Giambi, Vladimir Guerrero, Roy Halladay, Todd Helton, Derek Jeter, Andruw Jones, Chipper Jones, Joe Mauer, Andy Pettitte, Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez, Scott Rolen, CC Sabathia, Johan Santana, Ichiro Suzuki, Jim Thome, Chase Utley

2010s: (2) Miguel Cabrera, Yadier Molina

Notable Eligibles from Chris Cobb’s list, my supplemental set, a vote in the 2015 election, a top vote getter all-time, a 45 of higher in Doc’s CHEWS system, and the top 25 guys from Yoenis catchers list:

1870s: (2) Tommy Bond, Davy Force

1880s: (6) Fred Dunlap, Jim McCormick, Tony Mullane, Mickey Welch, Jim Whitney, Ed Williamson

1890s: (5) Ted Breitenstein, Hugh Duffy, Mike Griffin, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren

1900s: (8) Frank Chance, Addie Joss, Tommy Leach, Carlos Moran, Bill Monroe, Fred Tenney, Joe Tinker, Vic Willis

1910s: (9) Babe Adams, Eddie Cicotte, Larry Doyle, Gavvy Cravath, Art Fletcher, Harry Hooper, Dick Redding, Ben Taylor, Bobby Veach,

1920s: (10) Buzz Arlett, Dave Bancroft, Wilbur Cooper, Burleigh Grimes, Dolf Luque, Carl Mays, Sam Rice, Wally Schang, Urban Shocker, George Uhle,

1930s: (7) Tommy Bridges, Perucho Cepeda, Kiki Cuyler, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Bob Johnson, Ernie Lombardi

1940s: (8) Bus Clarkson, Luke Easter, Bob Elliott, Johnny Pesky, Phil Rizzuto, Hilton Smith, Vern Stephens, Bucky Walters

1950s: (1) Don Newcombe

1960s: (5) Luis Aparicio, Norm Cash, Willie Davis, Jim Fregosi, Elston Howard

1970s: (16) Sal Bando, Bobby Bonds, Lou Brock, Bert Campaneris, Cesar Cedeno, Dave Concepcion, Ron Cey, Tommy John, Thurman Munson, Dave Parker,
Tony Perez, Jim Rice, Frank Tanana, Gene Tenace, Luis Tiant, Roy White

1980s: (12) Buddy Bell, Brett Butler, Jose Cruz, Doc Gooden, Orel Hershiser, Chet Lemon, Dale Murphy, Tony Pena, Kirby Puckett, Mike Scioscia, Lee Smith, Jim Sundberg

1990s: (13) Kevin Appier, Albert Belle, Chuck Finley, Luis Gonzalez, Jeff Kent, Kenny Lofton, Javier Lopez, Fred McGriff, John Olerud, Tony Phillips, Robin Ventura, Bernie Williams

2000s: (9) Bobby Abreu, Lance Berkman, Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tim Hudson, Jason Kendall, Roy Oswalt, Jorge Posada

2010s: (8) Mark Buerhle, Robinson Cano, Felix Hernandez, Yadier Molina, Russell Martin, Brian McCann, Buster Posey, David Wright
   161. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 03:44 PM (#4871050)
Michael Humphreys Original Wizardry info:
The appendices that accompany the book, with positional value breakouts, as well as further explanations of methods:
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195397765/appendices/

DRA available at seamheads/Baseball Gauge:
http://seamheads.com/2012/03/29/baseball-gauge-introducing-our-new-version-of-wins-above-replacement/

2012 updates to DRA: Sabr.org/convention/sabr42-presentations – RP33 – Michael Humphreys:
https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/9f99f08706e6674df44c.pptx

An update from Humphrey’s book, noted changes:
Does anyone have a download/link to complete published data from Humphrey's revised figures?
The columns represent BBREF WAR, TZ value, Wizardry book value, revised value, revised WAR total

WAR TZ Book New WAR Old Ranking
126 9_ 10 14 131 Honus Wagner
111 3_ -1 -1 107 Alex Rodriguez
91_ 18 6_ 10 83_ Cal Ripken
80_ 15 7_ 9_ 75_ George Davis
73_ 24 15 24 73_ Ozzie Smith
72_ -5 -5 -7 70_ Robin Yount
71_ 14 25 34 91_ Bill Dahlen
70_ 2_ 5_ 6_ 75_ Arky Vaughan
70_ 4_ 14 19 85_ Luke Appling
68_ -22 -30 -30 60_ Derek Jeter
67_ 2_ 11 18 83_ Barry Larkin
67_ 8_ 6_ 10 69_ Alan Trammell
66_ 13 17 22 75_ Bobby Wallace
63_ 12 7_ 9_ 60_ Pee Wee Reese
63_ 6_ 3_ 4_ 61_ Ernie Banks
62_ 3_ 10 13 72_ Joe Cronin
59_ 12 13 17 65_ Lou Boudreau
52_ 15 3_ 16 53_ Luis Aparacio
50_ 18 28 38 70_ Joe Tinker
49_ 6_ 9_ 14 57_ Bert Campaneris
49_ 0_ 5_ 6_ 56_ Joe Sewell

Notable candidates examined:
The columns represent BBREF WAR, TZ value, Wizardry book value, revised value, revised WAR total, MVP type seasons
WAR TZ Book New WAR # ‘MVP’ Years Candidate
62 17 18 31 75 4 Buddy Bell
57 12 21 24 70 3 Keith Hernandez
65 11 3_ 6_ 60 0 Kenny Lofton
40 6_ 6_ 12 46 4 Tony Oliva

62 -10 -15 -18 54 1 Craig Biggio
56 -20 -13 -22 54 0 Gary Sheffield
41 13 -2_ 1__ 29 0 Omar Vizquel
   162. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 04:02 PM (#4871071)
Catcher values from Max Marchi – 1948 to 2011:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16199
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhCbCTYVXQzKdC00ZXVoWENVSm5qSkU2emxtMVEyV0E#gid=1

Top 25:
RV PA avgRV lastname firstname
248.48 66895 (18.57) Pena Tony
210.49 46421 (22.67) Scioscia Mike
205.30 46807 (21.93) Lopez Javy
204.50 57099 (17.91) Piazza Mike
190.96 77857 (12.26) Fisk Carlton
177.54 51234 (17.33) Pierzynski A.J.
160.79 27445 (29.29) Martin Russell
150.46 43580 (17.26) Hegan Jim
150.35 19905 (37.77) Molina Jose
145.73 28519 (25.55) Etchebarren Andy
141.69 51731 (13.69) Varitek Jason
126.80 45229 (14.02) Grote Jerry
123.39 42533 (14.51) Campanella Roy
121.24 67379 (9.000) Ausmus Brad
121.08 31453 (19.25) Hassey Ron
116.76 66915 (8.720) Sundberg Jim
116.36 47823 (12.17) McCarver Tim
114.65 32153 (17.83) Diaz Bo
111.45 36988 (15.07) Burgess Smoky
107.69 32882 (16.38) Barajas Rod
107.13 32869 (16.30) Lo Duca Paul
107.01 20054 (26.68) Estrada Johnny
105.58 47484 (11.12) Edwards Johnny
104.49 17483 (29.88) Difelice Mike

Bottom 25:
RV PA avgRV lastname firstname
(195.17) 32937 29.63 Manwaring Kirt
(192.41) 47083 20.43 Kennedy Terry
(171.54) 42359 20.25 Johnson Charles
(149.80) 24595 30.45 Stanley Mike
(141.30) 42465 16.64 Lieberthal Mike
(136.84) 24672 27.73 Hall Toby
(133.43) 21091 31.63 Ortiz Junior
(130.85) 36120 18.11 Heath Mike
(129.30) 36942 17.50 Bailey Ed
(118.42) 44960 13.17 Wilson Dan
(111.98) 21442 26.11 Laudner Tim
(107.62) 33328 16.15 Schneider Brian
(102.24) 41231 12.40 Slaught Don
(102.24) 22469 22.75 Cannizzaro Chris
(95.74)) 24583 19.47 Rodriguez Ellie
(95.48)) 29849 15.99 LaRue Jason
(87.20)) 36155 12.06 Flaherty John
(85.18)) 15481 27.51 Doumit Ryan
(81.98)) 16041 25.55 Astroth Joe
(81.70)) 18443 22.15 Bennett Gary
(77.41)) 28107 13.77 Pagnozzi Tom
(76.91)) 55170 6.97 Posada Jorge
(70.44)) 43714 8.06 Girardi Joe
(68.00)) 34073 9.98 Daulton Darren
(67.22)) 15636 21.50 Quirk Jamie

15 Notable positives:
RV PA avgRV lastname firstname
90.24 67311 (6.70)) Santiago Benito
81.88 29651 (13.81) McCann Brian
76.67 77458 (4.95)) Boone Bob
61.08 27665 (11.04) Mauer Joe
58.93 17072 (17.26) Ross David
57.20 54633 (5.24)) Berra Yogi
52.51 24650 (10.65) Surhoff B.J.
40.10 88344 (2.27)) Rodriguez Ivan
28.47 39432 (3.61)) Howard Elston
16.18 30101 (2.69)) Torre Joe
15.57 45997 (1.69)) Munson Thurman
13.63 75269 (0.91)) Kendall Jason
12.50 63329 (0.99)) Simmons Ted
9.850 32367 (1.52)) Molina Yadier
2.150 60331 (0.18)) Bench Johnny

5 notable negatives:
(17.23) 27718 3.110 Tenace Gene
(18.26) 56449 1.620 Freehan Bill
(19.07) 53014 1.800 Porter Darrell
(36.96) 64158 2.880 Parrish Lance
(67.09) 30629 10.95 Martinez Victor

Yoenis, How do you apportion the yearly credit? I only see this career value…can you share if you have additional info, files, links?

Some earlier raw research from Max that is interesting at minimum, maybe not vetted enough to change our rankings though:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/two-dimensions-of-catching/
   163. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 04:36 PM (#4871097)
Some further links to consider:

Colin Wyers analysis of Derek Jeter’s defense:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12399

An explanation of a revision to FRAA:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=11589

Do downloadable/linkable data exist from baseball prospectus/anyone have files saved?
It appears that post 1950 data is available, but maybe not pre?

Does anyone have an Excel document or link to a fuller study from Tom Tango on WOWY?
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/best_worst_wowy_since_1993_through_age_34/

From the 2008 Hardball Times Annual, Pages 140-152 reviewing catchers, shortstops (Jeter):
http://books.google.com/books?id=f-PAoIg39dIC&lpg=PT1&dq=hardball times annual&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f;=true
   164. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 05:20 PM (#4871135)
Chris Cobb comments that intrigue me:
12. Bobby Bonds (11). Total = 128.5. Rank = 3.5 above 1970 in-out line. Dan R, BBref, and Fangraphs have Bonds just inches above what is basically the all-time in-out line of 120 points. BP likes him much better: he is the top backlog position player in their system.

Do you have a quick set of BP values handy you can share with us...thanks!

DRA loves Joe Tinker’s fielding, and that could bring him back up.

The DRA version updated in 2012 has Tinker at +38 wins versus the previous 28, 20 above TZ.
Also note that Campaneris added 5 from the book DRA, moving to 8 more than TZ.

If Lofton was just the a bit above average centerfielder that DRA sees, his case is quite a bit more doubtful than if he was the +100 CF that Total Zone sees

Lofton and other candidates have large notable changes:
The columns represent BBREF WAR, TZ value, Wizardry book value, revised value, revised WAR total, MVP type seasons
WAR TZ Book New WAR # ‘MVP’ Years Candidate
62 17 18 31 75 4 Buddy Bell
65 11 3_ 6_ 60 0 Kenny Lofton

56 -20 -13 -22 54 0 Gary Sheffield


   165. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 06:00 PM (#4871155)
Thanks Dr. Chaleeko for sharing the CHEWS system that you have compiled and your thoughtful responses...this is a great starting point!

Points of interest:
Chris Cobb, yes, DRA underrated arms because it only takes baserunner kills into account. This drastically inflates the arm value of Brock or Staub, whose assist totals were high because people ran on their weak arms more often. BBREF's ROF (see fielding pages for indivual players), include holds and the lack of them where PBP data is available. To get a sense of how important this is, Dewey Evans and Al Kaline combine for less than 10 arm runs between them in DRA but ~100 in ROF. Five wins of value per man.

RIGHT FIELD
NAME 7 Car. CHEWS
================================
Hooper + 35 66 49.1 (>50 w/ DRA arm adj.)
S. Rice ? 36 62 47.8 (~48.5 with DRA arm adj.)

Have you updated the CHEWS system to reflect the arm adjustments for all players?
Do you find this oversight to only be problematic for outfielders?

Or to look decade by decade with the variance vs project by raw total and percentage:
1890s: +6.4 +54%

Is this being skewed because of the lack of teams in the 1890s after the AA contracted into the NL, or did we just elected WAY TOO MANY guys from this time frame.

SHORTSTOP
NAME 7 Car. CHEWS
Tinker + 41 67 52.8
Jeter + 40 66 51.9 (Bad D… M Emeigh has disagreed in the past with DRA)
Campaneris 37 56 45.2
Aparicio 29 48 37.2

Are you using DRA from the Wizardry book? If so, please note the revisions Humphreys made in 2012.
As noted above, Tom Tango's WOWY method and Colin Wyers post from Baseball Prospectus support a historically poor ranking for Jeter.

STARTING PITCHER
NAME 7 Car. CHEWS
Rommel ? 39 51 44.5 (Unsure re my <1946 RP credits)

What amount of credit is he receiving for relief...Rommel is the only guy in the + or ? group that I don't make sense of.
Jim Whitney fares poorly in BBREF WAR, do you have a CHEWS value for him?
   166. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 01, 2015 at 07:42 PM (#4871219)
Yoenis, thanks for sharing the table in post 159.

Summary of rankings by decade:
2010s: Russell Martin (8), Brian McCann (10 - could be 2000s for now), Yadier Molina (12), Buster Posey (32)
2000s: Joe Mauer (11), Javier Lopez (16), Jason Kendall (23), Jorge Posada (26), Jason Varitek (27)
1990s: Mike Piazza (2), Ivan Rodriguez (6),
1980s: Gary Carter (4), Mike Scioscia (15), Tony Pena (18), Jim Sundberg (25)
70s/80s: Bob Boone (33)
1970s: Carlton Fisk (1), Johnny Bench (5), Ted Simmons (13), Thurman Munson (24), Gene Tenace (29), Darrell Porter (31)
1960s: Joe Torre (14), Elston Howard (35)
1950s: Roy Campanella (7), Yogi Berra (9), Smoky Burgess (30)
1940s:
1930s: Gabby Hartnett (19), Bill Dickey (21), Mickey Cochrane (28), Ernie Lombardi (34)
1920s: Wally Schang (20)
1910s:
1900s:
1890s:
1880s: Buck Ewing (3), Charlie Bennett (17)
1870s: Deacon White (22)

Where do the Hall of Meriters who fell short rank: Roger Bresnahan (1900s), Bill Freehan (1960s), Cal McVey (1870s)?
Others would could be close, Jack Clements (1890s) and Lance Parrish (1980s)?

From post 50:
2. For catchers in the Retrosheet era, I include Max Marchi's estimated game calling runs. For pre-Retrosheet catchers, I include the average estimated game calling runs for all catchers with at least the same career length in the Marchi dataset.


Only 1 catcher ranks in the Top 16 from pre-1950s, are the old guard being under-credited for game calling?
Wow on Mickey Cochrane at #28...he plummeted so far!

From the numbers, it's hard to ignore Mike Scioscia as the #2 catcher from the 1980s and a legit Top 15-20 candidate...even if Marchi is giving a bit too much credit for game calling (+210), Scioscia was a fantastic situational hitter RE24 (+63).

Tony Pena comes out #1 for game calling (+248) all-time but gives back some offense in RE24 (-45)...also note Pena should earn massive credit for pitch framing as shown below:

While Javy Lopez coming in at ~200 runs seems dubious, Marchi wrote a more recent article utilizing Retrosheet data back to 1988 to estimate pitch framing...Javier comes in at #9.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20596
Ausmus + 179, Jose Molina +122, Varitek +111, Mauer +102, Martin +99, Lopez +89, Yadier Molina +87, Pena +83 - partial career, Piazza +83, O'Brien +73.

It seems that I should update my personal hall to already include Russell Martin as a future Hall of Meriter too!
   167. Chris Cobb Posted: January 01, 2015 at 09:17 PM (#4871328)
re Bobby Bonds at BP, responding to Bleed the Freak's question in post 164 above:

Anyone who wants to study the BP analysis of Bonds can find it at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=19303

They aren't as transparent about their numbers as Baseball Reference or Fangraphs, but it appears to me that they add about 3.5 more base-running wins than BR does, award about .5 more fielding wins, and take away 1 less win on the positional adjustment. That gets him about 5 wins above Baseball Reference's 57.7. He has another 4.5 wins on top of that from BP. It looks like they rate his batting runs above average about 7.5 wins higher, but I don't think they are removing pitching, that may account for the remaining difference.

In any case, where Baseball Reference has Bobby Bonds at 57.7 WAR for his career and Fangraphs has him at 57.2, Baseball Prospectus has him at 67.1.
   168. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 01, 2015 at 10:24 PM (#4871375)
Bleed, yes, only necessary for OFs. Does not apply at all to IFs (except if they also played the OF, of course!). And it only applies to the PBP era. I think I've got all the major OF candidates in the PBP period. I'd be happy to share my data with you. Email to ericdotchalek at gee mail.

RE1890s: My estimates suggest we just went overboard on the 1890s. It's possible that there's an unusually large generational overlap, but someone would need to look into that who is smarter than I. I used team-seasons as the measuring stick, so contraction should not be an issue.

I only use DRA figures from Seamheads.com/baseball gauge.

I currently give too much LI credit to preWar RPing (blanket 1.75), and I don't attribute the runs correctly (I haven't used the splits, instead split the runs based on IP in Relief). So in Rommel's case, it's safe to say that he should be lower by several slots. For most guys this won't matter too too much, but Dean, Rommell, Grove, Miner Brown, and Bender did a lot of relieving.

Whitney: I think Whitney fares well by WAR. He's around 30 CHEWS points and on BBREF he's in the 40s for P and has almost 9 batting WAR. However, he is a fourth-tier pitcher in his time, but because of the usage of the era, he looks very good in WAR by racking up replacement runs. Superficially, he looks like Mickey Lolich. Similar IP, almost identical WAA and WAR. But in context, Whitney didn't throw a terribly unusual number of career innings for the top pitchers of his day, despite the gaudy seasonal innings totals. Grasshopper Jim could hit a lot, but that's far less unusual in the 1880s given Mullane, Buffinton, Caruthers, Hecker, and guys like that (IIRC Radbourn could swing the stick pretty well too). Given how few pitchers were actually used by each team, I see tiers like this:
T1: Clarkson, Keefe, Radbourn
T2: Galvin, McCormick, Caruthers, Buffinton
T3: Mullane, Welch, King
T4: Whitney, White, Ed Morris, Bill Hutchinson

YMMV!
   169. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 02, 2015 at 09:30 AM (#4871617)
Thanks Chris and Doc, one more for you:

RE1890s: My estimates suggest we just went overboard on the 1890s. It's possible that there's an unusually large generational overlap, but someone would need to look into that who is smarter than I. I used team-seasons as the measuring stick, so contraction should not be an issue.


Doc, Chris, Yoenis, whoever would like, maybe a personal hall of merit would be asking for a large undertaking, but I would like to improve my knowledge/placement of the pre-1893 crew...can you share your thoughts/ranks on these guys...thanks!

Example - Ezra Sutton was a stud by Sean Smith's OLD WAR, is a borderliner or out by the revised BBREF WAR, and is not within sniffing distance with Seamheads DRA WAR...it's easy to average 3 methods, but does one stand out more than the others as trustworthy, am I missing something better than these 3?
   170. Chris Cobb Posted: January 02, 2015 at 12:28 PM (#4871714)
Bleed the Freak wrote:

Doc, Chris, Yoenis, whoever would like, maybe a personal hall of merit would be asking for a large undertaking, but I would like to improve my knowledge/placement of the pre-1893 crew...can you share your thoughts/ranks on these guys...thanks!

Example - Ezra Sutton was a stud by Sean Smith's OLD WAR, is a borderliner or out by the revised BBREF WAR, and is not within sniffing distance with Seamheads DRA WAR...it's easy to average 3 methods, but does one stand out more than the others as trustworthy, am I missing something better than these 3?


I don't have a personal HoM, but in light of our conversations since the 2015 results were posted, I've begun a systematic review of the HoM borderline from the 1870s to the 1930s, and I've finished going through the 19th century. I am planning to write detailed decade-by-decade posts--perhaps once the 2016 ballot discussion thread is up--would it be too soon for that?

But I can give a summary account of what I've done and what the outcome is so far.

It's clear that the pre-1893 era is difficult to deal with not only because player value is hard to establish based on the data, which has led to wider swings in the values assigned by the comprehensive metrics than for later periods, but also because there are so many estimates and judgment calls involved. Most of the top 1870s players have a case for pre-NA credit: Start, Wright, Pike, Spalding, McVey, Sutton, White. McVey has a case for post-1879 credit. Some of the 1880s players have cases for credit outside the major leagues: Galvin and Richardson for play in the International Association, for example. Then there is the matter of differences in league quality: The NA seasons are highly variable with respect to competition quality; the AA begins much lower than the NL but gradually closes the gap, and the NL loses competitive quality; the UA is a single-year mess. No standard conversion rates have achieved universal acceptance (except insofar as the increasingly common use of Baseball Reference's WAR creates an implicit standard). Competition quality compounds the evaluation problem by enabling two-way stars. The way a voter chooses to make estimates or handle judgment calls on even one of these factors will have a decisive impact on the makeup of the borderline contingent; with multiple factors in play, it is inevitable that highly divergent judgments will be reached. The change in the composition of the electorate over time changes the set of judgments that have been made.

My methods generally lead me to be a high-consensus voter, so my PHoM, if I had one, would show very high agreement with the HoM voting results. But there's more divergence for the 1880s than for any other period in baseball history, because the multiple judgments have prevented the formation of as tight a consensus as we usually achieve. With that disclaimer, what I set out to do in my overall review was mainly to update my examination of fielding value by including the most recent total zone values from Baseball Reference and DRA data. For the pre-1893 period, I decided to accept Baseball Reference's WAR for offensive value-its differences with Fangraphs now are minor enough that it wasn't worth the effort to crunch two sets of offense numbers in my creaky spreadsheet system--but to incorporate fielding value from three sources: Baseball Reference's total zone numbers, Michael Humphreys' DRA numbers as available at Seamheads, and Clay Davenport's FRAA, which is available at claydavenport.com. I like this set of fielding metrics because each takes a different but well developed approach: total zone analyzes fielders individually, Davenport starts at the team level, and Humphreys uses regression analysis. Following the method described somewhere above by Dr. Chaleeko, I would use the ratio of WAA to WAR and runs to wins in Baseball Reference to incorporate competition level and offense level adjustments into the FRAA and DRA numbers, and I would use those numbers to reduce the compression that BBRef's rField puts onto raw fielding values, which I think understate the value of fielding in the early game significantly.

Having 3 sets of seasonal WAR data for each player: straight BBREf, BBRef Offense + DRA, and BBRef Offense + FRAA, I ran those totals through my system for combining career, total peak, and peak rate values into a composite value, and looked at how the players ranked using the differing fielding components. I then slotted in the pitchers/two-way stars using my standard Baseball-Reference-based composite values for them. (I can go more into the details of each system if desired.) These were the results: I rank each decade separately, especially since career length is just different for the 1870s than it is in any other decade.

For the 1870s, here are the results for the borderline group in each fielding system, with pre-NA credit assigned to all players for whom it was pertinent--no post-1879 credit for McVey is included in these numbers:

BBRef's rField
Spalding -- 148.1
Bond -- 138.8

quota-based in-out line

McVey -- 134.2 (season-adjusted career rField = -9.9 RAA)
Pike -- 128.0 (season-adjusted career rField = -50 RAA)
Sutton -- 127.6 (season-adjusted career rField = -23.3 RAA)
Clapp -- 106.8 (season-adjusted career rField = 74.3 RAA)
Mathews -- 103.0
York -- 82.5 (season-adjusted career rField = 119.4 RAA)

BBRef + DRA
Spalding -- 148.1
Bond -- 138.8

quota-based in-out line

Pike -- 132.5 (sa career DRA = -44.6)
Sutton -- 114.7 (sa career DRA = -86.8)
McVey -- 111.0 (sa career DRA = -112.5)
Mathews -- 103.0
York -- 102.0 (sa career DRA = 203.5)
Clapp -- 83.2 (sa career DRA = -17.7)

BBRef + FRAA
Spalding -- 148.1
Bond -- 138.8

quota-based in-out line

Pike -- 128.9 (sa career FRAA = -89.8)
McVey -- 126.3 (sa career FRAA = -70.6)
Sutton -- 119.7 (sa career FRAA = -78.1)
Clapp -- 114.2 (sa career FRAA = 96.5)
Mathews -- 103.0
York -- 88.7 (sa career FRAA = 145.5)

Composite
Spalding -- 148.1
Bond -- 138.8

quota-based in-out line

Pike -- 129.8
McVey -- 123.8
Sutton -- 120.7
Mathews -- 103.0
Clapp -- 101.5
York -- 91.7

Conclusions:

(1) It looks strongly to me like Bond was overlooked by the electorate: even with fairly generous pre-NA credit to Pike, McVey, and Sutton, none of the BBRef+fielding metrics finds them to be stronger candidates than Bond. If McVey were given two years of post-1879 play as an average player, BBRef+rField would push him ahead of Bond, but in the other metrics and the composite McVey trails Bond by too much for a couple of good years to make up the difference.

(2) Pike and McVey are clearly close, and it seems to me that electing both was understandable, if Bond is overlooked. Without post-1879 credit for McVey, Pike is a bit ahead, but awarding that credit could readily flip the order, and both were clearly major stars in their day.

(3) All the best available fielding metrics indicate that Sutton is a weak candidate: he splits the Pike/McVey pair only in DRA, which hates McVey's fielding, and even then Sutton is below the in-out line. On the other hand, it's equally clear that he's stronger than anybody else: no metric puts Mathews, York, or Clapp ahead, and overall they trail Sutton by a much larger margin than he trails McVey or Pike. It's understandable, given that Sutton is the only full-career third baseman from the 19th century in the HoM (Deacon White's case rests almost entirely on the catching portion of his career), that the electorate would have pushed the line down for him, especially given that Davenport's FRAA, which was the best fielding metric available when Sutton was elected, puts him at a level that is quite close to the historic norm for the in -out line in my system, which is about 120. If the Schoenfeld effect is not recognized, Sutton looks just like a borderline HoMer in an all time context.

(4) There's nobody else close.

In sum, I'd say that a tighter-drawn 19th-century pHoM excludes Sutton and McVey/Pike for the 1870s but probably includes Bond. He was the dominant pitcher of the latter half of the 1870s, and none of the adjustments I put in my system to let the air out of pre-1893 pitchers drops his value below the HoM level. A looser pHom would include 1 or both of Pike/McVey, and those placing a premium on positional balance might include Sutton also.

The other 1870s HoMers that I have as above the borderline and this not being reviewed are (in rank order) Anson (.5 with 1880s), Barnes, Wright, White, Start (.5 with 1860s), O'Rourke (.5 with 1880s), and Hines (.5 with 1880s). They take up 5 of the 7 quota-based slots for 1870s players.

Well, that could stand as a complete post about the borderline group for 1870s. I'll see about writing up the 1880s later today or tomorrow. Questions/challenges to this post welcome!
   171. Moeball Posted: January 04, 2015 at 04:27 PM (#4872624)
I'd probably take Tommy Bridges over Ruffing and Ferrell.


Would be interesting to see the argument for Bridges, as I don't see him above Ruffing or Ferrell looking at any of the systems I review.


I think because of their contributions with the bat as well as their pitching that I might have to rank Ruffing and Ferrell above Bridges.

But I did a little thought experiment in BREF that came up with some interesting results. I wanted to see all the pitchers in history who met the following criteria, which I call the Diamonds (4 "D" points that are the mark of pitching excellence - it's actually some fairly simple criteria):

1)Durability - I thought about setting an innings limit per season such as at least 200 innings but then ran into issues of years where the season was shorter such as 1918 or labor dispute years such as 1981 and 1994 so I just decided to go with having enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. No relievers need apply except Mike Marshall, I guess.

2)Dominance - I measured this in a variety of ways - for one thing, dominant pitchers strike out a lot of batters. But what is "a lot of batters"? In the current version of the game batters strike out all the time so pitchers get well over 200 and sometimes over 300 strikeouts in a season. BITD, however, there were seasons where a pitcher could lead the league in strikeouts with only 130 strikeouts as batters just didn't strike out all that much. So to be able to include the old-time pitchers in this criteria I set the limit at having at least 3 SO per 9 IP. A ridiculously easy standard for modern pitchers to meet but much tougher for the old-timers. On the other hand, dominant pitchers also pitch shutouts. I set the criteria at pitching at least 1 shutout per season, a very easy standard for the old-timers to meet but much tougher for modern pitchers who don't get nearly as many complete games. But I figured the top notch pitchers in today's game still usually get at least 1 complete game a year and it's usually a shutout. We'll see how the results play out.

3)Determination - top level pitchers are the ones who are just determined to not let the opposing team score very many runs. One of the things that really impressed me over the years watching great pitchers like Clemens or Maddux or Johnson or Pedro was this - yes, they had the days where they were really dealing and they blew the competition away, pitching a two-hit shutout and striking out 10. But I think what really made the difference between them and less successful pitchers was that they also had the games where they really struggled, got into a lot of jams and didn't have their good stuff - yet somehow, instead of giving up 5 or 6 runs they still gave up only 2 runs in 7 innings and gave their team a good chance to win. Those were the games where you could really see how hard these guys fought to stay on top. That's what I mean by determination. I'm measuring context for this criteria of not allowing runs to score by adjusting via ERA+. So I said include any seasons where the pitcher had an ERA+ of 115 or better.

4)Dependability - I know at first glance the above criteria doesn't look that difficult to achieve at all - I mean, a pitcher with an ERA+ of 115 in 162 innings pitched with only 54 K's and 1 shutout pitched during the season qualifies, so it can't be that tough, right? So the fourth "D" in my diamond is Dependability - did the pitcher meet this criteria in a lot of seasons? Who are the pitchers who did this the most times? I was surprised by the results of the search, and I think you might be as well.

Topping the list, one pitcher met this criteria in 15 different seasons - the list going down will show the number of times achieved and the pitchers who accomplished this:

15 - Walter Johnson
14 - Warren Spahn, Tom Seaver, Bert Blyleven
13 - Lefty Grove, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry
12 - Greg Maddux, Eddie Plank
11 - Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine

Any clunkers so far? Any pitchers that aren't clearly of HOF quality? I don't think so. This looks like a pretty elite list of pitchers to me. Let's continue the list:

10 - Cy Young did this 10 times. So did Christy Mathewson, and Whitey Ford, Jim Palmer and Randy Johnson.

That's 18 pitchers listed who achieved this criteria at least 10 times in their careers, and every one of them is in the HOF except Clemens* and we all know why he's not in, and it isn't due to lack of pitching excellence.

*OK, so R. Johnson isn't in yet, but he will be as of Tuesday, the 6th of January.

But, more to the point, who are the pitchers who are usually considered "inner circle", crème de la crème, the guys in the conversation for Greatest Pitcher Ever (GPE) - are any of those guys NOT showing up high on this list? Let's take attendance at the meeting: "Cy Young? Here"; "Walter Johnson? Here"; "Christy Mathewson? Here"; "Lefty Grove? Here"; "Tom Seaver? Here"; "Roger Clemens? Here"; "Greg Maddux? Here". It looks to me like doing this at least 10 times in a career is something that top-level pitchers do. It's basically looking at a 10-year peak for a pitcher, which, if it is this high, should be the very definition of an elite HOF-er, shouldn't it?

Oh, sorry, I guess I left old Pete Alexander off the list of potential GPE candidates - he only achieved this criteria 9 times, not at least 10. So who else comes on the list at 9 times and further down?

9 - Alexander, Tim Keefe, 3-Finger Brown, Carl Hubbell, Robin Roberts, Steve Carlton, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling

OK, at 9 we get Pedro, who isn't in the HOF yet but will be announced as elected on Tuesday, and Schilling who is still a year or two or 3 away but - I don't think there's anybody on this list yet that doesn't appear to be a HOF-quality level pitcher, correct?

So, who's at 8?

8 - Rube Waddell, Hal Newhouser, Don Drysdale, Juan Marichal, Tommy John, Dave Stieb, Kevin Brown, John Smoltz.

Now the list gets interesting - now we have guys like Stieb and Brown and TJ, who some here at the Factory may believe are HOF or HOM-worthy but for whom the BBWAA disagrees. Now we might have some controversy. I'm thinking those on the list at 9 times or above are all pretty much no-brainers for HOF or HOM, but at 8 maybe we should draw the line although some on the list at 8 are pretty clearly HOF-worthy to me, such as Marichal and Smoltz.

My guess is once we get down to the 7s we'll have a lot more marginal candidates? Let's see - for one thing, 23 pitchers have achieved this criteria 7 times, so I'm guessing this indicates that we are reaching a level that is much easier to achieve, although we still may see some clear HOF-level pitchers just entering the list now:

7 - K. Nichols, A. Rusie, A. Joss, E. Walsh, E. Cicotte, H. Vaughn, R. Faber, W. Ferrell, R. Ruffing, L. Gomez, L. Warneke, P. Roe, C. Simmons, E. Wynn, B. Pierce, J. Bunning, D. Sutton, N. Ryan, S. Rogers, D. Cone, K. Appier, M. Mussina, R. Halladay.

Still seeing a lot of HOFers on the list, but starting to see more borderline pitchers as well. Not seeing mediocre pitchers, mind you - these guys are all still pretty good, but we're starting to get into "good, but not necessarily great" territory. Genuinely surprised that Mussina is this far down - I would have had him pegged higher on the list. I think I'll stop here with the 7s as the 6s will bring us further down into "Something that a Whole Lot of Pitchers Can Achieve" Land which will indicate we are no longer necessarily talking about very good pitchers.

At this point I have to admit the obvious, that if Satchel Paige and other top pitchers from the Negro Leagues had played 154-game or 162-game seasons with verified stats that we had access to, they would probably show up high on this list, too, but we can only speculate at this point.

Oh, and I see 7 times is the level where Wes Ferrell and Red Ruffing come on to the list, too.

Speaking of which - getting back to the original question and point of the whole post - I forgot to mention one other pitcher who did this 10 times, making it only 19 pitchers in MLB history who reached double digits for this criteria:

That would be Tommy Bridges.


   172. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 04, 2015 at 09:29 PM (#4872914)
Chris from 170, fine summation...I have been intrigued by Bond for quite sometime but thought I might be overrating him, Sean smiths war, bbref, seamheads, and fangraphs show him as easily worthy.

I have thought of McVey and Pike as borderline guys for years and this only solidifies or helps them a nudge.

Sutton appears to fall below the line, but as you mentioned, the metrics in use when he was elected painted him as a worthy selection.
I wouldn't dismiss Ezra as we could be understating the quality/demands of playing 3b in his time era, but he is shy of PHOM currently.

Excited to see the forthcoming decade lists...thanks Chris!
   173. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2015 at 10:37 PM (#4872946)
I looked up my spreadsheet and Bridges ends up between Ruffing and Ferrell on my list. Below Ruffing only because of Red's bat and above Ferrell because his career was relatively short.
   174. Chris Cobb Posted: January 06, 2015 at 12:19 AM (#4873960)
Moeball, that's a nice post about Tommy Bridges! But it's also a great example of how assessment on the basis of selective standards can be used to make a player look better than he is. Let's look at what happens if a couple of criteria in the 4 Ds are shifted slightly and a new one is added. Here's how the pitchers with 10 or more seasons that meet your criteria fare if we shift the IP cut-off to 200 innings, the ERA+ cutoff to 120, and add a "Doesn't beat himself with walks" criterion of counting only seasons with less than 3.0 bb/9 IP.

There's little decline if just the IP criterion is added, mainly due to strike years. Seaver, Niekro, Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson lose one to strike years. Grove loses two years from late in his career, Gibson loses one from late in his career, and Palmer and Ford lose one each. Tommy Bridges loses four seasons, dropping to six. The lowest number of seasons that still meet all criteria from anyone else with 10 or more by the original criteria is 9.

There's a bit more decline if just the ERA+ criterion is added. Eddie Plank loses 5 seasons, Niekro and Spahn lose 4, and Blyleven, Ford, and Bridges lose three, for overall totals of

14-Johnson
13-Seaver, Grove
11-Blyleven, Perry, Clemens
10-Spahn, Maddux, Gibson, Young, Mathewson, Palmer, Johnson
9-Jenkins, Glavine
8-Niekro
7-Plank, Ford, Bridges

Some pitchers are hit hard by the walks criterion, while the oldest timers--Young, Mathewson, and Plank--are untouched. Gibson loses three seasons, Clemens, Palmer, and Johnson each lose four, Glassine and Niekro lose five each, and Whitey Ford loses six. Bridges? He loses eight of ten, so he has lost the most or tied for losing the most for all three of the criteria changes.

When the changes are all applied together, we get the following revised list:

12-Johnson
11-Seaver, Blyleven, Perry
10-Young, Mathewson, Grove
9-Jenkins
8-Spahn, Maddux
7-Plank, Clemens
6-Niekro, Gibson, Palmer, Johnson
4-Glavine
3-Ford
0-Bridges

It's worth noting that even if just the 200 IP & 120 ERA+ standards are applied in place of qualifying for the ERA title and a 115 ERA+, Bridges drops from 10 seasons to 3, as most of his best ERA+ seasons were in years where he pitched less than 200 innings. The original standards were set in ways that made much more of a difference for Bridges' placement than they did for the other top pitchers, who far exceeded all the standards in most of the qualifying seasons, where Bridges on barely cleared them in his qualifying seasons.
   175. Chris Cobb Posted: January 06, 2015 at 12:25 AM (#4873962)
Incidentally, the 1930s were a high-walk era, so if all three of the added criteria are included, Wes Ferrell never meets them either and Red Ruffing only does once. However, if the 200 IP cutoff and the 120 ERA+ cutoff only are applied to their 7 seasons that meet the 4D test, they each retain 6 of 7, where Bridges' 10 seasons meeting the test drop to 3.
   176. Moeball Posted: January 06, 2015 at 10:17 AM (#4874098)
Agreed - the criteria is skewed in Bridges' favor, but I just wanted to point out a couple of things:

1)Someone said "Make a case for Bridges over Ferrell and Ruffing" and I did. Not only that, but it was a much better argument than "He had the most wins in the decade" or what you usually see from most of the media. It showed a decade of high level performance which is pretty much the definition of a HOF player.

2)In addition, whereas most of the selective criteria approaches are to get a player "into a group" that includes marginal players at the very bottom of HOF standards (Bill James talks about this at length in his HOF book), my criteria put Bridges into a group that included guys like Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Clemens, Seaver, etc. - the very top inner-circle pitchers in history. So maybe Bridges really wasn't an inner-circle all-time great - at least he's a lot closer to it than I previously thought. I didn't have him on my HOM ballot for this year - I only had him in my "also considered" group - but I may think very seriously about including him on my ballot for next year.

Actually, the best parts to me about doing research like this are the unexpected results - the things that surprised me the most were that A)Mussina was further down the list than I thought he'd be and especially B)No matter how you slice it - even if you make the criteria much tougher as shown in the examples in #174 - Bert Blyleven keeps showing up at the top end of the list. It just further convinces me that what happened to Blyleven by the BBWAA was a travesty - he should have gone into the HOF on his first ballot, not his 14th. The writers really had no clue just how great a pitcher he really was (probably still don't).
   177. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 10, 2015 at 09:22 PM (#4877865)
8. Carlos Moran (130) - I calculated MLEs based on the Negro Leagues data available at Seamheads and rate Moran at 72 WAR and 42 WAA. He gets hit relative to earlier players and contemporaries for having his career centered in the mid-1900s. The data suggest he was a John McGraw type offensively: a terror on the bases, high batting average, walks by the bushelful. However, he played in probably the deadest ball environment in the history of professional baseball. Some years, OBP and SLG were so low, they suggested a run environment equivalent to 1.8-2.0 runs per game, with errors adding to scoring levels.


Yoenis, can you post the MLEs to Moran's page or the 2015/2016 threads...Brent has supported Moran in the past, so maybe your figures could enlighten our thinking. I have been trying to decide how many Negro Leaguers are personal hall of merit worthy...I am on the fence with Frank Grant, Willard Brown, Dobie Moore, Bus Clarkson, and Cool Papa Bell...do you have a value for these any/all of these guys as well that could help me out? Moran at 130 is outstanding...Scioscia has moved into my Top 20 currently for the 2016 ballot, thanks for shining light on his candidacy.
   178. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2015 at 06:17 AM (#4877971)
73. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 15, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4862183)
Have to agree with Howie re: Smoltz. There are probably very few pitchers in history that deserve more post-season extra credit than Smoltz if you are into that sort of thing ...


Does anyone have systematic post-season ratings that the electorate could use?
I will check Kiko's site/try to post some figures as a starting point.
   179. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 26, 2015 at 09:52 AM (#5102377)
Having issues posting to the 2016 discussion, so placing here and giving a bump to great commentary by Chaleeko and Cobb.

Longer answer, all batters are adjusted on a seasonal basis for:
-sked
-STDEV of bWAA/PA
-inclusion of DRA (2/3 to 1/3 with rfield except 1:1 before 1892)
-use of rOF instead of DRA arm ratings
-adj to DRA for NYY LFs before 1975
-adj for Green Monster LFs
-adj for all COL OFs
-catcher bonus based on historical usage patterns (similar to the pitcher usage described above)

Re 148
Yes, Yadi and Buster for sure. Also Joe Mauer who I already have about as good as Cochrane.


Doc, reviewing DRA and BP WARP shows Roy White as either a slam dunk (DRA) or borderline/worthy candidate (BP).
What adjustment do you make for NYY LFs before 1975?

Same goes for the Green Monster and Rockie OFs...this might not change whether Manny Ramirez/Larry Walker types are worthy, but exact placement would help trying to digest the defensive evaluation.

Another excellent season and Buster has joined Martin, McCann, Mauer, and Molina as future strong Hall of Merit worthy candidates.

Discussion of past balls and wild pitch evaluations with a link to the leaderboard for PB_WP saved:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27849
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1892377

The mixed models approach to catcher valuation:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25514

A seminal article in trying to evaluate catcher defense:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22934

Chris, news yesterday of minor tweaks to BP's FRAA formula, I spot checked a number of players and don't see any changes to the WARP figure:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27944


   180. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 30, 2015 at 01:08 PM (#5104006)
Bleed,

I'm also having issues with the 2016 discussion thread. Answering your questions....

Doc, reviewing DRA and BP WARP shows Roy White as either a slam dunk (DRA) or borderline/worthy candidate (BP).

Since I blend BBREF's rfield (.33) and DRA (.67) and don't use BP WARP, I see him as a bubble candidate. He's within the top 17-22 at the position, that group is bunched closely (Bob Johnson, Jose Cruz and others in that bunching). He's not a slam-dunk for me, but he's certainly a reasonable candidate to vote for.

What adjustment do you make for NYY LFs before 1975?

In Wizardry, Humphreys recommends a 5 run / 1450 def inn debit. So that's what I use for all Yankees LFs from the year the Stadium opened through the renovations. (Keller and Ruth, for example, being beneficiaries.) I believe this is in Humphreys' Roy White commentary.

Same goes for the Green Monster and Rockie OFs...this might not change whether Manny Ramirez/Larry Walker types are worthy, but exact placement would help trying to digest the defensive evaluation.

I don't have Wizardry or my own numbers in front of me, but IIRC, Humphreys recommends a 10 run / 1450 def inning credit for Fenway (which is in the Yaz comment) and a 12 run / 1450 def inning credit for Coors (which I think is in the Walker comment though not sure). This does make a big difference for Walker and Manny. Ted Williams and Yaz didn't really need the help, but they benefit as well. Take care with the Fenway scenario, however. Again, I'm not looking at my figures, but I think I applied the Fenway credit to seasons after the Monster was built.

One other thing that's REALLY SUPER IMPORTANT about DRA's outfield defense: Don't trust its arm ratings. I actually eliminate its arm ratings entirely and use BBREF's arm ratings. They are (from WW2 to now) based predominantly on PBP data. DRA's arm ratings are flawed because:
a) they can't consider holds for RFs (and CFs I suppose), which results in poor ratings for great throwers such as Kaline and Dewey Evans
b) likewise for LFs they can't consider the lack of holds, which means that poor throwers get high ratings because people run on them more due to their awful arms.

Another thing to consider is that this flaw in DRA applies strongly to Harry Hooper and Sam Rice. They are well-regarded throwers with impressive assist totals who have good but not outstanding arm figures in DRA. Hooper was renowned as the best RF arm of his generation in the same way that Clemente or Evans or Barfield were. I personally reckon that Hooper is missing a minimum of 30 arm runs and the number could be as high as 50 or 60 due to how many chances players took on the bases. Rice is the same in type if not degree. Both have the kinds of assists records (esp. in terms of leading the league and finishing among the leaders) that parallel the great modern throwers. I absolutely think Hooper is votable when this information is considered, and the VC may well have gotten him right.
   181. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 01, 2015 at 04:06 PM (#5104941)
Once again, having trouble with the 2016 thread, so posting over here instead. I heard from BBREF about the retrosheet update. They weren't able to be specific and said "We'll likely be adding new PBP in the offseason." Keep holding your breath!
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.4102 seconds
59 querie(s) executed