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

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

2017 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion

2017 - (December 12, 2016) - elect 3

WS war Name-Pos
394 69.1 Manny Ramirez-LF/RF*
338 68.4 Ivan Rodriguez-C
324 59.3 Vladimir Guerrero-RF
243 46.5 Mike Cameron-CF
258 42.7 Jorge Posada-C
245 38.5 Magglio Ordonez-RF
206 44.9 J.D. Drew-RF
170 46.0 Javier Vazquez-P
233 34.3 Derrek Lee-1B
236 32.1 Edgar Renteria-SS
176 34.6 Tim Wakefield-P
142 34.5 Chris Carpenter-P*
160 28.2 Melvin Mora-3B
197 21.4 Orlando Cabrera-SS
147 27.7 Carlos Guillen-SS
181 18.8 Pat Burrell-LF
141 24.3 Jason Varitek-C
138 22.3 Craig Counsell-2B/SS
116 24.9 Casey Blake-3B
124 20.8 Aaron Rowand-CF
158 14.3 Matt Stairs-RF/DH
124 13.6 Julio Lugo-SS

Required Disclosures (top 10 returnees): Jim Edmonds, Sammy Sosa, Jeff Kent, Kenny Lofton, Ben Taylor, Luis Tiant, Buddy Bell, Vic Willis, Bobby Bonds, Tommy Bridges

DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2015 at 10:22 AM | 92 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.

   1. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2015 at 10:47 AM (#5118434)
I had some time to work up a prelim - not a lot happening before the holidays

1) Ivan Rodriguez - in the lower half of the top 10 catchers with Bill Dickey, Gary Carter, Gabby Hartnett and Pudge Fisk. Behind Piazza in his era but close enough that the error bars in catcher defense make that placing uncertain. Top 75 player all-time.
2) Tommy Bridges - have been a supporter since 1970. He's a required disclosure now.
3) Manny Ramirez - takes over Sheffield's spot.
4) Jim Edmonds - Similar value to Duke Snider.
5) Phil Rizzuto - WWII credit
6) Urban Shocker - gets WWI credit
7) Gavy Cravath - minor league credit
8) Tommy John - I was overdebiting his hitting in previous seasons.
9) Bus Clarkson - NGL and Mexican league credit
10) Bucky Walters - another one who moves up due to pitcher hitting revamp
11) Bob Johnson - on every ballot since I started voting in 1968
12) Bert Campaneris - Not Buddy Bell, Dan R's WAR is giving more credit to SS and less to 3B.
13) Luis Tiant
14) Ben Taylor - how do we induct Palmeiro and Beckley but not Ben Taylor? Taylor has the advantage of being the best 1B in the league and they don't. Great fielder during an era where it mattered quite a bit.
15) Dave Bancroft - glove first SS with just enough bat

16-20) Brian Giles, Wally Schang, Norm Cash, Kevin Appier, Hilton Smith
21-25) Don Newcombe, JORGE POSADA, Johnny Pesky, Jeff Kent, Wilbur Cooper
26-30) Sammy Sosa, Babe Adams, Burleigh Grimes, Dave Concepcion, Dick Redding

Schang versus Posada is an interesting comparison. Posada needs that full season worth of playoff playing time to get this high on the ballot. Even though Schang played some outfield he still stays ahead.

37) Kenny Lofton - I'm not as impressed with CF as the HoM voters are in general. About as good as Andre Dawson and Jim Wynn but they're not PHoM either. Behind Larry Doby and Earl Averill and they're the bottom of my PHoM CF.
38) Vladimir Guerrero - Mediocre fielder. Less WAR, WAA, Batting WAA, Fielding WAA than Bob Johnson. Not as good as Sosa or Giles among contemporary corner outfielders.
60) Bobby Bonds - compares to Kiki Cuyler and Chuck Klein
63) Buddy Bell - BBREF is wrong, those WAR should be going to SS, not 3B. About even with Ron Cey and Robin Ventura. I like Leach, Williamson and Traynor better among 3B.
70) Vic Willis - 4000 innings but not that far above average
   2. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 22, 2015 at 01:35 PM (#5118609)
I'm going to have Posada pretty high on my ballot. With the catcher bonus (50% career) he's going to be ahead of Edmonds I'd imagine, and I have Edmonds 3rd amongst the returnees. I imagine I'll have Pudge 1, Manny 2, some combination of Rizzuto, Quinn, Edmonds, Posada and Vlad next.
   3. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 22, 2015 at 01:37 PM (#5118610)
DL and I have *a lot* of the same names on our ballots BTW. I've also got Shocker, Cravath, Bridges, John, Walters, Campaneris and especially Taylor pretty high.
   4. Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Posted: December 22, 2015 at 03:24 PM (#5118713)
I will probably have Posada lower than most. I am incorporating Max Marchi's/BP game-calling numbers into my system for catchers. Including that costs Posada about 7.5 WAR.

What I've found really interesting is that by including that data, Fisk jumps to the top of MLB catcher rankings for me, followed by Piazza, Carter, and because he was just an average game-caller, Bench drops to fourth among MLB backstops.
   5. DL from MN Posted: December 22, 2015 at 03:49 PM (#5118748)
I'm not convinced the catcher should get all the credit/blame for calling a game. Some of that goes to the pitcher (who is allowed to shake off), the manager, the pitching coach and even the advance scouts.
   6. Ardo Posted: December 23, 2015 at 02:37 AM (#5119050)
My 2017 prelim: first cut

After a string of pitcher-heavy elections, there are no new pitchers to consider this year (sorry, Javier Vasquez). 2014-15-16 placement in parentheses.

1) Ivan Rodriguez (new) - It's fairly clear that he's the greatest defensive catcher of all time. Top 75 position player.

2) Manny Ramirez (new) - was #2 on my 2016 prelim before we deferred his eligibility. Better than Sheffield as a corner bat candidate.

3) Vlad Guerrero (new) - very comparable to the man he succeeded in Montreal's RF, Larry Walker. Walker is slightly ahead in my rankings due to a more graceful decline phase. I like consecutive primes (I was a huge Ken Boyer advocate back in the day) and Vlad's 1998-2007 fits the bill.

4) Wally Schang (7-7-5) - still his biggest fan! I think we're missing him because of the live-ball transition coming smack in the middle of his career. His consistent offensive peak from 1916-1921 (and remember WWI credit for 1918) is masked by huge changes in the run environment.

5) Jim Edmonds (debuted at 6)

6) Dolf Luque (6-6-7)

7) Jorge Posada (new) - slots here to begin with. Offensive profile similar to Gary Carter and Ernie Lombardi among catchers. He wasn't as good as Carter or as wretched as Lombardi on defense, but where in between does he fall?

His highest Similarity Score is Lance Parrish, an interesting comp. The difference between them looks, to me, entirely based on Posada's superior on-base percentage (Parrish hardly ever walked).

8) Ben Taylor (9-9-8) - not convinced that he was Keith Hernandez-level spectacular on defense, but open to persuasion.

9) Sammy Sosa (12-9-9) - a peak, not prime, candidate. But what a peak!

10) Hilton Smith (10-10-10) - chronically undervalued by the electorate. Extremely similar to - but a level above - his white contemporary Bucky Walters.

11) Jeff Kent (14-off-11)

12) Kenny Lofton (15-off-14)

13) Tommy John (8-8-12)

14) Frank Chance (off-off-off, but in my PHoM) - Career length and in-season durability issues, but a monster performer when he played. Partial catcher bonus. Should have been inducted in John McGraw's place. Moves onto the ballot for being better in context than Nomar.

15) Nomar Garciaparra (new-15-13) - comparable to short-career, high-peak shortstop inductees Lou Boudreau and Dobie Moore.

16-20: Luis Tiant (was #15), Buddy Bell, Tommy Leach, Thurman Munson, Fred McGriff.
21-25: Lee Smith, Dick Redding, Bobby Bonds, Vic Willis, Dave Bancroft.
26-30: Trevor Hoffman, Bernie Williams, Bus Clarkson, Hugh Duffy, Sal Bando.

Mike Cameron is - just barely - in my top 100 eligible players.
   7. DL from MN Posted: December 23, 2015 at 11:33 AM (#5119205)
very comparable to the man he succeeded in Montreal's RF, Larry Walker


I just don't see Walker as a comparable for Vlad. I see Sammy Sosa, not Larry Walker. Walker and Guerrero have roughly the same OPS+ but Walker has the better OBP by 20 points. Walker was the superior baserunner (by 43 runs). Walker was CLEARLY the better fielder (87 run difference) by stats, reputation and hardware. That's a 13 win difference in those categories.

Guerrero had more playing time but that doesn't help him much on my ballot.

Player WAR WAA
Walker 72.6 48.2

E Martinez 68.3 38.4
Lofton 68.2 38.2

Guerrero 58.3 29.4
Sosa 58.4 28.0
Giles 50.9 27.6 - but possible credit for 1994 and 1995
   8. DL from MN Posted: December 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM (#5119220)
I'll throw in another

Abreu 59.9 28.0
   9. Ardo Posted: December 23, 2015 at 04:18 PM (#5119469)
Fair enough. I value playing time more than many other voters, but I'll "demote" Vlad to somewhere in between Edmonds and Sosa. But wasn't Guerrero known for his cannon throwing arm from RF and high assist totals?
   10. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 23, 2015 at 06:31 PM (#5119541)
But wasn't Guerrero known for his cannon throwing arm from RF and high assist totals?


I think Guerrero fell into the "incredibly strong arm, but not always sure where it was going" camp. For his career, he had 126 assists and 125 errors. In contrast, Larry Walker had 154 OF assists vs. 48 OF errors (Walker also played a little 1B). Going back a generation (or two or three now - I'm getting old), it's similar to Dave Parker - who had a rocket arm but 143 A vs. 142 E - vs. Jesse Barfield - 162 A, 62 E. Roberto Clemente was 266 A - 140 E to take another guy with a reputation for a cannon arm.
   11. bjhanke Posted: December 24, 2015 at 04:47 AM (#5119664)
Kiko - I'm old enough to have seen Clemente play in his prime (I started going to MLB games in 1954). His arm was not just rep. It really WAS so good that it, essentially, lapped the field, regardless of position. The two best OF arms I have ever seen were Clemente's and Barfield's. - Brock
   12. lieiam Posted: December 27, 2015 at 05:11 PM (#5120696)
I've (still) never managed a genuine ballot for the Hall of Merit but here's an early preliminary look at my top 15.
I don't have a systematic estimate for Negro League players but made guesstimates. I still haven't factored in war credit and need to decide if my system is too friendly to 19th century pitchers (or not; aside from Mullane and McCormick I have Tommy Bond just outside my top 15). I was hoping to finally have a genuine ballot for 2016 and didn't... still, here's my early 2 cents.

1 Manny Ramirez
2 Ivan Rodriguez
3 Jim Edmonds
4 Tony Mullane
5 Ben Taylor
6 Vladimir Guerrero
7 Sammy Sosa
8 Tommy John
9 Bobby Bonds
10 Luke Easter
11 Jeff Kent
12 Norm Cash
13 Buddy Bell
14 Jim McCormick
15 Tommy Leach
   13. Ardo Posted: December 29, 2015 at 05:21 PM (#5121985)
Kiko, the comparison between Vlad Guerrero and Dave Parker is an interesting one (in general, not just for their throwing arms). Parker's five-year prime, when one properly considers league quality and offensive environment, gives him - in my view - a higher absolute peak than Guerrero reached.

Of course, the rest of Parker's career is 1985 + a lot of replacement-level play, while Vlad adds on five more prime years. Guerrero is the clearly superior Hall of Merit candidate, but it's closer than I first thought.
   14. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 31, 2015 at 11:50 AM (#5123308)
In depth analysis forth coming, as I see strong support for Vlad and Posada, and while my gut as a fan would likely agree with this, the numbers urge us to take a closer look. I took a comparison of non-HOM guys eligible/ineligible that overlap a significant portion of career with Vlad/Posada. I will first post the 18 non catchers (Bobby Abreu, Albert Belle, Lance Berkman, Carlos Delgado, Jim Edmonds, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Giambi, Brian Giles, Luis Gonzalez, Vladimir Guerrero, Jeff Kent, Kenny Lofton, Fred McGriff, John Olerud, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Robin Ventura, Bernie Williams; then the 3 catchers (Jason Kendall, Javy Lopez, Jorge Posada).

Totals adjusted for strike (1.4* 1994, 1.1* 1995), best 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, career, career adjusted to RE24 offense, RAA (FG), RE24 (FG), Def, postseason WPA per seamheads, post season plays, PA

Fangraphs:
BA: 6.9-, 19.7, 31.0, 41.5, 52.3, 58.9, 59.7, 75.0, 418, 571, -143, 0.15, _85, 10081
AB: 7.9-, 22.4, 32.5, 39.0, 43.8, 43.9, 43.9, 39.4, 397, 352, -153, 0.37, _81, 6673
LB: 7.7-, 20.7, 32.9, 43.7, 51.9, 56.3, 56.5, 64.9, 478, 562, -109, 1.03, 229, 7814
CD: 7.4-, 18.4, 26.7, 33.6, 41.2, 45.1, 45.5, 49.5, 435, 475, -214, 0.31, _43, 8657
JE: 8.3-, 21.5, 34.0, 45.9, 58.9, 64.4, 65.6, 64.3, 364, 351, __76, 0.16, 274, 7980
NG: 7.6-, 21.3, 33.4, 40.2, 42.3, 42.6, 42.6, 43.7, 228, 239, __19, 0.16, 129, 6116
JG: 9.2-, 23.5, 33.7, 40.9, 47.6, 50.7, 51.4, 58.8, 481, 555, -224, 0.40, 177, 8908
BG: 6.9-, 19.9, 31.3, 40.9, 52.0, 56.5, 56.5, 65.4, 375, 464, _-81, -.15, _99, 7836
LG: 8.9-, 20.9, 30.8, 38.0, 45.9, 52.6, 56.8, 64.5, 305, 382, _-14, -.02, 103, 10531
VG: 7.1-, 20.0, 31.2, 40.5, 50.2, 54.6, 55.1, 54.1, 465, 442, -115, 0.07, 193, 9059
JK: 7.4-, 19.0, 27.4, 35.3, 45.8, 53.4, 57.4, 63.1, 295, 352, ___4, -.21, 196, 9537
KL: 9.2-, 22.0, 32.8, 42.2, 54.2, 62.9, 65.7, 70.0, 177, 220, _146, 0.33, 479, 9234
FM: 6.7-, 19.7, 30.7, 38.8, 49.1, 56.7, 59.9, 67.7, 470, 548, -188, 0.31, 221, 10174
JO: 8.1-, 22.0, 31.1, 39.8, 49.1, 56.2, 58.7, 65.0, 370, 433, _-44, 0.32, 283, 9063
MR: 7.5-, 19.2, 29.9, 39.9, 52.3, 61.4, 68.3, 65.1, 727, 695, -277, 0.61, 506, 9774
SS: 9.9-, 22.8, 34.0, 44.6, 57.1, 62.7, 63.5, 67.3, 353, 391, __-2, 0.07, _74, 9896
RV: 7.3-, 19.2, 30.1, 40.4, 51.0, 56.4, 58.4, 65.8, 154, 228, _174, -.19, 162, 8271
BW: 7.0-, 17.0, 26.8, 36.5, 47.3, 49.7, 49.7, 44.4, 321, 268, -143, 0.05, 565, 9053

Baseball-Reference:
BA: 6.5-, 19.1, 31.0, 41.5, 52.0, 58.9, 60.9, 76.2, 418, 571, -117, 0.15, _85, 10081
AB: 9.4-, 24.4, 36.3, 43.6, 49.4, 49.4, 49.4, 44.9, 397, 352, -128, 0.37, _81, 6673
LB: 6.8-, 19.3, 30.6, 38.9, 47.8, 51.7, 51.9, 60.3, 478, 562, -118, 1.03, 229, 7814
CD: 7.3-, 18.6, 28.0, 34.5, 41.8, 45.5, 45.7, 49.7, 435, 475, -183, 0.31, _43, 8657
JE: 7.2-, 20.2, 32.4, 43.2, 55.9, 60.4, 61.5, 60.2, 364, 351, __62, 0.16, 274, 7980
NG: 7.4-, 21.3, 34.5, 43.1, 45.6, 46.0, 46.0, 47.1, 228, 239, __60, 0.16, 129, 6116
JG: 9.1-, 23.9, 34.6, 42.0, 48.3, 51.5, 52.4, 59.8, 481, 555, -205, 0.40, 177, 8908
BG: 6.6-, 18.3, 28.4, 37.1, 46.4, 51.2, 52.5, 61.4, 375, 464, _-97, -.15, _99, 7836
LG: 7.9-, 19.6, 27.4, 33.8, 41.5, 48.3, 52.8, 60.5, 305, 382, _-14, -.02, 103, 10531
VG: 7.4-, 20.3, 31.6, 41.1, 52.4, 58.4, 59.3, 57.0, 465, 442, -107, 0.07, 193, 9059
JK: 7.2-, 19.4, 27.9, 35.6, 46.3, 52.9, 56.3, 62.0, 295, 352, __-2, -.21, 196, 9537
KL: 10.1, 24.3, 35.8, 46.2, 57.9, 67.3, 71.4, 75.7, 177, 220, _154, 0.33, 479, 9234
FM: 6.6-, 19.1, 29.5, 37.6, 47.5, 52.8, 54.9, 62.7, 470, 548, -182, 0.31, 221, 10174
JO: 7.7-, 20.9, 31.2, 39.8, 49.4, 56.1, 59.5, 65.8, 370, 433, _-18, 0.32, 283, 9063
MR: 7.3-, 19.3, 29.9, 39.9, 53.4, 64.9, 71.2, 68.0, 727, 695, -228, 0.61, 506, 9774
SS: 10.3, 22.5, 33.9, 44.7, 56.2, 60.5, 61.7, 65.5, 353, 391, ___2, 0.07, _74, 9896
RV: 6.7-, 18.4, 29.0, 39.0, 49.4, 55.5, 57.6, 65.0, 154, 228, _173, -.19, 162, 8271
BW: 7.0-, 17.9, 28.3, 38.0, 48.9, 52.8, 53.1, 47.8, 321, 268, _-99, 0.05, 565, 9053

Baseball Prospectus:
BA: 7.3-, 19.6, 30.8, 41.1, 53.6, 61.2, 63.2, 78.5, 418, 571, __11, 0.15, _85, 10081
AB: 10.4, 27.4, 41.7, 47.3, 51.4, 51.4, 51.4, 46.9, 397, 352, ___5, 0.37, _81, 6673
LB: 7.8-, 22.8, 34.6, 44.3, 55.7, 59.6, 59.6, 68.0, 478, 562, ___5, 1.03, 229, 7814
CD: 7.0-, 16.7, 25.2, 32.8, 39.9, 42.6, 42.6, 46.6, 435, 475, _-52, 0.31, _43, 8657
JE: 9.7-, 23.4, 36.5, 48.9, 64.9, 71.6, 76.2, 74.9, 364, 351, _152, 0.16, 274, 7980
NG: 8.5-, 23.6, 37.0, 44.7, 47.4, 47.8, 47.8, 48.9, 228, 239, __16, 0.16, 129, 6116
JG: 9.1-, 24.1, 33.0, 40.6, 48.2, 51.7, 53.0, 60.4, 481, 555, _-59, 0.40, 177, 8908
BG: 7.9-, 21.0, 32.5, 41.7, 51.0, 56.0, 56.3, 65.2, 375, 464, _-27, -.15, _99, 7836
LG: 8.5-, 19.4, 28.1, 35.0, 43.3, 48.8, 53.6, 61.3, 305, 382, __16, -.02, 103, 10531
VG: 7.4-, 21.6, 34.5, 45.2, 58.8, 64.3, 64.9, 62.6, 465, 442, __70, 0.07, 193, 9059
JK: 7.6-, 20.4, 30.4, 37.7, 47.8, 56.4, 61.3, 67.0, 295, 352, ___8, -.21, 196, 9537
KL: 8.7-, 21.7, 31.2, 39.5, 50.4, 59.0, 63.3, 67.6, 177, 220, __45, 0.33, 479, 9234
FM: 6.0-, 17.2, 25.8, 33.2, 41.1, 44.6, 45.4, 53.2, 470, 548, -125, 0.31, 221, 10174
JO: 7.7-, 20.9, 31.2, 39.8, 49.4, 56.1, 59.5, 65.8, 370, 433, __90, 0.32, 283, 9063
MR: 7.3-, 19.3, 29.9, 39.9, 53.4, 64.9, 71.2, 68.0, 727, 695, _-69, 0.61, 506, 9774
SS: 10.3, 22.5, 33.9, 44.7, 56.2, 60.5, 61.7, 65.5, 353, 391, _106, 0.07, _74, 9896
RV: 6.7-, 18.4, 29.0, 39.0, 49.4, 55.5, 57.6, 65.0, 154, 228, __86, -.19, 162, 8271
BW: 7.0-, 17.9, 28.3, 38.0, 48.9, 52.8, 53.1, 47.8, 321, 268, _-71, 0.05, 565, 9053

Baseball Gauge/Seamheads: Outfielders adjusted to include R-OF arm value, 1 WAR added for Green Monster:
BA: 5.8-, 16.6, 26.3, 34.8, 46.0, 54.9, 57.2, 72.5, 418, 571, _-48, 0.15, _85, 10081
AB: 9.1-, 23.7, 35.4, 42.3, 48.2, 48.2, 48.2, 43.7, 397, 352, ___2, 0.37, _81, 6673
LB: 7.2-, 18.6, 29.3, 38.4, 49.3, 54.3, 54.7, 63.1, 478, 562, __10, 1.03, 229, 7814
CD: 6.8-, 18.1, 27.2, 35.8, 45.0, 50.6, 51.3, 55.3, 435, 475, _-15, 0.31, _43, 8657
JE: 9.7-, 22.7, 35.3, 47.0, 62.2, 69.1, 72.8, 71.5, 364, 351, _108, 0.16, 274, 7980
NG: 6.5-, 19.2, 29.9, 36.4, 38.8, 39.4, 39.4, 40.5, 228, 239, _-32, 0.16, 129, 6116
JG: 8.4-, 22.0, 31.1, 37.8, 44.9, 48.4, 49.5, 56.9, 481, 555, _-71, 0.40, 177, 8908
BG: 7.6-, 18.8, 29.1, 35.8, 43.4, 47.4, 48.0, 56.9, 375, 464, __18, -.15, _99, 7836
LG: 7.5-, 18.8, 27.2, 34.4, 43.5, 49.7, 52.1, 59.8, 305, 382, __99, -.02, 103, 10531
VG: 6.6-, 18.5, 29.1, 38.3, 49.8, 56.1, 56.8, 54.5, 465, 442, ___3, 0.07, 193, 9059
JK: 7.1-, 19.0, 28.9, 37.2, 47.1, 54.5, 61.3, 67.0, 295, 352, __-1, -.21, 196, 9537
KL: 8.1-, 19.5, 28.9, 36.6, 47.3, 55.7, 59.5, 63.8, 177, 220, __27, 0.33, 479, 9234
FM: 6.6-, 18.4, 27.6, 34.9, 43.6, 48.8, 52.6, 60.4, 470, 548, _-59, 0.31, 221, 10174
JO: 8.0-, 19.8, 29.0, 37.0, 46.4, 52.2, 55.4, 61.7, 370, 433, __94, 0.32, 283, 9063
MR: 6.4-, 17.7, 28.5, 38.8, 53.6, 67.0, 75.7, 72.5, 727, 695, _-80, 0.61, 506, 9774
SS: 8.2-, 20.0, 29.8, 39.2, 49.9, 56.8, 58.5, 62.3, 353, 391, __72, 0.07, _74, 9896
RV: 5.8-, 16.2, 25.1, 32.9, 42.5, 47.7, 49.1, 56.5, 154, 228, __67, -.19, 162, 8271
BW: 5.7-, 15.2, 24.0, 32.2, 43.4, 48.3, 48.8, 43.5, 321, 268, _-41, 0.05, 565, 9053

In a future post, I will share rankings values for each guy on a 100, 95, 90, weighted scale.

Kiko, hopefully you can share a detailed look at your system to add to the discussion :)
   15. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 31, 2015 at 12:58 PM (#5123350)
Values for regular, RE24, and 50/50 split, ranked by 50/50 split:

Fangraphs:
BA: 4548/5714/5131 - Abreu
SS: 4931/5226/5079 - Sosa
KL: 4888/5207/5048 - Lofton
JE: 5023/4924/4973 - Edmonds
LB: 4475/5140/4807 - Berkman
BG: 4412/5106/4759 - Giles
FM: 4437/5015/4726 - McGriff
RV: 4431/4993/4712 - Ventura
MR: 4806/4581/4694 - Ramirez
JO: 4447/4925/4686 - Olerud
LG: 4247/4823/4535 - Gonzalez
JG: 4186/4788/4487 - Giambi
JK: 4187/4603/4395 - Kent
VG: 4310/4231/4270 - Guerrero
CD: 3599/3915/3757 - Delgado
NG: 3676/3770/3723 - Garciaparra
BW: 3915/3497/3706 - Williams
AB: 3741/3358/3550 - Belle

Baseball-Reference:
KL: 5292/5611/5452 - Lofton
BA: 4577/5727/5152 - Abreu
SS: 4823/5120/4971 - Sosa
MR: 4961/4738/4850 - Ramirez
JO: 4462/4935/4699 - Olerud
JE: 4725/4625/4675 - Edmonds
RV: 4332/4889/4610 - Ventura
JG: 4265/4867/4566 - Giambi
FM: 4170/4762/4466 - McGriff
VG: 4547/4370/4458 - Guerrero
LB: 4107/4772/4439 - Berkman
BG: 4041/4725/4383 - Giles
JK: 4153/4573/4363 - Kent
LG: 3894/4462/4178 - Gonzalez
AB: 4202/3819/4011 - Belle
NG: 3922/4015/3968 - Garciaparra
BW: 4130/3718/3924 - Williams
CD: 3648/3967/3807 - Delgado

Baseball Prospectus:
JE: 5621/5526/5573 - Edmonds
BA: 4709/5849/5279 - Abreu
MR: 5358/5140/5249 - Ramirez
SS: 5044/5339/5191 - Sosa
LB: 4723/5388/5055 - Berkman
VG: 4990/4813/4902 - Guerrero
KL: 4640/4955/4797 - Lofton
BG: 4424/5123/4774 - Giles
JK: 4450/4863/4656 - Kent
JG: 4248/4841/4544 - Giambi
JO: 4169/4659/4414 - Olerud
AB: 4455/4065/4260 - Belle
LG: 3963/4533/4248 - Gonzalez
NG: 4109/4203/4156 - Garciaparra
RV: 3834/4389/4112 - Ventura
BW: 4140/3725/3932 - Williams
FM: 3556/4167/3861 - McGriff
CD: 3410/3730/3570 - Delgado

Baseball Gauge:
JE: 5400/5304/5352 - Edmonds
MR: 5067/4853/4960 - Ramirez
BA: 4154/5265/4710 - Abreu
SS: 4424/4711/4567 - Sosa
LB: 4229/4878/4553 - Berkman
KL: 4349/4663/4506 - Lofton
JK: 4298/4715/4506 - Kent
JO: 4169/4643/4406 - Olerud
JG: 3965/4558/4261 - Giambi
VG: 4312/4137/4225 - Guerrero
LG: 3928/4508/4218 - Gonzalez
FM: 3918/4499/4209 - McGriff
BG: 3798/4502/4150 - Giles
CD: 3944/4252/4098 - Delgado
RV: 3714/4273/3993 - Ventura
AB: 4096/3713/3904 - Belle
BW: 3685/3285/3485 - Williams
NG: 3366/3460/3413 - Garciaparra

Also consider Giles being blocked by the Indians organization, that Delgado tore up the minors as well before getting a full-time gig, and the post-season value for each guy.

Baseball Prospectus is a supporter, but the other big 3 systems show Vlad as being short of the HOM.
   16. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 31, 2015 at 01:38 PM (#5123386)
Catchers: RAA/RE24/WPA Playoffs & plays/PA:

JK: _26/_93/-.08/_51/8702
JL: 107/_89/-.41/228/5793
JP: 228/179/-.97/499/7150

As Michael mentioned in post 4, the Max Marchi and or BP metrics are becoming more advanced/reliable for quantifying catcher defensive value. Run values for each career: Lopez 205.3, Kendall 13.6, Posada -76.9.

WAR career totals: unadjusted, with RE24, w/Marchi, and w/RE24 and Marchi, average of 4:

Fangraphs:
JK: 40.6/47.3/42.0/48.7/44.6
JL: 32.5/30.7/53.0/51.2/41.9
JP: 45.4/40.5/37.7/32.8/39.1

Baseball-Reference:
JK: 39.9/46.6/41.3/48.0/43.9
JL: 30.6/28.8/51.1/49.3/40.0
JP: 43.3/38.4/35.6/30.7/37.0

Baseball Prospectus:
JK: 49.8/56.5/50.5/57.2/53.5
JL: 35.5/33.7/56.0/54.2/44.9
JP: 42.9/38.0/35.2/30.3/36.6

Baseball Gauge:
JK: 35.2/41.9/36.6/43.3/39.2
JL: 31.6/29.8/52.1/50.3/41.0
JP: 45.5/40.6/37.8/32.9/39.2

Non-contextual shows Posada as a highly deserving candidate worthy of a near-top ballot spot.
Unfortunately, RE24 context, projected defensive runs, and post-season value drag Posada much lower, to at or well below the likes of Kendall and Lopez.
   17. Howie Menckel Posted: December 31, 2015 at 03:16 PM (#5123447)

In an abundance of caution - did we finalize this as an "Elect 3" year as listed above? iirc, there was talk of more "elect 4" years and just want to be sure we have our ducks in a row.....
   18. DL from MN Posted: December 31, 2015 at 03:57 PM (#5123467)
It switches between 3 and 4 every other year now
   19. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 01, 2016 at 01:35 AM (#5123722)
I saw Parker play a lot, as you might imagine, and I always thought he was nowhere near Clemente's equal as a fielder. He always looked like he was taking bad routes and letting balls get by him into the gaps.

One thing I did way back when, at the time Retrosheet first released PBP data, was to try to come up with a way of evaluating how good outfielders were at preventing extra bases. I did this fairly crudely, tallying up the number of hits and adding in (a) extra bases by the batter and (b) extra bases by the runners (i.e. first-to-third was an extra base, second-to-home was an extra base, advancing on a fly ball was an extra base). I factored in assists and errors, also. Parker's teams were always mid-pack or below in that analysis, even during his peak; there were a lot of doubles and triples hit to right field. I don't think I ever published that study (it was rather crude as I said and I suspected that there were park effects that needed to be considered) but I haven't backed away from the idea that Parker was not a good defensive outfielder. I didn't see enough of Vlad, and I didn't extend the study to cover more years when Retrosheet released them (I was interested in other things by then) but the assist-to-error ratio suggests that I'd probably find the same thing for him.

-- MWE
   20. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 01, 2016 at 12:59 PM (#5123815)
Bill James once called Joe Morgan the best percentage player in history. During Vlad's career, I thought of the Impaler as among the worst percentage players. If Joe Morgan was a "smart" player who knew what to do, minimized errors (mental, game-theoretical, and score-keeping), and amplified his talents and abilities with baseball smarts then Vlad was a really "dumb" player. (I'm not trying to actually compare their native intelligences, just their on-the-field baseball smarts.)

For example, Vlad had a lot of speed in the first half of his career. He once got into double digits in triples. But he also had very poor SB%. He is a lifetime 66% stealer with just three seasons at 75% or better. He led in CS once and was caught more often than successful four times. He made 142 outs on base while taking 215 bases. Morgan was an 81% stealer, and he made 105 OOB while taking 416 bases. Speaking of Dave Parker, Vlad bears some resemblance to the Cobra on the base paths: 58% SB%, 107 OOB, 246 BT. For someone with good native speed, Vlad's overall -3 base running is pretty spotty. Parker was -18 and Morgan one of history's best at +80. Even Luis Polonia, one of the most adventurous base runners I remember in my youth, and a guy who led the league in CS three years straight was +14 overall.

Vlad wasn't so "smart" at the plate either. He famously swung at darn near anything. His walk totals look pretty good (56 per162), until you look at the IBB column. He averaged 19 of those a year, putting his UIBB count per 162 at a mere 37. That's the same as notorious hacker Alfonso Soriano. During the take-and-rake era he swung at the first pitch 46.8% of the time when the league swung just 28.5% of the time. While each hitter has their own approach, and game theory suggests a hitter should swing early in the count often enough to keep pitchers from always getting ahead, it's also known that first pitch swinging to the degree that Vlad did so isn't usually sound baseball, especially situationally.

Guerrero also bounced into a ton of DPs. He is -17 lifetime in the category, leading the league twice. As a righty hitter, some of that is just handedness, but it's another instance of his not being much of a percentage player.

As we've been talking about, in the field, Vlad was adventurous as well. Rfield digs him (+44), but DRS hates him (-26 for years available with +10 by Rfield during same time). Give him this, though, Rfield likes his arm. BIS is more tepid on it. DRA gives him a -8.5 for range.

Guerrero will either get my vote or very close to it. He is borderline for me. But he's an interesting study in how important talent can be. He had so much that he could overcome a lack of "baseball smarts" to fashion an outstanding career. That said, he's not the type who Chance, Moran, or McGraw might not like to have on their team.

It's important here to remember that I'm not talking about personal intelligence.
   21. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 02, 2016 at 06:00 PM (#5124429)
As a primarily 2/3 DRA, 1/3 B-REF voter Doc, you mention Vlad will be just shy or will receive your vote, from what I have above, I would expect that you prefer Sosa, who was just off ballot in 2016?
   22. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 02, 2016 at 10:30 PM (#5124513)
Vlad and Sosa are very close for me. I'm working on catchers a lot too, so it's possible neither of them make it if the Marchi pitcher-handling stuff and also on whether BBREF's rfield counts WP/PB. Does anyone know if it does? If it doesn't then I'm going to grab Brian Cartwright's pre 2008 and FG's post-2007 WP/PB figures and moosh them into my fielding numbers. That could either take a lot of starch out of Posada or push up someone else too.

Does anyone know whether Marchi or someone else has replicated his pitcher-handling information for 2012-2015?
   23. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 03, 2016 at 09:45 AM (#5124662)
Doc, reposting from 2015 ballot thread, post 179, with links to BP's studies since Marchi left:

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

Taking Buster Posey's player page as an example:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=58548
BP's has added a tab for catching that details it's breakout of components.

Don't know if this is what you were hoping for, but it's all I've got :)
   24. Carl Goetz Posted: January 09, 2016 at 11:41 AM (#5129898)
Does anyone have a strong opinion of fWAR vs RWAR vs WARP?
I know fWAR uses FIP for pitchers with different replacement level for starters vs relievers and UZR for Fielders (2002-present anyway).
rWAR uses actual runs allowed for pitchers and TZR for fielders.
And WARP doesn't really tell you what they use.

I lean towards fWAR due to usage of FIP but not sure how I feel about the defensive metrics. Also, what's your opinion about the different methods' treatment of relievers? Is it fair?

I've been a Win Shares guy in the past, but am starting to wonder if one of the WARs would be better for player analysis as it starts with the player instead of the team. My main concern is not rewarding/punishing the players when the team over/under performs their Pythagorean Record.
   25. Carl Goetz Posted: January 09, 2016 at 11:42 AM (#5129900)
Also, is there a better thread to have posted this question to?
   26. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 10, 2016 at 05:15 PM (#5130618)
Does anyone have a strong opinion of fWAR vs RWAR vs WARP?
I know fWAR uses FIP for pitchers with different replacement level for starters vs relievers and UZR for Fielders (2002-present anyway).
rWAR uses actual runs allowed for pitchers and TZR for fielders.
And WARP doesn't really tell you what they use.

I lean towards fWAR due to usage of FIP but not sure how I feel about the defensive metrics. Also, what's your opinion about the different methods' treatment of relievers? Is it fair?

I've been a Win Shares guy in the past, but am starting to wonder if one of the WARs would be better for player analysis as it starts with the player instead of the team. My main concern is not rewarding/punishing the players when the team over/under performs their Pythagorean Record.


My strong opinion is to also review Baseball Gauge WAR that uses DRA (Michael Humphreys Defensive Regression Analysis).
For pre 2003 era defensive analysis, DRA is my preferred method of choice, with 2003-present play-by-play data from DRS (Baseball-Reference) and UZR (Fangraphs) as additional strong if not superior choices. I think Baseball Prospectus FRAA is a good additional check, although it's a black box as to what the inputs are.

For information on DRA, please visit:
http://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/
The choose a metric drop down in the top right hand corner allows you to pick Baseball Gauge WAR (gWAR) or a customized blend of different metrics for offense/defense.

For book details and the initial public version of DRA, consult:
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195397765/

The good Doc Chaleeko is well versed on the ins and outs of DRA, so I would recommend asking him any questions you may have, or Mr. Humphreys himself if available.
I have a running Excel spreadsheet of player rundowns for the top ~1000 or so guys if anyone would like to use as a reference document, can send by mail or upload to the Yahoo Hall of Merit group.

I am a big fan of how Dan Rosenheck has setup his version of WAR/WARP for replacement level and value estimator, and it can be downloaded from the Hall of Merit Yahoo Group, however, the data is only current through 2005, and his pre 1987 defensive values aren't DRA based, but pull from fielding win shares and a previous version of BP's FRAA.

Baseball-Reference is very transparent and a quality system that the electorate generally agrees is a worthwhile consideration.

Regarding pitchers, B-R WAR is generally considered preferred over Fangraphs FIP version, Tom Tango from one of his old threads advocated a 2/3 or 3/4 weight to rWAR and a 1/3 or 1/4 to fWAR. I use a heavy dose of B-R and B-G WARs, but also sprinkle in for FG, BP, Kiko's, and WPA values.

Glad you are considering systems other than Win Shares, as you mention it has issues with teams with records at the extreme ends. It also generally favors poor fielding corner guys over glovemen, whether right or wrong, but I generally disagree with the fielding component.

While not fully incorporated into my rankings, the work from Kiko Sakata has been illuminating and might be another holy grail in our knowledge set.
Checkout post 157 from the 2016 ballot thread for a link to some table rankings:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/2016_hall_of_merit_ballot_discussion/P100/

Differing opinions exist on the valuation of relievers, but a leverage component is/or should be a part of current WAR valuations.


   27. Carl Goetz Posted: January 11, 2016 at 01:33 PM (#5131153)
Thanks for your input Bleed the Freak.
I am definitely a fan of DRA for defensive analysis and was unaware that gWAR was using it.
What is the reason for preferring actual runs allowed over FIP? Doesn't FIP more accurately reflect the pitcher's own contribution with BABIP luck removed? I realize FIP isn't perfect since it doesn't distinguish between batted ball types, but isn't it still more accurate than a straight run count?
I am starting to lean towards gWAR just for the use of DRA. I noticed pitching runs are adjusted in gWAR for the DRA of the defense behind him. I like this, but it still doesn't adjust for some of the luck involved with where a batted ball is hit. I guess I still need to think through that issue and about what I actually care about measuring.
   28. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2016 at 01:40 PM (#5131171)
What is the reason for preferring actual runs allowed over FIP? Doesn't FIP more accurately reflect the pitcher's own contribution with BABIP luck removed? I realize FIP isn't perfect since it doesn't distinguish between batted ball types, but isn't it still more accurate than a straight run count?


(a) Pitchers have some control over BABIP and SLGIP (slugging percentage on balls in play)
(b) Pitchers also have control over other things that affect run-scoring: basestealing, wild pitches (and passed balls), their own fielding
(c) Pitchers pitch differently with runners on base (stretch vs. windup) such that, over long enough careers, some pitchers exhibit significant differences in performance with the bases empty vs. with runners on base that are statistically significant and probably "real" - Jim Palmer and Tom Glavine are two examples of this, I believe

One nice thing, with regard to FIP vs. RA, that I only recently noticed, is that Fangraphs actually calculates their pitcher WARs two ways. They show both an RA9-WAR and a WAR for pitchers (as you can tell from the name, their preference is still the version based on FIP).

   29. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2016 at 01:41 PM (#5131175)
I meant to include an example of RA9-WAR vs. FIP WAR at Fangraphs. Tom Glavine - RA9-WAR of 88.0 vs. FIP-WAR of 66.9
   30. Carl Goetz Posted: January 11, 2016 at 02:56 PM (#5131257)
"(a) Pitchers have some control over BABIP and SLGIP (slugging percentage on balls in play)
(b) Pitchers also have control over other things that affect run-scoring: basestealing, wild pitches (and passed balls), their own fielding
(c) Pitchers pitch differently with runners on base (stretch vs. windup) such that, over long enough careers, some pitchers exhibit significant differences in performance with the bases empty vs. with runners on base that are statistically significant and probably "real" - Jim Palmer and Tom Glavine are two examples of this, I believe
"

I'd agree on a&c. Wouldn't the pitcher's fielding be covered under their DRA? Wouldn't Passed Balls be covered under Catcher's DRA? Or are you referring to a pitcher like Tim Wakefield whose balls are harder to catch and cause more passed balls?
   31. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2016 at 04:27 PM (#5131364)
I'd agree on a&c. Wouldn't the pitcher's fielding be covered under their DRA? Wouldn't Passed Balls be covered under Catcher's DRA? Or are you referring to a pitcher like Tim Wakefield whose balls are harder to catch and cause more passed balls?


I'm not aware that DRA includes pitchers; I don't recall them being included in Humphreys' book (e.g., I believe Baseball-Gauge uses DRA in its WAR calculation; Mark Buehrle shows up with fielding scores of 0 every year). Baseball-Reference also doesn't give explicit fielding ratings for pitchers, because they're redundant with a system that's based on RA/9.

And as to passed balls, yes, I'm thinking that pitchers generally share responsibility for passed balls (and catchers share responsibility for wild pitches).
   32. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2016 at 04:41 PM (#5131391)
Looking at BB-Ref, it looks like they do provide DRS numbers for pitchers, but only since 2003 (Buehrle is +88 since then, but has blanks for his first three seasons, 2000-02), and I don't think that +88 shows up anyplace in Buehrle's WAR (correctly, since BB-Ref WAR starts w/ Buerhle's RA/9, which is a function, in part, of his own fielding, of course).
   33. Carl Goetz Posted: January 11, 2016 at 05:00 PM (#5131420)
Is DRS the same as DRA?
   34. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2016 at 05:13 PM (#5131433)
Is DRS the same as DRA?


No. per Baseball-Reference, DRS - which stands for Defensive Runs Saved - is from Baseball Info Solutions (and, as I noted above, apparently only goes back to 2003). DRA is Humphreys' system (Defensive Runs Average, I think - or is the "A" allowed?). For non-pitchers, Baseball-Reference also shows something it calls Rtot ("Total Zone Total Fielding Runs above Average"). This was developed by Sean Smith (who posts here as AROM). From what I can tell, Rtot is not calculated for pitchers (I think one of the controls in the system is for the pitcher on the mound; obviously, you can't measure a pitcher's fielding controlling for the pitchers on the mound when he's fielding).

If you're interested, I compared my Fielding won-lost records to the latter two of these (Humphreys and Smith) in an article here, although the focus there is on how the two compare to my numbers, more than on how they compare to each other. (I've also been told that Humphreys has updated his numbers; the linked article is based on his book) (Further note: to further complicate matters, Smith originally called his system Defensive Runs Saved - DRS - which is the acronym I use in the linked article; the numbers there are from Smith and what BB-Ref now calls Rtot - not from the DRS on BB-Ref from BIS)
   35. lieiam Posted: January 11, 2016 at 11:23 PM (#5131627)
@Carl Goetz:
I don't have much to say about one WAR vs. another or WARP and Win Shares and all that (I use the various systems I can access when I'm generating a ballot) but, in case you're not aware of it, at Baseball Gauge you can generate a custom metric.
http://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/metric_custom.php

   36. Carl Goetz Posted: January 12, 2016 at 03:13 PM (#5132300)
Thanks liejam, the customized metric looks cool. I've got a copy of the Fielding Bible IV coming and I'll reread Wizardry to figure out which fielding method I prefer. I'll have to consider pitching metrics further as well.
   37. Carl Goetz Posted: January 13, 2016 at 08:57 AM (#5132774)
'DRA is Humphreys' system (Defensive Runs Average, I think - or is the "A" allowed?).'
Kiko, I started rereading Wizardry last night. DRA is either Defensive Regression Analysis or Defensive Run Analysis. He was clear he wanted it to stand for both of those things.
   38. Mike Webber Posted: January 13, 2016 at 04:22 PM (#5133392)
@27 and @28

Bill James on Valuing Closers

This popped up today and I remembered someone had recently asked about this,

Again, questionable adjustment. Pitchers do lots of things that have SOME impact on their ERA, other than getting strikeouts and allowing walks, home runs and hit batsmen. They also:

a) Hold baserunners well or poorly,

b) Pick runners off,

c) Field their position,

d) Throw Wild Piches,

e) Induce ground balls, and

f) Pitch to the situation at a certain level.

When figuring data for a SEASON, the discrepancies between ERA and FIP are probably mostly random factors which the pitcher does not control, and we should probably prefer FIP to ERA. But when dealing with CAREER records of several hundred innings—and we are dealing with career records here—when dealing with career records, it is much more likely that the discrepancies between ERA and FIP are created by factors (a) through (f) above, and then the actual ERA is almost certainly the more instructive number. In a more sophisticated sabermetric analysis, we would rely more on FIP when dealing with small data groups, but we would rely more on actual ERA when the number of innings for an individual pitcher is larger.


   39. Howie Menckel Posted: January 15, 2016 at 11:49 PM (#5135428)

HOM Ps, by year, through 2016 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G and mainly this position to be listed (well, I tended to list guys with 150 IP and there likely are some minor errors here and there. but it invites observations and pitchers and catchers have yet to report, so - I hadn't updated this since around 2006; I had all the positions at one time and would take requests...):

1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884 (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1855-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1891 (9) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1892 (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (5) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1895 (5) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1896 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1897-98 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1899 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity
1900 (5) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Waddell

1901 (7) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson
1902 (7) - Young Griffith McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (8) - Young Griffith McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904-05 (8) - Young Nichols McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906-07 (9) - Young McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh Mendez
1908 (10) - Young McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh Mendez WJohnson
1909 (9) - Young Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh Mendez WJohnson
1910 (9) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh Mendez WJohnson Williams
1911 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh Mendez WJohnson Williams Alexander
1912 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh Mendez WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1913 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Mendez WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1914 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Mendez WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber
1915 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth
1916 (9) - Plank Foster WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1917 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1918 (3) - WJohnson Williams Covaleski
1919 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski

1920 (5) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1921 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922-23 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1924 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons
1925 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing
1926 (12) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster
1927 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1928 (11) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1929 (12) - Williams Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1930 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1931 (10) - Williams Faber Vance Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1932 (11) - Williams Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1933 (9) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1934 (8) - Lyons Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1935 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1936 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1937 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1938 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Feller
1939-40 (6) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell RBrown Feller
1941 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Feller Newhouser
1942 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1943-44 (4) - Paige RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1945 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1946 (3) - Paige Feller Newhouser
1947 (6) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1948 (5) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1949 (5) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1950 (6) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Pierce
1951 (6) - Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Pierce
1952 (9) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Pierce Wilhelm
1953 (9) - Paige Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1954-56 (7) - Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1957 (7) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning
1958-60 (9) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax

1961 (9) - Spahn Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1962 (11) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1963 (9) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1964 (10) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry
1965 (11) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro
1966 (10) - Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry Palmer Sutton
1967 (10) - Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Sutton Seaver Carlton
1968 (11) - Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins
1969 (12) - Wilhelm Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers
1970 (13) - Wilhelm Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven
1971 (12) - Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven
1972 (14) - Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage
1973 (14) - Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven Ryan Reuschel
1974 (14) - Bunning Gibson GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel
1975-79 (13) - GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley
1980-81 (14) - GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley Stieb
1982 (11) - GPerry PNiekro Palmer Sutton Carlton Jenkins Fingers Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1983 (11) - GPerry PNiekro Sutton Seaver Carlton Jenkins Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1984 (11) - PNiekro Sutton Seaver Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb Saberhagen
1985 (10) - PNiekro Sutton Seaver Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley Stieb Saberhagen
1986 (12) - PNiekro Sutton Seaver Carlton Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley Stieb Saberhagen Clemens
1987 (11) - Sutton Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley Stieb Saberhagen Clemens Maddux
1988 (11) - Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley Stieb Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone
1989 (13) - Blyleven Ryan Gossage Reuschel Eckersley Stieb Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz
1990 (12) - Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Schilling
1991 (12) - Ryan Gossage Eckersley Saberhagen Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Schilling
1992-93 (11) - Gossage Eckersley Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Schilling Mussina
1994 (12) - Gossage Eckersley Saberhagen Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Mussina PMartinez
1995 (11) - Eckersley Saberhagen Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Mussina PMartinez
1996 (9) - Eckersley Clemens Maddux Glavine KBrown Smoltz Schilling Mussina PMartinez
1997 (11) - Eckersley Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Schilling Mussina PMartinez
1998 (11) - Eckersley Saberhagen Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Mussina PMartinez
1999 (10) - Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Smoltz Schilling Mussina PMartinez
2000 (9) - Clemens Maddux Glavine Cone RJohnson KBrown Schilling Mussina PMartinez
2001 (7) - Clemens Maddux Glavine RJohnson Smoltz Schilling Mussina
2002 (8) - Clemens Maddux Glavine RJohnson Smoltz Schilling Mussina PMartinez
2003 (8) - Clemens Maddux Glavine KBrown Smoltz Schilling Mussina PMartinez
2004 (8) - Clemens Maddux Glavine RJohnson Smoltz Schilling Mussina PMartinez
2005 (7) - Clemens Maddux Glavine RJohnson Smoltz Mussina PMartinez
2006 (6) - Maddux Glavine RJohnson Smoltz Schilling Mussina
2007 (4) - Maddux Glavine Smoltz Mussina
2008 (3) - Maddux RJohnson Mussina
   40. Ardo Posted: January 16, 2016 at 05:07 AM (#5135469)
New 2017 prelim

Luque and Smith rise in response to Howie's post, because both of them pitched in under-represented eras. I'm happy with my placements of Vlad and Jorge. In addition, Luke Easter enters my ballot.

1) Ivan Rodriguez
2) Manny Ramirez
3) Jim Edmonds
4) Wally Schang
5) Dolf Luque
6) Vladimir Guerrero
7) Hilton Smith
8) Jorge Posada
9) Ben Taylor
10) Sammy Sosa
11) Luke Easter
12) Kenny Lofton
13) Jeff Kent
14) Tommy John
15) Frank Chance

Next five: Nomar Garciaparra, Luis Tiant, Buddy Bell, Dave Bancroft, Tommy Leach.
   41. Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Posted: January 16, 2016 at 12:27 PM (#5135584)
Ardo -

On behalf of myself, and although I would never claim to speak for Sonny Gray, I'm sure he would agree, welcome to the Friends of Luke Easter.
   42. theorioleway Posted: January 22, 2016 at 08:23 PM (#5140513)
Since I can't seem to comment on his page, I'll bring it up here. I'm working on all-time rankings/personal HOM, and am wondering why there wasn't any interest in giving Stan Coveleski minor league credit? Was his performance in those leagues not good enough? Was his contract situation in such a way that he wasn't truly blocked from the majors if a team had been interested. His MLB-career is good enough for the HOM by itself, but I'm just curious, as minor league credit could bump him over other pitchers.
   43. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 22, 2016 at 08:35 PM (#5140514)
In addition, Luke Easter enters my ballot.


I would love to support Luke Easter. He seems like he could have been a superstar if he'd been born 20-30 years later, but, as is, his career is much too speculative for my taste. Could you (or Michael from #41) make the case for Luke Easter? Who would you comp a "spent his whole career in MLB" Luke Easter to?

Here's what my system spits out as the most similar players to Luke Easter at ages 34-36 - his three full major-league seasons. It's a weird list - Yogi Berra makes it, and the talent level ranges from Don Baylor to Frank Robinson. The Big Hurt is also there - but Thomas's Hall-of-Merit case was basically his 20's; was Luke Easter a late bloomer who caught up to an over-the-hill Thomas or might Easter have also been a monster in his 20's and we just missed out on it?
   44. DanG Posted: January 22, 2016 at 09:21 PM (#5140527)
why there wasn't any interest in giving Stan Coveleski minor league credit? Was his performance in those leagues not good enough?
Correct, he wasn't good enough.

Reading his bio, after Connie Mack plucked him from nearby Lancaster at age 22 and gave him a look in September 1912, Mack thought he needed more seasoning. After two years at Spokane it says Covaleski was considered the best pitcher in the Northwest League (a class B league).

It caught the interest of Portland in the PCL and at age 25 he was their best pitcher in 1915. It was there that he began to develop the spitter, which eventually became his bread and butter. Cleveland had close ties with Portland, who sold him to the Tribe, and at age 26 Covey had a decent rookie year, about a league-average pitcher (-0.1 WAA). In 1917 he became a star and put up 40 WAR in five years.

So I would consider him more of a late bloomer. He didn't reach stardom until he'd perfected the spitter.
   45. Carl Goetz Posted: January 24, 2016 at 01:18 PM (#5141015)
After reading Fielding Bible IV and Re-reading Wizardry and taking into account the thoughts on FIP vs R9 WAR methods for pitching.

I'm leaning towards straight up gWAR for all years up to 2002: (Base Runs, Runs Allowed method for Pitchers, DRA for fielders) and 2003 on: a customized metric using same for offense and pitching but switching to DRS for fielding.

Two questions:
1) I feel I read somewhere that the Runs allowed method for pitching does make an adjustment for the quality of fielding behind the pitcher, but I can't seem to find that now. Is that accurate?
2) Is is fair to compare DRA pre 2003 to DRS numbers post 2003? If not, I would use DRA for everything to make fair comparisons. If so, I think the work BIS is doing is amazing and I want to incorporate it where I can. I feel as though they are set to the same scale (team wins) so it should be reasonably comparable, but I did want to hear others' thought on the matter.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts so far
   46. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 24, 2016 at 01:29 PM (#5141021)
Carl, I will have to consider your comments in 45, wanted to share that Baseball Prospectus is continuing to update/review metrics for catchers. Cross-posting from the Jorge Posada thread:

Baseball Prospectus is incorporating further catching data into the WARP valuations:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28193

Modern catchers career WARP (post 1987 players - when framing figures available):
Mike Piazza - 79.7
Ivan Rodriguez - 57.3
Brian McCann - 53.4
Russell Martin - 49.9
Joe Mauer - 49.6 (~44 from 2004 to 2012 during his full-time catching years)
Javy Lopez - 43.7
Yadier Molina - 41.8
Brad Ausmus - 38.4!
Jason Kendall - 38.0
Buster Posey - 35.1
Jorge Posada - 32.7
Victor Martinez - 32.4 (~25 from 2002 to 2010 during full-time catching years)
Jason Varitek - 30.0
Jonathan Lucroy - 29.3
Miguel Montero - 28.3
Benito Santiago - 28.2
Chris Hoiles - 27.8
   47. DL from MN Posted: January 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM (#5143719)
in response to Howie's post, because both of them pitched in under-represented eras.


Tommy Bridges fills in that 1933-1946 gap pretty well
   48. Bleed the Freak Posted: February 13, 2016 at 09:45 AM (#5155465)
FWIW, a few updates to BP, some bumps for active guys:
Brian McCann - 55.0
Russell Martin - 52.2
Joe Mauer - 49.9
Yadier Molina - 42.0
Buster Posey - 37.9
Victor Martinez - 32.1
Jonathan Lucroy - 31.2
Miguel Montero - 29.5

Do the BP numbers cause caution for anyone thinking of balloting Posada, or his awful WPA post-season values?
   49. Kiko Sakata Posted: February 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM (#5156338)
I took a very detailed look at my Player won-lost records vis-a-vis WAR (from both Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs) that I thought some here might find interesting. Here it is. I'd love to hear any feedback that anybody might have. Thanks!
   50. Bleed the Freak Posted: February 17, 2016 at 10:11 AM (#5157625)
Great stuff Kiko, some high quality statistical analysis that deserves a deep dive.

I will need some additional time to digest before having a chance to make any insightful comments or suggestions.

Any chance this or any of your other articles can be posted here and or to Tango's blog for helpful critiques?
   51. DL from MN Posted: February 17, 2016 at 02:08 PM (#5157874)
Very interesting set of articles. There are a couple areas where I am curious about more detail

1) How much of "player interaction" is value that should be attributed to catchers but is otherwise uncaptured? I disagree with your statement that catchers "handle very few defensive plays". This is true on batted balls but my guess is some of the surplus value you attribute to pitchers could be re-allocated to catchers.

2) Your observation that pitching "wins" are more valuable for an actual team than in a neutral context is reinforced by the premium in actual dollars spent on elite pitching. I also wonder if it validates the value of a properly deployed elite relief pitcher.

3) I have always overweighted WAA in my voting, adding it back into WAR. I probably have the weight incorrect but I think this validates my assumption that WAA are more valuable than WAR when determining MMP or HoM.

4) Your finding that Starting Pitching is 33% of win value makes me want to re-iterate my stance that the HoM is underrepresented in starting pitchers. I also found it interesting that you have fewer CF in your top players than bWAR. I also have fewer CF in my top players than the HoM consensus.
   52. Kiko Sakata Posted: February 18, 2016 at 10:34 AM (#5158561)
Thank you very much, Bleed and DL.

Bleed, I would be happy to have my articles posted wherever somebody would like to post them (I just submitted this article to SABR's Baseball Research Journal - a general article about my Player W-L records appeared in the Fall, 2012 issue of the journal (and can be found here).

DL

1) My comment re: catchers was in reference to what I'm measuring. I only include "traditional" catcher plays - stolen bases, passed balls (and wild pitches), and then plays by catchers on balls in play. This latter being a very small number (I think catchers handle fewer balls in play than any other position - by quite a lot). I've tried to figure out a good way to give catcher's some of the credit for pitching results - and you're correct that if, in fact, some of that value belongs to catchers, that would come at the expense of pitchers. But I haven't come up with a satisfactory way of separating out catcher vs. pitcher value.

One point that I think is in support of my allocation of value (which doesn't credit catchers w/ "pitching" value) is an article I wrote comparing my values to player salaries - here (I think I referenced this article in one or both of the articles in #49, so you might have seen it). Basically, if you compare the share of pWORL (Player wins over Replacement Level) to Player salary over the minimum, for players w/ 7 years of experience (so, limiting yourself to players eligible for free agency), the share of pWORL earned by catchers and starting pitchers is almost identical to their respective shares of salaries, and ditto for pitching and fielding (see, especially, the last table in the linked article). Of course, the rebuttal to that would be that MLB teams are under-paying catchers and giving some of their value to pitchers.

2) When actual context is taken into account, I think my valuation of relief pitchers comes fairly close to bWAR (and fWAR - although I'm less familiar with it) on average. The one exception I've noticed, however, is that it's fairly common among really elite relievers (although I guess "common" among "elite" is something of an oxymoron) to not just pitch in higher-context situations, but to pitcher BETTER in higher-context than in lower-context situations - e.g., Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner, Lee Smith (note the higher pWinning percentage than eWinning percentage). That said, in a Hall of Merit context, the lack of innings is pretty overwhelming. Setting aside Eckersley and Smoltz, my personal Hall of Merit might not have any relief pitchers yet (Mariano would get there when he becomes eligible) (although I haven't gone through the exercise of building a pHOM, and I'm still somewhat torn on exactly how to treat relief pitchers).

3) I tend to agree that WAA has more value than WAR in a Hall-of-Merit context (although I also think there's SOME value to below-average, above-replacement "hang around" time)

4) I completely agree that the HoM is underrepresented in starting pitchers. I am reasonably sure that Tommy John will remain in my top 5 for as long as I submit ballots until (unless) the Hall of Merit eventually elects him. I think, in particular, the types of guys who step forward in this system are the long-career, innings-eating, solid #2 starter - Tommy John, Vic Willis (who pre-dates my system, but I'm reasonably sure it would love). David Wells looks very good in my system. I may well be Andy Pettitte's best friend when he becomes eligible. Another pitcher somewhat along these lines who looks very good in my system is Mel Harder although Retrosheet data is sparser for much of his career (I seem to be missing around 130 of his games), so I'm not sure how much the system's love of him is real vs. perhaps an artifact of some kind of bias in the available data (I'm not sure why this might be, but I could be missing most of his worst games?).

Anyway, thank you both very much for your comments.
   53. Bleed the Freak Posted: February 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM (#5165210)
Kiko,

Reviewing the link from the 2016 ballot discussion thread, your key stat, removing negative value seasons, places Richie Ashburn well below HOM standards:


467 Frankie Crosetti 36.8 164.0 157.7 0.510 167.7 168.2 0.499
468 Victor Martinez 36.8 154.3 140.2 0.524 149.8 137.7 0.521
469 Johnny Briggs 36.8 147.7 136.6 0.520 156.7 129.8 0.547
470 Tim Wallach 36.8 251.1 236.2 0.515 243.0 230.4 0.513
471 Mickey Tettleton 36.8 131.1 117.5 0.527 133.1 116.4 0.534
472 Bret Boone 36.7 208.6 194.8 0.517 196.3 192.0 0.505
473 Richie Ashburn 36.7 279.0 276.0 0.503 284.8 274.6 0.509
474 Ben Oglivie 36.6 208.0 187.7 0.526 203.6 185.9 0.523
475 Jon Lieber 36.6 136.3 135.4 0.502 140.1 136.4 0.507
476 Ben Chapman 36.6 171.9 150.4 0.533 168.1 157.3 0.517
477 Joe Niekro 36.6 217.4 223.6 0.493 208.9 224.7 0.482
478 Rudy May 36.6 156.6 159.7 0.495 152.8 144.4 0.514


Can you shed details on why he's so low in comparison to others?
Defensive/positional value, the wins above average component in a league with Mays and Snider, his contextual offensive value was lower (infield hits)?

Thanks, and I don't mean to nit pick, just curious on certain players, as I want to grow more knowledgeable/reference your work.
   54. Kiko Sakata Posted: February 26, 2016 at 11:01 PM (#5165224)
Can you shed details on why he's so low in comparison to others?
Defensive/positional value, the wins above average component in a league with Mays and Snider, his contextual offensive value was lower (infield hits)?


I'll dig in a little bit and try to give you a better answer, but I think you've basically hit the key points. My system isn't a huge fan of his defense; positional average for CF was insanely high in the 1950's; and my system rates Ashburn's style of offense (infield hits, virtually no home runs) lower than most (all?) other systems.
   55. Kiko Sakata Posted: February 28, 2016 at 10:32 PM (#5165974)
Bleed, I promised you a better answer, so I dug into Richie Ashburn a good bit, so here you go.

For every player, if you click on "Value Decomposition" on their player page (here's Ashburn), you get a table that decomposes eWORL into its constituent parts (batting - baserunning - fielding - position - replacement). Here's Ashburn.

In terms of batting, I rate Ashburn relatively low (basically, barely above league-average for his career). The numbers here are compared to non-pitcher batting. Ashburn rates poorly in my system for reasons that are, I think, best explained in my discussion of Mickey Rivers in this article.

In terms of baserunning, Ashburn was a bit above average for his career, but he wasn't overly special.

In terms of fielding, my system rates Ashburn as below average. Ashburn's fielding is broken down in detail here (click the "Fielding" hyperlink on either the player page or the value decomposition page). My system doesn't like Ashburn's fielding specifically because my system thinks that Richie Ashburn was the worst fielder (since at least 1930) in what I call Component 6 - by a lot (see the lower right table of the link in this sentence).

Component 6 measures whether hits-in-play become singles, doubles, or triples. In effect, my system thinks that Richie Ashburn was historically bad at preventing extra-base hits on hits-in-play (he was above average at preventing hits on balls in play, but the ones he allowed were more likely to be extra-base hits). Looking at his Fielding page, he was particularly bad at this from 1957 - 59 (although he was below average throughout his career).

I looked up the 1957 Phillies (the first link there is to team splits for the 1957 NL; the second is to team splits for the 1957 Phillies. The 1957 Phillies led the NL in triples allowed with 65 - 13 more than the 2nd-worst Giants. Of those, the Phillies allowed 35 triples at home and 30 triples on the road. In contrast, the Phillies hit only 20 triples at home and 24 on the road.

Combining doubles and triples, 30.5% of hits-in-play vs. the Phillies went for extra bases vs. a league average of 26.6%. The Dodgers (30.7%) and Cardinals (30.0%) were similar to the Phillies - everybody else was below 28%. Phillies pitchers allowed 32.6% extra-base hits at home, 28.3% on the road. So, it appears that Connie Mack Stadium (nee Shibe Park) may have been conducive to extra-base hits (see here), but the Phillies gave up a lot of extra-base hits, especially triples, everywhere.

Going back to Ashburn's value decomposition, his "position" adjustment is -5.2 runs, which is very low for a center fielder (e.g., Jim Edmonds's positional adjustment for his career was -0.3).

As I derived here, you can convert my numbers onto the same scale as bWAR (or fWAR) with the following formula: "eWAR" = .051*eWins + eWOPA + .949*eWORL. If you re-write eWORL as eWOPA + Replacement, that becomes eWAR = .051*eWins + 1.949*eWOPA + Replacement.

For Ashburn, the first term works out to about 14.5 and the last term is 23.7. To make the math easier, replace 1.949 with 2, and you get that Richie Ashburn's "eWAR" = 38.2 + 2*eWOPA

Adding up the components on Ashburn's Value Decomposition page gives an eWOPA around -3.4 which gives him an eWAR around 31. But if you wanted to tweak some of his values, you could. For example, if we re-set his "position" value to zero - which is the historical norm for CF's - then his eWOPA would jump to about +1.8 and his eWAR would be 41.8. If you wanted to adjust his fielding value to zero, too, that would bump his eWAR up to 43. If you wanted to make his fielding +2 (wins), that would push him up to 47 eWAR or so.

I can maybe see a case for the positional adjustment - although he really did share a league with Duke Snider and Willie Mays - and maybe it makes sense to soften his Component 6 numbers somewhat, just based on how much worse he is than anybody else - but, well, the 1957 Phillies really did give up 65 triples and the 1958 Phillies really did give up 73 triples (19 more than anybody else) and the 1959 Phillies really did give up 56 triples (which again led the league - but only by 3 this time).

But even with all that, kind of the best case I can see for Ashburn is a relatively low-peak, somewhat shortish career (for a Hall of Merit candidate) guy worth the equivalent of maybe 45-47 WAR at best.

Finally, Ashburn is also pulled down in my "Key Stat" because I also consider pWins - which are tied to team wins. Ashburn looks worse in pWins, basically because he played most of his career on bad teams (so the good things he did didn't translate into team wins like they should have), which is almost certainly not his fault at all.
   56. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 01, 2016 at 04:46 PM (#5167419)
This is great stuff Kiko!

It's second nature for people to be skeptical with something that is clearly out of line with previous convention, pushing it back to the author to give burden of proof that the stance they have is logical/is a good one. You show us a story exactly why, while the other systems show him as a quality or plus defender, you are diving into areas that other valuation systems and the naked eye observations aren't able to quantify/are overlooking.

Another great one to walk through for me/us seems to be Dale Murphy vs Tony Gwynn, not exact, but close contemporary outfielders.
When I link to your key stat, Murphy trounces Gwynn 64.0 to 48.4.
When I use the player record comparison tool, the pWOPA/pWORL are used, showing the two as roughly similar, Murphy 5.9/27.4 and Gwynn 3.7/27.6.
However, when moved to the value decomposition (eWOPA/eWORL), Dale surges to 15.1/36.0 versus Tony holding fairly steady at 5.1/28.6.

If it isn't too time consuming, can you write up a comparison of the two.
In addition, when I use your player comparison tool, do you have a feature where I can switch to viewing eWOPA/eWORL instead of pWOPA/pWORL.

Note: while normalizing seasons to 162 games helps closes the gap for Gwynn, removing negative seasons is yields an even greater boost for Murphy, pushing the totals to
Dale - 68.4
Tony - 51.9

Thanks Kiko!

Side note that additional defensive wizards look shy of HOM worthy by the key stat:
Brooks Robinson 50.3, Keith Hernandez 47.6, and Buddy Bell 44.0 (you helped explain this in the 2016 ballot discussion thread).

Fred Lynn shows roughly equivalent to Dale Murphy if you wanted add him to the Murphy/Gwynn comparison?
   57. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 06, 2016 at 03:34 PM (#5170524)
Mitchel Lichtman (MGL), creator of UZR, had an interesting blog post the other day (it was linked at the front page here, but I'm not sure if some of you just come straight to the Hall of Merit and/or might have missed it: here

MGL points out here that one of the things that UZR is not using to determine the a priori probability of a ball being caught that he thinks it should be "is whether the player caught the ball or not!" I find this interesting for two reasons. First, my defensive system is built using "whether the player caught the ball or not" as its centerpiece - i.e., my system starts by treating all groundouts to the second baseman as equal and allocates value from there. Second, as he works through the implications of what MGL is suggesting, he finds that "[e]ach player regressed around 35-40% toward zero. That’s a lot!" It's also consistent with what I find - that the range in player fielding value is perhaps 40% smaller in my Player W-L records than it is in UZR - and that my numbers tie more closely to team performance than do the UZR numbers (see my link in comment #49).
   58. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 06, 2016 at 04:12 PM (#5170538)
In addition, when I use your player comparison tool, do you have a feature where I can switch to viewing eWOPA/eWORL instead of pWOPA/pWORL.


Bleed, yes, near the top of the Player Comps page is a section headlined "Choose Comparison Parameters".

The first line below that lets you line players up by Age, Experience, or Year (default is by Age) - type either "a", "e", or "y" (or spell out any of the words) in that box
The next line lets you compare players in pWins, eWins, batting, baserunning, pitching, or fielding (the latter 4 will all be context-neutral - i.e., eWin-based) - type any of "pw", "ew", "bat", "r", "pitch", or "f" (or spell out any of the words) in that box
The third line has some y/n options for comparison - type "y" or "n" in the various boxes
Then click the "Go" button and the comparison will adjust to match your requests.

Here's Gwynn vs. Murphy in eWins - here

It's fairly high on my to-do list to write an article that walks people through the website better - explaining things like this and the leaderboards and what's on the league papges and stuff. I'm actually hoping to do that in the next week or so if work doesn't get in the way too much.

On the subject of Dale Murphy and pWins-vs-eWins, I talked about how (and a bit of why) Murphy looks so much better in eWins in an article where I compared Murphy to Jim Rice - here

But I think the key to the comparison you're talking about is more that my system thinks relatively poorly of Tony Gwynn more than it thinking overly highly of Dale Murphy. That seems to come down primarily to batting, which is the same as the Ashburn thing - my system values power more highly (and, I would argue, more correctly) than most traditional sabermetric measures (is "traditional sabermetric" an oxymoron, or a sign that sabermetrics has come of age?). Other than that, my system seems them as dead even in baserunning and sees Gwynn as a slightly better fielder at a slightly easier position, which produces the following comparison of their fielding vs. replacement level (this is basically my version of dWAR - combine fielding and positional value in a single number) - here.

As far as the "Key Stat" goes, the other thing is that I zero out negative values for both WOPA and WORL which helps Murphy - who was below average at both ends of his career - much more than Gwynn - who was pretty consistent throughout his career. That's my (somewhat crude) way of giving a peak/prime bonus, which helps Murphy - who was one of the best players in the NL in 1980, 1982-85, 1987 to an extent that Tony Gwynn really never was (Gwynn's 1984 season is the only one that really stacks up to Dale Murphy's peak seasons) - although the reason why Gwynn's seasons don't match up to Murphy's peak years goes back to the batting thing.

I have an idea of how to take a closer look at the batting thing as a somewhat natural followup to the research I posted in #49. I'll try to do something along those lines in the next few weeks - again, if work doesn't get in the way too much (damn need to earn a regular paycheck, distracting me from more interesting and valuable work) - and will, of course, share it here.

Thanks for the questions, Bleed! I love to have people digging into my work in detail.
   59. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 07, 2016 at 09:21 PM (#5171150)
Awesome Kiko, it's been fun digging.

Glad you are looking to prep some walk throughs about your website, a treasure trove of information that was a little overwhelming for me, and I love data and numbers.

I'm planning to setup a spreadsheet of eWins by season for the top players all-time and see what variances I get with your key stat.

This should be a blast (time permitting)!
   60. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:16 PM (#5171166)
Kiko, I apologize if I missed it, but do you have a section explaining your handling of "ball hogging"?

From Wizardry, Appendix A, page 10, a portion of Michael Humphreys summary:

A fielder might make more plays not by preventing more BIP from going through for hits, but by taking more ‘easy’ chances that could have been fielded by other fielders and were more or less guaranteed outs anyway. By far the most important example of this are FO fieldable by infielders. Ninety to ninety-five percent of fly balls and pop ups caught by infielders can usually be taken by at least two, and sometimes three, different fielders (two infielders and an outfielder). Centerfielders who have played very shallow, especially Andruw Jones, have tended to ‘hog’ some of these chances. Regressions of PO8.bip onto IFO.bip throughout history consistently show that the more IFO.bip, the fewer PO8.bip, and vice versa. Therefore, if IFO. Bip has been reduced by centerfielder ball hogging, a portion of those negative ‘hogged plays’ is added to expected PO8.bip, thus reducing the center-fielder rating, and vice versa. At times there is an impact for corner outfielders as well. I was somewhat surprised that IFO.bip was so important in right field. Perhaps the fact that most pop-ups are hit to the right side of the field (as most batters are right-handed, and most pop ups are hit to the opposite side of the field, for reasons we’ve already discussed) explains this result. Right fielders may take more discretionary pop flies from first base-men (some of whom are the slowest players in baseball) than left fielders take from third basemen.


Thanks :)
   61. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 09, 2016 at 09:47 PM (#5172595)
Bleed, I have not really written anything on "ball hogging". I think ball hogging is less of an issue in my system than with some other systems, because I start from the final result. That is, my starting point isn't a location, but it's the final result. But plays end up recorded as infield fly (or pop) outs tended to have an a priori probability of being an out well over 90%, fielders get very little credit for making these kinds of outs. The same is actually true of outfield fly outs too.

I show event probabilities on my website, but this is definitely something you have to dig for to know where to find it (I'm working on that overview - but there's a lot to describe). They're linked from my league pages - at the bottom. Here are event probabilities for 2015. The second table on that page is "Probabilities of Basic Events" (for the AL; the same info for the NL is further down the page). The ex ante probability of a fly ball out (fielded by any fielder) having been an out was 90.5% - which means, on average, catching a fly ball only gets you credit for .095 outs. You can skim down the table to see how the numbers vary by position - the probability of an out is huge for a fly-out to the P (97.6%), C (96.9%), 1B (96.7%), or 3B (97.4%) (note: these will include foul-outs, which had no chance of being hits, although I don't explicitly distinguish between fair and foul fly outs). The numbers are lower, but still very high for middle infielders (92.6%) and center fielders (90.7%) and lowest - but still quite high - for corner outfielders (88.5 - 88.6%).

That said, while I was researching this answer for you, I realized that I'm not identifying the first fielder to touch hits as often as Retrosheet is reporting it, which could be a fairly significant error - I'm not sure. So, I need to fix that - which isn't entirely trivial, since it requires me to re-calculate the numbers for perhaps as many as 90 seasons. I'll report back when I do that - although don't hold your breath for it; it'll probably take me a month or two if the problem's as extensive as I think it might be. Sorry about that.
   62. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 10, 2016 at 10:08 PM (#5173218)
Kiko, I apologize if I missed it, but do you have a section explaining your handling of "ball hogging"?


Following up on this, I'd like to take a look at this in some detail. As I said in #61, this won't be for awhile, because I need to re-run some numbers. But in anticipation of that, I wanted to ask a question of the group.

Who are some examples of players who you think were "ball hogs", particularly players who are "overrated" by some fielding metrics because of this? And/or what are the characteristics that would most lead to "ball hogging"?

One player who looks more pedestrian in my system (pending updated results) than he does in most other sabermetric fielding measures (and than he did by conventional wisdom when he was playing) is Garry Maddox. I wrote about him a bit in an article where I compared my fielding to DRA (Humphreys) and DRS (Sean Smith, aka AROM). And I was going to turn that into a separate article and perhaps expand on it a bit - doing that was where I found the error w/ missing some "first fielders" on hits.

Anyway, here's what Humphreys says about Maddox (who rates very well in DRA) in Wizardry:

[Maddox] was at best an average fielder when he came up with the Giants. Traded to the Phillies, he played next to possibly the worst outfielder of all time: Greg "The Bull" Luzinski. On almost all teams, the centerfielder takes all chances in the outfield that he can, including soft flies that could be handled in the gaps by the corner outfielders. But with The Bull, Maddox may have taken what would normally be fly ball chances of the left fielder. Maddux had only one good season when he wasn't playing next to Luzinski, the strike-shortened 1981." (Wizardry, p. 302


And, in fact, my system finds Maddox to have been a consistently average fielder, both without Luzinski (which agrees with both DRA and DRS) and with Luzinski (which disagrees with DRA and DRS - and Gold Glove voters of the time). Which I take to be evidence that my system naturally handles ball hogging better than some (most?) other systems. But, of course, I'm not the most unbiased analyst of my own system. And one player is not exactly a compelling "sample size".

So, when I get everything updated, I was thinking of perhaps taking a look at several possible "ball hogs" and/or players who, like Maddox, might have had portions of their career where they might have been more inclined toward "ball hogging" than other portions of their career. So, I'd kind of like some ideas of some specific players that may be worth looking at.

Thanks!
   63. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 14, 2016 at 12:01 AM (#5174571)
That said, while I was researching this answer for you, I realized that I'm not identifying the first fielder to touch hits as often as Retrosheet is reporting it, which could be a fairly significant error - I'm not sure. So, I need to fix that - which isn't entirely trivial, since it requires me to re-calculate the numbers for perhaps as many as 90 seasons. I'll report back when I do that - although don't hold your breath for it; it'll probably take me a month or two if the problem's as extensive as I think it might be. Sorry about that.


Thanks for sharing and looking forward to the revealed updates.

Who are some examples of players who you think were "ball hogs", particularly players who are "overrated" by some fielding metrics because of this? And/or what are the characteristics that would most lead to "ball hogging"?


Possibly center-fielders who play shallow, ala Andruw Jones?
Does anyone have a list/are familiar with others who have historically played shallow?


On a separate note, and apologies if explained elsewhere, but does your system have an adjustment of any kind for league quality of play differences? The 1950s/60 NL was superior to the AL while the AL has been better in recent vintage. I don't know what the correct answer is, but this could be a significant holy grail we should be pursuing? I just found an old and long thread over at Baseball Fever that I need to digest and share if actionable. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?34915-History-of-the-Game-s-Strength-The-Era-Difficulty-Rating

   64. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM (#5174691)
On a separate note, and apologies if explained elsewhere, but does your system have an adjustment of any kind for league quality of play differences?


No. In my numbers, a win is a win. I'd like to look at this issue more closely, and I think my system would work well to do so by looking at players who change leagues. But I haven't done so. You'd have to make those sorts of adjustments yourself.
   65. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 19, 2016 at 12:20 AM (#5178213)
That said, while I was researching this answer for you, I realized that I'm not identifying the first fielder to touch hits as often as Retrosheet is reporting it, which could be a fairly significant error - I'm not sure. So, I need to fix that - which isn't entirely trivial, since it requires me to re-calculate the numbers for perhaps as many as 90 seasons. I'll report back when I do that - although don't hold your breath for it; it'll probably take me a month or two if the problem's as extensive as I think it might be. Sorry about that.


My Player won-lost records have been updated to correct this. I still need to update some of my earlier work to reflect my new numbers. At a quick glance, however, for example, my discussion of Richie Ashburn didn't really change (he's still the worst fielder in career Component 6 net wins (although not by as much as before).

I'm hoping to do a fair bit of research and writing this weekend, which I will hopefully share here.
   66. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 20, 2016 at 04:25 PM (#5178711)
Following up on my #61 and #62, I've written an article that looks at Garry Maddox's fielding - focusing on w/ vs. w/o Greg Luzinski as a teammate: here. The careful reader can probably identify the precise paragraph where I discovered the mistake I mentioned in the last paragraph of #61 (which has now been corrected).
   67. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 20, 2016 at 09:32 PM (#5178797)
Great news that the correction took less than a week rather than a couple months as you original thought it could.

When you mention you need to update earlier work, do you mean specific articles, and that the player won-loss records are updated across the board?

Thanks :)
   68. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 20, 2016 at 09:59 PM (#5178809)
When you mention you need to update earlier work, do you mean specific articles, and that the player won-loss records are updated across the board?


Yes, the Player won-lost records have been updated across the board. Most of my articles automatically update (they're written in PHP with calculations done directly in the article (i.e., the article is basically written fresh every time it's opened - all of my stat tables are created on the fly like this, too) - which means the numbers are always the most recent, but sometimes the text and numbers, then, don't agree). There are a few exceptions, where some numbers in some articles are just hard-coded. One example of that was the article I referenced in comment #49. I had to manually update that article - which I've done (same link as in #49 - none of the analysis really changed, just a few numbers).
   69. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 25, 2016 at 11:27 AM (#5181988)
Kiko, does your key stat incorporate context?

I ask, as part of my evaluations include the base baseball gauge, baseball reference, and baseball prospectus, then adjusting for the change in weighted runs above average and re24 contextual value.

Would u suggest any other approaches?

Thanks!
   70. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 25, 2016 at 12:48 PM (#5182049)
pWins incorporate context (both what the average context of the situation was as well as how performance varied across context); eWins do not. My default Key Stat weights pWins and eWins evenly, but you can change that however you'd like here. I don't really know that there's a "right" answer to context. I think it makes sense to include context when looking retrospectively, but even then, I think it's also pretty clear that contextual differences for some players are/were just random noise and/or due to reasons outside of the player's control. My natural inclination is to try to look at players in whatever light is most favorable to them - so, give guys credit for context if it helps them, but ignore context for guys where it makes them look worse (and ditto for career vs. peak vs. prime). But (a) that's much more complicated to evaluate players, and (b) it doesn't really work in a Hall-of-Merit context, where you have to rank guys (I guess it could, but that leads back to (a) - it'd be pretty complicated to do). So, when in doubt, I find 50/50 a good "compromise" position.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "weighted runs above average".
   71. DL from MN Posted: March 25, 2016 at 01:41 PM (#5182065)
lieiam Posted: December 27, 2015 at 05:11 PM (#5120696)
I've (still) never managed a genuine ballot for the Hall of Merit but here's an early preliminary look at my top 15.


That's a good start. I'd encourage voters to vote if they have a system that isn't spitting out garbage. I tweak my system from time to time. Anyone who waits for the perfect answer would never vote. Don't let perfect be the enemy of "good enough".

The best thing to do (if you have time) is to go through the elected players with your system to make sure you are being "fair to all positions and eras".
   72. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 25, 2016 at 02:03 PM (#5182075)
Seconded on dl from mn, no system is ever perfect, a good system trumps not voting at all.

Kiko, fangraphs has a stat wraa, or weighted runs above average, which is context neutral and I feel is a good comparison tool to re24.
   73. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 25, 2016 at 02:38 PM (#5182101)
Kiko, fangraphs has a stat wraa, or weighted runs above average, which is context neutral and I feel is a good comparison tool to re24.


Okay. Yeah, as I said above, I kind of like averaging context and non-context to let both of them tell you something.
   74. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 28, 2016 at 10:24 PM (#5183512)
It's fairly high on my to-do list to write an article that walks people through the website better - explaining things like this and the leaderboards and what's on the league papges and stuff. I'm actually hoping to do that in the next week or so if work doesn't get in the way too much.


It didn't get done in the week that I had hoped, but I have finally written an overview of my website here
   75. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 29, 2016 at 04:54 PM (#5184164)
Cool overview that helps set the stage for the more in-depth links available.

Like Baseball-Reference, do you have an option to download a .txt file for the database of information you have?
If not, do you recommend copying data from individual player pages - I plan to do this as a check against your key-stat to see if I might weight peak more/even/less than you?

Thanks :)
   76. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 30, 2016 at 10:57 AM (#5184596)
Like Baseball-Reference, do you have an option to download a .txt file for the database of information you have?


I know exactly as much website coding as I needed to create the website exactly as it is (my brother's a web coder; he set up the basics and I've taken it from there w/ the help of an HTML and a PHP book and frequent Googling). And as of now, I don't know how to set up download options like Baseball-Reference has. I think it should be theoretically possible to "download" all of my data, but you'd have to do it by copying and pasting my tables. The most efficient way to do so might be by season. On my League Pages, near the bottom is a link for Player won-lost records for all players for that season (here's 1983 - change the "1983" in the link to whatever year you're interested in). I think if you select all of the colored part of the table and paste it into Excel, it'll line up properly and from there you can either work with the data or create a .csv file. I guess it depends on how many players you're interested in vs. how wide a range of seasons you're interested in (and what stats you're looking for), whether you're better off going through seasons or through players.

Or, I could try to figure out how to allow one to download tables - which I may try to do.
   77. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 30, 2016 at 11:15 AM (#5184617)
The format works perfectly, thank you.

The wORL replacement level component is most important for me and is included, but do you have a table like the link above that also includes wOPA above average component?

And do you have team and or league available fields?

The link as is will be a great starting point!
   78. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 30, 2016 at 11:28 AM (#5184631)
Kiko,

Baseball-Reference for pre-1950 and DRA WAR do not account for outfielder arm value (R-OF by B-R).

From what I can tell, the Win-Loss records handle this in components 8 and 9?

In particular, this would be instrumental in helping us evaluate the deadball era, provided/once Retrosheet publishes play by play data.


   79. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM (#5184681)
The wORL replacement level component is most important for me and is included, but do you have a table like the link above that also includes wOPA above average component?

And do you have team and or league available fields?

The link as is will be a great starting point!


As of right now, my pages for all three of these don't include WOPA's because I didn't want to make the tables too crowded. But I've also wanted to see WOPA's in my own tables, so I will try to add WOPA's to the relevant tables - probably tonight.

Baseball-Reference for pre-1950 and DRA WAR do not account for outfielder arm value (R-OF by B-R).

From what I can tell, the Win-Loss records handle this in components 8 and 9?

In particular, this would be instrumental in helping us evaluate the deadball era, provided/once Retrosheet publishes play by play data.


Yes, Components 8 (Baserunner Outs) and 9 (Baserunner Advancements) measure outfielder arm values. And, yes, I calculate these as far back as Retrosheet has play-by-play data. As with all of my data - but perhaps more so here - the further back in time you go, the more I would take these data with a grain of salt. I know in deduced games (from having done some myself), baserunner advancement (Component 9), in particular, is guessed at a lot, especially on non-scoring plays. And a lot of scoresheets don't necessarily track it, so that may be true even for true play-by-play data.
   80. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 30, 2016 at 06:40 PM (#5185033)
I would consider this required reading for all Hall of Merit voters and followers:

http://baseball.tomthress.com/Articles/Fielding_v_UZR.php

This article does an excellent job in highlighting the differences, but advantages in using, the Win-Loss system set up by Tom!

It's a mental shock to see the lower spread in fielding value for fielders in net field wins than in UZR and other systems, but makes sense that a certain level of credit/debit should be given to the pitcher for inducing weak/medium/hard contact. If you can burn worms, you should be awarded for doing so :)
   81. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 31, 2016 at 12:35 AM (#5185217)
Thanks for the kind words in #80, Bleed. I added pWOPA and eWOPA (Wins over Positional Average) to the link in #76 as well as to my Team and League pages.
   82. Bleed the Freak Posted: March 31, 2016 at 11:07 PM (#5185967)
Double checked, the WOPAs look good from my end.

From post 110 in the 2016 ballot discussion thread:

Retrosheet has released full play-by-play data for every game since 1946 (some of which are deduced from newspaper accounts) and most games from 1930 - 1945 (Retrosheet released more data over the summer, since my earlier post). They've also released partial data for 1921 (NL only), 1922, 1925, and 1927. For seasons where Retrosheet released partial data, I've extrapolated the missing games based on the games for which I have data - which may be somewhat sketchy.


Any updates on this?

I can be comfortable with the 1946-present data, but how much data is missing for the 1930-1945 data, I have been trying to incorporate post 1930s players with your win-loss records, but this makes me feel like the 30s are in play now too :)
   83. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 01, 2016 at 01:12 AM (#5186004)
Any updates on this?

I can be comfortable with the 1946-present data, but how much data is missing for the 1930-1945 data, I have been trying to incorporate post 1930s players with your win-loss records, but this makes me feel like the 30s are in play now too :)


Retrosheet did not add any seasons except for 2015 (which isn't in play for Hall of Merit voting, of course) in their Fall, 2015, release. We've finished deducing 1945, so 1945 should be complete (counting deduced games) with Retrosheet's next release - which is probably the end of June or early July. I'm helping w/ deducing 1944 - I just did a Tigers - Red Sox July 4th doubleheader - we're pretty much going chronologically, so we're not quite halfway through, which I assume means 1944 won't be done by Retrosheet's next release, but should be by their Fall, 2016, release.

My article here details how many games I'm missing by team by season.

The 1930's are actually better covered than the part of the 1940's that hasn't been deduced yet - coverage was much sparser during World War II. Overall, Retrosheet is missing 26.4% of all games for the 1930's. They're missing a majority of games in 1943-44 (the number for 1944 will probably be much better after their Summer release, even if the deduced games aren't done) and 45-50% of games in 1941-42 (and 39.3% of games in 1940).

Retrosheet also has really good coverage for 1925 and 1927 as well (less than 20% of games missing in both years). For now, the big problem with those two seasons is that they're islands - 1923, 1924, 1926, 1928, and 1929 haven't been released at all. Hopefully soon, but I have no insight on that.
   84. Bleed the Freak Posted: April 01, 2016 at 02:47 PM (#5186268)
I appreciate the full disclosure and link to current missing games.

An FYI that fielding page is showing as a 404 error:
http://baseball.tomthress.com/ArticleLists/Fielding.php

As a side note for the electorate, the current composite percentage of missing games by season, provided from the link in post 83:
1945 - 25.2%
1944 - 56.0%
1943 - 57.9%
1942 - 49.4%
1941 - 46.2%
1940 - 39.4%
1939 - 35.6%
1938 - 33.4%
1937 - 18.1%
1936 - 34.8%
1935 - 29.4%
1934 - 27.7%
1933 - 19.0%
1932 - 24.8%
1931 - 18.2%
1930 - 23.2%
1927 - 16.4%
1925 - 18.6%
1922 - 27.1%
21NL - 19.6%
   85. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 01, 2016 at 03:34 PM (#5186308)
An FYI that fielding page is showing as a 404 error:
http://baseball.tomthress.com/ArticleLists/Fielding.php


I've been re-organizing the articles section of the website, trying to trim it down (partly, I'm hoping to maybe get a book published out of this). I put that article back for you.
   86. Bleed the Freak Posted: April 03, 2016 at 09:23 AM (#5186886)
Thank you for re-upping the fielding article...

Regarding post 157 in the 2016 ballot discussion thread:

It appears that you fixed the SQL problem, as I was able to run the individual 1930 season extrapolating for missing games.
This query matches the link in post 76 on the season summary page, so I can assume that the yearly summary page for WORL/WOPA figures are automatically extrapolating for missing games (which is what I was hoping for :)?

Do you have yearly table pages for post-season values as well?


I have not allowed one to weight individual player seasons on that page. I'm not sure exactly how to program the SQL for doing that (at least in a way that wouldn't take forever to run the query).


Please let me know if any of my assumptions are incorrect.

Once I have all of the yearly data incorporated, I will share some additional thoughts (although I am very pleased in general with how the 1930s players are coming out!)

If anyone hasn't visited Tom's site, this is a treasure trove of information that should be taken seriously.
   87. Bleed the Freak Posted: April 03, 2016 at 09:26 AM (#5186887)
I've been re-organizing the articles section of the website, trying to trim it down (partly, I'm hoping to maybe get a book published out of this). I put that article back for you.


Good luck with the book pursuit, I would be excited for it's release, did you have any particular areas that you planned to delve deeper into that aren't listed in the articles available on the website?
   88. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 03, 2016 at 03:12 PM (#5187113)
It appears that you fixed the SQL problem, as I was able to run the individual 1930 season extrapolating for missing games.
This query matches the link in post 76 on the season summary page, so I can assume that the yearly summary page for WORL/WOPA figures are automatically extrapolating for missing games (which is what I was hoping for :)?

Do you have yearly table pages for post-season values as well?


My player, team, and league pages default to only include games for which I have play-by-play data. I just edited the League Player page so you can show player records either w/ or w/o missing games extrapolated - e.g., 1934

League postseason pages can be accessed from the "Find Individual League" link on my front page by entering the year and the letter "p". I'm not missing any postseason games - although I only have postseason data for seasons for which I have at least some regular season data (for both leagues - Retrosheet has released 1921 data only for the NL, so I haven't calculated postseason data for that season, since I have no regular-season AL data). Here's 1934 (note: you can also get to the postseason page through a link on the regular-season page for a given season).
   89. Bleed the Freak Posted: April 03, 2016 at 07:29 PM (#5187271)
Thanks Kiko and happy opening day to everybody!!!
   90. Bleed the Freak Posted: April 09, 2016 at 10:01 PM (#5192719)
Kiko and others, as I am watching baseball at the moment, I am thinking of how useful it is for a player on your team to work deep counts to tax a star pitcher.

When we evaluate the value of players, how much credit/debit should be awarded?
Taking 2005 as an example, upcoming candidate Bobby Abreu led the majors with 4.39 per/pa, while first time guys Vladimir Guerrero with 3.25 and Ivan Rodriguez with 3.33 were near the bottom of the list.

Kiko, I think this would fall outside of the 9 component categories that you measure?
I don't see how this is accounted for by the context neutral systems.
Maybe this is indirectly captured in the contextual value of players?

Any thoughts electorate/lurkers?

   91. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 12, 2016 at 08:48 PM (#5195129)
Kiko and others, as I am watching baseball at the moment, I am thinking of how useful it is for a player on your team to work deep counts to tax a star pitcher.

When we evaluate the value of players, how much credit/debit should be awarded?
Taking 2005 as an example, upcoming candidate Bobby Abreu led the majors with 4.39 per/pa, while first time guys Vladimir Guerrero with 3.25 and Ivan Rodriguez with 3.33 were near the bottom of the list.

Kiko, I think this would fall outside of the 9 component categories that you measure?


Bleed, it's an interesting question, and I certainly see where working counts has "value", but my system - especially the pWins that tie to team wins (but even the eWins, which are tied to pWins in the aggregate) - is a closed system. All value is accounted for somewhere. So, if you want to assign additional value to a player for "work[ing] deep counts" beyond the value that accrues to that player because of it (more walks, better BA/SLG on pitches they do swing at) you're taking that value from somebody else on the team. Which maybe you should - if, for example, by working deep counts, Abreu's teams got more PA in the middle of games against bottom-of-the-bullpen types, then maybe Abreu's teammates' offensive statistics are over-stated because they fattened up on lesser pitchers. But that would be (a) a pretty hard thing to determine - average quality of pitchers faced by team or by batter - and (b) a pretty hard thing to be able to point to a specific player(s) who should get the credit for that. If Abreu was the only guy on his team working counts, then, on the one hand, okay, it's easy enough to decide that he should get all of the credit for driving star pitchers out of games early, but, on the other hand, if Abreu is the only guy on the Phillies doing that, then it seems unlikely that it's going to have a huge effect - how many extra pitches can one batter really add to a pitcher's pitch count - maybe 4 or 5 at the top end, and that number would mean the pitcher must have faced Abreu at least 3 times, and the big benefit is knocking out a starting pitcher in the 4th or 5th inning, not in the 6th or 7th inning, when you can already go to your top 2-3 relievers. And if Abreu is just one of many Phillies doing it, then the benefit of it is spread out to more than just Abreu - and Abreu is presumably already benefiting in his raw stats from getting to face those lesser pitchers too. It seems to me like a lot of work going mostly around in circles in a way that's not going to end up making much difference.

I think the same issues of my system being a closed system (and I think almost all systems are basically closed systems, even if not as explicitly so as mine is) arise in a lot of other "soft" ways that players have value. Greg Maddux was supposedly a great pitching teammate, because he would help guys understand pitch sequencing and how to set batters up and that sort of thing. If that's true, the benefit of that is going to show up - in any system - in the pitching stats of Maddux's teammates. So, should we knock a half-win off of Maddux's teammates' WARs and give those WARs to Maddux?

Or, for that matter, any system of player valuation basically assumes no value from managers. Should we knock down Kris Bryant's and Anthony Rizzo's 2015 WAR because some of the quality of their performance came from Joe Maddon's managing?

For a projection system, it probably makes a certain amount of sense to try to make those kinds of adjustments (although even there, how much of Maddux's teaching can be expected to stick with a player even if he and Maddux are no longer teammates). I tend to think of the Hall of Merit as more a recognition of what happened - where the value of what happened should be put in context, certainly, but should be recognized as having happened.
   92. homerwannabee Posted: April 22, 2016 at 03:09 AM (#5202213)
In my opinion Vlad is the greatest free swinger perhaps of all time. He somehow was able to hit .318 while swinging for the fences. He was a nine time all star, and has an MVP, and finished in the top 5 four different times. I understand that sabermetrics have not been good to him, but going by the old measures of success. HR, Batting AVG, RBI,and hits, he actually comes out fairly well. His baseball card stats pop out at you.

Now combine that with the free swinging narrative, and you get a person who I believe deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Like I said. Best free swinging hitter in the history of the game.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9957 seconds
42 querie(s) executed