Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion

2020 (December 2019)—elect 4

Top 10 Returning Players
Luis Tiant (263), Todd Helton (251), Kenny Lofton (217), Andruw Jones (201), Ben Taylor (196), Jeff Kent (188), Johan Santana (176), Wally Schang (153), Sammy Sosa (148), Lance Berkman (135)

Newly eligible players

Player Name	HOFm	HOFs	WAR	WAR7	JAWS	Jpos
Derek Jeter	337	67	72.4	42.4	57.4	55
Bobby Abreu	95	54	60	41.6	50.8	56.8
Jason Giambi	108	44	50.5	42.2	46.4	54.7
Cliff Lee	72	30	43.5	39.8	41.7	61.7
Rafael Furcal	54	32	39.4	30.7	35.1	55
Eric Chavez	29	25	37.5	31.1	34.3	55.7
Josh Beckett	43	23	35.7	31.2	33.4	61.7
Brian Roberts	34	24	30.4	28.1	29.2	56.9
Alfonso Soriano	105	31	28.2	27.3	27.8	53.6
Paul Konerko	80	36	27.7	21.5	24.6	54.7
Carlos Pena	25	18	25.1	24.1	24.6	54.7
Chone Figgins	18	19	22.2	22.5	22.3	55.7
Marco Scutaro	11	19	22.1	20.9	21.5	55
Raul Ibanez	38	27	20.4	20.1	20.2	53.6
Brad Penny	23	11	19.1	21.5	20.3	61.7
Jason Bartlett	15	5	18.3	19.6	18.9	55
Adam Dunn	75	32	17.4	17.7	17.6	53.6
Lyle Overbay	12	13	16.8	16.7	16.7	54.7
J.J. Putz	25	17	13.1	12.9	13	32.7
Jose Valverde	51	13	11.5	12	11.7	32.7
Ryan Ludwick	13	14	11.2	13.5	12.4	56.8
Alex Gonzalez	11	19	9.2	12.8	11	55
Jamey Wright	10	2	9.1	10.1	9.6	32.7
Joe Saunders	10	3	8.6	10.1	9.3	61.7
Heath Bell	31	13	7.1	8.9	8	32.7
Nate McLouth	10	12	6.4	10.2	8.3	57.8
Kyle Farnsworth	22	4	6.2	9.3	7.8	32.7

we’re alternating “elect 3” and “elect 4” years

2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036-37, 2039, 2041 are elect 4

DL from MN Posted: January 23, 2019 at 01:21 PM | 229 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. Booey Posted: July 29, 2019 at 01:35 PM (#5866062)
   202. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 29, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5866068)
Hmmm, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Internet Explorer are not working for me, I'm familiar with your site and can get definitions on components elsewhere, but passing along for completeness sake.
   203. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 29, 2019 at 01:58 PM (#5866071)
Aah! I misunderstood your #198. Okay, yes, I'm seeing the errors you're getting. Thanks for pointing those out. I will fix them! Sorry about that. Please let me know if you see any other errors (I re-worked a LOT of files with this most recent release).
   204. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 29, 2019 at 04:58 PM (#5866126)
Hey, all! I've finally updated my Player won-lost records to incorporate Retrosheet's latest release. Here are details about the data currently available from Retrosheet (85 full seasons, including deduced games; 100 seasons with at least partial play-by-play data!).

Fantastic news and thanks for your yeoman's work on mining the data!

Have you had any gut checks on the impact of current eligibles?

Copying 2019 ballot submission, with latest numbers being unflattering from the doc on Ben Taylor's candidacy.

16. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 16, 2018 at 09:34 PM (#5798294)
I might as well move this to the Ballot Thread before I forget to (and FYI, that was an ordeal - the stupid Adidas thing hit about 4 times, then I had the problem of not being able to log in another 3 or 4 times; Ugh!). See comment #312 of the Discussion Thread for an expanded version of this. Let me know if I need to move any of that discussion over here to make this ballot official.

Here's my ballot.

1. Roy Halladay
2. Mariano Rivera
3. Cannonball Dick Redding
4. Tommy John
5. Ben Taylor
6. Wally Schang
7. Tommy Henrich
8. Dwight Gooden
9. Johnny Evers
10. Jorge Posada
11. Andy Pettitte
12. Johan Santana
13. Vern Stephens
14. Jeff Kent
15. Luis Tiant

First 11 out:

16. Don Newcombe
17. Urban Shocker
18. Orel Hershiser
19. Darryl Strawberry
20. Dave Concepcion
21. Bert Campaneris
22. Toby Harrah
23. Dizzy Dean
24. Andruw Jones
25. Gil Hodges
26. Lance Berkman

Other required disclosures:

Sammy Sosa - probably in my top 75 or so. Decent candidate. He looks much better in eWins (which are context-neutral) than pWins (which tie to team wins).

Kenny Lofton - he might sneak into my top 100. Baseball-Reference (and Fangraphs) overweight fielding in their WAR calculations. So, I tend to rate players with large fielding components to their WAR somewhat lower.

Buddy Bell - same story as Kenny Lofton but far more so. Honestly, he's not THAT much better than Harold Baines in my system - Baines was a better hitter, but Bell makes that up by playing third base and playing it very well. I think BB-Ref also has problems with their positional adjustments for 3B and SS in the 1970s (see my #'s 20-22 above).

Bobby Bonds - a step below Lofton (who's a step below Sosa, who's at least a step below Andruw Jones). My system doesn't like his fielding as much as BB-Ref.

Other debuts of note:

Roy Oswalt is probably in my top 30 or so.
Todd Helton ranks somewhere in the 100-125 range for me (between Lofton and Bonds). When you park-adjust his numbers, he just doesn't really distinguish himself from a bunch of other first basemen from this era. John Olerud, for example, shows up just ahead of Helton in my weighting system.
   205. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 29, 2019 at 05:21 PM (#5866134)
Have you had any gut checks on the impact of current eligibles?

Copying 2019 ballot submission, with latest numbers being unflattering from the doc on Ben Taylor's candidacy.

Hard to say exactly. I haven't really put together a revised prelim ballot. And it's hard to figure out exactly why some rankings changed. But a handful of first impressions.

Completely unrelated to my numbers, I do agree with Ben Taylor seems to have taken a bit of a hit. Somebody said "a lesser version of Eddie Murray". Now, I think highly of Eddie (he's my all-time favorite player and - trying to be unbiased - I probably view him as mid-tier HOM/HOF. But, that said, "a lesser version of Eddie Murray" could easily fall out of HOF/HOM consideration. I think the "he had no peak" argument I've heard against Murray is over-stated; he had a peak. But if you know his peak seasons down just a bit, then, yeah, he becomes a very peakless guy. Anyway, I had been expecting to slot Ben Taylor into an elect-me slot this year and now I'm hesitating.

Okay, on to my Player won-lost records. My stats continue to love Tommy John. You all are really missing the boat on him. Having elected Halladay and Rivera, I have John as the best eligible pitcher not in the Hall of Merit.

Vern Stephens, Jeff Kent, and Darryl Strawberry pop up higher than I was expecting them to. For Stephens, there's definitely the World War II issue at play. I think I'm also warming up more to Andruw Jones and Lance Berkman. Among the newly eligible, Jason Giambi also I think fits into this group. I've always had a preference for peak over career in my ballots and that's a bit more pronounced here in my first pass. That could be that I haven't quite optimized by WOPA vs. WORL weights with their new magnitudes.

Another guy who seems to have popped up higher into serious ballot consideration with this revision is Jack Clark. I'm not sure what to make of that yet.

We have more data on Urban Shocker and Kiki Cuyler and both of them seem to have benefited from that (and/or from my other changes). Retrosheet is still missing a lot of data in its earliest seasons, but extrapolating for missing data, I have Urban Shocker as the best player in 1919 not named Babe Ruth. That said, there's a LOT of extrapolation going on with Shocker that season (and in several other seasons). But he's certainly a guy who merits a long look.

Going the other direction, I'm becoming more open to the arguments against Posada (who I already dropped a bit in my final ballot last year than I think I had him the year before). If I had to guess right now, I'd guess he's going to fall off my ballot this year. But we'll see.
   206. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 29, 2019 at 06:08 PM (#5866158)
Much appreciated on the first impressions, planning to download the latest info and compare against what I had previously to see the personal biggest changes with your W-L records.
VERY busy with work and personal life, so I'm not sure how quickly, but looking forward consuming the new updates : )
   207. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 30, 2019 at 08:10 AM (#5866233)
The Wins and Losses like ok, but the OPA and ORL figures need to be re-calibrated on the season pages:

Once these are ready, will try to vet the new data, thanks!
   208. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM (#5866281)
Bleed, thanks for pointing out #207. Yeah, those numbers make no damn sense. Let me see if I can figure out what the hell I did wrong there.

EDIT: Okay, I think it's fixed. I needed to move a line lower in the program (like you care). Thanks for pointing that out, Bleed!
   209. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 02, 2019 at 10:26 AM (#5867644)
Kiko...In a different forum, I was trying to vouch for Andy Pettitte, noting that his B-R WAR is a low outlier compared with Baseball Gauge and your Win-Loss Records.

When I check today, I see Andy plummeted, and it looks like pitchers did in general...are you working out some bugs behind the scenes today?
Also looks like bat only guys have skyrocketed.

Thanks for your help.

   210. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 02, 2019 at 11:47 AM (#5867722)

Yeah, something weird is going on with my positional averages for pinch runners and pitchers starting in 1997 (which bleeds into pre-1997 numbers if you use multi-year positional averages). The only thing I can think of that ties to that timeline is that 1997 was the first season of inter-league play, so it must have something to do with that, although I can't figure out what could possibly be the problem (in my system, the league is defined by the league of the home team (or, more accurately, by whether the DH rule is in effect for the game) - so, starting in 1997, AL teams start playing some NL games and vice versa). I'm really, really hoping that I can figure this out and get it fixed this weekend. But I can't really promise when I'll get it fixed since I have to figure out how to fix it first.

Really sorry about that.

EDIT to add: If you set pitcher positional averages equal to 0.500 (the first pitcher option on any page where I give you the option to set positional averages - you have to also explicitly set the last two options equal to zero), that will "solve" the problem (for pitchers, not pinch runners, but screwing up pinch runners since 1997 is pretty damn trivial for a HOM debate). Doing that gives Andy Pettitte about 66 pWORL and 58 eWORL (which would be comparable to around 70 and 60 WAR, respectively).
   211. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 02, 2019 at 01:23 PM (#5867775)
Looks good now, thank you.

Default uber stat eligible leaders now...

1. Derek Jeter - 178.1
2. Vern Stephens - 131.7
3. Urban Shocker - 128.1
4. Tommy John - 128.1
5. Andy Pettitte - 124.5
6. Jeff Kent - 123.5
7. Darryl Strawberry - 121.6
8. Waite Hoyt - 121.4
9. Jason Giambi - 120.8
10. Kiki Cuyler - 120.0
11. Lance Berkman - 119.7
12. Herb Pennock - 119.4
13. Burleigh Grimes - 119.3
14. Andruw Jones - 119.1
15. Luis Tiant - 113.4
16. Jack Clark - 111.8
17. Ron Cey - 111.2
18. Amos Otis - 110.6
19. Gil Hodges - 110.3
20. George Foster - 110.2
21. Jorge Posada - 109.9

High vote getters:
Sammy Sosa - 105.0
Johan Santana - 99.1
Kenny Lofton - 86.4
Todd Helton - 85.0

   212. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 03, 2019 at 11:06 AM (#5867959)
I figured out and fixed the error in #210. Again, sorry about that. Please let me know if anybody finds anything else that looks weird and/or wrong. Thanks!
   213. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 04, 2019 at 01:15 PM (#5868178)
Here' the latest news on the Negro Leagues front. THE NLDB updated the other day, and it's a huge update. All my MLEs are now updated, and here's where you can find the latest MLE career lines.

A little bit of info on what's changed.

The biggest mover is Webster McDonald. We didn't have much early career info for him, and now we have a little bit in 1932. That's important because it extends his MLEable career back three years. It was also a fine season. We're suddenly showing him as a great pitcher who seems like a no-brainer. Well, not so fast. I'd prefer that we not jump to that or any conclusion yet despite having more than 1,000 MLEable innings for him. We are still missing several seasons of his seasons in the 1920s (ages 23, 24, 26, 27), and so far his twenties appear to have been better than his thirties when we have more data. A clinker of a year, especially at ages 23 and 24 could really change this view of him. Seriously, the jury is very much out on him.

Bill Byrd's case was also dinged a tiny bit in this update, so nothing helpful there. But Rosie Davis continues to look like someone we should be watching as more of a prime/career kind of candidate. Roy Welmaker who had been gaining via previous updates took a step back this time, and isn't looking as strong now.

Ben Taylor lost a tiny bit thanks to new 1922 numbers that aren't great. They look good superficially thanks to a high AVG, but his isolated walks and power are good not great. So there's not much I can say to help (or hurt) his cause.

Heavy Johnson and Hurley McNair both took small steps backwards. The haul of information didn't include much on Heavy and just a little more on Hurley. In neither case did we get anything definitive, but what we got isn't helping them step forward.

A big gainer was Newt Allen. He's not yet a strong candidate, but he's now over 50 MLE WAR. He's a below average hitter, slightly above average runner, and all-time amazing fielder. I wouldn't take the 246 rField too literally. It's well out of scale. But think of him as one of the very best defenders in the Negro Leagues' history.

Ray Dandridge neither gained nor lost any ground. We got some more information about Silvio Garcia, including some actual fielding data. Sadly, we only have a total of 43 fielding games for him, so while his defense so far looks good, it's too little to judge him as anything other than average for MLE reasons.

Sam Bankhead is someone we might want to talk about a bit. He's a long career shortstop with slightly positive batting (+29), great Baserunning (+42), and very good defense (+79). It adds up to 32 WAA and 68 WAR thanks to the positional runs. The reason we should talk about him is that (a) he's got the numbers of a good candidate, but (b) it's worth discussing whether we trust the MLE Baserunning and fielding numbers as much as the hitting numbers and what that means to his candidacy.

BTW: Candidate Bus Clarkson was not affected at all by this update, so there's nothing additional to share about him.
   214. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 05, 2019 at 08:01 PM (#5868573)
 212. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 03, 2019 at 11:06 AM (#5867959)
I figured out and fixed the error in #210. Again, sorry about that. Please let me know if anybody finds anything else that looks weird and/or wrong. Thanks!

I keep playing around with the weighted leaders as I want a leaderboard ~1499 players deep instead of the default 500, but no matter what I try, I get wonky results.

Link to a trial, I cut off in the middle to keep the thread page from expanding to far:;=.25&w5=0&wl=0&ws;=.75&p0=0.333333333333&p1=0.333333333333&p2=0.333333333333&p=.3333&e=.6666666&w=0&a=1.5&r=1&na=0&nr=0&c=1.15&b1=1&b2=1&b3=1&ss=1&

What do I need to tweak in this?
Parameters I was aiming at:
Trying to weight 1 year 25%, 9 years 75%, p wins 33.3%, e wins 66.6%, zeroing out below replacement seasons, extrapolating missing games, neutralizing scheduled to 162 games, top 1499 results.

Thank you :)
   215. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 05, 2019 at 11:26 PM (#5868646)
Jeeze! I'm sorry. I can't believe how many of these little things are popping up that I never noticed. I had a typo where I was double-counting the weight on "long-run" positional averages and not including the 9-year (the two errors cancelled out if I gave those two things the same weight, which apparently I ALWAYS did when I was testing this).

Beyond that, Bleed, I don't know if this was just a typo in your copying this or if this is an error in your link. But the link you have in #214 has three typos in it. There are two random semi-colons that don't belong (splitting up "w0=" and "ws=") and what should say ">=162" says ">=162". If I fix those things, I get a set of numbers which, having corrected the typo I mentioned in the first paragraph, look pretty reasonable to me. It's a really, really complicated query, so I can't SWEAR there isn't anything else wrong with it. But as far as I know, things should hopefully work now.

Really, really sorry.

   216. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 06, 2019 at 11:14 AM (#5868714)
Bleed, I just noticed I made a typo in pointing out one of the typos in #214 - it should say "what should say '>=162' says '>=162'". And again, really sorry about all of these problems.
   217. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 06, 2019 at 12:08 PM (#5868753)
Worked like a charm, thanks : )

The tweaked ratings now, fellas we should put in our consideration set (excludes any MLE bonuses)...

1. Derek Jeter - 163.7
2. Tommy John - 127.8
3. Vern Stephens - 127.5
4. Andy Pettitte - 126.4
5. Andruw Jones - 121.0
6. Jeff Kent - 119.6
7. Lance Berkman - 119.4
8. Indian Bob Johnson - 118.8
9. Darryl Strawberry - 117.7
10. Jason Giambi - 117.1
11. Urban Shocker - 116.7
12. Jack Clark - 114.1
13. Kiki Cuyler - 114.1
14. Waite Hoyt - 113.9
15. Gil Hodges - 112.5
16. Toby Harrah - 112.2
17. Jorge Posada - 111.3
18. Luis Tiant - 110.9
19. Herb Pennock - 110.7
20. Sammy Sosa - 109.3
21. David Wells - 107.5
22. Roy Oswalt - 107.3
23. Burleigh Grimes - 106.3
24. Schoolboy Rowe - 106.2
25. Ron Cey - 105.9
26. Tony Perez - 105.5
27. George Foster - 105.4
28. Tony Lazzeri - 105.1
29. Bert Campaneris - 104.8
30. Orel Hershiser - 103.6

Returnees with 3 or more votes in 2019 balloting:
Johan Santana - 101.9
Bobby Bonds - 99.2
Sal Bando - 97.1
Kevin Appier - 92.5
Tommy Bridges - 89.4
Todd Helton - 88.7
Kenny Lofton - 88.6
Bucky Walters - 88.4
Thurman Munson - 79.3
Don Newcombe - 68.6
Phil Rizzuto - 68.2
Buddy Bell - 67.0

Kiko, have pitchers become too devalued in this structure, and do you give any adjustment to catchers?
I would expect Santana to feature near the top of this list.
Other catcher ratings: Ernie Lombardi 92.6, Gene Tenace 92.5, Darrell Porter 89.8, then Thurman.
   218. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 06, 2019 at 12:17 PM (#5868763)
Ran out of time to edit post, regarding Santana, 11 pitchers rank ahead of him, maybe this is a case of realistically placing a greater weight on WOPA versus WORL.
Same issue hits Dwight Gooden (101.2), Sandy Koufax (95.5!) and Dizzy Dean (94.5).
   219. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 06, 2019 at 01:27 PM (#5868816)
Kiko, have pitchers become too devalued in this structure, and do you give any adjustment to catchers? I would expect Santana to feature near the top of this list.

My default gives catchers a 15% boost (the c=1.15 in your link in #214), which is lower than I've done in the past. I don't evaluate catchers for pitch calling or pitch framing or anything like that. Which leaves catchers with quite a bit less fielding value than at other positions (stolen bases aren't THAT important - and catchers share responsibility for those with pitchers anyway - and catchers are responsible for very few outs on balls in play). I liked an idea that I think DL had a page or two ago of double-counting catcher fielding. The problem I have with that is that there's no good reason to think that the part of fielding that I AM capturing (which is overwhelmingly throwing arm / ability to control the running game) is particularly strongly correlated with the part of fielding that I'm missing - game-calling, pitch framing, what have you (Mike Piazza is the obvious counter-example here; all indications are that he was a fine defensive catcher except for the fact that he couldn't throw out a basestealer to save his life).

Anyway, I could certainly see boosting catchers more than 15%. Using my default weights, I'm getting Yogi Berra as my top-ranked catcher at #26 overall with Johnny Bench at #32 and Mike Piazza at #43 (Carlton Fisk is #49, so I have 4 catchers in my top 50). If somebody wanted to argue that Berra and/or Bench should be in the top 15-20 overall, I'm not sure that I'd argue too strongly.

I don't think that pitchers have become any less valued than they were with my old numbers - maybe a little bit. Clemens and Maddux are now the top 2 pitchers (well, they've always been my top 2 pitchers) at #9 and #10 overall. I think they used to be closer to top-5, although some of that is we've added enough of Babe Ruth's career that he's shot up to #1 - and going back farther, Mel Ott, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams have also been steadily climbing in my stat as we get more and better data on their careers. Using my default weights, I have 5 pitchers in my top 20 (add Grove, Spahn, and Randy Johnson) and 7 in my top 30 (Seaver, Pedro). Of course, you can feel free to give pitchers a bit of a boost if you'd like (the sp=1&rp=1 in the link in #214).

As to Johan Santana, I think that my new uber-leaders structure probably does "devalue" him specifically by my having removed wins over star (WO*) as an option. Johan Santana's Hall-of-Fame case is almost precisely Sandy Koufax's case. Here's a comparison of the two using my default uber-weights. Koufax has two seasons (1963, 1965) better than any of Santana's seasons but Santana has a 6-7 year run as an elite pitcher versus 4-6 years for Koufax. Using my default weights, that puts Santana at #189 and Koufax at #206. Which, given that I have 100 years of data, at 2 HOMers per season would put both of them right around the in/out line. I think the reality is more like 3 HOM/HOFers per season, so top 200 of the past 100 years would likely get you in (assuming you just populated your HOM/HOF all at once; it's low enough that the indiosyncracies of year-by-year voting might affect one's admission).

My system does prefer pitchers who were less stars but more just solidly above average for longer - your Tommy John, Andy Pettitte, David Wells types - but I think that's always been true. I think it's one of the more interesting conclusions of my system: above-average starting pitching is extraordinarily helpful to winning baseball games (as a Cubs fan, I'd say the 2016 Cubs - and the 2017-19 Cubs to a lesser extent - are an excellent example of this).

EDIT: Re: your add-on in #218, Gooden, Koufax, and Dean are also hit by my having abandoned WO*. Which I go back and forth on. Basically, with the new weight on WOPA, the WO* values became much larger and I was worried about how sensitive it would therefore be to the weights people (including me) might be inclined to choose for it. But I do like the idea of giving some level of extra credit to Koufax's 1963, 1965, 1966 seasons and Gooden's 1985 season, et al.

   220. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 06, 2019 at 01:59 PM (#5868832)
You can actually approximate WO* using my weights. My idea for WO* was that the baseline for it was as far above average as replacement level is below average. So, WO* = WOPA - (WORL - WOPA), which, if you work through the math, WO* = 2*WOPA - WORL. My uber-weights pages will actually work with negative weights - although, be very, very careful about using negative weights. Anyway, if you leave everything else alone (so, 50% each pWins/eWins, including postseason, extrapolate games, +15% boost for catchers, et al.), zero out negative WOPA and WORL, and give them weights of 2 and -1, this is the list you get. Note, this won't zero out negative WO* (for seasons with positive WOPA and WORL). But, honestly, that list makes a lot of sense in terms of what I was trying to value with WO*.

Ruth and Bonds and still #1/2 - Ruth and Bonds are going to ALWAYS be #1/2, at least until we get more data for Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, and Cy Young. But Mickey Mantle slides up to #3. Jimmie Foxx slides into the top 10; Hank Aaron slides out. My top 3 catchers are now grouped at #24/25/26. Clayton Kershaw in #28; Mike Trout is #32 (neither of them have any average-ish but not really elite seasons that will show up negative here and push them back down yet). And, re: #217-#219, Johan Santana is #78; Sandy Koufax is #103; Dizzy Dean is #111; Dwight Gooden is #166 (he's being hurt here by my inability to zero out negative WO*). Whereas Tommy John is #275 - interestingly, he's just ahead of three consecutive Hall-of-Famers - Early Wynn, Waite Hoyt, and Paul Molitor. All of which makes sense: Wynn and Molitor weren't superstars for very long, they were just somewhere between pretty good and really good for a really long time.

Anyway, I'd be cautious giving negative weights. And I wouldn't use WO* as my sole measure anyway. But if you wanted to try to introduce a little bit of the idea behind WO* back into my uber-stat page, you can kind of do so.

Here's the same weights applied only to players eligible for the 2020 Hall-of-Merit ballot (with some adjustments for WW2 and segregation). Johan Santana is #3. Tommy John is #92.
   221. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 06, 2019 at 02:52 PM (#5868865)
My system does prefer pitchers who were less stars but more just solidly above average for longer your Tommy JohnAndy PettitteDavid Wells types but I think that's always been true. 

The evolution had been away from career to peakier types, but this was mostly stripped away with the latest round.
I'd note that Orel Hershiser and Jim Kaat (now 97.6) have taken some hits over time.

A key stat I pulled before the latest updates but after the 2018 corrections:
Tommy John - 156.7
Dizzy Dean - 156.5
Dwight Gooden - 148.7
Johan Santana - 140.7
Andy Pettitte - 139.4
Orel Hershiser - 133.7
Jim Kaat - 116.9
David Wells - 112.3

2017-2018 version:
Tommy John - 184.1
Andy Pettitte - 168.8
Dwight Gooden - 168.1
Johan Santana - 164.4
Dizzy Dean - 160.4
Orel Hershiser - 156.8
Jim Kaat - 136.3
David Wells - 132.9

2016-2017 flavor:
Tommy John - 191.7
Andy Pettitte - 159.5
Dizzy Dean - 158.2
Dwight Gooden - 155.1
Orel Hershiser - 150.3
Johan Santana - 143.1
Jim Kaat - 142.5
David Wells - 134.8

Early 2016:
Tommy John - 80.2
Andy Pettitte - 69.7
Jim Kaat - 65.5
Orel Hershiser - 64.3
David Wells - 60.8
Dwight Gooden - 55.0
Johan Santana - 51.8
Dizzy Dean - 49.0
   222. Chris Fluit Posted: August 06, 2019 at 05:56 PM (#5868925)
practice post
   223. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 07, 2019 at 10:54 PM (#5869400)
Following up on my discussion with Bleed (#214 - #220), I put WO* back as an option in my HOM Ballot page (it's not on my "Uber-Stats" page that you can get to by clicking through various links on my website; just the special Hall-of-Merit version that's linked in this sentence). The default weight on WO* there is zero (as it also is for Wins) but you can feel free to use your own weight.

As a reminder, WO* is Wins Over Star, where "Star Level" is set exactly as far above average as replacement level is set below average (one standard deviation). The idea being that merely being average or even a little bit above average doesn't make one a "star" and being in the HOM or HOF is about being a "star" not just being pretty good for a long time. I'm not taking a position on that view; just explaining that I put WO* back to let people express that view using my statistic if they were so inclined.

In the past, I've tried to set my default weight so that the N-th best value in wins is the same as the N-th best value in WOPA, WORL, and WO* - the idea being I'm open-minded about HOW a player earned his HOM qualifications, although I think the effect has been a somewhat peak-heavy ballot. That will vary depending on your choice of N, but it looks like that would imply weights of something like .18, 1.7, 1.0, and 6.0 for wins, WOPA, WORL, and WO*, respectively, which would produce this as a 2020 Hall-of-Merit ballot (which really hurts my long-time favorite Tommy John - he's a WOPA/WORL guy much more than a WO* guy). Personally, I'm probably going to bump down the weight on WO* below that, although I'll probably end up giving it some weight (so, somewhere between 0 and 6). But that's just me. Give it whatever weight you'd like (although I would strongly suggest zeroing out negative WO* values - otherwise, you're reducing guys' HOM case not just for below-replacement or below-average seasons but for seasons that were above average, just not ENOUGH above average) (personally, I zero out all negative values - my view is a player's HOF/HOM case cannot get worse over time, but, again, that's just me).

Also, as a reminder, you can now choose how positional averages are calculated - one-year, 9-year, or long-run (or, I let you just use .500 for everybody, although I think doing so is probably a mistake), or a weighted average of these. My default is equal weights to 1-year, 9-year, and long-run (which is currently 100-year averages, 1919 - 2018). Personally, I still prefer one-year positional averages and will probably build my ballot around that, but that's personal preference and I've tried to let people make their own choices about the subjective stuff as much as possible.

And please let me know if anything you try to do looks wonky. I'm not aware of any errors, but that doesn't mean they aren't still out there. Thanks!
   224. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 09, 2019 at 03:54 PM (#5869934)
Thanks for sharing Kiko, can you also let WO* be an option for the default UBER stat, I annually or more frequently like to review my personal hall and I fold in your work here.
I'm looking to tweak your default for a bit more peak version, much appreciated : )
   225. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 09, 2019 at 06:39 PM (#5869992)
Thanks for the updates Doc, as a matter of record, sharing eligible players WAR+WAA and data completeness score per your 7-31 listing:

Webster McDonald - 106.5 / 100
Sam Bankhead - 99.9 / 104
Carlos Moran 3B - 97.6 / 99 - CF - 61.6 / 96
Heavy Johnson - 96.2 / 76
Hurley McNair - 95.2 / 86
Marvin Williams - 94.8 / 86
Conrado Marrero - 93.3 / 89
Roosevelt Davis - 90.4 / 88
Carl Glass - 90.2 / 46
Silvio Garcia - 89.4 / 91
Lazaro Salazar - 86.9 / 105
George Scales - 85.7 / 109
Ben Taylor - 85.6 / 128 - ouch
Ray Dandridge - 84.6 / 142
Newt Allen - 84.5 / 92
Don Newcombe - 83.3 / 142 - no war credit
Roy Welmaker - 83.0 / 110 - no war credit
Dave Barnhill - 82.7 / 98
Bunny Serrell - 82.4 / 107
Bus Clarkson - 82.1 / 115 - no war credit
   226. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 11, 2019 at 11:51 PM (#5870439)
Thanks for sharing Kiko, can you also let WO* be an option for the default UBER stat, I annually or more frequently like to review my personal hall and I fold in your work here.
I'm looking to tweak your default for a bit more peak version, much appreciated : )

Done. I also expanded my write-up of my uber-stat options which I hope folks here will find helpful - here.
   227. Esteban Rivera Posted: August 30, 2019 at 01:45 PM (#5875655)
Thanks to both Kiko and Dr. Chaleeko keep providing and adjusting. I'll dive into these adjustments and see how they change the evaluations I've been doing for my ballot.

A question for Dr. Chaleeko about the MLE's. I did a summary of the three values I downloaded from your site (original MLEs, the June adjustments and the most recent August adjustments). The main adjustments you did in June for batters were related mainly to the elimination of the length of schedule buffer, changes in the park factors and the strength of schedule adjustments used, and the use of new moving average routines. You had previously mentioned in this thread (back in the dialogue about the length of schedule buffer and its impact) that roughly it would be about a -13.2% adjustment to the initial MLEs (granted that it would vary on a case by case basis how much the adjustment would be). In the final adjustments not everybody went down, some went up. I'm guessing this is likely due to a combination of the changes in park factor, strength of schedule and rolling averages. Is this correct? Do the changes in park factors impact fielding in the MLEs?

The reason I ask is because I find it interesting seeing who went up and trying to be sure of why (an example being Louis Santop going up while most of the catchers were adjusted down or remained relatively steady).

NAME POS WAR original WAR June adj. WAR August adj.
GIBSON, JOSH C 92.4 85.3 84.1
MACKEY, BIZ C 58.3 51.4 52.6
CAMPANELLA, ROY C 53.0 50.1 50.1
TROUPPE, QUINCY C 52.5 46.9 45.8
SANTOP, LOUIS C 48.9 52.8 52.8
CASH, BILL C 37.7 36.4 36.4
GARCIA, REGINO C 35.2 35.8 35.8
HOWARD, ELSTON C 32.8 32.7 32.7
WILEY, DOC C 31.5 27.2 27.0
DUKES, TOMMIE C 29.3 25.6 25.4
GREENE, JOE C 24.1 23.4 23.4
PETWAY, BRUCE C 19.9 23.0 23.0

Or how most second basemen that are mainly minor league or MLB stats in their datasets (such as Jackie Robinson, Marvin Williams and Jim Gilliam) show increases (where I would have assumed the stated adjustments would have had less of an impact on them).
   228. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 03, 2019 at 08:25 PM (#5876569)
Esteban, you are right that it’s the combination of everything that really makes the most difference. The reason why the guys who spent less time in the NGLs went up is most likely that they got more emphasis on their full-year seasons in the new system of averaging.
   229. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 20, 2019 at 02:38 PM (#5892340)
Okay, I have completed a project that I hinted at a couple of times and which segues perfectly from the conversation started by Esteban Rivera in #118 here. I have modified my website so that you can choose your own positional averages in evaluating my Player won-lost records. Not literally, typing in a different number for every position for every year, but there are four options: 0.500, 1-year avgs, 9-year avgs, and long-run avgs, and you can do a weighted average of any combination of those. I also allow three options for pitching: 0.500, starters and relievers different based on comparing all starters to all relievers, and starters and relievers different based at looking only at pitchers who did both. A very brief explanation is here. Options for picking your weights should be near the top of any page which displays or uses positional averages.

I think I've updated everything except for some of the leader pages and I tried to set everything up so that once you choose a set of weights, they'll transfer with you between pages (i.e., if you pick a set of weights for a player, those weights will stay in effect if you click on one of his teams or if you compare him to another player; the weights will revert back to normal if you go back to my homepage). Please let me know if you see any problems, though; it was a lot to update and it's possible that I missed something.

I've also written a 50-page essay(*) that looks at positional averages and talks about some other factors in using my Player won-lost records to compare players. This is a PDF (I thought that might be easier to download and read off-line; also, it has a bunch of graphs and I'm not sure how best to do graphs in HTML) and can be found here.

(*) - I don't know if "essay" is the right word. It's shorter than a book but longer than an article. The term "treatise" seemed pretentious. In terms of length/content, it's basically a chapter of a book, but that seems like a weird thing to call it since it's not part of a larger book (yet).

Finally, here's a special version of my "Uber-Stats" page that can be used for Hall-of-Merit voting - the main advantage here is that it excludes anybody who's ineligible (either because they're already in the Hall of Merit or because they haven't been retired long enough). I would suggest reading the 50-page PDF to better understand how you might want to use this, but feel free to just type in some numbers and see what pops out.

The above quote was a post of mine back on February 13th. Since then, I've re-worked the way I calculate positional averages (so that they are now on the same scale as BB-Ref, Fangraphs, et al.). There has also been a Retrosheet data release in June (1919-33 partial data, 1934-2018 full play-by-play). So, I have revised the "essay" mentioned in the above quote to reflect both of these facts. It's now 53 pages and can be found here.

I also wanted to re-share the link in the last paragraph there (it was originally on the word "here's"), which lets you construct a Hall of Merit ballot using my Player won-lost records - although, caveat: this will only include players for whom Retrosheet has released play-by-play data, so no Negro Leaguers or pre-1919 players. Anyway, that link is here. It also won't add non-MLB credit (e.g., WW2) - although it will discount WW2 MLB play (and pre-integration play) if desired.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.5141 seconds
41 querie(s) executed