You all may wish to argue about true value but if Santo had played for any other team in the National League then we would not be having this discussion at all.

Or he would have adapted his game to that stadium.

I understand the concept of marginal runs. I just don't buy it

Is that a problem with the concept or a deficit on you part?

I mean, I sometimes think that Szymborski is too snarky, too neosabe, and could probably answer his emails once in a while but I never attack him like that.

Judas priest, that looked like RETARDO going after Nieporent.

Sorry guys, dzop threw me off there.

Resume talking about Santo and Keller and whoever.

What is dzop's beef with Szymborski?

I'm genuinely wondering that myself. I can understand why Kevin and Retardo would have personal issues with me, but I honestly don't remember having any problems with Dzop.

Maybe I can get him to be my blood enemy. Everyone needs a nemesis.

I freely admit to being too snarky at times, but too neosabe? I project defense in numberless tiers!

I'm genuinely wondering that myself. I can understand why Kevin and Retardo would have personal issues with me, but I honestly don't remember having any problems with Dzop.

I thought his first note made it pretty clear it's about the vowels. There's no reasoning with "sometimes Y" fanatics.

I ask this all the time, but why are we listening to Dimino? What does he know about the HoF?

Geez Dan, I distinctly remember you joining the Red Sox fans in mocking me in '04 on IRC during The Great Horribleness. I was bedridden with pneumonia. Some things, you don't forget.

If I'm mistaken, then I retract my vitriol.


As for my right-center counterbalancing to the lefty groupthink, I'm 'fraid I wouldn't be much of a help these days. I'm an Obamacon; I donated my $20 to his campaign and everything. I didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.

I thought his first note made it pretty clear it's about the vowels. There's no reasoning with "sometimes Y" fanatics.

If you knew my last name, you'd understand that this is highly amusing. The first four letters are consonants.

I also don't see how to exclude Dick Allen from the HOF. I could see if he was a borderline candidate, but he's basically a better Albert Belle with a longer career.

All right! We're back to where I came in. Case against Allen - short career, lots of partial seasons and injuries, not overly impressive raw totals for a 1B (1099/351/1119, .292 BA). That's enough to keep most guys out of the Hall. Add a reputation (deserved or undeserved, I have no idea) as one of the truly great ######## to play the game, and he's done.

Allen looks great on rate stats, and a lot of advanced metrics. He doesn't look so good when he's being voted on by a bunch of guys who have bigger raw totals than he does, and who couldn't care less about EQA, OPS+, VORP, and so on. (EDIT: And may or may not think he's an #######.)

Geez Dan, I distinctly remember you joining the Red Sox fans in mocking me in '04 on IRC during The Great Horribleness. I was bedridden with pneumonia. Some things, you don't forget.

I don't think I did. Sarcasm? Snarkiness? That's me. But taunting someone for the performance of their favorite team? That doesn't sound like me, unless you're Bill Bavasi or Ned Colletti.

I that case, Dan, I retract my above comments. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and I use your ZIPS data to assist my fantasy drafting every year.

(reads dzop/szym exchange)
My brain hurts.

I that case, Dan, I retract my above comments. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and I use your ZIPS data to assist my fantasy drafting every year.

I still admit to being a bit confused though. I'm going to find those HCO IRC logs from that year and see if I can find what you're referring to.

Again, I don't think I taunted you in 2004 because it seems out of character, but I think I would remember everyone making fun of me for taunting the Yankees if I had, considering I'm an Orioles fan and they haven't been .500 since 1997.

I didn't know you were dzop at first - when I had that reaction from you (I didn't check your ID in the database), I assumed that you were someone who just popped in to troll, so I'm sorry I tried to play with you.

I mean, it was 4 years ago, and I was running a 102 fever and had lost a substantial portion of my lung capacity. It wouldn't surprise me if I made a mistake.

This reminds me of school, when two kids would get into a big fistfight one day and would become BFFs the next...

I mean, it was 4 years ago, and I was running a 102 fever and had lost a substantial portion of my lung capacity. It wouldn't surprise me if I made a mistake.

Which might make one question berating and cursing someone before they do it and not in retrospect, but hey, I just called Mike Leach a fat #### gimmick coach who can suck a #### for doing something it turns out he only kind of did, so I'm there with you. #### Dan!

My brain hurts.

Isn't that what they refer to as phantom pain syndrome?

/rimshot

Dan, I think all of this must have been a case of, how shall we say it, some missing medications...

But I am more amused to discover that anyone searching for the reason why you were ambushed would suggest that it was because you were a "neo-sabe." (I wish these people would at least spell the darned term correctly. It has a hyphen for a <u>reason</u>!!) Take it from the guy who invented the term, folks: Dan is not a "neo."

Ryan Jones: OPS+ is not hard to grasp, even for sportswriters. I'm pretty sure Steve T. is correct in his view that Allen's off-field rep is the key issue barring his enshrinement, not the items you mention. Those are simply the excuses they give.

It would be fitting if the Vets could put Allen and Santo in at the same time, before either of them are no longer with us. But the chances of that happening are less likely than, say, electing a black man to the White House. Hmmm...

Don Malcolm, as far as I know, there are relatively few sportswriters on the VC. I have no doubt that his off-field rep was a significant factor in them denying him enshrinement through the BBWAA voting, but they really don't have any direct influence over the VC voting, which is what I thought we were talking about. As to whether the BBWAA should have voted him in when he first became eligible for his on-field performance, I have no idea. Personally, I'd say no, but that has more to do with my personal leanings toward career over peak value, and I could understand why others would disagree, and I could probably be convinced otherwise too.

As to the Santo thing, I have no idea as to why the VC seems determined to keep him (and everyone else) out.

Don Malcolm Posted: December 09, 2008 at 12:31 AM (#3023576)
Dan, I think all of this must have been a case of, how shall we say it, some missing medications...

Don Malcolm implying that anyone is in need of psychiatric meds is a little rich, don't you think? Wasn't there a time back in the late 90's when any budding sabermave worth his salt was the victim of a Don Malcolm Insult(TM)? This is practically a badge of honor.

But unfortunately, sir, I am depressingly sane except for an irrational and highly destructive love of the Volnays of Michael Lafarge and the Marquis d'Angerville. But we all have our vices.

But I am more amused to discover that anyone searching for the reason why you were ambushed would suggest that it was because you were a "neo-sabe." (I wish these people would at least spell the darned term correctly.

Don, I appreciate you popping up to defend me, but Jon's just tweaking me a little.

It has a hyphen for a reason!!) Take it from the guy who invented the term, folks: Dan is not a "neo."

Don, IIRC, originally coined neo-sabe as "The PR approach to baseball research" so I think I'm OK there as I'm pretty lousy at plugging my work.

Ryan: A study of what the Vets have done in the past, and how that fits (or should fit...) into the HoF selection process, tends to get obscured due the Frisch fiasco. Their job has primarily been to fix the omissions and "slipped-through-the-crack" players, so that a) the HoF is not ridiculously exclusive and b) there's more consistent interest in the institution because it is doing something noteworthy every year. Pardon me if any of this seems excessively obvious to you or anyone else...

That structure worked reasonably well until the Vets' most recent incarnation (the "Frisch era" excepted). Now, with essentially <u>two</u> Vets Committees, we may not see a "post-1943 player" inducted for a long time. There are simply too many members on that committee (composed as it is of living HoFers, all with ties to a personal cadre of cronies and acolytes, including BB-WAA types) to reach a consensus. Gordon made it because twelve members have enough intimacy in the selection process to get something done.

Bill James was on to something when he suggested that the fans have a voice in the selection process. I don't see his idea working for the "front-door" process, but it seems promising for the Vets. Some combination of fans, statistics folks, and the HoF members has a chance to make the "side-door" process return to something closer to how it worked prior to Frisch.

Zoperific: You are clearly confusing me with your evil twin. All that excessive tannin you've ingested has likely produced a pernicious macroglobular sludge that, as you've already demonstrated, has clouded your memory centers. And, alas, such a rot is clearly not a noble one...methinks you'd best go cold turkey on the Volnay and start mainlining Chateau Yquem. An ongoing therapeutic dosage of residual sugar will (eventually) make you just as sweet as I am.

Dan: Was I defending you? You had your chance to become a "neo," and you blew it!!! :-)

You had your chance to become a "neo," and you blew it!!! :-)

I'm old school second-wave!

That structure worked reasonably well until the Vets' most recent incarnation (the "Frisch era" excepted). Now, with essentially two Vets Committees

Actually, it's four: 1) 1876-1942; 2) 1943-onward, 3) managers & umpires, 4) execs and pioneers. Three of them actually elect people.

we may not see a "post-1943 player" inducted for a long time. There are simply too many members on that committee (composed as it is of living HoFers, all with ties to a personal cadre of cronies and acolytes, including BB-WAA types) to reach a consensus.

The structure screws it up, but I think they'll keep tweaking its rules until it occassionally starts electing some. We may see only a smattered elected from them, though.

Dzop? Malcolm? It's like a freaking country bear jamberoo in here.

Jeff: Careful, now, ye of the eight separate BTF identities...you might simply be hallucinating, ya know. You'll try to come back to this thread for verification, and...POOF!

Dag: Thanks for the corrections/clarifications. I hope you're right about the tweaking, but it's going to take a concerted, structured effort to make it work, IMO.

Don, IIRC, originally coined neo-sabe as "The PR approach to baseball research" so I think I'm OK there as I'm pretty lousy at plugging my work.

That's the defintion? I always thought that neo-sabe meant a few things. Examples:

1. Rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism.

2. Looking at the numbers without regard to in-game context.

3. An almost Hollywood level worship of youth over experience.

4. A haughty disdain of front office types.

5. Lots of Simpsons references.

IOW, analyzing baseball from the viewpoint of Baseball Prospectus circa 2000. I've been misusung the term for years. My apologies.

If you knew my last name, you'd understand that this is highly amusing. The first four letters are consonants.

Mike Schmidt? Bake McBride? Mr. Mxyzptlk?

Krvda

Plus, I might've learned the meaning of neo-sabermetrics years ago if Don showed up more often. I don't regret many things, but I do regret missing the USENET days.

Dag: Thanks for the corrections/clarifications. I hope you're right about the tweaking, but it's going to take a concerted, structured effort to make it work, IMO.

That's what worries me - they suck at this.

WRT Reynolds/Raschi/Lopat, this question:

What's the latest word on the Yankee defense in that era?

can be answered with this word: Outstanding.

-- MWE

I had a conversation with Dan the Mediocre and some others about extreme splits. IIRC, ceteris paribus, a batter who is consistent is more valuable because the wins you gain from better hitting at home (or whatever the splits is) don't offset the poorer performance on the road.

I'm not a statistician, but I played around with some stats of Red Sox players and came to this conclusion. I may still have the spreadsheet at home, but I did this on a computer that I gave to my brother. I spent my lunch hour trying to find a thread on this, but had no luck.

Case against Allen - short career, lots of partial seasons and injuries, not overly impressive raw totals for a 1B (1099/351/1119, .292 BA). That's enough to keep most guys out of the Hall. Add a reputation (deserved or undeserved, I have no idea) as one of the truly great ######## to play the game, and he's done.

He has a short career for a HOFer but not dramatically short.

It seems a tad unfair to compare Allen just to 1B, seeing as his time at 1B is less than 50% of his career. And while those R/HR/RBI numbers might look a bit low by today's standards, he's a monstrous peak candidate. I'm not suggesting that he should be considered a pure 3B, but he deserves at least some credit for the 5700+ innings he was stationed there.

Allen looks great on rate stats, and a lot of advanced metrics. He doesn't look so good when he's being voted on by a bunch of guys who have bigger raw totals than he does, and who couldn't care less about EQA, OPS+, VORP, and so on.

Not to mention that he struck out a ton, and a lot of his offensive value came from the walk. I completely understand why the voters aren't putting him in. I just don't see how it's reasonable to think that way. The only way to do it is to have a very distorted weighting of the statistical record, where everything is rounded in the negative direction (like comparing to 1B, ignoring walks, overcounting K, etc.)

I can buy into his character being an issue, but not so much as to overcome that peak, unless there's a separate standard for players named Dick Allen.

I freely admit to being too snarky at times, but too neosabe? I project defense in numberless tiers!

Numberless defensive tiers is my favourite thing about Dan.

What's the latest word on the Yankee defense in that era?

can be answered with this word: Outstanding.

-- MWE

It was outstanding after that era as well.
Which brings me to my Father's favorite player, the supersub to end all supersubs, a man who was well above average defensively at 3b, 2B and SS, thereby allowing Stengel the flexibility to platoon to his heart's content, Gil Mc whose HOF case I will now commence to shill for...

or not, just can't do it...

It was outstanding after that era as well.

Yep. Too little is made of the Yankee fielding during the Stengel era, but it was (IMO) probably the #1 reason for the team's success.

Stengel was also one of the early managers to make use of a true relief ace - one guy who would take ALL of the high-leverage situations. It was usually someone different every year, but it was a fairly consistent pattern with him to rely on one guy when the chips were down. That was highly unusual in the AL of that era; true relief aces tended to be mostly an NL phenomenon in the 50s.

-- MWE

Dick Allen's HoF monitor score is only 99. Basically 100 is the in/out line and 70/130 is the grey area.

His raw stats do not scream Hall of Fame. He's basically 50/50, historically (well, historically through the mid-80s when the system was developed) to get in on stats alone.

Throw in the rep, and it's pretty obvious he's a longshot. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.

I mean, Raines is one of the top 10 (easily) LFers ever, and he's not getting in anytime soon. But his HoF Monitor score is 89.5, so it's not unexpected. But everyone gets all riled about Allen.

He's got two major things going against him, the rep AND the fact that normal stats understate his worth. That's a lot to overcome.

EDIT: I would add the HoF monitor includes MVP Awards, Cy Young Awards, All-Star teams and Gold Gloves, so it's not just stats. The system does take into account his 1972 MVP and his 1964 RoY.

It was outstanding after that era as well.


Yep. Too little is made of the Yankee fielding during the Stengel era, but it was (IMO) probably the #1 reason for the team's success.

Stengel was also one of the early managers to make use of a true relief ace - one guy who would take ALL of the high-leverage situations. It was usually someone different every year, but it was a fairly consistent pattern with him to rely on one guy when the chips were down. That was highly unusual in the AL of that era; true relief aces tended to be mostly an NL phenomenon in the 50s.

-- MWE

But, SOME of that outstanding defense may have been park effects. I hope to examine that in the very near future...

I'd imagine Allen, like Santo, also suffers from the fact that he played in such a low-offense era. His rookie year is magnificent by adjusted measures, but it's still just 29 HR, 91 RBI. His greatest season was .308 37 113, numbers that Dante Bichette would laugh at. More than one voter probably looks at the basic raw record and says, meh.

Santo then, on top of that, has to fight the perception that he only got to his typical .290 30 95 year with the massive help of Wrigley Field. Voters can be very selective in their adjustment for illusions ...

Which brings me to my Father's favorite player, the supersub to end all supersubs, a man who was well above average defensively at 3b, 2B and SS, thereby allowing Stengel the flexibility to platoon to his heart's content, Gil Mc whose HOF case I will now commence to shill for...

McDougald was one of those players who was far more valued during most of his career than afterwards. His rep faded quickly, partly because he had a short career, peaked offensively as a rookie, and tailed off quite a bit in his last three years. In 1960 he wound up being replaced permanently as a starter by Clete Boyer after he made two key ninth inning errors to cost the Yanks a game against the White Sox, a game that put the Yankees 5 1/2 games behind in the pennant race. Boyer replaced him the next day, and the Yanks immmediately went on a streak that put them in first place within two weeks. And the switch to Boyer was looked upon as a key factor in their revival.

McDougald also is the answer to one of the most trivial trivia questions of all time: What Yankee player, in the last offensive play of his career, scored the tying run in the top of the ninth inning in the 1960 World Series, minutes before Mazeroski's home run ended it?

------------------

What's the latest word on the Yankee defense in that era?

can be answered with this word: Outstanding.

Another thing that seems to have faded in memory is the historically horrible Cleveland defense of the early 50's, which unquestionably cost them at least one pennant and possibly two others as well. In 1952, three of the four starting Indians' infielders (Easter, Avila and Ray Boone) had the worst fielding percentage at their respective positions in the American League, and the fourth (Al Rosen) was 7th out of 8. The Indians somehow managed to lose the pennant in spite of having

three twenty game winners,

three of the top ten starters in ERA,

the top two home run hitters,

the two top RBI men,

the top three leaders in runs scored,

the leader in slugging average,

and the runner-up to the batting champ.

Oh, and as a team they outscored the runnerup Yanks by 36 runs and were a close third in team ERA. Their only weak link on the mound was Bob Feller, who had his worst year.

There's never been another team quite like it. One of the baseball annuals the next Spring summed it up with a two page cartoon that was titled, "Such Hitting!---Such Pitching!---Such Errors!!!"

His greatest season was .308 37 113, numbers that Dante Bichette would laugh at.

One of my favorite factoids: Allen's OPS+ that year was 199. How good is an OPS+ of 199?

It's essentially equal to that of:

- Jimmie Foxx, 1933 (.364/48/163)
- Rogers Hornsby, 1928 (.387/21/94, 42 doubles)
- Nap Lajoie, 1901 (.426/14/125, 48 doubles, 14 triples)
- Stan Musial, 1948 (.376/39/131, 46 doubles, 18 triples)

It's slightly better than:

- Ty Cobb, 1911 (.420/8/127, 47 doubles, 24 triples)
- Lou Gehrig, 1931 (.341/46/184, 15 triples)
- Harry Heilmann, 1923 (.403/18/115, 44 doubles)
- Carl Yastrzemski, 1967 (.326/44/121)

It's better than any OPS+ ever achieved by Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, or Frank Robinson.

One pet peeve that I have with OPS+ when making cross-era comparisons is that it doesn't account for the spread of talent at the time. I'm a fan of Michael Schell's Event Specific Batting Runs, as mentioned in his All-Time Best Sluggers book.

Allen had 75.2 ESBRs in 1972, good for 64th all-time. per 550 plate appearances that was 68.2 ESBRs or 52nd.

- Nap Lajoie, 1901 76
- Ty Cobb, 1911 not in the top 100
- Harry Heilmann, 1923 not in the top 100
- Rogers Hornsby, 1928 76
- Lou Gehrig, 1931 80.8
- Jimmie Foxx, 1933 85.1
- Stan Musial, 1948 98.1
- Carl Yastrzemski, 1967 88.3

FWIW, it tops any individual season that Aaron or Mays had, but FRobby had 89 ESBR in 1966. The Hornsby and Lajoie seasons are almost perfect comps in value. And there is no entry for Dante Bichette in the index of the book.

Party pooper.

I'm thinking Joe Gordon was in fact an awful choice. He has no HoF-ers among his 10 similars, who are in order: Jose Valentin, Bob Boone, Jorge Posada, Adrian Beltre, Vern Stephens, Javy Lopez, Bill Nicholson, Doug DeCinces, Ken Caminiti, and Kirk Gibson. Only Vern Stephens from this group has any business anywhere near the HoF.

There are several other options who would have been better from the two 10 person ballot groups: Bill Dahlen (7 HoF similars), Jim Kaat (also 7), Joe Torre (5), Ron Santo (4), the aforementioned Stephens (4), Deacon White (4), and perhaps Al Oliver (4). And Allie Reynolds (who missed election by one vote) certainly isn't one of them: he's got one good HoF-er among his similars (Juan Marichal), one weak one (Stan Coveleski), and 8 also-rans: Larry Benton, Slim Sallee, Bill Lee (the Cubbie from the '30s-'40s, not "Spaceman" Bill Lee of the '70s Bosox), Rube Benton, Ken Holtzman, Guy Bush, Steve Trachsel, and Doug Drabek. Reynolds has utterly no business in the Hall.

And that goes double for whoever suggested above that Phil Rizzuto was a reasonable HoF choice. Johnny Evers is the only HoF similar Rizzuto has, and Evers doesn't belong in any more than Jose Offerman, Claude Ritchey, Hughie Critz, Lonnie Frey, Jim Gantner, Tommy Herr, Bill Hallman, Delino DeShields, or Billy Rogell do. Holy cow, what a bunch of "Hall of the Above Average Guys" that is.

But then again, this is the same organization who didn't let in any Seniors for, what, 7 years and then cobbled together a committee that ushered in the likes of Bowie Kuhn, probably the worst HoF choice since Morgan Bulkeley. Can't wait for them to shoehorn in Bud "Buy Me a Good Hairpiece Already" Selig one of these days.

Ridiculous.

OTOH, Going by Schell, Dick's 1972 tops Ty Cobb's 1917.

"He has no HoF-ers among his 10 similars"

FYI, that's a fun toy, not an actual tool

I mean, Raines is one of the top 10 (easily) LFers ever, and he's not getting in anytime soon. But his HoF Monitor score is 89.5, so it's not unexpected. But everyone gets all riled about Allen.

I would imagine that nearly everyone arguing for Allen supports Raines for the HOF as well. It really is unfortunate that he played like a HOF leadoff hitter at the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of the sport.

Dick Allen is what Rice-supporters think Rice is, only better. That many voters seem to ignore context from park and era doesn't mean it's right.

Can't wait for them to shoehorn in Bud "Buy Me a Good Hairpiece Already" Selig one of these days.

Selig doesn't need a shoehorn. He's a perfectly deserving choice on merit.

Bachslunch - the guy lost his age 29 and 30 seasons to the war, and his age 31 season was ruined by after effects of the war. His most similar list is completely irrelevant.

Rizzuto's case is even stronger, he lost age 26-28, and his 29 was ruined by the war.

I would imagine that nearly everyone arguing for Allen supports Raines for the HOF as well. It really is unfortunate that he played like a HOF leadoff hitter at the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of the sport.

I've never understood why this should matter to sportswriters in the slightest. The HOF is about value, not style. And even if "leadoff hitter" were a position, it would still make no sense to deny a great leadoff hitter (Raines) because the greatest leadoff hitter (Henderson) was his contemporary. It would be like denying Tom Glavine because he wasn't as good as Greg Maddux.

Thanks for the replies. More will follow as time allows.

Joe D., I'm very much not clear why extra credit must be given Gordon and Rizzuto respectively for 2 years and 3 years lost to WWII, as we don't know what they may or may not have done had there been no war. They could have had great or replacement level or terrible years, for all we know, or could have gotten injured. Giving them such credit presumes something we don't know and can only speculate about. Along the same lines, do we project out Hall of Fame careers for Herb Score and Mark Fidrych for what they accomplished before their careers ended very prematurely via injury? If so, I'm not agreeing. An explanation would be welcome.

Dag, are you serious about Selig meriting being in the HoF? If so, could you explain? In Selig, I'm seeing a spineless yes-man prone to spotty judgment with serious conflict of interest potential (commissioner and Brewers owner? Please) who can count among his screw-ups:

-presiding over cancellation of the 1994 postseason.

-trying to get the Montreal Expos and Minnesota Twins dropped from the league in 2001, with Selig as a result being charged with racketeering and conspiring with Jeffrey Loria to deliberately defraud the Expos minority owners, the case eventually going to arbitration and being settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

-presiding over a botched 2002 7-7 tie All Star Game.

-looking the other way on PEDs for over a decade until being forced to address the issue by Congress and then forcefully denouncing something he and ownership had ignored for many years. I don't believe for a minute that he or the owners were unaware of players taking PEDs. And if one believes (as I do) that PEDs may not be the big cheat people think they are (they sure didn't make stars of Howie Clark or Larry Bigbie, after all), Selig should have said that and held his ground.

Backlunch, let's take WARP1 from BPro, since that's handy . . .

8, 12, 11, 9.7, 12, 9.8, x, x, 4.5, 9.8, 9.2, 6.1, 3.2.

You honestly think it's better to fill in the x's with 0s than a reasonable guess? The 4.5 was due to an injury.

When comparing him with other players throughout history, you think it's his fault he happened to be born in 1915?

I don't understand that at all.

We wouldn't know, so just put a 0 in there. Makes no sense to me at all.

I would add that it isn't anything like Fidyrch or Score. They were allowed to play their career and it ended badly. The players serving the military were victims of their birthday (in terms of their final statistics). The situations aren't remotely comparable.

Commissioners get elected to HOFs. It's not just in baseball. Out of MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL head honchos, the only one who's term ended over 20 years ago who isn't a HOFer is Spike Eckert.

I'm not a statistician, but I played around with some stats of Red Sox players and came to this conclusion. I may still have the spreadsheet at home, but I did this on a computer that I gave to my brother.

I can't find this spreadsheet. I was hoping that there'd be more discussion about the one-size-fits-all nature of park factors.

I was hoping that there'd be more discussion about the one-size-fits-all nature of park factors.

I guarantee that I'll yell and scream about it more at another time. :-)

Out of MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL head honchos, the only one who's term ended over 20 years ago who isn't a HOFer is Spike Eckert.

There's also Gil Stein, the NHL guy who rigged the voting committee to ensure his election into the NHL HOF, although he was only 15 years ago. I'm pretty sure that he'll never be elected again, no matter how long he waits.

Joe D., thanks for the reply.

Yes, I'm thinking it's perfectly reasonable to give Gordon 0's for the two years he didn't play, or simply not count the years at all, depending on how the data is being handled.

And speculation can cut in any direction. Suppose Gordon plays in 1944 and in his first at bat gets severely beaned a la Tony Conigliaro, not coming back to play until 1946. Or gets beaned even worse, like Mickey Cochrane, or even more catastrophically, Ray Chapman, and never plays again. In the second scenario, he's actually lucky he went off to war. Or suppose Gordon plays but slumps badly those two years for whatever reason. Or suppose he plays and explodes against weakened competition in those years. How do we know what he might have done? Why do we automatically assume, say, a career average year for 1944 and 1945, or for that matter anything at all?

And it's not clear why, as long as we're playing pretend, that we can't do the same in the case of Score or Fidrych. Who says your speculative world is better than mine or anyone else's?

It's fun to guess and speculate and assume and all that, but I'm thinking it's just not reality. And the reality is that Gordon did not play in 1944 or 1945, whatever the reason. If that's not OK with you, fine -- we'll have to agree to disagree.

Without any "war credit" at all, though, bachslunch, Gordon as a career hitter is very close to Lou Boudreau, who played through the War. He's in the same range as Bobby Doerr, who missed only 1945. He compares quite well to Tony Lazzeri, who was retired by the time the war came. It's not like anyone's giving Gordon immense "extra credit" for those two years. He has a very substantial career in reality.

Wally M., thanks for the reply.

While it's true that commissioners have almost uniformly gotten elected in the past to their respective HoFs, I'm wondering if that will hold for Ueberroth, Giamatti, Vincent, and Selig, who have either short or undistinguished tenures. In football, Paul Tagliabue is running into serious problems getting elected into the Pro Football Hall.

Maybe they will all get in, if not right away. Ueberroth's tenure strikes me as short and while he did do some good things, badly tarnished his reputation with collusion complicity. Selig's case is hardly distinguished in much of any way that I can see. Giamatti and Vincent both would appear to have good reputations in any detached observer's sense, but very brief tenures.

Bob D., thanks for replying.

This also assumes Boudreau, Doerr, and Lazzeri are elite level HoF-ers, and further that they are all indeed comparable. If so, could you demonstrate? In fact, I'm not sure any of these folks aren't pretty much just varying degrees of second tier, borderline, or mistake.

If similarity scores are reasonable to consider, Doerr and Lazzeri look a lot alike and have the best HoF arguments of the four, though they look like second-tier guys at best. Doerr has Lazzeri on his list, as well as mid level HoF-ers Gabby Hartnett and Bill Dickey, some other second-tier players who arguably should be in such as Joe Torre and Vern Stephens, three respectable near misses in Miguel Tejada, Ken Boyer, and Bob Elliott, plus Ray Durham and Jay Bell who don't belong in. Lazzeri also has Dickey, Doerr, Hartnett, Elliott, Stephens, and Tejada on his similars list as well as HoF mistake Travis Jackson and three who don't belong in, Marty McManus, Pinky Higgins, and Travis Fryman.

Boudreau looks notably less good than Doerr or Lazzeri this way -- in fact, I'm wondering if he isn't a flat-out mistake at least purely as a player. His similars include two HoF mistakes in Travis Jackson and George Kell, and nobody else worth considering: Larry Doyle, Tony Cuccinello, Mark Loretta, Jason Kendall, Del Pratt, Deacon McGuire, Orlando Cabrera, and Pete Runnels. I'm thinking he needs a serious amount of managerial extra credit to get over the hump, which he probably should receive.

Mentioned Gordon's similars above, plus he doesn't get any significant managerial credit like Boudreau.

He has a short career for a HOFer but not dramatically short.

Maybe not, but having only 6 season in which he played 140 games or more, really jumps out at you. That is the part of the longevity equation that puts me on the other side of the question for Allen

bachslunch, as people said above, the "raw" similarity scores on B-Ref are not really highly useful (they don't adjust for contexts), and in Gordon's case even less so, since his career was derailed so by the War. Similar hitters to Boudreau in terms of career length and career OPS+, among middle infielders, are Doyle, Lazzeri, HOMer Cupid Childs, Gordon, and Vern Stephens. All except Stephens were second basemen; Boudreau was a very fine defensive shortstop. Boudreau is a slight cut above, which is, I'd imagine, why he's in the Hall of Merit.

Anyway, we certainly are talking "second tier" when a player like Gordon is inducted thirty years after his death. Nobody is confusing him with Joe Morgan.

There's also Gil Stein, the NHL guy who rigged the voting committee to ensure his election into the NHL HOF, although he was only 15 years ago. I'm pretty sure that he'll never be elected again, no matter how long he waits.

An NHL reference? That's special.

It should say something about how relevant the NHL is that the most press they've gotten in the last several years was a few days ago, when one of their players commented to the media that some other player was getting "sloppy seconds" from his ex-girlfriend.

Rollicking good times...

Do hitters in hitter parks or unique parks take more advantage of their home park?

Here's the tOPS+ of several players:

Santo 118
Banks 112
Billy Williams 110
Petrocelli 123
Boggs 118
Yaz 115
Rice 115
Dewey Evans 110
Greenwell 109
G Brett 108
Mantle 106
Schmidt 106
Ozzie 104
Bench 104
Gwynn 103
Maz 102
Ripken 96

Bob D., if we indeed look at career OPS+ (can we assume this is fair and reasonable to do?), we have

Lazzeri: 121 (14 seasons, 1740 G)
Boudreau: 120 (15 season, 1646 G)
Gordon: 120 (11 seasons, 1566 G)
Stephens: 119 (15 seasons, 1720 G)

Problem is that to consider them truly equal, you have to ignore the fact that Gordon played three fewer seasons and 174 fewer games than Lazzeri, four fewer seasons and 154 fewer games than Stephens, and four fewer seasons and 80 fewer games than Boudreau. Am thinking that's a notable difference, and to make it up you have to again assume numbers for years Gordon didn't play. You'll probably say that's fine because of WWII, but I'm not OK with that. We have to agree to disagree here.