Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 12, 2009

MLB: Henderson, Rice given Hall passes

Player	Total Votes	Percentage

Rickey 	        511	94.8%
Jim Rice	412	76.4%
Andre Dawson	361	67.0%
Bert Blyleven	338	62.7%
Lee Smith	240	44.5%
Jack Morris	237	44.0%
Tommy John	171	31.7%
Tim Raines	122	22.6%
Mark McGwire	118	21.9%
Alan Trammell	94	17.4%
Dave Parker	81	15.0%
Don Mattingly	64	11.9%
Dale Murphy	62	11.5%
Harold Baines	32	5.9%
Mark Grace	22	4.1%
David Cone	21	3.9%
Matt Williams	7	1.3%
Mo Vaughn	6	1.1%
Jay Bell	2	0.4%
Jesse Orosco	1	0.2%
Ron Gant	0	0%
Dan Plesac	0	0%
Greg Vaughn	0	0%
Repoz Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:08 PM | 302 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history

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 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:20 PM (#3050054)
WARP Comparisons - best eight seasons.....career total

Jay Bell - 11.1, 10.6, 9.0, 8.1, 8.0, 7.6, 6.9, 6.8....88.8

Roy White - 10.5, 10.4, 9.4, 9.0, 8.1, 7.3, 7.1, 6.5...84.6

Jim Rice - 9.7, 8.9, 7.5, 7.4, 7.3, 6.8, 5.7, 5.0.....80.2


Here's how Win Shares sees it:

Bell - 26, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 19 ... 245

White - 34, 29, 29, 26, 26, 22, 21, 19 ... 263

Rice - 36, 28, 28, 26, 24, 21, 20, 17 ... 282
   202. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM (#3050059)
I guess I'll skip Cooperstown on our next trip through New York state.

I strongly suggest substituting the Oriskany Monument and battlefield instead.

(Although I do think the withering disdain for the HOF is ridiculous.)
   203. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:25 PM (#3050061)
If I had them both on my roster in their primes, and had room to play them only in left field, I'd platoon them.


Yo state you saw both in their primes. That to me is important. And when you saw Rice in the mid 70's and early 80's you said to yourself, "Roy White is just as good as this guy"? Pretty impressive.

And if you had to play both in left, you would platoon them?

I respect your decision but do have one question. Did you check out White's differential between LHP and RHP compared to Rices' since Roy was a switchitter of course.
   204. BDC Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:26 PM (#3050063)
A propos of comments well upthread by now, I sort of suspect that Alomar and Larkin will both get in next year. It's a quiet ballot, with nobody really Henderson-like appearing; writers like to write a lot of names on ballots; each will draw attention to the other, as they are vaguely similar players in some ways. By next winter you may hear a lot about how underrated both of them were in their day, and how Cooperstown needs all-rounders like them, not certain musclebound guys we could name ...
   205. Tom (and his broom) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:26 PM (#3050064)
Rickey's plaque is going to be very crowded, what with listing all the teams he played with, his records, and so on.


this one?
   206. Srul Itza Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:30 PM (#3050066)
some people (especially old-timers) feel that he's [Alomar] overrated so they'll take the opportunity to pass on him for the first ballot.

Really? I don't recall that from old timers. They tend to gush about him being a defensive wizard at second base, one of the best they've ever seen, and so on. Then you add in the hitting.

The "overrated" opinion seems to come more from new guys who use the modern fielding statistics and say he was not as good a fielder as people think.
   207. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:31 PM (#3050067)
Did you check out White's differential between LHP and RHP compared to Rices' since Roy was a switchitter of course.

I didn't. < checks bb-ref.com >

Yep, all the more reason to platoon them. Against RHPs, White's tOPS+ is 113 to Rice's 95. Against LHPs, Rice has the advantage, 112 to 82.

So I'd left-right platoon them, but also do it based on other stuff: White against GB pitchers, Rice against FB pitchers; White in bigger ballparks (especially artificial turf), Rice in smaller ballparks. They complement each other quite nicely, in fact.
   208. Tom (and his broom) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:34 PM (#3050069)
On Edgar Martinez...He was a year younger than Jim Presley, and two years younger than Alvin Davis, who played 3b and 1b for the Mariners while he was trying to break through...

they were both out of baseball by the time he emerged as a star...

that is not a coincidence...

He is the second best old player of my lifetime, by a wide margin...if he gets a shot before he is 27 he is probably in the HOF next year...
   209. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:34 PM (#3050071)
And when you saw Rice in the mid 70's and early 80's you said to yourself, "Roy White is just as good as this guy"? Pretty impressive.

It would have been about February or March of 1969, opening up the package of Strat-o-Matic cards from the 1968 season, that I discovered Roy White. Woah. In the context of the 1968 American League, he stood out like a blazing beacon. I watched him as carefully as I could from then on; he was a most impressive ballplayer. Didn't throw well, but other than that he simply did not have a weakness.
   210. shoewizard Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:36 PM (#3050073)
The error bar on ERA+ (not counting unearned runs, inaccuracy of park factors, facing different schedules) makes it as likely that Blyleven "deserves" to be 12th on that list as 6th.


No it doesn't make it LIKELY. Thats a very poor choice of word there. There is certainly the possibility that the error bar is high enough that he should rank 12th, and shave 5 points off his career ERA+ to 113, but just how high a probability is that ? He could equally have been a 123. It's not LIKELY, as in better than a 50% chance, that he was that much worse than ERA+ shows him.

And even if he DID rank 12th, that STILL puts him ahead of Ryan and Sutton. Thats the point. He doesn't have to be better than Carlton. This just shows how solidly he is entrenched between 5th-12th, and that should obviously be good enough, because it's good enough for all the other names on the list.
   211. Gamingboy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:44 PM (#3050078)
Allow me to right now defend the HOF:

Yes, it isn't perfect. A bunch of people who don't deserve to be in are in, and there are many who deserve to be in who aren't. It has been run by idiots, fools and accountants. But it is now and forever will be the finest museum on baseball (it ISN'T JUST A COLLECTION OF PLAYER PLAQUES), a holy shrine that only true fans will go to. Anyone who complains that it is in Cooperstown, whether because Baseball wasn't invented in Cooperstown, or because it isn't in a major city or because it isn't a central location or whatever. Well, those people have never been to Cooperstown. The other Hall of Fames are tourist attractions, full of people, with no intimacy on the outside or on the inside, and often full of non-fans just killing a few hours. In the BB Hall of Fame, only true fans show up, as it is unlikely that anyone other than a Baseball fan will purprosely go so out of the way (okay: there are other things that might draw People to cooperstown, but let's face it: Baseball is king).

Although, yes, as earlier, I would like to say that it would be madness to try and go on those roads during a bad winter. But you should go during the Summer anyway, or the fall, I watched a few innings of the 2005 ALDS live at the Hall of Fame. Greatest TV experience of my life.
   212. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:45 PM (#3050079)
Semantics...Rice has a higher OPS against RHP than White.
   213. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:47 PM (#3050082)
On the "he wouldn't be the worst player in the hall" argument, can I now start a more serious, "Roy White for the Hall of Fame?" campaign?

The BBWAA used to be a littel too stringy but they didn't used to elect stinkers. In recent years they have elected Puckett, who is borderline but probably in (still under their normal standards) and then two stinkers in Sutter and Rice. I guess if you have a dysfunctional VC, its the BBWAA's job to elected the wrong people.
   214. Hugh Jorgan Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:48 PM (#3050083)
too lazy to read all the above posts, but gee only 94.8% for Rickey, that seems pretty insane. I can see a few blokes not voting for him, but what, over 20 guys, that's just seems silly and spiteful.
I reckon Alomar will go in 1st ballot next year and Raines gets up to 50%....yeah, there's some wishcasting there....
   215. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:52 PM (#3050084)
Well said, Gamingboy (#211).

For all its warts, the HOF is a wonderful place. And Cooperstown is a kick to visit. The fact that it's hard to get to works to its advantage, making it a distinctly better place than it would otherwise be: the baseball fans who are there had to make a commitment to go. Nobody just happens to stop by on their way to someplace else, and this has a major impact on the mood and atmosphere of the museum and the town.

A friend of mine made a very nice documentary film on the HOF a few years ago. Among the points she made that the baseball fan's visit to Cooperstown isn't just sort of like a pilgrimage. It IS a pilgrimage, in every sense of the term.

My advice: stay either at the Tunnicliff Inn or the Lakefront Motel. Eat and drink often and much at the Doubleday Cafe. And relax and enjoy.
   216. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM (#3050085)
Tom:

This is NOT DIRECTED AT YOU PERSONALLY.

That being written:

I am so f*cking sick and tired of this lame*ss argument. That Edgar got scr#wed by the Mariners.

At age 22 in Double A he had an OPS of .731. With mediocre (at best defense) and no speed.

At age 23 in Double A he was so determined to catch managment's eye he had an OPS of .773. With blah defense and again no speed.

So then he gets to Triple A and does hit .329 but with a grand total of 10 homers and a slugging percentage of .473. Still no real defense. Still no speed. Now .329 is .329 but considering he really hadn't done anything like THAT it wasn't totally crazy to send him back down. Even though if anyone really thought about it Presley's 24 homers that season were pretty much the sum total of his contribution which wasn't much.

Now NEXT season Martinez clocks Triple A into submission but upon getting elevated manages to get hurt.

So now it's 1989 and the M's get him in Triple A just to make sure but it's only 30 odd games before he's in Seattle. And Edgar says thank you by hitting .240. But then next year his bat shows up for good and he's off to the races.

But really, how much time did he really lose? A year? One can make the case that Edgar should have been in the bigs in 1988 for good. Which he was.

Is someone really going to tell me that after two pedestrian years at Double A after a solid Triple A campaign, somewhat old for that league mind you, the M's were idiots for wanting to make sure he could hit?

And yes, the Southern League was and is more of a pitcher's league but even accounting for that Martinez was all bat. One would expect a "hitter" candidate to be, you know, HITTING to get someone's attention.

There are reasons to push Edgar as a HOF candidate. That the M's sabotaged his career is not one of them.
   217. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM (#3050086)

And even if he DID rank 12th, that STILL puts him ahead of Ryan and Sutton. Thats the point. He doesn't have to be better than Carlton. This just shows how solidly he is entrenched between 5th-12th, and that should obviously be good enough, because it's good enough for all the other names on the list.


Being better than Nolan Ryan on career ERA+ is like hitting more home runs than Ozzie Smith. Ryan's career ERA+ has absolutely nothing to do with why he is in the HoF; he is there because he is famous, and because of the absurd longevity, no-hitters, and strikeouts.

Also, Carlton's, um, end of career is a little, um, not so good.
   218. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM (#3050087)
Semantics...Rice has a higher OPS against RHP than White.

Raw OPS. Not park- and league-adjusted tOPS+, in which case White's is significantly better than Rice's (113 to 95).
   219. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 11:58 PM (#3050092)
actually, I think the anti-Rice voices will go the way to pimping for actual deserving candidates now that the standard has been dramatically lowered. Andre Dawson probably gets in easily next year, when the most recent standard for outfield is a clearly lesser player like Rice. Murphys vote total goes up, heck Parkers vote goes up. McGriff relative to Rice is a slam dunk, Edgar Martinez is another slam dunk, it's a domino effect

no, no, no and no

(no)

you couldn't be more wrong

Rice's election will have NO effect (none, zippo, nada) on anyone else's vote totals--his candidacy was sui generis and based on TEH FEAR

Catfish didn't lead to Tiant or Pappas
   220. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:01 AM (#3050093)
The case against Alomar is pretty weak, but not as weak as the case against Larkin. Alomar is not the best second baseman not in the Hall (Grich), and all those Gold Gloves were undeserved. You can certainly argue that he is a lesser player than Raines, Larkin and Blyleven and shouldn't be inducted in 2010.

What you're left with in the long run is this. Top-drawer offensive career for a second baseman. Adequate, at least, defence. 10,000 PAs.



So where does Robbie rate among post WWII 2nd basemen: best eight seasons and career total

Joe Morgan - 15.2, 15.0, 13.7, 13.5, 12.3, 9.7, 9.6, 8.6....165.3
Robbie Alomar - 11.6, 11.4, 11.2, 11.1, 11.0, 10.3, 8.4, 7.8....132.6
Bobby Grich - 11.8, 11,6, 11.0, 10.7, 10.5, 9.7, 8.9, 8.5....123.9
Craig Biggio - 13.5, 10.6, 10.4, 10.0, 8.9, 7.4, 6.3, 6.2....123.0
Jackie Robinson - 13.9, 13.1, 12.0, 9.9, 9.3, 9.0, 6.7, 6.6.....91.5
Ryne Sandberg - 13.0, 11.5, 11.1, 10.1, 9.2, 9.1, 7.8, 5.7....108.7
Jeff Kent - 11.9, 11.7, 10.1, 8.6, 8.3, 7.7, 6.5, 6.5....110.2
Lou Whitaker - 10.8, 9.4, 9.1, 9.0, 8.5, 8.2, 7.7, 7.4....129.9
Nellie Fox - 11.6, 9.7, 8.6, 8.4, 7.7, 7.1, 6.1, 5.8.... 90.3
Bill Mazeroski - 9.1, 8.9, 8.3, 8.1, 7.6, 6.9, 6.9, 6.7.....91.0
   221. Srul Itza Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM (#3050095)
Rice has a higher OPS against RHP than White.

You keep ignoring park factors. Here are the one-year batting park factors during Rice's career:

107
110
111
118
109
108
102
107
111
101
110
104
99
99
109
106

Here are Roy White's:

100
94
91
100
95
95
97
92
101
98
101
100
99
97
96

This is one the main reasons why Rice looks so much better on raw numbers than White.
   222. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:08 AM (#3050099)
This is one the main reasons why Rice looks so much better on raw numbers than White.

That's a huge reason. The other one is that for much of White's career, the AL overall was an extremely low-scoring environment; the 1968 and 1972 AL in particular were among the very lowest-scoring leagues of all time. By the mid-70s it had perked up (thanks to the DH among other factors), and for most of Rice's career it was an historically above-average scoring environment.
   223. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:14 AM (#3050107)
So where does Robbie rate among post WWII 2nd basemen: best eight seasons and career total


Joe Morgan
.
.
.
Jackie Robinson
Craig Biggio
Roberto Alomar
Bobby Grich
(Rod Carew)
Ryne Sandberg
Jeff Kent
Lou Whitaker
Willie Randolph
Nellie Fox
Bill Mazeroski
   224. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:15 AM (#3050108)
"So where does Robbie rate among post WWII 2nd basemen: best eight seasons and career total"

No Joe Gordon? He does kind of straddle the line, I guess, with most of his peak lost to WWII.
   225. JPWF13 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:17 AM (#3050109)
Being better than Nolan Ryan on career ERA+ is like hitting more home runs than Ozzie Smith. Ryan's career ERA+ has absolutely nothing to do with why he is in the HoF; he is there because he is famous, and because of the absurd longevity, no-hitters, and strikeouts.


He had 5386 ip with an ERA+ of 111

Here are the guys in the HOF with 4750+ IP and an ERA+ between 105 and 115:
Cnt Player ERA+ IP
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+-----+----+
1 Mickey Welch 114 4802
2 Nolan Ryan 111 5386
3 Don Sutton 108 5282.1
4 Pud Galvin 107 6003.1

Here are the guys not in the HOF with 4750+ IP and an ERA+ ABOVE 105:
Cnt Player ERA+ IP
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+-----+----+
1 Roger Clemens 143 4916.2
2 Greg Maddux 132 5008.1
3 Bert Blyleven 118 4970
4 Bobby Mathews 107 4956.1


1: Boy Blyeven is getting screwed isn't he?
2: who the EFF is Bobby Mathews?
   226. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:17 AM (#3050110)
WARP Comparisons - best eight seasons.....career total

Jay Bell - 11.1, 10.6, 9.0, 8.1, 8.0, 7.6, 6.9, 6.8....88.8

Roy White - 10.5, 10.4, 9.4, 9.0, 8.1, 7.3, 7.1, 6.5...84.6

Jim Rice - 9.7, 8.9, 7.5, 7.4, 7.3, 6.8, 5.7, 5.0.....80.2

Here's how Win Shares sees it:

Bell - 26, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 19 ... 245

White - 34, 29, 29, 26, 26, 22, 21, 19 ... 263

Rice - 36, 28, 28, 26, 24, 21, 20, 17 ... 282


It has been demonstrated that Win Shares under values defense significantly by not allowing for negative values for poor performance. This artificially makes the poor defenders seem better than they are and the good defenders worse.

That is why Win Shared makes it appear the Rice is a better player than Jay Bell or Roy White
   227. JPWF13 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:21 AM (#3050111)
It has been demonstrated


Really? (not being snarky)

Just wondering, what do Dan R's Warp numbers say?
   228. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:24 AM (#3050112)
That is why Win Shared makes it appear the Rice is a better player than Jay Bell or Roy White

Maybe. Neither Win Shares nor WARP is flawless or the last word on anything. But both are useful tools. The fact that in both metrics both Bell and White are at least comparable to Rice, and perhaps slightly superior to him, very strongly suggests that either Rice is an extremely dubious selection to the HOF, or the HOF ought to be far, far bigger than it is.
   229. Mbvlckd Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:28 AM (#3050116)
Rice wouldn't have been on my ballot, but it's easy to see why the writers voted him in -- even after the legitimately monster 1977-79 seasons, his triple-crown stats were still superficially impressive into the 1980's (look at all those RBI's!), and he did have one fine late-career performance in 1986, which is probably a big reason he's popular and, say, Dale Murphy and George Foster aren't.

That said, it's more than a little annoying that as far as we are into the information revolution, there are still so many writers who refuse to avail themselves of it.

Kind of sad to see Ron Gant get shut out. He had a nice career.
   230. Srul Itza Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:28 AM (#3050117)
Edgar's case is really based on the following run of BA/OBP/SLG/OPS+, with emphasis on the OBP:

.356/.479/.628/185
.327/.464/.595/166
.330/.456/.554/165
.322/.429/.565/158
.337/.447/.554/152
.324/.423/.579/157
.306/.423/.543/160

If you are a peak candidate who emphasizes offense, that is an amazing run. But the painful what if is not, what if he had come up earlier, but what if his run had not been interrupted by a strike and an injury riddled, poor 1993 when he only played 42 games. Three years before that run, he went .343/.404/.544/164. But that was followed by 1993 and two injury-riddled mediocre seasons, when he played a total of 131 games.

You can play what if as regards the Mariners all you want. But if injuries and the strike had not kept Edgar from putting together a 10 year consecutive run as good as those 7, I think he would be in.
   231. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:33 AM (#3050121)
Why exactly does everyone think it's a given that Martinez will have more support than McGriff? What is the argument for Martinez over McGriff? Just to compensate for the difference between being a DH vs an average first baseman, Edgar needs to have been a significantly better hitter than McGriff, plus McGriff played 200 games more than Martinez, which is more value that Martinez would need to make up. From a traditional counting stat perspective, McGriff beats Martinez in nearly every category. Even as a peak voter, I have trouble thinking of Martinez as a better player than McGriff, who's clearly more of a HOVG type than a HOF type. On an offensive rate level, Martinez was better, but I doubt he was better enough to have provided more value to his teams over the course of their respective careers.
   232. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM (#3050122)
I'm a huge fan, and I'm surprised by those who think Edgar Martinez has a 50/50 shot of getting into the Hall. Baines was a primary DH with a sterling character--his number was retired by the White Sox before he even quit baseball, wasn't it?--and he got just 5.9% of the vote. I think Edgar is recognizably better, but not by a huge margin, and the difference isn't easily discernible in the mainstream stats, so I imagine he's going to get perhaps ten percent. I'd vote for him, but it's pretty easy for non-fans to make a case against him.

What does it say about Edgar and his cuddly reputation, by the way, that he's so often referred to by his first name? I know the popularity of his last name is an influencing factor, but who else in baseball has this happen?
   233. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM (#3050123)
Just wondering, what do Dan R's Warp numbers say?

Bell: 45 career, 7.5/5.5/5.5/5 top 4
White: 47.1 career, 7.3/6.4/5.4/5.2 top 4
Rice: 41.9 career, 6.7/5.7/5.5/4.6 top 4
   234. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:38 AM (#3050125)
By the mid-70s it had perked up (thanks to the DH among other factors)

If overall offense perked up due to the DH, then the denominators in White's OPS+ are composed of hitters inferior to those in Rice's OPS+. That shouldn't be held against Rice in the same way lowered mounds and close fences should be.
   235. shoewizard Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:39 AM (#3050126)
Being better than Nolan Ryan on career ERA+ is like hitting more home runs than Ozzie Smith. Ryan's career ERA+ has absolutely nothing to do with why he is in the HoF; he is there because he is famous, and because of the absurd longevity, no-hitters, and strikeouts.

Also, Carlton's, um, end of career is a little, um, not so good.


I think you are missing the point. The point isn't to compare Blyleven's ERA+ to Ryans. Blylevens is considerably better, by 7 full points, but thats not the point. Go back to the original post

There are only 17 guys since 1947 to throw 4000 IP. He has a higher ERA+ than all but 5, and you have to get down to number 14 before you get an eligible guy that ISN'T in the HOF. (Other than Blyleven himself). It's just a simple easy way to demonstrate how badly they missed. The point here isn't to say that Blyleven is better than Carlton because of 2 points of ERA+. Thats somewhat obtuse........

but then again, so are 1/3 of the voters, so I guess it fits. ;)
   236. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:39 AM (#3050127)
If you are a peak candidate who emphasizes offense, that is an amazing run.


I guess that's where my issue lies. Offense is what, 60% of a player's value, 70% max? I have to imagine that if we were able to put together WARs for some of these guys, it would make the case for Rice and Martinez that much worse and would make some guys (Evans, Murphy, etc.) look like no-brainers.
   237. Srul Itza Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:41 AM (#3050128)
It has been demonstrated that Win Shares under values defense significantly by not allowing for negative values for poor performance.

It has been demonstrated that BPro's defensive numbers, upon which WARP is based, are also, uhhm, warped.
   238. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:42 AM (#3050130)
I know the popularity of his last name is an influencing factor, but who else in baseball has this happen?

Ichiro, Nomar, Pedro, Manny...
   239. Srul Itza Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:46 AM (#3050132)
Just to make it clear, I am not someone who favors a peak candidate who emphasizes offense, unless the result is something like what Frank Thomas put together in the early 90's. Even then, I look to see some bulk to a career, as well.
   240. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:49 AM (#3050134)
Offense is what, 60% of a player's value, 70% max?

It depends on position. For a 1B, it would be considerably less than a middle infielder.
   241. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:49 AM (#3050135)
I think the Trammell supporters should be concerned that his percentage of the vote went DOWN, even though Concepcion dropped off the ballot. That doesn't bode well for next year when Larkin does come on the ballot.

More to the point - there was no really strong move in either direction by *any* holdover candidate, despite the fact that there was only one strong new candidate on the ballot and he was really only directly comparable with one other guy (Raines) - whose support did go down, but not a lot. That suggests to me that a lot of people simply took last year's ballot and added Rickey to it, without doing any other rethinking. That is also not a good sign.

-- MWE
   242. Baldrick Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:51 AM (#3050136)
It's not like Presley was anything special on defense, so I'm not sure what the potshots at Edgar's defense are supposed to be about. He also wasn't actually all that bad as a young man. He could field the position.

Let's look at it a different way. Presley had a good year in 1985. It was reasonable to want to give your young talent some chances based on that. So 1986 and 1987 were pretty understandable. However, it was evident to everyone by the first few months of 1988 that he simply wasn't very good. And I say this as someone who grew up with Presley as one of his favorite players. Even I knew that he wasn't good. But it was the Mariners - they were all bad. So the attitude was: there isn't really any harm in letting him keep playing.

But for those who were paying any attention at all, it was pretty clear by mid-1988 that Edgar was the better hitter. He had put up a monster 1987 in AAA (even better if you factor in the .372 he hit in the majors in his cup of coffee). And he was absolutely demolishing AAA once again.

You say about 1988: "Now NEXT season Martinez clocks Triple A into submission but upon getting elevated manages to get hurt." That's not my memory at all. IIRC, he wasn't called up until September. Again. So that's already some major league playing time lost for no good reason.

Now, based on the evidence, you'd obviously want him the majors for 1989. Which they did. Sort of. He got a bit of a chance to platoon and admittedly didn't hit particularly well. He was then used sparingly as a late-innings replacement or as a pinch hitter. He got sent up and down several times and while he was getting regular games in AAA he was DESTROYING the opposition. Now, if Presley was having a good year I suppose it would make sense to use Edgar sparingly, but Presley was god-awful. And yet he racked up 390 at-bats while Edgar only got half that. It's also not surprising that Edgar didn't perform well in the pinch-hitting, sporadic role, given the degree to which preparation and routine defined his later success. Still, even with his "poor" performances from 87-89 he had career numbers up to that point that were better than any Presley season other than 1985. There was simply NO excuse for letting Presley continue to suck the life out of the position when it was so clear that Edgar had the talent to hit for real.

So yes, Edgar was clearly the better player long before he was given a chance to take over the position. This is even more obvious in hindsight when we can see the value of all those walks with more clarity, but even at the time, people knew it. He should've gotten an earlier chance in 1988 and most likely would have hit well enough to secure the spot. That would have given him another half season in 88 and a full season in 89.

It's also worth mentioning that if the Mariners were run by a smart front office, they could have traded from strength and dealt Presley after 1987 when his value would never be higher, and with the knowledge that they had a great guy ready to fill in.

That's a good 200 more games at least. Games that would have been at third base, I'll point out. Add those in and he gets relatively close to 10,000 career plate appearances. He gets close to 800 games at third base before switching to DH. He gets around 2500 hits. If the M's deal Presley after 1987, it's closer to 300 games.

I'm not saying that he DESERVES that credit in making a HOF case. But I do think that there are some extenuating circumstances here that a voter might reasonably consider. Especially when one of the biggest knocks against him is how little defensive value he offered, it might be useful to remember that he wasn't out in the field through age 30 - it's just that most of that time ended up being in AAA.
   243. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:52 AM (#3050137)
If overall offense perked up due to the DH, then the denominators in White's OPS+ are composed of hitters inferior to those in Rice's OPS+.

Sure, but it is something less than one-ninth of the hitters in White's pre-1973 seasons. It isn't a big enough concern to render us unable to compare the OPS+ of White and Rice, or generally of hitters in DH leagues and non-DH leagues.
   244. AROM Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:56 AM (#3050138)
It has been demonstrated that BPro's defensive numbers, upon which WARP is based, are also, uhhm, warped.


Dan has Total Zone data. I'm not sure how much he weights each but it's not all Bpro defensive stats.
   245. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 13, 2009 at 12:57 AM (#3050139)
There are only 17 guys since 1947 to throw 4000 IP. He has a higher ERA+ than all but 5, and you have to get down to number 14 before you get an eligible guy that ISN'T in the HOF.

I admit I did strawman it up a little and that Blyleven is deserving on merit, and I get your point. My point is just that a lot of people under him on that list (Ryan being an extreme example, Carlton's disastrous end torpedoing his career ERA, Niekro obviously, Perry, etc..) are there because of something exceptional, something "famous." That to me is what the HoF is about, chronicling and preserving contemporaneous lore

The part I really don't get is that Blyleven did have something exceptional (curveball) in addition to this. It's not like he's some kind of boring grinder. I guess ultimately for the BBWAA it all comes down to wins.

Question I have no idea as to the answer of: What percentage of BBWAA members were alive and cognizant of baseball at large (as opposed to just their hometown team(s)) during most of Blyleven's career? Does anyone know what the age distribution of BBWAA members is like? (I know the 10-year rule makes them likely to be older, but I'm wondering how many people actually saw Blyleven on a regular basis.)
   246. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:02 AM (#3050142)
He should've gotten an earlier chance in 1988 and most likely would have hit well enough to secure the spot.


I don't know the story underlying these numbers, but according to BB-Ref's gamelogs for 1988, Edgar appeared in 4 games in May (May 10 - 22) and batted .143/.294/.214. From then, he didn't appear again until September 5th. I can't find his minor-league stats, so I have no idea if Harvey's right that he hurt himself, or if they just gave up on him after 4 lousy games.
   247. Baldrick Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:03 AM (#3050143)
What does it say about Edgar and his cuddly reputation, by the way, that he's so often referred to by his first name?

Eddddddddddddgaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar. Eddddddddddddgaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar.

Edgar is a strange convergence of a lot of different factors. The stathead case is very focused on his OBP. Even with that, opinions are pretty divided.

The mainstream case draws on a ton of little things. Character issues (he's a genuinely good guy according to literally everyone), spent his whole career with one team, saved baseball in Seattle in 1995, his peak corresponded almost perfectly with the only period in Mariners history where they were a legitimate contender for the the championship, the fact that he didn't get a full time shot until he was 27, the fact that he had those eye issues that would have been debilitating if he hadn't spent hours a day doing eye exercise, and the fact that he could hit a baseball like nobody's business.

I also think they kind of like that he was so clearly a great hitter in spite of not really hitting a ton of homeruns. If the case builds for him, it will almost certainly contain a lot of references to him being one of the best "pure hitters" ever. That and the fact that he clearly avoids all the steroid taint as well as the general disgust people sometimes feel about modern players. He felt like a throwback - a guy that everyone could support.

I don't think he's got a particularly good chance, but all of those issues certainly do suggest a possible route: one where statheads and mainstream analysts form an uneasy alliance, picking and choosing elements from each other. The Primer crowd isn't going to care much about "he was a great guy" for example. Nor are they going to get all hot and bothered about "he played the game the right way."

Basically, I can see a world where Edgar gets the Jim Rice treatment of a growing hagiography from mainstream sources. Except instead of a visceral backlash from statheads, there'll be a fair amount who support him for different reasons.

It'll be interesting for sure. There's definitely no chance he clears 30% in his first year, though.
   248. OCF Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:05 AM (#3050144)
From post #225: 2: who the EFF is Bobby Mathews?

He's a sign that you probably don't want to use your modern pitcher evaluation tools unmodified to talk about the 1870's and 1880's. Of Mathews's nearly 5000 IP, over 2600 came in a 5-year stretch in his early 20's. Yep, that's over 500 IP a year. He was the starting pitcher for each of those teams - every bit as much a regular as their starter at any other position. (And I probably shouldn't even say "starting" pitcher, since there were no relievers.) Some points:

1. Pitchers had less influence on the outcome of each at bat than we are used to, with more of that outcome depending on the defense.
2. Unearned runs often outnumbered earned runs, which calls into question using ERA as a tool. But switching to RA just serves to emphasize point 1.
3. The fact that Mathews wasn't a particularly good hitter matters, since he was an everyday starter. (Sure, his lifetime OPS+ was 44, which doesn't sound that bad in modern terms. But Al Spalding had OPS+ 116.)
4. Mathews's career was in clear decline in his late 20's. It came back to life when he was in his 30's because they started a new league - the AA - that was, at first, a somewhat lower level of competition than the NL.

Most of the same comments also apply to Pud Galvin, who also appears on post #225 except that Galvin had even more innings and with only one AA season. Both the HoF and the HoM have Galvin in, Mathews out.

To be honest, if I were running the kind of list JPWF13 was creating, I'd probably draw a line at 1893 and not look before then - the landscape is just so different back there.
   249. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:06 AM (#3050145)
Baldrick:

I say a year you say 200 games. Not a wide spread. And I still don't see enough even if you Edgar cranks from Day 1.

Martinez wan't Bobby Bonilla but he was never anything special at third base. And he kept getting hurt while trying to play there.

The M's were smart to DH but in reducing his on field burden it increased his HOF burden.

Sorry
   250. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:10 AM (#3050146)
Basically, I can see a world where Edgar gets the Jim Rice treatment of a growing hagiography from mainstream sources. Except instead of a visceral backlash from statheads, there'll be a fair amount who support him for different reasons.

Interesting and insightful thoughts.

I don't support Edgar for the HOF, but there are worse choices. (Including one of those voted in today.)
   251. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:12 AM (#3050149)
To be honest, if I were running the kind of list JPWF13 was creating, I'd probably draw a line at 1893 and not look before then - the landscape is just so different back there.

Yes. Era matters more for pitchers than for hitters generally, but in particular it's extremely problematic to compare pitchers pre- and post-1893.
   252. Baldrick Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:12 AM (#3050150)
I don't know the story underlying these numbers, but according to BB-Ref's gamelogs for 1988, Edgar appeared in 4 games in May (May 10 - 22) and batted .143/.294/.214. From then, he didn't appear again until September 5th. I can't find his minor-league stats, so I have no idea if Harvey's right that he hurt himself, or if they just gave up on him after 4 lousy games.

United Press International, May 10, 1988
"The Mariners placed shortstop Mario Diaz on the disabled list and promoted third baseman Edgar Martinez from their Class AAA team in Calgary. Martinez was hitting .376 in 25 games."

>>>

United Press International, May 23, 1988
"Seattle Manager Dick Williams, whose club dropped two of three in Baltimore over the weekend, has decided to put Jim Presley and Harold Reynolds back in the lineup.

''I've got to go with what I think is the best we have,'' Williams noted. ''I thought the kids (Edgar Martinez, Rich Renteria) might be able to shake things up a bit. We're just not hitting well. A loss is a loss no matter who you're playing against.

''I guess the way we are playing it doesn't make any difference who we are playing,'' Williams added. ''You're not going to win any if your club doesn't get any pitching.''"

As far as I can tell, he was playing regularly in AAA all through the summer. I'm pretty sure they just gave up on him after four lousy games.
   253. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:19 AM (#3050155)
So where does Larkin fit using WARP: best five seasons, career total, career value

Cal Ripken 17.0, 15.0, 13.9, 12.5, 10.8.....166.7....347.2
Alex Rodriguez 15.0, 13.8, 13.0, 11.9, 11.6.....141.4....309.0
Ernie Banks 14.7, 13.3, 12.3, 12.1, 10.7.....124.7....287.1
Robin Yount 13.0, 10.4, 10.0, 9.9, 9.8.....134.5....270.7
Ozzie Smith 11.1, 10.8, 10.1, 10.0, 9.5.....132.5....263.3
Alan Trammell 13.1, 10.5, 10.2, 10.2, 9.7.....120.5....258.6
Barry Larkin 11.2, 10.9, 10.8, 10.7, 9.1.....119.6....253.6
Derek Jeter 11.9, 11.6, 10.5, 10.1, 8.7.....103.5....239.5
Tony Fernandez 11.1, 10.3, 9.9, 9.1, 9.0.....106.2....232.4
Dave Concepcion 10.9, 10.0, 9.9, 9.8, 8.3.....105.2....230.2
Pee Wee Reese 11.0, 9.8, 9.4, 9.3, 9.1.....105.8....229.5
Miguel Tejada 11.8, 9.8, 9.7, 9.5, 6.9......81.2....202.5
Phil Rizzuto 11.6, 9.5, 9.0, 8.2, 7.6......75.3....194.7


Career value = (best season * 3.5, 2nd best * 3.0, 3rd best * 2.5, 4th best * 2.0, 5th best * 1.5) + career total
   254. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:23 AM (#3050158)
Ichiro, Nomar, Pedro, Manny...

One of these things is not like the others?

Ever heard of another "Nomar"? That's the only reason he's on the list.
   255. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:24 AM (#3050160)
I don't know the story underlying these numbers, but according to BB-Ref's gamelogs for 1988, Edgar appeared in 4 games in May (May 10 - 22) and batted .143/.294/.214. From then, he didn't appear again until September 5th. I can't find his minor-league stats, so I have no idea if Harvey's right that he hurt himself, or if they just gave up on him after 4 lousy games.


Edgar played in 95 games at Calgary in 1988, which suggests that if he WAS hurt it wasn't for very long.

From what I can tell, Edgar was actually OUTRIGHTED to the minors in 1988 - which meant that he had to clear waivers at some point - so it's not just Seattle that was shortsighted, but every other major league team as well.

-- MWE
   256. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:28 AM (#3050164)
It has been demonstrated that Win Shares under values defense significantly by not allowing for negative values for poor performance.


That's why I look at WS/162G to counteract that.
   257. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:33 AM (#3050171)
Assuming we're considering all the SS who moved to other positions equal to those who stayed there their entire careers...

Rodriguez
Ripken
Yount
Larkin
Banks
Smith
Jeter
Trammell
---PHOM dividing line
Reese
Fernandez
Concepcion
Tejada
Vizquel
Rizzuto
   258. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:33 AM (#3050172)
It has been demonstrated

Really? (not being snarky)


Well if you look at Ozzie Smith and Mazeroski using both Win Shares and WARP, they rank significantly higher using WARP. And I think correctly so, although I guess if you love Win Shares you could argue otherwise.


Just wondering, what do Dan R's Warp numbers say?

Bell: 45 career, 7.5/5.5/5.5/5 top 4
White: 47.1 career, 7.3/6.4/5.4/5.2 top 4
Rice: 41.9 career, 6.7/5.7/5.5/4.6 top 4

Dan's WARP also shows both White and Bell to be significantly better players than Rice.

It's really sad, but the inclusion of Rice in the HOF is even more moronic than most of the people who don't support his induction are aware. Jay Bell who is pretty clearly a better player gets two votes. I'm not advocating that Bell should be in because there are a number of shortstops not in who are clearly superior to Bell such as Trammell, Larkin, Fergosi, Wills, Conception etc. But it does put into some kind of perspective how big a mistake this is and how the general public's perception of Rice's ability is totally out of wack with reality.
   259. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:36 AM (#3050176)
Neither Win Shares nor WARP is flawless or the last word on anything. But both are useful tools. The fact that in both metrics both Bell and White are at least comparable to Rice, and perhaps slightly superior to him, very strongly suggests that either Rice is an extremely dubious selection to the HOF, or the HOF ought to be far, far bigger than it is.

My point exactly.
   260. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:38 AM (#3050177)
You bwoke da tread.
   261. Gamingboy Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:42 AM (#3050179)


Let us see if that helps. I don't think it will.

Huh, it did.

No, wait, it didn't. Drat.
   262. Gamingboy Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:43 AM (#3050181)
   263. Tom (and his broom) Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:43 AM (#3050182)
Harvey,

I just find it fascinating that Edgar who signed with Seattle the same year as Alvin Davis didn't really get traction until Davis' career was over.

And the point where I am puzzled is why Edgar spent all of '86 in Chattanooga, he had hit .353 in 20 games at AAA in '85 (moving up to AAA when Tartabull went to Seattle) but never got a shot at AAA the next year, and it wasn't like they had any prospects at 3b in Calgary. (nobody who played 3b for Calgary in '86 played 3b again in organized baseball, and they were all several years older than Edgar.) And his hitting was not bad, he still hadn't found his power and seemed to not like Chattanooga at all, but was still hitting better than league average.

So...give him a shot AAA in 86, where he hit very well every time he had a chance. Then call him up sooner rather than later, they were really hurting for a RH DH to platoon with Phelps who couldn't hit lefties at all. Between DH'ing and playing 3b he could and should have gotten more than a couple of hundred AB's a season in 86-87, and have locked up a fulltime spot in the lineup by 88, and not spent his prime years being jerked up and down.
   264. Gamingboy Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:44 AM (#3050183)
VICTORY!
   265. Danny Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:51 AM (#3050186)
Tom:

This is NOT DIRECTED AT YOU PERSONALLY.

That being written:

I am so f*cking sick and tired of this lame*ss argument. That Edgar got scr#wed by the Mariners.

At age 22 in Double A he had an OPS of .731. With mediocre (at best defense) and no speed.

At age 23 in Double A he was so determined to catch managment's eye he had an OPS of .773. With blah defense and again no speed.

So then he gets to Triple A and does hit .329 but with a grand total of 10 homers and a slugging percentage of .473. Still no real defense. Still no speed. Now .329 is .329 but considering he really hadn't done anything like THAT it wasn't totally crazy to send him back down. Even though if anyone really thought about it Presley's 24 homers that season were pretty much the sum total of his contribution which wasn't much.

Now NEXT season Martinez clocks Triple A into submission but upon getting elevated manages to get hurt.

So now it's 1989 and the M's get him in Triple A just to make sure but it's only 30 odd games before he's in Seattle. And Edgar says thank you by hitting .240. But then next year his bat shows up for good and he's off to the races.

But really, how much time did he really lose? A year? One can make the case that Edgar should have been in the bigs in 1988 for good. Which he was.


This is hilaripus coming from the guy who's still outraged that people didn't recognize Bill Hall for the star he is when he first broke out in the majors.
   266. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:54 AM (#3050188)
Apropos the link in post #9 concerning next year's HOF ballot:
The interesting names here are Alomar, Larkin and Martinez. I'll say maybe on Alomar, no on Larkin and no on Martinez. I need some time to think about Alomar. I thought his career numbers were better.
Pardon me, but wtf? 1500 runs, 1100 RBIs, a .300 career BA, good on base skills, some pop, and a hell of a good base stealing percentage, 10 Gold Gloves, in 2379 games, FROM A SECOND BASEMAN, doesn't do it for you? Alomar's got good saber skills, and he's got the gaudy stuff sportswriters usually love.

If this is typical sportswriter thinking, may Alan Trammell's candidacy rest in pace.
   267. Obama Bomaye Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:55 AM (#3050190)
Treder, tOPS+ is just comparing the player to himself. It's not clear if you realize that (and I've seen others make this mistake). Compared to Rice's overall numbers, his OPS+ against righties was 95. It's not comparing the player's split to the rest of the league. That said, since both Rice and White had career OPS+ in the 120s, it is true that White was more effective than Rice vs. righties, and vice versa. But Tony Pena Jr. has a 121 tOPS+ vs. LHP; that doesn't make him an even better platoon partner than Rice and his 112.
   268. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:57 AM (#3050192)
There a dozen guys who have had "non-war" stuff get in the way of more significant careers.
It happens.
   269. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 01:57 AM (#3050193)
Why exactly does everyone think it's a given that Martinez will have more support than McGriff? What is the argument for Martinez over McGriff?

Fred McGriff - 10.2, 10.3, 9.2, 9.0, 8.3......106.6.....227.4
Edgar Martinez - 10.6, 10.6, 9.3, 8.7, 8.6......104.4.....226.9
Jim Rice - 9.7, 8.9, 7.5, 7.4, 7.3.......80.2.....185.4
Jay Bell - 11.1, 10.6, 9.0, 8.1, 8.0.......88.8.....210.2

Pretty identical careers I would say. A little more offense from Martinez and a little more defense from McGriff.
   270. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:02 AM (#3050196)
Danny:

I pointed out that Bill had earned a right to a position and not to be jerked around.

I find your description inaccurate.
   271. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:10 AM (#3050200)
It's also worth mentioning that if the Mariners were run by a smart front office, they could have traded from strength and dealt Presley after 1987 when his value would never be higher, and with the knowledge that they had a great guy ready to fill in.

That's a good 200 more games at least. Games that would have been at third base, I'll point out. Add those in and he gets relatively close to 10,000 career plate appearances. He gets close to 800 games at third base before switching to DH. He gets around 2500 hits. If the M's deal Presley after 1987, it's closer to 300 games.

I'm not saying that he DESERVES that credit in making a HOF case. But I do think that there are some extenuating circumstances here that a voter might reasonably consider.


I think it would be quite irresponsible for a voter consider what might have happened if the team had traded Presley, and especially trying to extrpolate how many additional hits and games at 3B he would get and assuming that he would stay healthy for those 300 games.

By this kind of reasoning Stieb is a sure-fire HOFer and Ted Williams might be better than Babe Ruth. It's difficult enough to properly evaluate what a player actually did, without hypothesizing what might have been and giving credit for this adjustment.
   272. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:14 AM (#3050201)
Tommy John Will be lucky to get 30% of the vote. WRONGO - 31.7%

MHS -- have you learned nothing in your years at BTF? You weren't wrong, it's just like you said -- John got lucky. :-)

On Edgar -- no, I don't think he's got much of a chance at all. And like Raines, I think you'll do better if you argue fairly and find the right selling points. So Edgar is 22nd in career OBP. He's also 164th in career PA. That last ranking counts too.

On McGriff -- I can't believe nobody has raised it yet which probably means I missed it ... but his biggest selling point is that he was "clean." Not making 500 will hurt him (though Rice and Perez both made it without coming close) but he's really the last of the pre-steroids sluggers and that was pretty easily an HoF career before the offensive explosion. He's missing hardware (4 AS and no MVPs), the 500th HR and his postseason numbers are very nice but no dramatic moments that I recall. Still, he's fairly close to Stargell. It will take him a few years but, until they soften their stance on steroids, I think he's got a good shot.

Dawson and Rice -- I could well be wrong and I know there's no solid precedence (closer is a clear precedent but that's a special case), but I think Rice's election will help Dawson. Dawson debuted at 45% with Rice dropping back from 58% to 55%. In 03, it was 52% (Rice) to 50% Dawson. In 04, 55 to 50, then 60 to 52, then 65 to 61, the 64 to 57 (in the Ripken and Gwynn and Gossage surge year). Then 72 to 66 last year. These two guys have been moving pretty much in tandem which makes some sense. If you think Rice is an HoFer, you should think Dawson is too. If you didn't vote for either but think Dawson is the more deserving of the two, he's more likely to earn a spot on your ballot next year. Anyway, Dawson is virtually guaranteed to get in eventually and I suspect it will be next year given the "weak" new entries though he might come up just short.
   273. RJ in TO Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:21 AM (#3050205)
On McGriff -- I can't believe nobody has raised it yet which probably means I missed it ... but his biggest selling point is that he was "clean." Not making 500 will hurt him (though Rice and Perez both made it without coming close) but he's really the last of the pre-steroids sluggers and that was pretty easily an HoF career before the offensive explosion. He's missing hardware (4 AS and no MVPs), the 500th HR and his postseason numbers are very nice but no dramatic moments that I recall. Still, he's fairly close to Stargell. It will take him a few years but, until they soften their stance on steroids, I think he's got a good shot.


I'd like to believe this, but he's also got a lot working against him:
- he didn't get the 500 HR milestone, in an era where a whole bunch of guys crashed past it (Murray, Thomas, Thome, Palmeiro, McGwire just among the 1B, with Delgado closing in too)
- he played for a lot of teams (6, with no more that 4 full seasons with any of them), and was almost viewed as a journeyman
- he was never the signature guy on his team
- he was viewed more as an accumulator than as a star
- because of the spike in offensive levels, his peak is heavily masked.

I want very badly for him to get in, but I've begun to think that he'll have a hell of a hard time doing so.
   274. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:27 AM (#3050212)
he was never the signature guy on his team

I take issue with this assessment. Besides his stats, possibly his best "secondary" argument is that he was the decisive factor for the 1993 Braves (besting the Giants, who also won over 100 games, by 1 game). Take Crime Dog away from the Braves, and they don't win the NL West that year.
   275. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:27 AM (#3050213)
Treder, tOPS+ is just comparing the player to himself. It's not clear if you realize that (and I've seen others make this mistake). Compared to Rice's overall numbers, his OPS+ against righties was 95. It's not comparing the player's split to the rest of the league. That said, since both Rice and White had career OPS+ in the 120s, it is true that White was more effective than Rice vs. righties, and vice versa.

I realize that (and I also realize it can be confusing). But you're correct that I conclude that since both guys have roughly comparable career OPS+ figures that simply comparing their tOPS+ figures is valid and useful, and as you say, one can properly conclude that White was the better hitter against RHP, and Rice the better hitter against LHP.
   276. Mbvlckd Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:28 AM (#3050214)
I don't believe EITHER Rice or Dawson belong, but if you forced me to choose one I'd pick Rice, and it wouldn't be a difficult decision. That .323 OBP from Andre is just TOO glaring a weakness -- it's not just substandard for the Hall of Fame, it's below-average for an ORDINARY player.

Andre was an impressive player, and in his best years he could push a team towards a championship. But he's in many ways a rich man's Joe Carter with more defensive value (before the knees went).
   277. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:29 AM (#3050217)
No voter can vote for Rice and not Dawson. That's just bizarre logic.

And considering the lack of REAL info I believe the only sensible approach for a voter concerned with PEDS is to NOT vote for any player of the 90's and early 00's.

Otherwise it's just guessing.....
   278. Steve Treder Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:30 AM (#3050218)
Take Crime Dog away from the Braves, and they don't win the NL West that year.

Thanks a f&cking; lot for bringing me down memory lane.
   279. Wes Parkers Mood (Mike Green) Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:45 AM (#3050225)
"No voter can vote for Rice and not Dawson. That's just bizarre logic."

Bizarre logic from a BBWAA Hall of Fame voter? Say it aint so.
   280. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:47 AM (#3050227)
If overall offense perked up due to the DH, then the denominators in White's OPS+ are composed of hitters inferior to those in Rice's OPS+.

Sure, but it is something less than one-ninth of the hitters in White's pre-1973 seasons. It isn't a big enough concern to render us unable to compare the OPS+ of White and Rice, or generally of hitters in DH leagues and non-DH leagues.


Assuming you're using BBREF numbers, Sean factors out pitcher hitting when calculating OPS+, so it makes no difference.

From the BBREF glossary:

Step 1 Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB)/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)
   281. RJ in TO Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:48 AM (#3050229)
I take issue with this assessment. Besides his stats, possibly his best "secondary" argument is that he was the decisive factor for the 1993 Braves (besting the Giants, who also won over 100 games, by 1 game). Take Crime Dog away from the Braves, and they don't win the NL West that year.


He only played half a season for them, and that was the same year that Justice hit 40 HR, and Gant put out 36 to go with 26 steals. While he may have been the difference down the stretch, I doubt that many people would have picked him as the Braves best player that season.
   282. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:49 AM (#3050230)
Wes:

You got me....
   283. Mbvlckd Posted: January 13, 2009 at 02:51 AM (#3050232)
Jeff Blauser had a great year in 1993 as well -- a Robin Yount-quality season. Too bad it was his only one at that level. (well, he was very good in '97 too)
   284. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 03:15 AM (#3050242)
He only played half a season for them, and that was the same year that Justice hit 40 HR, and Gant put out 36 to go with 26 steals. While he may have been the difference down the stretch, I doubt that many people would have picked him as the Braves best player that season.

Actually Maddux was probably the most valuable individual to that team (80 VORP--and Blauser was actually second on the team, with 60).

In terms of McGriff versus Gant or Justice, Gant or Justice were slightly more valuable (despite only half the PA, McGriff was only 8.5 VORP behind Justice and 6 behind Gant). But if you ask any Braves fan (or Giants, like Treder or me) who put up the most memorable offensive performance for the Braves, its McGriff. He led the Braves to a 5-1 performance over the Giants in late August that proved to be the difference.
   285. RJ in TO Posted: January 13, 2009 at 03:23 AM (#3050245)
But if you ask any Braves fan (or Giants, like Treder or me) who put up the most memorable offensive performance for the Braves, its McGriff. He led the Braves to a 5-1 performance over the Giants in late August that proved to be the difference.


Fair enough. He also did better in the MVP voting that year than I remember, although he did finish slightly behind Justice (3rd and 4th, with the difference being a tiny 6 points). At that point, we're talking about a tiny difference.
   286. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 03:58 AM (#3050271)
I don't believe EITHER Rice or Dawson belong, but if you forced me to choose one I'd pick Rice, and it wouldn't be a difficult decision. That .323 OBP from Andre is just TOO glaring a weakness -- it's not just substandard for the Hall of Fame, it's below-average for an ORDINARY player.


Why would one use unadjusted OBA as the relevant stat?

Well if we're gonna use let's do it realistically. Rice's career OBP+ is 128 and Dawson's is 119, so it is clearly incorrect to assert that Dawson's OBA is "below average for an ORDINARY player". At his peak he was 57% better than average and 30% or more for seven seasons. Rice was only 30% better than average in five seasons. Additionally Dawson played for five seasons after Rice quit, which is where Dawson lost ground in the OBP battle. From age 34 to 36 Rice posted OBP+ of 101, 102, and 70 while Dawson posted 114, 135, 116 for those ages and then posted a 115 OPS+ at age 37, an age at which Rice could no longer play. I wonder what Rice's career OBP would look like if he continued to play for five more seasons as Dawson did. For their best seven seasons their comparative OBP+ are:

Rice.....157, 154, 147, 141, 136, 127, 123
Dawson...157, 141, 137, 136, 135, 132, 130

Not really that much difference considering that this is supposedly Dawson's fatal flaw.

Let's look at WARP3 which is a little more all-encompassing:

Tim Raines.....12.0, 11.3, 10.5, 10.2, 9.9....131.1......268.5
Albert Belle...14.3, 11.8, 11.6, 11.4, 9.9.... 89.6......241.7
Andre Dawson...11.8, 9.9, 9.4, 8.4, 7.0....107.5......229.3
Kirby Puckett..11.0, 9.9, 8.7, 7.8, 7.5.....87.1. 203.9
Jim Rice........9.7, 8.9, 7.5, 7.4, 7.3.....80.2......185.4

Clearly it's no contest between Rice and Dawson.

One wonders how Belle could have been dismissed so quickly while Kirby Puckett is comfortably ensconced. Maybe it was because Puckett's career was suddenly ended by injury. Oh wait a minute, that doesn't work. Forget that idea. I guess he was just a jovial all-round good guy and Belle was a jerk. Yea, I guess that was it. As good a reason as any to send a deserving guy packing.
   287. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 04:39 AM (#3050291)
Rice's career OBP+ is 128 and Dawson's is 119

Those are their OPS+, not OBP+.

Dawson put up a OBP of .323 when the lgOBP was .332--so he was below average (Rice was .352, lgOBP of .337).
   288. robinred Posted: January 13, 2009 at 04:42 AM (#3050292)
I have never been particularly into the HoF results, but Barry Larkin is my all-time personal fave, so I will be rooting for him.

Given how the BBWAA has handled Trammell, I am preparing for disappointment.
   289. kwarren Posted: January 13, 2009 at 04:54 AM (#3050299)
Rice's career OBP+ is 128 and Dawson's is 119

Those are their OPS+, not OBP+.

Dawson put up a OBP of .323 when the lgOBP was .332--so he was below average (Rice was .352, lgOBP of .337).


I hope this is some kind of a joke. This is sort of like saying a 5' five year old is shorter than average because the average adult is 5' 8".

If you want want to properly compare Dawson's OPB to the league average you need to multiply it by 1.19. So when you normalize his OBP to a comparable measure it is .384 which is 19% above league average.

It's truly incredible the lengths that some will go to create imaginary credentials for their guy.
   290. John DiFool2 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:00 AM (#3050302)
It's kind of funny that Bill James wrote about 10-12 years ago in the Politics of Glory that the BBWAA had actually done a good job with the Hall of Fame. It's actually gotten worse since then, despite the wealth of statistics and research possibilities the internet provides.


If given a choice, I'd much rather see the Hall make a Type II error (tho I know strictly speaking that's not exactly the best descriptor, before someone jumps on my ass), and reject a deserving candidate, than I would if it let in someone not quite up to snuff (Type I error). Once someone is in they are in for good, but the Forsaken Ones will get another chance. Sure Rice is almost certainly a clear Type I error, but I'd rather he be the only one, and not see the likes of Morris & Parker get in too. Yeah it sucks that the Hall's persistent biases conspire to keep deserving players like Raines and Trammell out, and guys end up dying (Lombardi) before the Hall finally gets around to honoring them, but opening the doors wide will almost certainly ensure that we would see mistakes like Hafey & Haines most every year, even as Tim & Alan get in too (even then no guarantee).

Yes that's not really addressing the criticism raised above, but it's closely aligned with it. Would you accept Raines getting in if it also meant Morris does too? The voters have obviously decided that they will be very exclusionary at this point in time, but for me that's the universe I'd want to live in, given an imperfect world, vs. the even more regrettable alternative, again given the Hall's biases in terms of which types of players they like, vs. which ones they underrate. I see one Type I error this year, about 5 Type II errors, and a bunch of results (17) which were right on the button. All in all that's not a horrid outcome from where I'm sitting, but flip those first two numbers around and it would be. In a more perfect world, yea, no errors at all, but that ain't this one (tho I am not strictly speaking a Gnostic, not at all).

He [Ventura] won't get elected (and probably shouldn't) but he is a lot higher up on the list of all-time third basemen than most people realise. He was pretty terrific defensively, too.


None of that helped Matt Williams (and Williams had a better peak). Okay, Ventura doubles Williams' total-and still drops out.

He [McGwire] actually went down this year. He's never getting in.


See above-never say never. Eventually either the Old Guard (seeing as it's old) will die off, and/or those who are rabidly anti-juicers (convicted, suspected, or otherwise) will moderate their opinions.

So, yeah, even though they like to elect somebody, and even though Dawson and Blyleven are both already close... I could still see no one getting in next year.


Any possibility the Hall will give the VC yearly shots, starting next year? [Insert joke about injections with controlled substances]

He [James] went quite a bit further than that, he LATER referred to Rose as Baseball's "wronged man" and outlined a process whereby Rose would be reinstated and eventually elected to the HOF- it was pretty clear by the time of the NBJHA that he thought Rose was actually innocent.


This from a man who also thought that The Secret Diaries of Shoeless Joe Jackson was a real book. If James was in on the joke it didn't seem like it to me. And I adore the guy (BJ, not SJJ, tho I kind of do like the latter anyway).
   291. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:03 AM (#3050304)
It's truly incredible the lengths that some will go to create imaginary credentials for their guy.

As I've said on this thread and countless others, I'm strongly against both Rice and Dawson. But in terms of OBP, it's pretty straight-forward: Rice was above-average while Dawson was below-average.
   292. HGM Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:13 AM (#3050311)
If you want want to properly compare Dawson's OPB to the league average you need to multiply it by 1.19. So when you normalize his OBP to a comparable measure it is .384 which is 19% above league average.

Now, I don't think Dawson belongs in the HoF, but is anybody else absolutely baffled by the quoted statement?

kwarren, in your prior post, you were saying "OBP+", while referring to OPS+ numbers. Dawson's on-base PLUS slugging was not below average. Dawson's ON-BASE percentage WAS below average. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in the section I quoted.
   293. AROM Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:21 AM (#3050314)
If you want want to properly compare Dawson's OPB to the league average you need to multiply it by 1.19. So when you normalize his OBP to a comparable measure it is .384 which is 19% above league average.


Think about this. Spend some time on B-ref, and try to understand the numbers. Because you are making no sense whatsoever.

And I'm a Dawson supporter who thinks there are 20-30 better candidates out there than Rice.
   294. AROM Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:22 AM (#3050315)
deleted double post. Edit is cool.
   295. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:24 AM (#3050316)
No voter can vote for Rice and not Dawson. That's just bizarre logic.

Well, we already know a few do. But like I said, they seem to track pretty closely and it appears as if a sizeable chunk of the writers who start voting for Rice add Dawson too.

I don't believe EITHER Rice or Dawson belong, but if you forced me to choose one I'd pick Rice, and it wouldn't be a difficult decision. That .323 OBP from Andre is just TOO glaring a weakness -- it's not just substandard for the Hall of Fame, it's below-average for an ORDINARY player.

Sorry, not sure where that quote originally came from but ...

There's no doubt that OBP was a weakness for Dawson.

And if of one thinks that a peak, hitting-only case is the primary factor in determining whether a player belongs in the HoF, then Rice belongs and much moreso than Dawson. Once you start bringing in career length, defensive value, positional adjustment, baserunning value, etc. then Rice has many glaring weaknesses while Dawson really has just the one. I'd point out that Rice's defense and baserunning (at least for the majority of his career) were far worse than the ORDINARY player but then that's probably true of 2/3 of the guys in the HoF.

The difference between them as hitters is basically 25-30 points of OBP (depending on which periods you want to compare) or call it 8-9 points of OBP+. The difference between them in PAs is 1700. The difference between them in steals is 256 (and Dawson stole at about a 75% clip). The difference between them on defense is 8 gold gloves and the ability to play CF and fewer than 200 games at DH vs. no gold gloves and 530 games at DH. In the same amount of playing time, Dawson reached base about 230 times fewer but scored only about 50 fewer runs so, when he was on, he was adding more runs than Rice.

This is the curse of the good, all-around player. Dawson was as good or better than Rice in every aspect of the game except BABIP and a little walk rate. In terms of defense and baserunning, he outclassed Rice about as badly as a player can be outclassed. But it's Dawson with the "glaring weakness."
   296. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:54 AM (#3050336)
- he didn't get the 500 HR milestone, in an era where a whole bunch of guys crashed past it (Murray, Thomas, Thome, Palmeiro, McGwire just among the 1B, with Delgado closing in too)

Yes, but it seems clear the wrtiers are not gonna count McGwire. I'm not sure Palmeiro will get 5%. Who knows what they're gonna do with Bonds (I think he'll make it) and it seems a sizeable chunk of them think Sosa was on PEDs. (By the way, you forgot Griffey (no PEDs issues) and Sheffield (499 HR, some PEDs issues but maybe not crippling).

They have a lot of sorting out to do on PEDs but, as long as they continue with this notion that they didn't impact baseball until sometime around 1998, I think McGriff will be seen as from a different era and judged by "pre-PEDs standards." If so, by "pre-PEDs" standards, he's pretty clearly in.

Anyway, he'll be on the ballot for 3 years before Bonds and Sosa arrive and I don't see McGwire or Palmeiro having much effect on his vote total. Dawson is tne only other slugger on the current list and I think he'll be in the next year or two. He does have other negatives but put me down for McGriff at around 40% next year, building to top 50% by the time Bonds et al start hitting the ballot. If the writers take it out on Bonds and Sosa then McGriff gets another year or two before Sheffield, Thomas or Griffey hit the list. Basically, I think his percentage will be high enough by the time those guys hit eligibility that he'll be on the "nobody has hit X% without making it" list.

I'm guessing we won't see a change in how this era is viewed any sooner than when Bonds hits the ballot. McGwire's toast, Palmeiro's toast. They're the low-hanging fruit for the moralists. If they stick to the high ground and Bonds and Sosa are wallowing sub-40%, then McGriff I think will make it fairly easily. If the voters change their PEDs stance substantially and open the gates, then that's bad for McGriff for the reason you note. What will be interesting is if up to 75% of them decide that Bonds pre-2000 was "clean" and already an HoFer. If they grant "amnesty" up to 2000, that's basically McGriff's entire career. Through age 35 (the year 2000), Bonds had 494 HR. McGriff's total is 493. You see where I'm going with that. Of course it's just as likely the anti-Bonds crowd will start with the "he didn't even have 500 HR by 2000..." and that won't be good for McGriff.

OK, more rambling. With McGwire I think most of it is flat-out PEDs moralizing. But some chunk of it is folks thinking he just wouldn't have hit nearly so many HR (and maybe have been even more injury-prone) without PEDs. So some chunk of them think he'd have been a better but not great version of Kingman say without PEDs. Palmeiro would have been lucky to be Mark Grace. Sosa's -- I dunno -- Alfonso Soriano at best? McGriff looks fine by that standard. And I think most of that chunk will vote for Bonds too. I just don't know how big that chunk is.
   297. RJ in TO Posted: January 13, 2009 at 05:58 AM (#3050338)
(By the way, you forgot Griffey (no PEDs issues) and Sheffield (499 HR, some PEDs issues but maybe not crippling).


Not really. If you read it again, you'll see that I specified just 1B, since those will be the ones who McGriff will primarily be compared against. If you want to include all 500 HR men of his era, then you have to add Griffey and Sheffield, as you note, as well as Sosa, Bonds, A-Rod, and Manny.

EDIT: As to the rest, I'll continue to hope that you're right, and he'll have a chance to sneak in, but I'm also inclined to think that McGriff could easily become a forgotten man.
   298. Baldrick Posted: January 13, 2009 at 06:05 AM (#3050344)
I hope this is some kind of a joke. This is sort of like saying a 5' five year old is shorter than average because the average adult is 5' 8".

If you want want to properly compare Dawson's OPB to the league average you need to multiply it by 1.19. So when you normalize his OBP to a comparable measure it is .384 which is 19% above league average.

It's truly incredible the lengths that some will go to create imaginary credentials for their guy.

There is no part of this where I can even fathom what you might be thinking. It's not just that it's wrong - it's that I can't even imagine how you ever got to a place so far from right.
   299. cardsfanboy Posted: January 13, 2009 at 06:08 AM (#3050348)
Is Kwarren doing some type of park adjustment with his numbers?

mind you, I think the argument "lowest obp among anybody in the hall" is a flat out bad argument no matter who is spouting it off. Who cares what his obp is, it's about what is his total value, no matter how he gets there. Runs Created, eqa, whatever you use to measure whatever it is, it includes the low obp, to ding him a second time is just as bad as voting for a guy because he has a .300 batting average.
   300. Obama Bomaye Posted: January 13, 2009 at 06:19 AM (#3050353)
I will seventh the motion that I have absolutely no idea what kwarren's #289 means.
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(411 - 7:01pm, Jul 25)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3188 - 6:54pm, Jul 25)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(941 - 6:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogWisch: Cooperstown Shouldn’t Close Out Lee Smith
(8 - 6:51pm, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(87 - 6:50pm, Jul 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

Newsblog7-25-14 OMNICHATTER
(9 - 6:20pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(19 - 6:17pm, Jul 25)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(29 - 6:13pm, Jul 25)
Last: Zach

NewsblogBA Report: MLBPA Files Grievance Against Astros Over Aiken, Nix, Marshall
(4 - 6:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Boxkutter

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(7 - 5:53pm, Jul 25)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(112 - 5:39pm, Jul 25)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogESPN : GM Offers To Get Prostate Exam During Game
(16 - 5:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogSoE: AN IDIOT IN EXILE
(1 - 5:06pm, Jul 25)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(97 - 4:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(22 - 4:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Brian

Page rendered in 0.7140 seconds
52 querie(s) executed