User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.8594 seconds
38 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Sunday, January 06, 20082008 BBTF HOF Results: Voters Here Think Raines, Blyleven, Trammell, Gossage and McGwire are Worthy!In his first year of eligibility, legendary speedster and leadoff hitter Tim Raines was selected by the BBTF electorate almost unanimously with a spectacular 99% of all ballots. Curveball specialist Bert Blyleven did extremely well himself with 96%, matching his BBTF totals of 2005 and 2006 (he had 87% in 2007). Standout shortstop Alan Trammell was the third BBTF HOF pick with his 83% (he had 79% in 2005, 81% in 2006 and 84% in 2007). Intimidating fireman Goose Gossage earned 81% of the electorate’s vote for fourth place, though slipping again in support for the third year in a row (he had 93% in 2005, 87% in 2006 and 82% in 2007). Last but not least, power hitter deluxe Mark McGwire just made it with 76% of all ballots in his second year of eligibility, up from last year by 7%. Will there be a comparable uptick for him in the real election? Rounding out the top-ten were: Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Lee Smith, Dave Concepcion and Tommy John. New candidates: Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryamn, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Rob Nen, Jose Rijo and Todd Stottlemyre received no votes. 143 voters participated in our exercise, 32 more from 2007 (in our first BBTF in 2005, we had only 28 voters casting a ballot). How will the BBWAA compare? At least 90% of HoM voters overwhelmingly went for the same five candidates picked by the collective BBTF family, with Raines getting an unanimous vote. Thanks to everyone who submitted a ballot or joined in the discussion! RK LY Player Votes ---------------------------------------- 1 n/e Tim Raines 141 2 3 Bert Blyleven 137 3 4 Alan Trammell 119 4 5 Goose Gossage 116 5 6 Mark McGwire 109 ------------------------------------------ 6 7 Andre Dawson 50 7 8T Dale Murphy 40 8 11 Lee Smith 29 9 14 Dave Concepcion 27 10 10 Tommy John 25 ------------------------------------------- 11 16 Dave Parker 13 12 12T Jim Rice 10 13T 16 Don Mattingly 5 13T 12T Jack Morris 5 15 18 Harold Baines 3 16 n/e Chuck Finley 2 17 n/e Brady Anderson 1 Ballots Cast: 143 Hall of Merit Group RK LY Player PTS Votes ----------------------------------------- 1 n/e Tim Raines 34 2T 3 Bert Blyleven 33 2T 5T Alan Trammell 33 4 4 Goose Gossage 32 5 5T Mark McGwire 31 ------------------------------------------- 6 7 Andre Dawson 21 7 9 Dale Murphy 15 8 15T Dave Concepcion 14 9T 10 Tommy John 11 9T 11 Lee Smith 11 -------------------------------------------- 11 13 Dave Parker 8 12T 14 Don Mattingly 4 12T 12 Jim Rice 4 14T n/e Chuck Finley 2 14T 15T Jack Morris 2 16 17T Harold Baines 1 Ballots Cast: 34 (down from 2007's 43; though a HoMer, Dawson failed to reach 75%))
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: January 06, 2008 at 08:43 PM | 78 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsReranking Left Fielders: Results
(12 - 12:21am, Feb 04) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (43 - 6:03pm, Feb 03) Last: Jaack Ranking Left Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (95 - 1:15pm, Feb 03) Last: Rob_Wood Reranking Left Fielders Ballot (20 - 3:38pm, Feb 02) Last: Tiboreau 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (53 - 6:06pm, Feb 01) Last: DL from MN Joe Mauer (19 - 8:38pm, Jan 27) Last: Bleed the Freak Chase Utley (17 - 7:44pm, Jan 17) Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to 2023 Hall of Merit Election Results (46 - 10:53am, Jan 11) Last: Mark A Shirk 2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (375 - 9:11pm, Jan 06) Last: Bleed the Freak Adrian Beltre (14 - 7:14pm, Jan 06) Last: The Honorable Ardo Fred McGriff (38 - 11:55pm, Jan 05) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? 2023 Hall of Merit Ballot (40 - 10:35pm, Jan 05) Last: Howie Menckel Our Constitution (396 - 7:12pm, Jan 04) Last: cookiedabookie Most Meritorious Player: 2022 Discussion (29 - 2:38pm, Dec 30) Last: bookbook Hall of Merit Book Club (11 - 3:41pm, Dec 16) Last: gehrig97 Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 07, 2008 at 01:06 AM (#2661937)Same here, Guts, except I also selected Smith.
I'm happy that you've provided a forum for everyone both to argue and to vote. And since it ain't getting McGwire into Cooperstown, I think I can live with this particular 76%. When it comes to the juicers, I trust the BBWAA's collective judgment far more than that of the average Primate.
I'm also pretty damn impressed with the support for Raines. 99% would be pretty sporty even for Babe Ruth himself.
Sadly, Alan Trammell will probably get the same support there that Rice got here.
Will you feel the same way if they elect McGwire in a couple years?
Cal Ripken's a primate?
Will you feel the same way if they elect McGwire in a couple years?
I've said it a hundred times: I'd disagree with all my heart, but I'd respect its collective judgment, since it's obvious that many (if not most) of the writers are at least considering the question of how steroid use relates to character, and how character is germane to a player's HoF qualifications. I wish I could say the same about the voters here, but again, within the context we have here I have to grant the authority of their judgment as much as I do the BBWAA's within its own. All we can do is to put our views out there and hope that (ho ho) someone beyond BTF is paying at least a modicum of attention.
I did and if it wasn't for the stupid 5% rule, I might have left him off. Certainly in '07 I would have.
I did and if it wasn't for the stupid 5% rule, I might have left him off. Certainly in '07 I would have.
Just as I would not have left him off my HoM ballot. I may be the only person here who keeps insisting on the fundamental distinction between the two "Halls," but I'm sure glad that a sizeable number of BBWAA voters agree with me that steroids are a presumptive disqualifier for the HoF.
I'm sure they would too. But those same guys will vote for Jack Morris and leave off Tim Raines. So their judgment leaves something to be desired.
I think it should be more like a road bump(s) to Cooperstown, but I still can't see steroids in the same way that I see gambling, IMO.
I'm waiting for the dust to settle on the latter, and may well have put him in next year.
If McGwire doesn't like it, well, he doesn't like to talk about the past anyway.
I'm sure they would too. But those same guys will vote for Jack Morris and leave off Tim Raines. So their judgment leaves something to be desired.
I never said that they were all necessarily geniuses when it came to cases like that. Raines was at the top of my HoF ballot while Morris has an honored place in my HoVG. And again, McGwire easily gets my HoM vote. But none of these questions were what I was addressing.
I think it should be more like a road bump(s) to Cooperstown, but I still can't see steroids in the same way that I see gambling, IMO.
I don't either, John, but it still crosses the line in my book. And while appearances of propreity aside, I have no doubt that Pete Rose gave 100% effort to win every game he either played in or managed, I still wouldn't vote for him to enter the HoF, either. Not every disqualifying mark has to be strictly equivalent to be disqualifying. Gandil was probably worse than Jackson, who in turn was probably worse than Weaver, who in turn was worse than Rose, who in turn was worse than the juicers, but that doesn't mean that any of them pass my idea of a HoF character test.
Oh, they aren't geniuses in those cases, but *are* geniuses in the McGwire case. <extends thumb and forefinger>
Without a doubt, Juan. That's almost all Dan's doing, to his credit.
Beat me to it.
Oh, they aren't geniuses in those cases, but *are* geniuses in the McGwire case. <extends thumb and forefinger>
First, who said that anyone was a "genius?" I've never had the honor of meeting one of those. But then we've never met.
And how would we tell an ethical genius, anyway? Would he have passed a test? If he blew the questions on abortion or gay marriage should he just forget about getting into college?
So you think that a knowledge of baseball translates into insight into ethics, or vice versa?
In that case let's have Bill Clinton tell us about marital ethics, grill Ann Landers about the importance of VORP and WHIP, and then let Tangotiger tell the Democrats how to wage a presidential campaign. We can then mock them all to our heart's delight.
Apparently, the HOF does. They're expecting their electorate to have both baseball and ethical insights regarding the candidates.
Based on this criteria every American Olympic athelete in strength or speed events for the past 30 years, every NFL lineman, a huge portion of college lineman, every professional wrestler, and a majority of major league baseball players wouldn't pass your character test. At some point we have to get over it.
In many sports the price of success is and has been for a while, taking undetectable PED and the associated masking agents. Otherwise you are simply left in the dust of the dopers. The problem is the lack of enforcement, lack of punishment and/or deterrent, and the huge benefits that are there to be derived.
If you exclude 1975-78 - Goose's 3 best seasons as a reliever plus his one season as a starter - he appeared in 774 games (8 starts), 1,176.1 innings, 964 K, an ERA of 3.24, ERA+ of 117, with a record of 85-62, 230 saves.
Mike Timlin, for his career, has appeared in 1,011 games (9 more than Gossage in his career), 1,155 innings, 840 K, an ERA of 3.55, ERA+ of 128, with a record of 71-69, 140 saves.
Take away Gossage's three best seasons and what you have is - 1176 IP, ERA+ 117
Timlin's total career - 1,155 IP, ERA+ 128
Timlin is far better than Gossage outside of those three seasons. I hope the people that would put him, and the BWAA who are about to, are proud of the way of they are upholding the Hall of Fame's standards.
Reliever ERA's have been trending up relative to era. Gossage was more dominant compared to his peers than Timlin was with his. Plus, Timlin's spent more of his career as a setup man.... lower leverage.
Finally remove almost any players best three years and of course they won't look as good. Only the inner-circle guys still look good with their best three years removed. Plus, Gossage was a reliever workhorse in his three top seasons with 141, 133 and 134 IP. That's like removing six Timlin seasons.
Reliever ERA's have been trending up relative to era. Gossage was more dominant compared to his peers than Timlin was with his. Plus, Timlin's spent more of his career as a setup man.... lower leverage.
ERA+ does measure dominance compared to peers and is also park adjusted. That's why we don't use straight ERA
Finally remove almost any players best three years and of course they won't look as good. Only the inner-circle guys still look good with their best three years removed. Plus, Gossage was a reliever workhorse in his three top seasons with 141, 133 and 134 IP. That's like removing six Timlin seasons.
Gossage had three truly great seasons (for a reliever). I give him that. But Dick Allen, Albert Belle, Appier, Saberhagen, Gooden, Strawberry and on and on had a lot more than that, and they were full-time players.
Outside of those three years he was a lot worse than Mike Timlin. If you want to put him for those three seasons, 408 IP of quality pitching, then giddy-up. Personally I see it as another insult to the bonafide Hall of Famers, and especially to those who are still waiting to get in - Blyeven, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Santo, Allen, Grich
Me too.
Remove Bob Gibson's three best years and he doesn't look much like a Hall of Famer either. So what?
No, he wasn't. ERA+ isn't the best of metrics for relievers, especially short relievers, and there's a lot of difference between a pitcher working 1176 innings in 774 games (1.5 IP/G) and 1155 innings in 1011 games (1.1 IP/G).
OK, thanks. Can we stop arguing about it now? We get it: You don't want Gossage enshrined, for reasons you've elaborated on at length. Many of us disagree with you, for reasons we've elaborated on at length. We're not going to convince each other. Let it go.
So: take away Gibson's best three years, and he can still be favorably compared to Saberhagen and Cone, which makes him a viable HoM candidate, if perhaps not necessarily a HoF candidate.
Now, you don't really want to take away Saberhagen's best three years.
Ok, fine. :-) I picked a bad example.
But you know darn well there are plenty of viable ones.
Let me make it easy: if you don't pitch that second inning, it's easier to have a better ERA+.
I also don't tend to get hung up on big bonuses for a guy who is a little above-average in his 14th or 15th best seasons vs a guy who isn't as good in those "make or break" years.
No, he wasn't. ERA+ isn't the best of metrics for relievers, especially short relievers, and there's a lot of difference between a pitcher working 1176 innings in 774 games (1.5 IP/G) and 1155 innings in 1011 games (1.1 IP/G).
It's very telling that you use this logic to compare Gossage to relievers who pitch less, but you won't accept this same argument when comparing Gossage to starting pitchers. Obviously you've made up your mind that Gossage is a Hall of Famer, as have the majority of the voters both here and with the BWAA, but it's kind of like the Rice supporters when you use an argument to show Gossage's superiority over other relievers, but reject the same argument to compare Gossage to starting pitchers.
Gladly.
We have this new animal in baseball, the elite relief pitcher (closer), who didn't exist in baseball until sometime in the seventies. It used to be that the worse pitchers on any team were the relievers and everybody knew it. They pitched as little as possible and in the lowest leverage situations imaginable, if possible.
Then somewhere along the line a few realities started to become apparent in baseball:
1) A starting pitcher pitched progressively worse, the further he went into a game.
2) Young pitchers who were over-worked frequently had career ending injuries. Actually this has pretty much been always known, although not necessarily documented well, but most GM's took the approach that there were always lots of other young pitchers who could step in and take their place. And some young pitchers did pitch successfully through heavy workloads, so virtually every talented kid was given the opportunity to see if he could do it.
3) A much inferior pitcher, who pitched only one inning at a time, could be vastly more effective in the late innings than a tired starter.
4) So in order to reduce injuries to young pitchers and get more effective pitching in the late inings of a close game the era of specialization in pitching gradually began.
5) Five man rotations also evolved.
This has vastly reduced the impact of the truly great starters. 300 IP has become 225 IP. But it, along with arthroscopic surgery, has increased the survival rate of young pitchers and introduced two new concepts in pitching, closers and set-up guys.
Now, are relief pitchers still the worse pitchers on a team? If not, how are they chosen. Well almost all young talented pitchers start out as starters. Many of them become relievers, some before they ever reach the majors. The reasons for the conversion are varied but usually follow at least one of the following scenarios: lack of stamina or endurance, lack of a third pitch, injury issues, lack of talent - not among the five best starters on a team.
So now we have two completely different classes of pitchers:
Starters - pitch between 6 and 9 innings every fifth game throwing between 90 and 125 pitches a game
Relievers - usually pitch one inning or less throwing their best pitches and maximum velocity on every pitch and facing no batters more than once.
Can we use ERA to compare the two groups. Well it would seem that there are lots of reasons that relievers should have lower ERA(s) assuming the talent level is equal - no fatigue issue, not having to pace oneself, never facing a batter more than once in a game, the opportunity to start at mid-inning on occasion, walk off losses saving the reliever some earned runs from scoring.
Using ZIPS's changes in projections for pitchers who have a change in role, we find the following difference when a specific pitcher changes roles from relieving to starting.
ERA as a starter = (ERA as a reliever - 1.50) * 1.425 + 1.50.
This means that a major league average reliever with a 4.21 ERA would be expected to have a 5.36 ERA as a starter.
This is pretty much what most would expect I imagine. The interesting thing is that the average major league starter actually has an ERA of 4.57, not 5.36. Using the same formula, this means that the latent talent of the starting pitcher pool is 25.7% better than the latent talent level of the relief pitcher pool. I'm not sure what this says about a top relievers Hall of Fame qualifications but it does give us a fair way to compare starters and relievers on the basis of ERA to determine their respective talent levels.
One thing we now know for certain is that there is a vastly different talent level between the major league starting pitcher pool and the relief pitcher pool, so the idea that the worst pitchers on a team are the relief pitchers still seems to be valid, but that still does leave open the possibility that the elite closers could have a talent level compared to the top starters.
Using this formula to adjust the career ERA+ for some of the top relievers we can compare them to the top starting pitchers who are not inducted, at least on a talent level. (IP in brackets)
Mariano Rivera (953) 194 equiv to 168
Goose Gossage (1,809) 126 104
Hoyt Wilhelm (2,254) 146 125
Trevor Hoffman (943) 147 124
Bruce Sutter (1,042) 136 113
Rollie Fingers (1,701) 119 99
Bert Blyleven (4,970) 118
Bret Saberhagen (2,562) 126
Dizzy Trout (2,726) 124
Dave Stieb (2,895) 122
Billy Pierce (3,307) 119
Rick Reuschel (3,548) 114
Larry Jackson (3,263) 113
Luis Tiant (3,186) 114
Tommy John (4,710) 110
Jerry Koosman (3,839) 110
Frank Viola (2,836) 112
Jim Kaat (4,530) 107
Vida Blue (3,343) 108
Jack Morris (3,824) 105
On a sheer talent level none of the starting pitchers is anywhere near Mariano Rivera. Wilhelm and Hoffman are right there, Sutter not really, and Gossage and Fingers not close. One thing that does need to be noted is that both Rivera and Hoffman have pitched less than 20% of the innings that Blyleven has.
Now, we still have a real problem with how to evaluate relievers when comparing them to starters.
Consider the following two pitchers' one-year performance
Roger Clemens - 70 IP, 12 GS, ERA 3.00
Mike Timlin - 70 IP, 0 GS, ERA 3.00
Now as far as I know, all the traditional rating systems - VORP, WARP, Win Shares, ERA+ would value these seasons as equivalent. There are two huge issues with this.
You can't compare a reliever's ERA with a starter's ERA on an equitable basis. On a comparable basis Timlin's ERA would be 3.54.
In order to replace Clemens' performance you would need to acquire a Hall of Fame calibre starter to make 12 starts for you. If you had to replace Timlin you would need to pick-up an average set-up guy from somewhere.
In reality these two performances are not similar at all in terms of the talent required, the value to the team, or the ability to replace this performance.
To summarize:
- it does appear that some of the elite relievers have the "talent" to be considered on an equal footing with very good starters, especially Rivera, but also Wilhelm and Hoffman.
- traditional ranking systems or methods of evaluation totally over-rate relievers by not adjusting reliever's ERA to put them on a comparable basis. This is actually easily done.
- what other sport inducts players who only play between one-quarter and one-third of the playing time of a regular. And keep in mind that a regular starting pitcher only participates in 13% of his team's innings pitched, and 0% of his teams offense in the AL.
- an elite closer pitches only 4% of his teams innings (virtually never when his team is tied or down a run; only when the team is already ahead) and contributes nothing to the offense, and is almost always only a relief pitcher because his team judged him somewhere along the line to not be suitable for the starting rotation. Are these guys really Hall of Famers? How much do they really contribute? No matter how great you are, and other than Rivera, even that is not all that clear, you are still sitting on your keester 96% of the time while your teammates are busy trying to build a league that they can entrust you to protect while throwing 10 to 15 pitches. And even the best closers still manage to not do that well over 10% of the time. I really don't get where all the love for closers is really coming from. Most likely it those artificially impressive ERA(s). But when you see how any relievers are posting ridiculously low ERA(s) it should become apparent that it really isn't that big a deal.
- if we took ERA+, VORP, Win Shares, and WARP and adjusted the relievers ERA to put them on a comparable basis, they would not rate very highly at all.
- with the exception of Rivera, who looks like some kind of a freak of nature, with his amazing ability to continually post ridiculously low ERA(s) and Wilhelm, who maintained a very impressive ERA over 2,250 innings and certainly contributed a lot more than your classic short reliever, there doesn't seem to be much of a case for including relievers with the top echelon of pitchers.
I agree in general with the "modern closers are overrated" theme, but even good arguments can go too far.
Sure it does. Nobody is suggesting that Timlin & Gossage comparable. We all know that Timlin is the poster boy for mediocre reliever with a long career. But Timlin is substantially better than Gossage (minus his three best seasons). 128 ERA+ versus 117 over the same number of innings. It's not meant to build up Timlin, simply to put Gossage's mediocrity in some perspective that his supporters might be able to appreciate.
Ever hear of Jan Stenerud?
OK, thanks. Can we stop arguing about it now? We get it: You don't want Gossage enshrined, for reasons you've elaborated on at length. Many of us disagree with you, for reasons we've elaborated on at length.
There haven't been any compelling reasons put forth to show Gossage as a Hall of Fame worthy -
The people who explain their Gossage votes are using this kind of rationale.
1) - best reliever ever, next to Wilhelm
2) - well he's better than Sutter and Fingers
3) - we need to put a relief pitcher in (we're a little short in that category) and he's clearly the best
4) - he's better than Lee Smith and Smith holds the saves record
Can anybody make a solid argument that he's better than Blyeven (or Dave Stieb for that matter). And until Blyeven is in, it strikes me as a bit silly to be arguing for Gossage.
Ever hear of Jan Stenerud?
"players" is plural. Stenerud is singlular.
And many football people are not so comfortable with this selection.
Actually, I would not be averse to Rivera getting in the HOF (not the HOM), simply because he is so much better than all other relievers. His margin of superiority is huge and because he is a Yankee, has played in the postseason every year of his career, and has a post-season ERA better than his remarkable regular season ERA, he is unbelievably "famous". He is a Hall of Famer in every sense of the phrase, not necessarily because of his contribution in terms of "wins contributed" although that is significant but because of the unheard quality of stats and fame that he has achieved.
It's like the Win Shares division of value between hitters, pitchers, and fielders. James divided them in a particular way partly so that the very best pitchers could still potentially content for Win Shares leadership. But if a pitcher contends for Win Shares leadership, to what degree does that indicate that his actual value is among the best players in the league, versus indicating that Bill James thought that the best pitchers should be valued among the best players in the league?
That isn't an argument for discarding the tools per se, but it is an argument for looking carefully at the results in circumstances where dissimilar things (pitchers vs. hitters, starters vs. relievers) are being compared.
What was the average number of players on a ballot?
What was the point of this comment?
Nobody is comparing Gossage to Timlin. Nobody is comparing Gossage minus his three best seasons to Timlin minus his three best seasons.
The comparison is between Gossage (minus his three best seasons) and Timlin's total career. The point is that Gossage outside of his three very good seasons, was a worse pitcher than Mike Timlin. And nobody thinks that Timlin is anything special.
Gossage pitched 1,809 innings. For 408 of those innings he was superb. For the remaining 1,401 innings he had a 117 ERA+. Timlin posted a 128 ERA+ over his rather undisguished career. It's hard to get excited over Gossage being great for such a short period of time and being so mediocre when he wasn't great.
Humor.
How many people were voters allowed to vote for?
10, maximum.
What was the average number of players on a ballot?
5.80, likely higher than tommorrow's average.
You're wrong here in so many ways that I won't even bother to pursue this.
Well, no. No, he wasn't.
And post 39 likely will forever remain unaddressed, alas.
You think relievers should be in the hall = Gossage in
You don't think relievers should be in the hall = Gossage out
You're repeating a post made several days ago, shown to be incorrect? Then I will repeat mine: You're an idiot.
What does this mean? How was it supposed to be addressed?
I don't think it's quite that simple. I think Wilhelm is a decent choice. Rivera, when he's done, is obviously someone who will require some serious study. His otherworldly effectiveness changes the equation somewhat.
And if Gossage had posted a few more of those 130-inning seasons like he did during that 4-year-stretch (wrapped around his unsuccessful starting stint), I could get behind his candidacy. But that was why I brought up Timlin (never thought it would have these legs) in the discussion thread. To me, it seems Gossage's entire case is built on those three years and 408 innings, whereas the other 18 years of his career he was deployed in a manner somewhat typical of today's reliever, with similar results of a reliever no one considers HOF worthy.
And if Gossage had posted a few more of those 130-inning seasons like he did during that 4-year-stretch (wrapped around his unsuccessful starting stint), I could get behind his candidacy. But that was why I brought up Timlin (never thought it would have these legs) in the discussion thread. To me, it seems Gossage's entire case is built on those three years and 408 innings, whereas the other 18 years of his career he was deployed in a manner somewhat typical of today's reliever, with similar results of a reliever no one considers HOF worthy.
Well said. Too bad more people don't see Gossage's career for what it is.
Re: Timlin
Add 408 innings of 200 ERA+ to Timlin and he has 1550 IP and a 142 ERA+. That would get him support.
Add 408 innings of 200 ERA+ to Timlin and he has 1550 IP and a 142 ERA+. That would get him support.
Well it would amount to a hell of lot better career than that which Gossage posted. It would fall somewhere in the middle between Wilhelm and Gossage.
Simon Says: All that Glitters
I had no idea what I was gonna write about next, but 7mart7 suggests “it would be an interesting article” to compare Bill James’s list (from the New Historical Baseball Abstract) of the 20 top players at each position with my list of the best performers in the sim. I’ve taken one liberty with Bill’s lists: I’ve incorporated Negro Leaguers in the order they’re found in his 100 Greatest Players. Worth a note too that James is counting from the end of 2002, so that some recently retired or still-active players, notably A-Rod and I-Rod, have increased their value since then.
My spreadsheets aren’t rocket science and they aren’t that subjective either: start with RC/600, add or subtract my defensive values, factor in durability, and voila. Others might weigh the metrics a little differently and arrive at a slightly different order, but it’s interesting to look at these guys in groups.
I’m only gonna do position players here because I don’t have the same clarity on pitchers.
In general, if you look at the players on James’s list who don’t make the sim cut, they are not the inner circle HOFamers but marginal stars with decent reputations whose relative weakness here may be due to a blurred peak, bad defense or maybe a hitch in their swing. They are replaced by guys who may be less famous — though we have come to know them pretty well — but who have sharper peaks, or good OBP, or great D, or may simply be overcoded.
Second base is a mysterious haven for a truly amazing collection of ringers.
Catchers:
James:
1. Josh Gibson
2. Yogi Berra
3. Johnny Bench
4. Roy Campanella
5. Mickey Cochrane
6. Mike Piazza
7. Carlton Fisk
8. Bill Dickey
9. Gary Carter
10. Gabby Hartnett
11. Ted Simmons
12. Joe Torre
13. Bill Freehan
14. Ivan Rodriguez
15. Thurman Munson
16. Elston Howard
17. Roger Bresnahan
18. Buck Ewing
19. Darrell Porter
20. Lance Parrish
Sim:
1. Josh Gibson
2. Mickey Cochrane
3. Mike Piazza
4. Gabby Hartnett
5. Johnny Bench
6. Gene Tenace
7. Yogi Berra
8. Craig Biggio
9. King Kelly
10. Roy Campanella
11. Bill Dickey
12. Joe Torre
13. Wally Schang
14. Gary Carter
15. Tom Haller
16. Dick Dietz
17. Louis Santop
18. Earl Smith
19. Wes Westrum
20. Mickey Tettleton
Santop doesn’t make Bill’s top 100 list, but he’s second among NeL catchers and might have made the top 20. I-Rod isn’t playing the sim yet and has presumably increased in value since leading the Tigers to a pennant. Biggio’s an interloper from 2B. Fisk, Freehan, Munson, Howard, Bresnahan, Ewing, Porter and Parrish don’t make my top twenty. They are replaced by Tenace, King Kelly, Haller, the infamously invulnerable Dick Dietz, Oil Smith, Westrum and Tettleton.
First Base:
James:
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Jimmie Foxx
3. Mark McGwire
4. Jeff Bagwell
5. Eddie Murray
6. Johnny Mize
7. Harmon Killebrew
8. Buck Leonard
9. Hank Greenberg
10. Willie McCovey
11. Frank Thomas
12. Cap Anson
13. Don Mattingly
14. Tony Perez
15. Will Clark
16. Dick Allen
17. Keith Hernandez
18. Orlando Cepeda
19. Dan Brouthers
20. Rafael Palmiero
Sim:
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Jimmie Foxx
3. Stan Musial
4. Buck Leonard
4. Mark McGwire
6. Johnny Mize
7. Jeff Bagwell
8. Hank Greenberg
9. Dan Brouthers
10. Rafael Palmiero
11. Harmon Killebrew
12. Bill Terry
13. John Olerud
14. Willie McCovey
15. Roger Connor
16. Frank Thomas
17. Keith Hernandez
18. Norm Cash
19. Eddie Murray
20. Dolph Camilli
Bill and I and everybody else agree on Larrupin’ Lou as numero uno and XX second. James rates Musial in LF. I get to Allen at 3B. There’s fair agreement between the lists. Bill Terry replaces Cap Anson. The Big Hurt’s eponymous glove drops him from the sim list. Olerud is the most obvious overcode, but small sample size may yet chop him down to size.
Second Base:
James:
1. Joe Morgan
2. Eddie Collins
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Jackie Robinson
5. Craig Biggio
6. Nap Lajoie
7. Ryne Sandberg
8. Charlie Gehringer
9. Rod Carew
10. Roberto Alomar
11. Frankie Frisch
12. Bobby Grich
13. Lou Whitaker
14. Billy Herman
15. Nellie Fox
16. Joe Gordon
17. Willie Randolph
18. Bobby Doerr
19. Tony Lazzeri
20. Larry Doyle
Sim:
1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Eddie Collins
3. Craig Biggio
4. Nap Lajoie
5. Roberto Alomar
6. Joe Morgan
7. Ryne Sandberg
8. Jackie Robinson
9. Bobby Grich
10. Eddie Stanky
11. Bill Monroe
12. Max Bishop
13. Nellie Fox
14. Ross Barnes
15. Charlie Gehringer
15. Baldy Louden
17. Jose Oquendo
18. Jimmy Williams
18. Bingo DeMoss
20. Danny Murphy
Wow.
The top of the 2B list is familiar enough. James was making a point about Hornsby and Morgan, which this game does not support. Here comes Biggio again. Monroe is only ranked fifth among NeL by James so he wouldn’t have made the top 20. Bingo DeMoss is first and might have.
The second ten is absolutely bulging with ringers. Stanky and Bishop, sure, we know they can get on base. But what about Jose Oquendo, Jimmy Williams, and Danny Murphy? Who ever heard of Baldy Louden before this sim? Ross ******* Barnes????!!!
Who ARE these guys, Sundance?
I mean, not to belabor a point, but is there any basis for expecting that Baldy Louden, who had two OPS seasons above 100 in the effing Federal League, would be the equal of Charlie Gehringer, who has fifteen consecutive such seasons, six of them above 130?
Sheesh.
Third Base:
James:
1. Mike Schmidt
2. George Brett
3. Eddie Mathews
4. Wade Boggs
5. Frank Baker
6. Ron Santo
7. Brooks Robinson
8. Paul Molitor
9. Stan Hack
10. Darrell Evans
11. Sal Bando
12. Ken Boyer
13. Graig Nettles
14. Al Rosen
15. Pie Traynor
16. Ron Cey
17. Jimmy Collins
18. Bob Elliott
19. Buddy Bell
20. Tommy Leach
Sim:
1. Eddie Mathews
2. Mike Schmidt
3. Dick Allen
4. Ron Santo
5. George Brett
6. Edgar Martinez
7. Al Rosen
8. Wade Boggs
9. Heine Groh
10. Sal Bando
11. Stan Hack
12. John McGraw
13. Ron Cey
14. Brooks Robinson
15. Bob Elliott
16. Robin Ventura
17. Ray Dandridge
18. Jimmy Collins
19. Frank Baker
20. Ed Yost
21. Paul Molitor
22. Darrell Evans
This is the one I posted before. Ray Dandridge isn’t in James’s top 100; hard to believe he wouldn’t have been in the top 20 at the position. I had to extend the sim list to 22 to get to Darrell Evans, whose one partial poor season was the basis for the original thread. Brett was the best 3B at the other place, but he’s depressed here. Allen and Edgar overcome stone gloves to be relatively valuable. Groh may be the best value at the position. Ken Boyer is undercoded. A relative absence of ringers at the hot corner.
Shortstop:
James:
1. Honus Wagner
2. Pop Lloyd
3. Arky Vaughan
4. Cal Ripken Jr.
5. Robin Yount
6. Ernie Banks
7. Willie Wells
8. Barry Larkin
9. Ozzie Smith
10. Joe Cronin
11. Alan Trammell
12. Pee Wee Reese
13. Luke Appling
14. Lou Boudreau
15. Luis Aparicio
16. George Davis
17. Jim Fregosi
18. Phil Rizzuto
19. Alex Rodriguez
20. Hughie Jennings
Sim:
1. Honus Wagner
2. Lou Boudreau
3. Pop Lloyd
4. Barry Larkin
5, Arky Vaughan
6. Hughie Jennings
7. Willie Wells
8. Cal Ripken
9. Ozzie Smith
10. Robin Yount
11. Ernie Banks
12. Alan Trammell
13. George Davis
14. Bill Dahlen
15. Jay Bell
16. Dick Lundy
17. Silvio García
18. Rico Petrocelli
19. Joe Cronin
20. Dave Bancroft
A-Rod has become #2 all-time in the five years since Bill went to press, wouldn’t ya say? Many excellent Negro League SS spread the field. Reese, Aparicio, and Rizzuto dive out of sight. Ee-Yah Jennings and my man Lou Boudreau come right up the list. Who’da thunk Jay Bell?
Left Field:
James:
1. Ted Williams
2. Stan Musial
3. Barry Bonds
4. Turkey Stearnes
5. Rickey Henderson
6. Carl Yastrzemski
7. Mule Suttles
8. Joe Jackson
9. Al Simmons
10. Tim Raines
11. Willie Stargell
12. Minnie Minoso
13. Billy Williams
14. Ed Delahanty
15. Joe Medwick
16. Jesse Burkett
17. Lou Brock
18. Goose Goslin
19. Charlie Keller
20. Ralph Kiner
Sim:
1. Barry Bonds
2. Ted Williams
3. Rickey Henderson
4. Ed Delahanty
5. Charlie Keller
6. Joe Jackson
7. Carl Yastrzemski
8. Pete Rose
9. Al Simmons
10. Joe Kelley
11. Jesse Burkett
12. Sherry Magee
13. Jimmy Sheckard
14. Ralph Kiner
15. Tim Raines
16. George Burns
17. Roy White
18. Fred Clarke
19. Augie Galan
20. Zack Wheat
The rating of the top LF is canonical. Barry very narrowly passes Teddy Ballgame on defense and durability. We have Musial at 1B. Rose shifts corner OF spots. Charlie Keller excels because of the sim’s insistence on peak. Stearnes has not been coded up to James’ early estimate, while Suttles is a mid-range 1B. Stargell, Minoso, Medwick, Brock, Kiner and Goslin go downhill. Raines takes a bit of a slide. A lot of line-drive hitters show value in the second ten.
Center Field:
James:
1. Willie Mays
2. Oscar Charleston
3. Ty Cobb
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Tris Speaker
6. Joe DiMaggio
7. Duke Snider
8. Cristobal Torriente
9. Ken Griffey Jr.
10. Cool Papa Bell
11. Kirby Puckett
12. Billy Hamilton
13. Jimmy Wynn
14. Larry Doby
15. Dale Murphy
16. Wally Berger
17. Earl Averill
18. Edd Roush
19. Richie Ashburn
20. Fred Lynn
Sim:
1. Mickey Mantle
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Oscar Charleston
5. Tris Speaker
6. Joe DiMaggio
7. Duke Snider
8. Jimmy Wynn
9. Larry Doby
10. Cool Papa Bell
11. Richie Ashburn
12. Billy Hamilton
13. Benny Kauff
14. Roy Thomas
15. Earle Combs
16. Bernie Williams
17. Hugh Duffy
17. Lenny Dykstra
19. Wally Berger
20. Fred Lynn
Sure is a dropoff from the top six to the next group. Junior will be an interesting addition to the sim. I don’t know what Bill was smoking when he ranked Kirby. Torriente has not been coded to be a major star, and Cool Papa doesn’t walk enough to make this list. Averill and Roush go south. Some leadoff men fill the gap. Who’s that guy in the Federal League uniform standing there smirking between Hamilton and Thomas?
Right Field:
James:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Hank Aaron
3. Frank Robinson
4. Mel Ott
5. Pete Rose
6. Tony Gwynn
7. Reggie Jackson
8. Roberto Clemente
9. Paul Waner
10. Sam Crawford
11. Al Kaline
12. Martin Dihigo
13. Enos Slaughter
14. Dave Winfield
15. Dave Parker
16. Bobby Bonds
17. Harry Heilmann
18. Bobby Murcer
19. Ken Singleton
20. Andre Dawson
Sim:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Frank Robinson
3. Mel Ott
4. Hank Aaron
5. Sammy Sosa
6. Al Kaline
7. Dwight Evans
8. Harry Heilmann
9. Paul Waner
10. Bobby Bonds
10. Reggie Jackson
12. Roberto Clemente
13. Tommy Henrich
14. Reggie Smith
15. Jack Clark
16. Sam Crawford
17. Martin Dihigo
18. Jesse Barfield
19. Willie Keeler
20. Willard Brown
Bill rated Sammy 45th... whatever. Tony Gwynn’s stock takes a beating. Parker and Dawson lose a lot of value, Singleton, not that much, he’s just off the list. Clemente isn’t as bad as the waagh boards would have it. F.Robbie and Ott just nose out the Hammer, they’re all roughly tied. Dihigo is probably more valuable at second or third than he is in right. Next I might do an article about El Immortal.
http://www.imaginesports.com/bball/article/view?articleID=188
ERA as a starter = (ERA as a reliever - 1.50) * 1.425 + 1.50."
I doubt that this equation is valid across every season of baseball you are attempting to measure. It isn't standard deviation adjusted. It doesn't take into account a 2 inning relief stint v. a 1 inning stint v. pitching to only one batter with the platoon advantage.
Also this "Gossage - 3 best = Timlin" is a dumb argument. First, Timlin has been a very good relief pitcher with a long, valuable career. Second, taking away 3 of the best relief seasons of all time from Gossage is tying both arms behind his back. What does Koufax look like minus his best 3 seasons? Third, using ERA+ as your measure of which pitcher is best doesn't adjust for usage or context (ERA+ also isn't standard deviation adjusted). If you go to BP WARP and use PRAR and PRAA you get this result:
I excluded 72-73 from Gossage's totals because he probably shouldn't have been pitching in the majors at that point. I took 1975, 1977 and 1982 as his best seasons.
Pitcher PRAR PRAA
Gossage 860 269
Goose-3 595 144
Timlin 506 135
So Goose-3 is still better than Timlin's long career.
For grins:
Koufax 834 250
Koufax-3 444 96
CC Sabathia 497 106
This is pointless, but I'll try anyway for some reason. We haven't made up our minds that Gossage is a HOFer to begin with. We (or many of us) have made up our mind that starting in the 1970s, the role of the relief pitcher actually became a valuable "position," separate from starting pitcher. Teams began to value them, and pay for them, differently starting in that period. "Closer," for better or worse, has become a role every team fills, and tries (for the most part) to fill with a high-quality player. And to us, a select few who have excelled in that role--Fingers, Gossage, Rivera, maybe one or two others--are worthy of enshrinement. (The situation is comparable to that of the DH in some ways: I may support the handful of truly superlative DHs for the Hall as well, with Edgar Martinez as kind of the test case.)
So we're in fact not necessarily comparing their innings/ERA+ (or anything else) directly with those of guys like Blyleven. Wilhelm, as you note, is perhaps the only HOF reliever who can be analyzed that way.
Now, I know you disagree with this line of reasoning, but that's what it is, at least for many of us: a different set of initial assumptions.
Basically what I was trying to say lo these many many posts ago. Even Gossage-3 has a string of ERA+ 150-180 seasons. Timlin's "string" was in the 130-150 range. Just because Goose hung around long enough (and was deployed as a SP one year) to pull his career ERA+ down is irrelevant.
I mean, give Timlin another 3 years at his current level and then let's have this conversation again.
But, in his prime, Gossage threw 1000 innings that, with adjustments for leverage and ease of task, would equate to 1500 innings of starting with an ERA+ of about 165. There isn't a starter who had a prime like that who is not in the Hall of Fame.
What it comes to is prime vs. career weighting. If you consider Sandy Koufax to be in the bottom half of Hall of Fame pitchers, then Gossage is out. If you consider him to be in the top half, then Gossage is in.
Of course, regardless of any of that, I agree that the Timlin-Gossage comparison is absurd, especially if you put any weight at all into peak/prime and are not a pure career voter.
Full Results:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080108&content_id=2341502&vkey=news_mlb&fext;=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Bert goes to 62% but I think he needs 70% next year if he wants to get in.
He's still got 4 more years. 2010 and 2011 have no lock first ballot guys so I can see a big jump for the holdovers then.
That says just how screwed up this system is when Barry Larkin and Jeff Bagwell aren't 1st ballot locks.
Though I missed Bagwell when I scanned the list, I'm not sure what they'll do with him.
No, I think that sums it up in a nutshell, don't you think?
5.80, likely higher than tommorrow's average.
HOM voters average 7.53 compared to 5.27 for the other voters.
HOM voters voted 91% for McGwire compared to 72% from the other voters, enough for him to get "elected" with 1 vote to spare.
New candidates: Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryamn, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Rob Nen, Jose Rijo and Todd Stottlemyre received no votes.
Along with Anderson, Finley, Baines, Morris, and Mattingly, they all would be banished from next year's ballot due to the 5% rule. HOM voters gave Mattingly, Morris, and Finley enough votes to keep them on ballot, but were overruled by the other voters, who also would have banished Parker except for the support from the HOM voters.
With the writers, Rijo and 50-HR Brady got no votes; the others (and Finley) got 1 or 2 each. Baines got 28, exactly the 5% minimum necessary to return next year.
We'll have another chance next year, and the next.
But we won't read any more about Timlin, I mean Gossage.
. . .
New candidates: Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryamn, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Rob Nen, Jose Rijo and Todd Stottlemyre received no votes.
For the peak voter Jose Rijo puts them all to shame.
but I noticed that this years HoF elections have the will have least returning players on the ballot next year (13)
One possible argument is that steroids endangers other people's health, by "forcing" other players to take steroids.
Which I agree with it and is one reason that I'm against PEDs. But I still don't see it as something that could remotely topple baseball, unlike gambling.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main