User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3934 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Wednesday, January 04, 20232023 Hall of Merit Election ResultsCongratulations to our 2023 Hall of Merit Inductees. We have elected outfielders Carlos Beltran, Lance Berkman and Bobby Bonds. player name pts ballots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Carlos Beltran 606 26 22 2 1 1 Lance Berkman 314 19 2 5 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 Bobby Bonds 237 17 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buddy Bell 221 15 4 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 David Ortiz 207 13 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 Sal Bando 178 13 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Tim Hudson 170 12 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 Tommy John 158 11 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 Bob Johnson 153 11 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Thurman Munson 142 9 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Kevin Appier 140 10 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Jason Giambi 140 9 1 2 1 1 2 2 Phil Rizzuto 122 10 1 2 1 2 2 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Taylor 105 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 Vic Willis 103 8 1 1 1 2 2 1 Don Newcombe 85 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 Mark Buehrle 78 5 1 1 1 1 1 Urban Shocker 78 7 1 2 2 1 1 Tommy Bridges 77 4 1 1 1 1 John Olerud 77 7 1 2 1 2 1 Wally Schang 74 5 2 1 1 1 Roy Oswalt 73 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 Jorge Posada 65 4 1 1 1 1 Heavy Johnson 59 4 1 1 1 1 Dwight Gooden 58 5 1 1 1 2 David Wright 54 6 1 2 3 Hilton Smith 52 3 1 1 1 Willie Davis 51 4 1 2 1 Bert Campaneris 50 5 2 1 1 1 Bucky Walters 47 5 1 1 2 1 Orel Hershiser 47 5 1 2 1 1 Leon Day 45 3 1 1 1 Dizzy Dean 44 4 1 1 2 Brian Giles 43 4 1 1 2 Bus Clarkson 43 3 1 1 1 Jim McCormick 40 2 1 1 Luke Easter 40 2 1 1 George Scales 39 3 1 1 1 Mickey Welch 39 4 1 1 1 1 Babe Adams 38 3 1 1 1 Hugh Duffy 38 3 1 1 1 Fred McGriff 36 2 1 1 Tommy Leach 33 2 1 1 Robin Ventura 32 3 1 1 1 Tommy Bond 32 2 2 Hurley McNair 29 2 1 1 Dale Murphy 28 2 1 1 Gene Tenace 28 2 1 1 Tony Perez 26 2 2 Chuck Finley 25 2 1 1 Jim Sundberg 25 3 1 1 1 Bob Elliott 24 2 1 1 Joe Tinker 24 3 1 1 1 Bernie Williams 24 2 1 1 Lou Brock 23 1 1 Luis Aparicio 23 2 1 1 Tony Phillips 23 2 1 1 Elston Howard 22 2 1 1 Kirby Puckett 22 2 1 1 Al Rosen 18 2 2 Dolf Luque 17 1 1 Jim Kaat 16 1 1 No Garciaparra 16 2 1 1 Vern Stephens 16 1 1 Jose Cruz 16 2 1 1 Ch Buffinton 15 1 1 Lee Smith 15 1 1 Sam McDowell 15 1 1 Tony Mullane 15 1 1 Billy Wagner 14 1 1 Frank Chance 14 1 1 Pie Traynor 14 2 1 1 Lance Parrish 14 1 1 Mickey Lolich 13 1 1 Jim Whitney 13 1 1 Charlie Smith 12 1 1 Da Strawberry 12 1 1 Ron Guidry 12 1 1 Johnny Evers 11 1 1 Dave Bancroft 11 1 1 Junior Gilliam 11 1 1 Roy White 11 1 1 Frank Tanana 11 1 1 Gavvy Cravath 10 1 1 Tommy Henrich 10 1 1 Jack Quinn 10 1 1 Jim Fregosi 9 1 1 Toby Harrah 9 1 1 Luis Gonzalez 9 1 1 Albert Belle 8 1 1 Bobby Veach 8 1 1 Cesar Cedeno 8 1 1 Norm Cash 7 1 1 Dave Concepcion 7 1 1 G Van Haltren 7 1 1 Ron Cey_ 7 1 1 Wilbur Wood 7 1 1 Eddie Cicotte 7 1 1 Chet Lemon 6 1 1 Mark Teixeira 6 1 1 Ned Williamson 6 1 1 |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMost Meritorious Player: 2023 Results
(2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (19 - 11:33am, Nov 29) Last: dark Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan 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. DL from MN Posted: January 04, 2023 at 07:43 PM (#6111882)As far as caps go, Berkman is obviously an Astro, and Bonds is a Giant. I would say Beltran is a Met, but I think the Royals have a plausible argument at least.
David Ortiz looks inevitable.
1 Carlos Beltran
2 Bob Johnson
3 Thurman Munson
4 Tim Hudson
5 Bobby Bonds
6 Lance Berkman
7 Buddy Bell
8 David Ortiz
9 Kevin Appier
10 Tommy John
11 Phil Rizzuto
12 Sal Bando
13 Vic Willis
14 Jason Giambi
15 Ben Taylor
glad to see him in the HoM getting some recognition
just curious - how many people vote for HOM ballots? who qualifies?
2 Bob Johnson
3 Phil Rizzuto
4 Kevin Appier
5 Tommy John
6 Tim Hudson
7 Ben Taylor
8 David Ortiz
9 Bobby Bonds
10 Buddy Bell
11 Lance Berkman
12 Thurman Munson
13 Jason Giambi
14 Sal Bando
15 Vic Willis
26 people voted this year. Anyone who wants to join the discussion is welcome.
1. Carlos Beltran
2. Lance Berkman
3. Tommy John
4. Bob Johnson
5. Bobby Bonds
6. Tim Hudson
7. Buddy Bell
8. David Ortiz
9. Kevin Appier
10. Jason Giambi
11. Thurman Munson
12. Vic Willis
13. Sal Bando
14. Phil Rizzuto
15. Ben Taylor
I also have Berkman as a LF - 2000 more total OF innings, and generally in his best season he was somewhere in the OF.
1. Carlos Beltran
2. Buddy Bell
3. Tim Hudson
4. Jason Giambi
5. Bobby Bonds
6. Kevin Appier
7. Lance Berkman
8. Vic Willis
9. Sal Bando
10. Phil Rizzuto
11. David Ortiz
12. Thurman Munson
13. Bob Johnson
14. Tommy John
15. Ben Taylor
In my own record keeping, I have Berkman as LF/1B, but for a single positional designation I'd go with left field.
1. Carlos Beltran
2. Jason Giambi
3. David Ortiz
4. Lance Berkman
5. Kevin Appier
6. Thurman Munson
7. Bobby Bonds
8. Vic Willis
9. Buddy Bell
10. Tim Hudson
11. Tommy John
12. Sal Bando
13. Ben Taylor
14. Bob Johnson
15. Phil Rizzuto
I had Berkman listed as a 1b, but I am more than willing to move him to LF since I currently have fewer LF in my PHoM than any other position.
1. CARLOS BELTRAN
2. LANCE BERKMAN
3. BOB JOHNSON
4. TIM HUDSON
5. KEVIN APPIER
6. DAVID ORTIZ
7. SAL BANDO
8. BUDDY BELL
9. BEN TAYLOR
10. PHIL RIZZUTO
11. THURMAN MUNSON
12. BOBBY BONDS
13. VIC WILLIS
14. TOMMY JOHN
15. JASON GIAMBI
2. Buddy Bell
3. Sal Bando
4. Tommy John
5. Bobby Bonds
6. Lance Berkman
7. Kevin Appier
8. Bob Johnson
9. Jason Giambi
10. Tim Hudson
11. Thurman Munson
12. Vic Willis
13. David Ortiz
14. Ben Taylor
15. Phil Rizzuto
1. Carlos Beltrán
2. Bobby Bonds
3. Sal Bando
4. Buddy Bell
5. Kevin Appier
6. Jason Giambi
7. Lance Berkman
8. Phil Rizzuto
9. David Ortiz
10. Tim Hudson
11. Thurman Munson
12. Vic Willis
[gap]
13. Bob Johnson
14. Ben Taylor
15. Tommy John
Rules: 25-man roster, received exactly one Hall of Merit vote.
Catchers: Lance Parrish, Frank Chance (I know... Chance caught 187 games which is > 15% of his career appearances)
Infielders: Mark Teixiera, Norm Cash, Johnny Evers, Dave Bancroft, Ron Cey, Vern Stephens, Junior Gilliam
Outfielders: Albert Belle, Darryl Strawberry, Lou Brock, Cesar Cedeno, George Van Haltren, Chet Lemon
Pitchers: Dolf Luque, Jim Kaat, Tony Mullane, Ron Guidry, Wilbur Wood, Mickey Lolich, Eddie Cicotte, Sam McDowell, Lee Smith, Billy Wagner
Given a 162-game season and these players performing at an "average" level (not their absolute peak, but not their decline phase either), how many games does it win?
We moved your prelim to the ballot thread. You voted.
1 Carlos Beltran
2 Buddy Bell
3 Bob Johnson
4 Bobby Bonds
5 Vic Willis
6 Sal Bando
7 Tommy John
8 David Ortiz
9 Thurman Munson
10 Lance Berkman
11 Tim Hudson
[gap]
12 Jason Giambi
13 Kevin Appier
14 Phil Rizzuto
15 Ben Taylor
cookiedabookie 11.64
Rob Wood 12.91
Mike Webber 13.66
Al Peterson 13.91
Howie Menckel 14.35
Chris Cobb 14.70
kcgard2 14.78
Devin (fuzzy socks) 14.86
Bleed the Freak 15.23
Esteban Rivera 16.05
Jaack 16.24
Brent 16.36
rwargo 16.52
James Newburg 16.53
The Honorable Ardo 17.23
bachslunch 17.55
theorioleway 18.41
DL from MN 18.55
Dr. Chaleeko 19.11
Kiko Sakata 19.19
Mark A Shirk 20.50
progrockfan 20.62
Michael J. Binkley 20.83
Patrick W 21.10
John Murphy 21.58
bjhanke 21.85
Appier
Hudson
Willis
Taylor
Bell
Berkman
Rizzuto
Ortiz
Bonds
Munson
Giambi
Johnson
John
Bando
This was the lowest finish historically for Leach, Posada, Stephens, Cicotte, González, and Teixeira.
These were the first votes ever for Sam McDowell (really?!), Wilbur Wood, and Chet Lemon.
Quick ranking of top 15:
1. Beltran
2. Bell
3. Ortiz
4. Taylor
5. Munson
6. Berkman
7. Rizzuto
8. Bonds
9. Bando
10. John
11. Hudson
12. Willis
13. Appier
14. Giambi
15. Johnson
These aren't sharp distinctions. I have a bigger gap between #1 Beltran and #2 Bell than between Bell and Bob Johnson.
2 Lance Berkman
3 Thurman Munson
4 David Ortiz
5 Tommy John
6 Tim Hudson
7 Jason Giambi
8 Sal Bando
9 Bobby Bonds
10 Kevin Appier
11 Bob Johnson
12 Vic Willis
13 Buddy Bell
14 Ben Taylor
15 Phil Rizzuto
I'm never going to have a high consensus number anymore, since I'm not a WAR guy and most here are wedded to it. I lean more towards Win Shares, but none of these systems are good enough for me to use without doing some analysis on my own.
1) Carlos Beltran
2) Lance Berkman
3) Jason Giambi
4) Vic Willis
5) Bobby Bonds
6) Bob Johnson
7) Kevin Appier
8) Sal Bando
9) Tim Hudson
10) Buddy Bell
11) Thurman Munson
12) Phil Rizzuto
13) Ben Taylor
14) Tommy John
15) David Ortiz
1. Carlos Beltran
2. Buddy Bell
3. Tim Hudson
4. Bob Johnson
5. Kevin Appier
6. Bobby Bonds
7. Sal Bando
8. Vic Willis
9. Phil Rizzuto
10. Lance Berkman
11. Thurman Munson
12. David Ortiz
13. Ben Taylor
14. Jason Giambi
15. Tommy John
It doesn't seem to me that there is any necessary relationship between a comprehensive metric and an approach to evaluating merit for the purpose of determining player excellence. Bill James presents both a comprehensive metric and an approach to evaluating players in the NBJHBA. The evaluative approach requires a comprehensive metric to work, but it doesn't depend on Win Shares: any comprehensive metric could be used as the base source of information for the Bill James ranking method. (Indeed, I would say that, historically, the components of the James ranking method pre-date the Win Shares metric, rather than being derivative of it. James just shifted the inputs to his ranking system and determined a way to scale them once he had invented a comprehensive metric that he could use.) The timeline component would have to be re-scaled by dividing by 3 for a system denominated in wins instead of win shares, but that's about it. The comprehensive metric determines the number of wins a player should be credited for their career on a seasonal basis: the ranking system (as interpreted by the judgment of the person applying it) determines how much merit those achievements should be awarded. In the case of the NBJHBA, the same person has created the metric and the evaluative system, but there's no reason the two need to be tied together. You could start feeding wins-above-replacement data into the Bill James evaluative system tomorrow if you wanted to, or Jay Jaffe could start feeding Win Shares instead of Baseball Reference WAR into his JAWS system tomorrow, if either of you thought that using a different comprehensive metric would yield better results.
One way to look at what most Hall of Merit voters are doing is trying to figure out both sides of the evaluative problem: what comprehensive metric (or mix of metrics) provides the most accurate base information about player performance, and how should that that information be processed by an evaluative system in order to establish merit meaningfully? Some voters find it preferable to use a single comprehensive metric; some voters find it preferable to combine them; a few voters have the skill, intrepidity, and determination to develop their own. Voters then develop an evaluative system that processes the base information about player performance. Bill James' emphasis on the distinction between peak and career value, on the need to combine them, and on the challenge of integrating players from different periods into a single ranking have been of foundational importance to the whole HoM project, even though most voters (and for period integration, the HoM's constitutional design) have not adopted James' specific ways of dealing with these issues. My system, for example, uses peak/prime/career inputs that were derived from James's system, but it modifies those inputs to shift the balance between peak and career a bit toward career and to eliminate the career rate measure. Originally, my system used Win Shares as its data source, then transitioned to a combination of Win Shares and Clay Davenport's WARP, then dropped WARP and combined Win Shares and Baseball Reference's WAR, then dropped Win Shares and added Fangraphs WAR for position players, then added DRA for fielding, then dropped it back out, as I've tried to identify and use the best comprehensive metrics as they have evolved. But the basic system, peak ratex5 + seasonal wins above average + career WAR has remained the same. My approach to integrating periods has evolved along different lines, not directly inspired by any prior published method, and it is still evolving.
In a sense, then, each voter at the Hall of Merit is operating their own "derivative system," and I think that many of them are, taken just on their own, better than what James did in the NBJHBA or what Jaffe is doing with JAWS. Put together into the Hall of Merit, the aggregate results are much better. So in another sense, we are all participating in a "derivative system," an evaluative system that uses the comprehensive metrics and other data sources as inputs for a collective system for evaluating merit. Because we vote together, the Hall of Merit presents itself as an alternative to the Hall of Fame, but the HoM is equally a continually updated alternative to some parts of the NBJHBA. It's surely not a perfect macro-system, but it works pretty well, and it's pretty resilient, too, which is a credit both to the system and to the participants.
For example, James defines a peak as 3 years. JAWS has it at 7 years. Both choices seem valid enough, while also being quite arbitrary. Realistically, when designing any sort of derivative system, you will make arbitrary choices. The HoM aggregate voting is going to smooth out those arbitrary choices very well - we will identify great peak candidates better than any singular derivative system ever could.
Mathematically, yes, for the most part, but making sound judgments about how much to add in of what in order to get results that provide a satisfying balance between different aspects of value is just as important to a system and isn't as straightforward as addition.
The hard part is finding an uber-stat that is consistent across baseball history.
Amen, although I'd qualify that a little. My sense is that the comprehensive metrics are all designed to establish a player's value accurately in the context of each baseball season. To succeed in that goal, they can't be consistent across baseball history, because of changes in the dynamics of play and of the level of competition involved. Therefore, we have to find ways to work with the comprehensive metrics to achieve consistency in our evaluations. Would your aim be to have a comprehensive metric for which we could say "a win is a win is a win" for any season and league within that season from 1871 to 2022? I'd like to know more about your sense of what consistency across baseball history entails.
2 Sal Bando
3 David Ortiz
4 Lance Berkman
5 Jason Giambi
6 Phil Rizzuto
7 Bobby Bonds
8 Buddy Bell
9 Tim Hudson
10 Bob Johnson
11 Kevin Appier
12 Vic Willis
13 Ben Taylor
14 Tommy John
15 Thurman Munson
Any arbitrary choice of this type has the additional effect of inherently biasing a system in favor of certain players. For example, Dizzy Dean has been brought up in this context before; James ranked him as the #25 pitcher ever in the NBJHBA, and it's largely because his system is perfect for Dean. 3-year peak? Dean's 3 best seasons are excellent. 5-year consecutive prime? The bulk of Dean's value was accrued in a consecutive 5.5-year span. Value per game (phrased as value per season, but it's done on a per-162 basis, or per 43 starts for pitchers)? Dean's injury kept him off the mound entirely, rather than allowing him to pitch at a reduced effectiveness, so his rate stats are great. If the system was best 5 seasons and best 8 consecutive years, or if the rate measure penalized injury seasons, Dean would fare far worse.
JAWS has the same issue for players with exactly 7 good years - say Troy Tulowitzki, who has six seasons of 5-7 WAR plus a seventh at 3.2 and nothing else over 2; Tulo would fare comparatively worse by either top 4 seasons or top 10 seasons. If you compare Tulo's top 7 seasons by bWAR to David Wright's, he leads 40.1 to 38.3. Wright would lead in either top 4 (27.5-26.2) or top 10 (44.7-43.6).
For what it's worth, my preferred method to avert this issue is to take an average of "best N seasons" for multiple values of N, which ends up being a weighted sum of WAR values (or pick your own preferred metric) by rank within the player's career.
What you've described is pretty functionally similar to how I rate players - everyone's best season gets one multiplier, everyone's second best season gets a slightly smaller multiplier, and so on. This avoids some of the arbitrariness of JAWS type of peak ranking, but has it's own flaws - the multipliers are still arbitrary and there does feel something strange about crediting two players differently for the same season. And you inevitibly end up with biases - this method likes guys like Larry Jackson and Steve Rogers who aren't particularly great peakwise or careerwise.
Sure, there's no perfect system. (But for what it's worth, if I were a voter, Rogers would have a good chance of ending up on my ballot for reasons that aren't WAR-specific. I may go into more detail in the HoM threads if I can get far enough on my pitcher evaluations.)
I find that I agree with most of the assumptions of WAR so I use it as my base (mix of fangraphs and bbref for pitchers, fangraphs for outfield players). I make adjustments for things like being a catcher, whether I think historical fielding metrics are off, or just quirks in my set of assumptions. But there is no way to 'solve' this problem by rejecting WAR or JAWS (different things as Chris says). It never goes away.
BTW, for peak I do not like to use N years (whatever N is). Instead I use value accumulated over 5 WAR (previously 25 WS). Makes it less dependent on choosing the correct N but can favor players with one amazing season (i.e. Rico Petrocelli) too much. Therefore, I make a subjective adjustment for my ballot/rankings.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main