Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

Baseball Hall of Fame tracker 2022

DL from MN Posted: December 08, 2021 at 11:35 AM | 1188 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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 10 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 > 
   901. alilisd Posted: January 06, 2022 at 07:47 PM (#6060074)
Flip

Also, 52 more votes for Wagner than Pettitte who has 16, more than Buerhle and Hudson have combined. Sheesh
   902. Howie Menckel Posted: January 06, 2022 at 08:08 PM (#6060079)
Bonds and Ortiz finished tied in the Hall of Merit results announced today.

no, this is BOBBY Bonds, not Barry - who coasted in on his first try. they each claimed a share of 9th place (which will surprise some).

A-Rod won by a million, Abreu and Sosa pulled away from the field to gain entry, and Pettitte finished a couple of lengths ahead of Berkman and Buddy Bell to claim the last slot. Munson and Bando also nosed out Bonds/Ortiz.

perpetual eligibility, but the top pre-expansion area players were Ben Taylor (11th) and Vic Willis (12th). those bones have been picked very clean, it seems.
   903. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 06, 2022 at 08:48 PM (#6060089)
I should have had this figured out decades ago, but with the VC election of Oliva, Kaat, and Hodges, I'm coming around to the idea that anyone who was a star for any extended length of time will get elected eventually or is Bill Dahlen. (PED guys might muck this up a bit.)

Hernandez (and McGriff, and etc.) are going to appear on VC ballots a zillion times. And the committee exists to elect people; they don't always do it, but the HOF actively invites them to. Eventually Hernandez' number will come up.

   904. John DiFool2 Posted: January 06, 2022 at 11:27 PM (#6060115)
Yeah, it may take 100+ years in some cases, but they'll get in.
   905. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: January 07, 2022 at 12:15 AM (#6060118)
I should have had this figured out decades ago, but with the VC election of Oliva, Kaat, and Hodges, I'm coming around to the idea that anyone who was a star for any extended length of time will get elected eventually


I am (obviously) a big-Hall person, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I imagine people coming to the Hall, taking their kids or their grandkids, and they want to see the players who they idolized during their youth (however one wants to categorize that) in the Hall, so they can tell the stories that you tell in those instances "I was at this game where XXX pitched and YYYY hit a home run off of him" or whatever. A small-Hall defeats this purpose, which is just about the only purpose I can really think of for a Hall of Fame. I mean, the Hall could have stopped at folks with JAWS > 75, in which case there would only be maybe 20? folks in there. And that might be a purer result, kinda the "Mount Rushmore" version. But it wouldn't be a very fun place to visit.
   906. The Duke Posted: January 07, 2022 at 09:35 AM (#6060135)
From Pos on the Ortiz/Sheffield debate:

“Ortiz: .286/.380/.552, 141 OPS+, 632 doubles, 19 triples, 541 homers, 1,768 RBIs, 1,419 runs.

Sheffield: .292/.393/.514, 140 OPS+, 467 doubles, 27 triples, 509 homers, 1,676 RBIs, 1,636 runs.

I must admit — their OPS+ numbers are SO CLOSE. I asked our pal Tom Tango to explain why there is such a big gap, and he explained it this way:

The fact they have such close OPS+ misses the true value of those extra walks that Sheffield got.

RE24 is probably the most complete way to evaluate offense because it looks at the 24 different states of baseball and it shows Sheffield being 60 runs more valuable on offense than Ortiz.

Sheffield’s career is longer so there is more value there.”

My question is what is RE24 , why would you use it and why haven’t I ever heard much about it before ?
   907. dark Posted: January 07, 2022 at 10:00 AM (#6060137)
RE24 is base-out runs. There are 24 base-out states, 3 possible number of outs and 8 possible bases occupied (empty, only 1, only 2, only 3, 1&2, 1&3, 2&3, loaded) and RE24 measures expected runs scored based on base-out state before and after the PA to determine runs added by the PA. It’s context-dependent, and seems to scale a little higher than context-neutral batting runs from what I’ve seen anecdotally for top players.
   908. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 07, 2022 at 10:56 AM (#6060144)
I mean, I am sure defense can undergo its own form of slumps and hot streaks, but you'd think since there is more pure athleticism involved (vs. batting where timing, ball recognition, and technique are everything) that defensive performances would be much more consistent from year to year.


You could also flip this and consider that nagging injuries may affect defense more than offense. Think Tatis getting shifted to the OF to protect himself from further injury or an OF that just misses a ball hit in the gap because their knee is a little tweaky and they got a bad jump on the ball.
   909. alilisd Posted: January 07, 2022 at 12:01 PM (#6060158)
I imagine people coming to the Hall, taking their kids or their grandkids, and they want to see the players who they idolized during their youth (however one wants to categorize that) in the Hall, so they can tell the stories that you tell in those instances "I was at this game where XXX pitched and YYYY hit a home run off of him" or whatever. A small-Hall defeats this purpose, which is just about the only purpose I can really think of for a Hall of Fame.


You're missing the distinction between the plaque room, which honors the greatest players, and the museum, which houses an extraordinary collection of baseball memorabilia and historical archives. Those players people want to tell their children and grandchildren about are in the museum, but the plaque room should be more limited. It doesn't have to be a small hall, and it isn't, but it doesn't have to be a big hall, and it shouldn't be, to satisfy the desires of baseball fans who want to visit and reminisce about players. The museum portion of the Hall fills that latter purpose just fine.
   910. John Northey Posted: January 07, 2022 at 12:14 PM (#6060161)
I wonder... would it be worthwhile for the HOF to have a 'best of the decade' section where they induct one player for each decade? 1870's to 2010's. Some are easy, some not. 00's Albert Pujols with 73.8 bWAR seems an obvious choice. Trout for the 10's at 72.5 bWAR also obvious. Bonds in the 90's with 80.2 bWAR (most pre-PEDs). Etc. Obviously this messes up somewhat due to guys who split their peak over 2 different decades but it is a fun thought exercise.
   911. Kd911 Posted: January 07, 2022 at 01:46 PM (#6060171)
Can someone explain to me why j-roll is getting some love on this ballot? He was expected to be a 1 and done guy.
   912. Booey Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:05 PM (#6060174)
#910 - Off the top of my head:

1900's - Wagner
1910's - Cobb
1920's - Ruth
1930's - Gehrig
1940's - Williams
1950's - Mays
1960's - Aaron
1970's - WAR probably favors either Morgan or Schmidt, but I might pick Bench. Catchers tend to get shortchanged by value stats.
1980's - Schmidt or Rickey. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Boggs has the most WAR in the 80's...
1990's - Bonds
2000's - ARod or Pujols (it's not as obvious as you made it seem)
2010's - Trout

Someone else who cares more about 19th century baseball can fill in the earlier decades. And I assume pitchers have their own list? Also feel free to replace any of my choices with Negro League greats as needed (Gibson for the 1930's)?
   913. John DiFool2 Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:16 PM (#6060176)
911; MVP and seen as most deserving SS on the ballot after Vizquel's fall from grace.
   914. Booey Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:16 PM (#6060177)
Yep, ARod beats Pujols in WAR for the 2000's, 77.7 to 73.8, thanks to an extra season (Albert debuted in 2001).
   915. John DiFool2 Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:40 PM (#6060181)
Think you have to have a pitcher award in there too (very prelim):

1900's - Young
1910's - Johnson
1920's - Vance
1930's - Grove
1940's - Wynn?
1950's - Roberts
1960's - Gibson
1970's - Seaver
1980's - Lord the hey knows
1990's - Cle...err Maddux
2000's - Santana
2010's - Kershaw

Halladay & Scherzer are very very close for those last two. If Unit and Pedro had started their peaks 5 years earlier... Maddux has an argument vs. Rocket too if you give him strike credit (his 2 best seasons). Yeah, putting him in there.
   916. SoSH U at work Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:45 PM (#6060183)
1980's - Lord the hey knows


Stieb, pretty comfortably I suspect.
   917. Booey Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:53 PM (#6060185)
Johnson actually edges Santana in pitching WAR for the 2000's.

Here's the updated batter list:

1900's - Wagner (85.8)
1910's - Cobb (84.1)
1920's - Ruth (103.2!)
1930's - Gehrig (74.2)
1940's - Williams (65.1)
1950's - Mantle (67.9)
1960's - Mays (84.2)
1970's - Morgan (67.0)
1980's - Rickey (71.0)
1990's - Bonds (80.2)
2000's - ARod (77.7)
2010's - Trout (72.5)

Schmidt gets screwed by having his best years split between the 70's and 80's, so he doesn't finish on top in either decade. Aaron put up 81 WAR in the 1960's but was still edged out by Mays. Bench had 58.9 in the '70's in case you think catcher credit might bump him ahead of Morgan. The 2nd highest individual decade I found was 94.0 WAR by Hornsby in the 1920's, but of course he didn't lead because Ruth.
   918. alilisd Posted: January 07, 2022 at 03:41 PM (#6060195)
Can someone explain to me why j-roll is getting some love on this ballot? He was expected to be a 1 and done guy.


John mentioned the MVP and the best noncontroversial SS. He's also a pretty typical "traditional" candidate. Plenty of counting stats thanks part to hitting at the top of the order (another point in his traditional candidacy being the speedy leadoff hitter), but also a longish and healthy career. Lots of runs, doubles, triples and SB's plus over 200 HR by a leadoff hitting SS. He has a few GG, a WS win, a very visible part of the Phillies when they were in the midst of a very good run in the NL. There's all kinds of things there for a more traditional voter to love! I mean if you were willing to vote for Vizquel, as many were prior to this year, you almost have to vote for Rollins.
   919. The Duke Posted: January 07, 2022 at 04:20 PM (#6060196)
So in the Big Hall vs small hall argument, are there more players from recent decades getting into the Hall vs earlier years? It’s seemed to me that until just recently not many current era players were getting in. Some of that is PEDs but not all of it.
   920. alilisd Posted: January 07, 2022 at 04:42 PM (#6060199)
919. The Duke Posted: January 07, 2022 at 04:20 PM (#6060196) So in the Big Hall vs small hall argument, are there more players from recent decades getting into the Hall vs earlier years?


Haven't looked recently, but the last thing I remember seeing on this showed that fewer were getting in. This could have been impacted by some of the big classes recently inducted via the writers though. What I recall from looking into it then, probably a few years ago now, was that the writers weren't keeping up with the expansion. Now I know that some think an increase in the number of players does not necessarily mean a corresponding increase in the number of HOF players, but I'm not in that camp. Seems entirely reasonable to me if there was a 50% increase in the number of teams in the 60's, and a further 4 over the coming decades, there should be more HOF being elected now without diluting the 1-2% of all players who actually make it to the Hall.
   921. alilisd Posted: January 07, 2022 at 05:51 PM (#6060204)
Numbers elected by season debuted in 10 year increments beginning with the AL era in 1901. I included Negro League numbers to enable a more apples to apples comparison for MLB in years past to the post Negro League era. Also included "on the ballot" for the two most recent 10 year periods to show guys like Bonds, Clemens, and others who are lingering and likely to be excluded (of course that includes a bunch from the most recent 10 year period, 2001-2010, who have no shot like Lincecum or Morneau). Pretty sure the numbers are accurate, but might be off one or two here and there.

Debuted 1901-1910 in HOF 16
Debuted 1911-1920 in HOF 31 (Includes 8 NeL)
Debuted 1921-1930 in HOF 46 (Includes 13 NeL)
Debuted 1931-1940 in HOF 23 (Includes 7 NeL)
Debuted 1941-1950 in HOF 18
Debuted 1951-1960 in HOF 23
Debuted 1961-1970 in HOF 22
Debuted 1971-1980 in HOF 19
Debuted 1981-1990 in HOF 16 (Yes, or on the ballot 22)
Debuted 1991-2000 in HOF 12 (Yes, or on the ballot 28)

I'd say 1971-1980 stands out as being low. Of course after that PED issues are distorting the picture. The VC are largely responsible for the 1921-1930 number being unusually high. I think the 1971-1980 group was overlooked though, at least on the position player side. Guys with over 60 WAR and not in include: Whitaker, Dw. Evans, Bell, Randolph and Hernandez, plus another 5 with at least 50 WAR). I guess that may be understandable given their cases do have a strong defensive component which was not as available at the time. Pitchers just didn't fare well for whatever reason. Guys with HOF like talent who didn't have quite enough career might be Rogers, Guidry and Tanana. Stieb is overlooked, IMO, but probably too short a career for voters of the time.
   922. alilisd Posted: January 07, 2022 at 05:56 PM (#6060205)
916. SoSH U at work Posted: January 07, 2022 at 02:45 PM (#6060183)

1980's - Lord the hey knows

Stieb, pretty comfortably I suspect.


You suspect correctly. Only pitcher with more than 40 WAR that decade.
   923. The Duke Posted: January 07, 2022 at 06:09 PM (#6060208)
921. Yeah that’s interesting. 28 negro league inductees across only three decades suggests the negro leagues are getting the benefit of a big hall. The percentage decline of African american players is so pronounced lately that tally may never be reached again.
   924. The Duke Posted: January 07, 2022 at 07:35 PM (#6060215)
Jaffes chat had some bozo writing in suggesting that no unvaccinated ballplayer should be elected to the Hall. And Jaffe more or less agreed with him. Pretty amazing to me.

Inject THIS drug and you are out. Don’t inject THAT drug and you are out.

I suppose mask-wearing will be scrutinized too.
   925. alilisd Posted: January 07, 2022 at 07:52 PM (#6060216)
923. The Duke Posted: January 07, 2022 at 06:09 PM (#6060208) 921. Yeah that’s interesting. 28 negro league inductees across only three decades suggests the negro leagues are getting the benefit of a big hall.


I think it is more representative of the talent which was excluded from MLB.
   926. John DiFool2 Posted: January 07, 2022 at 08:14 PM (#6060219)
Pitchers just didn't fare well for whatever reason.


[in the 70's I believe you implied]

My theory is that managers stuck with starter usage patterns from the 60's, as offense started going back up (even tho it regressed for a couple of years in the AL pre-DH), leading to more injuries and shortened careers. The Reds' pair of Gullett & Nolan are very good (or bad, rather) poster boys for that.


Yeah, Stieb for the 80's, but that is still the lowest total on the list by far. Hal Newhouser is likely the top 40's guy, definitely not Wynn.
   927. dark Posted: January 07, 2022 at 08:56 PM (#6060222)
@924, the commenter asked about someone lying about their vaccination status so they wouldn’t have to follow protocols. That’s a bit different than merely being unvaccinated.
   928. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 07, 2022 at 09:03 PM (#6060223)
Hal Newhouser is likely the top 40's guy, definitely not Wynn.

Yeah, Wynn's best years were in the '50s. Pitcher of the decade for the '40s is between Newhouser and Feller, and comes down to how you handle war credit.
   929. John DiFool2 Posted: January 07, 2022 at 09:42 PM (#6060226)
I am chagrined* to have forgotten the name of my former neighbor there.

[*The Chagrin River flowed behind our houses. Yes, I met him once, vague memory when I was 8.]
   930. alilisd Posted: January 08, 2022 at 11:33 AM (#6060240)
926. John DiFool2 Posted: January 07, 2022 at 08:14 PM (#6060219)

Pitchers just didn't fare well for whatever reason.

[in the 70's I believe you implied]


It was pitchers who debuted in the 70's, or rather the 10 year period from 1971-1980 as it worked out. Reuschel and Eck are the only two who made it to 60 WAR, Stieb and Tanana the only others who made it to 50, although Martinez and Guidry are right there and Rogers is close. By comparison 1961-1970 had 11 over 60 WAR, and 1981-1990 had 8 with 2 others right on the cusp. I don't know why, perhaps too many innings in higher offensive environment, but that didn't really happen in the NL and yet NL pitchers still suffered the same fate. I wonder if it wasn't usage, as you said, combined with the lower mound. Did that extra inch take enough strain off of guys who debuted a decade earlier to allow them to throw more innings without breaking down, but for guys who tried to do it from the start of their careers on the lower mound fall apart more easily? Interesting topic for someone to study perhaps.
   931. SoSH U at work Posted: January 08, 2022 at 12:00 PM (#6060241)
It was pitchers who debuted in the 70's, or rather the 10 year period from 1971-1980 as it worked out.


That's limiting it, actually. There were no pitchers before 1984 who hit 60 WAR, and Clemens was the only one of the 8 60 WAR guys who debuted in the first half of the decade.
   932. alilisd Posted: January 08, 2022 at 03:34 PM (#6060250)
That's limiting it, actually. There were no pitchers before 1984 who hit 60 WAR, and Clemens was the only one of the 8 60 WAR guys who debuted in the first half of the decade.


I'm not tracking you here. Do you mean it's coincidence due to the time periods used?
   933. SoSH U at work Posted: January 08, 2022 at 04:10 PM (#6060256)
I'm not tracking you here. Do you mean it's coincidence due to the time periods used?


I'm saying the period you mentioned, 1971-1980 where we saw few great, long-career pitchers debut, is actually closer to a decade and half dry spell. Those 80s debuts (Glavine, Maddux, Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling, Brown and Cone) were concentrated in the back half, with only Clemens starting before 1985.
   934. alilisd Posted: January 08, 2022 at 04:27 PM (#6060259)
I'm saying the period you mentioned, 1971-1980 where we saw few great, long-career pitchers debut, is actually closer to a decade and half dry spell. Those 80s debuts (Glavine, Maddux, Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling, Brown and Cone) were concentrated in the back half, with only Clemens starting before 1985.


Ah, thanks. It was definitely a dry spell for whatever reason.
   935. TomH Posted: January 08, 2022 at 08:04 PM (#6060269)
Which is one more reason why if I had to choose an all-time rotation, it would include Tom Seaver as my #4. Besides his 67 WAR in the 70s (70-79), he is IMHO the best pitcher for a longer time period than any other. From 1947 (Jackie Debut) to about 1996; that is, a 50-year period; no one matches him. You can't even say that about Walter J, or anyone else. You probably can pull it back to much earlier; say, possibly 1927 which would make SEVENTY years, before Lefty Grove becomes a good argument. Perhaps only to 193x if you wish to inlcude Satchel.
TH's best rotation, in chron order: WJohnson, SPaige, TSeaver, RClemens
which by the way covers 100 years with a pretty small gap!
   936. Howie Menckel Posted: January 08, 2022 at 08:28 PM (#6060271)
Seaver and Clemens were teammates on the (ill-fated) 1986 Red Sox.
   937. alilisd Posted: January 08, 2022 at 09:31 PM (#6060276)
@935: Wow, just wow! I had never thought about that, but that's really amazing. I looked at Feller and even with generous war credit, he seems like he would still fall short, so yeah probably Grove. Dang!

I love that he got into growing grapes and making wine post baseball, that's really cool!
   938. SoSH U at work Posted: January 08, 2022 at 10:01 PM (#6060277)
Under that reasoning, couldn’t you say something similar about Grove or Clemens?
   939. John Northey Posted: January 08, 2022 at 11:00 PM (#6060282)
With Clemens (139 WAR) you have 3 others who were almost/just as good/better at the same rough time frame (Randy Johnson 101, Greg Maddux 106, Pedro Martinez 84) depending on career vs peak preference (Pedro a peak, all others career & peak). Best single season: Clemens 12.1, Martinez 11.7, Johnson 10.5, Maddux peaked at just 9.6. Tom Seaver's best was an 11, then a 10.9 (2 better than any Johnson or Maddux season - wow, never knew that before checking). Clemens also had a 10.4, so he and Seaver had 2 in the 10's. Doubt many pitchers can say that, or players at all. Since 1947 you get Bob Gibson (68-70), Clemens, Steve Carlton (72 & 80), Seaver, Wilbur Wood (71 + 72 - who knew?). For hitters you get Mays 6 times, Mickey Mantle 3 times, Barry Bonds 3 times*, 2 times each for Ripken/Yastrzemski/Trout. Yeah, Trout is just that good.

Wood was mainly due to crazy inning totals as a knuckleball pitcher (over 330 both years) mixed with a great ERA+ (189 and 126 those years, the 126 in a year he threw 376 2/3 innings over 49 starts). Crazy that he had a 4 year stretch in the 70's with 40+ starts and 20+ complete games. Crazier that he didn't win the Cy in any of those years (one of them he was 2nd in Cy & WAR to Gaylord Perry who had a 10.8 thanks to a 1.92 ERA over 342 innings). Hard to imagine now. Only K'd 200 once in those 4 years too. A shame no one will give a knuckleball pitcher a real shot anymore. For a team in pure rebuild mode it'd be a great idea - could take 2 slots of a 6 day rotation potentially, giving others a chance to build up in the minors (54+ starts in a 6 day rotation) and give the pen a break. Of course your catchers would hate you for it, but dang I'd love to see it. C'mon basement dwellers make the fans happy and give us oddities!
   940. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 08, 2022 at 11:24 PM (#6060283)
Maddux peaked at just 9.6.

Strike. Maddux's 8.5 WAR in a 114-game season in 1994 is equivalent to at least 11 in a 162-game season; his 9.7 in 1995 also clears 10 pretty comfortably when adjusted.
   941. TomH Posted: January 09, 2022 at 06:59 AM (#6060291)
Yes, and with Clemens, many will say "yeah but he cheated to do it".

also, to 936 Howie, one item most don't recall about the 86 World Series was Seaver missed it, being injured. The great Al Nipper took his place in the rotation :(
   942. John DiFool2 Posted: January 09, 2022 at 10:00 AM (#6060293)
Best single season: Clemens 12.1, Martinez 11.7, Johnson 10.5, Maddux peaked at just 9.6.


Strike. Maddux's 8.5 WAR in a 114-game season in 1994 is equivalent to at least 11 in a 162-game season; his 9.7 in 1995 also clears 10 pretty comfortably when adjusted.


[Coke for 940]

Maddux's pro-rated WAR totals for '94 & '95 are 12.2 & 10.9 respectively

I watched a lot of those starts on WTBS, and I've never seen such pinpoint control mixed with such insane pitch movement. He was literally hitting the catcher's targets (bullseyes) well over 50% of the time.
   943. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2022 at 10:06 AM (#6060294)
#940 Yes but ...

You just can't assume he'd have played at that level in the missed time.
   944. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2022 at 11:52 AM (#6060300)
Yeah, Maddux was going to totally tank and not accrue any wins above replacement. Quite obviously the 1995 playoffs showed he was totally not going to pitch well for a handful more games.
   945. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2022 at 12:20 PM (#6060302)
944 That's a dishonest argument and you know it. It's totally reasonable to assume that he'd have been excellent. 7 year average of 190 ERA+. It's just not reasonable to assume he'd have stayed at the level. I mean his FIP in both years was a fair bit higher than the era.
   946. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2022 at 12:51 PM (#6060305)
You just can't assume he'd have played at that level in the missed time.

That's not what I do when adjusting for schedule length. A single win has more impact on the standings in a shorter season than it does in a longer season.

Details of my particular method are here. Using this method, Maddux gets 11.3 adjusted WAR in '94 and 10.7 in '95, very much in line with the top seasons of his great contemporaries.
   947. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2022 at 12:53 PM (#6060306)
Joe Henderson with a 10-man ballot that adds Helton, which sounds great... except that he's voting for both Kent and Vizquel but not Rolen. That is an interesting logical knot to unwind - you like infielders who can field but not hit, and infielders who can hit but not field; who needs one who can do both?
   948. John Northey Posted: January 09, 2022 at 01:18 PM (#6060307)
Excellent point about that !*@#^@ 1994/95 strike. As others said, you can't just assume he'd have been as effective but he almost certainly would've cracked 10 if he had a full year either of those years. Of course, so would have Satchel Paige if given a full shot in a 154 game season, so one must be careful with assumptions. McGwire should've been chasing Matt Williams' record for HR if you just project (43 in 115 team games = 61 over 162). Sigh. 1994 - the year of what if. Especially for us Expos fans.
   949. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 09, 2022 at 01:35 PM (#6060310)
...and for Tony Gwynn.

Sure, more likely to go down than to go up, but it's a damn shame we didn't get a chance to see if he could pull it off.
   950. Howie Menckel Posted: January 09, 2022 at 01:48 PM (#6060313)
also, to 936 Howie, one item most don't recall about the 86 World Series was Seaver missed it, being injured.

yes, but weirdly he was in the Red Sox duguout, in uniform, as the Mets won Game 7 in 1986 - their second and last World Series title.

so Seaver, their 25-game winner from the other WS win in 1969, had a front-row seat as the Mets won with manager Davey Johnson - the same guy who made the last out in the 1969 World Series - and last-out-getter Jesse Orosco, who was acquired in a trade of the Mets' 1969 last-out-getter Jerry Koosman.
   951. alilisd Posted: January 09, 2022 at 03:09 PM (#6060325)
949. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 09, 2022 at 01:35 PM (#6060310)
...and for Tony Gwynn.

Sure, more likely to go down than to go up, but it's a damn shame we didn't get a chance to see if he could pull it off.


Such a shame! His splits for that year are 395, 392, 387, 370, 474!!! That's by month, but August at .474 was only 10 games and 43 PA's so could have been a fluke. Probably needed to hit about .413 the rest of the year to get there. Would have been intersting!
   952. John DiFool2 Posted: January 09, 2022 at 04:22 PM (#6060334)
I'll just point out that Maddux did it for 2 straight years. And zero surprise his BABIP was so low-go watch some old games, note the movement, and get back to us if you still think it was a fluke.
   953. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2022 at 05:11 PM (#6060338)
I mean his FIP in both years was a fair bit higher than the era.

Maddux as a Brave generally played in front of good fielders; this would be adjusted for in his bWAR totals.

Maddux himself was also regarded as an excellent fielder, what with the 18 Gold Gloves and all; one might reasonably expect that to contribute to an ERA lower than his FIP as well, and in a repeatable-skill way.
   954. alilisd Posted: January 09, 2022 at 10:33 PM (#6060366)
Maddux himself was also regarded as an excellent fielder, what with the 18 Gold Gloves and all; one might reasonably expect that to contribute to an ERA lower than his FIP as well, and in a repeatable-skill way.


Wasn't his CF in Atlanta supposed to be pretty good? Oh wait, he didn't come to the team until after those strike seasons. But he did lead the league in FIP in both of those seasons, lower than his ERA or not.
   955. Moeball Posted: January 10, 2022 at 05:46 PM (#6060497)
#912 - of course Ruth was the top player of the 1920s but Hornsby did something for total dominance of his league that no one else has approached that I can find: in the 1920s he led the National League for the decade in runs scored, hits, doubles, triples, homers, RBIs, total bases, walks, batting average, on base average, slugging percentage. To dominate so many categories across the board for a decade is unmatched. Although another Cardinal might have given it a shot in the 1940s or 1950s (Musial).

#939 - I believe you mentioned Perry's remarkable 1972 season with Cleveland. Most people remember 1972 for Carlton's great pitching on a bad team, but the Phillies actually played better when Steve was on the mound, i.e., his run support wasn't that bad. Gaylord is the one who had a record setting year for poor run support. He finished the season with a 24-16 record, but he got saddled with poor run support (defined here as 2 runs or less through 9 innings) in 25 of his 40 decisions, or over 60% of the time. This is the highest percentage of poor run support I have found for any starting pitcher with at least 30 starts in a season in MLB history (although admittedly I haven't run the numbers for the past few seasons). In those 25 starts with poor support Perry went 9-16. In games where Cleveland scored at least 3 runs through 9 innings Gaylord went an astounding 15-0!.
   956. TomH Posted: January 10, 2022 at 05:55 PM (#6060499)
All true about Gaylord's 72, but a little context: the league scored less than 3.5 runs per game that season. CLE rotation looked like
GPerry 24-16 1.92
Tidrow 14-15 2.77
Wilcox 07-14 3.40

Nettles was the best position player on the team. He scored the most runs, with 65.

   957. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 10, 2022 at 06:31 PM (#6060505)
RE24 is probably the most complete way to evaluate offense because it looks at the 24 different states of baseball

Which really p!sses off the other 26 states, to say nothing of DC and Puerto Rico.
   958. alilisd Posted: January 10, 2022 at 09:44 PM (#6060539)
957. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 10, 2022 at 06:31 PM (#6060505)
RE24 is probably the most complete way to evaluate offense because it looks at the 24 different states of baseball

Which really p!sses off the other 26 states, to say nothing of DC and Puerto Rico.


I don't care who you are, that's funny right there! :-)
   959. TomH Posted: January 11, 2022 at 09:00 AM (#6060578)
Hey, not all 50 states have a team, they need to be OK with that. In fact, it is less than 24!!
   960. LargeBill Posted: January 11, 2022 at 12:21 PM (#6060613)
CHB submits a Jeff Kent only ballot for the second year in a row. Nothing personal against Kent, but this may be even worse than the blank ballots.
   961. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 11, 2022 at 12:34 PM (#6060616)
CHB submits a Jeff Kent only ballot for the second year in a row. Nothing personal against Kent, but this may be even worse than the blank ballots.


The Anti-homer vote! The amount of joy CHB derives from spite is astounding.
   962. villageidiom Posted: January 11, 2022 at 01:51 PM (#6060635)
CHB submits a Jeff Kent only ballot for the second year in a row. Nothing personal against Kent, but this may be even worse than the blank ballots.
This ballot is the equivalent of leaving a waiter a one-cent tip.
   963. alilisd Posted: January 11, 2022 at 02:12 PM (#6060642)
CHB submits a Jeff Kent only ballot for the second year in a row. Nothing personal against Kent, but this may be even worse than the blank ballots.


Presumably he gets a bonus based on clicks which outweighs the hate he will receive for not voting for Ortiz?
   964. John Northey Posted: January 11, 2022 at 02:56 PM (#6060646)
Lots of weirdness...
Ron Kroichick: Kent, Jones, Vizquel
Dan Shaughnessy: Kent only
Steve Simmons: Jones, Schilling, Sheffield
Juan Vené: Petitte, Rolen, Wagner

Many others. Those just jumped out at me. How do you vote for PED user Petitte but not Clemens or Bonds? Same with Sheffield but not the big 2? As others said, why would you vote Kent only? Or Kent/Jones/Vizquel?

Voters are weird. I get the anti-PED and the "I loved his defense & leadership" (Vizquel), I even get teh FEAR from Rice years ago. I don't agree, but I can understand them. Those 4 I listed and others I just don't get. No logic, no reasoning, just almost like they picked names at random.
   965. Karl from NY Posted: January 11, 2022 at 03:23 PM (#6060651)
How do you vote for PED user Petitte but not Clemens or Bonds?

Pettitte confessed and apologized, so that's at least one possible reason.
   966. kcgard2 Posted: January 11, 2022 at 04:40 PM (#6060665)
Well, Pettitte confessed to the narrowest and most forgivable possible degree of use. Who knows if what he confessed to actually reflects his use or not. Also not sure it amounted to an apology. McGwire has a much better case for a confession + apology than anyone else but it didn't buy any votes.
   967. Lars6788 Posted: January 11, 2022 at 05:31 PM (#6060673)
Pettitte isn’t seen as a villain by any stretch of the imagination.
   968. John Northey Posted: January 11, 2022 at 05:50 PM (#6060677)
I never got why Pettitte has always got a blank cheque on that while Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGwire (among others) were treated as scum of the earth. Yeah, he confessed to a minor use of it (to which I say BS, if you gave in once odds are very high you did it more). It is weird. Was he super-nice to the NY press or something? Gave them Christmas gifts? Always wondered if players would do that to gain better press - remember writers names and give them small gifts and watch your press improve. Treat them as scum and enemies and they treat you the same.

I see PED's as something to factor in on marginal cases - where I put Pettitte - he is close to HOF level but I put him as a compiler with just 3 years of 4+ WAR but tons of 2-3.9 years. A guy every team would love to have on their staff for that stability, but never a Cy winner (his 2nd place was due to his offense - 21 wins - more than how well he pitched) and just 3 All-Star teams. I see his 19 playoff wins as mostly a function of how many he got into thanks to being on great Yankee teams (44 starts or 1 1/3 seasons worth). Without PED's I might consider voting for him, but with them he is too 'average forever' for me - a touch better than Jack Morris on my list but I wouldn't have voted for him either.
   969. SoSH U at work Posted: January 11, 2022 at 06:11 PM (#6060681)
Keep in mind, Pettitte has gone nowhere with the voters, so whatever blank check (or cheque) he's gotten, he hasn't been able to cash it for much.

Frankly, I'm always surprised at the lack of support he gets around here. A 60 WAR pitcher with another supersized Andy Pettitte season in the playoffs at slightly better rates (and, yes, I know his IP total is a function of his teammates, but then again his IP total also means extra wear and tear on the UCL and rotator cuff while King Felix types are resting comfortably at home), a solid ERA+* despite playing in front of the crappiest middle of the diamond imaginable (often some combination of Posada, Jeter and Bernie Williams) and a much better career when measured by Fangraphs WAR than BBRef's.

* His run-prevention numbers were better in Houston than New York, which is similar to what we see with Hall worthies Clemens, Johnson and Mussina (and Brown, though he was probably just toast by that point).
   970. The Duke Posted: January 11, 2022 at 06:33 PM (#6060685)
How many baseball writers does the Boston globe have? A “dump” of votes from one towns newspaper ? Are these all retired guys? How many best writers does one town need ?
   971. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 11, 2022 at 06:46 PM (#6060688)
How do you vote for PED user Petitte but not Clemens or Bonds?
Presumably, some version of injury-related HGH use not considered to be as performance-enhancing as steroids, without that much focus on the level of proof required for steroids disqualification. As discussed earlier in the thread, there’s a fair bit of selective application among the anti-PED crowd.
   972. alilisd Posted: January 11, 2022 at 06:57 PM (#6060691)
Frankly, I'm always surprised at the lack of support he gets around here. A 60 WAR pitcher with another supersized Andy Pettitte season in the playoffs at slightly better rates (and, yes, I know his IP total is a function of his teammates, but then again his IP total also means extra wear and tear on the UCL and rotator cuff while King Felix types are resting comfortably at home), a solid ERA+* despite playing in front of the crappiest middle of the diamond imaginable (often some combination of Posada, Jeter and Bernie Williams) and a much better career when measured by Fangraphs WAR than BBRef's.


I don't know anything about FG WAR, I just don't use that site much since I'm happy with BR. Using BR there's just no peak, and for me there has to be some sort of HOF peak or you're not getting support. If you were never great for at least some period of time, I prefer five seasons, I just don't see how you can be a HOF. Isn't defense considered in BR WAR, RA9def? So his negative defense is added back into his RA9avg? Anyway, since I haven't looked at him through a Fangraphs lens, I see a guy who, despite lasting a long time and pitching well in the post season, pitched like a HOF for two seasons early in his career followed by seven seasons where he was a good pitcher, then one more HOF season followed by another six seasons of being a good pitcher. If you look at WAR7, he has only 68% of the peak of an average HOF, that's really low.
   973. alilisd Posted: January 11, 2022 at 07:00 PM (#6060692)
The Duke Posted: January 11, 2022 at 06:33 PM (#6060685) How many baseball writers does the Boston globe have? A “dump” of votes from one towns newspaper ? Are these all retired guys? How many best writers does one town need ?


Not sure on the number of writers, but Boston is hardly a "town." Long, storied history in all four pro sports would lend to having a large sports department, and likely enough time "covering" baseball for many of them to become voters. And, yes, likely some of them are retired but retaining voting rights.
   974. TJ Posted: January 11, 2022 at 08:10 PM (#6060702)
The Duke Posted: January 11, 2022 at 06:33 PM (#6060685) How many baseball writers does the Boston globe have? A “dump” of votes from one towns newspaper ? Are these all retired guys? How many best writers does one town need ?


Not sure on the number of writers, but Boston is hardly a "town." Long, storied history in all four pro sports would lend to having a large sports department, and likely enough time "covering" baseball for many of them to become voters. And, yes, likely some of them are retired but retaining voting rights.


Just because Boston is a big enough city with a large enough sports scene to have a lot of baseball writers doesn’t mean those sportswriters are any good (I’m looking at you, CHB and Bob Ryan)…
   975. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 11, 2022 at 08:54 PM (#6060706)
My personal, overthinking, non-statistical theory on Pettitte is that everyone sees him as a #2 starter, because that's how the Yankees themselves viewed him.

Pettitte was almost exclusively the G2 starter for the Yankees in the ALDS. I use the ALDS because the outcome of that series will sometimes impact the order of the rotation of the next series (See the way the Red Sox had to wait until G3 to use Pedro in the ALCS in 99 because he threw 5 innings in G5 of the ALDS.)

Here's the list of guys who got the G1 calls in his Yankee tenure

1995, 1996, 1997: Cone
1998: Wells
1999: Hernandez
2000, 2001, 2002: Clemens
2003: Mussina
2007: Wang
2010, 2012: Sabathia

The exceptions were his year in Houston— when he started G1 — and 2008 — when he was the G3 starter for a Yankees team using a 3-man rotation.

Was it a "We're starting him in G2 so he can pitch in G5" scenario? Sometimes. He got the G5 call in 97 and 2000. But Cone got it in 95, Clemens in 2001, and it went to Sabathia in 2012. I don't know what other years he might have gotten the G5 start.

But I think this, perhaps subconsciously, is something voters might just be aware of. Pettitte was a mainstay for a modern dynasty, but there was almost always a hired gun ready to take the Game 1 start when playoff time came around. And I think it just plays into the old-school notion that he was never the ace.

And it's not like his statistical case is anything special. His 60 bWAR, 117 ERA+ are pretty borderline for voters into advanced stats — just look at how Tim Hudson's 57.9 and 120, and Buehrle's 59.1 and 117 are playing with voters right now. His traditional case is basically his W-L record, but the guy spent his whole career on great teams.
   976. alilisd Posted: January 11, 2022 at 08:59 PM (#6060707)
Just because Boston is a big enough city with a large enough sports scene to have a lot of baseball writers doesn’t mean those sportswriters are any good (I’m looking at you, CHB and Bob Ryan)…


Ha! Oh, I definitely wasn't making any sort of quality judgment :-)
   977. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2022 at 09:06 PM (#6060709)
Pettitte confessed and apologized, so that's at least one possible reason.

He lied about using PEDs - then when he got caught, he said, "I swear it was just that one time - and only to recover faster than an injury!"

weeks later: "Ok, TWO times - but just the two times, I swear. yeah, that's the ticket!"

but Pettitte no doubt is still riding the high of this month's Hall of Merit election, where voters emphatically voted in A-Rod (most of the previous PED guys have long since been elected) and collectively agreed no one else excited them but, hey, we have to elect 3 more..."

was surprised that Ortiz only tied for 9th in a weak field, while Sosa (and Abreu) also staggered in basically as replacements for three of the absolute bums (relatively speaking) that are in the real Hall.

Manager Joe Torre used to say that Game 2 was always "pivotal," or something, so you wanted cagey veteran Pettitte in that spot. he spun the yarn pretty well, so not convinced his slotting in the postseason hurt his reputation.
   978. alilisd Posted: January 11, 2022 at 09:07 PM (#6060710)
And it's not like his statistical case is anything special. His 60 bWAR, 117 ERA+ are pretty borderline for voters into advanced stats — just look at how Tim Hudson's 57.9 and 120, and Buehrle's 59.1 and 117 are playing with voters right now. His traditional case is basically his W-L record, but the guy spent his whole career on great teams.


That 60 WAR did get me thinking. I used Stathead to pull all pitchers between 55-65 WAR during the expansion era. It returns 15 with, interestingly, those 15 being book ended by Eck at #1 and Rivera at #15. So that leaves 13 starters John, Sabathia, Cone, Pettitte, Buehrle, Marichal, Saberhagen, Hamels, Finley, Tanana, Koosman, Hudson, and Stieb. Most of them have a clearly better peak than Pettitte although they may not have other arrows in their quivers such as a HUGE post season resume. It's also interesting that only one of them is in of the 11 eligible. Does not bode well for Hamels, I'd say, although I think Sabathia gets more love than the rest.
   979. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 11, 2022 at 10:18 PM (#6060723)
Manager Joe Torre used to say that Game 2 was always "pivotal," or something, so you wanted cagey veteran Pettitte in that spot. he spun the yarn pretty well, so not convinced his slotting in the postseason hurt his reputation.


It's evident that this wasn't the reason. I mean, Torre may have said that to be nice to Pettitte, but there's no way that was the actual reason. By the standards we typically used, Pettitte was almost always behind a clearly superior pitcher during Torre's tenure.

1995
Cone: 18-8, 3.57
Pettitte: 12-9, 4.17

1996:
Cone: 7-2, 2.88
Pettitte: 21-8, 3.87

1997:
Cone: 12-6, 2.82
Pettitte: 18-7, 2.88

1998:
Wells: 20-7, 3.55
Pettitte: 16-11, 4.24

1999:
Hernandez: 17-9, 4.12
Pettitte: 14-11, 4.70

2000:
Clemens 13-7, 3.70
Pettitte: 19-9, 4.35

2001:
Clemens 20-3, 3.51
Pettitte: 15-10, 3.99

2002:
Clemens 13-6, 4.35
Pettitte: 13-5, 3.27

2003:
Mussina: 17-8, 3.40
Pettitte: 21-8, 4.02

2007:
Wang: 19-7, 3.70
Pettitte: 15-9, 4.05

I'd say that in 8 of those 10 seasons under Torre, the G1 starter would be considered, using the standards at the time, the clearly better pitcher. The exceptions would be 1997 and 2002. (If you really wanted to make the argument, you could say the uncertainty over Cone's health in 1996 made Pettitte the better pitcher. I wouldn't, but one could).

But even if Pettitte was equal to or better than those pitchers in those years, he wasn't starting G2 because he was a "cagey veteran". Certainly not at 25 behind David Cone in 1997.

And frankly, all this is borne out by the advanced stats we see — that Joe Torre certainly never used.

By WAR, there was 1 year under Torre where Pettitte even has an argument as the best pitcher on their staff, and that was 1997. (Again 1996, you could make the health argument for him over Cone based solely on Cone's health.)

So, Torre's baseballism's aside, I think it's pretty clear that Torre was simply not starting Pettitte in G1 because he wasn't good enough
   980. The Duke Posted: January 11, 2022 at 11:46 PM (#6060733)
Jason Sardell who runs the continuously updating projection model says that Ortiz is now a 98% probability. No one else is close.
   981. NaOH Posted: January 12, 2022 at 12:14 AM (#6060736)
Manager Joe Torre used to say that Game 2 was always "pivotal," or something....


His comment was about Game 3. I think it was an idea he got from bench coach Zimmer, the thinking being that since teams enter Game 3 at one of

2–0
1–1
0–2

and he/Zimmer viewed Game 3 as a big opportunity to either take a commanding position, get ahead, or avert likely doom.
   982. Howie Menckel Posted: January 12, 2022 at 12:23 AM (#6060740)

first off, I must say upon further review/recollection that this below is correct re Torre and "pivotal." he used different language in pumping up Pettitte's bona fides.

"His comment was about Game 3."


he spun the yarn pretty well, so not convinced his slotting in the postseason hurt his reputation.


what are we disagreeing about here?
Pettitte was not an "ace," and wasn't used as one in the postseason.

the discussion was whether writers might have been less impressed by Pettitte because of this fact.

I was responding to:

"Was it a "We're starting him in G2 so he can pitch in G5" scenario? Sometimes. He got the G5 call in 97 and 2000. But Cone got it in 95, Clemens in 2001, and it went to Sabathia in 2012. I don't know what other years he might have gotten the G5 start.

But I think this, perhaps subconsciously, is something voters might just be aware of. Pettitte was a mainstay for a modern dynasty, but there was almost always a hired gun ready to take the Game 1 start when playoff time came around. And I think it just plays into the old-school notion that he was never the ace."

...........

so the writers of that time are aware (and many covered the WS) of Pettitte being in the 2 slot and an incredibly well-respected great player and manager in Torre touted Pettitte's case for Game 2, but supposedly the writers discounted that completely?

I don't buy the No. 2 postseason role as a net loss for Pettitte. but I confess that my unconscious bias may be having sat in the dugout among a small group with Torre before many games, and he had multiple anecdotes for every baseball development imaginable (huge for the NYC writers who had their "early edition" stories published the next day without even having a game result).

Torre had a masterful demeanor with the press, and I doubt from that era that many call "bullshit" on his easygoing touting of Pettitte.

similar to covering the US Open tennis in NYC in the late 1980s/early 1990s. if you're doing a feature on a local star or an up-and-coming player, the incandescent (in different ways) Billie Jean King and Arthur Ashe would patrol the old press box for hours and make themselves available to even the greenest of tennis writers, and offer unparalleled insight.

looked it up - I had Pettitte 9th on my ballot this year as he got elected. not sure if that means I was swayed by fond memories of Torre or not.

:)
   983. Grovers Rocket Posted: January 12, 2022 at 09:13 AM (#6060753)
Was going to say what Howie already stated. Pettitte initially only admitted to the one time he had been caught using and then when a second instance came up later, he "suddenly remembered" the second time he used and copped to that as well. That's not exactly coming clean about his usage but we've already seen how the goalposts move when it comes to PEDs.
   984. The Duke Posted: January 12, 2022 at 10:49 AM (#6060772)
It will be interesting to see in 20-30 years whether guys like Buerhle, Hudson, colon, lester, Petitte, wainwright, cone, stieb, brown, Moyer, and Tanana get any revised love from the Vets committees. They all have some interesting hooks that could get them elected. I was looking at Lester today. He’s like Buerhle - 30 starts every year. Pretty amazing.

If Luis Tiant is any indication - maybe not.
   985. TJ Posted: January 12, 2022 at 01:19 PM (#6060799)
If Luis Tiant is any indication - maybe not.


Always thought Tiant was a hard-luck HOF case. He led the AL in ERA twice and no one noticed in either year- in 1968, when Bob Gibson set the record for the lowest ERA in a season and Denny McLain won 31 games and in 1972, when the only two pitchers anyone was paying attention to were Steve Carlton and Gaylord Perry. In between Tiant had three prime seasons in which he lost 20 games in one and disappeared from view the other two.

Even during his great run in Boston Tiant was overlooked. When casual fans and most sportswriters look back at his time with the Red Sox, they see Fred Lynn winning the MVP as a rookie, the debut of Jim Rice, and/or Carlton Fisk waving his famous home run fair. Tiant is an afterthought, if that.

I would love to see Luis Tiant in Cooperstown, and think he deserves induction. That said, unless he gets a champion on his VC or the committee gets a lot more discerning in analyzing the careers of players, I don’t think it’s happening…
   986. alilisd Posted: January 12, 2022 at 02:50 PM (#6060814)
980. The Duke Posted: January 11, 2022 at 11:46 PM (#6060733) Jason Sardell who runs the continuously updating projection model says that Ortiz is now a 98% probability. No one else is close.


I was skeptical early on, but I'm starting to come around. I still think it's going to be very close, but he's at 84% now and Thibs has him needing only 69% on remaining ballots, an approximation of course. So if he loses 15% between public and private he's right at the line of 75%. That's a large difference between public and private. B/C lose even more than that, but it doesn't seem he's at all viewed as they are. Rolen lost the most last year at 24.7%, but it doesn't look like Ortiz is viewed at all like him either. Sheffield lost 15.3% last year, and we've hashed out the similarities between him and Ortiz already. Seems like Ortiz should be right around 75% +/- 1% maybe? Going to be interesting!
   987. GregD Posted: January 12, 2022 at 03:06 PM (#6060822)
That 60 WAR did get me thinking. I used Stathead to pull all pitchers between 55-65 WAR during the expansion era. It returns 15 with, interestingly, those 15 being book ended by Eck at #1 and Rivera at #15. So that leaves 13 starters John, Sabathia, Cone, Pettitte, Buehrle, Marichal, Saberhagen, Hamels, Finley, Tanana, Koosman, Hudson, and Stieb. Most of them have a clearly better peak than Pettitte although they may not have other arrows in their quivers such as a HUGE post season resume. It's also interesting that only one of them is in of the 11 eligible. Does not bode well for Hamels, I'd say, although I think Sabathia gets more love than the rest.


By WAR7 overall rank (including 19th century pitchers):

33--Marichal
67--Stieb
76--Cone
79--Saberghagen
99-Finley
102--Sabathia
112--Hudson
116--Tanana
127--Hamels
138--Koosman
150--Buehrle
165-Tommy John
168--Lester
174--Pettitte

WAR7 has limits but does help distinguish between these guys with similar aggregate career values. No particular point just posting the list.
   988. Walt Davis Posted: January 12, 2022 at 03:54 PM (#6060826)
Among the public votes so far, Ortiz is receiving support from about 60% of the non-B/C voters. He doesn't have 100% support from the B/C voters but if he maintains 60% among the non-B/C crowd, he should squeak over. I don't know how you'd get that as high as 98% probability for this year but am not curious enough to dig into the methodology.

Vizquel and Rollins: The voters dropping Vizquel are not voting for Rollins to any great extent. There's no evidence Rollins is benefiting from some "best non-controversial SS on the ballot" effect. He's mainly getting support from folks who didn't vote for Vizquel last year, probably due to peak and MVP putting him into a "at least played like a HoFer for a while" bucket.

Pettitte is a bit like Ortiz. He was a very good pitcher who pretty clearly wasn't going to the HoF and I wrote something along the lines of "sure, if he keeps it up until he's 40 without a decline, maybe but what are the chances of that?" In terms of career stats, Pettitte and CC are very close. CC's peak is better (and Pettitte's "peak" is non-consecutive) but that's a pretty thin in/out argument. I assume his 250 wins will eventually get Pettitte in via VC.

Somebody mentioned Pettitte's WAR7 as a percentage of the average HoF pitcher's WAR7. That's an interesting idea and may work well for position players. But keep in mind that 19th and early 20th century pitchers are still heavily over-represented in the HoF. Their WAR7s are nuts. Sort the JAWS WAR7 list and Clemens at #10 is the first post-war pitcher to appear. Six of the top 9 had careers that started 1890 or earlier.

The post-war ("modern") WAR7 ranking goes something like this (might miss one)

Clemens 66
Unit 62
Gibon 61
Seaver 59
Pedro 58
Maddux 56
Roberts 55
Niekro 54
Carlton 54
Perry 52
Marichal 52
Spahn 51
Fergie 51
Halladay 51
Blyleven 50
Verlander 50
Kershaw 50

etc.

The shift from the roughly every 4th start to every 5th start and the reduction in IP/start during the post-war period will also affect WAR7 totals and, with current usage, we might never see 50 again. DeGrom is only at 41 and conceivably could push it up to 49 with two more 2019s; Sale is at 40. Scherzer's WAR7 is 48 and he'd need a 7.5 WAR season (or two 6+ seasons) to break 50. And it's possible that even Scherzer's 220 IP seasons are a thing of the past -- we might not see 40 again if WAR7s are going to be based on just 1200-1300 innings. Kid Nichols' WAR7 is based on over 2800 innings.

Which doesn't help Pettitte and his 34 WAR7. But one of his obvious HoF comps is Sutton -- just treat 250 as the new 300 -- whose WAR7 is also 34. Or Hunter, Ford, John at 35. Morris at 33. There are of course a bejillion guys around that same number not remotely close to the HoF and it looks like only Rixey, Sutton, Bender and Morris have lower WAR7 than Pettitte so it's still about as lousy a peak as you'll find for a top pitcher. Remember this though when Kluber, Lester, Wainwright, Hamels, Felix, etc. come up.

EDIT: to this and #987, Kaat is at 38 WAR7, #117, tied with Tanana, between Blue and Guidry.
   989. alilisd Posted: January 12, 2022 at 05:37 PM (#6060840)
WAR7 has limits but does help distinguish between these guys with similar aggregate career values. No particular point just posting the list.


I think it very much speaks to the point about Pettitte, despite his total WAR, had essentially no peak, or at least nothing resembling a HOF peak.
   990. alilisd Posted: January 12, 2022 at 05:45 PM (#6060842)
Somebody mentioned Pettitte's WAR7 as a percentage of the average HoF pitcher's WAR7. That's an interesting idea and may work well for position players. But keep in mind that 19th and early 20th century pitchers are still heavily over-represented in the HoF. Their WAR7s are nuts. Sort the JAWS WAR7 list and Clemens at #10 is the first post-war pitcher to appear. Six of the top 9 had careers that started 1890 or earlier.


That's a good catch, Walt! I should have thought of that before posting it. It's pretty cool that B-R has tried to address this with JAWS with their WAR7 adjusted. Not sure how worthwhile it is, but it tries to adjust for IP by scaling down seasons above 250 IP. This results in an adjusted WAR7 of 40.7 as the average for a HOF pitcher, leaving Pettitte with about 84% of that average. Makes him look quite a bit better, and is at least somewhat more fair than the old WAR7.

Has anyone looked into the adjusted version of WAR7 B-R is using? Thoughts?
   991. The Duke Posted: January 12, 2022 at 06:47 PM (#6060853)
I think Jaffe says he’s switching to it. One thing you definitely see when you look at the pitchers in the HOF, pitcher by pitcher is that the averages are massively skewed by the guys who played in the period of pre 1910. I definitely think this move is a move in the right direction
   992. GregD Posted: January 12, 2022 at 06:48 PM (#6060854)
It's pretty cool that B-R has tried to address this with JAWS with their WAR7 adjusted. Not sure how worthwhile it is, but it tries to adjust for IP by scaling down seasons above 250 IP.


Just FYI here are those pitchers by WAR7--adjusted:

WAR7adjusted rank-----WAR 7 unadjusted rank---Name

32---33--Marichal
42---67--Stieb
34---76--Cone-
40---79--Saberhagen
57---99---Finley--RIGHT BEHIND KOUFAX!
60---102--Sabathia
66---112--Hudson
87---116--Tanana
78---127--Hamels
110---138--Koosman
99---150--Buehrle
135---165-Tommy John
116---168--Lester
124---174--Pettitte


Leads to some flips among some people whose stats are pretty bunched together with other pitcher sin a way that a small change can make a big impact on relative ranking (which suggests they are swimming in crowded waters.)

Also does reduce the value of the earlier pitchers--Marichal, though he's still ahead; Stieb and Koosman. In the big picture, Stieb and Saberhagen and Cone all feel in the same boat to me either way, no matter which order they're listed in.
   993. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 12, 2022 at 07:01 PM (#6060857)
I think that I'm philosophically opposed to scaling down high IP seasons. Those pitchers were extremely valuable to their teams. Far more valuable than any modern pitcher could be. Scaling down those seasons obscures that value. More recent pitchers just don't matter to their teams as much.
   994. Howie Menckel Posted: January 12, 2022 at 07:28 PM (#6060861)
but enough about 70-inning relief pitchers!

;)
   995. Walt Davis Posted: January 12, 2022 at 07:53 PM (#6060862)
Bearing in mind I hadn't heard about this adjustment until a few posts ago ...

#993: Remember the purpose of JAWS is to predict HOF election ... or measure HoF worthiness. The adjustment isn't changing the "value" per se, it's trying to make an era adjustment for pitcher usage. If you're trying to answer the question of "how do Pettitte's chances/worthiness compare with Ed Walsh's?" (66 career WAR, 62 WAR7) you have no choice but to adjust. Whether the adjustment b-r/Jaffe use is the right way is another question.

To an extent, until recently, you could simplify the era differences as .... all great pitchers have somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 innings in their arms. Kid Nichols was forced to use up his 5000 innings in 12 seasons while Carlton and Maddux got to spread them out over about 20 seasons and the current crop will maybe get to 4,500 over 25 seasons. Which of those approaches is better for team is unknown and out of the player's control.

This contrasts with position players where, other than the mostly relatively small changes in games played per season, there's been no substantial change in how star position players are used. For position players, the meaning of WAR7 is relatively constant over time. For pitchers, WAR7 goes from "the majority of a star pitcher's innings" to "maybe as little as 1/3" ... unless you're Cy Young or Walter Johnson.

In the adjusted numbers ... Walter Johnson is still #1 but barely over Clemens. Unit, Grove, Pedro, Maddux, Seaver, Mathewson, Gibson, Young round out the top 10. That sounds like the 10 greatest pitchers of all-time to me. Scherzer goes from 30th to 16th, in a tight cluster with Verlander, Kershaw and Greinke ... maybe a bit much that all 4 of them are right there but they're pretty inseperable in (non-consecutive) peak. Santana has moved from 67th to 25th which sounds more correct to me. I love Fergie but in terms of peak quality, he's 11 wins ahead of deGrom in raw WAR7, only 1 ahead in adjusted (Fergie #41, deGrom #48). Measured relative to era, these seem more sensible.

It's a crude adjustment so some specific cases won't make any sense. For example, Perry and Tiant are rough contemporaries. In raw WAR7, Perry leads easily at 52 to 44; the adjustment pulls them back into a tie at 41. Those extra innings Perry threw in those peak seasons pretty clearly weren't due to uncontrollable era differences between Perry and Tiant.

Another way to approach it from a modelling aspect might have been to allow for some variation in time for the WAR vs WAR7 weighting for starting pitchers. In the 19th c, WAR7 and WAR are quite similar, conveying the same information -- most extremely so in Walsh's case. Peak was career. Once pitchers started being used in more sensible ways, you start to get different mixes of career relative to peak value -- leading in maybe its most extreme to Sutton having nearly 20 more WAR than Koufax but nobody being in any doubt about which was the great pitcher and which the good one. Now we look to be back to a situation where a starting pitcher's HoF-worthiness will be all about a (give or take) 1500-2000 inning "peak" but you might need WAR10 to capture that.

Suggesting maybe what we'd ideally want is something like WAR-1800 (innings) or WAR-250 (starts) but of course neither of those will chop up neatly into seasons.
   996. Walt Davis Posted: January 12, 2022 at 08:07 PM (#6060865)
Those extra innings Perry threw in those peak seasons pretty clearly weren't due to uncontrollable era differences between Perry and Tiant.

So if we were to stick with "crude", it might work better to do era adjustments. So instead of scaling everybody down to (but not up to) 250 innings, you come up with an era adjustment factor for each "era" (or even year). So maybe the "typical" full-time starter in 1890 threw 350 innings. Then we multiply everybody in that era by 5/7. If Nichols threw 420 then he gets adjusted down to 300 innings, not 250. If I added right, Perry's WAR7 seasons come to just over 2000 innings and all seasons fall between 1967 and 1976. Tiant's top 7 fall between 1967 and 1978 but comprise just about 1725 innings. Perry threw essentially one full extra Tiant season in those years, give him credit for that -- it's real value relative to era, not era-specific value.
   997. alilisd Posted: January 12, 2022 at 09:47 PM (#6060875)
Just FYI here are those pitchers by WAR7--adjusted:


Thanks Greg!
   998. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 12, 2022 at 09:58 PM (#6060878)
Predicting election vs. measuring worthiness are completely different things. I'm going to focus on the latter one. And as far as the latter one goes, you shouldn't do era adjustments for innings pitched. Pitcher usage is such that each individual pitcher is less important than he used to be. All that means is that we should have fewer pitchers in the HOF going forward. Just like we currently have fewer relief pitchers than starting pitchers (since relief pitchers are, in general, less valuable than starters), we have fewer DHs than guys who play defense (since not playing D limits their value to their team), and we don't have any pinch hitters (since they don't contribute much to their teams at all).

Consider that there have always been relief pitchers, but that in the early days we didn't elect _any_ of them to the hall. Because starting pitchers almost always finished their games, the guys who pitched in relief were unimportant.* The hall of fame reflects that - the early days have lots of starters in the hall, and no relievers. As relievers gained importance, that started to change. YMMV on who besides Mo should be in the hall, but the hall does reflect their increased importance to their teams. And as starters decrease in importance, it should reflect that too.

Sometimes I think that even people around here want to elect guys based on whether they were a star, or whether they "felt like a hall of famer." But neither of those are listed voting criteria. The on-field voting criteria are baseball ability, and contributions to the team. Low IP totals don't change a guy's baseball ability, but they do change his contribution to his team. And if we're going to stick to the criteria by which players are supposed to be selected (again, looking at worthiness, not whether they actually will be elected), as their contributions to their teams decrease, so should the frequency with which they are elected to the hall.


*The 1927 Yankees had four pitchers who pitched mostly in relief (plus one who threw only one inning). It was a very old Bob Shawkey, and three mostly anonymous guys.
   999. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 12, 2022 at 11:30 PM (#6060884)
we have fewer DHs than guys who play defense (since not playing D limits their value to their team)

Or because the role has only existed for 50 years and in one league. Looking at players elected by the writers since 1990 inclusive (chosen because the guys before that had huge sections of their careers before the DH existed), I count 38 position players - including one majority DH in Edgar Martinez, and three others (Thome, Thomas, Molitor) who spent large portions of their careers as DHs. That's not counting Harold Baines (undeniably bad choice by the vets, but played more DH than anything else), or Ortiz, who is likely to be inducted within the next 2 years.

Consider that there have always been relief pitchers, but that in the early days we didn't elect _any_ of them to the hall. Because starting pitchers almost always finished their games, the guys who pitched in relief were unimportant.*

Back in the day, the team's best reliever was often also their best starter. Ed Walsh led the AL in saves 5 times in 6 years; Mordecai Brown led the NL 4 years in a row. Later saves leaders also include Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, and Dizzy Dean. The reliever/starter distinction didn't really exist in early baseball; pitchers were expected to fill either role as needed.
   1000. SoSH U at work Posted: January 13, 2022 at 12:09 AM (#6060888)
Predicting election vs. measuring worthiness are completely different things. I'm going to focus on the latter one. And as far as the latter one goes, you shouldn't do era adjustments for innings pitched. Pitcher usage is such that each individual pitcher is less important than he used to be. All that means is that we should have fewer pitchers in the HOF going forward. Just like we currently have fewer relief pitchers than starting pitchers (since relief pitchers are, in general, less valuable than starters), we have fewer DHs than guys who play defense (since not playing D limits their value to their team), and we don't have any pinch hitters (since they don't contribute much to their teams at all).


What you're proposing is fewer Hall of Famers overall.
Page 10 of 12 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(3317 - 9:58am, Jun 25)
Last: Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean

NewsblogCole Hamels Targeting 2023 Comeback
(1 - 8:41am, Jun 25)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogFormer MLB manager Art Howe in ICU due to the coronavirus
(5 - 6:46am, Jun 25)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful

NewsblogMLB should consider adopting a mercy rule
(48 - 12:12am, Jun 25)
Last: The Ghost of Sox Fans Past

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for June 24-26, 2022
(34 - 12:06am, Jun 25)
Last: Snowboy

Newsblog696 games later, he gets his 1st at-bat, and well ...
(4 - 9:54pm, Jun 24)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogHere are the All-Star Ballot standings so far
(25 - 9:36pm, Jun 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogShohei Ohtani follows up career-high 8-RBI night with career-high 13 Ks
(51 - 9:06pm, Jun 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogTexas Rangers trade Willie Calhoun to San Francisco Giants for Steven Duggar
(2 - 9:03pm, Jun 24)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogMemo: MLB to require all teams to 'muddy' ball using exact same technique
(13 - 6:25pm, Jun 24)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for Thursday, June 23, 2022
(44 - 5:17pm, Jun 24)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Yankees Are Keeping Pace With Their 1998 Powerhouse
(26 - 5:13pm, Jun 24)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogWhy Manny Ramirez says Derek Jeter would have been ‘just a regular player’ in Kansas City
(30 - 3:35pm, Jun 24)
Last: Bret Sabermatrician

NewsblogOutfielder Austin Hays becomes sixth player in Baltimore Orioles history to hit for cycle
(2 - 11:30am, Jun 24)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogPirates shortstop Oneil Cruz showcases all his skills in impressive season debut
(30 - 4:04am, Jun 24)
Last: Cooper Nielson

Page rendered in 0.7773 seconds
45 querie(s) executed