Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, November 18, 2019

Ryan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker

The Thibs Hall of Fame Tracker is back.

Baldrick Posted: November 18, 2019 at 12:27 PM | 1475 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, son of gizmo

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 15 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15
   1401. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:32 AM (#5918673)
Flip
   1402. bachslunch Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:34 AM (#5918674)
@1384: in other words, for Mark Saxon, it's the good ol' eye test that matters. The more things change...

Pfui.
   1403. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 23, 2020 at 12:06 PM (#5918688)
This seems extraordinarily wrong to me. Rolen in Philly was just as good as David Wright or Evan Longoria, a "if he does this for 15 years, he probably HAS to be a HOFer" guy. Then he went to St. Louis and quickly got even better. playing MVP quality baseball for one of the best teams in the league. Things kind of fizzled out after that, and I'm sure I'm not alone in being surprised to see how much WAR he accrued in Toronto and Cincy. He seemed to be laboring in obscurity those years, always injured too. But it's a classic career shape, with a HOF peak.

Agree that young Rolen was perceived as a potential HOFer and an excellent defensive 3B. He was a great athlete and met expectations by playing well right away. He won ROY by a wide margin. Starting the following year, he won 6 GGs in 7 seasons.

It's certainly not a big part of his HOF narrative, but Rolen did have a brief renaissance in Cincinnati and is credited as being the leader of a surprising division champ in 2010. Under Jocketty, the team started paying attention to defense and traded Edwin Encarnacion for Rolen in 2009. At the time I thought it was awful for the Reds and showed they were still in the dark ages for valuing veteran presence. In retrospect, they did give up on a very good young hitter (though it would be several years before he hit his stride), but he couldn't hack it at 3B and Votto was entrenched at 1B. With Rolen, the infield defense improved immediately. He stayed healthy in 2010, won his last GG, and put up a 4 WAR year. And he set a serious tone for a team that had played most of the last decade in a carefree atmosphere.
   1404. . Posted: January 23, 2020 at 12:13 PM (#5918690)
I’ve gone over my viewpoint on this on Twitter, but I’ll do it again here. I’m pretty confident that, if you had polled most voters 15 or 20 years ago, when both players were in their primes, more of those voters would have said Vizquel looked like more of a Hall of Famer. The defensive metrics obviously were rudimentary back then compared to what we have now. And, yes, I realize that current numerical standards — such as Wins Above Replacement (WAR) — indicate Rolen had the better career. But I have trouble trusting the defensive metrics, and I’ve been told by many front-office execs that they don’t trust the publicly available ones either


The weird thing about this is that you don't even need WAR to figure this out. WAR is just an amalgam of more primary components and it was obvious from those primary components that Rolen was a way better hitter.

And Vizquel was in his prime at roughly the same time as Garciaparra, Jeter, Tejada, etc., and no one but no one thought he was on a par with those guys. No one was saying Omar Vizquel "looks like a Hall of Famer." The idea is ludicrous. He had one MVP-16 his entire career. He has a career OPS+ of 82. If you limit it to his cherry-picked "peak" of 1996-2002, it's 93. All during a time when Nomar had OPS+s in the 140s and 150s and was hitting .357 and .372, Jeter had OPS+s in the high 120s, Tejada same thing, and A-Rod in the 150s and 160s.

No one was saying during the era of Nomar/Jeter/A-Rod/Tejada or even Cal, Jr. that Omar Vizquel "looked like a Hall of Famer." His Hall of Fame case is utterly ludicrous.
   1405. RJ in TO Posted: January 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM (#5918711)
@1384: in other words, for Mark Saxon, it's the good ol' eye test that matters. The more things change...
In his defense, can you point to a defensive stat which covers the full period of Vizquel's career using a single constant data source and is definitively right? There's a fair amount of disagreement between each of the major defensive advanced metrics.

For Vizquel, we have defensive runs saved, for half his career, but not the other half. There's also Total Zone runs for his full career, but as per the glossary here, it's calculated in three different ways for the period covering Vizquel's career. Coincidentally, Omar's Total Zone runs are basically at their worst for the 2000 to 2002 period (-1, -8, -2), where the least data is available, and then jumps back up to +15 in 2003, when the system used switches, which may point to that system understating Vizquel's value during that period. There's also the system developed by Michael Humphreys, which I'm sure disagrees with the other two on a year by year basis, and then there's RED, and I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting too.

All these systems have their advantages, and limitations, and flaws (which I think their designers would admit), and no one can conclusively say which is best. With all this disagreement between approaches and results, I can see why someone might throw their hands in the air and just say "I know what I saw."
   1406. RJ in TO Posted: January 23, 2020 at 12:58 PM (#5918720)
Please note the above doesn't mean I think there's 20+ wins worth of fielding value that these systems are missing for Vizquel's career. It's just saying I don't know whether or not these systems are missing value produced by Vizquel's fielding, and how much that might add up to. Hell, these systems might be overstating his value.
   1407. . Posted: January 23, 2020 at 01:18 PM (#5918728)
The defensive metrics are what they are, but there's no reason to believe Omar was a better SS than Andruw was a CF, and Andruw isn't within sniffing distance of the HOF and was a far superior offensive player. Omar's only case is the Bainesian, "everyone above me on the career hits list is or will be in the HOF, or is ineligible." And Baines is 34th in RBIs, wherein Omar is only 43rd in career hits.

I'd vote for Nomar far ahead of Omar. Omar's candidacy isn't in the same galaxy as Dale Murphy's. I'd vote for Davey Concepcion ahead of Omar. I'd vote for Jim Rice and Jack Morris without hesitation over Omar. The gold gloves would cause me some pause, but I could see myself voting for Harold Baines -- more All-Star appearances, way more MVP votes/shares, only 11 career hits fewer -- over Omar. Omar was an offensive non-factor, and by the time he got rolling his offensive skill set had been overtaken by three decades of progress and evolution. His peak was less impressive than Tony Fernandez's. His "case" such as it is, is gossamer-thin -- trivial or non-existent, really.
   1408. Rusty Priske Posted: January 23, 2020 at 02:22 PM (#5918762)
Harold Baines is more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Omar Vizquel.

Easily.
   1409. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 23, 2020 at 02:46 PM (#5918778)
I can see why someone might throw their hands in the air and just say "I know what I saw."


But they'd still be wrong to do it. For one thing, all of those systems have more data to work with than your eyes do. There might be reason to be cautious about evaluations of players' defense, but not to assign weight to one's own observations above that of our systems of measurement.
   1410. DCA Posted: January 23, 2020 at 03:01 PM (#5918782)
Harold Baines is more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Omar Vizquel.

Easily.


Don't get me wrong, Omar Vizquel is no way no how a hall of famer. But he's better than Baines. Easily.
   1411. Adam Starblind Posted: January 23, 2020 at 03:47 PM (#5918796)

No one was saying during the era of Nomar/Jeter/A-Rod/Tejada or even Cal, Jr. that Omar Vizquel "looked like a Hall of Famer." His Hall of Fame case is utterly ludicrous.


To be fair, his bad hall of fame case is based on his longevity and the resulting accumulation of hits to go with the several gold gloves. I reiterate bad, both because it is true and because I don't want to get into a fight about it.
   1412. EddieA Posted: January 23, 2020 at 04:57 PM (#5918820)
I look at the Vizquel votes as reactionary, political, anti-slugger vote justified with more than a little revisionist history about how he was perceived.

Defining post-Eddie Murray as new members of the clubs and counting Pujols and Ortiz as elected (Ortiz narrative will dominate over the leaked PED report with anti-PED voter types, so it will be excused out-of-hand) and ARod and Barry are kept out:

100% of previous members of the 500-HR club are in the HOF.

33% of the 700 club members (100% of the new ones) are rejected.
33% of the 600 club members (50% of the new ones) are rejected.
26% of the 500 club members (58% of the new ones) are rejected.
   1413. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 23, 2020 at 05:45 PM (#5918833)

He has a career OPS+ of 82. If you limit it to his cherry-picked "peak" of 1996-2002, it's 93. All during a time when Nomar had OPS+s in the 140s and 150s and was hitting .357 and .372, Jeter had OPS+s in the high 120s, Tejada same thing, and A-Rod in the 150s and 160s.

To be fair, at least two of those guys were using PEDs. That being said, I agree that Vizquel shouldn't be in the HOF. His case is basically that he played a very good defensive shortstop for a very long time. That's not enough, IMO.
   1414. alilisd Posted: January 23, 2020 at 07:04 PM (#5918848)
1359: lolz lolz lolz. Yes I’m sure it was WAA voters were scrutinizing when they voted for Wilhelm , Gossage, Fingers, and Sutter. I’m sure it was quite the topic around the table with the committee which voted in Smith too. No doubt Hoffman’s WAA trumped his career Saves total as well
   1415. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 23, 2020 at 07:52 PM (#5918855)
I don’t believe any stat that says you are good at defense hitting in years months a,c,e and bad in years months b, d and f nor do I have confidence when someone says you need multi-yearsmonths for a good sample.


Equality of opportunity.
   1416. Moeball Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:16 PM (#5918872)
We have seen examples before of players who had some nagging injury that didn't necessarily knock them out of the lineup, but still prevented them from putting up their usual excellent offensive numbers. Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson and others come to mind that have had seasons where they still mostly played every day but just couldn't perform at the same level with the bat. Hand injuries can often result in this sort of thing. The player can still suit up every day but just can't really grip the bat or swing as properly as usual. So we see some poor years batting mixed in with several good ones.

Does this happen to fielders as well? Maybe a leg or foot injury that limits range in the field resulting in a sub par year defensively? Or a catcher with a sore elbow who can't throw down to second base with the same precision as before? But then the player is back to being 100% healthy the following year and goes back to being a superior fielder?

Curious as to whether this has really been studied or not. The fielding numbers on some players indicate that this might actually be a thing. Maybe a player is +10 runs defensively one year, a -5 the next year and then goes back to being a +10 the year after that? I've seen this type of thing happen before and many writers discount it as being proof of invalid defensive measurement because good fielders don't suddenly have a poor year, but maybe it's something that really happens?
   1417. The Duke Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:16 PM (#5918894)
Saxon is far from alone here. Stark used the same line “stats are being used to tell me I didn’t see what I saw”. My guess is that most of these voters feel the same way. Can the entire body of 200 voters who mostly saw vizquel play be that wrong ? Vizquel is far more of a dissonance than either Baines or morris. They both had calling cards which get them close. Vizquel doesn’t appear close but maybe the defense really was that good.
   1418. cardsfanboy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:58 PM (#5918901)
Relievers break down at a crazy rate. Top closers routinely last 4 or 5 years and then fizzle. It appears to me that one standard that applies to the modern closers (Mariano, Hoffman, Sutter, Smith, and we'll see about Wagner) is the ability to perform at a high enough level for a really long time.


In other discussions on this subject that was a point I made.... and again.. I can't stress this enough I'm not arguing for Wagner in the hof... I'm arguing for him to involved in the discussion.... That is all, and I think Nathan also belongs in the discussion, even if the argument ends up being "They are good, but fall short because of this"
   1419. cardsfanboy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:02 PM (#5918903)
Vizquel defensive(by the eyes) reputation is almost entirely cemented by the no glove play... It looks great, but in reality how many times did it actually make a difference?
   1420. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:06 PM (#5918905)
Can the entire body of 200 voters who mostly saw vizquel play be that wrong ?


Of course they can. Two points:

- These guys aren't independent. You don't really have 200 data points if lots of them are influencing each other.

- There's a good possibility that they're all making the same mistakes, and so even if they were independent that there are a lot of them wouldn't tell us much. I'm thinking mistakes like noticing that Vizquel had really soft hands, and concluding that "he's a good defensive player". Or, since errors are so much more noticeable than limited range, and Vizquel didn't make many errors, when they think of his defense they don't remember the plays that he failed to make (since they're boring "he didn't get to the ball" plays) but they do remember the ones that he did make. Which would lead to him being overrated.
   1421. SoSH U at work Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:08 PM (#5918906)
more than a little revisionist history about how he was perceived.


Vizquel defensive(by the eyes) reputation is almost entirely cemented by the no glove play... It looks great, but in reality how many times did it actually make a difference?

This is not accurate. Vizquel's perception at the time was as a legitimately great SS, the heir apparent to Ozzie, something the Gold Gloves (and some contemporary quotes linked above) back up. Now, the numbers we have now don't support that assessment, but it's not revisionist history to suggest his defensive reputation was stellar.
   1422. cardsfanboy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:14 PM (#5918910)
This is not accurate. Vizquel's perception at the time was as a legitimately great SS, the heir apparent to Ozzie, something the Gold Gloves (and some contemporary quotes linked above) back up. Now, the numbers we have now don't support that assessment, but it's not revisionist history to suggest his defensive reputation was stellar.


His reputation was stellar, but it really was colored by his no hand plays... he never really showed the Ozzie range to the naked eye... his main tool was the quick double play turn, and the ability to charge a ball... sure he had some range of course, but even to the naked eye he was never at the Ozzie level to his right.

Now that doesn't mean to diminish that he was a great defensive shortstop for a long period of time.
   1423. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:43 PM (#5918914)
Stark used the same line “stats are being used to tell me I didn’t see what I saw”.


It takes a lot of arrogance to believe that your eyesight is so good that it overcomes the entire set of analytical measures, even acknowledging that the analytical measures are not perfect.

   1424. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:58 PM (#5918920)
I can't stress this enough I'm not arguing for Wagner in the hof
Eh, I'm OK with Honus Wagner being in the HOF.
   1425. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:01 AM (#5918922)
His reputation was stellar, but it really was colored by his no hand plays...


Did he ... kick the ball or something? I don't recall these plays, although I admit they sound spectacular.
   1426. SoSH U at work Posted: January 24, 2020 at 08:08 AM (#5918937)
Did he ... kick the ball or something? I don't recall these plays, although I admit they sound spectacular.


Paul O'Neill's going to be delighted by this turn of events.
   1427. Rally Posted: January 24, 2020 at 08:35 AM (#5918942)
Vizquel was better than everyone at making the plays he was supposed to make. Ozzie was great too, but not quite as reliable as Omar. The difference is that Ozzie made the plays that nobody was supposed to be able to make. Omar was not exceptional in that regard.

Omar edges Baines a bit in wins above average, 5.3 to 1.8, but the difference is not very meaningful. They were both a slight bit above average as overall players, in completely different ways, and are remarkable mostly for doing that an extremely long time.
   1428. Rally Posted: January 24, 2020 at 08:37 AM (#5918944)
Eh, I'm OK with Honus Wagner being in the HOF.


His brother only played one year, but should be in the HOF for unfortunate names.
   1429. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:41 AM (#5918958)
Vizquel's perception at the time was as a legitimately great SS, the heir apparent to Ozzie,


This strikes me as a serious overbid. Ozzie has always had the reputation of being in a class by himself as a defensive SS, and that was his calling card to the massive HOF vote he got. He was voted in pretty much in the middle of Omar's prime, and I'd submit that if the voters really thought Omar was Ozzie reincarnated, Ozzie's HOF vote wouldn't have been nearly as high.

I know range factors are noisy, but they're a good prima facie back of the envelope measure, and eyeballing them, I'm not seeing any real difference between Omar, Nomar, and A-Rod.
   1430. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:46 AM (#5918961)
Nobody thought Vizquel was as good as Ozzie. They also thought that, in his prime, he was the best defender in the game. He was "heir apparent" in the sense that he inherited the mantle of "best shortstop." He was not heir apparent in the sense that he did not inherit the mantle of "best shortstop anyone's ever seen." I feel like everyone here should understand this.
   1431. Rally Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:23 AM (#5918983)
Ozzie was a first ballot HOFer getting 91.7% of the vote. This was in 2002, so none of the systems that we use try to evaluate historical defense had been invented.

To me that's a clear sign that the vast majority of voters believed Ozzie was exceptional to a degree they do not fell with Omar.

There are a ton of problems with range factor by itself, but it and the relevant league average are easily available on BBref. Per 9 innings Ozzie was 0.44 plays better than the league, Omar only 0.01 better.

   1432. The Duke Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:23 AM (#5918984)
But shouldn’t best SS of his era be in the Hall? Basically the Hall is all about best of various eras as opposed to comparing babe Ruth to Mike trout.

And no one really measures SS by how much offense they provide. It’s a great thing if they do provide offense but most teams want solid infield defense there. And if you are going to bring in offense - then 2877.
   1433. SoSH U at work Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:40 AM (#5918992)

Nobody thought Vizquel was as good as Ozzie. They also thought that, in his prime, he was the best defender in the game. He was "heir apparent" in the sense that he inherited the mantle of "best shortstop." He was not heir apparent in the sense that he did not inherit the mantle of "best shortstop anyone's ever seen." I feel like everyone here should understand this.


Thank you. I thought that was obvious.
   1434. alilisd Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:48 AM (#5918996)
1427: Saying he edges Baines by “a bit” is accurate, I suppose, but it’s also true to say he has three times as much WAA

Edit: I’d add that Baines actually wasn’t a bit above average player for a long time. He actually was only a bit above average for about four years early in his career. He was an above average bat for a very long time but as a player he was only right around average or below from 1985 on. Vizquel actually was a bit above average for a long time. From 1990-2006, for example, he was 11.5 WAA even with a season of -2.5 included in the span
   1435. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:49 AM (#5918997)
There are a ton of problems with range factor by itself, but it and the relevant league average are easily available on BBref. Per 9 innings Ozzie was 0.44 plays better than the league, Omar only 0.01 better.


Range factors are a perfectly cromulent way to do eyeball, prima facie, examinations. If Omar was truly in a class by himself amongst his peers, there's no reason to think it wouldn't have shown up in range factors and once it doesn't, the burden properly shifts to his defenders to explain why the range factors need revision.
   1436. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:56 AM (#5919000)
But shouldn’t best SS of his era be in the Hall?

As a counterpoint, Mark Belanger's not in the Hall. So that doesn't seem to be the historical standard. (I assume you mean "best defensive SS".)

And no one really measures SS by how much offense they provide. It’s a great thing if they do provide offense but most teams want solid infield defense there. And if you are going to bring in offense - then 2877.

He's 43rd on the career hits list and 7th on the career outs list. His offense wasn't a liability for his position, but it's not really an argument in his favor.
   1437. yest Posted: January 24, 2020 at 11:54 AM (#5919023)
Obviously there are other lists and ways to do it, but to me it seems that the decision of what a hof reliever represents is a high save total and dominance above average. Sutter is in because of the legend of split finger fast balls, and I have no ####### clue why Fingers is in.

voters love saves and wins, but they also value long saves more than short ones. adjusting saves based innings clearly makes a career in/out line.

saves with 4+ outs
1 Rollie Fingers 201
2 Rich Gossage 193
3 Bruce Sutter 188
4 Lee Smith 169
5 Dan Quisenberry 160
6 Jeff Reardon 152
7 Hoyt Wilhelm 148
8 Sparky Lyle 134
9 Mike Marshall 127
9 Gene Garber 127
11 Mariano Rivera 119
12 Dave Righetti 108
13 Stu Miller 107
13 Ron Perranoski 107
15 Dennis Eckersley 106
15 Doug Jones 106
17 Steve Bedrosian 105
18 Tug McGraw 104
19 Kent Tekulve 100
20 Lindy McDaniel 97


Saves with 6+ Outs
1 Rollie Fingers 135
2 Bruce Sutter 130
3 Goose Gossage 125
4 Dan Quisenberry 120
5 Hoyt Wilhelm 118
6 Gene Garber 107
7 Mike Marshall 95
8 Lee Smith 94
9 Sparky Lyle 91
10 Tug McGraw 79
11 Jeff Reardon 78
12 Steve Bedrosian 77
12 Ron Perranoski 77
14 Lindy McDaniel 74
14 Stu Miller 74
16 Greg Minton 71
17 Bill Campbell 66
18 Bob Stanley 65
19 Roger McDowell 63
19 Don McMahon 63


Saves with 9+ Outs
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 53
2 Gene Garber 52
3 Mike Marshall 40
4 Bob Stanley 37
5 Dan Quisenberry 37
6 Rollie Fingers 36
7 Bill Campbell 35
8 Sparky Lyle 32
9 Tug McGraw 31
10 John Hiller 29
11 Lindy McDaniel 28
12 Gary Lavelle 28
13 Roger McDowell 27
14 Aurelio Lopez 27
15 Pedro Borbon 27
16 Clay Carroll 25
17 Rich Gossage 24
18 Ron Reed 23
19 Dick Radatz 23
20 Darold Knowles 23
21 Dave Giusti 23

wins in relief
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 124
2 Lindy McDaniel 119
3 Rich Gossage 115
4 Rollie Fingers 107
5 Sparky Lyle 99
6 Roy Face 96
7 Kent Tekulve 94
8 Gene Garber 94
9 Mike Marshall 92
10 John Franco 90
10 Don McMahon 90
12 Tug McGraw 89
13 Clay Carroll 88
14 Jesse Orosco 87
15 Bob Stanley 85
16 Bill Campbell 80
16 Gary Lavelle 80
18 Mariano Rivera 79
18 Stu Miller 79
18 Ron Perranoski 79
18 Tom Burgmeier 79


so tabulating
1 point for every save 3 outs or less
1.5 point for a 4-5 out save
2 points for every 6+ out save
2 points for a win in relief
3 points for every 9+ out save

you have a clear in out line for the hall, just using saves and Wins in Relief
700 for a career, 600 with a great peak and 555 if you have a peak like ECKs and have a starting career to go with it.

numbers are inning save, 4/5 out save, 6+ out save, 9+ out save, Wins in Relief, weighted victory points

Just taking a sampling from different eras this would thus be the Relief equivalent of a wins like stat for relief pitchers with similar flaws to wins. To compare them to how the hall sees wins divide this number by 3.
Mariano Rivera 533-108-11-0-79=875 (HOF)
Rollie Fingers 140-66-99-36-107 =759 (HOF)
Trevor Hoffman 546-48-7-0-61=754 (HOF)
Lee Smith 309-75-94-0-71=751.5 (HOF vets)
Rich Gossage 117-68-101-24-115=723 (HOF)
John Franco 334-53-31-6-90=673.5 (got 4.6% in 2011)
Hoyt Wilhelm 80-30-65-53-124=662 (HOF)
Jeff Reardon 215-74-65-13-73=641 (got 4.8% in 2000)
Bruce Sutter 112-58-115-15-68=610 (HOF)
Gene Garber 70-41-55-52-94=585.5
Sparky Lyle 104-43-59-32-99=580.5 (got 13.1% in 1988)
Doug Jones 197-44-57-5-89=570
Francisco Rodriguez 405-30-2-0-52=558
Dennis Eckersley 284-80-26-1-48=555 (HOF)
Dan Quisenberry 84-40-83-37-56=533
Billy Wagner 386-32-3-1-47=526
Lindy McDaniel 77-23-46-28-119=525.5
Mike Marshall 61-32-55-40-92=523
Randy Myers 257-56-31-3-42=496
Joe Nathan 366-10-1-0-52=487
Tug McGraw 76-25-48-31-89=480.5
Kent Tekulve 84-38-43-19-94=472
Jonathan Papelbon 331-36-1-0-41=469
Tom Henke 215-54-39-3-41=465
Dave Righetti 144-52-50-6-46=432
Steve Bedrosian 79-28-63-14-65=419
Craig Kimbrel 332-14-0-0-31=415
Bob Stanley 48-19-28-37-85=413.5
Roger McDowell 71-25-36-27-70=401.5
Bill Campbell 43-17-31-35-80=395.5
John Smoltz 119-24-11-0-4=185 (HOF)


This is not meant to be a real stat just something (I came up with after seeing this post last night) that is supposed to be similar to some of the Bill James HOF tests that show the likelihood of getting in, not the worthiness of it.
   1438. Sweatpants Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:56 PM (#5919040)
As a counterpoint, Mark Belanger's not in the Hall. So that doesn't seem to be the historical standard. (I assume you mean "best defensive SS".)
Belanger did win eight Gold Gloves, but his career overlapped with those of Aparicio and Smith, so it wasn't a very long time that he was thought of as the best defensive SS going. Also, I don't think that he ever captured the public's imagination, even just as a fielder, that the other two did. Then again, I never thought Vizquel did, either.

Marty Marion was a consensus best defensive SS in baseball who never made the Hall. His career was shorter than I'd have thought, though, with a lot of his best seasons coming during the war.
   1439. bbmck Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5919049)
Most IP as reliever in games their team won, Stanton included for having the most IP with under 100 saves, next is 56th Pedro Borbon 524.2 IP, in losses also in relief:

1055.2 - Mariano Rivera, 946 G, 1.14 ERA, 0.82 WHIP
In Losses: 178 IP, 159 G, 7.48 ERA, 1.90 WHIP
972.2 - Rollie Fingers, 548 G, 1.20 ERA, 0.86 WHIP
In Losses: 533 IP, 359 G, 5.50 ERA, 1.62 WHIP
965.1 - Rich Gossage, 581 G, 1.14 ERA, 0.93 WHIP
In Losses: 588 IP, 383 G, 5.46 ERA, 1.63 WHIP

936.2 - Hoyt Wilhelm, 449 G, 1.41 ERA, 0.91 WHIP
In Losses: 925.2 IP, 567 G, 3.62 ERA, 1.34 WHIP
885 - Lee Smith, 700 G, 1.70 ERA, 1.00 WHIP
In Losses: 363.2 IP, 315 G, 6.11 ERA, 1.88 WHIP

846 - John Franco, 745 G, 1.52 ERA, 1.07 WHIP
In Losses: 399.2 IP, 374 G, 5.79 ERA, 1.90 WHIP
834.2 - Trevor Hoffman, 787 G, 1.38 ERA, 0.83 WHIP
In Losses: 254.2 IP, 248 G, 7.74 ERA, 1.80 WHIP
755 - Bruce Sutter, 460 G, 1.45 ERA, 0.89 WHIP
In Losses: 284 IP, 200 G, 6.46 ERA, 1.81 WHIP

751.1 - Lindy McDaniel, 367 G, 1.37 ERA, 0.94 WHIP
In Losses: 931.2 IP, 542 G, 4.59 ERA, 1.46 WHIP
747.2 - Gene Garber, 423 G, 1.61 ERA, 0.97 WHIP
In Losses: 705 IP, 499 G, 5.09 ERA, 1.56 WHIP

16th 705.1 - Billy Wagner, 665 G, 1.20 ERA, 0.83 WHIP
In Losses: 197.2 IP, 188 G, 6.28 ERA, 1.59 WHIP
30th 628 - Mike Stanton, 636 G, 2.28 ERA, 1.09 WHIP
In Losses: 480 IP, 540 G, 6.11 ERA, 1.71 WHIP
32nd 615.2 - Joe Nathan, 610 G, 1.32 ERA, 0.87 WHIP
In Losses: 145.1 IP, 148 G, 7.49 ERA, 1.72 WHIP

As points of reference in all games:

Johan Santana in Wins: 1252.2 IP, 200 G, 2.04 ERA, 0.97 WHIP
In Losses: 773 IP, 160 G, 5.09 ERA, 1.39 WHIP
Brandon Webb in Wins: 768.2 IP, 108 G, 2.08 ERA, 1.07 WHIP
In Losses: 551 IP, 91 G, 4.92 ERA, 1.48 WHIP
Teddy Higuera in Wins: 847.1 IP, 116 G, 2.39 ERA, 1.08 WHIP
In Losses: 532.2 IP, 97 G, 5.56 ERA, 1.49 WHIP
   1440. kwarren Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:01 PM (#5919100)
But shouldn’t best SS of his era be in the Hall? Basically the Hall is all about best of various eras as opposed to comparing babe Ruth to Mike trout.

But he was never close to the best SS of his era. Part of a SS's job is to provide offense, and Vizquel never did. He was a very heavy anchor to his team, offensively

This is not meant to be a real stat just something (I came up with after seeing this post last night) that is supposed to be similar to some of the Bill James HOF tests that show the likelihood of getting in, not the worthiness of it.

Certainly Rollie Fingers likes this metric. But it does show that the tests that voters use, are often truly inappropriate if we want to measure skill and career value.
   1441. Rally Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:03 PM (#5919102)
Belanger did win eight Gold Gloves, but his career overlapped with those of Aparicio and Smith, so it wasn't a very long time that he was thought of as the best defensive SS going. Also, I don't think that he ever captured the public's imagination, even just as a fielder, that the other two did. Then again, I never thought Vizquel did, either.


I'm sure Belanger was the consensus #1 from 74-77, after Aparicio's retirement and before the debut of Smith. That's at a minimum and depends on the definition. Looks like Aparicio was a good defender till the end, but sometime in the late 60s/early 70s Belanger had to have supplanted the older player as the best defender. Specifically in 1968, when the Orioles traded Aparicio and installed Belanger as their starting SS.

Best defensive shortstops since 1900, rough guess:

1902-16 Joe Tinker
1912-31 Rabbit Maranville


Rabbit played to 1935, but played second his last few years. Good question on who the best defensive SS of the 1930s was. By the stats I get Billy Jurges, Billy Rogell, and Dick Bartell. Decent players but not a bit of HOF consideration for any. Going down the list we get to Travis Jackson and Joe Cronin, both in the hall but Jackson is widely considered a veteran mistake.

In 1940 and 41 we get Marty Marion and Phil Rizzuto. Pick one. That player is the best defensive SS till:

1956-1973 Aparicio

Belanger bridges the position until:

Ozzie 1978-96

Omar (1989-2012) is as good a candidate as any to bridge the gap to:

Andrelton Simmons 2012-19

   1442. Jose Bautista Bobblehead Day Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:28 PM (#5919113)
Sportswriters thought Derek Jeter passed the "eye test" well enough–and Omar saved 372 more runs than a five-time Gold Glover!
   1443. gabrielthursday Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:29 PM (#5919114)
I'm finding it a little odd that posters here are basically using counting stats (IP and Saves) as the primary basis for evaluating relief pitchers, when, more than any other position, they are valued by their dominance rather than their total innings. It's especially incongruous since the preferred usage pattern has changed so hugely over time. By using IP as a major way of evaluating relievers, you're essentially punishing Wagner for pitching in an era with the most restrictive closer usage pattern. Wagner had 15 mainly healthy MLB seasons, excluding his cup of coffee in 1995 - that's a perfectly reasonable career length for a hall of famer, similar to a lot of recent inductees - Jeff Bagwell, Roy Halladay, Mike Piazza, Ron Santo, Jim Rice, Vlad Guerrero and Larry Walker. Very clearly his career length is not unusually low; it's really only usage patterns which cause him to fall a little lower on the counting statistics.

Billy Wagner is very clearly the 2nd-most dominant closer in history, after only Rivera. Rivera's career ERA+ was 212, Wagner's ERA+ was 187. The next highest HOF reliever is Wilhelm at 147.

If you had to induct just one reliever, it would clearly be Rivera. If you had to induct just two relievers, there's a very good argument that Wagner should be the second.

   1444. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:51 PM (#5919127)
I'm sure Belanger was the consensus #1 from 74-77, after Aparicio's retirement and before the debut of Smith.

Was Concepcion not considered a co-#1 during that time? He won all the NL GGs in those years. Plus I thought he was the one credited with being the first to use the bounce throw during the astroturf era.

I would imagine that for many eras, there wouldn't necessarily be a consensus #1.
   1445. alilisd Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:52 PM (#5919129)
1443: That his career spanned 15 years is not the issue, it’s the lack of bulk, of contribution reaching the level necessary to be a HOF player. And when that bulk is only 903 innings, and far fewer than that for the qualifying act of the Save, there simply isn’t enough there in terms of quantity. Dominant? All he has to do is earn the save. He did that 86% of the time, which doesn’t distinguish him from a whole group of other closers. So who cares what his ERA+ was, or his K rates? He converted saves just about like a bunch of other closers.
   1446. kwarren Posted: January 24, 2020 at 04:34 PM (#5919141)
So who cares what his ERA+ was, or his K rates? He converted saves just about like a bunch of other closers.

I don't believe that any relief pitchers generate enough value to be considered for the HOF. Their career Win Shares total, complete with leverage built in, demonstrate that. But ERA+ and K-rates are a much truer measure of skill level than the number of saves converted. Compared to relief pitchers only, Wagner is extremely elite, but in no way should he be considered for the HOF.
   1447. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 04:42 PM (#5919145)
Was Concepcion not considered a co-#1 during that time?

This is a fair point, although neither Concepcion nor Belanger got much HOF support relative to what Omar has gotten. Rizzuto, mentioned earlier, is a guy who I think is in due in part to his rep as the best defensive SS while he was playing, although he was a VC selection. All of these guys predated me but I vaguely remember some of the discussion along those lines when Rizzuto got elected.

One observation about Wagner (and Nathan) is that they faced a lot fewer inherited runners than Rivera and Hoffman, which no doubt is a reflection of their usage. Rivera faced 56% more inherited runners per IP than Wagner, while Hoffman faced 73% more per IP. Nathan faced fewer than Wagner.

Hoffman was very good at preventing inherited runners from scoring -- his IS% was 20%, compared to 28% for Wagner, 29% for Rivera, and 32% for Nathan. Combined with the innings pitched difference, that's another reason I'm ok with Hoffman in the HOF over Wagner. It's also why ERA+ alone doesn't tell the whole story.
   1448. gabrielthursday Posted: January 24, 2020 at 04:59 PM (#5919152)
1445: Save conversion rate? Another stat hugely dependent on usage patterns. Looking at WPA, a more exact look at contributions to team wins and affected by his slightly lower innings total, he's 5th among all relievers.

I think it's very clear that voters care about dominance as well as contributions to wins. Nolan Ryan was prized for his strikeouts; Eckersley's induction was predicated on his 5-year run of relief dominance (at Wagner's career level). There's a reason that Jaffe included a peak score in his JAWS system - even if you don't subscribe to it whole-heartedly, it reflects a general view that overall worthiness is dependent not just on career-level contributions, but also a demonstrated level of excellence. Wagner's about average in career-level contributions among HOF relievers; but he's definitely second only to Rivera in excellence.
   1449. alilisd Posted: January 24, 2020 at 06:42 PM (#5919169)
Usage patterns? He was used essentially like all other one inning closers, pitch the ninth with no one on base and his team had the lead.

WPA? He’s fifth if you don’t count Eckersley, and he’s behind Nathan. Also drawing analogies between Wagner and Ryan or Eckersley is absurd
   1450. alilisd Posted: January 24, 2020 at 08:08 PM (#5919177)
1447: I recall hearing that about Hoffman before. But honestly how many runners could he have inherited?
   1451. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:20 PM (#5919190)
But honestly how many runners could he have inherited?


346, of which 70 scored
   1452. The Duke Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:38 PM (#5919192)
Marion always had good defensive rep and here is his hall if fame bio. Seems like he was the Ozzie Smith of his time. MVP award - who knew.

https://baseballhall.org/discover-more/stories/pre-integration/marion-marty
   1453. alilisd Posted: January 25, 2020 at 11:56 AM (#5919245)
Thank you Kiko
   1454. PreservedFish Posted: January 25, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5919254)
Did Hoffman just get more 2-out opportunities than the other guys?
   1455. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 26, 2020 at 02:29 AM (#5919316)
Did he ... kick the ball or something? I don't recall these plays, although I admit they sound spectacular.


While it unfortunately involves at least one hand, here's a spectacular play (link). Very ballsy play to seal a no hitter. Most SS make that play, but they don't make it like that.

On the other hand, it was just a decade ago that Concepcion fell off the ballot never touching 20%. Hard to square with the support Vizquel is getting.
   1456. The Duke Posted: January 26, 2020 at 10:54 AM (#5919339)
Here is a broader YouTube compilation. What’s really interesting is a good third of the plays he is at 3B, 2B and 1B

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SDZreVXhm8Q
   1457. cookiedabookie Posted: January 26, 2020 at 01:28 PM (#5919353)
Looking at shortstops since integration with at least 10,000 innings at the position (62 total), here's how Omar ranks in traditional stats on a per 1000 inning rate:

39th in putouts/1000, 41st in assists/1000, 2nd in errors/1000, and 14th in double plays/1000. So yeah, he was sure handed, and he was a bit better than average in double plays. But in putouts and assists, he lags behind. Compare that to Ozzie:

19th in putouts/1000, 3rd in assists/1000, 21st in errors/1000, and 15th in double plays/1000. Ozzie trades five more errors for 16 more putouts and 50 more assists per 1000 innings. That's probably a trade most teams would happily make.

Looking at these rate stats, some guys stand out to me: Tim Foli, Roy McMillan, Rick Burleson, Dick Groat. None had Omar length careers, but none are considered HoF level, and they all are significantly better in these traditional rate stats, outside of errors.
   1458. Rally Posted: January 26, 2020 at 02:20 PM (#5919360)
It doesn’t make sense to compare rates of putouts and assists across eras. At least without adjusting for league average. League average has changed a lot.
   1459. Rally Posted: January 26, 2020 at 02:22 PM (#5919361)
For example, RF/9 for SS was 3.87 last year, 5.00 in 1979.
   1460. cookiedabookie Posted: January 26, 2020 at 02:51 PM (#5919368)
It doesn’t make sense to compare rates of putouts and assists across eras. At least without adjusting for league average. League average has changed a lot.

Fair, but that is beyond a quick a dirty look I was willing and able to do. I'd love to see what the results are league-adjusted, if someone wants to step up to do it, though
   1461. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 28, 2020 at 10:39 AM (#5919856)
Now that we have answers how did we do?
6/8- Happily Wrong on Walker and a little surprised regarding Pettitte and Sosa, but neither one of them is getting in via the writers.
1. Does Larry Walker top 75% - I hope so, but my heart says he's less than 10 votes shy of induction. Wrong. He actually finishes with 76.6% and cleared by 6 votes.
2. Does Curt Schilling top 65%? - Yes he will be close to 70%. Correct. He got 70%
3. Does Bobby Abreu top 5%? - For the first time in this voting cycle. I'm feeling optimistic - so yes. (Now that this has happened we will slide 1 vote shy of being on the 2021 ballot). Correct. Abreu cleared with 5.5% of the vote
4. Does Scott Rolen finish ahead of Omar Vizquel? No way, if it does, I will... hell I don't know, but it will be amazing. Correct. Vizquel finished 17% ahead of Rolen
5. Does Jeff Kent finish ahead of Andruw Jones? Yes by a (large) handful of votes. Correct. Kent finished 32 votes and 8.1% ahead
6. Does Sammy Sosa finish ahead of Andy Pettitte? No. Wrong. Sosa finished 10 votes and 2.6% ahead of Pettitte
7. Does Gary Sheffield finish ahead of Todd Helton? Yes, but Helton will pass him in a couple of years. Correct. Sheffield finished 5 votes ahead. Helton likely has more upward trajectory long term.
8. Does Manny Ramirez finish ahead of Billy Wagner? Probably not, even though Manny is more deserving. Correct. Wagner was 14 votes and 3.5% ahead.
   1462. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 28, 2020 at 11:59 AM (#5919893)


Did Hoffman just get more 2-out opportunities than the other guys?


Looks like that's a decent part of it.
   1463. cookiedabookie Posted: January 28, 2020 at 12:48 PM (#5919914)
1. I said Walker would clear 75%, but I said he would be less than 76%
2. Yes, and I said Schilling might even break 70%
3. I said Abreu would be be between 4-6%
4. Yes - wrong, I was too optimistic for Rolen
5. Yes, and Kent was ahead of Andruw
6. No - wrong
7. I said yes, for a year or two, but he will stall out.
8. No

6/8,not bad
   1464. . Posted: January 28, 2020 at 01:01 PM (#5919921)
For example, RF/9 for SS was 3.87 last year, 5.00 in 1979.


It's arguably a little off-topic, but this means we've lost over two times per game seeing a major league shortstop field a ground ball and throw out a runner. Since that seemingly simple play is one of the most balletic and aesthetically pleasing acts in all of sport, it's a real loss. Thanks, TTO.
   1465. Rally Posted: January 28, 2020 at 01:20 PM (#5919933)
Agreed. We’re probably not losing that many OF plays, as fly ball approach partially offsets the strikeout increase. But we’re losing a ton of ground balls.
   1466. SoSH U at work Posted: January 28, 2020 at 02:32 PM (#5919963)
Since that seemingly simple play is one of the most balletic and aesthetically pleasing acts in all of sport, it's a real loss.


It's also the most likely to produce a close play.
   1467. TJ Posted: February 04, 2020 at 02:10 PM (#5921560)
Perusing the publicly released BBWAA ballots today, I see Steve Kornacki was the one voter who voted for JJ Putz. Kornacki is currently a feature writer for the University of Michigan athletic department (where Putz played in college) and graduated from Trenton (MI) high school (where Putz also went to high school). I think we see the reason for his Putz vote.


I know there are some out there who see nothing wrong with a voter throwing a player a vote in cases like this. I do. Not only is a vote like this unprofessional, but now history shows that JJ Putz got one more vote than at least four better players on the ballot, who were shut out only because they didn't have an obvious fanboy with a ballot.
   1468. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: February 04, 2020 at 02:19 PM (#5921563)
Counterpoint: relief pitchers who get all of one HOF vote obviously have a fanboy with a ballot. And having a fanboy with a ballot is not going to lead anyone to think that Putz was a better baseball player than Josh Beckett. Nor is Josh Beckett going to feel jealous that Putz has a fanboy with a ballot and he doesn't.
   1469. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 04, 2020 at 03:43 PM (#5921592)
Chass voted Jeter-only, precisely as we would have expected. I suspect the odds are very high he will cast a blank ballot for the next three years if he remains eligible and interested for that long.
   1470. Rally Posted: February 04, 2020 at 03:52 PM (#5921597)
Anyone find out who didn't vote for Jeter?
   1471. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 04, 2020 at 03:55 PM (#5921598)
No. ESPN reported that the writer who didn't check Jeter chose to keep his ballot anonymous.
   1472. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 04, 2020 at 03:55 PM (#5921599)
It's not a publicly disclosed ballot on the BBWAA site.

Edit: Coke to Monsieur Parris.
   1473. Ron J Posted: February 04, 2020 at 04:07 PM (#5921605)
Interesting. There used to be a number of "no first ballot" voters. On the logic that if Willie or Hank or … (pick favorite example) were not unanimous then nobody should be. Evidently we're now down to one. Unless there's a HOF voter who didn't vote for Jeter because he didn't find him worthy (doubtful), had ten other votes he wanted to make (possible) or somebody just forgot (as happened with Rickey!)

In a way I hope it's the last.
   1474. The Duke Posted: February 07, 2020 at 04:13 PM (#5922730)
The obvious problem with leaving someone like Jeter off in their first year is that you never get to vote for the best players because they inevitably go in on The first ballot. I really wouldn’t like that.
   1475. SoSH U at work Posted: February 07, 2020 at 05:22 PM (#5922752)
Evidently we're now down to one.


Only if he didn't vote last year.

Page 15 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAstros whistleblower Mike Fiers says he's received death threats but won't give back his World Serie
(1 - 12:59am, Feb 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogA Union Divided: Astros Cheating Scandal Rocks MLB Players Association
(14 - 12:44am, Feb 21)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(1392 - 11:42pm, Feb 20)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogUnlikely chain of events created a trailblazer
(4 - 11:27pm, Feb 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogA beer nerd’s guide to baseball: Ranking every stadium by craft beer offerings
(21 - 11:14pm, Feb 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGiants right to exclude Aubrey Huff from 2010 World Series celebration
(128 - 11:06pm, Feb 20)
Last: Cabbage

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2020)
(148 - 11:04pm, Feb 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-19-2020
(63 - 10:54pm, Feb 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBrewers owner claims team “had an operating loss” in 2019
(6 - 10:44pm, Feb 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Newsblog‘One in 10 million’: An oral history of Zack Greinke’s years with the Royals
(18 - 10:42pm, Feb 20)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(622 - 10:19pm, Feb 20)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogCrowd-seeking Rays come up with win-win-win free ticket plan
(8 - 8:19pm, Feb 20)
Last: Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride

NewsblogCubs' David Ross to use slugger Kris Bryant as leadoff man
(4 - 5:49pm, Feb 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield

NewsblogHitting the right notes: Kieboom gets shot at 3rd for Nats
(2 - 5:40pm, Feb 20)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDetails emerge about Carlos Beltrán’s role in the 2017 Astros clubhouse and the team’s sign-stealing scheme
(82 - 3:56pm, Feb 20)
Last: jmurph

Page rendered in 0.6582 seconds
46 querie(s) executed