Friday, January 04, 2013
Are the best one-and-done players better than the worst first-ballot Hall of Famers?
I asked that question, and a reader went through and came up with his list. (See comment #1 below.)
History
Iceberg
Joe Posnanski is giving every player on the ballot his due, regardless of how great or not he was. It’s a wonderful exercise he goes through, and it would be nice for all the writers to do the same.
In talking about Kenny Lofton:
If this weren’t such a loaded ballot, I’d vote for Kenny Lofton as a Hall of Famer … because I think he will fall off the ballot after one season, and that’s just wrong.
If I had a vote, and I thought Lofton derserved to be around another year for further consideration, I’d vote for him, and remove my vote from an even worthier player. Basically, I’d “trade votes” with myself. It’s an insane process that for me to want to have further consideration for Lofton, I have to hope that 5% of the other voters are deadset sure that Lofton is in.
Kenny Lofton was Ichiro before Ichiro. Even if you ultimately think that Lofton shouldn’t make it, it’s a silly process that you potentially have one-shot at making it. Lofton’s iceberg barely goes above the surface, but he’s a big mother of an iceberg. Kirby Puckett’s iceberg goes way above the surface, but underneath, it’s nothing compared to Lofton.
Some voters only look at the iceberg above the surface, and have to be prodded and poked each year to look beneath the surface. And it takes time for them to do that. And they do that because they KNOW they have time to do it. But they HOPE that someone else has taken the time to do it in the first place, so they can look at players like Lofton beneath the surface.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
BBWAA poised to make historical non-vote
Based on the unofficial Ballot Collecting Gizmo by the unmatched Repoz, five players are easily expected to clear the 50% support line for the Hall of Fame, and two more (Bonds, Clemens) are on the cusp. None of them are expected to get to 75%.
The last time no one was elected by the BBWAA was on the 1996 ballot where Neikro, Sutton, and Perez all received between 60 and 70% of the votes. In 4th place was Garvey at 37%. Before that, on the 1971, 1967, 1964, 1960, and 1958 ballots, there were a maximum of four players to receive at least 50% of the votes, without anyone getting elected (that year).
We have to go all the way back to the early voting, in 1950, when seven players got at least 50% of the vote, but no one was elected. And again in 1949, with six players with at least 50% of the vote, and no one elected. I’m sure Bill James’ Politics of Glory explains what happened in those early days. In 1949 for example, very obvious Hall of Famer Mel Ott made his first appearance and only received 61% of the vote, and again in 1950 only received 69%. Jimmie Foxx was on the 1950 ballot for the 6th time and only received 61% of the vote.
The 1950 ballot is interesting because the top 23 votegetters eventually got into the Hall of Fame one way or the other. And in all, 48 of the players on the ballot eventually got in. And in 1950, voters averaged 8.8 players listed per ballot. So, plenty were going 10 players deep, and still, no one was getting elected. I suggest that it’s a messed up process that if you agree that 48 players deserve to be in the Hall of Fame but that you can’t even elect one. (It’s probably even more messed up that 48 players got in, but that’s another topic.) But every player that finished in the top 23 eventually got in. Politics of Glory indeed. The voting process in 1950 seemed as dysfunctional as Congress.
Here we are for the 2013 ballot, a group that will have at least ten eventually make the Hall of Fame, and yet, they can’t agree today on which ones will go in, and so, none will get elected. In their quest to make sure no unworthy players get the glory, they will make the worthy one wait and wait and wait.
Is this really the best process that we can conceive?
And the BBWAA is in a terrible conflict of interest, not even reporting on this news, because they themselves are the ones creating this news.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Youngest Historian and Future Saberist?
Welcome to 13-yr old Matt Nadel.
Catchers in the Hall of Fame
The #1 guy of all time is Johnny Bench in rWAR with 72 wins, which is just barely above the “automatic” line for HOF. There are 40 players above Bench on career rWAR.
I don’t have any problem with that, because that’s what it is. We don’t need any further adjustment, since a career is a collection of seasons. However, does that necessarily mean we want to judge a career by a collection of seasons?
As I’ve stated many times in the past, my preference is to look at Wins Above Average, but only the positive seasons. Frank Thomas is some 13 WAR ahead of Mike Piazza, but he’s 1 WAA ahead of him (if we look at positive seasons with WAA). I think that’s a better way to appreciate their career accomplishments.
I know others do alot of mathematicaly gyrations trying to combine individual seasons to come up with a single number, but, I prefer the nice simplicity, which is why I advocate for adding up seasonal WAA of positive seasons.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Raines’ best game, with last at bat called by Vin Scully
This was his first game of the season, following NO spring training (he was held out by collusion). Vin Scully sets up what he’s done up to that point in the game, and the bases are loaded in the top of the 10th at Shea. And I love the graphic showing he was 3 for 20 against Orosco. Enjoy it!
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Smoltz or Glavine?
Schoenfield points out that Glavine has 69 rWAR to Smoltz’s 63, or a 6 win difference. He also notes that peak-wise, they are also about even, if not also a slight edge to Glavine. So, it would seem a clear-cut case that while they are close, Glavine should go in ahead.
Now, using fWAR, which takes a very DIPS-ian look, Smoltz is way ahead, 83 wins to 69, or a 14 win gap. But, it would be crazy to ignore batted ball outcomes over such long careers. You can still discount somewhat, but you can’t discount it entirely.
Fangraphs gives us those breakdowns as well: on batted balls, Glavine (and his fielders) is +11 wins to Smoltz (and his fielders) of +5 wins. Given that they shared the same fielders for much of their careers, we have to assume that most of that difference is real, say perhaps 4 or 5 of the 6 win gap. And in terms of outcomes with men on base, Glavine is +15 wins to Smoltz’s -2 wins, or a 17 win gap. Again, Glavine is noted for changing his approach with men on base, so a good part of that 17 win gap may be real as well. Let’s say some 10 wins maybe?
So, we’ve got a 14 win advantage for Glavine on the non-FIP things, while Smoltz has a 14 win advantage on the FIP things, or… dead-even.
But… the post-season. Schoenfield points out that:
Smoltz pitched 209 innings and allowed 67 runs; Glavine pitched 218.1 innings and allowed 91 runs.
Adjusting for the innings, that’s a 20-run gap, or 2 wins. Two POST-SEASON wins, which… well, they are not worth ZERO. So, we can’t just look at rWAR or fWAR and ignore the post-season. We have to at least consider them to be worth 2 wins. Or, maybe more?
If you are an fWAR fan, DIPS-only, the choice is clear: Smoltz.
If you are an fWAR fan, but with the other Fangraphs adjustments, the choice is break-even, but, with the post-season play, it’s pushes Smoltz ahead.
The interesting one is if you are an rWAR fan: Glavine is ahead by 6 wins in regular-season play, but Smoltz is ahead by 2 wins in post-season play.
My question, and this is ONLY if you are an rWAR fan: Did Smoltz do enough in the post-season to push him ahead of Glavine? That is, do you count a post-season win as at least FOUR times a regular season win (so that Smoltz ends up +2 overall), or do you count a post-season win as at most TWO times (so that Glavine remains +2 overall)?
Or, do you just not what to think about it, and you are happy calling them even?
Monday, December 10, 2012
Ron Leflore
You know, I have some vivid memories of my sports following in the 1970s. I clearly remember Yaz popping out to Nettles to end Game #163. I remember the Pete Rose chase and the pitcher who stopped him (Gene Garber). Those happened in 1978. And I remember watching the Ron Leflore story, a made-for-TV movie, which I had forgotten also happened in 1978. I was pretty excited when the Expos got Leflore and he had a good season, and had all those stolen bases.
***
I didn’t understand how they could let Leflore go, and how he could be replaced by some young hotshot for the 1981 season. It didn’t dawn on me that the best player on potentially the best minor league team of all-time could possibly be as good as Leflore, especially since he was a 2B who would immediately become a full-time LF in the big leagues. Such is how Tim Raines and Ron Leflore crossed paths in my childhood.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Selig heart Fehr, 2006
A little good news, looking back in time:
The lack of acrimony in the talks also signaled what both sides said is a new era in labor peace. The agreement was completed two months before the Dec. 19 deadline and was marked by a virtual news blackout as the sides negotiated in private, and without rancor.
“What was really different this time was that the approach to bargaining, while it had its difficult moments, was very workmanlike, very pragmatic, very day‑by‑day,” Fehr said. “There was a shared desire to see if we could resolve this well ahead of time and if we could get it done by about the time of the World Series, before the free agency declaration period began.”
...
“They were without the usual rancor. They were without the usual dueling press conferences. They were without the usual leaks,” Selig said. “In other words, these negotiations were conducted professionally, with dignity and with results. These negotiations were emblematic of the new spirit of cooperation and trust that now exists between the clubs and the players.”
...
“[World Baseball Classic] was the first really dramatic foray we made and we made it together,” Selig said. “We made it as partners. They were wonderfully cooperative and it produced an event that exceeded everybody’s finest expectations. So I would say that it was a great precursor to what happened here.”
Friday, December 07, 2012
Breaking down the Hall of Fame
Poz does a great job of breaking the Hall of Fame into various classes, and finishes it off here.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Gene Orza: maybe the HOF leaders should show some leadership?
Basically, if they can’t figure out how to choose a selection committee, then bypass the committee and do it yourself. That’s what Orza is basically saying.
Seems to me that SABR would seem to be perfectly positioned to make the choices. That group is loaded with people who love baseball history.
Monday, December 03, 2012
Kenny Lofton: you deserve better
There’s very little to distinguish between Kenny Lofton and Ichiro, as I brought up a few years back.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/kenny_lofton_ichiro_before_ichiro/
The shame is that he’ll be put in that dustbin with Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez and Dennis Martinez, while demonstrably equivalent or worse players than them not only stay on the ballot every year, but add support every year until a few of them actually get into the Hall of Fame.
He’s not going in, and under no circumstances would he get in, though in a normal situation, there would be some commentary about how underrated Lofton is.
In general, center fielders get hosed by Cooperstown and by public opinion, in general. We lump all outfielders together in one category, and thus, for a center fielder to distinguish himself, he has to hit as well as the best corner outfielders. That’s tough to do, as the corner outfielders are typically the best hitters on a team. Meanwhile, center fielders rarely, if ever, get any credit for their greater defensive contributions. Sure, people recognize that up-the-middle defense matters more, but most just look at all outfielders as one lumped grouping.
Lofton hit .299 for his career with over 600 stolen bases with very few caught stealings. He had a very nice prime and then hung around for several more years as a quality player. In his post-prime he was good enough to be a quality starter, though never great. Offensively, Lofton is a poor man’s Raines.
Defensively, Lofton had a great reputation, winning four Gold Gloves. WAR agrees, crediting him with 14.7 wins above replacement earned with his glove, one of the best totals by any center fielder. Heck, WAR gives Lofton more overall value (64.9 WAR) than Sosa, Biggio, or Piazza. No one is saying you have to agree with that (or even that I agree with that), but that’s mighty impressive, especially for a guy who has virtually no chance of getting five percent of the vote.
Maybe if Lofton debuted on a normal ballot he’d top five percent. But with this crowd, PEDs or not, Lofton will have an extremely hard time topping the cutoff that keeps a man on the ballot for another year.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Poll: Most Outstanding Career - Results
The Book Blog readers have spoken. Of the players on the Hall of Fame ballot this year, here are the results for most outstanding career:
Barry Bonds won 99% of the head-to-head matchups against the rest of the ballot
Roger Clemens won 90%
79% Jeff Bagwell
76% Tim Raines
74% Mike Piazza
67% Craig Biggio
58% Curt Schilling
57% Edgar Martinez
57% Larry Walker
56% Alan Trammell
56% Mark MgGwire
46% Kenny Lofton
41% Rafael Palmeiro
38% Sammy Sosa
31% Fred McGriff
24% Dale Murphy
23% Bernie Williams
20% Don Mattingly
17% JACK MORRIS
14% David Wells
(And, really, what’s the difference between these two guys?!?)
7% Lee Smith
Poll: Most Outstanding Career
Vote in a head-to-head matchup of the best players on the Hall of Fame ballot.
http://www.tangotiger.net/hall/
I’ll post results in a few days.
Holy Writers go with the Lionel Hutz line of defense
Judge: Mr. Hutz w’ve been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We’ve plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.
Now Biggio is ensnared. Best thing to do is vote no one in this year, just to show how ridiculous it’s gotten.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
If you don’t let in enough players into the HOF, you are opening the back door to let in too many
It’s the American immigration policy, but applied to the Hall of Fame, circa 1960.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Unlimited ballot
The ten-player ballot rule is stupid. Very very stupid. If you want to limit the number of players selected into the HOF, don’t do it on the front-end, but on the back-end. You can allow an unlimited number of selections, and you can keep the threshold at 75%, but you can also set it so that it’s a maximum of 4 players selected each year.
If you happen to have 5 guys meet the 75% level, then just take the top 4. Why in the world force only 10 guys to get votes, when you might end up with none of them getting to the 75% level?
The max-players ballot rule rears its ugly head with the Vet’s committee, as votes are split because you can only vote for 4 of the nominated guys. No one gets in. We know it’s a bad rule, and we’re going to see how bad it is on this year’s ballot.
Glove-slap: Neyer.
Michael Weiner: HOF morality clause, and George Steinbrenner
The example that I’ve used – some of you have heard me use it before, but I’ll use it in a different context – is the example of George Steinbrenner. When George Steinbrenner becomes eligible to get into the Hall of Fame, he should get into the Hall of Fame the first time. No questions asked. Given the bulk, the corpus, the scope of George Steinbrenner’s career and his impact on major-league baseball.
Having said that, put aside the campaign contribution conviction or the whole Howie Spira thing. I’m not even talking about those. George Steinbrenner was found to be one of 26 major-league owners, three times, being guilty of collusion . Being guilty of trying intentionally not to win in Major League Baseball, but participating in a conspiracy where they wouldn’t bid for, you name it. Kirk Gibson, Tim Raines, Jack Morris – the best players. He was found guilty of that by a legal proceeding.
You could say, “Well, George Steinbrenner cheated the game of baseball for a substantial section of his career, and therefore, the morals clause should keep him out.” I don’t think it should. George Steinbrenner belongs in because, when you look at everything he did, he deserves to be in. And I’d like to see – again, you asked the question – I’d like to see voters take that kind of approach in looking at some of the admittedly historic players who are up for a vote this time.
Yes, it’s “different”. But is it a bright white line different, or thin line different?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
“We’ve sacrificed our bodies. It’s the way we made our living.”—Barry Bonds
And given the league-leading road attendance for Giants, even AFTER grand jury had been leaked, it seems fans were appreciative as well. We give NFL players a pass for the very reason that Bonds is saying: they sacrifice their bodies for our entertainment.
The Holy Writers are even more hypocritical: they made their living following Bonds, and then decided to open their eyes only in the end.
***
And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way,
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 391 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date