2010 Baseball HOF Voting Results

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Just out of curiosity, would you guys put in Schilling?

I think so, but it's close. He has good stats - the strikeouts, the ERA+, the W/L record and so forth. He also has 6 All-Star games and finished 2nd in Cy Young voting 3 times, so he was recognized as a great player in his day. He also has a heckuva record in the playoffs that you can't ignore (11-2, 2.23 ERA) and I think playoff records are important on borderline candidates. But I also know what I saw - Schilling was a dominant pitcher in the game (and finishing 2nd 3 times in the Cy confirms that). He could, and would, mow you down. You went to the ballpark to watch Schilling pitch. He was good long enough and was great for a while...so yea, I think he's in.

Edit: Oh, yea, he has the bloody sock thing going for him as well.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know anything about that stat, but I'd like to see where other starting pitchers fall on it other than Kevin Appier. Appier is a little too close to Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson there for me to put too much weight in a pitcher v. hitter comparison.

As I mentioned, WAR suggests that Blyleven was better than Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Don Sutton, DiMaggio, Yaz and Clemente. As such, forgive me if I think it's a bit suspect as a statistic. It delves much too deeply into the "what if" scenarios to be useful.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In addition, there is a stat called "Wins Above Replacement", stands for the wins a player is responsible for above a replacement player (obviously).

Hall of Fame 2010 Ballot: The Book Blog and Fangraph readers decided… | FanGraphs Baseball



That's not a typo. Blylevens WAR is 90, which is 26 wins above Roberto Alomar.

Any idea what the average HOFer is? There seems to be a drop off when you go from Trammel to Dawson.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Just out of curiosity, would you guys put in Schilling?

I go back and forth on him constantly. I don't think I would. He was in cy young voting 4 times, finishing 2nd three times. That's not a huge knock against him as he got beat out by Randy Johnson twice and then Johan Sananta -- one guy who is definitely a HOFer and one who is probably on his way.

I think Schilling has that as as a problem but has a bigger problem in that he was a late bloomer. He really, for whatever reason, didn't get going until he was already 30 or 31. Because of that, he had a lot of wasted years where he could have been wracking up stats that would make him a no doubter.

The thing that could put him back up though is his post game performances. 11-2 and 2.23 ERA lifetime with a WHIP below one in his games.

I think his evaluation is going to come down to how much benefit voters are going to give to those post-game performances and the fact that when you think of him, it's going to be tied to Randy Johnson.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As I mentioned, WAR suggests that Blyleven was better than Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Don Sutton, DiMaggio, Yaz and Clemente. As such, forgive me if I think it's a bit suspect as a statistic. It delves much too deeply into the "what if" scenarios to be useful.

Isn't Don Sutton close to the same mold as Blyleven?

Off the top of my head, I remember 2 or 3 outstanding seasons from Sutton. Everything else that got him to the Hall of Fame was pretty much those three seasons combined with his longevity of being a very good pitcher. If I had to think of a pitcher from the era that most remsembled Blyleven in my mind as far as their place among the all time greats, it would likely have been Sutton..

Just found it interesting that you used his name to compare the two is all.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's see, Blyleven was in the Top 5 in ERA+ 7 times in his career. He was top 5 in K/BB 13 times in his career. As stated, his is 146th all time in ERA+. He is 50th all time in K/BB (and of course 5th in K's).

How does Tommy John compare? His 110 career ERA+ is 311th all time. He was only in the Top 5 in ERA+ twice. He was never in the Top 5 for K/BB. And he's 49th in career strikeouts.

Seems a very silly comparison.

To be fair, Blyleven never had a surgery named after him.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by rowech

I go back and forth on him constantly. I don't think I would. He was in cy young voting 4 times, finishing 2nd three times. That's not a huge knock against him as he got beat out by Randy Johnson twice and then Johan Sananta -- one guy who is definitely a HOFer and one who is probably on his way.

I think Schilling has that as as a problem but has a bigger problem in that he was a late bloomer. He really, for whatever reason, didn't get going until he was already 30 or 31. Because of that, he had a lot of wasted years where he could have been wracking up stats that would make him a no doubter.

The thing that could put him back up though is his post game performances. 11-2 and 2.23 ERA lifetime with a WHIP below one in his games.

I think his evaluation is going to come down to how much benefit voters are going to give to those post-game performances and the fact that when you think of him, it's going to be tied to Randy Johnson.

So he played a game after the game?

[MikeVic]

But in all seriousness, I'd put in Schilling. He has decent numbers, the Cy Young runner-up multiple times thing, and he has the "fame" with that bloody sock.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's see, Blyleven was in the Top 5 in ERA+ 7 times in his career. He was top 5 in K/BB 13 times in his career. As stated, his is 146th all time in ERA+. He is 50th all time in K/BB (and of course 5th in K's).

How does Tommy John compare? His 110 career ERA+ is 311th all time. He was only in the Top 5 in ERA+ twice. He was never in the Top 5 for K/BB. And he's 49th in career strikeouts.

Seems a very silly comparison.

Tommy John
288-231 3.34 ERA
4 All-Star Games and finished 2nd in Cy Young voting twice

Bert Blyleven
287-250 3.31 ERA
2 All-Star games and finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice

Don't think it's that far off. Strikeouts and walks are nice statistics but ultimately the goal of a pitcher is to let up as few runs as possible.

[jbergey22]

We have enough reliable stats these days that we shouldnt need to use things like "this person finished 3rd in the cy young" or "this person was a 10 time gold glover." Those are peoples opinions we now have stats that help take opinion out of it.

[Young Drachma]

250 losses is a lot of losses for a guy that doesn't have 300 wins. I dunno. I think all of this campaigning is fine and he'd be fine in the Hall, but I'm not a small Hall guy, so it doesn't really matter. But hey, the Dutch people will finally have a guy in the Hall, so I guess there's that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

We have enough reliable stats these days that we shouldnt need to use things like "this person finished 3rd in the cy young" or "this person was a 10 time gold glover." Those are peoples opinions we now have stats that help take opinion out of it.

But shouldn't people's perception of a player at the time be relevant? That he succeeded based on the standards of the day?

We have a bunch of new stats today that we can apply to guys in the past, but those players weren't judged by those stats at the time (and if they were, they may have played differently. I'm sure some hitters would have walked more back in the day if that was a stat you can make $ on, like today) And in 10 years, those new stats will be discredited, and we'll have yet new ways to look at players. At least the award voting tells us to what extent a player was a big deal at the time.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

But shouldn't people's perception of a player at the time be relevant? That he succeeded based on the standards of the day?

We have a bunch of new stats today that we can apply to guys in the past, but those players weren't judged by those stats at the time (and if they were, they may have played differently. I'm sure some hitters would have walked more back in the day if that was a stat you can make $ on, like today) And in 10 years, those new stats will be discredited, and we'll have yet new ways to look at players. At least the award voting tells us to what extent a player was a big deal at the time.

I dont think you can realistically judge their perception at that time based on voting results. The same voters are still messing things up today.

We have stats right now that you can compare players now with players of different eras. There was an article posted earlier in the thread that points out how big of idiots some voters are.

He falsely assumed Jim Rice was a more feared hitter than Edgar Martinez which is hard for stats to back up.

[path12]

This whole thread reminds me of the Bill James book about the HoF that came out around 1994 or so. I think the name of the copy I have is The Politics of Glory, but IIRC it was republished under a different title.......really quite a good book as I remember.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

But shouldn't people's perception of a player at the time be relevant? That he succeeded based on the standards of the day?

We have a bunch of new stats today that we can apply to guys in the past, but those players weren't judged by those stats at the time (and if they were, they may have played differently. I'm sure some hitters would have walked more back in the day if that was a stat you can make $ on, like today) And in 10 years, those new stats will be discredited, and we'll have yet new ways to look at players. At least the award voting tells us to what extent a player was a big deal at the time.

You realize this would make Jeter a legitimate multi-gold glove winning shortstop?

If the veteran's committee exists to go back and fix Hall of Fame mistakes then I don't see why perception comes into play at all. It's an admission that mistakes are made and players are overlooked for various reasons.

Personally, I love the fact that new information is allowing us to see that guys like Blyleven were not only far better than the perception was at the time but also played at a Hall of Fame level. I'd rather see a Hall of Deserving Players instead of a Hall of Big Market Guys that Got Award Votes.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

He falsely assumed Jim Rice was a more feared hitter than Edgar Martinez which is hard for stats to back up.

But then if you ever watched those guys play, you'd know that Rice was far more feared than Edgar Martinez.

And that gets back to the case of Blyleven. If you go by those who actually saw the games and were in baseball, Blyleven wasn't a great player. You can look at his stats now and some suggest that he was a great player. Some suggest he wasn't. In a case like that, I'll go with the observations of those who actually saw the games. The guys who saw the games didn't see fit to include him in the contests that the very good/great ones get into. So, to me, that suggests that a candidate has an uphill battle to get in. I'm willing to listen, but you can't toss out made-up stats like WAR and leave out things as simple as wins/losses and ERA. To me, Blyleven's best claim to fame are his strikeouts and his longevity. But is that enough?

Can anyone reasonably say that at any point in his career (say for a 3 or 4 year stretch), Blyleven was one of the top 5 pitchers in the game? That's what I want to hear...when was Blyleven actually great? Answer me that and I'll change my mind. As I said a page or two ago, Blyleven is a tough case for me. You make the case that he was great at some point in his career and I'll give that serious consideration.

And FYI, I saw Blyleven pitch back in the early 80s. Maybe this colors my view of him, but I don't remember anyone in the stands who were there to see Blyleven pitch. Not like Baltimore fans turned out to see Moose pitch, or Red Sox fans turned out to see Clemens (or Pedro), or seeing McGwire bat for the Athletics or watching Ripken take the field in Camden Yards. You knew you were watching something special when you saw those guys (and I have, and Blyleven, and Rice and Martinez...). I certainly didn't get that feeling when watching Blyleven.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Isn't Don Sutton close to the same mold as Blyleven?

Off the top of my head, I remember 2 or 3 outstanding seasons from Sutton. Everything else that got him to the Hall of Fame was pretty much those three seasons combined with his longevity of being a very good pitcher. If I had to think of a pitcher from the era that most remsembled Blyleven in my mind as far as their place among the all time greats, it would likely have been Sutton..

Just found it interesting that you used his name to compare the two is all.

Blyleven was an outstanding pitcher for much of his career. The fact that he had longevity should be working in his favor instead of against him.

Bert had a career ERA+ of 118. That ranks him ahead of Niekro, Ryan, and Sutton.

Through the first 2,500 innings of his career he had an ERA+ of 131. That puts him ahead of Gibson, Ford, Palmer, Feller, Drysdale, Roberts, and Jenkins at the same point in their careers. Kind of kills any argument that has just a good pitcher that hung around for 22 seasons.

He led the league in ERA+ once, finished 2nd 3 times, and was in the top five 7 times.

Lets take this group of pitchers:

Carlton
Ryan
Gibson
Marichal
Perry
Niekro
Palmer
Hunter
Jenkins
Sutton
Seaver
Blyleven

Out of that group of pitchers Bert is 5th in strikeouts per batter faced, tied for 2nd in no-hitters, 3rd in one-hitters, and 3rd among the above group in shutouts.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I disagree that wins aren't important. Great players find a way to win and I'm firmly convinced of that. Wins aren't the end-all-be-all of any discussion, but they're not a throwaway statistic.

Blyleven also has more 1-0 shutouts than anyone on the list above. He had 15 in his career and the next closest person in the last 50+ years has 12 (Carlton and Perry).

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Blyleven was an outstanding pitcher for much of his career. The fact that he had longevity should be working in his favor instead of against him.

Bert had a career ERA+ of 118. That ranks him ahead of Niekro, Ryan, and Sutton.

Through the first 2,500 innings of his career he had an ERA+ of 131. That puts him ahead of Gibson, Ford, Palmer, Feller, Drysdale, Roberts, and Jenkins at the same point in their careers. Kind of kills any argument that has just a good pitcher that hung around for 22 seasons.

He led the league in ERA+ once, finished 2nd 3 times, and was in the top five 7 times.

Lets take this group of pitchers:

Carlton
Ryan
Gibson
Marichal
Perry
Niekro
Palmer
Hunter
Jenkins
Sutton
Seaver
Blyleven

Out of that group of pitchers Bert is 5th in strikeouts per batter faced, tied for 2nd in no-hitters, 3rd in one-hitters, and 3rd among the above group in shutouts.

Blyleven also has more 1-0 shutouts than anyone on the list above. He had 15 in his career and the next closest person in the last 50+ years has 12 (Carlton and Perry).

You're getting close to what I posted right above you, but you're not there yet.

The shutout thing is pretty good, but remember Blyleven started his career 40 years ago and was one of the last pitchers to play the majority of his career without the relievers/closers we have today. As such, the 1-0 shutout stat doesn't impress me all that much because the time frame has been cherry-picked a bit. To give an example of how much things have changed in that regard, Blyleven pitched 242 complete games and Roger Clemens (picked him as the best pitcher of his era) has pitched 118 (and Maddux 109). I might as well be comparing Blyleven's 242 complete games and downgrading him because Warren Spahn had 382 complete games.

Everyone keeps picking career stats on a guy who started the 11th most games in MLB history. Show me when he was a top pitcher in the MLB and not just a good one with an unusually long effective life span. Or is your argument that being merely good an unusually long time is good enough for the HoF?

FYI, his longevity is partially due to him brought up very early in his career. 3 years into his MLB career, he was still the 8th youngest player in the league. This doesn't work for him or against him, I'm just mentioning it.

EDIT: On the subject of Blyleven's greatness, his greatest periods was arguably 1971-1974 and 1981-1985. Go here 1971 Major League Baseball Pitching Leaders - Baseball-Reference.com and just start browsing through the years. Does Blyleven seem like a guy who pops out as a HoFer? Or were there just an unusual number of great pitchers at that time, which caused Blyleven to get pushed to the shadows? Because looking through that, he certainly doesn't seem like a great to me...no wonder he only made 2 All Star games.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But then if you ever watched those guys play, you'd know that Rice was far more feared than Edgar Martinez.

Career intentional walks Jim Rice 94 in 9058 plate appearances
Edgar Martinez 113 IWs in 8672 plate appearances

This despite the fact that the Mariners had some sluggers hitting behind Edgar such as Jay Buhner and Tino Martinez who were better protection than anything the Red Sox had behind Rice.

Maybe its you that has never seen Edgar Martinez play?

The Baseball Analysts: In Which a Baseball "Expert" Asserts Jack Morris Was Better Than Curt Schilling courtesty of bad-example from early in the thread.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Career intentional walks Jim Rice 94 in 9058 plate appearances
Edgar Martinez 113 IWs in 8672 plate appearances

This despite the fact that the Mariners had some sluggers hitting behind Edgar such as Jay Buhner and Tino Martinez who were better protection than anything the Red Sox had behind Rice.

Maybe its you that has never seen Edgar Martinez play?

Well, you obviously don't read well (I mentioned above that I've seen Martinez play).

Again, you're making the obvious mistake of comparing different players in different eras and it makes you look foolish. Brian Giles has been intentionally walked 114 times. Ted Williams was intentionally walked 86 times. Is your argument that Brian Giles is a more feared hitter than Ted Williams? Again, I saw both players play at an age well enough to know better. You were a year old when Rice was enjoying his best season. I understand all you have to go on is statistics, but I think you need to show a little more respect for the people who actually watched the games.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You knew you were watching something special when you saw those guys (and I have, and Blyleven, and Rice and Martinez...). I certainly didn't get that feeling when watching Blyleven.

This is how you judge Hall of Fame candidates?

Every time I see Brad Lidge blow another save I feel like I am watching something special. Does this mean he should be considered for the HOF?

[larrymcg421]

If I made a list of the top 100 ways to measure hall of fame criteria - Losses, All-Star appearances, and definitely World Series Rings would be nowhere on it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Well, you obviously don't read well (I mentioned above that I've seen Martinez play).

Again, you're making the obvious mistake of comparing different players in different eras and it makes you look foolish. Brian Giles has been intentionally walked 114 times. Ted Williams was intentionally walked 86 times. Is your argument that Brian Giles is a more feared hitter than Ted Williams? Again, I saw both players play at an age well enough to know better. You were a year old when Rice was enjoying his best season. I understand all you have to go on is statistics, but I think you need to show a little more respect for the people who actually watched the games.

OPS+ compares players of different eras

Jim Rice career OPS+ was 128
Edgar Martinez OPS+ was 147

I read fine but Im almost positive that you have never seen Edgar play and even more certain that you would have the slightest idea of how much advanced scouting feared Jim Rice or Edgar Martinez.

[Young Drachma]

I'd rather have David Cone or Bret Saberhagen round out my rotation than Bert Blyleven. Every time. Numbers lie. And neither of them is a Hall of Famer.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If I made a list of the top 100 ways to measure hall of fame criteria - Losses, All-Star appearances, and definitely World Series Rings would be nowhere on it.

So winning, losing and peer evaluations mean nothing? Jeff George called. He wants to talk to you about his HoF candidacy.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

OPS+ compares players of different eras

Jim Rice career OPS+ was 128
Edgar Martinez OPS+ was 147

I read fine but Im almost positive that you have never seen Edgar play and even more certain that you would have the slightest idea of how much advanced scouting feared Jim Rice or Edgar Martinez.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be. But I'd appreciate it if you'd steer clear of calling me a liar. I was a season ticket holder for the Baltimore Orioles for a couple of years back around 1990. Seattle did come to town back then, you know. Then again, you were just 13 and it seems like maybe you should have concentrated a little more on learning your manners back then...and perhaps your reading comprehension skills as well. Because now you have the gall to suggest that I'm a liar simply because you're defensive that you didn't read very carefully. Very mature. Step away from the keyboard, son.

Using statistics, I can "prove" that Vinnie Testaverde (and probably Drew Bledsoe) was a better passer than Joe Montana, Bart Starr, Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw. That's why simple statistical analysis isn't the end-all-be-all of the discussion. You have to watch the games and compare guys against their direct peers to really know who was great...and who just put up good numbers.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

OPS+ compares players of different eras

Jim Rice career OPS+ was 128
Edgar Martinez OPS+ was 147

I read fine but Im almost positive that you have never seen Edgar play and even more certain that you would have the slightest idea of how much advanced scouting feared Jim Rice or Edgar Martinez.

Do you quote anything but OPS+ as a stat? I think most people accept this as a good measure but it is NOT a be all end all to everything.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Career intentional walks Jim Rice 94 in 9058 plate appearances
Edgar Martinez 113 IWs in 8672 plate appearances

This despite the fact that the Mariners had some sluggers hitting behind Edgar such as Jay Buhner and Tino Martinez who were better protection than anything the Red Sox had behind Rice.

Maybe its you that has never seen Edgar Martinez play?

The Baseball Analysts: In Which a Baseball "Expert" Asserts Jack Morris Was Better Than Curt Schilling courtesty of bad-example from early in the thread.

As Blackador pointed out, you can't use IBB for different eras. Just as you can't use shutouts from 50 years ago to compare to current pitchers. Different game and different strategies employed.

You also pointed out another thing in Rice's favor. He never had the kind of protection Martinez had. Edgar got to hit behind Griffey and had Tino and Buhner behind him.

In any event, Edgar was a great hitter. I'd say a Hall of Fame hitter. The biggest issue for me though is the DH. We just don't have a good basis for judging them yet and I'm not even sure how they should be handled. Does being a DH keep him fresh throughout the season? Does it add an extra couple years to his career? Should a DH require much better statistics to make up for the fact that they didn't play half the game? For me it's not about whether Edgar was a feared hitter. I'd argue he was consistently one of the top 5 all-around hitters in the game for a good portion of his career. But the DH thins has me torn.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'd rather have David Cone or Bret Saberhagen round out my rotation than Bert Blyleven. Every time. Numbers lie. And neither of them is a Hall of Famer.

That's a helluva rotation, though.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'd rather have David Cone or Bret Saberhagen round out my rotation than Bert Blyleven. Every time. Numbers lie. And neither of them is a Hall of Famer.

I'll take saberhagen in odd numbered years but not even.

[jbergey22]

So you watched Edgar play a few times a year and Jim Rice play a few times a year? You think you might have missed about 1500-2000 games each player played in his career?

I mean just by going off of what I see watching the twins 100+ times a year Casey Blake was the best player in baseball when I watched him play.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So winning, losing and peer evaluations mean nothing? Jeff George called. He wants to talk to you about his HoF candidacy.

1) Jeff George hardly put up the kind of numbers that Blyleven did.

2) Wins and Losses are such a terrible statistic that I can't believe anyone gives them any kind of validity anymore.

3) Tim Wakefield was invited to the All-Star game last year with his 102 ERA+. And let's not forget that it's not even a judgment of a full season. Blyleven was top 5 in ERA+ 7 different times in his career (and 6th another 2 times). How is it his fault that he didn't get selected for the all-star game?

4) Judging individual players based on team success is one of the dumbest things people currently do when discussing sports. I'd like one of the proponents of this to tell me that they would have drafted Danny Weurffel over Peyton Manning, or that Tee Martin is the Tennessee QB that should have been picked #1 overall.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But then if you ever watched those guys play, you'd know that Rice was far more feared than Edgar Martinez.

I seriously doubt this is true, and even if it is, all it means is that pitchers were idiots, because Edgar was the better hitter. Not just for his entire career, but for peak value. In Rice's best three years he posted an OPS+ of:

1977: 147
1978: 157
1979: 154

From 1995-1998, Edgar lowest OPS+ was 158, and his best was 185.

Of course Edgar was feared as a hitter - not only was he much harder to get out than Rice (.418 OBP to .352 OBP), he often did a lot of damage when got a hit (.515 SLG, .204 ISO, compared to .502 SLG, .204 ISO for Rice). Pitchers, advance scouts and managers were well aware of what a great hitter Edgar was and had a great deal of respect for him. Which is presumably what you mean by "fear", unless you mean pitcher were literally fearful of Rice (because he might come after them with a bat?)

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Which is presumably what you mean by "fear", unless you mean pitcher were literally fearful of Rice (because he might come after them with a bat?)

Hillarious! Well done.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

So you watched Edgar play a few times a year and Jim Rice play a few times a year? You think you might have missed about 1500-2000 games each player played in his career?

I mean just by going off of what I see watching the twins 100+ times a year Casey Blake was the best player in baseball when I watched him play.

Keep backpedaling. You might be able to run your foot out of your mouth.

There's a reason Jim Rice won 1 MVP award and finished in the top 5 six times. And there's a reason why Edgar Martinez - a good/great player, to be sure - finished in the top five exactly once. With Rice's attitude with the press, I can assure you it wasn't favoritism for Rice.

I'm not a voter, but I'm also not conceited enough to dismiss things like All-Star games and MVP votes from the guys that do vote. Most times (though they do make errors), they know enough about the game to know when they're watching greatness. That's why you compare players against others in their own era. That's why you watch the game.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Using statistics, I can "prove" that Vinnie Testaverde (and probably Drew Bledsoe) was a better passer than Joe Montana, Bart Starr, Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw. That's why simple statistical analysis isn't the end-all-be-all of the discussion. You have to watch the games and compare guys against their direct peers to really know who was great...and who just put up good numbers.

Utter bullshit.

Anyone can attempt to "prove" something with numbers, that is true. But if you use the correct numbers, that is proof. And objective, as opposed to the subjectivity of personal observation which is prone to all kinds of bias.

I hear this BS all the time from people, and it seems clear that they don't understand, or don't care to understand how these modern statistical measures work, and thus don't really understand how accurate and valuable they are. And when those numbers don't agree with the observational opinions they've formed over the years, well, obviously those numbers must be wrong or are being twisted around to prove a point that isn't true.

And as to your specific example above - apples and oranges. It is far more difficult to accurately measure the performance of a QB than it is to measure the performance of a baseball player - it's just the nature of the two games and how outcomes are generated. Sure, we can see the raw numbers of what a QB did and we can use measures like QB rating to try to judge them, but there is so much beyond the control of a QB that goes into those numbers that such measures fall woefully short of telling the complete story. It's different in baseball - we have extremely precise measurements for hitting, very accurate measurements for pitching (and continually getting more accurate as we get more data from things like Pitch F/X) and improving measurements for fielding (which will get a huge boost when Hit F/X comes on line).

[jbergey22]

Jimmy Rollins also won an MVP award. Hard to convince me it means a whole lot when he is winning the award.

This year they actually got the two right though surprisingly enough.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I seriously doubt this is true, and even if it is, all it means is that pitchers were idiots, because Edgar was the better hitter. Not just for his entire career, but for peak value. In Rice's best three years he posted an OPS+ of:

1977: 147
1978: 157
1979: 154

From 1995-1998, Edgar lowest OPS+ was 158, and his best was 185.

Of course Edgar was feared as a hitter - not only was he much harder to get out than Rice (.418 OBP to .352 OBP), he often did a lot of damage when got a hit (.515 SLG, .204 ISO, compared to .502 SLG, .204 ISO for Rice). Pitchers, advance scouts and managers were well aware of what a great hitter Edgar was and had a great deal of respect for him. Which is presumably what you mean by "fear", unless you mean pitcher were literally fearful of Rice (because he might come after them with a bat?)

I do wonder if Edgar Martinez will get in.

[dawgfan]

I'll say this about Edgar and "fear" - fans sitting down the 3rd base line certainly feared him for all the times his bat went flying into the stands...

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Utter bullshit.

Anyone can attempt to "prove" something with numbers, that is true. But if you use the correct numbers, that is proof. And objective, as opposed to the subjectivity of personal observation which is prone to all kinds of bias.

I hear this BS all the time from people, and it seems clear that they don't understand, or don't care to understand how these modern statistical measures work, and thus don't really understand how accurate and valuable they are. And when those numbers don't agree with the observational opinions they've formed over the years, well, obviously those numbers must be wrong or are being twisted around to prove a point that isn't true.

And as to your specific example above - apples and oranges. It is far more difficult to accurately measure the performance of a QB than it is to measure the performance of a baseball player - it's just the nature of the two games and how outcomes are generated. Sure, we can see the raw numbers of what a QB did and we can use measures like QB rating to try to judge them, but there is so much beyond the control of a QB that goes into those numbers that such measures fall woefully short of telling the complete story. It's different in baseball - we have extremely precise measurements for hitting, very accurate measurements for pitching (and continually getting more accurate as we get more data from things like Pitch F/X) and improving measurements for fielding (which will get a huge boost when Hit F/X comes on line).

So your argument - a la Bill James - is that baseball can be broken down into minute statistical analysis and that's all we should go by. Ok. Then I suppose that Edgar Martinez is a better than George Brett, McGwire is better than DiMaggio and Dick Allen is better than Mike Schmidt. Got it. Good luck with that.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So your argument - a la Bill James - is that baseball can be broken down into minute statistical analysis and that's all we should go by. Ok. Then I suppose that Edgar Martinez is a better than George Brett, McGwire is better than DiMaggio and Dick Allen is better than Mike Schmidt. Got it. Good luck with that.

Easy enough to look. Its all in the baseball reference website.

McGwire was a better hitter. Joe D the better all around with his defense and baserunning abilities I would speculate.

OBP+SLG=Runs..Can you deny this fact?

McGwire has a career OPS+ of 162 while Joe Dimagiio had an OPS+155. So yes 9 McGwires would score more runs than 9 Joe Dimaggios if you make them base runners of equal ability.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So your argument - a la Bill James - is that baseball can be broken down into minute statistical analysis and that's all we should go by. Ok. Then I suppose that Edgar Martinez is a better than George Brett, McGwire is better than DiMaggio and Dick Allen is better than Mike Schmidt. Got it. Good luck with that.

Nice strawman.

No, I don't think Edgar was better than Brett, because the numbers that look at the whole value of a player don't agree with that statement, and I doubt they agree with the other two examples you posted.

And yes, baseball can be measured by statistical analysis. Are there non-measurable things that influence the results that statistical analysis is based on? Of course. But some things (such as clutch hitting as a skill) can't be shown to actually exist (or only exist to an insignificant degree), and the rest are things that nobody can really know.

Of the major team sports in this country, baseball by far is the sport most suited to accurate statistical analysis. And I will take objective measurables over subjective opinion any day. If you have familiarity with human psychology and how the brain works, you know that our impressions of things can be wildly deviated from reality.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If the veteran's committee exists to go back and fix Hall of Fame mistakes then I don't see why perception comes into play at all. It's an admission that mistakes are made and players are overlooked for various reasons.

The Veteran's Committee is a joke. They don't vote people in and probably never will. Too many guys on it who don't want anyone in and will never vote for someone.

[RainMaker]

Just curious, is it fair to compare OPS from different eras like that? Wouldn't it be better to show where they ranked amongst the league in OPS vs hwo they compare to one another? Edgar played in the steroid era and everyone seems to have been inflated.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just curious, is it fair to compare OPS from different eras like that? Wouldn't it be better to show where they ranked amongst the league in OPS vs hwo they compare to one another? Edgar played in the steroid era and everyone seems to have been inflated.

OPS+ is compared against league average for that particular year so it pretty much does it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

OPS+ is compared against league average for that particular year so it pretty much does it.

Not just comparing vs. the league average for each year (and thus correcting for era) but also making park adjustments to control for ballpark effects.

[RainMaker]

Gotcha, didn't know that existed.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

No, I don't think Edgar was better than Brett, because the numbers that look at the whole value of a player don't agree with that statement, and I doubt they agree with the other two examples you posted.

Go look it up. Don't back out now on your assertion that baseball analysis is the end-all-be-all of player evaluation. You made your claim. Now stick by it.

I can't wait for you to tell me how Kevin Mitchell is better than Reggie Jackson. Or how Jack and Will Clark are better than Jackie Robinson or Rod Carew. I'm waiting with rapt attention for you to tell me how Jim Edmonds and Adam Dunn are better than Yaz and Johnnie Bench. I'll be learning a lot when you tell me how Magglio Ordonez is better than Paul Molitor or Ernie Banks. I bet there will be some very disappointed Yankee fans when they find out that beloved Derek Jeter can't get into the HoF before Kent Hrbek.

[rowech]

For those not aware of OPS and OPS+

Run Estimation for the Masses

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Go look it up. Don't back out now on your assertion that baseball analysis is the end-all-be-all of player evaluation. You made your claim. Now stick by it.

I can't wait for you to tell me how Kevin Mitchell is better than Reggie Jackson. Or how Jack and Will Clark are better than Jackie Robinson or Rod Carew. I'm waiting with rapt attention for you to tell me how Jim Edmonds and Adam Dunn are better than Yaz and Johnnie Bench. I'll be learning a lot when you tell me how Magglio Ordonez is better than Paul Molitor or Ernie Banks. I bet there will be some very disappointed Yankee fans when they find out that beloved Derek Jeter can't get into the HoF before Kent Hrbek.

You arent even comparing the same thing. OPS+ is a hitting stat. A few of the guys you list above are known for much more than just being a hitter.

Win Shares takes more into consideration.