2010 Baseball HOF Voting Results

[molson]

Baseball Hall of Fame: Andre Dawson the sole inductee for 2010 - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/news/story?id=4801847)

Dawson in, Blyleven and Alomar just short

[claphamsa]

wow, just wrong!

[miked]

So I guess people are so sure that the Hawk is clean that they're willing to vote in an OF with 480 HR and a life time AVG of .270 while Juice Mac sits at home?

[claphamsa]

I guess so, I didnt even think he was borderline.....

[spleen1015]

I can't believe Alomar didn't get in. He is the best 2B in the last 70 years.

[Swaggs]

There is just so much wrong with baseball. It is hard to care anymore, but I am never surprised with how wrong any given aspect of MLB can be, at any given time.

[Dr. Sak]

I wonder who voted for David Segui

[molson]

I can't believe Alomar didn't get in. He is the best 2B in the last 70 years.

He probably lost a handful of votes from some combination of the spitting/HIV/first ballot thing. He's a lock for next year.

I love that Kevin Appier, Pat Hentgen, and David Segui each got a vote.

[SackAttack]

I dunno. I just have a problem with people making the news they're reporting on.

I understand *why* the BBWAA has a ballot. The guys who are covering the team for 20 years are the ones who are probably in the best position to evaluate the candidacies.

It just strikes me as...let's vote against so-and-so and then cluck about the fact that, gosh, he hasn't come clean, so he owes us, the writers, something.

I agreed with it when the AP had their poll removed from the BCS components for the same reason. I just don't know what sort of process exists that would be an improvement over letting the writers vote for the HoF and then get to cluck about why someone didn't get in, or DID get in.

[Mustang]

I wonder who voted for David Segui

He was player of the week, not once, but TWICE.

* 4/21/1996: Montreal (NL)
* 4/5/1998: Seattle (AL)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I know I saw Mariotti blathering on about how he didn't vote for Alomar because he isn't a first ballot guy. He'll get in next year. The whole process is silly, but Hawk was a hero growing up so I have no complaints.

[MikeVic]

Pat Hentgen was robbed. Where's Juan Guzman??

[cougarfreak]

I can't believe Alomar didn't get in. He is the best 2B in the last 70 years.

Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg say hi.

[Coffee Warlord]

I wanna know what 2 people voted for Erik Karros.

[Oilers9911]

Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg say hi.

I would easily put Alomar at or above those guys. For anyone that saw him play in Toronto on a day to day basis, we know just how damn good he was.

Edit: and I am a HUGE Sandberg fan too.

[Young Drachma]

Roberto Alomar was done in by the whole Hirshbeck incident, coupled with the later revelations. He'll get in next year, the Blyleven thing is strange, it's like the campaigners are wearing the ballot box down to where it'll eventually get him in.

Jack Morris had an unusually strong showing, I thought. And yes, Alomar was indeed very, very good at his craft in a way I haven't seen since he left the game, that's for sure.

[stevew]

I wonder if Martinez will ever get in. He has very good numbers, although the fact that he didn't field will probably keep him out for awhile.

[jbergey22]

I was as equally surprised Barry Larkin didnt get any love.

Bert, Larkin, and Alomar I would have voted for.

[cougarfreak]

I would easily put Alomar at or above those guys. For anyone that saw him play in Toronto on a day to day basis, we know just how damn good he was.

Edit: and I am a HUGE Sandberg fan too.

Sorry, but there is no way he is easily better than those two. Morgan trumps his ass all over. Back to back MVP's, top 4 MVP's two other times. Hell, Morgan kills him in OPS, SB's, HR's, and OBP. Alomar led the league in two categories his entire career. Morgan did so 13 times. Alomar's a great player, Morgan is a sure fire Hall of Famer, who played in an era that wasn't tremendous offensively.

[Schmidty]

I wish Morris and Trammel would get in someday, but I am starting to think it's not going to happen.

[Crapshoot]

Alomar is one of the top 5 2b of all time (I'd say Morgan and Hornsby are the only two that might be better) - that he didn't get in is a travesty. And Barry Larkin is a HOF SS who was significantly better than either Dawson or Jim Rice (that was a travesty). As for Bert, its just tragic that anyone with a semblance of intelligence can consider Jack Morris a HOF, but not Bert.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Think it is definitely a travesty that Alomar didn't get in, but with all the bad pub around him near the end of his career it doesn't surprise me.

Edgar Martinez is another surprise for me. Sure, he didn't play in the field...but he was the best Designated Hitter ever. Surely that deserves a HoF nod?

[path12]

Edgar will get there eventually. It's going to take a few years to get over the DH thing.

He is my favorite player. But I don't think that carries a whole lot of weight.

[Atocep]

HoF voting is somehow becoming more of a joke. If you're a borderline player it isn't about whether or not you actually deserve to be in, but rather about waiting your turn. Eventually you end up getting close enough that voters just start throwing you on their ballot to see you get in.

Lee Smith and Jack Morris shouldn't be getting anywhere close to the percentages they got while Bert, Alomar, Larkin, Raines, McGwire, and Trammell should all be in already. None of those guys are borderline candidates yet we've now had to watch Jim Rice and Andre Dawson get in back to back years and it looks like Jack Morris will take the Jim Rice path to induction.

[Atocep]

Dola

I'm happy that it appears Bert will finally get in next season, but people aren't voting for him because they think he's a definite Hall of Famer like they should. They're voting on him because he's been on the ballot so long and he's as close as he is to getting in.

[Danny]

HoF voting is somehow becoming more of a joke. If you're a borderline player it isn't about whether or not you actually deserve to be in, but rather about waiting your turn. Eventually you end up getting close enough that voters just start throwing you on their ballot to see you get in.

Lee Smith and Jack Morris shouldn't be getting anywhere close to the percentages they got while Bert, Alomar, Larkin, Raines, McGwire, and Trammell should all be in already. None of those guys are borderline candidates yet we've now had to watch Jim Rice and Andre Dawson get in back to back years and it looks like Jack Morris will take the Jim Rice path to induction.

Yep and only 142 years until David Segui gets in!

[FBPro]

I can't believe Alomar didn't get in. He is the best 2B in the last 70 years.

Agreed, thought he was a lock.

[JS19]

Being such a baseball fan, it's a shame watching these Hall of Fame votes, in my opinion. I feel too many guys get in. Sure, a lot of these guys are great players, but I think the Hall of Fame should be held for iconic figures of the game. Okay, maybe iconic is a bit of a stretch, but when I think about Craig Biggio eventually being a Hall of Famer, it makes me think the system just isn't working. Sure, he has his 3,000 hits and was a very good hard nosed player, but to me, he just doesn't fall into the "best of the best" category. I'm not singling him out, he's just an example that comes to mind. It seems as though these writer's just vote someone in on a yr by yr basis just for the sake of voting someone in.

[jbergey22]

Being such a baseball fan, it's a shame watching these Hall of Fame votes, in my opinion. I feel too many guys get in. Sure, a lot of these guys are great players, but I think the Hall of Fame should be held for iconic figures of the game. Okay, maybe iconic is a bit of a stretch, but when I think about Craig Biggio eventually being a Hall of Famer, it makes me think the system just isn't working. Sure, he has his 3,000 hits and was a very good hard nosed player, but to me, he just doesn't fall into the "best of the best" category. I'm not singling him out, he's just an example that comes to mind. It seems as though these writer's just vote someone in on a yr by yr basis just for the sake of voting someone in.

I agree.

They put Jim Rice in now they put Andre Dawson in which opens the door for so many other outfielders that were maybe top 5-10 OFs of their time but certainly not one of the 1-3 best. I dont even think Dawson was the best OF on his team most years.(Tim Raines)

I basically try to think of the 1 or 2 best at their position when they played and if they were I lean towards them deserving to be in. This year Alomar and Larkin passed that test for me anyway.

[cougarfreak]

Being such a baseball fan, it's a shame watching these Hall of Fame votes, in my opinion. I feel too many guys get in. Sure, a lot of these guys are great players, but I think the Hall of Fame should be held for iconic figures of the game. Okay, maybe iconic is a bit of a stretch, but when I think about Craig Biggio eventually being a Hall of Famer, it makes me think the system just isn't working. Sure, he has his 3,000 hits and was a very good hard nosed player, but to me, he just doesn't fall into the "best of the best" category. I'm not singling him out, he's just an example that comes to mind. It seems as though these writer's just vote someone in on a yr by yr basis just for the sake of voting someone in.

I agree. I'm a huge Reds fan, and I don't think Larkin should get in. Heck, he missed something like 25% of the games he could have played.

[Maple Leafs]

Has Mariotti masturbated out a column about his vote yet?

[Dr. Sak]

Has Mariotti masturbated out a column about his vote yet?

I'm waiting for what the RWBInsider has to say.

[Samdari]

Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg say hi.

Splitting hairs, though. Being the 3rd best 2B in the past 70 years should be enough to get into the HoF.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Alomar isn't as good as Morgan, but definitely better than Sandberg. He even deserves the whole "first ballot" thing. Blyleven not getting in again makes me sad, but he picked up a lot of votes and it seems like he will get in shortly.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Definitely better than Sandberg? Looks pretty even to me.

[cougarfreak]

Splitting hairs, though. Being the 3rd best 2B in the past 70 years should be enough to get into the HoF.

I don't disagree, if you do the whole first ballot thing, I think the only reason he's not on it is his spitting incident. And I can't argue there. That was a huge embarrassment, and a big slap in the face to the game. It doesn't surprise me he didn't make it in on the first try.

[larrymcg421]

Erm, Alomar deserved to be in the HOF, but how the hell can anyone claim he was better than Joe Morgan. It's not even close, IMO.

[sterlingice]

I was as equally surprised Barry Larkin didnt get any love.

Bert, Larkin, and Alomar I would have voted for.

I'm guessing all 3 are in next year. I'm guessing Larkin and Alomar will get a big boost from the "he's not a first ballot" guys voting for them in their 2nd year.

SI

[sterlingice]

Being such a baseball fan, it's a shame watching these Hall of Fame votes, in my opinion. I feel too many guys get in. Sure, a lot of these guys are great players, but I think the Hall of Fame should be held for iconic figures of the game. Okay, maybe iconic is a bit of a stretch, but when I think about Craig Biggio eventually being a Hall of Famer, it makes me think the system just isn't working. Sure, he has his 3,000 hits and was a very good hard nosed player, but to me, he just doesn't fall into the "best of the best" category. I'm not singling him out, he's just an example that comes to mind. It seems as though these writer's just vote someone in on a yr by yr basis just for the sake of voting someone in.

That's a really interesting name, considering what Bill James wrote about him in the historical abstract as one of the best players ever (tho he has soured on him a bit in recent years because Biggio stuck around way too long).

SI

[molson]

That's a really interesting name, considering what Bill James wrote about him in the historical abstract as one of the best players ever (tho he has soured on him a bit in recent years because Biggio stuck around way too long).

SI

Biggio is the right in the middle of the differing opinions of what the HOF is supposed to be.

If the HOF is supposed to be purely about a player's on-field accomplishments, Biggio should definitely get in.

But it's pretty clear that the HOF induction criteria also include an element of "fame". Winning awards, being a part of a World Series team, being highly visible help a lot.

I don't really have a problem with either way - Biggio doesn't scream HOF to me, so I must lean towards the 2nd kind of criteria. It's a private museum, I'm content with it being filled with big, memorable, important names in the history of baseball. Biggio isn't one of those.

Maybe Bill James can start his own HOF (or really, a "Hall of Excellence", rather than fame.)

[Ramzavail]

I didn't want to believe it either, but the HOF monitor says Alomar trumps Morgan, big time.

hxxp://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hof_monitor.shtml

I think what hurts Morgan (in total) are the later years.

[Young Drachma]

Biggio was a converted catcher who constantly reinvented himself and managed to get 3000 hits in the process. A catcher who can steal bases, converted to freakin' center field and then to second base? Competently? The .281 average isn't much to yip about, but four gold gloves isn't bad either.

That said, he's a high school baseball coach now. How's that to be on a team with a legend like that. That'd be pretty awesome.

[Swaggs]

I agree.

They put Jim Rice in now they put Andre Dawson in which opens the door for so many other outfielders that were maybe top 5-10 OFs of their time but certainly not one of the 1-3 best. I dont even think Dawson was the best OF on his team most years.(Tim Raines)



I think the point about outfielders needs more scrutiny by the sportswriters. Putting Rice and Dawson in opens the door for about a dozen other short-term great or long-term good outfielders to be included in the Hall of Fame.

Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Larry Walker, Albert Belle, Bernie Williams, Juan Gonzalez, Tim Raines, Dick Allen and the active guys like Vlad Guerrero and Sheffield (he's pretty deserving, in my opinion, but it is hard to look at his career and think that he couldn't have been much, much better) all deserve serious consideration at this point.

[dawgfan]

Biggio was a converted catcher who constantly reinvented himself and managed to get 3000 hits in the process. A catcher who can steal bases, converted to freakin' center field and then to second base? Competently? The .281 average isn't much to yip about, but four gold gloves isn't bad either.
It's not just the .281 average - he also had the high walk rate and all the HBP pushing his OBP to .363 and had enough power with all those doubles to post a .433 SLG, making for a .796 OPS and a career 111 OPS+.

Beyond that, he also excelled in things buried in the stat sheets like avoiding double plays and his baserunning - not just stealing bases, but advancing on grounders and fly balls.

Biggio may not have been a really "famous" player, but his on-field accomplishments most certainly qualify him.

[sposfan]

I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised at the voting. Aren't these the same "students of the game" that gave Rafael Palmeiro a Gold Glove back in 1999 when he played TWENTY EIGHT GAMES!?!?!?!!?

The fact that the newspaper writers refuse to allow announcers and broadcasters like Vin Scully vote, is just another mark in their favor.

What a crock.

[dawgfan]

I think the point about outfielders needs more scrutiny by the sportswriters. Putting Rice and Dawson in opens the door for about a dozen other short-term great or long-term good outfielders to be included in the Hall of Fame.

Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Larry Walker, Albert Belle, Bernie Williams, Juan Gonzalez, Tim Raines, Dick Allen and the active guys like Vlad Guerrero and Sheffield (he's pretty deserving, in my opinion, but it is hard to look at his career and think that he couldn't have been much, much better) all deserve serious consideration at this point.
Dawson was a bad choice. Yeah, he had a lot of power, he was fast, had the great arm, etc. - but he made an out 67.7% of the time he came to the plate. His OBP is a new low for HOF OF's, and by a wide margin. I'm sorry, but he just didn't do enough in other areas to make up for this major flaw.

I'll be really curious to see if those writers that gave Dawson the benefit of the doubt for his injuries for playing so many years on that Montreal turf will do the same thing for Edgar Martinez - he was a pretty good 3B to start his career, and was only moved to DH because he developed some hamstring problems and had a random accident playing 1B in a late Spring Training game one year. With decent options at 3B and 1B, the M's decided to protect Edgar and move him to DH. Had he been with a NL team, he would've played 1B, and probably would've been just fine as a fielder there too.

[Chief Rum]

Beyond that, he also excelled in things buried in the stat sheets like avoiding double plays and his baserunning - not just stealing bases, but advancing on grounders and fly balls.

Wait a sec... this sounds suspiciously like something sabremetricians usually poo poo, while Angels fans applaud it. Be careful, dawg, Bill James might pull your Sabre Card. ;)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Even if Martinez played a shitty 1B somewhere, he would definitely be in.

[dawgfan]

Wait a sec... this sounds suspiciously like something sabremetricians usually poo poo, while Angels fans applaud it. Be careful, dawg, Bill James might pull your Sabre Card. ;)
As a matter of fact, it was Bill James that pointed all of this stuff in his Historical Baseball Abstract, so no. Because this is stuff that can be measured - it's just stuff that most fans don't spend a lot of time looking at.

[dawgfan]

Even if Martinez played a shitty 1B somewhere, he would definitely be in.
And what really gets me is what if he had played in the NL, but been a horrid 1B but still hit like he did with Seattle? He would've actually not provided as much value to his team - as a DH, Martinez's value came solely from his bat, and was neutral as a defender, not hurting or helping his team.

But many more voters would've voted for him, because he played the field...

[Sun Tzu]

McGwire gets F'ed in the A again. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't already 20+ "juicers" in the HOF already. This whole thing is completely backwards. I don't pay attention to anything but the games on the field anymore.

[rowech]

My thoughts...

Dawson isn't a hall of famer...good player, nice guy, could have been more but the key words are could have been. Same goes for Mattingly.

Edgar Martinez...how in the world do people think this guy is a hall-of-famer? He isn't even close. If all you're going to do is be a DH and not play the field you better put up some insane numbers and he doesn't have anything close.

Alomar over Morgan? A lot closer than people think but I'd still take Morgan. Alomar put his numbers up in an era where steroids were rampant and I have no problem believing he used them. He was in Baltimore at the same time Palmeiro was and that spitting incident screams of Roid rage.

The HOF has become a joke...these writers want to act as if they are moral leaders instead of writers who are judging the game's greatest players. Steroids happened, they need to get over it. That said, they need to adjust their thinking for that era unfortunately. It's sad that a guy like Fred McGriff, who I believe was clean most, if not all of his career as opposed to some others, is going to get shafted because he played with these guys. In a different time, McGriff would be a no-brainer.

As for Dawson getting in, well...somebody needs to take a look at Dave Parker's stats and explain to me how in the world Dawson's numbers are better...especially 45% voting record better. Vada Pinson not getting in is extremely unfortunate now as well.

I wonder how much tv the growth of TV exposure for baseball in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, plays into so many more of these guys getting in. Before, you saw a guy only when he rolled into town to play your home team. Now? Flip on a channel and see them. You learn to like more players and in the end, a lot of these guys get support. How much of Blyleven's support is because of the internet and all the info out there? 20 years ago, there would be no way he would be getting in but now we have all kinds of stuff to look at, discuss, etc.

Times have changed and the HOF voting needs to as well.

1st vote -- I have no trouble accepting certain guys get in on the 1st ballot compared to others.

2nd vote -- if you don't make it, the next time you're up is in year 5.

3rd vote -- crucial moment in the year five vote. If you don't get at least 50% you're gone for good. If you get 50% but don't get in, you get one last chance in year 10.

4th vote -- if you still don't have it, then you don't get in...just the way it goes.

[DanGarion]

I wanna know what 2 people voted for Erik Karros.

ERIC KARROS HIT A HOMERUN IN HIS FIRST START OF HIS ROY SEASON! THAT'S CLUTCH!

[DanGarion]

Here we go!

The Hall of Very Good (http://www.hallofverygood.com/)

[dawgfan]

Edgar Martinez...how in the world do people think this guy is a hall-of-famer? He isn't even close. If all you're going to do is be a DH and not play the field you better put up some insane numbers and he doesn't have anything close.
A career line of .312/.418/.515 doesn't qualify as "insane"? Only 20 players in history have a career line of .300+/.400+/.500+; 12 of those are Hall of Fame eligible, and 11 of those 12 have been enshrined (Lefty O'Doul is the only one who hasn't).

A career OPS+ of 147 doesn't qualify as "insane"? That's 43rd on the all-time list (there are 292 players in the Hall of Fame, 230 of which are hitters).

It'd be one thing to say he's a borderline candidate - his career wasn't as long as it could've been (though that's mostly the fault of inept Mariner's management in the '80's who didn't call him up when he was clearly ready and didn't give him a full-time job soon enough). And I get that people are biased against the DH, but a few points on that:

- For everyone that says "a DH doesn't contribute anything on the field" - well, that's true, but they're also not costing their team anything by being a bad fielder
- The DH is a legit position in the AL, so I don't think it's fair to disqualify someone simply for being primarily a DH
- Edgar was clearly enough of a hitter that he would've played 1B for an NL team, and for the M's too if they didn't have other decent options, and he probably would've been OK - he was a pretty good 3B when he played the field earlier in his career
- While the DH is kind of a specialty position, so is a RP, and a number of them have already been enshrined - why not the best DH?
- Paul Molitor had a longer career than Edgar and thus more counting totals, but he wasn't as a hitter, and he likely wouldn't have gotten into the Hall had he not been able to extend his career by 8 years by playing DH

[jbergey22]

I dont understand why it would even take 4 ballots. IMO you are either a HOF'er or you arent. I am guessing some voters didnt think he was first ballot worthy which is just silly to me.

Im not sure about all of you but I dont pay much attention to what ballot they were finally elected in and I certainly dont judge how I feel about a player according to what these clowns we call sportswriters think.

Its kind of like these sportswriters think they are intelligent enough to decide for everyone how a player rates among the all time greats.

[ntndeacon]

Edgar will get there eventually. It's going to take a few years to get over the DH thing.

He is my favorite player. But I don't think that carries a whole lot of weight.

I don't think he gets in. I know that I would not vote for him. In terms of votes 31% in your first year is a big challenge to over come. we shall see over the next two years if he really becomes a legitamite candidate.

[jbergey22]

A career line of .312/.418/.515 doesn't qualify as "insane"? Only 20 players in history have a career line of .300+/.400+/.500+; 12 of those are Hall of Fame eligible, and 11 of those 12 have been enshrined (Lefty O'Doul is the only one who hasn't).

A career OPS+ of 147 doesn't qualify as "insane"? That's 43rd on the all-time list (there are 292 players in the Hall of Fame, 230 of which are hitters).




I change my feeling on Edgar quite often.

He was one of the best right handed hitters to play the game in the past 50 years and he was as big of a threat in that loaded Mariner lineup as Griffey or ARod was. He was also as good as Kirby Puckett(HOF'er) as a hitter.

I wish he would have played 2 more years than he was certain IMO. Voters tend to put too much stock in overall stats and not enough in peak years.

I have used the DH argument to say maybe he wasnt deserving but you make some great points in response to that.

[rowech]

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns? And this is a HOFer? Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s. Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.

[ntndeacon]

Even though I do disagree with the folks that the BBWAA put in the hall, they do get it right most of the time. I was not a big Jim Rice guy, but that might be cuz I a,m a NL boy. The Hawk was a borderline guy I think.

That being said, I believe there is absolutely no reason to cut the number of years eligible. I do wish that broadcasters were given at least some sort of role in the process. I am also looking forward to both Blyleven and Alomar getting in the Hall soon.

Some of the names that had been brought up belong no where near the Hall as far as I am concerned... Parker and Murphy should not get in. I think Walker might have a case, but Ineed to look at his numbers.

[jbergey22]

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns? And this is a HOFer? Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s. Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.

So you dont count his 1400 walks?3
His career OBS+ is 147. His career batting average is 312. He had over 500 doubles and 300 homers.

His 1995-2000 seasons were as good any 6 year span in recent history. Im not sure how you can argue with him as a hitter.

Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml)

Because his career wasnt long doesnt make him a non-HOF'er IMO. If he had played 2 more seasons and hit .220 with 10 homers in 600 At Bats. Does he then become a Hall of Famer?

[Atocep]

Even though I do disagree with the folks that the BBWAA put in the hall, they do get it right most of the time. I was not a big Jim Rice guy, but that might be cuz I a,m a NL boy. The Hawk was a borderline guy I think.

That being said, I believe there is absolutely no reason to cut the number of years eligible. I do wish that broadcasters were given at least some sort of role in the process. I am also looking forward to both Blyleven and Alomar getting in the Hall soon.

Some of the names that had been brought up belong no where near the Hall as far as I am concerned... Parker and Murphy should not get in. I think Walker might have a case, but Ineed to look at his numbers.

Based on the shit I've heard from broadcasters over the years I want them as far away from any award/HoF voting as possible. I'll take the worst of the BWAA over the likes of Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver any day.

[rowech]

So you dont count his 1400 walks?

His career OBS+ is 147. His career batting average is 312. He had over 500 doubles and 300 homers.

His 1995-2000 seasons were as good any 6 year span in recent history. Im not sure how you can argue with him as a hitter.

Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml)

I don't argue with him as a hitter. I argue with him as a hall of famer.

[rowech]

Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:


Will Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clarkwi02.shtml) (902)
Todd Helton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/heltoto01.shtml) (888)
John Olerud (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/olerujo01.shtml) (885)
Moises Alou (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aloumo01.shtml) (879)
Bobby Abreu (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/abreubo01.shtml) (862)
Bernie Williams (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/willibe02.shtml) (860)
Bob Johnson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsbo01.shtml) (857)
Paul O'Neill (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o'neipa01.shtml) (852)
Ellis Burks (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/burksel01.shtml) (850)
Orlando Cepeda (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cepedor01.shtml) (840) *I consider all of those guys good to great players but none of them as hall of famers with the possible exception of Cepeda and I've never been 100% sold on him. It's very possible I just have higher standards than most.

[jbergey22]

I don't argue with him as a hitter. I argue with him as a hall of famer.

Fair enough.

IMO if Andre Dawson and Jim Rice are Hall of Famers. Edgar Martinez certainly is.

Of course I wouldnt have Dawson and Rice in.

[rowech]

Fair enough.

IMO if Andre Dawson and Jim Rice are Hall of Famers. Edgar Martinez certainly is.

Of course I wouldnt have Dawson and Rice in.

The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker. I really don't like Dawson in the HOF...I'm lukewarm on Rice. I think the scary trend is they let Rice in last year so now Dawson gets in. Now that Dawson gets in, someone like Dwight Evans or Harold Baines suddenly starts to say, wait a minute...I'm right there with this guy.

There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say.

[rowech]

One other question that is needing to be considered more and more...how long does a player's great period need to last? I think that has changed and is affecting how some guys get in. I think it used to be you really needed to be great for 12-15 seasons. (war years players excluded) Now, I think if you're great for 7-8 you're getting consideration.

[Atocep]

One other question that is needing to be considered more and more...how long does a player's great period need to last? I think that has changed and is affecting how some guys get in. I think it used to be you really needed to be great for 12-15 seasons. (war years players excluded) Now, I think if you're great for 7-8 you're getting consideration.


If the bar is set at 12-15 great seasons the HoF would have about 20 people in it. Probably less.

[dawgfan]

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns?
If you think hits and HR's are the only important stats for a hitter, there's not much hope in convincing you. But perhaps you've heard of walks and doubles?

Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s.
Utter bullshit. He was a fantastic hitter - he would've been switched to 1B if DH were not an option.

Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.
You must think the Hall of Fame is filled with a huge number of undeserving players if that's the case.

[dawgfan]

Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:


Will Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clarkwi02.shtml) (902)
Todd Helton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/heltoto01.shtml) (888)
John Olerud (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/olerujo01.shtml) (885)
Moises Alou (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aloumo01.shtml) (879)
Bobby Abreu (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/abreubo01.shtml) (862)
Bernie Williams (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/willibe02.shtml) (860)
Bob Johnson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsbo01.shtml) (857)
Paul O'Neill (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o'neipa01.shtml) (852)
Ellis Burks (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/burksel01.shtml) (850)
Orlando Cepeda (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cepedor01.shtml) (840) *I consider all of those guys good to great players but none of them as hall of famers with the possible exception of Cepeda and I've never been 100% sold on him. It's very possible I just have higher standards than most.
That's based off of counting stats. Not one of those players on that list has a higher OPS+ than Edgar (147). The closest is Helton at 140, and that's likely to decline as he ages.

[rowech]

You must think the Hall of Fame is filled with a huge number of undeserving players if that's the case.

I absolutely do.

[dawgfan]

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns?
Also keep in mind that the M's didn't call him up until he was 24, and didn't hand him a full-time job until he was 27 - not because he wasn't worthy or ready, but because the M's at that time were idiots.

[dawgfan]

There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say.
Jeebus, really? So you value the "fame" part over how good they actually were then?

[jbergey22]

The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker.

Really Dave Parker over Edgar Martinez? Maybe I am missing something but Edgar was A LOT better.

[rowech]

Really Dave Parker over Edgar Martinez? Maybe I am missing something but Edgar was A LOT better.

I wouldn't put Parker in...what I said was that now that they've put Dawson in, then there's no reason Parker shouldn't be in. I wouldn't have either.

[rowech]

Jeebus, really? So you value the "fame" part over how good they actually were then?

I said a part of me...I always end up looking at the guys...I've spent the last 15 minutes looking at Edgar to see if I'm missing something. His rate stats are outstanding and as you mentioned, his doubles and walks are what really help that. Great hitter but I just don't see him as a HOFer...as you said...my standards might be quite a bit higher than yours or others.

[Chief Rum]

As a matter of fact, it was Bill James that pointed all of this stuff in his Historical Baseball Abstract, so no. Because this is stuff that can be measured - it's just stuff that most fans don't spend a lot of time looking at.

Man, dawg, anyone ever tell ya you need to get a sense of humor? Sheesh... :p

[cuervo72]

The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker. I really don't like Dawson in the HOF...I'm lukewarm on Rice. I think the scary trend is they let Rice in last year so now Dawson gets in. Now that Dawson gets in, someone like Dwight Evans or Harold Baines suddenly starts to say, wait a minute...I'm right there with this guy.

There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say.

Dwight Evans >> Harold Baines, IMO. Evans was a hell of a fielder, as opposed to a slug/DH. Evans is LONG gone from the ballot of course.

[Atocep]

Dwight Evans >> Harold Baines, IMO. Evans was a hell of a fielder, as opposed to a slug/DH. Evans is LONG gone from the ballot of course.

Evans was better than Jim Rice. Considerably better when you factor in fielding.

[Swaggs]

Really Dave Parker over Edgar Martinez? Maybe I am missing something but Edgar was A LOT better.

You are missing quite a bit if you think Edgar Martinez was "A LOT" better than Dave Parker. You can make a reasonable argument that Martinez was better, but I think you can just as easily make the argument that Parker was a lot better when you consider his value as a rightfielder during his prime.

Parker finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting five times and won it once (and was runner up once). Martinez only finished in the top 5 once (w/ one 3rd place finish). Parker had significantly more hits and RBI and more HRs.

Parker was also on two World Series champions, won 3 gold gloves, and was a 7-time all-star, while Martinez never won a World Series (despite playing with 4 or 5 probable Hall of Famers, with all but Randy Johnson in the same lineup with him) and was also a 7-time all-star. Parker won 3 Silver Sluggers (even though it wasn't awarded until 1980 -- he likely would have won at least 3 more) as the best player at his position, while Martinez won "only" 5 over the course of his career. To me, that indicates that Martinez didn't exactly dominate the "position" of DH.

Once you factor in Parker's ability to play right field pretty well (he was well known for his arm) and consider the eras that the two played in, I think you can make a reasonable case that Parker, at his peak, was better than Martinez at his peak (based on MVP voting) and, based on their career lengths and numbers, that Parker had better career milestone numbers.

I'm not advocating that either should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if we are considering guys like Rice, Dawson, or Edgar Martinez, then Dave Parker (along with Tim Raines and Dale Murphy) are equally, if not more, deserving.

[Bad-example]

Some good stuff on Edgar Martinez in this article.

The Baseball Analysts: In Which a Baseball "Expert" Asserts Jack Morris Was Better Than Curt Schilling (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/01/in_which_a_base.php)

I think he clearly belongs and should eventually make it.

[jbergey22]

You are missing quite a bit if you think Edgar Martinez was "A LOT" better than Dave Parker. You can make a reasonable argument that Martinez was better, but I think you can just as easily make the argument that Parker was a lot better when you consider his value as a rightfielder during his prime.

Parker finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting five times and won it once (and was runner up once). Martinez only finished in the top 5 once (w/ one 3rd place finish). Parker had significantly more hits and RBI and more HRs.

Parker was also on two World Series champions, won 3 gold gloves, and was a 7-time all-star, while Martinez never won a World Series (despite playing with 4 or 5 probable Hall of Famers, with all but Randy Johnson in the same lineup with him) and was also a 7-time all-star. Parker won 3 Silver Sluggers (even though it wasn't awarded until 1980 -- he likely would have won at least 3 more) as the best player at his position, while Martinez won "only" 5 over the course of his career. To me, that indicates that Martinez didn't exactly dominate the "position" of DH.

Once you factor in Parker's ability to play right field pretty well (he was well known for his arm) and consider the eras that the two played in, I think you can make a reasonable case that Parker, at his peak, was better than Martinez at his peak (based on MVP voting) and, based on their career lengths and numbers, that Parker had better career milestone numbers.

I'm not advocating that either should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if we are considering guys like Rice, Dawson, or Edgar Martinez, then Dave Parker (along with Tim Raines and Dale Murphy) are equally, if not more, deserving.

Come on Swaggs. You havent learned to not trust the voters in making smart decisions yet?:) They voted Palmeiro a gold glover despite playing 28 games at 1st base one year and 1 of them actually managed to find a way to give Miguel Cabrera a MVP vote this year despite getting in trouble the morning before their biggest series of the year.

Edgar has a career OPS+ of 147 while Parkers is at 121.

Parkers best 5 year span(prime) had OPS+ numbers of 149, 133, 145, 166, and 141 an average of 146.8 while Edgars best 5 year span(prime) had OPS+ numbers of 185, 166, 165, 158, and 152 for an average of 165.2.

Edgar was clearly a lot better hitter. OPS+ takes league average(era) and ballparks into its figures.

Now Parker did play defense but if you look at the links I just sent you in the fielding area/more stats and you look for rtot/yr(total fielding runs above average per 1250 innings) you will see that Parker actually cost the teams he was playing on an average of 1.4 runs per year by being a below average fielder. So because he was a below average fielder is that better than a DH that doesnt hurt the team defensively?

Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml)

Dave Parker Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/parkeda01.shtml?redir)

[RainMaker]

I'm torn on Dawson. Part of me says he's a real good player from that era but not a Hall of Famer. The other says that for parts of his career, he was an elite player. I think part of being a Hall of Famer is that at some point in your career, you had to be one of the top players at your position (if not the best). That's why I don't believe guys like Palmeiro even without the steroid issue belong in. There was never a time where you looked at Palmeiro and said he's one of the best in the league. With Dawson, there was a time. He did virtually everything well and a lot of his prime was stolen by the unforgiving turf up in Montreal.

I used to be of the belief that the Hall should be very picky. I've changed over the years. I don't think it should be like the NFL, but it should be more inclusive. If there is a strong debate over a player like Dawson, then the player should get the benefit of the doubt.

I also think it's a travesty that Ron Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame.

[Hammer755]

I'm torn on Dawson. Part of me says he's a real good player from that era but not a Hall of Famer. The other says that for parts of his career, he was an elite player. I think part of being a Hall of Famer is that at some point in your career, you had to be one of the top players at your position (if not the best). That's why I don't believe guys like Palmeiro even without the steroid issue belong in. There was never a time where you looked at Palmeiro and said he's one of the best in the league. With Dawson, there was a time. He did virtually everything well and a lot of his prime was stolen by the unforgiving turf up in Montreal.

I used to be of the belief that the Hall should be very picky. I've changed over the years. I don't think it should be like the NFL, but it should be more inclusive. If there is a strong debate over a player like Dawson, then the player should get the benefit of the doubt.

I also think it's a travesty that Ron Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame.

Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite.

His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.

[sterlingice]

Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:

Will Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clarkwi02.shtml) (902)
Todd Helton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/heltoto01.shtml) (888)
John Olerud (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/olerujo01.shtml) (885)
Moises Alou (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aloumo01.shtml) (879)
Bobby Abreu (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/abreubo01.shtml) (862)
Bernie Williams (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/willibe02.shtml) (860)
Bob Johnson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsbo01.shtml) (857)
Paul O'Neill (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o%27neipa01.shtml) (852)
Ellis Burks (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/burksel01.shtml) (850)
Orlando Cepeda (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cepedor01.shtml) (840) *I consider all of those guys good to great players but none of them as hall of famers with the possible exception of Cepeda and I've never been 100% sold on him. It's very possible I just have higher standards than most.

Yeah, but with a peak similarity score of 902, you're talking about guys who aren't all that similar.

SI

[RainMaker]

Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite.

His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.
I think the steroid era helped Rice and Dawson a lot. I guess a lot of it is homerism and seeing him play in Chicago when I was growing up (my Dad actually had season tickets that he moronically got rid of). I also have a soft spot for guys who did multiple things well and didn't get the attention being in a small market. I contend that if Dawson had played in New York, he'd have been a Hall of Famer a long time ago.

Clark should have won the MVP that year but it was before OBP mattered to baseball guys. I still don't think it was a horrible pick as hitting 49 homers was a really rare feat. This was a time when 40 homers was a big deal. Clark also missed like 30 games that season. Dawson also did it with zero protection in that lineup.

[RainMaker]

Thought this was interesting about how bad some of the HOF voters are.

Presenting The Absolute Worst Hall Of Fame Voter - Bill Conlin - Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5443162/presenting-the-absolute-worst-hall-of-fame-voter)

[Blackadar]

Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite.

His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.

Actually, Rice was considered Elite when he was playing. When you went to see the Red Sox in the late 70s and early 80s, you didn't go to see Dewey Evans, Fisk or Lynn. You went to see Jim Rice. In fact, he seemed like pretty much a shoe-in by 1982-1983 for the HOF. What was amazing was how fast he tailed off after 1984-1985. But since he's in, let's move on...

As for some of the other guys mentioned:

Edgar Martinzez - Good stats, bordering on great ones. But I don't think he's a HOFer. I think if he had played in the field, he'd have a better shot. If I'm not convinced Moises Alou (.303 BA, 2134 hits, 421 doubles, 106 steals and 332 HRs in 17 seasons) should get in, then I'm really not sure I'm convinced that a DH who puts up similar stats (.312 BA, 2247 hits, 514 doubles, 49 steals and 309 HRs in 18 seasons) should get in. Heck, the late 80s and early 90s were so juiced that a guy like Ellis Burks put up similar stats (.291, 2107, 402, 181, 352)...and Burks doesn't get anywhere near the HoF without a ticket.

Alomar - In, next year. Keeping him out this year was punishment.

Jack Morris - Out, barely. He was a great pitcher at times with an excellent postseason record and the longevity, but that 3.90 ERA and that he couldn't finish better than 3rd in Cy Young voting works against him.

Tim Raines - It's a travesty that he's not in. A lead-off hitter that gets on base 38% of the time and steals a whopping 808 bases? Yea, that's a game-breaking player.

Barry Larkin - He's got the longevity (19 years), but was he truly great? He has good stats (.295 hitter, 2340 hits, 441 doubles, 198 HRs, 379 steals, .371 OBP) and was good in the field. Alan Trammell in 20 years had (.285, 2365, 412, 185, 236, .352) and was probably better in the field. Both were comparable in the field. I'd say if you think Trammell deserves to be there, you have to vote Larkin in. Personally, I'd vote him him on the basis that he also made 12 All-Star games (Trammell made 6).

Mark McGwire - The 'roids don't matter. He was never tested positive. I'm a Big Mac fan. I love the guy. But he's a career .263 hitter (in a hitters' era), was below average in the field and didn't steal bases. What he did offer up is 583 homers and a .394 OPB. He also helped save the game of baseball in the mid-90s and, like Jim Rice, was the guy you came to see in the ballpark. And it's on that basis that I'd probably vote for McGwire.

That leads me to the most difficult case, Bert Byleven. In large part because he played 22 years, he has the stats. He's 5th all time in strikeouts. He's 9th all time in shutouts. 242 complete games. 287 wins. Yet for every positive, there's a negative. 250 losses. 135th all time in adjusted ERA. 8th in the most home runs given up.

Here's what kills me about Byleven. He was never considered great in his own time. 2 All-Star games in 22 years. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting and made the top 10 only 4 times in his career. That really says something. I understand how you can say a guy was under appreciated, but either Bert must be the most under appreciated player ever, or perhaps he just wasn't as good as his compiled stats suggest.

He was good and pitched a shitload of innings. But was he ever great? His best season was at 22, where he went 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and a whopping 9 shutouts. But when a guy is, on average, 13-11 with a 3.31 ERA, does that make him a HoFer? His best argument is that Robin Roberts, a guy with a very similar profile, got into the HoF. Personally, I'd leave Byleven out, but he'll make it next year.

[DanGarion]

Here's what kills me about Byleven. He was never considered great in his own time. 2 All-Star games in 22 years. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting and made the top 10 only 4 times in his career. That really says something. I understand how you can say a guy was under appreciated, but either Bert must be the most under appreciated player ever, or perhaps he just wasn't as good as his compiled stats suggest.

He was good and pitched a shitload of innings. But was he ever great? His best season was at 22, where he went 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and a whopping 9 shutouts. But when a guy is, on average, 13-11 with a 3.31 ERA, does that make him a HoFer? His best argument is that Robin Roberts, a guy with a very similar profile, got into the HoF. Personally, I'd leave Byleven out, but he'll make it next year.
Everything else you said I agree with, but once you starting mentioning Wins and Loses you lost me. W-L record has very little to do with a pitchers performance.

[RainMaker]

I agree with just about everything you said there. When I look at Rice's decline, I also factor in that they weren't taking roids and other stuff like they do today. When your body went, it went. No drugs to keep you in your prime through your late 30's. For a few years in the late 70's, you could argue he was the best player in baseball.

I'd give Larkin the nod because it was in an era before you had SS hitting 30+ homers a year on a regular basis. You could make the case he was the best SS in baseball for about a 5-10 year stretch. Good in the field and stole some bases too.

Bert is a real tough one. While people say that his longevity is why his numbers are good, it's also a case for why he should get in. If a guy can pitch at a high enough level for that long, that says something. But as you said, he was never considered a top pitcher in the game at any point in his career. He had some good years but 2 All-Star appearances in over 20 years isn't impressive. If he had a stretch in there where he was a perennial Cy Young candidate for 4-5 years, I'd give him the nod, but it just seemed to me like he was a really good pitcher for a really long time.

[ISiddiqui]

He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.

[RainMaker]

He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.
He was on some decent teams and his run support was only 3% lower than the average pitcher of that era.

You can be considered a top pitcher on a bad team. Tom Seaver only pitched for a couple top flight teams in his career and was on some really bad ones too. I guess the issue to me is that if you were able to pick lets say 5 pitchers from any year, would Bert Blyleven consistently show up on that list? Was he regularly someone who was considered on a yearly basis to be one of the best pitchers in the league? His 2 all-star game appearances would seem to indicate he wasn't.

The other problem I have with adding Bert is you have to add in others who had long careers like it. It should make Tommy John a lock for the Hall of Fame since they had nearly identical numbers. Guys who have similar statistics too outside of Wins-Losses would have to make it like David Cone who actually was considered a top pitcher for a few years.

Was Blyleven a great pitcher or a really good one for a really long time?

[Blackadar]

He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.

What, comparison to ones' peers is now a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on? It seems to me that's the first thing you should hang your hat on. It's how you judge players within their era. As RainMaker said, plenty of pitchers on bad teams have been acknowledged. Blyleven was either the most overlooked pitcher in history, or he was just an above-average pitcher who played a really long time.

One of the interesting comparison with Blyleven is Warren Spahn. They both had a really crappy ERA+ (118), good enough for 135th of all time (with guys like Willie Hernandez and Alexandro Pena). Yet one is in the HOF and the other is not.

The difference? Spahn made 17 All-Star games and won a Cy Young (top 3 five times). Blyleven barely sniffed a Cy Young and made 2 All-Star games. Yet Spahn played on teams that only made the post-season 3 times versus Byleven's teams making it 5 times (though it was harder for Spahn's teams to make it). How does that happen? It's because, compared to his peers, Spahn was deemed a great pitcher, even playing in the small market of Milwaukee. Blyleven was not deemed to be a great pitcher while playing. What makes him so good now?

By the way, it's a myth that Blyleven played for bad teams. Blyleven played 22 seasons and his teams were actually pretty average. If my count is correct, his teams had 10 winning seasons, 10 losing seasons and 2 seasons at .500. So lets toss out the "good pitcher on bad teams" theory.

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.

[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.

[ISiddiqui]

This is a good blog posting too:

Sports: A Game Of Inches: Call Me Crazy, But Bert Blyleven Deserves To Be In The Hall Of Fame (http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2009/12/call-me-crazy-but-bert-blyleven.html)

Today, December 8, is the one-year anniversary of the creation of the Game Of Inches blog. We began our blog with a mission (http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2008/12/blah-blah-blah.html): "to prove that God doesn't exist and that athletes are merely cold, metal machines with no souls or heart." With the then-recent death of FireJoeMorgan.com and an ever growing appreciation of the deeper stories in baseball -- those told below the surface of Batting Average and ERA --we started a blog to join the realm of sabermetrics fans everywhere and help penetrate the myths, while often trying to be funny and relevant along the way.

It all began with a single post, written late one night, following a heated argument with a friend about whether or not Tom Glavine deserved to be in the Hall of Fame (http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2008/12/call-me-crazy-but-tom-glavine-does-not.html). Though we were then-inexperienced in the ways of FIP and wOBA and the likes, we still knew of the importance of strikeouts, walks, home runs and the gallimaufry of hits, total stolen bases, wins and ERA. From that post sprung many more and today we at Game Of Inches sit proudly today, exactly 1,200 posts later, having grown from nothing into what we are today. We would proudly like to thank you, the 400+ readers who visit this site daily, and Google Images, for making us the #1 search result for "lesbians." (http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2009/12/sports-game-of-inches-and-lesbians.html)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8E99-NXxI/AAAAAAAAASs/WtTdsTJMyEc/s400/blylevenRC.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8E99-NXxI/AAAAAAAAASs/WtTdsTJMyEc/s1600-h/blylevenRC.jpg)
It is only fitting that in honor of our anniversary and first post that I follow it up by expounding upon a question I raised in passing 365 days ago: why is Bert Blyleven (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1001098&position=P) not in the Hall Of Fame?

In the long, traditional and tainted history of baseball, you will find few players who were as good as Bert Blyleven. A pitcher who spent 86% of his career in the AL, Blyleven was not only one of the most durable pitchers to ever play the game (14th all time in innings pitched), but he also played each and every one of those innings, up until the last few years of his career, remarkably well and consistently. Blyleven was not just "good" at baseball, he was nothing short of great, and unlike Javier Vazquez, he did not underperform his stellar peripherals.

In terms of the topical, traditional and irrelevant statistics, Blyleven's career 3.31 ERA puts him in company with current/future Hall Of Famers Randy Johnson (career 3.29 ERA), Fergie Jenkins (career 3.34 ERA), Phil Niekro (career 3.35 ERA), and Robin Roberts (3.41 ERA). His ERA is also lower than that of Tom Glavine (career 3.54 ERA). You like wins? His 287 wins are give him one more than Robin Roberts, and makes him 27th all time. Only six other players in the history of baseball who have more wins than Blyleven (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/W_career.shtml) (Tommy http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8FC47HCEI/AAAAAAAAAS0/6DH-2-LUi5A/s400/28.bert-blyleven.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8FC47HCEI/AAAAAAAAAS0/6DH-2-LUi5A/s1600-h/28.bert-blyleven.jpg)John (288), Bobby Mathews (297), Randy Johnson (303), Tom Glavine (305), Roger Clemens (354), and Greg Maddux (355)) are not currently in the hall of fame, and five years from now, that number will dwindle down to two. Many pitchers with less wins are already in. Furthermore, Blyleven was never known as a jerk or cheater or drug user like Albert Belle, Ron Santo, Tim Raines, Kenny Rogers, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et al. (to the contrary,he has a good sense of humor (http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2009/02/baseballs-top-pranks.html)). But wins don't really matter, attitude has nothing to do with talent and production on the field, and a career ERA may tell much about a pitcher's success over the years, but it does not necessarily showcase a pitcher's true talent (see Javier Vazquez (http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-javier-vasquez-hall-of-fame-material.html)). However, these are three of the most common factors by which voters approve or deny players into the Hall Of Fame. How Blyleven, who performed remarkably well in his surface stats and other irrelevant, but considered aspects of the game is not given due credit (he only got the nod from 62.7% voters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_2009) last year) is downright puzzling.

Below the very quality surface stats, however, you find an even more impressive skill set. Bert Blyleven ended his career with a 3.19 FIP over almost 5,000 innings pitched, making him top 50 all time amongst starting pitchers who threw 2500+ innings. A 3.19 FIP puts Blyleven in http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8FM_LgBeI/AAAAAAAAAS8/s6r4ZsuwCyY/s400/bert-blyleven%28ap%29.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8FM_LgBeI/AAAAAAAAAS8/s6r4ZsuwCyY/s1600-h/bert-blyleven%28ap%29.jpg)company with such current/future Hall Of Famers as Steve Carlton (career 3.15 FIP) and Jim Bunning (3.22 FIP) and ahead of such guys as Don Sutton (career 3.24 FIP), Greg Maddux (career 3.26 FIP), Fergie Jenkins (3.28 FIP), Dennis Eckersley (career 3.40 FIP), and Phil Niekro (career 3.60 FIP). In fact, Blyleven's FIP was only above 3.00 twice during his first ninemajor league seasons (one of which was his rookie year). Over those first nine years of his career, his career high FIP was 3.27. In his career, his FIP was above 4 only three times. His BB/9 was only three times above 3.00 in a season and only once above 3.50. Blyleven's K/9 (6.70 career) was also above average each season until his final three in the majors. With the exception of his final three seasons -- over which Blyleven's K/BB was 2.98, 2.76, and 2.41 -- Blyleven's K/9 was never below 6.0.

Blyleven's numbers are so good because his control was superb. It was not Greg Maddux like, but his career 2.39 BB/9 is none the less fantastic. Blyleven posted a career 2.80 K/BB mark, which is top 35 amongst all pitchers who threw 2000+ innings (top 25 amongst all pitchers with 2500+ innings). And just in case Blyleven's career 2.80 K/BB does not sound sweet enough, between 1970 and 1992, the league average K/BB was only above 1.75 once (1988).

Fangraphs does not have any groundball data available for any season prior to 2002, but it is well known that Blyleven had a fantastic curveball and he kept the ball in the yard plenty with a 0.78 HR/9.

In sum, we have the portrait of a pitcher with great peripherals and quality surface stats. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8FQd6Sr8I/AAAAAAAAATE/A--CCpNq6XM/s400/Bert_Blyleven_300.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ILi2YcJWxcM/Sx8FQd6Sr8I/AAAAAAAAATE/A--CCpNq6XM/s1600-h/Bert_Blyleven_300.jpg)Blyleven was an almost entirely AL pitcher with a good reputation, a lot of wins, great control (in terms of both BB/9 and K/BB), and a very quality FIP and ERA. His 3,701 career strikeouts are fifth all time and he's better than many of the pitchers who are already honored (some of whom should not be...) in the halls of history in Cooperstown, NY. Blyleven was one of baseball's true greats and he is for some befuddling reason (perhaps it's the superfluous lack of 300 wins or the fact that Joe Morgan hates all non-Joe Morgan players) overlooked every year.

Blyleven still has a handful more years upon which his name will appear on the annual HOF ballot, but time is running out. The world of baseball needs to take a second look at Blyleven's career before it's too late and hopefully, in the process, the world of baseball will also catch notice of the career of Mike Mussina.

[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 (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hall-of-fame-2010-ballot-the-book-blog-and-fangraph-readers-decided)


… the most outstanding players on the ballot are (with BaseballProjection (http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top500.htm).com WAR in parens (http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top500p.htm)):
16-20. Burks (48), Da Parker (38), Lankford (38), Le Smith (30), Galarraga (27)
13-15. Mattingly (40), Ja Morris (39), Baines (37)
12. Ventura (55)
11. Appier (50)
10. Da Murphy (44)
9. McGriff (51)
8. Dawson (57)
7. Trammell (67)
6. McGwire (63)
5. Edgar (67)
4. Larkin (69)
3. Raines (65)
2. Alomar (64)
1. Blyleven (90)

Interestingly, I would bet that a small minority were aware of the BProj numbers, and yet, those numbers reflect the perceptions of the fans pretty well. The eight most outstanding players according to the fans is identical to the eight players with the most WAR.

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

[cougarfreak]

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

[Blackadar]

This is a good blog posting too:

The main thrust of the article is that Blyleven was good for a long time. I don't think anyone is denying that. It's the same thing with the WAR stat (which I think is a very suspect statistic in the first place, especially when it suggests Blyleven was more valuable than someone like Steve Carlton). Everything is based on longevity and no one is denying that he played for a long time. It appears he was a good pitcher who played for a long time. Maybe that's enough for you. But I want a player to be great to be in the HoF. Where's any proof that he was ever a great pitcher, especially as compared to his peers?

[Young Drachma]

No wonder the economy sucks, all of the dudes who should've been economists are baseball eggheads who make up stats.

[molson]

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 (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hall-of-fame-2010-ballot-the-book-blog-and-fangraph-readers-decided)

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

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.

[Blackadar]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hall-of-fame-2010-ballot-the-book-blog-and-fangraph-readers-decided)



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1971-pitching-leaders.shtml) 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]

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 (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/01/in_which_a_base.php) courtesty of bad-example from early in the thread.

[Blackadar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/01/in_which_a_base.php) 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]

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.

:lol:

[rowech]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rxUB9tUu_p4/Smyz-nVwiDI/AAAAAAAAAHk/2O1paG2bkHc/s320/Jim+Rice.jpg

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

:popcorn:

[rowech]

For those not aware of OPS and OPS+

Run Estimation for the Masses (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/)

[jbergey22]

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.

:popcorn:

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.

[dawgfan]

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.

:popcorn:
WTF are you talking about? Was Edgar a better hitter than Brett? Maybe - depends on how you value an entire career vs. peak value. As a player though, no - Brett was a very good fielder for much of his career at one of the tougher positions in baseball, and thus has added value over Edgar, and he was a better baserunner.

You obviously have no concept of how current advanced statistical analysis judges players and are throwing out a bunch of uneducated crap to try to defend your position.

[rowech]

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.

:popcorn:

I stick more with the statistical analysis part of things. The problem with OPS+ is that when people go around quoting it, there is no weight as to how many PAs this player had. An OPS+ of 130 in 5 full seasons is great but I'll gladly take an OPS+ of 120 in 10 full seasons.

[dawgfan]

I stick more with the statistical analysis part of things. The problem with OPS+ is that when people go around quoting it, there is no weight as to how many PAs this player had. An OPS+ of 130 in 5 full seasons is great but I'll gladly take an OPS+ of 120 in 10 full seasons.
That's an excellent point, and it speaks to using these stats in a meaningful way. WAR is a better metric because it takes into account playing time - you can be a fantastic player, but if you only play in 80 games in a season you're probably not helping your team as much as a really good player who plays in 160 games.

[Blackadar]

WTF are you talking about? Was Edgar a better hitter than Brett? Maybe - depends on how you value an entire career vs. peak value. As a player though, no - Brett was a very good fielder for much of his career at one of the tougher positions in baseball, and thus has added value over Edgar, and he was a better baserunner.

You obviously have no concept of how current advanced statistical analysis judges players and are throwing out a bunch of uneducated crap to try to defend your position.

Actually, I peeled that right off your precious statistical lists. Obviously, you painted yourself into a corner and now you can't throw out anything beyond insults. Because when the numbers start to work against you, you're just running for the hills.

Simply put, you can analyze anything you want and make the numbers break your way. There's WAR, win shares, WAA (wins above average), objective functions, modified objective functions and a thousand more ways to dissect the numbers. You can almost always find a list to prove your point.

You know what? Statistics are great. They're very useful. But baseball isn't just a science. It's just as much an art and there's no quantifying that part of the game. Now maybe you believe that or maybe you don't, but baseball isn't played by machines. It's played by guys like Jackson and Puckett, Rice and Molitor, Yaz and Yount. Statistics don't take into account what happened after Bill Buckner let a grounder through his legs, or what happened when Kirby Puckett hit a HR in the 11th off Leibrandt or when Willie Mays caught Wertz' drive. According to statistics, those were just an error, a home run and an out. Anyone who watches baseball knows those events were much, much more (no wonder the Red Sox lost, the Twins won and the Giants swept). That's why statistical analysis only takes you so far.

Hey, if you want to tell me that Edgar Martinez was a better slugger than Harmon Killebrew (and that's what the stats say), go right ahead. Me, I'll take the guy who played in a semi-dead ball era, who played outside, had 260 more HRs and 300 more RBIs over the guy who played in a juiced-ball era, played in a dome and hit over 30 hrs only once in his life.

[jbergey22]

Actually, I peeled that right off your precious statistical lists. Obviously, you painted yourself into a corner and now you can't throw out anything beyond insults. Because when the numbers start to work against you, you're just running for the hills.



Was there a particular number that went against him that I missed because I cant recall this?

Everything he has pointed out has been fact. Everything you have made mention of is opinon.

The reason people depend on stats is because there is no possible way for people to watch 15 games a day 6 months out of the year. You are crazy if you think you can paint the picture by watching a player a few times a year.

As a Twins fan I thought Kirby Pucket was the best player in the game at the time. Once I decided to quit being stubborn I realized he wasnt even close. His biggest asset was his character.

[dawgfan]

Actually, I peeled that right off your precious statistical lists. Obviously, you painted yourself into a corner and now you can't throw out anything beyond insults. Because when the numbers start to work against you, you're just running for the hills.
Nice spin job. No, the list I was working off of initially was OPS+, because you were stating Rice was a more feared hitter than Edgar. OPS+ is a good stat to use in such a comparison.

Then you decided to use OPS+ as a way to judge overall value of players, and as I noted it's not. You didn't paint me into a corner at all - you revealed your ignorance of modern statistical analysis.

Simply put, you can analyze anything you want and make the numbers break your way. There's WAR, win shares, WAA (wins above average), objective functions, modified objective functions and a thousand more ways to dissect the numbers.
There's a difference between using numbers and using numbers appropriately. You can use OPS+ and try to judge who is the better player, and I'll laugh at you, because it ignores the value of fielding, baserunning, the value of the particular position played relative to other positions and playing time.

You use the correct tool for the job. Just because some don't know which stats to use for what analysis doesn't mean that the stats used correctly are wrong - it just means the person using the stats incorrectly is wrong.

You know what? Statistics are great. They're very useful. But baseball isn't just a science. It's just as much an art and there's no quantifying that part of the game.
There are things that can't be quantified, yes. I agree. Much of what can't be quantified though doesn't matter in terms of objective analysis of the value of a player.

If you want to say you prefer player X to player Y because of something like how graceful he was as a fielder, or how he came up big in a situation that really mattered to you, that's your prerogative. But if you want to have a discussion about the value of players, that is something that is most accurately judged by using the appropriate statistical analysis.

Now maybe you believe that or maybe you don't, but baseball isn't played by machines. It's played by guys like Jackson and Puckett, Rice and Molitor, Yaz and Yount.
Strawman alert - when did I ever say ballplayers are robots? I didn't. What I said is, the nature of the game is such that it lends itself more than any other major team sport to very precise measurements of value based on performance.

Statistics don't take into account what happened after Bill Buckner let a grounder through his legs, or what happened when Kirby Puckett hit a HR in the 11th off Leibrandt or when Willie Mays caught Wertz' drive. According to statistics, those were just an error, a home run and an out. Anyone who watches baseball knows those events were much, much more (no wonder the Red Sox lost, the Twins won and the Giants swept).
Not true - stats like Win Probability measure the particular value of each of those events in the context of the games in which they happened.

Hey, if you want to tell me that Edgar Martinez was a better slugger than Harmon Killebrew (and that's what the stats say), go right ahead. Me, I'll take the guy who played in a semi-dead ball era, who played outside, had 260 more HRs and 300 more RBIs over the guy who played in a juiced-ball era, played in a dome and hit over 30 hrs only once in his life.
Strawman alert.

Martinez had a higher slugging percentage over his career than Killebrew, yes. But he had a lower isolated slugging percentage, and by quite a bit. And Killebrew had a higher peak slugging percentage than Martinez.

And to address your specific characterizations, Martinez played 5 1/2 of his 13 full season outdoors in a park that kills right handed hitters; doubles have value too, and Martinez hit far more (and far more frequently) than Killebrew; I don't care so much about RBI totals - if you care about RBI's, then what you should be looking at is how frequently a player drove in runs as compared to the opportunities to do so, i.e. who maximized their opportunities.

[dawgfan]

Dola - I also want to make it clear that I take no pleasure in ripping your arguments Blackadar, but your arguments in this thread are so piss-poor that I can't let them slide.

[Blackadar]

And that leads me to another point - there are so many things that modern statistics don't measure.

They don't measure the talent dilution as compared to the MLB of 50 years ago. Especially since baseball was once much more popular. If there are more mediocre/bad guys now, then the good guys should seperate themselves more in things like adjusted OPS. If Stephen Hawking is in a room full of dunces rather than more average guys, then accordingly he's going to be further ahead of the class.

They don't measure how things like balls and bats are far more consistent than they were even 25 years ago. They test the balls to ensure that they're not juiced. Supposedly, they're not - I'm not sure I always believe that, but let's take MLB's word for it. They did measure a box and found them to be all within limits. But they all were consistently on the highest end of the scale. Do you think they had that consistency back in the 60s or do you think Harmon Killebrew had to hit more than a few duds in his day? Let's see your stats calculate that.

They average out the stadiums to reduce the impact of hitters' parks, but you don't see the cavernous stadiums of yesteryear. So averaging it out only goes so far because if all the stadiums are smaller, the coefficient is still 1. How do you think Fenway went from being a hitters' park in the 70s to being an average stadium today? It's not like the dimensions have changed all that much. Yet it's not a hitters park today (there have been a few changes). It's that many more teams play in a bandbox and very few play in the cavernous stadiums of the past.

Much of the statistical analysis doesn't even take into account how what's important changes over time. If the game didn't emphasize bases on balls 40 years ago, then a stat like OBP is going to punish older players. 7 out of the top 14 guys in all-time intentional walks have played in the last 10 years. All but 2 of the top 15 seasons have taken place in the last 20 years. Do you think that's made a difference? Are we to believe that guys today are much better at getting on base? Or that they're just directed to get on base?

The top 7 strikeout seasons of all time are by active players. Is it factored in that guys then would be told to do anything but strike out and guys now can swing freely? Do you think Jim Rice would still have the all-time high season for double plays if he knew he could strike out 160 times a season instead of being told early in his career to cut down the 120ks he was averaging?

Let's take a stat we deem crucial - on base percentage - which was largely neglected for 60 years. From 1960-1990 - 30 years of baseball - only 3 performances hit the top 100. There are 16 such performances in the last 18 years. How is it that OPS+, which is supposed to smooth things out, records only 2 seasons out of the top 50 that occurs from 1960-1990, yet records 10 such seasons in the last 20 years? Are we to think that we didn't produce any great hitters for 30 years?

Do you find it reasonable that 6 of the top 18 seasons in runs created have occurred in the last 10 years?

The problem is that statistical analysis often doesn't take factors like these into account. Don't get me wrong, it tries. But ultimately, some of these factors aren't quantifiable. They're real, but many of the statistical models (here are some examples for those who don't know: http://members.cox.net/~harlowk22/atgwsobj.html) don't factor these things in or don't do it fully.

It's ok to use statistics. But I fully reject the notion - as does every other GM in the league, including Theo Epstein - that they tell the whole story or even most of it. That's why you watch the game.

[Blackadar]

Not true - stats like Win Probability measure the particular value of each of those events in the context of the games in which they happened.

I'm headed to bed, but I'll address this. Win Probability measured absolutely nothing about the context of those events in the subsequent games that followed. Each game, each event is not isolated. That's what I kind of enjoy about baseball. Frankly, I think you're taking all the fun out of it. :)

By the way, your continued use of "strawman" is incorrect. It's not a strawman to say that you believe that statistical analysis is pretty much the end of the discussion, whereas I believe that it's only the start of it. It's not a strawman to say that the statistics you believe in suggest the Martinez was a better slugger than Killebrew. And your other use of strawman in the above post is a failure in your reading comprehension. Plus, the term is unnecessary when we're having a friendly discussion, especially when the main gist of it comes down to a difference between the art and science of baseball. So save it for something important.

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye and I doubt you'll ever convince me of your views. As you said yourself, "much of what can't be quantified though doesn't matter in terms of objective analysis of the value of a player." That's a notion I fully reject. I think the statistics that some of the Bill James followers cling to are based on today's evaluations of what is important. That's why some of the stats I mention above seem very skewed towards players of a certain era. Normal distributions don't look like that. As such, I think some of these evaluations are made on some very incomplete models for factors that aren't easily quantified. It's easy to say that those things that can't be quantified don't matter. It's also very lazy.

You think you're making decisions based on great statistical analysis. I think you're basing your decisions on very flawed, incomplete models and without any of the human factor that makes baseball a game and not a scientific theorem. That's where we are. I'm not going to change your mind. I don't think you're going to change mine. Personally, I'm going to balance the stats with things like peer evaluation and gut intuition. I think there's a balance to be had that's the best of both worlds. That's why it'll be damn difficult to try to convince me of something like Edgar Martinez being a more feared hitter than Jim Rice. You can trot out a ton of statistics to suggest otherwise (and I can throw numbers back at ya). But what it comes down to on something like that is simply I know better. And I'm not the only one. Those who watched the games know better. 76% of the voters knew that Rice belonged in the HoF last year, while only 36% think that Martinez belonged this year. It's not quantifiable. It simply boils down to what you saw with your own two eyes. What your gut tells you. What you know. The stats on Martinez won't change. If that's all voters looked at, then he'll get about 36% of the vote next year. What will change is the perception of him. Of what a voter's gut tell him/her. Of what they know. Whether that increases or decreases his vote totals I don't know. He's a good guy and I don't have a problem with him making it. I just wouldn't vote for him at this juncture. Why? Because I believe he's not a HoFer. It's the same reason I wouldn't vote for Blyleven.

And since this has gone unanswered:

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?

[jbergey22]

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?

73-77 he was pretty darn good. Great is an opinion based question.

ERA+ of 158,(lead league) 142, 129, 125, 151.

You'd have a hard time today finding a pitcher that was "great" for 3-4 straight years. Pitching is a very fickle position when it comes to stats.

Comparing him to Roy Halladays best 5 year stretch 158, 145, 115,(21 starts) 184,(19 starts) 143

[dawgfan]

By the way, your continued use of "strawman" is incorrect. It's not a strawman to say that you believe that statistical analysis is pretty much the end of the discussion, whereas I believe that it's only the start of it.
Statistical analysis is damn close to dead-on in analyzing hitting performance, and it's very good at projecting future hitting performance. It's very, very good at analyzing pitching performance and only going to get better with improvements in data provided by things like Pitch F/X, and getting pretty good at projecting future pitching performance. Fielding analysis isn't as advanced, but it's getting there, and will get a huge boost from implementation of Hit F/X and the data that will provide.

It's not a strawman to say that the statistics you believe in suggest the Martinez was a better slugger than Killebrew.
Yes it is. I never said Martinez is a better slugger than Killebrew, and I in fact showed how the stats suggest that Killebrew was the superior slugger. That is absolutely a strawman argument on your part.

And your other use of strawman in the above post is a failure in your reading comprehension.
No, it was a failure in your explanation.

Plus, the term is unnecessary when we're having a friendly discussion, especially when the main gist of it comes down to a difference between the art and science of baseball. So save it for something important.
I hate strawman arguments, because they ruin debates. When you imply that I say something that I did not, or believe something I don't and use that to support your position, that's lousy debate skills, and it's the definition of a strawman argument.

And that's exactly what you did when you said I must think Brett was a better player than Martinez (etc.) because of the OPS+ measure, and it's what you did when you said I must think Martinez is a better slugger than Killebrew by focusing on career SLG marks rather than looking at ISO and discounting peak value as a means of judgment.

If you want to have a healthy debate, stick to what I say and stop using faulty assumptions you attribute to me to argue against.

It's easy to say that those things that can't be quantified don't matter. It's also very lazy.
Really? It's "lazy" to say that factors that can't be shown to have any meaningful impact over a statistically significant amount of time don't really matter?

And I'm not the only one. Those who watched the games know better. 76% of the voters knew that Rice belonged in the HoF last year, while only 36% think that Martinez belonged this year.
There are so many things wrong with this section that it's hard to focus on just one, but here's some important info for you - on Rice's first year on the ballot, he received 29.8% of the vote. So tell me again how the people who watched the game "know better" that Rice was superior?

It's not quantifiable. It simply boils down to what you saw with your own two eyes. What your gut tells you. What you know.
And I repeat - if you have some understanding of human psychology and how the brain works, you'll know how flawed this kind of decision-making can be.

[dawgfan]

They don't measure the talent dilution as compared to the MLB of 50 years ago. Especially since baseball was once much more popular.
Use some evidence to back up this assertion of "talent dilution". For all that you can point to in saying many more kids in this country pursue basketball than baseball than in the past, I can point to the vast expansion in the interest of baseball around the globe and the opportunity for kids all through Latin America, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now places like Australia, Europe and Russia.

They don't measure how things like balls and bats are far more consistent than they were even 25 years ago. They test the balls to ensure that they're not juiced. Supposedly, they're not - I'm not sure I always believe that, but let's take MLB's word for it. They did measure a box and found them to be all within limits. But they all were consistently on the highest end of the scale. Do you think they had that consistency back in the 60s or do you think Harmon Killebrew had to hit more than a few duds in his day? Let's see your stats calculate that.
Was Killebrew the only one back then swinging against some dud balls?

We can measure how players perform relative to their contemporaries, and how much above or below their contemporaries they rank.

They average out the stadiums to reduce the impact of hitters' parks, but you don't see the cavernous stadiums of yesteryear. So averaging it out only goes so far because if all the stadiums are smaller, the coefficient is still 1. How do you think Fenway went from being a hitters' park in the 70s to being an average stadium today? It's not like the dimensions have changed all that much. Yet it's not a hitters park today (there have been a few changes). It's that many more teams play in a bandbox and very few play in the cavernous stadiums of the past.
This is true, that ballpark adjustments are relative to the league and not an absolute measurement. But I don't think anyone says there's a perfect way to account for difference of eras - you have to measure relative to your contemporaries, and then compare how much better or worse you were to them with players of other eras. We have no way of knowing for sure how Martinez would've done in the '50's and '60's or how Killebrew would've done playing in the '90's and '00's. Killebrew would probably have more HR's and more K's. Martinez would probably have more 2B's and 3B's and fewer K's.

If the game didn't emphasize bases on balls 40 years ago, then a stat like OBP is going to punish older players.
Branch Rickey highly valued OBP, so this isn't some "modern" thing. There were plenty of batters that understood the value of not making an out.

7 out of the top 14 guys in all-time intentional walks have played in the last 10 years. All but 2 of the top 15 seasons have taken place in the last 20 years. Do you think that's made a difference?
Strategies change, yes. And for all those guys in the modern era getting more intentional walks - they also missed opportunities to get extra base hits.

Are we to believe that guys today are much better at getting on base? Or that they're just directed to get on base?
First off, is this even true? Look at yearly leaders in OBP and walks drawn. Look at the league average OBP in the years Killebrew was active and when Martinez was active - not a whole lot different (.331 vs. .337)

The top 7 strikeout seasons of all time are by active players. Is it factored in that guys then would be told to do anything but strike out and guys now can swing freely? Do you think Jim Rice would still have the all-time high season for double plays if he knew he could strike out 160 times a season instead of being told early in his career to cut down the 120ks he was averaging?

Let's take a stat we deem crucial - on base percentage - which was largely neglected for 60 years.
An unsubstantiated statement.

From 1960-1990 - 30 years of baseball - only 3 performances hit the top 100. There are 16 such performances in the last 18 years.
Most of which are attributable to an outlier player in the form of Barry Bonds.

How is it that OPS+, which is supposed to smooth things out, records only 2 seasons out of the top 50 that occurs from 1960-1990, yet records 10 such seasons in the last 20 years? Are we to think that we didn't produce any great hitters for 30 years?
Again, mostly attributable to the outlier Bonds.

Do you find it reasonable that 6 of the top 18 seasons in runs created have occurred in the last 10 years?
Bonds.

It's ok to use statistics. But I fully reject the notion - as does every other GM in the league, including Theo Epstein - that they tell the whole story or even most of it. That's why you watch the game.
Unsubstantiated. How do you know that statistical analysis doesn't form most of the story for Epstein?

And to be clear, there's far less difference what statistical analysis says these days and what scouts say than in the past. Much of what was lacking in statistical analysis in the past was an appropriate appreciation for, and good tools for measuring fielding.

[Young Drachma]

Blackadar comes back and shows people how to FOFC.

[Blackadar]

73-77 he was pretty darn good. Great is an opinion based question.

ERA+ of 158,(lead league) 142, 129, 125, 151.

You'd have a hard time today finding a pitcher that was "great" for 5 straight years. Pitching is a very fickle position when it comes to stats.

Damnit, was just about in bed.

That's why I asked for 3-4 years and not 5.

But I just don't see it. In 1973, his ERA+ was 2nd. In 1974, he was 5th. In 1975, he didn't make the top 10. In 1976, he didn't make the top 10. In 1977 he was 5th again.

In that same span, he only is in the top 10 in wins once (and for those who discount wins...well, that's why you play the game!). He's only 8 games above .500 - not appreciably different in W/L percentage from the teams he plays for. He is 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th in Ks.

For those 5 years, he's an average of 16-14, with an ERA of 2.75, a WIP of 1.132, an ERA+ of 140 and 1,141 strikeouts. That's pretty strong

That's comparable in most ways to Carlton's best 5. Carlton averaged 19-9, ERA of 2.77, WIP 1.135, ERA+ of 137 and 1,037 strikeouts. That's our closest match.

It's also comparable to Sutton. 18-11, 2.63, 1.036, 128 and 955.

It pales in comparison to Seaver's best 5. Seaver averaged 21-10, with an ERA of 2.35, a WIP of 1.029, ERA+ of 154 and 1,280 strikeouts.

Ryan was a different animal. 19-16, 3.03, 1.309, 117 and 1,604.

Jim Palmer was 19-11, 2.40, 1.113, 143 and 778.


How about some guys not in HoF?

Ron Guidry went 17.7, 2.68, 1.118, 143 and 895 strikeouts in that same era.

Vida Blue: 14-8, 2.72, 1.104, 123, 779.

Luis Tiant: 19-12, 3.12, 1.170, 125, 778.

It gives me something to think about. What I did notice about the other HOFers is that they had a whole other set of years that were close. Even the guys not listed - Gaylord Perry, Niekro, etc. - had continued excellence. Blyleven wasn't quite as consistent it seems. Also, those guys all put up much better win totals. I wonder why Blyleven wasn't appreciably better than his team (on average)?

[Blackadar]

Statistical analysis is damn close to dead-on in analyzing hitting performance, and it's very good at projecting future hitting performance. It's very, very good at analyzing pitching performance and only going to get better with improvements in data provided by things like Pitch F/X, and getting pretty good at projecting future pitching performance. Fielding analysis isn't as advanced, but it's getting there, and will get a huge boost from implementation of Hit F/X and the data that will provide.

Ok, have it your way. I tried to play nice.

Unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes it is. I never said Martinez is a better slugger than Killebrew, and I in fact showed how the stats suggest that Killebrew was the superior slugger. That is absolutely a strawman argument on your part.

It doesn't matter if you say it. The stats which you so highly tout do say that Martinez is a better slugger than Killebrew in their respective careers. Now you want to run away from that fact. Which is it? As such, it's not a strawman. It's you trying to weasel out of what you've already established.

No, it was a failure in your explanation.

Strawman. Your failure. Live with it.


I hate strawman arguments, because they ruin debates. When you imply that I say something that I did not, or believe something I don't and use that to support your position, that's lousy debate skills, and it's the definition of a strawman argument.

When you try to constantly change the definition of what you believe, I have to question your sincerity.

And that's exactly what you did when you said I must think Brett was a better player than Martinez (etc.) because of the OPS+ measure, and it's what you did when you said I must think Martinez is a better slugger than Killebrew by focusing on career SLG marks rather than looking at ISO and discounting peak value as a means of judgment.

Yet you keep throwing out selective statistics. You're the one who casually tossed out OPS+ statistics as the end-all-be-all of a debate, then you ran like hell when I started tossing those stats back at you.



If you want to have a healthy debate, stick to what I say and stop using faulty assumptions you attribute to me to argue against.

Then stop trying to throw out selective statistics based on incorrect models, especially across eras.


Really? It's "lazy" to say that factors that can't be shown to have any meaningful impact over a statistically significant amount of time don't really matter?

Earlier you said that these factors aren't quantified. Now you're saying they're not statistically significant. How do you know that they're not statistically significant if you didn't quantify them in the first place? That's an amazing hole in your logic.


There are so many things wrong with this section that it's hard to focus on just one, but here's some important info for you - on Rice's first year on the ballot, he received 29.8% of the vote. So tell me again how the people who watched the game "know better" that Rice was superior?

He's in. Martinez is not. Everything else is conjecture.


And I repeat - if you have some understanding of human psychology and how the brain works, you'll know how flawed this kind of decision-making can be.

And I think you'd find that decisions made sole with the use of incomplete statistical models don't fare much better. That's why I've already said it's not the sole basis for making a decision. Thank you for continuing to comprehend only half the posts before responding.

[Blackadar]

Use some evidence to back up this assertion of "talent dilution". For all that you can point to in saying many more kids in this country pursue basketball than baseball than in the past, I can point to the vast expansion in the interest of baseball around the globe and the opportunity for kids all through Latin America, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now places like Australia, Europe and Russia.

Fair enough. Decent point.


Was Killebrew the only one back then swinging against some dud balls?

We can measure how players perform relative to their contemporaries, and how much above or below their contemporaries they rank.

But then you try to use those rankings against modern players. That's where it doesn't work very well in a lot of instances.


This is true, that ballpark adjustments are relative to the league and not an absolute measurement. But I don't think anyone says there's a perfect way to account for difference of eras - you have to measure relative to your contemporaries, and then compare how much better or worse you were to them with players of other eras. We have no way of knowing for sure how Martinez would've done in the '50's and '60's or how Killebrew would've done playing in the '90's and '00's. Killebrew would probably have more HR's and more K's. Martinez would probably have more 2B's and 3B's and fewer K's.

Ah, so the models aren't perfect. We finally have an admission. Oh joy, oh joy. We have a breakthrough. And how do we measure contemporaries? On statistics that were relevant at the time. And I believe it's appropriate to also see where they were ranked by their contemporaries while their career was ongoing. It's a very simple question - how good did the people of the day find that particular player? Obviously, his peers didn't find Blyleven to be all that great.


Branch Rickey highly valued OBP, so this isn't some "modern" thing. There were plenty of batters that understood the value of not making an out.

Strawman. The lists don't show that, nor does it address the fundamental issue of using statistics deemed important today that were not considered in the same light 40 years ago to judge players across eras.


Strategies change, yes. And for all those guys in the modern era getting more intentional walks - they also missed opportunities to get extra base hits.

Again, way to miss the point. The issue is the emphasis on modern techniques applied to past eras where those techniques were not emphasized to the same degree and then trying to evaluate the players across eras. If someone comes up with a model that shows that walks are better than hits, so everyone starts trying to draw walks, then we can evaluate players based on walks. We can even look at how past players dealt with walks as compared to their peers. But we cannot use that metric to evaluate the players across eras because walks were not as important in one era as they were in another. One player was told to draw walks. The other was not. Therefore, comparing walks is an illogical comparison. It's really that simple.

Or, to break it down in case that's too complex:

Player in era 1: Do A. Don't do B.
Player in era 2. Do B. Don't do A.
I can see how well B is done as compared to one's peers, but it's absolutely fucking useless to compare Era 1 to Era 2. The same emphasis wasn't on each player.


First off, is this even true? Look at yearly leaders in OBP and walks drawn. Look at the league average OBP in the years Killebrew was active and when Martinez was active - not a whole lot different (.331 vs. .337)

If you don't know if it's true, go look it up. Perhaps I miscounted. I am a human being and not a calculator.


An unsubstantiated statement.

Unsubstantiated, much like your models.

Most of which are attributable to an outlier player in the form of Barry Bonds.

Even discounting Bonds, the numbers are skewed. (x3, rather than feel some pathological need to quote it again)


Unsubstantiated. How do you know that statistical analysis doesn't form most of the story for Epstein?

I read that. No, I don't remember where, so go ahead and put "unsubstantiated" as your retort. I don't really care. But the gist was that he uses both sides of the equation to make player evaluations.

And to be clear, there's far less difference what statistical analysis says these days and what scouts say than in the past. Much of what was lacking in statistical analysis in the past was an appropriate appreciation for, and good tools for measuring fielding.

At last, something we can agree on.

[dawgfan]

It doesn't matter if you say it. The stats which you so highly tout do say that Martinez is a better slugger than Killebrew in their respective careers. Now you want to run away from that fact. Which is it? As such, it's not a strawman. It's you trying to weasel out of what you've already established.
Jeebus dude, really? I've said repeatedly there are multiple measures that are best for particular kinds of comparisons. In measuring overall hitting value, and attempting to correct for era, OPS+ is a good tool to use. It's either a lack of understanding on your part or a deliberate distortion on your part to imply that I would then use OPS+ or SLG to determine who is a superior slugger. Thus, strawman. I did no such weaseling, because I did not "establish" what you say I did.

First off, define what you mean by slugger.

My view (and it would by shared by most in the sabermetric community) is that ISO is the best metric for judging "slugger", as it measures only extra base hits.

Second, you have to decide what you are valuing - entire career or peak value? Killebrew was superior in ISO in both measures.


Strawman. Your failure. Live with it.
Ah, take what I say and use it against me regardless of whether it applies. You really are proving to be a great debater.

When you try to constantly change the definition of what you believe, I have to question your sincerity.
I have done no such thing. It is your failure to understand the idea that there are different measures that are best used to judge particular areas of baseball.

Yet you keep throwing out selective statistics.
Because there is no one such metric to best measure all baseball performance. This concept seems to elude you.

Then stop trying to throw out selective statistics based on incorrect models, especially across eras.
How about you learn a little more about advanced baseball metrics and which ones are best applied to which situations.

Earlier you said that these factors aren't quantified. Now you're saying they're not statistically significant. How do you know that they're not statistically significant if you didn't quantify them in the first place? That's an amazing hole in your logic.
Let's clarify what things you're talking about and I can address them specifically. That way I don't make any faulty assumptions about what you're talking about.

He's in. Martinez is not. Everything else is conjecture.
It is not "conjecture" to say that Rice got 29.8% of the vote on his first year on the ballot and Martinez got 36.2% on his first year on the ballot. Comparing how Rice did on his 15th (and last) year on the ballot vs. how Martinez did on his first year is highly flawed.

And I think you'd find that decisions made sole with the use of incomplete statistical models don't fare much better. That's why I've already said it's not the sole basis for making a decision. Thank you for continuing to comprehend only half the posts before responding.
No, you said they don't "...tell the whole story or even most of it." I dispute that.

And thank you for continuing to show you have very little understanding of current statistical analysis and poor debate skills.

[jbergey22]

This one might go all night. :popcorn:

If I may add something. I really think you need a better understanding of the metrics being used Blackadar in order to try and tear them apart.

I also was a non believer at one time. I tried every possible way to shread DIPS with no success.

Bill James is so abvanced in his theories at this stage it is really hard to find an argument that is not covered.

I dont believe dawgfan is trying to tell you to change your opinion because he is right. I believe he is just trying to tell you that their is evidence to refute a lot of things you are saying. If you want to ignore these stats that is your option but it doesnt mean they are saying anything directly incorrect.

The numbers he is showing you are numbers that have been broken down to take out as many variables as can be done at this time. They are very accurate. They have been studied, debated, re-done, changed and re-done over again to get them where they are now.

[Blackadar]

Jeebus dude, really? I've said repeatedly there are multiple measures that are best for particular kinds of comparisons. In measuring overall hitting value, and attempting to correct for era, OPS+ is a good tool to use. It's either a lack of understanding on your part or a deliberate distortion on your part to imply that I would then use OPS+ or SLG to determine who is a superior slugger. Thus, strawman. I did no such weaseling, because I did not "establish" what you say I did.

First off, define what you mean by slugger.

When you have to ask for definitions on common terms, you've lost the debate. It's akin to the dreaded godwin.


My view (and it would by shared by most in the sabermetric community) is that ISO is the best metric for judging "slugger", as it measures only extra base hits.

Second, you have to decide what you are valuing - entire career or peak value? Killebrew was superior in ISO in both measures.

Yet you were throwing out OPS+ earlier to talk about feared hitters. Seems your position is a bit incongruent.


Ah, take what I say and use it against me regardless of whether it applies. You really are proving to be a great debater.

Thank you. I'm having fun while doing it too.

I have done no such thing. It is your failure to understand the idea that there are different measures that are best used to judge particular areas of baseball.

Ah, I get it. Selective statistics! Didn't I mention this about 10 posts ago? About how stats can be manipulated in multiple ways to come to different conclusions? I'm not gullible enough to believe that if you create analysis from a dataset to get "A" and create another analysis from the same exact dataset to get "B", that I should take your word for it when you want to base your argument on A and then bring out B when it's in your favor.

You know, when it comes to baseball, I like to use statistics that the players actually earned without a lot of manipulation. Like batting average. On base percentage. Home runs. ERA. Wins. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy.


Because there is no one such metric to best measure all baseball performance. This concept seems to elude you.

Again, selective statistics in action.


How about you learn a little more about advanced baseball metrics and which ones are best applied to which situations.

Again, selective statistics in action. Didn't I already talk about this?


Let's clarify what things you're talking about and I can address them specifically. That way I don't make any faulty assumptions about what you're talking about.

Too late.


It is not "conjecture" to say that Rice got 29.8% of the vote on his first year on the ballot and Martinez got 36.2% on his first year on the ballot. Comparing how Rice did on his 15th (and last) year on the ballot vs. how Martinez did on his first year is highly flawed.

Yet it's the current situation. Isn't that interesting?

Yes, I'm purposely trolling on this one.


No, you said they don't "...tell the whole story or even most of it." I dispute that.

I don't dispute it. Do you actually think you're going to convince me (or anyone else) that statistical analysis is virtually absolute after finally admitting the models themselves aren't perfect?


And thank you for continuing to show you have very little understanding of current statistical analysis and poor debate skills.

Ad hominem.

[dawgfan]

Ah, so the models aren't perfect. We finally have an admission. Oh joy, oh joy. We have a breakthrough. And how do we measure contemporaries? On statistics that were relevant at the time.
So I don't misunderstand, what exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean your contention that OBP wasn't as valued by the general public in the past, so we shouldn't compare OBP across eras? That ballparks were bigger in past eras, so we can't compare SLG and other hitting stats between eras?

Strawman. The lists don't show that, nor does it address the fundamental issue of using statistics deemed important today that were not considered in the same light 40 years ago to judge players across eras.
I see, any time you don't agree with me you're going to say "strawman". Do you really not understand what that term means?

The lists that I see show that the yearly leaders in OBP and walks drawn from year to year don't show much difference between eras until you way back a century.

The lists I see show that league average OBP doesn't change very much between eras. There's some variation, sure, but not a trend upward as you seem to be contending. In fact, in the era in which Babe Ruth played, league average OBP was quite a bit higher (.353) than it was in the era in which Edgar Martinez played (.337).

Again, way to miss the point. The issue is the emphasis on modern techniques applied to past eras where those techniques were not emphasized to the same degree and then trying to evaluate the players across eras. If someone comes up with a model that shows that walks are better than hits, so everyone starts trying to draw walks, then we can evaluate players based on walks. We can even look at how past players dealt with walks as compared to their peers. But we cannot use that metric to evaluate the players across eras because walks were not as important in one era as they were in another. One player was told to draw walks. The other was not. Therefore, comparing walks is an illogical comparison. It's really that simple.
Except you lack evidence showing that players in past eras didn't value walks or OBP. The fact is that I can point to eras in the past when OBP was higher than it is today. You are making a contention that you haven't supported with evidence.

Or, to break it down in case that's too complex:

Player in era 1: Do A. Don't do B.
Player in era 2. Do B. Don't do A.
I can see how well B is done as compared to one's peers, but it's absolutely fucking useless to compare Era 1 to Era 2. The same emphasis wasn't on each player.
Already addressed above.

If you don't know if it's true, go look it up. Perhaps I miscounted. I am a human being and not a calculator.
You made the contention, thus the burden of proof is on you. Especially considering that I have presented data that disputes your assertion.

Even discounting Bonds, the numbers are skewed. (x3, rather than feel some pathological need to quote it again)
Fine. If your contention is that OBP has become more valued in recent years and your evidence is the number of all-time high single season OBP results over the last 16 years, then what of the fact that 32 of the top OBP results happened between 1920-1939? Did players value OBP back then and stop doing so later?

I read that. No, I don't remember where, so go ahead and put "unsubstantiated" as your retort. I don't really care. But the gist was that he uses both sides of the equation to make player evaluations.
There's a pretty big difference in my opinion between you saying statistical analysis doesn't constitute "most" of the story for Epstein and him saying he uses "both sides of the equation".

[jbergey22]

When you have to ask for definitions on common terms, you've lost the debate. It's akin to the dreaded godwin.


Slugger?

It can be defined many ways. What definition to you want?

Are you looking for the pure home run slugger? Do you want the slugger that hits a lot of doubles and home runs? Do you want a slugger that hits for a low average strikes out a lot with a lot of home runs? That is what he means by ISO(Isolated Power).

Do you want to compare a Dave Kingman like hitter OR a Jim Rice type? That is what he is asking you.

[Blackadar]

This one might go all night. :popcorn:

If I may add something. I really think you need a better understanding of the metrics being used Blackadar in order to try and tear them apart.

I also was a non believer at one time. I tried every possible way to shread DIPS with no success.

Bill James is so abvanced in his theories at this stage it is really hard to find an argument that is not covered.

I dont believe dawgfan is trying to tell you to change your opinion because he is right. I believe he is just trying to tell you that their is evidence to refute a lot of things you are saying. If you want to ignore these stats that is your option but it doesnt mean they are saying anything directly incorrect.

The numbers he is showing you are numbers that have been broken down to take out as many variables as can be done at this time. They are very accurate. They have been studied, debated, re-done, changed and re-done over again to get them where they are now.

Gee, I'm the only one who has actually linked any models here, yet you presume to tell me I don't understand them? That's seems rather presumptuous. And yes, I've already poked holes in them above - stuff Bill James does not and can not quantify. James' statistical analysis was/is good for the game because before there was none. But treating it like it's some sort of Holy Grail is a major mistake. It's not. That pendulum between gut feeling and statistical analysis will always be swinging. And neither is fully correct.

I prefer it as Nuke LaLoosh said in Bull Durham, “This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains."

[ISiddiqui]

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?

Who the fuck cares? Yes, I know... statistics are the devil, I know what I saw bullshit. So a player should be punished more if he's in an era with a lot of great pitchers, even though normalized stats would show that he was a great pitcher?

And btw, yes I can. From 1973-75, Blyleven was 1st, 2nd, and 5th in ERA+. Those years he was also 1st, 2nd, and 4th in K/BB (and 2nd in K's all three years), and 2nd, 4th, and 3rd in WHIP.

[jbergey22]

Gee, I'm the only one who has actually linked any models here, yet you presume to tell me I don't understand them? That's seems rather presumptuous. And yes, I've already poked holes in them above - stuff Bill James does not and can not quantify. James' statistical analysis was/is good for the game because before there was none. But treating it like it's some sort of Holy Grail is a major mistake. It's not. That pendulum between gut feeling and statistical analysis will always be swinging. And neither is fully correct.

I prefer it as Nuke LaLoosh said in Bull Durham, “This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains."

Well using your "gut" is not going to get you anywhere. Your sample size is going to be too small to get any accuracy in your results. You could have watched Arod in the playoffs 04-08 and thought he was an average player. You could see Mariano Rivera blow a save 6 out of 7 times you seen him pitch and think he is the worst closer of all time.

I dont mean to presume that you dont understand these metrics however you are making it hard not to think that.

The game is a dream for stat geeks and this is one game that the stats actually do tell the story.

[dawgfan]

When you have to ask for definitions on common terms, you've lost the debate. It's akin to the dreaded godwin.
:rolleyes:

Yes, what a horrible thing to do in a debate - ask for clarification on the definition of something that is being argued. Better to leave that vague.

Yet you were throwing out OPS+ earlier to talk about feared hitters. Seems your position is a bit incongruent.
"Feared" does not equal "slugger".

Thank you. I'm having fun while doing it too.
Hey, if you want to use poor debate skills that discredit your arguments, be my guest.

Ah, I get it. Selective statistics! Didn't I mention this about 10 posts ago? About how stats can be manipulated in multiple ways to come to different conclusions? I'm not gullible enough to believe that if you create analysis from a dataset to get "A" and create another analysis from the same exact dataset to get "B", that I should take your word for it when you want to base your argument on A and then bring out B when it's in your favor.
Except getting different results from the same data set is not what is happening here.

You know, when it comes to baseball, I like to use statistics that the players actually earned without a lot of manipulation. Like batting average. On base percentage. Home runs. ERA. Wins. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy.
Oh lord. Yeah, why use a more precise measurement when a less precise one is available.

Again, selective statistics in action.
Again, ignorance of what the different advanced metrics measure, and thus what they are best used for.

Again, selective statistics in action. Didn't I already talk about this?
Yes, you've admitted your ignorance on this subject many times.

Too late.
Why, what are you afraid of?

Yet it's the current situation. Isn't that interesting?
And not relevant to the point you were originally attempting to make.

I don't dispute it. Do you actually think you're going to convince me (or anyone else) that statistical analysis is virtually absolute after finally admitting the models themselves aren't perfect?
I didn't say it was "absolute" - I've explained multiple times that there is definite room for improvement in fielding metrics (but much better data is on the way soon) and some room for improvement in pitching metrics, and not much room for improvement in hitting metrics.

Ad hominem.
Your own statements in this thread are proof.

[ISiddiqui]

If I may add something. I really think you need a better understanding of the metrics being used Blackadar in order to try and tear them apart.

The problem is that Blackadar is a statistical Neanderthal and like those who deny that the earth goes around the sun, it may just be fruitful to ignore his idiotic arguments.

And yes, I tried to say that in the nicest way I possible could.

[dawgfan]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this argument - don't see much point in continuing. Blackadar either doesn't get what my points are or just doesn't care to admit when he's wrong.

[Blackadar]

So I don't misunderstand, what exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean your contention that OBP wasn't as valued by the general public in the past, so we shouldn't compare OBP across eras? That ballparks were bigger in past eras, so we can't compare SLG and other hitting stats between eras?

No, but if OBP wasn't valued as much at some points as others, then it's not a valid comparison to compare players from an era where it was emphasized versus another. If SLG has been emphasized equally, then it's a more valid comparison. The more "creative" the statistical model gets, the more likely it is to over-emphasize some component of performance.


I see, any time you don't agree with me you're going to say "strawman". Do you really not understand what that term means?

Didn't we already have this discussion? If you don't like what I say when I back you in a corner, you say "strawman" thinking it's some sort of Get Out of Jail Free card. What, you don't like the same treatment? I understand the term just fine. It's your use of it that's nonsensical.

The lists that I see show that the yearly leaders in OBP and walks drawn from year to year don't show much difference between eras until you way back a century.

Yes, because using the outliers in each year is a great way to establish a baseline. Don't you know anything about statistics? Aren't you supposed to be the statistics buff? :banghead:

The lists I see show that league average OBP doesn't change very much between eras. There's some variation, sure, but not a trend upward as you seem to be contending. In fact, in the era in which Babe Ruth played, league average OBP was quite a bit higher (.353) than it was in the era in which Edgar Martinez played (.337).

Yes, and it's not coincidental that many of the great OBP seasons happened during those two live ball eras. That variation isn't background noise, yet that's what you're treating it like.


Except you lack evidence showing that players in past eras didn't value walks or OBP. The fact is that I can point to eras in the past when OBP was higher than it is today. You are making a contention that you haven't supported with evidence.

I already did. You chose to ignore it.


Already addressed above.

No, you didn't. You ignored it by trying to post a non-relevant statistic. It's a simple principal, really.

Player in era 1: Do A. Don't do B.
Player in era 2. Do B. Don't do A.
I can see how well B is done as compared to one's peers, but it's absolutely useless to compare Era 1 to Era 2. The same emphasis wasn't on each player.


You made the contention, thus the burden of proof is on you. Especially considering that I have presented data that disputes your assertion.

Sarcasm detection fail.


Fine. If your contention is that OBP has become more valued in recent years and your evidence is the number of all-time high single season OBP results over the last 16 years, then what of the fact that 32 of the top OBP results happened between 1920-1939? Did players value OBP back then and stop doing so later?

Thank you for proving my point. I knew if I waited long enough that you'd do it. The highest single season OBP results are during the live ball era. Notice that similar stats that are supposedly adjusted neatly coincide with those results. That suggests that those stats aren't being adjusted to the degree with which they should. The distribution tables for an adjusted stat look wrong and any Statistics 101 student would realize it pretty quickly. But then again, I don't really care about the models, do I?


There's a pretty big difference in my opinion between you saying statistical analysis doesn't constitute "most" of the story for Epstein and him saying he uses "both sides of the equation".

No, it's not. You're splitting hairs. He uses old-fashioned player evaluations along with sabermetrics. If sabermetrics were as foolproof as you portray, they'd all be using it full time. What does it tell you when the best baseball people in the world don't use it as the end-all-be-all of a discussion? That perhaps you shouldn't either? And that's what this all about, isn't it?

[Blackadar]

The problem is that Blackadar is a statistical Neanderthal and like those who deny that the earth goes around the sun, it may just be fruitful to ignore his idiotic arguments.

And yes, I tried to say that in the nicest way I possible could.

Me and every GM in the MLB today don't believe that statistics are the end of the discussion. If you want to think you're smarter than they are, enjoy your little Walter Mitty trip. I'm sure it helps your ego.

[lighthousekeeper]

my multi-quote literacy level is about 3 multi-quotes per post, so this page just reads like a bunch of scrambled goo.

[Blackadar]

:rolleyes:

Yes, what a horrible thing to do in a debate - ask for clarification on the definition of something that is being argued. Better to leave that vague.

It's a pretty common baseball term. I'm sorry you don't know what it means.

"Feared" does not equal "slugger".

No, but when talking about two non-base stealers, it's pretty easy to figure out. Except for you.


Hey, if you want to use poor debate skills that discredit your arguments, be my guest.

Let me know when you actually start to debate.

Except getting different results from the same data set is not what is happening here.

Bullshit. I've posted links that shows the different results from the same data set based on the emphasis placed on the underlying statistics. If you couldn't be bothered to actually look them up, then no wonder this is going in circles.


Oh lord. Yeah, why use a more precise measurement when a less precise one is available.

Why use an existing one when you can make a new one up and weight it however you'd like?


Again, ignorance of what the different advanced metrics measure, and thus what they are best used for.

Ad hominem


Yes, you've admitted your ignorance on this subject many times.

Ad hominem


Why, what are you afraid of?

Spiders?


And not relevant to the point you were originally attempting to make.

Entirely relevant. You just don't get it.


I didn't say it was "absolute" - I've explained multiple times that there is definite room for improvement in fielding metrics (but much better data is on the way soon) and some room for improvement in pitching metrics, and not much room for improvement in hitting metrics.

Yet changing the hitting metric gives different results. We've seen that countless times in the last 4 pages. Changing the emphasis gives different results. Why should I compare strikeouts from today's pitchers, even as an adjusted statistic versus players from the 70s. Pitchers today are taught that it's easier to make the out than it is to go for the K. So using it as a metric across eras makes little sense. Yet that's what you're continually doing.

It all goes back to the complete games example I posted some pages ago. Are we going to compare complete games by a pitchers in this era versus complete games 30 years ago? It mattered then. It doesn't matter today. So how idiotic is that comparison? It's stupid. It's illogical. Yet this is what you want to do to try to prove a point. Worse, you're trying to be selective about the model and statistics you use. That's not advanced statistic modeling. It's dishonesty.


Your own statements in this thread are proof.

Ad hominem.

[jbergey22]

Me and every GM in the MLB today don't believe that statistics are the end of the discussion. If you want to think you're smarter than they are, enjoy your little Walter Mitty trip. I'm sure it helps your ego.

What the hell is this suppose to mean?

First of all I doubt you have any relationship with any of the current GMs so youd have no way to back this up.

And what exactly does this comment prove?

Of course they dont believe stats statistics are the end of discussion. They have to try and discover the unknown.(What the 22 year old hot shot rookie will do in the future) Its not even comparable to what this debate is about.

I know the A's, Twins, and Red Sox use these metrics to try and predict future success in minor leaguers and seem to be ahead of other organizations in producing talent.

[Blackadar]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this argument - don't see much point in continuing. Blackadar either doesn't get what my points are or just doesn't care to admit when he's wrong.

I get your points. I just don't believe them. It's not a matter of wrong or right here, bucko...it's a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that models are sound enough to evaluate across eras. My opinion is that they're not. That's something I tried to convey about 10 posts ago, but you wanted to Don Quixote this thing. So let's ride! In the meanwhile, I'm making some good progress on my CM2010 career.

Hasn't anyone ever heard of the phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? :D

[jbergey22]

Yet changing the hitting metric gives different results. We've seen that countless times in the last 4 pages. Changing the emphasis gives different results. Why should I compare strikeouts from today's pitchers, even as an adjusted statistic versus players from the 70s. Pitchers today are taught that it's easier to make the out than it is to go for the K. So using it as a metric across eras makes little sense. Yet that's what you're continually doing.

It all goes back to the complete games example I posted some pages ago. Are we going to compare complete games by a pitchers in this era versus complete games 30 years ago? It mattered then. It doesn't matter today. So how idiotic is that comparison? It's stupid. It's illogical. Yet this is what you want to do to try to prove a point. Worse, you're trying to be selective about the model and statistics you use. That's not advanced statistic modeling. It's dishonesty.


Other than the fact that the stats he is "trying" to show you are completely relevant while CG's has no relevance at all.

ERA+ and OPS+ take era's into the equation. What other stat are you so hellbent over thinking that he is twisting it around to make his point?

Honestly, You have completely lost this argument because instead of backing up your own statements you are going after his in which all he is doing is pointing out FACTS.

[dawgfan]

No, but if OBP wasn't valued as much at some points as others, then it's not a valid comparison to compare players from an era where it was emphasized versus another.
So OBP was more valued in the '20's & '30's and then became less valued? Or hits were more plentiful in that era than in subsequent eras due to ballpark differences and other factors? We can compare how players did to their peers in a given year, and then compare how the difference of how they did compared to their peers stacks up to players in a different era in the same measure (OBP+).

The more "creative" the statistical model gets, the more likely it is to over-emphasize some component of performance.
And you know this how? Here's a challenge - take a look at Runs Created and explain to us what it's overemphasizing, and show why that is true with something other than "because I said so".

Didn't we already have this discussion? If you don't like what I say when I back you in a corner, you say "strawman" thinking it's some sort of Get Out of Jail Free card. What, you don't like the same treatment? I understand the term just fine. It's your use of it that's nonsensical.
No, you don't seem to understand the term.

Definition via Wiki:
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

This is what you did when you tried to argue against me by implying claims or assertions I did not make. You backed me into no corners - all you did was assume arguments on my behalf that I never made.

Yes, because using the outliers in each year is a great way to establish a baseline. Don't you know anything about statistics? Aren't you supposed to be the statistics buff? :banghead:
Most of those results were not outliers in the sense that the league leader was vastly ahead of the rest of the pack.

Yes, and it's not coincidental that many of the great OBP seasons happened during those two live ball eras. That variation isn't background noise, yet that's what you're treating it like.
Another assumption - did I say they were background noise? Ballpark factors and perhaps juiced balls played a role in boosting offensive numbers in those eras. You are contending that it was instead an emphasis on the importance of OBP, and this for some reason declined after the end of the '30's. That seems a difficult theory to support - why would players stop emphasizing approaches that led to such great results as occurred in the earlier live ball era of the '20's & '30's? Doesn't seem logical.

I already did. You chose to ignore it.
You have yet to prove that differences in OBP rates in particular eras was due to an emphasis on the value of the statistic.

No, you didn't. You ignored it by trying to post a non-relevant statistic. It's a simple principal, really.

Player in era 1: Do A. Don't do B.
Player in era 2. Do B. Don't do A.
I can see how well B is done as compared to one's peers, but it's absolutely useless to compare Era 1 to Era 2. The same emphasis wasn't on each player.
Until you can show some reason to believe that emphasis was what caused those variations in eras, this is a faulty argument based on flawed thinking. There are much better explanations for the variations, and while you can't compare directly the exact results from era to era, you can compare how particular players did relative to their peers and see how Ted Williams compared at drawing walks vs. the average player of his era vs. how Edgar Martinez compared at drawing walks vs. the average player of his era.

Thank you for proving my point. I knew if I waited long enough that you'd do it. The highest single season OBP results are during the live ball era. Notice that similar stats that are supposedly adjusted neatly coincide with those results. That suggests that those stats aren't being adjusted to the degree with which they should. The distribution tables for an adjusted stat look wrong and any Statistics 101 student would realize it pretty quickly. But then again, I don't really care about the models, do I?
Which stats aren't being adjusted properly? You're being vague here.

No, it's not. You're splitting hairs. He uses old-fashioned player evaluations along with sabermetrics. If sabermetrics were as foolproof as you portray, they'd all be using it full time. What does it tell you when the best baseball people in the world don't use it as the end-all-be-all of a discussion? That perhaps you shouldn't either? And that's what this all about, isn't it?
Once again, where did I say it was the "end-all, be-all". I think it constitutes a big part of baseball analysis in most front offices these days, and what Epstein said does not dispute that assertion.

[Blackadar]

Other than the fact that the stats he is "trying" to show you are completely relevant while CG's has no relevance at all.

ERA+ and OPS+ take era's into the equation. What other stat are you so hellbent over thinking that he is twisting it around to make his point?

Honestly, You have completely lost this argument because instead of backing up your own statements you are going after his in which all he is doing is pointing out FACTS.

No, I've lost this argument in your eyes because you're predisposed - by your very first post - to believe that Sabermetrics is some sort of Holy Grail. Fine, I didn't change your mind. I don't really care. But you're not the arbiter of a win/loss on a debate. That's childish. If that's your MO, then I'll treat you accordingly.

I've posted more links, more stats and more facts than dawg has in the last 4 pages. Frankly, I'm the only one who has even posted an examples of the very models we're talking about.

Yes, OPS can be adjusted to compare across eras. But if getting on base - a highly valued statistic in OPS - wasn't as highly emphasized in one era as it was another (swing for the fences versus draw the walks has been a subject of some debate for long time), then it's not a valid comparison. Why? Because you don't know what that player could/would have done to emphasize a positive result as it relates to his peers. It's like establishing the criteria for an exam after the test.

Posting that a group of players had a high OPS in a live ball era doesn't mean a thing beyond that someone doesn't understand how to use valid data. Of course players in a live ball era had a high OPS. What the hell else would you expect? But to then try to use that to prove that players were aware of their OPS is a logical fallacy. I've seen a lot of those tonight.

Wade Boggs once said he could hit 30 homers in a year if he wanted to drop his batting average. And he probably could have. But he didn't. If my statistical model favors home runs versus hits, then Boggs is going to look worse against his contemporaries and also against players of other eras. That's the simple nature of the beast. So you compare his OPS+ to Joe Shmoe and say "well, he wasn't as good". If my model discounts home runs (as many of James' models do), Boggs is going to look better than his contemporaries and therefore against players of other eras.

I don't believe it's that hard and fast. It's not that easy. It's never that easy. Players have different roles in different times, different coaches with different methodologies. Statistics in something like baseball are a significant evaluation criteria. But I'll never believe that they're anywhere close to perfect and that's why you have to look at the whole picture. Then you start to look at the whole picture and find out that Boggs went to the All-Star game 8 times while Joe Shmoe went once. You know, at that point, it's time to question the model.

[jbergey22]

OPS+ is On Base Percentage plus Slugging (without the variables) and I know without even looking that Boggs would do quite well. It does not favor HRs or any other category. It favors what he has backed up it takes to score runs. Getting on base via base hit or walk and getting the runners in (SLG) using basically it computes to 1 pt for a single 2 pt for a 2b 3 pt for a 3b and 4 pts for a HR. This concept doesnt make sense? Home Runs should be worth more than a triple correct?

What is your magic trick to scoring runs? If you have a better method please share.

Your statement doesnt even make sense if you think about it.

So on base percentages were high in 1920-1939 then the emphasis changed to swing away and not score as many runs before someone suddenly figured out that drawing walks was the magical trick again?

Where are these links you talk about?



A better argument would have been that the umpires were calling the game differently from 1940-1989 or the mounds were higher instead of this bogus BS you came up with(getting on base wasnt as valued from 1940-1989???).

[Blackadar]

So OBP was more valued in the '20's & '30's and then became less valued? Or hits were more plentiful in that era than in subsequent eras due to ballpark differences and other factors? We can compare how players did to their peers in a given year, and then compare how the difference of how they did compared to their peers stacks up to players in a different era in the same measure (OBP+).

See my above post.


And you know this how? Here's a challenge - take a look at Runs Created and explain to us what it's overemphasizing, and show why that is true with something other than "because I said so".

No, you're the one using it. Prove that it works absolutely. I'm the one not treating it like the Holy Grail, remember?


No, you don't seem to understand the term.

Definition via Wiki:
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

This is what you did when you tried to argue against me by implying claims or assertions I did not make. You backed me into no corners - all you did was assume arguments on my behalf that I never made.

No, I've used your examples in own cited models to show that they appears to be faulty. You wanted to call those strawman arguments. They're not. Instead, why don't you defend the models?


Most of those results were not outliers in the sense that the league leader was vastly ahead of the rest of the pack.

You never use the high mark as a basis for a sample. Statistics 101.


Another assumption - did I say they were background noise? Ballpark factors and perhaps juiced balls played a role in boosting offensive numbers in those eras. You are contending that it was instead an emphasis on the importance of OBP, and this for some reason declined after the end of the '30's. That seems a difficult theory to support - why would players stop emphasizing approaches that led to such great results as occurred in the earlier live ball era of the '20's & '30's? Doesn't seem logical.

See above post on why your 20s and 30s arguments in regards to OBP don't hold water.


You have yet to prove that differences in OBP rates in particular eras was due to an emphasis on the value of the statistic.

I don't, any more than you have proof. It seems to me that if you're the one valuing the stat that it's incumbent on you to prove that it's valid.


Until you can show some reason to believe that emphasis was what caused those variations in eras, this is a faulty argument based on flawed thinking. There are much better explanations for the variations, and while you can't compare directly the exact results from era to era, you can compare how particular players did relative to their peers and see how Ted Williams compared at drawing walks vs. the average player of his era vs. how Edgar Martinez compared at drawing walks vs. the average player of his era.

The burden of proof is still on you to show that the models are as good as you say they are. You've not even attempted to do so.


Which stats aren't being adjusted properly? You're being vague here.

I've given examples where the models are limited and why those discounted factors are relevant. I'm not paid to deconstruct them, you know. Though if you want to hire me to do so, it might be an interesting challenge for a year or three.


Once again, where did I say it was the "end-all, be-all". I think it constitutes a big part of baseball analysis in most front offices these days, and what Epstein said does not dispute that assertion.

The bar keeps getting lower. First, these stats were used as an absolute. Then it was "most". Now, it's a "big part". At what point do we see "majority"?

[Blackadar]

A better argument would have been that the umpires were calling the game differently from 1940-1989 or the mounds were higher instead of this bogus BS you came up with(getting on base wasnt as valued from 1940-1989???).

Because if the game was called differently for everyone, then this wouldn't matter in an adjusted statistic, would it? Sheesh...and you're supposed to be on dawg's side?

[Blackadar]

Ah, it's been fun folks. But I have to catch some Zs. Dawg, thank you for the entertainment. I've much enjoyed it. It's been fun messing with you again.

I'm going to go watch a game tomorrow and I'll make sure that I properly evaluate the players with my own two (flawed) eyes to pick out the best player on the field. I'm sure that those with great performances will rise to the top and be recognized as such without the need of detailed statistical analysis on the merits of rushing yardage versus return yardage. :p


Oh, and Rice was still more feared than that pussy Martinez. :) :lol:

[jbergey22]

Because if the game was called differently for everyone, then this wouldn't matter in an adjusted statistic, would it? Sheesh...and you're supposed to be on dawg's side?

This isnt my argument this is what you should have used as it would have made a lot more sense than the crap you came up with.

1919-"Well boys we arent scoring many runs, maybe we should take a few pitches and work the count and see how it goes. While you are at it start swinging for the fences"

1939-"Well boys I think we might do better if we stop taking so damn many pitches so lets go out there hacking away on the first good pitch you see"

1940-"It looks like our runs are way down but Im not giving up on this hack away concept so get up there and be aggressive"

This concept continues until some genious decides

1990 "Well the runs have been down the past 50 years, lets try to take some more pitches so we can draw some walks like they did in the 20's"

Is this how it went down Blackadar?

[larrymcg421]

American League Batting Encyclopedia - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/bat.shtml)

National League Batting Encyclopedia - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/bat.shtml)

Looks like OBP rates aren't that drastically different. They were high in the 30s through the mid-50s, beginning to take a dip through the 60s until reaching the infamous 1968 season, then picking pack up to current levels in the 80s and 90s.

[dawgfan]

This isnt my argument this is what you should have used as it would have made a lot more sense than the crap you came up with.

1919-"Well boys we arent scoring many runs, maybe we should take a few pitches and work the count and see how it goes. While you are at it start swinging for the fences"

1939-"Well boys I think we might do better if we stop taking so damn many pitches so lets go out there hacking away on the first good pitch you see"

1940-"It looks like our runs are way down but Im not giving up on this hack away concept so get up there and be aggressive"

This concept continues until some genious decides

1990 "Well the runs have been down the past 50 years, lets try to take some more pitches so we can draw some walks like they did in the 20's"

Is this how it went down Blackadar?
Bingo. His theory is illogical, and there are in fact much better explanations for the variations we see in OBP & SLG between eras.

[dawgfan]

American League Batting Encyclopedia - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/bat.shtml)

National League Batting Encyclopedia - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/bat.shtml)

Looks like OBP rates aren't that drastically different. They were high in the 30s through the mid-50s, beginning to take a dip through the 60s until reaching the infamous 1968 season, then picking pack up to current levels in the 80s and 90s.
Yep. The main driver in the difference in OBP rates in the various eras wasn't walks drawn, but BA. Walk rates have actually been pretty consistent from the late '50's up through today.

[dawgfan]

See my above post.
Your above post is not supported by facts. Walk rates have been pretty consistent from the late '50's onward. The primary driver in the difference in OBP rates over the various eras is the difference in BA. Are you suggesting that players in the '50's, '60's, '70's and '80's de-emphasized getting a hit, while maintaining basically the same walk rates?

No, you're the one using it. Prove that it works absolutely. I'm the one not treating it like the Holy Grail, remember?
Very weak. I'd be happy to link you to articles that explain the methodology. For starters:

Runs created - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created)

Check the 2002 version of the formula, and show me how it's biased and flawed.

And again, keep in mind I'm not advocating any one stat as the be-all, end-all for everything. Runs Created is an excellent metric for evaluating the hitting contributions of an individual player on a per-season basis.

No, I've used your examples in own cited models to show that they appears to be faulty. You wanted to call those strawman arguments. They're not. Instead, why don't you defend the models?
You did no such thing. Once again, you tried to defend your position by arguing against positions I never stated I supported (i.e. "strawman").

I never said I thought Edgar Martinez was a better player than George Brett. You made a faulty assumption that because I value OPS+ as a metric for judging hitting and comparing season hitting results across eras, that I must then think Martinez was the better player.

I never said I thought Martinez was the superior "slugger" to Harmon Killebrew - you assumed that I think SLG is the best measure of "slugging".

Etc.


You never use the high mark as a basis for a sample. Statistics 101.
Fine. My point stands though - league average walk rates have had little variation from the late '50's onward. See the links above provided by larrymcg. Better?

I don't, any more than you have proof. It seems to me that if you're the one valuing the stat that it's incumbent on you to prove that it's valid.
That what's valid? My contention that it was other factors rather than "emphasis" that drove the variations in OBP between eras? Walk rates didn't change much - it was mainly BA that changed, and thus changed OBP. You think that players from the '50's through the '80's decided to de-emphasize getting hits while keeping roughly the same walk rate?

The strong correlation at work here was ballpark changes, and then after 1968 the additional effect of the reduction in the pitching mound height.

The burden of proof is still on you to show that the models are as good as you say they are. You've not even attempted to do so.
Huh? How is this complicated - via OBP+, we can see how Ted Williams compared to contemporaries in OBP, and we can see how Edgar Martinez compared to contemporaries. How is this flawed?

I've given examples where the models are limited and why those discounted factors are relevant. I'm not paid to deconstruct them, you know. Though if you want to hire me to do so, it might be an interesting challenge for a year or three.
Which example, your contention that walks weren't as valued in prior eras? That isn't at all substantiated. If walks weren't as important from the '50's through the '80's, then why were walk rates then essentially the same as they've been since then?

The bar keeps getting lower. First, these stats were used as an absolute. Then it was "most". Now, it's a "big part". At what point do we see "majority"?
Let's review what you said:

"But I fully reject the notion - as does every other GM in the league, including Theo Epstein - that they tell the whole story or even most of it."

I asked you to back up that statement with some evidence. The best you could come up with was this:

"I read that. No, I don't remember where, so go ahead and put "unsubstantiated" as your retort. I don't really care. But the gist was that he uses both sides of the equation to make player evaluations."

Once again, "both sides of the equation" isn't incompatible with "most of the story".

[dawgfan]

Don't know how I overlooked this gem - some real doozies.

It's a pretty common baseball term. I'm sorry you don't know what it means.
I know what it means. I'm not clear, based on your posts, what exactly you think it means.

A "slugger" to me is a hitter who hits for a lot of power, i.e. extra base hits. And that is most clearly measured by ISO, which removes singles from the equation used in SLG.

And it's pretty easy to figure out that ISO is a better measure for judging a "slugger" than SLG. Except for you apparently.

Let me know when you actually start to debate.
I'm the one addressing what you are saying rather than what you are doing, which is arguing against things I didn't say that I made up just to make your weak arguments look better.

Bullshit. I've posted links that shows the different results from the same data set based on the emphasis placed on the underlying statistics. If you couldn't be bothered to actually look them up, then no wonder this is going in circles.
What links (plural)? The only link you've posted in this thread is this one:

http://members.cox.net/~harlowk22/atgwsobj.html

Much of what you've used as a criticism of the above is not valid. You've repeatedly contended that there was a difference in emphasis on walks in different eras, yet the actual walk rates from the late '50's onward has been basically the same and stayed fairly consistent.

Why use an existing one when you can make a new one up and weight it however you'd like?
Right, because that's what's happening - it's certainly not that more accurate measures have been discovered. :rolleyes:

Entirely relevant. You just don't get it.
What don't I get, that voters change their votes over time? What's valid about comparing how Jim Rice fared on his 15th and final time on the ballot vs. how Edgar Martinez fared on his first time on the ballot, other than being yet another example of how player vote totals can increase from year to year.

Yet changing the hitting metric gives different results. We've seen that countless times in the last 4 pages. Changing the emphasis gives different results.
Yep. Win Probability measures something different than OPS+, which measures something different than OBP+, which measures something different than ISO. Use the right tool for the right job - it shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

Why should I compare strikeouts from today's pitchers, even as an adjusted statistic versus players from the 70s. Pitchers today are taught that it's easier to make the out than it is to go for the K. So using it as a metric across eras makes little sense. Yet that's what you're continually doing.
No, I'm not. For comparing players across eras, I've continually been advocating looking at how they compare to their peers and then comparing those adjusted figures to players from another era.

Comparing strikeout totals for pitchers from different eras is flawed, so you'd instead look at how many more strikeouts a guy like Walter Johnson recorded per IP compared to the league average, and see how much that delta differs from the same figures for Randy Johnson. What we're looking for was how much better at this aspect of the game was this guy compared to his peers vs. a guy from a different era.

It all goes back to the complete games example I posted some pages ago. Are we going to compare complete games by a pitchers in this era versus complete games 30 years ago? It mattered then. It doesn't matter today. So how idiotic is that comparison? It's stupid. It's illogical. Yet this is what you want to do to try to prove a point. Worse, you're trying to be selective about the model and statistics you use. That's not advanced statistic modeling. It's dishonesty.
See above.

Ad hominem.
This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[rowech]

Man...sorry I went to bed...

[Toddzilla]

Hey, if you want to tell me that Edgar Martinez was a better slugger than Harmon Killebrew (and that's what the stats say), go right ahead. This is where you're missing the mark.

The stats do NOT say Martinez was a better slugger than Killebrew. The stats say Martinex had a better slugging percentage than Killebrew.

Attributing the qualities of a skill (slugging, defense, etc.) based on a single statistic is incorrect. And that's something you just did. :eek:

[Hammer755]

I think a lot of statheads can come on way too strong, and do a disservice to their cause by turning off potential statistical analysis converts. I certainly don't think that's what is happening here - dawgfan and jbergey have done an excellent job of presenting their arguments - but it does happen a lot. Baseball is ideal for statistical analysis - it is a series of individual discrete outcomes. Basketball, football and hockey are all so team-oriented that it's very difficult to isolate the true causal effect of statistical results.

To think that one person's observation is more accurate than 100+ years of data is absolutely absurd. Combine that attitude with Blackadar's brick wall debating, and this thread has turned from a fairly good discussion into a pull-your-hair-out maddening experience.

[lungs]

I think a lot of statheads can come on way too strong, and do a disservice to their cause by turning off potential statistical analysis converts.

+1

I'm very statistically inclined and in terms of the conversation in this thread can't disagree with a thing jbergey or dawgfan said at all.

My bone of contention with some of the statistical community mostly comes in terms of projection instead of analysis of past performance. And actually any author of any projection usually strongly advises people reading these projections not to take them as gospel. Yet I see so many people on baseball forums (can't really say I see it here at all) throwing these projections around as if the next season has already been played.

Projections are our best guess, and I love looking at them too. I love sitting on the toilet and reading Baseball Prospectus. But some people just take them way too literally. Again, I'm not pointing the finger at anybody here. I see some of the most reasonable baseball talk here on a football forum.

[rowech]

I think a lot of statheads can come on way too strong, and do a disservice to their cause by turning off potential statistical analysis converts. I certainly don't think that's what is happening here - dawgfan and jbergey have done an excellent job of presenting their arguments - but it does happen a lot. Baseball is ideal for statistical analysis - it is a series of individual discrete outcomes. Basketball, football and hockey are all so team-oriented that it's very difficult to isolate the true causal effect of statistical results.

To think that one person's observation is more accurate than 100+ years of data is absolutely absurd. Combine that attitude with Blackadar's brick wall debating, and this thread has turned from a fairly good discussion into a pull-your-hair-out maddening experience.

Agreed...pure stats guys think they have a holy grail to everything. On the flip side of that, I think many people discredit so much of the statistical work because they don't fully understand it. They think the stats are just being invented out of thin air. They don't understand the math that not only goes into producing the stats but also the math that shows the stats to be extremely good predictors of what things they measure.

[Crapshoot]

I think a lot of statheads can come on way too strong, and do a disservice to their cause by turning off potential statistical analysis converts. I certainly don't think that's what is happening here - dawgfan and jbergey have done an excellent job of presenting their arguments - but it does happen a lot. Baseball is ideal for statistical analysis - it is a series of individual discrete outcomes. Basketball, football and hockey are all so team-oriented that it's very difficult to isolate the true causal effect of statistical results.

To think that one person's observation is more accurate than 100+ years of data is absolutely absurd. Combine that attitude with Blackadar's brick wall debating, and this thread has turned from a fairly good discussion into a pull-your-hair-out maddening experience.

Agreed, but there's a sort of old fart (I call it the Malleus Dei experience from OOTP) who refuses to accept any sort of evidence; they know what they know, and any evidence that disagrees with that is clearly wrong. These are the people who resort to asinine habits as insisting the "numbers are biased"; there really is no hope for them.

[jbergey22]

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.

Comparing two good hitters of different era's I think its the best metric for that. It may not be the end all to everything but Id like you to try and find a better stat for isolating hitting performance from the different ballpark dimensions and different eras we try to compare.

If I were comparing Ozzie Smith to Cal Ripken Id probably go a different direction since Ozzie was known for his great defense while Ripken was known for being a great hitter with "sound" defense.

What metric would you use to compare Jim Rice and Edgar Martinez?

Obviously I am leaning with this stat in defense of Edgar Martinez because it paints the best picture of him as hitter. Im not going to use home runs because because Edgar was much more than a home run hitter.

[rowech]

Comparing two good hitters of different era's I think its the best metric for that. It may not be the end all to everything but Id like you to try and find a better stat for isolating hitting performance from the different ballpark dimensions and different eras we try to compare.

If I were comparing Ozzie Smith to Cal Ripken Id probably go a different direction since Ozzie was known for his great defense while Ripken was known for being a great hitter with "sound" defense.

What metric would you use to compare Jim Rice and Edgar Martinez?

Obviously I am leaning with this stat in defense of Edgar Martinez because it paints the best picture of him as hitter. Im not going to use home runs because because Edgar was much more than a home run hitter.

Your mention of Win Shares is a much better metric. I also like to use RC a lot. I know it's not perfect by any means but the thing I like about it is the fact that it pays dividends to a player who has a longer career.

Rice -- 1384
Martinez -- 1631

I'd say Martinez wins fairly handidly...especially when you throw in he already has an advantage compared to Rice in OPS+. I'd be curious what their win shares end up being. That doesn't take into account defense either so Rice might make up an advantage since Martinez wouldn't give too much extra there.

For the record, I don't think Rice belongs in either.

[ISiddiqui]

IIRC, doesn't Win Shares take into account defensive contributions?

[rowech]

IIRC, doesn't Win Shares take into account defensive contributions?

Correct...and I mentioned that.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah, ok... I misread your post. Apologies!

[rowech]

Ah, ok... I misread your post. Apologies!

No worries...and I have to be honest and say I never saw Rice play so I have no clue what kind of defense he had. Just from my tabletop baseball history, it would seem he's right around average.

[ISiddiqui]

Interestingly, I opened up my Win Shares book and saw Blyeleven compared to some Hall of Famers who pitched a significant time in the 70s:

Blyeleven: 339 career Win Shares
Don Sutton: 319 career Win Shares
Fergie Jenkins: 323 career Win Shates
Jim Palmer: 312 career Win Shares
Nolan Ryan: 334 career Win Shares

Of course he doesn't compare to Tom Seaver (388) or the like, but few do.

Jim Rice's career Win Shares was 282. Due to his short peak, surprisingly low (Fred Lynn's is 280). Martinez seems to have about 305:

The Baseball Analysts: Edgar Martinez and the Hall of Fame (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/12/edgar_martinez.php) (second comment)

Borderline, but then again, I wouldn't have put Rice in. Martinez is better than him it appears.

[lungs]

Isn't the win shares statistic sort of falling by the wayside these days?

[Young Drachma]

Outrage at Baseball Hall of Fame voters is baseless but good for the game, Howard Bryant writes - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=4808357)

[Hammer755]

Outrage at Baseball Hall of Fame voters is baseless but good for the game, Howard Bryant writes - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=4808357)

Here, for posterity, is a short list of players not elected on the first try: Cy Young (511 wins), Joe DiMaggio, Eddie Collins (3,315 hits), Jimmie Foxx, Whitey Ford, Eddie Mathews, Rogers Hornsby, Robin Roberts and Roy Campanella. Yogi Berra (67.2 percent in 1971) was not a first-ballot inductee.

Alomar cannot claim superiority over anyone on that list. Each was eventually inducted, and the free world survived.

He's right, the world won't come to an end because Alomar will be a non-first ballot HoF'er, but his entire argument is that it's OK because they screwed up voting in the 50's. Bad argument. Prior stupidity doesn't excuse modern stupidity.

Also, he didn't do his research (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-joe-dimaggio-forever-changed-cooperstown-voting/) - the two biggest omissions on that list are Joe D. and Rogers Hornsby IMHO. The reason that neither of them made the cut on their first tries was that they got votes before they were eligible for induction. In fact, they both got in before they were supposed to.

Joe D. retired in 51 and got a large number of votes in 53 and 54 before finally being inducted in 55. Hornsby retired in 1937 and got votes every year from 36-39 before finally reaching >75% in 1942. Hornsby is a little more understandable since the voting rules were still in flux and he played sparingly in the late 30's. But not considering him a first-ballot HoFer is disingenuous.

[dawgfan]

Without getting into a novel-sized post (because it could easily get that way), let me say this - I agree with Blackadar that the game has changed (and will likely continue to change). Current statistical analysis is really, really good at breaking down what has just happened, and is getting better at projecting forward.

But comparing players of different eras is difficult because of all the various factors that have changed - segregation, integration, the decline in interest in the sport in the U.S. countered by the rise in interest internationally, advances in training and drugs, travel differences, changes in ballparks, changes in the consistency and composition of bats & balls, etc.

If you want to say that hitting in Rice's era was different than in Edgar's era, I'm on board. If you want to say Rice would've done better (in absolute rather than relative terms) had he played in Edgar's era, I'd agree. He almost certainly would've had more HR's and a higher SLG.

But you can get into all kinds of hypotheticals and subjective opinions here. People are certainly free to do so, and I do it myself in many ways, but in terms of sticking with what can objectively measured, I operate on this principle - I'm going stick with judging what players have control over. They don't (individually at least) have control over whether the talent pool was diluted or not, or how the ballparks were configured, or whether the mound was higher or lower, or what the bats and balls were like, etc.

That's why I'm content, when comparing players of different eras, to look at how they did relative to their peers. That's why I look at "+" metrics for that kind of analysis, such as OPS+ (or even better, wRC+) for hitters. Comparing straight OPS figures for Rice & Edgar is flawed because of factors outside their control that were specific to their eras, but you can look at how much better Rice was than the average hitter of his era and how much better Edgar was than the average hitter of his era and get some sense of how they compared, relative to their era.

I'm not going to get into the whole thought experiment of wondering if Rice would've walked more had he played in the current era, or how much Edgar's power would've been reduced had he played in Rice's era - there's just so much that you can't really know that I think it's a discussion that would necessarily be nothing more than a wild guess, and any conclusions not worth being too invested in.

[sterlingice]

my multi-quote literacy level is about 3 multi-quotes per post, so this page just reads like a bunch of scrambled goo.

:D

SI