Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[Peter_Spaeth]

Look at the top 25 players and pitchers by WAR. I don't think there are any real anomalies. Obviously it's quite good if not perfect. Interestingly, in my observations most people who object to it do so because it happens to devalue one of their favorite players.

[packs]

Maybe the names match the reputations but I would say the WAR stat doesn't say a lot about who was a better player. Maybe there are some people who think Roger Clemens was a better pitcher (more valuable?) than Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson, but I wouldn't be one of them. I wouldn't say Kid Nichols was better than Tom Seaver either.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

Maybe the names match the reputations but I would say the WAR stat doesn't say a lot about who was a better player. Maybe there are some people who think Roger Clemens was a better pitcher (more valuable?) than Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson, but I wouldn't be one of them. I wouldn't say Kid Nichols was better than Tom Seaver either.

I don't see WAR as a way to make absolute statements about who is better/more valuable, but I think it's more of a jumping off point. Why does Player A seem to have more value than Player B? It gives us a chance to dig deeper into the statistical profile behind the player.
For instance, and to circle back around to this "Modern Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot," I think that both Dewey and Whitaker have higher WAR than many expect because of their ability to draw walks (among other things, such as defense), which is the classic "undervalued" statistic prior to 20 years ago.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Whitaker's 117 OPS + is 10 below Mattingly's at 127. Whitaker, who I guess played good enough defense to merit consideration also only won three gold gloves compared to Mattingly's nine. Even Sandberg won nine. Sandberg and Mattingly also won MVPs. I really don't see what elevates Whitaker over either of them other than some outlier WAR total that doesn't seem to fit his actual production.

Context certainly plays a role, here, too. Mattingly's career is also considered against the first basemen in the Hall, which is stacked. Whitaker is up against second basemen, of course, which is a different thing all together.
I highly recommend reading the Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker regarding his comparisons and defensive abilities:
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Maybe the names match the reputations but I would say the WAR stat doesn't say a lot about who was a better player. Maybe there are some people who think Roger Clemens was a better pitcher (more valuable?) than Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson, but I wouldn't be one of them. I wouldn't say Kid Nichols was better than Tom Seaver either.

A little O/T but Mr Clemens WAS better then both Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson and it really isn't all that close.

[packs]

If you say so. Only two of the three are in the HOF though.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

WAR is not something created and owned by one person, or even two. It's been vetted by others in the statistical community who understand the math at a high level.

Link please. I don't think this is true at all.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rats60

Link please. I don't think this is true at all.

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by rats60

Link please. I don't think this is true at all.

I get that people are skeptical. And on a side note, I don't like seeing a thread about something else (in this case, the HOF ballot) devolve into a WAR debate. But here goes...
Feel free to google "baseball war," as you'll probably find many links to many interesting articles. On the most basic level, Wikipedia's page on WAR includes some analysis including a link to a regression analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement
The equations that Fangraphs and BaseballReference use are also on that page. They are not a secret recipe or behind a curtain, they are there to be enjoyed and criticized for both their attributes and faults.
In this recent story on MLB.com (note that WAR is not a stat recognized by MLB), the influence on front offices of teams are explored: https://www.mlb.com/news/war-embrace...ces-c303484670
One takeaway from that MLB story: "At this point, though, every team in baseball is employing some sort of WAR calculation."
Basically, every team uses some evolutionary child of WAR, which probably got started in earnest 20 years ago (or so). It's not the ONLY assessment they use for player evaluations, but it is ubiquitous at this point.
So the masses of front office personnel, the minds at various websites like BR and Fangraphs and the sabermetric community in general has spent two decades honing and debating these things - this is what I'm talking about with WAR being vetted.

[JollyElm]

Warning: This is a long and boring post.

My problem with relying on theoretical WAR stats is that baseball is really a game of small players. You have all the superstars and all-time greats, but so many of the incredible moments in baseball are the result of lesser players coming up big time, or quality players messing up. You can say Player 'A' or 'B' has great WAR numbers, but depending on that STAT alone would ultimately eliminate all of the accomplishments of low WAR numbered players. (This is stream of consciousness writing, so I am obviously talking in a very general sort of way.)

I'm a New Yorker, so I'll just quickly mention a few playoff games involving the Mets and Yankees:
1. If Bucky Dent is replaced, do the the Yankees win that tie-breaker?
2. How about Don Larsen? Do the Yanks win that game without him?
3. Bill Mazeroski?
4. Ron Swoboda?
5. How about leaving Bill Buckner in? If they replaced him, do the Sox win the World Series? Yes!

Baseball is about championships, and who could've seen the above named players having such a huge impact on an entire season? And those are only players who quickly come to mind with regard to NY and the playoffs. There are a gazillion other cases of players whose WAR stats should have had them on the bench, but were in the game and did something great. Baseball isn't science, it's all about momentary factors, especially considering the fact that just to make it to the majors you have to have an enormous amount of skill and talent.

It breaks my heart to dredge it up again, but I'm a Mets fan. In 2015, Yoenis Cespedes basically single-handedly carried the Metties to the World Series after being acquired halfway through the season. For the second half, he was a force the likes of which I have never seen in baseball. They would've been in last place without him. Yes, that is hyperbole, but pretty friggin' close to being true. His half-season WAR (if something like that exists) was incalculable, but...and it's a huge BUT...he absolutely sucked in the World Series. If memory serves right, I know he had no extra base hits, only a single RBI on a sac fly, and batted .150 or something?? I believe that's right. Just look at the ridiculous effort he gave on the first pitch of the Series...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...E&&FORM=VRDGAR

Back to Bob Costas for a moment. That guy, who has never played a game of baseball in his life (yes, I can't stand that pretentious idiot), would say, "Well, Cespedes could hear his teammate's footfalls approaching and thought it better to slow up and avoid impeding his progress to the horsehide." Whereas someone who understands baseball and has played his entire life in the outfield (like me) would say, "It's the g_ddamn World Series!! If I have to crash into a wall, a land mine or a teammate, I am catching that ball!!!!"


Then there was this wonderful play on the bases, ending the game:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...4&&FORM=VRDGAR


And more lackasdaisical outfield work:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...7&&FORM=VRDGAR


Yet, his fielding percentage was 1.000% for the Series (I just looked it up, as well as the stats mentioned above). So, statistically he didn't commit a single error, but does that fact truly tell the story?? Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(It should go without saying, but yes, I understand that he was just one player, so it clearly wasn't his fault alone...but this post started with WAR, so it's relevant.) A monster year and I love him for it, but if he was replaced by even a newbie from AAA, the Mets would've stood a (much) better chance at winning, and that still depresses me.

[steve B]

To draw things away from stats...

Parker once commented that he had problems getting "charged up" for games.
So the fans threw batteries at him...

And for that, plus being really good, he should be in!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by nat

Simmons vs. Munson is the interesting question.

...

But here's the thing that makes it interesting. At his best Munson was a lot better than Simmons.

When was that? Simmons, at his best, hit for a higher average, higher OPS, higher slugging, and higher OPS+ than Munson at his best. Munson had one OPS+ over 126. Simmons had four of 140+. Munson's highest slugging was .487. Simmons topped that five times, including four over .500.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

Edgar Martinez is to the Mariners what Derek Jeter was to the Yankees. He was always in the right place at the right time to make something magical happen. There was no one else a mariners fan wanted to hit in the toughest situation than Edgar. He cemented his legendary status and his call to the hall was rightfully deserved.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

.

It breaks my heart to dredge it up again, but I'm a Mets fan. In 2015, Yoenis Cespedes basically single-handedly carried the Metties to the World Series after being acquired halfway through the season. For the second half, he was a force the likes of which I have never seen in baseball.

Take a peek at Manny Ramirez, 2009.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Warning: This is a long and boring post.

My problem with relying on theoretical WAR stats is that baseball is really a game of small players. You have all the superstars and all-time greats, but so many of the incredible moments in baseball are the result of lesser players coming up big time, or quality players messing up. You can say Player 'A' or 'B' has great WAR numbers, but depending on that STAT alone would ultimately eliminate all of the accomplishments of low WAR numbered players. (This is stream of consciousness writing, so I am obviously talking in a very general sort of way.)

I'm a New Yorker, so I'll just quickly mention a few playoff games involving the Mets and Yankees:
1. If Bucky Dent is replaced, do the the Yankees win that tie-breaker?
2. How about Don Larsen? Do the Yanks win that game without him?
3. Bill Mazeroski?
4. Ron Swoboda?
5. How about leaving Bill Buckner in? If they replaced him, do the Sox win the World Series? Yes!

Baseball is about championships, and who could've seen the above named players having such a huge impact on an entire season? And those are only players who quickly come to mind with regard to NY and the playoffs. There are a gazillion other cases of players whose WAR stats should have had them on the bench, but were in the game and did something great. Baseball isn't science, it's all about momentary factors, especially considering the fact that just to make it to the majors you have to have an enormous amount of skill and talent.

It breaks my heart to dredge it up again, but I'm a Mets fan. In 2015, Yoenis Cespedes basically single-handedly carried the Metties to the World Series after being acquired halfway through the season. For the second half, he was a force the likes of which I have never seen in baseball. They would've been in last place without him. Yes, that is hyperbole, but pretty friggin' close to being true. His half-season WAR (if something like that exists) was incalculable, but...and it's a huge BUT...he absolutely sucked in the World Series. If memory serves right, I know he had no extra base hits, only a single RBI on a sac fly, and batted .150 or something?? I believe that's right. Just look at the ridiculous effort he gave on the first pitch of the Series...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...E&&FORM=VRDGAR

Back to Bob Costas for a moment. That guy, who has never played a game of baseball in his life (yes, I can't stand that pretentious idiot), would say, "Well, Cespedes could hear his teammate's footfalls approaching and thought it better to slow up and avoid impeding his progress to the horsehide." Whereas someone who understands baseball and has played his entire life in the outfield (like me) would say, "It's the g_ddamn World Series!! If I have to crash into a wall, a land mine or a teammate, I am catching that ball!!!!"


Then there was this wonderful play on the bases, ending the game:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...4&&FORM=VRDGAR


And more lackasdaisical outfield work:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...7&&FORM=VRDGAR


Yet, his fielding percentage was 1.000% for the Series (I just looked it up, as well as the stats mentioned above). So, statistically he didn't commit a single error, but does that fact truly tell the story?? Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(It should go without saying, but yes, I understand that he was just one player, so it clearly wasn't his fault alone...but this post started with WAR, so it's relevant.) A monster year and I love him for it, but if he was replaced by even a newbie from AAA, the Mets would've stood a (much) better chance at winning, and that still depresses me.

If it makes you feel better his WAR with the Mets that year was 2.3 for about 1/3 a season. Extrapolate that to a 6.9 and it's a great season, but not even MVP level most years. Also don't use WAR in a bubble. Cespedes is normally about a 3 WAR guy. That's the reality, not his flukey 2015.

[mr2686]

Well, I've never seen a song about how bad HR's, RBI's and AVG are, but I have seen one about War. LOL

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, why'all
War, huh, good god
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
Oh, war, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives

[OldOriole]

I found our discussion quite interesting in the other thread, but it was hard to keep track of the votes, so I decided to do a poll. Hope that's OK. You can vote up to four, just like the HOF Modern Day Committee members. Of course, you always have the option of voting for none of the above (wish I would have spelled that correctly in the poll). Thanks!

[OldOriole]

I find this discussion interesting and have created a poll (or at least attempted to) in order to see who the N54 community would vote into the Hall if we were the voting committee members.

[wondo]

I went with Miller for his contributions to the MLBPA, Simmons as one of the top hitting catchers and Whitaker for his longevity / excellence at a middle infield position. I am biased towards Sweet Lou being a Tiger fan in the 70s / 80s. His connection with Trammell is an intangible.

The others, although All Stars, MVPs, etc. run along that line of "These guys were really good!", but we have too many of them in the Hall already imho.

[Leon]

No prob. The 2 threads were merged.... The redirect (and old thread) seen on the front page will go away in an hour. It is not really a discussion for me because I mainly like all things old vintage, not quite as much newer stuff. Carry on.....

Originally Posted by OldOriole

I find this discussion interesting and have created a poll (or at least attempted to) in order to see who the N54 community would vote into the Hall if we were the voting committee members.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by Leon

No prob. The 2 threads were merged.... The redirect (and old thread) seen on the front page will go away in an hour. It is not really a discussion for me because I mainly like all things old vintage, not quite as much newer stuff. Carry on.....

Thanks, Leon!

[nat]

Let me give a little primer on how WAR is calculated. This will give you the general idea, not the details (and might elide some complications), and I promise no complicated formulas in this post.

The fundamental component of a WAR calculation is a set of measures known as linear weights. We'll do offensive statistics first. Here's how they work:

At any given time during a baseball game, for any given base, either a runner is on it or not, and there are some number of outs. Call any such situation a 'game state'. Thus: runner on first, no body out, is a game state. So is: bases loaded, two outs. And so on.

For any game state, it's possible to determine, historically, how many runs have scored, on average, from that state to the end of the half inning in which it occurs. For example, from 2010-2015, with no one out and no one on base, on average a team will score 0.48 runs. That's the "run expectancy" for that particular state (during that particular time frame).

Call an 'event' anything that changes the game state. So hitting a single is an event, stealing a base is an event (so is getting caught stealing), and so on. The "run expectancy" of a given event is the change in the run expectancy of the state before the event to the run expectancy of the state after the event, plus any runs that actually scored. So if there's no one out and no one on, and you hit a triple, the run expectancy of the state you left is 0.48 (that's how many runs you can expect to score with no one on and no one out) and the run expectancy of the state that you entered is 1.35 (that's how many runs a team scores, on average, with a runner on third and no one out). Since you didn't drive anyone in you don't need to worry about any runs scoring on this play, so the run expectancy of your triple was (1.35-0.48) or 0.87.

Now, we're interested not in run expectancies of particular triples, but of triples in general. To find that, you add up the run expectancy of all the triples that have been hit (in the time frame that interests you), and take the average. That gives you the "expected run value" of a triple. (Of course you can do the same thing with every event type.)

So for any player, you can figure out the expected run value of everything that they did on offense by adding up the expected run value of each of the things that they did. How many singles did they hit? Multiple that by the expected run value of a single. How many doubles did they hit? Multiple that by the expected run value of a double. Add those two numbers. Then do the same for triples, strike outs, home runs, ground into double plays (obviously the expected run value will be negative for the bad things), and so on.

WAR modifies this figure to account for differences in, e.g., the park a player plays in. It's easier, for example, to hit home runs in Wrigley than in Oakland. You can figure out how much easier by looking at the frequency with which home runs are hit at one park versus another. (And ditto for any other event.) These are called 'park effects', and you use them to adjust an individual players' expected run values. So what you get is that if you have one guy who plays his home games in Wrigley and another who plays his home games in Oakland, if their stats are otherwise identical, the guy playing in Oakland will have a greater number of expected runs. (Because relative to his context - the ballpark that depresses offense - what he did was more valuable.)

Now, that gives you a player's expected run value. (Let's call him Jim - I need a name for this player.) You need then to compare it to replacement level. Replacement level players are the guys who bounce back and forth between AAA and the end of the MLB bench. For most MLB teams, the worst player on the roster is going to be roughly replacement level. (It can be a bit higher or a bit lower, but it's usually going to be somewhat close.) IIRC WAR calculations actually use a percentage of MLB average as replacement level, but if you wanted to figure it out empirically it wouldn't be too hard. Find the guys who occupy the last spot on the roster for each time, and calculate their expected run values. Then subtract Jim's expected run value from that of the replacement level player and you have his expected offensive runs above replacement.

Converting that into wins above replacement is pretty easy. In recent years, a combination of scoring/preventing 10 runs will, on average, win a game for a team. So you take Jim's offensive runs above replacement and divide by 10. That gives you his offensive wins above replacement (or oWAR).

>>
Now for defense.

For current players we have play-by-play data available, showing precisely where each player made each play. Let's talk about current players. (Older players introduce complications that aren't super relevant when comparing them to each other, but do muck things up when comparing them to current players. If anyone is interested I can do a follow up post explaining the difference, but for now I'm content to talk about current players.)

You split the field up into a grid. For each fielder, for each spot on the grid there is some probability that he will make a play at that spot on the grid, and a run expectancy for failing to make a play at that spot. Both of those values you can figure historically: what percentage of the time have shortstops, for example, actually managed to make a play in one particular part of the grid? When they failed to make a play there, what happened? On average, how many expected runs did the team on offense pick up? (That would be calculated as above.)

So say that Jim is a shortstop. The grid squares right around him will be ones at which almost every shortstop makes a play almost every time. The value of Jim making a play there will be very low - because almost anyone they stuck at shortstop would have made that play. But the further you get away from where a shortstop stands (and yes, shifting makes calculating this stuff a nightmare), the lower the probability is that a shortstop will make a play there. So the run value of Jim making a play, at any spot on the grid, is the probability that an average shortstop would NOT make a play at that spot, times the expected run value (for the offensive team) of that play not being made. So if an average shortstop has only a 50/50 chance of getting to a ball and making a play on it, and balls hit to that spot on the grid have a run expectancy of .4 (basically: they're usually singles), then Jim gets credit for saving .2 runs if he makes a play there. Add up all the plays that Jim makes and you get his expected runs saved above replacement.* Notice that no additional adjustment for replacement level is necessary, we've already accounted for the difference between Jim and another guy who might play shortstop for his team.

*(Replacement level for defense is regarded as average MLB play. There are lots of AAA players who would be average MLB players defensively. It turns out that hitting the ball is harder than fielding it.)

You then take Jim's defensive runs saved (on baseball-reference this is listed as 'Rfield' under "Player Value -- Batting", I don't know why they don't include it under the "fielding" heading, but they don't), and divide by 10. (To convert runs to wins.)

The last thing that you need to do is to apply a positional adjustment. It's harder to find a shortstop who hits 300/400/500 (for example) than it is to find a leftfielder who can accomplish that. And so players who play difficult defensive positions get a bonus and those who play easy ones (or DH) get a penalty. The bonus/penalty is pro-rated based on number of games played at each position. Baseball-reference calls this figure 'Rpos'. Again, divide by 10 to turn runs into wins.

You basically add that all up to get a player's WAR. (That's not 100% true, there's a little double counting that you need to take care of - this is one of those complications that I'm going to skip over since this is just meant to be an introduction.) Fangraphs has a more complete discussion, if you want the details. But notice that there's nothing "theoretical" about this, a player's WAR is literally a function of what he did on the baseball field, and what other players did on the baseball field.

This is long enough already, so I'm not going to discuss pitcher's WAR. The calculations are different, but the general idea is the same.

Now, it is important to remember what WAR measures and what it doesn't. Statistics are tools, and if you try to drive a nail with a belt sander, you're probably going to get into trouble. WAR measures what it says that it does: wins above replacement player. A little elaboration on that might be helpful though. Because replacement level is replacement level in the league it doesn't tell you how many more wins Jim got for his team than the guy playing short at AAA would have. It says, basically, imagine that we drop Jim into an arbitrarily selected team in the league, how many more (or fewer, if Jim is really bad) would that team likely win. This is often a useful thing to know, but as with any tool, keep in mind what it's meant for and what it's not.

[Chris Counts]

"My opinion is that if Harold Baines got in, everyone on the ballot should get in."

I agree 100 percent. People can argue all day long about what constitutes a Hall of Famer — and fight over the fine line between great and very good — but I have long argued that those who have already been elected ARE the standard future Hall of Famers should be measured against. There are simply no other alternatives. Also, I don't think anybody who is not an authority on baseball history, and or doesn't have a good understanding of comparative statistical analysis has any business voting for Hall of Famers. The process is a total sham. All you have to do is read a couple columns by so-called sports journalists about why they voted someone like Harold Baines, or why they voted against someone like Barry Larkin, and it's clear to see have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hall of Fame has no credibility until Minnie Minoso goes in.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by nat

WAR modifies this figure to account for differences in, e.g., the park a player plays in. It's easier, for example, to hit home runs in Wrigley than in Oakland. You can figure out how much easier by looking at the frequency with which home runs are hit at one park versus another. (And ditto for any other event.) These are called 'park effects', and you use them to adjust an individual players' expected run values. So what you get is that if you have one guy who plays his home games in Wrigley and another who plays his home games in Oakland, if their stats are otherwise identical, the guy playing in Oakland will have a greater number of expected runs. (Because relative to his context - the ballpark that depresses offense - what he did was more valuable.)

Here's where, to me, there's a slight problem. Let's say it's easier to hit homeruns to left field at Wrigley because it has shorter fences...let's say 320 down the line. So you get more homeruns by right handed hitters, even ones that might not reach the seats at other stadiums. Now lets take the player in questions. Player X hits to left field all the time, but his "normal" homeruns are 380. Those would go out at any left field, so doesn't the "adjustment" actually hurt him and make an unfair statistical analysis?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If it makes you feel better his WAR with the Mets that year was 2.3 for about 1/3 a season. Extrapolate that to a 6.9 and it's a great season, but not even MVP level most years. Also don't use WAR in a bubble. Cespedes is normally about a 3 WAR guy. That's the reality, not his flukey 2015.

You understand, don't you, that you are proving my point?? So, according to the 'WARmongers' (yes, I'm coining a new word), with Cespedes playing instead of some theoretical average schlub, it only resulted in two extra victories for the Mets that third of a season???? Seriously??? That is the most laughable piece of absolute fiction I have ever seen in my life. Now I have even less respect for the WAR stat. And, again, back to people who play baseball versus the statisticians sitting in Starbucks. It goes beyond looking at numbers on a page. His monster play lifted the entire team, lifted the entire fanbase. The attitude of the players went through the roof, because now they had Superman to save the day. This newfound confidence got the entire squad rolling. Sure, sure, it's a team, so there were many factors involved, not just his production, but they won a helluva lot more than 2.3 games due to his presence.

[seff]

I like to see Tommy John, Steve Garvey, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and Lou Whitaker all make it in. Great players.

[shagrotn77]

Regardless of who I’d like to see get in among this group, I’ll say Simmons and Whitaker make it as players and Miller has a great shot as a contributor. Munson is a player who I’d like to see get in, but doubt he will this time around.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Look at the top 25 players and pitchers by WAR. I don't think there are any real anomalies. Obviously it's quite good if not perfect. Interestingly, in my observations most people who object to it do so because it happens to devalue one of their favorite players.

Joe DiMaggio? Do you really think Joe isn't a top 25 or even top 40 player and worse than Charlie Gehringer or Brooks Robinson?

[Bigdaddy]

nat - thanks for the WAR primer. Being an engineer, I like to see what is behind the final numbers. WAR is a good general measure of the many things that we can quantify during a baseball game. Situations, actions, outcomes, we can measure them all (and assimilate all that data) and WAR does a good job of that for both offense and defense, and puts it in terms of winning ballgames.

As others have said though, there are things we can't measure that also contribute to winning or losing. How does a player 'feed the fire' of his teammates, how is their locker room demeanor, do they loaf or hustle on a routine ground ball/pop fly? We don't have a way to measure those things, but they do have an effect on the fate of teams.

So when evaluating a player, we must use 'data fusion'. Statistics of things we can measure and judgement of those things we can't. Without both, the picture is incomplete.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Joe DiMaggio? Do you really think Joe isn't a top 25 or even top 40 player and worse than Charlie Gehringer or Brooks Robinson?

I acknowledge it can penalize relatively short careers. That's why someone came up with JAWS that averages WAR and WAR7. I suspect Joe does better there.

[mr2686]

Marvin Miller and Ted Simmons are now Hall of Famers.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by mr2686

marvin miller and ted simmons are now hall of famers.

+1000!!

[triwak]

Anyone know of a Marvin Miller card, earlier than the 1994 Upper Deck Ken Burns' "Baseball" film card? Any old postcards ever surfaced?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by triwak

Anyone know of a Marvin Miller card, earlier than the 1994 Upper Deck Ken Burns' "Baseball" film card? Any old postcards ever surfaced?

That's the first that I am aware of.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's the first that I am aware of.

Right. Thanks.

[bobbvc]

Well deserved for Miller. Love him or hate him. His impact on the current game is without peer.

[AGuinness]

Well deserved for both.
I’m a bit surprised Whitaker didn’t get as much love, as he had the hype before the committee met. I suspect other players split votes, as four others all each got at least six.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by triwak

Right. Thanks.

PSA has only graded 11 total. That will change.

[kailes2872]

As someone who started collecting in 1980, Steve Garvey and Dave Parker were legends! Garvey had those Popeye forearms and had an all-star logo on his card for what seemed like a decade. Parker was the best player in baseball from 77-79 and top 5 from 84-86. I think of Parker like Ted Williams (hyperbole/joking). While Williams had the lost years from the wars and people like to extrapolate out his stats, I think about Parker's wasted years from 80-83 while he was (allegedly) in the middle of the Pittsburgh drug issues that led to the trials, etc. If we were somehow able to draw a natural linear progression from 79 to 84 and he had 295/30/100 average for those 4 years, he is a walk-in HOFer. Alas, he didn't and he isn't, but he is a classic case of what could have been.

Being under 10 and watching him throw out folks from right field while his large frame towered over everyone else made him larger than life in my eyes. I am still bitter that McGee beat him out for the MVP in '85 as 2 MVPs probably get him in despite WAR being exactly the same.

Simmons and Sweet Lou never really did it for me - but I have to admit a very clear bias to the all star logo on the top of the baseball card. When I started collecting, Garvey and Parker had it, those two didn't, so my memory tends to be a bit tainted.

[KingFisk]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

As someone who started collecting in 1980, Steve Garvey and Dave Parker were legends! Garvey had those Popeye forearms and had an all-star logo on his card for what seemed like a decade. Parker was the best player in baseball from 77-79 and top 5 from 84-86. I think of Parker like Ted Williams (hyperbole/joking). While Williams had the lost years from the wars and people like to extrapolate out his stats, I think about Parker's wasted years from 80-83 while he was (allegedly) in the middle of the Pittsburgh drug issues that led to the trials, etc. If we were somehow able to draw a natural linear progression from 79 to 84 and he had 295/30/100 average for those 4 years, he is a walk-in HOFer. Alas, he didn't and he isn't, but he is a classic case of what could have been.



Being under 10 and watching him throw out folks from right field while his large frame towered over everyone else made him larger than life in my eyes. I am still bitter that McGee beat him out for the MVP in '85 as 2 MVPs probably get him in despite WAR being exactly the same.



Simmons and Sweet Lou never really did it for me - but I have to admit a very clear bias to the all star logo on the top of the baseball card. When I started collecting, Garvey and Parker had it, those two didn't, so my memory tends to be a bit tainted.

Though Ted Simmons did have that 1983 Super Veterans card that told me when I was 8 that he was probably a living legend.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[topcat61]

I'm really not pleased with the results of who got in -Simmons and Miller -and felt that there were great cases to be made for the other players. Maybe next time but Whitaker was a one and done in 2001 which is really surprising.

[packs]

Can anyone explain why Marvin Miller is a HOFer but Curt Flood isn't? If I recall correctly, only one of them sacrificed anything for free agency and the other is in the HOF.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by packs

Can anyone explain why Marvin Miller is a HOFer but Curt Flood isn't? If I recall correctly, only one of them sacrificed anything for free agency and the other is in the HOF.

I’m not sure level of sacrifice is a factor for induction. Curt Flood gave up the free agency fight while Miller kept working on it years after Flood quit baseball.

[packs]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I’m not sure level of sacrifice is a factor for induction. Curt Flood gave up the free agency fight while Miller kept working on it years after Flood quit baseball.

If it's chicken or the egg and Miller's candidacy relies on the egg, you don't get there without Flood. He is the contributor, not Miller.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by packs

If it's chicken or the egg and Miller's candidacy relies on the egg, you don't get there without Flood. He is the contributor, not Miller.

It wasn't just Curt Flood. It was Catfish Hunter, Andy Messersmith, Dave McNally and several others. The only common denominator was Marvin Miller.

Curt Flood played a part in Marvin Miller's success (just like Tommy John played a part in Dr. Frank Jobe's success), but Miller would've abolished the reserve clause if Curt Flood never played baseball.

[packs]

That is just not true. It was Flood v Kuhn, not anyone else. Not one active player (not Hunter, not Messersmith, not McNally or anyone else) attended the trial or testified during it. The Curt Flood Act was passed in 1998. It was not called the Marvin Miller Act or named after anyone else.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Flood lost the case, don't forget.

Do you know who did testify for him?

[packs]

I do, but nobody is in that room without him. The modern 10/5 rule is also referred to as the Curt Flood rule. So again, it seems as though he played just as significant a role as anybody in abolishing the reserve clause. I don't have a problem with Miller getting in because of it, but it takes two.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jackie Robinson, Hank Greenberg, and Bill Veeck testified for him.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jackie Robinson, Hank Greenberg, and Bill Veeck testified for him.

All of whom are HOFers. It just seems to me like baseball isn't done keeping him out of the club, even all these years later.