Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The metrics are the product of extensive research and analysis and thought. The reason they use four is for the precise reason you mention -- any one alone has its biases and therefore its flaws. So your argument about Cecil Cooper is a straw man. Taken as a whole, the metrics are pretty meaningful. Just look at the rankings they generate -- there are perhaps some aberrations on any given metric, but not that many. And Chick Hafey is not even in the discussion on any one of the four metrics. He had a few good years. So did all sorts of people who are not Hall worthy.

it bears repeating.

Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS

Ok, I'll use Joe Jackson to show how absurd the Black Ink metric is. And if I can chop down one leg of the chair with little to no effort, imagine how easily it will topple over when I look at the the other three.

How many batting titles did Jackson win? Zero. Why? Because Ty Cobb was winning almost every single batting title. Jackson hit .408 one season, and didn't win the batting title. So, even though Jackson has the third highest batting average in baseball history, he didn't get a single point from his batting average. Yet if Cobb had broken his leg as a rookie, and never played again, Jackson, for the exact same performance, would have realized a huge boost. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing he wins at least four batting titles. That gives him 16 points of the 27 he needs to become an average Hall of Famer.

By the way, I understand why there are four metrics grouped together. I did a lot of statistical analysis in college. But nothing you have shown me makes that Black Ink Test any less absurd.

I have a question for you, since you keep throwing these out. All four are providing Average Hall of Famer scores. How long is the Average Hall of Fame career? Would it not follow that a Hall of Famer that's played 20 seasons, and has some 12,000 plate appearances would have a better score than somebody who played the equivalent of 8.5 seasons like Hafey? It follows that somebody who has played more than twice as long is going to have more opportunity to score near the top of the league leaders.

By the way, each time you dismiss Hafey's numbers as compiled by these tests, I can't help but shake my head a little, Peter. You say he's not close on any of them:

Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

In a little over 8 years of playing, he's managed to reach nearly 70% of the score required to be an "average Hall of Famer" per the Hall of Fame Monitor Batting Test. He's 66% of the way there on the Hall of Fame Standards Batting Test. He's a way off on the Gray Ink Batting Test, but more seasons hitting .330, and finishing in the top five in slugging like he did every year of his five year peak, will boost that number. And I've already told you what I think of the Black Ink Batting Test--it's useless.

He would only need a few more seasons to reach these metrics.