T206 Who should be a HOFer that isn't ???

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

or perhaps the data confirms what we already know: the eye test is seriously damaged by confirmation bias.

If the same standard is applied equally to all players, even if the methodology is not perfect (and with defense it probably never will be perfect) at least the ratio of performance relative to each other is accurate enough for comparison. And will always be a better gauge than the confirmation bias ridden eye test.

Pie Traynor grades out as the 209th best fielding 3b of all time. Now, that may not be perfectly accurate, but the data isn't so awful that it is somehow screwing Traynor out of 200 spots. You can either hand wave away the data, or you have to come to the more logical conclusion; the people using inferior statistics and the eye test were wrong.


P.S. you must remember too that defense is weighted by difficulty of position SS, CF, 2b, C get the most extra weighting, DH the biggest subtraction. a really excellent 3b will generally be an avg SS whereas an avg SS would generally be an elite 3b (but it would be a waste to put them there)

Or the model, which is biased, is completely wrong. You have done nothing but hand wave. There is nothing logical about any of your posts. You just want to hand wave away what people have seen. However, current defensive metrics are partially based on...the eye test. We now observe where balls are hit or for older players try to recreate that data, which is not available for Dahlen.

If you have a player who has poor range but gets a lot of balls hit right to him, he is not as good of a player who has to use his range to get to the same number of balls. Or another way to put it, Derek Jeter has led the league in assists and put outs, but we have enough observable data to know that he is not a good defensive player. I will trust those that saw Dahlen play that say he wasn't a HOFer and not a top defensive SS. I trust the people who saw Pie Traynor play and consider him the greatest 3B up to 1969. If you want argue otherwise, present new facts or data. If you are going to be lazy and just cite WAR, there is no further need for discussion.

[packs]

I wasn't cherry picking your list. Was no one else surprised to see Hughie Jennings' name at first base? A guy not known for playing first base? Numbers aren't always the whole story. He played the equivalent of just over 2 seasons at the position but he is rated as the best ever. I don't think so.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by rats60

Or the model, which is biased, is completely wrong. You have done nothing but hand wave. There is nothing logical about any of your posts. You just want to hand wave away what people have seen. However, current defensive metrics are partially based on...the eye test. We now observe where balls are hit or for older players try to recreate that data, which is not available for Dahlen.

If you have a player who has poor range but gets a lot of balls hit right to him, he is not as good of a player who has to use his range to get to the same number of balls. Or another way to put it, Derek Jeter has led the league in assists and put outs, but we have enough observable data to know that he is not a good defensive player. I will trust those that saw Dahlen play that say he wasn't a HOFer and not a top defensive SS. I trust the people who saw Pie Traynor play and consider him the greatest 3B up to 1969. If you want argue otherwise, present new facts or data. If you are going to be lazy and just cite WAR, there is no further need for discussion.

You trust those who saw Dahlen play that didnt think of him as a Hall of Famer. Yet they didn't see Sherry Magee as one either. You support Magee, I support both, but how is your logic applicable to Dahlen but apparently not applicable to Magee?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topps206

You trust those who saw Dahlen play that didnt think of him as a Hall of Famer. Yet they didn't see Sherry Magee as one either. You support Magee, I support both, but how is your logic applicable to Dahlen but apparently not applicable to Magee?

I already posted my reasoning. I am fine with neither being in and saying Kelley and Wheat or Tinker and Wallace don't belong. I think we can agree that there are players in the HOF that don't belong. So, player A being in doesn't necessarily mean player B should.

[Scocs]

I personally despise arguments like this because everyone ALWAYS overlooks the great Negro Leaguers of the past . It's like they get shafted twice: once when they were alive and again when they're dead....

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by rats60

I already posted my reasoning. I am fine with neither being in and saying Kelley and Wheat or Tinker and Wallace don't belong. I think we can agree that there are players in the HOF that don't belong. So, player A being in doesn't necessarily mean player B should.

That's true, but I've argued ad nauseam for these players and everything I've seen suggests they're amongst the best ever at their respected position.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Or the model, which is biased, is completely wrong. You have done nothing but hand wave. There is nothing logical about any of your posts. You just want to hand wave away what people have seen. However, current defensive metrics are partially based on...the eye test. We now observe where balls are hit or for older players try to recreate that data, which is not available for Dahlen.

If you have a player who has poor range but gets a lot of balls hit right to him, he is not as good of a player who has to use his range to get to the same number of balls. Or another way to put it, Derek Jeter has led the league in assists and put outs, but we have enough observable data to know that he is not a good defensive player. I will trust those that saw Dahlen play that say he wasn't a HOFer and not a top defensive SS. I trust the people who saw Pie Traynor play and consider him the greatest 3B up to 1969. If you want argue otherwise, present new facts or data. If you are going to be lazy and just cite WAR, there is no further need for discussion.

ummm...no

this kind of argument against science is why we have anti-vaxxers, acupuncture and all sorts of other nonsense out there parading around like it has evidence behind it. an opinion has zero weight next to factual data. zero... nothing confirmation bias removes the eye test from any sort of meritorious consideration.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

ummm...no

this kind of argument against science is why we have anti-vaxxers, acupuncture and all sorts of other nonsense out there parading around like it has evidence behind it. an opinion has zero weight next to factual data. zero... nothing confirmation bias removes the eye test from any sort of meritorious consideration.

So you are claiming that science doesn't use observation? Lol.

[Paul S]

.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

So you are claiming that science doesn't use observation? Lol.

science uses observation, but not opinion. there is no artistic merit in analyzing data.

science- player A has accumulated 128 defensive runs over his career


eye test- player A was below/above avg in the 15 games I saw him in

[CMIZ5290]

Nick- Please go away, this is ridiculous......

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Nick- Please go away, this is ridiculous......

no, you go away. you haven't given any meaningful data to back up anything you have said. I have. you don't like losing. sorry, work harder.

[Topps206]

If you don't like this thread, why go in it?