Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When I hear people talking about WAR (a completely theoretical stat!!), it's like listening to the arrogant Bob Costas lecturing us about baseball. He has never played a game of baseball in his life. He's never even played a game of Wiffle Ball at a family picnic in his life, yet he wants to be all pedantic about the game. That analysis doesn't gel with people (like me and my friends) who have played baseball/softball our entire lives. Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players.

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Edgars career numbers most closely resemble Will Clark, Moises Alou, Magglio Ordonez and John Olerud. You can talk about War and OPS all you want but his career numbers are equivalent with these guys. Tell me why Will Clark shouldn’t be in if Edgar is.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OMG, you are hilarious!!!!! Your dumb analogy doesn't even come close to what I was saying.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

OMG, you are hilarious!!!!! Your dumb analogy doesn't even come close to what I was saying.

Well, my use of the word funny wasn't meant in the comedic sense. It was in the strange/perplexing sense. And I certainly didn't mean anything personally against you, specifically, when I posted. That's why it is funny (strange) to me that you would seem to take it that way.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Personal observation tends to be both anecdotal and biased which is why stats are very helpful. Now what stats you think matter is a subject for debate.

[hysell]

I like to KNOW {WHY } we hold catchers to such HIGH stats as a 1b, 3b or a of player ? Lets put Mantle, Schimdt , Gehrig behind the plate for most of there careers & lets see , how less stats , they would have ! To me if you hit 225 to 300 HRS, drive in around 1100 runs, or get 2,000 hits or 400 doubles , add catch a good game & can throw a little, that is GOOD ENOUGH ? HOFer catchers are Munson ,Simmons , L.Parrish ....Munson was well on his way, Simmons was a{SH } & the better hitter on this list .Parrish won gold gloves , went to ALL*STAR games in the 1980's & like Gary Carter , both had 324 career HRS, top 5 ALL - time at the catcher spot ?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Well, my use of the word funny wasn't meant in the comedic sense. It was in the strange/perplexing sense. And I certainly didn't mean anything personally against you, specifically, when I posted. That's why it is funny (strange) to me that you would seem to take it that way.

My point was clearly that we saw these people play throughout most or all of their careers. We experienced these players directly. So with regard to your Albert Einstein analogy, in this case he DID travel at the speed of light. He (analogous to us rating these players) is talking through direct knowledge and not theoretics.

[Mike D.]

Two things I find interesting:

1. If you line up the players on the ballot by career WAR and highest % of the vote they received from the BBWAA, you get almost a perfect inverse. Sometimes we forget how bad the HOF voting used to be...historically they run about 3-4 “Baines” per decade!

2. Ted Simmons missed last time he was on the ballot (“veterans”, not BBWAA) by 1 vote

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Two things I find interesting:

1. If you line up the players on the ballot by career WAR and highest % of the vote they received from the BBWAA, you get almost a perfect inverse. Sometimes we forget how bad the HOF voting used to be...historically they run about 3-4 “Baines” per decade!

2. Ted Simmons missed last time he was on the ballot (“veterans”, not BBWAA) by 1 vote

Ted came sooo close last time, and all the candidates on this ballot have a legit case to be made to get enshrined.
Too bad the voters are limited to four votes each. This nugget about the odds that the four vote limit creates came from the Fangraphs story (which was originally from a Joe Posnanski article and is detailed by Tom Tango):

Well, if a player has a 40% chance of being on one ballot, his chances on making 12 of 16 is … get ready for it, less than 0.5%. That’s not 5% — it is less than one-half of one-percent. 995 times out of a 1,000, the player would NOT get elected. And remember, that’s assuming every voter uses all four of his votes.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Ted came sooo close last time, and all the candidates on this ballot have a legit case to be made to get enshrined.
Too bad the voters are limited to four votes each. This nugget about the odds that the four vote limit creates came from the Fangraphs story (which was originally from a Joe Posnanski article and is detailed by Tom Tango):

Well, if a player has a 40% chance of being on one ballot, his chances on making 12 of 16 is … get ready for it, less than 0.5%. That’s not 5% — it is less than one-half of one-percent. 995 times out of a 1,000, the player would NOT get elected. And remember, that’s assuming every voter uses all four of his votes.

Yes, when you have a number of good candidates, the chances of any one of them getting the required votes is so tiny. I wonder if like with the Baines vote the voters will "discuss" beforehand and have a better chance of reaching consensus.

[glynparson]

Parker was considered the best player in baseball or in the conversation from 1977-79. When was Edgar ever in that conversation? And Parker has one of the top arms of any right fielder ever. Up there with Evans and Clemente. I saw him throw out a guy on a ball hit to right field. He had a cannon. I have no problem with putting either in. Parker gets docked for his coke years or his numbers would crush Edgar’s. I know he doesn’t deserve any sympathy for that but it still exists in reality.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is not a good analogy. A better one is if Albert Einstein said I have this formula E=mc2, but I am not going to tell you what it is, you give me the data and I will give you the answer. I am not going to subject my formula to scientific analysis and I can change my formula anytime I like, but you mist accept everything I say as true. Would you just drink the koolaid? This is WAR, except we have multiple people claiming to be Albert Einstein.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not a good analogy. A better one is if Albert Einstein said I have this formula E=mc2, but I am not going to tell you what it is, you give me the data and I will give you the answer. I am not going to subject my formula to scientific analysis and I can change my formula anytime I like, but you mist accept everything I say as true. Would you just drink the koolaid? This is WAR, except we have multiple people claiming to be Albert Einstein.

That is the problem with modern analytics, we are taking someones word that it is what they say it is. Old days, most kids knew how to figure BA, ERA, Win Pct, now you need a computer and have to know the secret formula.

I still like some modern analytics because they go deeper than old school stats.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Jim65

That is the problem with modern analytics, we are taking someones word that it is what they say it is. Old days, most kids knew how to figure BA, ERA, Win Pct, now you need a computer and have to know the secret formula.

I still like some modern analytics because they go deeper than old school stats.

It's true that most kids can figure out those stats, just as most kids can figure out heartbeats per minute or even the P/E ratio for a stock or the area of a circle.
But can most adults understand the math and equations behind some of the numbers on a health chart at the hospital, or some of the complex computations in investing, or even how to figure out engine displacement?
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. I don't understand the gritty details of it, as many others don't, but I also don't understand the math that goes into engine displacement, some investment equations, etc. etc. I trust, as many people do, professionals who do understand them, and often in life-or-death situations.
And that doesn't mean the trust should be complete - WAR, as with other statistics, should be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't see it as just taking someone's word for it, WAR is a product of a larger community that has vetted and honed it over the years.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not a good analogy. A better one is if Albert Einstein said I have this formula E=mc2, but I am not going to tell you what it is, you give me the data and I will give you the answer. I am not going to subject my formula to scientific analysis and I can change my formula anytime I like, but you mist accept everything I say as true. Would you just drink the koolaid? This is WAR, except we have multiple people claiming to be Albert Einstein.

I was talking about the Bob Costas part of the comment I quoted and the argument that I have heard many players use, which is that if you haven't played the game you don't have a basis for analyzing it. Which I think is completely bunk.