What stats most important for HOF?

[insidethewrapper]

What stats do you think are the most important for voters who are voting for HOF Members ?

I was looking at some of the stats today and trying to make sense of them.

Walker 76.6% after 10 years
Jeter. 99.7% in first year

Walker Bave.313 OBP .400 SLG .565 OPS .965 War (baseball Ref 72.7)
Jeter Bave.310 OBP .377 SLG .440 OPS .817 War (baseball Red 72.4 )

I know you can do anything with stats , but I thought the above were very highly rated, so I was wondering why it took so long for Walker to be inducted.

[nat]

Walker took so long because his best seasons were spent in Colorado and the voters over compensated for that. It's true that you can't take Colorado numbers at face value, but the voters were discounting them too much. Walker was an extraordinary player. It took a while for the voters to see that, but they got it eventually.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

What stats do you think are the most important for voters who are voting for HOF Members ?

Hits and Home Runs. No one thought of Craig Biggio was a Hall of Famer until he approached 3000 hits. He never finished higher than 4th in MVP voting. Harold Baines made the HOF despite 38.7 WAR and never finishing higher than 9th in MVP voting, but he had 2866 hits. Jeter having 3465 hits makes him a 1st ballot hall of famer. Walker having only 2160 hits makes him a borderline case. Longevity matters for the Baseball HOF. Hitting 500 Home Runs or getting 3000 hits without using steroids is automatic election, most of the time on the 1st ballot.

[bdk1976]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

What stats do you think are the most important for voters who are voting for HOF Members ?



I was looking at some of the stats today and trying to make sense of them.



Walker 76.6% after 10 years

Jeter. 99.7% in first year



Walker Bave.313 OBP .400 SLG .565 OPS .965 War (baseball Ref 72.7)

Jeter Bave.310 OBP .377 SLG .440 OPS .817 War (baseball Red 72.4 )



I know you can do anything with stats , but I thought the above were very highly rated, so I was wondering why it took so long for Walker to be inducted.

The team(s) played for matter more than anything, IMO.

Jeter played a premium position on the biggest stage in baseball and excelled while walker played in relative obscurity in Montreal and Colorado.

How many HOF votes does Phil Rizzuto get had he spent his career outside of NY?

[packs]

Eye test is becoming more important I think. At least recently. Vlad and Walker's total career numbers may not scream HOF to people 50 years from now, but I saw them play and I knew what I was watching.

Bernie Williams probably won't ever have his case reexamined but I saw a HOFer everyday he was on the field too.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by packs

Eye test is becoming more important I think. At least recently. Vlad and Walker's total career numbers may not scream HOF to people 50 years from now, but I saw them play and I knew what I was watching.

Bernie Williams probably won't ever have his case reexamined but I saw a HOFer everyday he was on the field too.

I always believed in the eye test, you know when you are watching a great player.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

The team(s) played for matter more than anything, IMO.

Jeter played a premium position on the biggest stage in baseball and excelled while walker played in relative obscurity in Montreal and Colorado.

How many HOF votes does Phil Rizzuto get had he spent his career outside of NY?

I don't know about that. How do you explain Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams not being in, if team matters more than anything?

[bdk1976]

I don't think any of those three belong in, but guessing some/all might eventually make it in the way things are going - in no small part because of where they played. Hell, now that guys like Baines have been voted in, I don't see how the three you listed (not to mention scores of other good but not HOF players) are kept out moving forward via various committees, etc.

If Mattingly/Williams/Munson had all played in somewhere like Seattle or Oakland or Kansas City we wouldn't even be having his conversation!

[packs]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

I don't think any of those three belong in, but guessing some/all might eventually make it in the way things are going - in no small part because of where they played. Hell, now that guys like Baines have been voted in, I don't see how the three you listed (not to mention scores of other good but not HOF players) are kept out moving forward via various committees, etc.

If Mattingly/Williams/Munson had all played in somewhere like Seattle or Oakland or Kansas City we wouldn't even be having his conversation!

Mattingly played for the Yankees when the Yankees were terrible. What kind of boost does he get for playing in New York for horrible teams? He also happened to be the best first baseman and maybe even best all around player in his prime. Did that count for nothing?

Bernie Williams was a great guy to have on your postseason roster, but it's not like Curt Schilling's candidacy doesn't heavily rest on his postseason record. He didn't play for the Yankees.

[Jcfowler6]

Exceptional fielding comes into play sometimes. Also big moments come into play as well.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bdk1976]

Originally Posted by packs

Mattingly played for the Yankees when the Yankees were terrible. What kind of boost does he get for playing in New York for horrible teams? He also happened to be the best first baseman and maybe even best all around player in his prime. Did that count for nothing?

Bernie Williams was a great guy to have on your postseason roster, but it's not like Curt Schilling's candidacy doesn't heavily rest on his postseason record. He didn't play for the Yankees.

Schilling isn’t getting voted in because he is a dipshit off the field nowadays.

Mattingly was a very good player - and will eventually get into the HOF. He already gets a boost from his NYY career as evidenced by even being in this discussion. Like I said we wouldn’t even be talking about him in the HOF had he played his career in a place like Cleveland.

Best all around player in his prime? I’ll have some of what you are smoking!

Lots of guys over the years who are great to have on a playoff roster yet are not HOF worthy. Bernie is indeed one of them.

[Majestic]

Always found the stat similarities interesting

Mattingly 7003 ab 2153 hits 222 hr 1099 rbi .307 avg 9 gold gloves
Puckett 7244 ab 2304 hits 207 hr 1085 rbi .318 avg 6 gold gloves

Played same time frame. Both careers cut short by physical ailments. Both very popular players. Both top 3 in MVP 3 times. Both led league in batting once. Both led league in RBI once. Puckett led league in hits 4 times to Mattingly's twice. Puckett has post season advantage while Mattingly has managerial career.

Seems like a very even career. Puckett was first ballot with 82% Mattingly never got more than 28%. Maybe voters prefer a more consistent career (Puckett was never bad)over a top heavy Mattingly's 5 great seasons and 8 mediocre/avg/bad seasons.

[Republicaninmass]

75% of the vote

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

Best all around player in his prime? I’ll have some of what you are smoking!

For once I'm smoking the same stuff as Packs. There was a period during Mattingly's career where I would have bet the house he was a shoe-in for the HOF. Then the injuries hit and his career ended quickly - too quickly. If he had pulled a Koufax or Jim Brown, he'd be in. Or we could subtract his best four years and replace them with twelve of his lesser years, for a total of twenty-two, and he'd get in as an 'almost great' via longevity, ala Phil Niekro, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry or Don Sutton.

[the 'stache]

This is a great question, insidethewrapper, and one I've been mulling over since Jeter and Walker were announced as the sole inductees. The short answer? I don't know, as I think it can vary greatly from one member of the BBWAA to another. Each individual with a ballot is going to have their own biases that play into their vote. Something that one voter might place a premium on, another voters might not care as much about. Remember, you're going to have a variety of voter ages. Older voters may place more of an emphasis on counting stats, while younger ones might place more faith in advanced metrics.

Greg Wyshynski, the senior hockey writer for ESPN, had a phenomenal article in November of 2017 that addressed the same question for induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Though the methodology might need to be a bit different for baseball, I really like how he set out his examination of 43 current NHL stars. He devised a "four-quadrant test" for each player. Basically, these quadrants break down thusly:

1. Individual production: encompassing a player's stats, and their statistical records within their era.

2. On-ice impact: what did that individual performance mean for the player's team and teammates?

3. Prestige: could this player be considered among the top three in his position at any time during his career?

4. Cultural impact: the fame aspect of the equation, but also the most subjective one. Did this player revolutionize his position or cause others to emulate him? Was he considered a star? Was there something transcendent about this player?

Quadrant 3 is the one area that might need the most tweaking. In the NHL, they love handing out trophies. So many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Best goalie wins the Vezina Trophy. The best defenseman wins the Norris Trophy. The best defensive forward wins the Selke Trophy. Then you have the Hart Memorial Trophy, the league MVP as voted on by the Hockey Writers. The Lindsay Award is given to the "most outstanding player in the NHL" as voted on by the players in the league. The Conn Smythe goes the the MVP of the playoffs. The Calder Trophy is essentially the rookie of the year equivalent. The Maurice Richard, unsurprisingly, is given to the top goal scorer. Also know, informally, as the "Ovi". The Lady Byng Trophy recognizes sportsmanship and "gentlemanly conduct" in concert with a high standard of playing ability. The King Clancy Trophy is based on leadership on and off the ice, and humanitarian contributions.

And then there are the All Star teams. With multiple tiers.

There are, of course, some similarities. But there's no best catcher award. No best all around defensive player in the league. Silver Sluggers and Gold Gloves recognize excellence, but a lot of them are given out.

I would apply this same line of thinking to the two guys that got in. Jeter ticks off the first quad. 3,465 hits, 1,923 runs. Yup. The second? Jeter was the Captain of the Yankees for twelve years. During his time playing for the Bronx Bombers, they won four World Championships, and he played at a high level in the post season. He was the consummate professional, and his example set a high standard for his teammates. He checks this box, clearly.

The third quadrant is a bit hazy, for me. First, was he ever considered one of the best three players at his position? Well, that would take some examining. He had a few MVP caliber seasons, no doubt. But at that time, was he clearly top three in baseball, American and National Leagues combined? This is where I start to find some tenuous footing. Derek Jeter's career peak was very, very short. Per Baseball-Reference, between 1998 and 1999, his bWAR combined at 15.5. Is it Mike Trout-love fest WAR? No, but it's still outstanding. The problem is, the seasons surrounding them were pretty average. Before that two year period, he was really just starting out. That's understandable. Robin Yount, who is in my head unquestionably one of the best five shortstops, had a slow period that lasted six years out of the gate. Some of that is understandable, as he hit the Bigs running at age 18. It wasn't until 1980, when he finally got serious about baseball, and started hitting the gym, when he started to become a superstar. For the next five years, Yount was 40% above league average with his OPS, and put up 35.7 WAR (and 7.9 dWAR). When you remember that the 1981 season was shortened by strike, his 4.9 WAR across 109 team games becomes 7.3 in a full season. That leaves a 38.1 bWAR for 5 seasons, or 7.6 bWAR per season. Jeter's best 5 year peak, 1997-2001, adds up to only 30.3 bWAR. Now, obviously they didn't play in the same era, but it shows how Jeter stacks up against one of the guys being linked to him in a discussion of all-time greats.

So, what about Nomar Garciaparra? If Jeter's peak is between 1997 and 2001, Nomar should be compared at the same time. 1999 was Jeter's closest to winning an MVP. He had an 8.0 bWAR. Garciaparra? A 6.6. But here's the thing. Both guys had a 153 OPS+. Garciaparra's OPS is higher than Jeter's (1.022 to .989), but park adjustment levels them out. And defense? Jeter had a -0.1 dWAR, while Garciaparra had a 0.2. It was the one season where he didn't have a clearly superior defensive rating (his dWAR in 1997 was 2.0, in 1998 1.9, in 2000 it was 1.6. He was hurt in 2001, but put up a 2.5 in 2002, and a 1.5 in 2003. Clearly Nomar's defensive win contribution far exceeds Jeter's.

Jeter would win if this was the final comp for 1999. But Garciaparra only played in 135 games. If he plays the same 158 games Jeter does, his bWAR comes out to 7.75, virtually identical to Jeter's when you consider plae appearances. Jeter has an additional 43 plate appearances, all things being considered. In other words, in Jeter's best season, Garciaparra is his equal. Better defensively, and very strong with the bat. Nomar led the AL with a .357 AVG, hit 42 doubles and 27 home runs.

Just looking at this one season, early indications are that Garciaparra, in a down year for him defensively, is Jeter's equal. In other healthy seasons, I would expect Garciaparra to pull ahead.

What about Alex Rodriguez? He puts up a 37.4 bWAR. Here are his annual WAR totals

1996 9.4
1997 5.7
1998 8.5
1999 4.8
2000 10.4
2001 8.3
2002 8.8

Between 1996 and 2007, Rodriguez has seven seasons better than the best Jeter ever had. Clearly, Rodriguez tops Jeter, as well.

What about Barry Larkin? Larkin was in the latter stages of his career at this point, and missing time to injury. In 1997, he put up a .913 OPS. In 1998, a .901 OPS. Both better than Jeter. And Larkin is an outstanding defensive shortstop, winning three Gold Gloves between 1994 and 1996. For their careers, Jeter had a -8.3 dWAR, while Larkin was at 14.4.

It's hard to say, with Larkin missing time. He was the National League MVP in 1995, though his 1996 season blows it away. Larkin hit .298 with 33 home runs, stole 36 bases, OPS'd .977 with a 155 OPS+. That's better than Jeter's career high of 153.

The argument could be made that Jeter was not one of the top three shortstops in baseball during his prime. Rodriguez is light years ahead of him. A healthy Garciaparra outpaces him, and Larkin it would take more looking at, but I think even at that late stage, he's still Jeter's equal.

Some interesting things to consider here, I think.

[the 'stache]

I think a strong case could be made for Mattingly in his prime being the best in the game. He hit for great average, fantastic power, big time run producer, and defensively he might have been without peer in the AL.

My only knock against Donny Baseball, and this is made looking back through the eyes of one that spends a lot of time learning about modern metrics--he didn't walk a lot.

His 162 game averages between 1984 and 1987 are absurd:

108 runs scored, 222 hits, 49 doubles, 3 triples, 32 home runs, 128 RBI, .337 AVG, .381 OBP/.560 SLG/.941 OPS 155 OPS+

And for the record, here's one place where I vehemently disagree with defensive metrics. Obviously, dWAR is about as simple as it gets. I'd really want to get into zone ratings, range factor, etc.

But BBR says in that four year span, Mattingly's dWAR is a composite -1.6. Baseball Reference would have us believe that Mattingly lost 6.2 games, over the course of his career, with his glove.

Not a chance in hell. And Keith Hernandez, the other guy I immediately think of as a godly first baseman? He was worth 1.3 dWAR.

Not every Gold Glove is earned, obviously. Ask Rafael Palmeiro. But Hernandez won 12 Gold Gloves, and Mattingly 9. 21 Gold Gloves, and we're to believe combined they were worth -0.3 dWAR?

Somebody over there is smoking the funny stuff. If my life depended on it, or my family's life depended on having a great glove guy at first, in my lifetime, I'd pick one of them. They were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think a strong case could be made for Mattingly in his prime being the best in the game. He hit for great average, fantastic power, big time run producer, and defensively he might have been without peer in the AL.

My only knock against Donny Baseball, and this is made looking back through the eyes of one that spends a lot of time learning about modern metrics--he didn't walk a lot.

His 162 game averages between 1984 and 1987 are absurd:

108 runs scored, 222 hits, 49 doubles, 3 triples, 32 home runs, 128 RBI, .337 AVG, .381 OBP/.560 SLG/.941 OPS 155 OPS+

And for the record, here's one place where I vehemently disagree with defensive metrics. Obviously, dWAR is about as simple as it gets. I'd really want to get into zone ratings, range factor, etc.

But BBR says in that four year span, Mattingly's dWAR is a composite -1.6. Baseball Reference would have us believe that Mattingly lost 6.2 games, over the course of his career, with his glove.

Not a chance in hell. And Keith Hernandez, the other guy I immediately think of as a godly first baseman? He was worth 1.3 dWAR.

Not every Gold Glove is earned, obviously. Ask Rafael Palmeiro. But Hernandez won 12 Gold Gloves, and Mattingly 9. 21 Gold Gloves, and we're to believe combined they were worth -0.3 dWAR?

Somebody over there is smoking the funny stuff. If my life depended on it, or my family's life depended on having a great glove guy at first, in my lifetime, I'd pick one of them. They were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.

The reason for the low dWAR for Hernandez and Mattingly is positional adjustment. And I agree with you, it is a joke.

[nat]

dWAR isn't the figure that you want. It's designed to compare cross-positional value, and so first basemen always do poorly in it.

There are two components to dWAR, one based on runs saved with the glove, and the other is a positional adjustment. You need the positional adjustment because it's easier to find someone who can play first base than it is to find someone who can play shortstop (for example), so a competent shortstop is more valuable to his team than a similarly competent first baseman. Guys who play hard defensive positions get a positive adjustment, guys who play easy ones get a negative one.

If you want to see how many games a player won/lost with his glove, look at Rfield and then divide by (approximately) ten. Keith Hernandez won his teams about 12 games with his glove. His dWAR is so low because of the penalty that all first basemen get. It doesn't mean that WAR says he was bad defensively - quite the opposite, having positive dWAR is very good for a first baseman. It means that a shortstop with a similar Rfield is more valuable to his team because he's harder to replace. (Of course his bat is likely to be worse, but that will be reflected in the offensive component of WAR.)

[the 'stache]

Ok, good. That makes me feel better about Clemente's numbers when I look at them. It was explained to me wrong, then. I suppose I should have just looked at the formulas right off the bat.

I knew certain positions got bonuses, ie catcher, shortstop and center (maybe second base, too), and that first, and the corner outfield positions (?) get a negative adjustment. Third should get a bonus, as well. Or is it neutral?

I guess I don't see the logic behind first being severely penalized. When I think of the greatest hitters in the game's history, I would assume that there are more great lefties than righties. One reason being that coming from the first base side of the plate is a somewhat shorter distance to run to first, therefore lefties should get a slight bump to average. That, and better head to head match ups with pitchers. I'd have to look at the historical numbers, but I'd almost have to think that there's a 3 to 1, or thereabouts, advantage with there being more righties than lefties on the mound, if not an even greater disparity. Therefore, left handed hitters have an advantage seeing a lot more right handed twirlers. They'll pick the ball up much more quickly than they would against a left handed pitcher. Righties will get penalized by the preponderance of right handed pitchers. Infield composition plays a role, too. Right handed pull hitters always have a shortstop and third baseman to contend with, and a second baseman can be pulled over to the third base side of the bag. Lefties only ever have second and first.

All that said, first base not only has to defend against left handed batters, they have to worry about men on first base. A second baseman can always shift to help them cut down on the pull alley to right, but the first baseman still has to guard down the line.

I'm sorry, I'm rambling trying to work all this out, and I'm going on about two hours of sleep. For the premium positions, I can see a slight positive adjustment. But I don't see the need for a negative adjustment for first base, if that's indeed the case.

When you start getting into zone rating, range factor, I question how they can do that from a historical perspective? Now all the games are archived, so a statistician can go in and watch a play from a billion different angles in high definition. You can't do that for games in the old days. A lot of the games only have information like "fly out to right field". It obviously doesn't tell a statistician anything about the ball's launch angle/trajectory, exit velocity, etc. How can you determine how good a fielder truly was, but first hand accounts?

Ugh. This is making my head hurt.

[nat]

For recent seasons WAR uses play-by-play data, which gives you precise information about exactly where the ball was hit. Obviously that's not available for older seasons. For those seasons it uses data comparing plays made versus average numbers of plays made by other players at the same position. (Presumably with adjustments for the field the guy plays in - outfielders in big parks have a harder time, for example.) I don't have the details handy, but because the older data is less reliable than the current data it's also regressed to the mean to some degree. This means that really good and really bad defensive performances are going to be smoothed out a bit.

Given the limitations on the data, this is the best we can do. But it's not too bad. For both recent and old players their defensive contributions are on the same scale (we can estimate runs saved, and hence games won, from both sets of data). For older players you should take their defensive numbers to be an estimate with a bit of uncertainty on either side. As with anything statistical, how much uncertainty there is depends on how big of a sample you're talking about - for individual seasons its kind of iffy, for whole careers it'll be much better.

Clemente, by the way, was awesome. By Rfield even Ozzie Smith has only one season better than Clemente's best. Most of the guys on the career dWAR list ahead of him were middle infielders or catchers (because they get a big positional bonus). Curiously, he's exactly tied with another right fielder with a legendary arm, Jesse Barfield.

Third basemen get a small positional bonus (about 2 or 3 runs per season). You can find the adjustment on baseball-reference under the column labeled Rpos.

[the 'stache]

Thank you so much, Nat. I really appreciate it. That makes a bit more sense to me, now. I'm still fighting through this insomnia after switching two medications, so my body is off balance, and my brain has been scrambled since I woke up yesterday. I'm going to re-read your post, and go back over to the Sabermetrics site tonight after I've gotten some rest.

I've been trying to modernize my statistical approach in all four sports for a while, but I think I'm going to just stick to baseball, for the time being, as it's my first love. That will ensure that I take it all the way to home plate, if you will, and I think I'll grasp some of the newer concepts more quickly with a strong base of knowledge. My plan is to write about the four North American professional sports (but focusing most on baseball), and film. So, I need to round it all out.

I'd give my left foot to go back in time, and watch Clemente play. My father grew up in Chicago, and took in Cubs games at Wrigley all the time. He started going in the late 50s, and saw Roberto multiple times. Oddly enough, he was a Milwaukee Braves fan more than anything. That was eerily prophetic, as we'd all live in the Milwaukee area for almost 20 years. Anyhow, a family friend back in Wisconsin knew one of the authors of this book, This Date in Pittsburgh Pirates History. I believe I still have it in storage. It's autographed inside, but I forget which author. It's been about 40 years.



I think I mentioned it previously. Anyway, that book came out in 1980, right after the Bucs won their last Series. It was "The Family" led by Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Bill Madlock. The Brewers have always been my team, but a real affinity for the Pirates (and soon after, the other teams from the city. Since Milwaukee has never had an NHL team, the Penguins became my adopted team) came out of that book. That was my introduction to Honus Wagner, the Waner brothers, Ralph Kiner, Stargell. The Pirate history just knocked me out.

Roberto was larger than life as I grew up. Though he died when I was not even two years, he loomed large as my love for the game grew. When Youtube sprung up, and videos of the game from before I was born began to slowly collect, that's when I started to really get to see his play. The only other time I think I'd ever seen more than photos of him was on a few segments of This Week in Baseball. Good old Mel Allen. Clemente might be the most exciting player I've ever seen. He and Willie Mays. I'd put Griffey, Barry Bonds, Bo Jackson, and certainly Mike Trout in there with them. I always thought Paul Molitor was a hell of a lot of fun to watch, too. He could just flat out fly when he was healthy. He was the catalyst. "The Ignitor". I couldn't have been more lucky, sitting third base side with my Dad, or both parents if Mom felt up to sitting outside in the cold spring weather. Seeing Robin Yount and Molly side by side was the stuff of dreams. Not too many kids get to watch two future 3,000 hit club, Hall of Famers virtually from the start. My first game at old County Stadium was in 1979. Yount's sixth season, Molitor's second. Robin was only 23, and Molitor 21. I can't tell you how strongly the game got inside of me. It's probably my life's greatest passion. I could watch the game, and talk about it all day.

Off to try and get a few hours of shuteye. You guys have a great Saturday afternoon!