Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[Peter_Spaeth]

Based on my perceptions at the time they played, Garvey and Parker are two long career guys whose metrics don't even come close to how I would rate them subjectively.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not sure how someone with a career OPS of .810 has better numbers than a guy with a career OPS of .933

TRUE, but I guess my point goes past OPS, if you look at their career numbers they are VERY similar, in many cases if we are going on sheer offense stats, The Cobra out performed Edgar, their lifetime averages are only 20 points apart (.290/.312), Parker out hit, out homered, had more RBI's and Doubles. The difference in my mind, Parker played the field. It's a shame that a DH can be elected in to the HoF without 3000 hits, Edgar had 2247.

Not trying to spark a huge baseball debate, but if someone who got into the Hall when compared to an outlier is very similar in stats, then, in my mind, they shouldn't be in the hall. Players going in should have a stat line that puts distance between them and the field of guys on the cusp, or should at the very least been the iconic embodiment of the position they played during the era in which they played. To me, that is the only way that Edgar gets in as a DH, because stat wise, he is in the category of players that normally wouldn't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Edgar's on base percentage was a huge 80 points higher. And his slugging percentage was 40+ points higher.

[AGuinness]

I think Whitaker will get the nod. Marvin Miller had a profound impact on the game and should have been in years ago. I'd rather have a bigger Hall than a smaller one.

For anyone who cites years on the ballot for some of these players, the links to the stories below help put some in context, such as under-appreciated players who find themselves on the ballot with a number of first-timers who are slam dunks and/or the stinginess of the voters throughout the years.

This site does a great job in breaking things down, both in brevity for this article and links to much longer reads (all worth the time):
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/the-...llot-for-2020/

And of course, Fangraphs has things covered, too:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/whitaker...seball-ballot/

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I can see a Yankees fan (given your user ID) hating the Red Sox but I’m not sure why anyone would “loathe” the Mariners! How do you end up loathing a team that has a winning season every decade or so? Edgar was long overdue with his induction, especially once they started electing Relief Pitchers into the Hall of Fame... once that door opened you have no reason to exclude specialized hitters like the DH. Parker’s numbers relative to his era are just not as good as Edgar’s are, the stats just don’t Back up Parker in that argument in any way. I have no idea what is so bad about Edgar making the Hall of Fame? Far less deserving players have been and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Ha! I actually have no problem with the Red Sox! I grew up in NY, and moved to the Pacific Northwest 20 years ago, my loathing of the team is based on years of going to games in Seattle and some not so nice things that happened when I brought my kids to the games throughout the years.

I totally agree with you on Relief Pitchers opening the door for the DH. I guess my point though not very well articulated is that if a DH is considered for the hall and his numbers are in the neighborhood of an outlier, that should be a reason to NOT elect them to the Hall of Fame. I hated facing Edgar, he was a monster at the plate, but he played for 18 seasons and didn't amass 3000 hits, as a DH. He didn't have to play the field, he didn't have to do anything but hit, but as another person pointed out, the only stat that is really impressive is the OPS. Everything else compares to Dave Parker, who played the field. So that is my point, if you have someone who puts together a great career, which Edgar did, name a street after him and have him back to throw out a first pitch from time to time. For that same player to make the hall, based on stats, there has to be some serious separation between him and the rest of the field. One guys opinion, I am sure there are some kind of equation that shows how great he was, I just cannot compare him to what I think of as the "greats of the game."

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Edgar's on base percentage was a huge 80 points higher. And his slugging percentage was 40+ points higher.

And yet he had 230 less RBI's, 30 less Home Runs, and 500 less hits.

Edgar was a 7x All Star, 5x Silver Slugger, and won the batting title twice
Cobra was a 7x All Star, 3x Silver Slugger, and won the batting title twice...
He also was an MVP, went to 2 World Series, was an All Star game MVP, and he was 3x Gold Glove Winner

I'm just saying, they are both great players, I just don't see the a huge difference between the two to make one Hall worthy and the other not.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Their similar counting stats were accrued with a difference of around 2000 plate appearances or almost 4 seasons less. That's a MASSIVE difference in impact. The only category in which Parker was superior per plate appearance was triples. By that logic Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean aren't HOF'ers because their counting numbers don't add up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Edgar 68.4 WAR
Parker 40.1

The HOF rests its case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hall of Stats
Edgar 136
Parker 78

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Their similar counting stats were accrued with a difference of around 2000 plate appearances or almost 4 seasons less. That's a MASSIVE difference in impact. The only category in which Parker was superior per plate appearance was triples. By that logic Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean aren't HOF'ers because their counting numbers don't add up.

I saw that too. To me, I guess that helps my Parker argument as he sustained a high level for what is equal to 4 more seasons than Edgar.

I'm the crazy guy yelling in the street, a roll I am very familiar with. I am sure Edgar is a worthy addition, I just hate the thought of the HoF becoming the equivalent of a Participation Trophy, damn kids and their "everyone's a winner," approach to life....

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hall of Stats
Edgar 136
Parker 78

Roger that, moot point if there ever was one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Roger that, moot point if there ever was one.

How so? I have found it a pretty reliable site for rating players.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by yanks87

I saw that too. To me, I guess that helps my Parker argument as he sustained a high level for what is equal to 4 more seasons than Edgar.

I'm the crazy guy yelling in the street, a roll I am very familiar with. I am sure Edgar is a worthy addition, I just hate the thought of the HoF becoming the equivalent of a Participation Trophy, damn kids and their "everyone's a winner," approach to life....

I would argue it DOESN'T mean that though. It means he sustained an above average level for longer than Martinez sustained a great level. Give me a guy who was a stud for 10 years before you give me a guy who was good for 15, or, God forbid, Harold Baines for 20... Now THAT'S a participation trophy.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How so? I have found it a pretty reliable site for rating players.

For sure, I was saying my argument was moot as the proof was in the pudding with one in the Hall, and one....not.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I would argue it DOESN'T mean that though. It means he sustained an above average level for longer than Martinez sustained a great level. Give me a guy who was a stud for 10 years before you give me a guy who was good for 15, or, God forbid, Harold Baines for 20... Now THAT'S a participation trophy.

Don't get me started on Baines...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, next to Baines, Parker is first ballot LOL.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Because the writers are wrong a lot and some players are just not appreciated by them relative to their actual worth to the team. Whitaker was always vastly underrated by just about everyone. Retrospectively looking back we are starting to realize some players were not appreciated like they should have been (Whitaker) while others were largely overrated (Steve Garvey is a good example).

Only if you only value WAR. I think it is because people value fantasy stats more today than actual production, such as leading your team to 5 World Series. WAR seems to greatly over value walks and doesn't really care about actual production or clutch stats. It also greatly over values certain positions such as 2B while under valuing others such as C. I find the idea that Lou Whitaker had "value" equal to Johnny Bench absurd and brings the whole concept of WAR into question.

[JunkyJoe]

My top 3 picks would be 1) Munson, 2) Parker, and 3) Whitaker, in that order.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Top 100 WAR all-time. Better than most infielders already inducted.

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

[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. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

[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.

[JunkyJoe]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

... ...... Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

+1

The fans who truly understand the intricacies of the game (especially from firsthand playing experience), and the players and coaches who battled against the ballot candidates, are the ones who can speak to the unquantifiables that some of the greatest players brought to the game.

[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.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

[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.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

That’s the big question, I haven’t seen anybody answer it in an article. Anybody know that answer? Do the voters make deals or arrangements on the candidates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

That’s the big question, I haven’t seen anybody answer it in an article. Anybody know that answer? Do the voters make deals or arrangements on the candidates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know, but I question whether a group of voters this small should have the power to decide these issues.

[Orioles1954]

I feel bad for Harold Baines. An excellent player with very good stats. He’s also a fine person who’s getting crapped on for being elected. Unlike guys like Goose Gossage or Ron Santo, Baines wasn’t lobbying for his induction. He deserves a lot better from supposed baseball “fans.”

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know, but I question whether a group of voters this small should have the power to decide these issues.

General election!!! Popular or electoral vote?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I feel bad for Harold Baines. An excellent player with very good stats. He’s also a fine person who’s getting crapped on for being elected. Unlike guys like Goose Gossage or Ron Santo, Baines wasn’t lobbying for his induction. He deserves a lot better from supposed baseball “fans.”

The bottom line is he should not have been elected. Are people supposed to just sit silently and have no opinion because he is (and I agree he is) a fine person? For better or worse, if you make sports your career, you're putting yourself into the realm of public opinion. It's not personal.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The bottom line is he should not have been elected. Are people supposed to just sit silently and have no opinion because he is (and I agree he is) a fine person? For better or worse, if you make sports your career, you're putting yourself into the realm of public opinion. It's not personal.

Unfortunately, many are "throwing out the baby with the bath water" when it comes to Baines. A guy with 2,800+ hits and 380+ home runs deserves a bit more respect.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Based on my perceptions at the time they played, Garvey and Parker are two long career guys whose metrics don't even come close to how I would rate them subjectively.

Ditto. To me, both were at the top of the game for a time. Guys you go to the ballpark to see play. I ask myself, "During his career, was this guy the top, or very near the top, player at his position?"

So my four votes go to:

Dave Parker
Steve Garvey
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy

For at least a handful of years, these guys were the best at their position in the majors.

[mr2686]

Some very passionate arguments given both ways for some of these players. Obviously, most are on the bubble which makes it that much harder and also makes for some great arguments.
I could make arguments for all of the players but I'll stick to one for right now...Thurman Frickin' Munson. Despite what has been written about his career in decline the last two years, I would argue just the opposite. Yes his HR's and rbi's were down, but his average remained high considering the position he played...and he played a lot of games at a tough position, and played it well. He died on Aug 2, 1979 and was hitting .288 at the time (he was hitting .294 as of July 24th). He was a ROY, MVP, 3 time Gold Glove winner, and oh yeah, he actually showed up in the playoffs and world series. Can't say that about every HOF'er. Check Campanella's post season stats (and I love Campy) but if he had hit better in the 49, 52 and 56 series, Brooklyn would have had 4 championships instead of 1.
If you look at a lot of catchers that play a lot of games, they seem to have a dip after several years, but then pick up again. I attribute that to getting more time off (which most catchers need). If Munson had not died, and with the Yankees spending history, I'm pretty sure they would have found a better backup than Jerry Narron and given Munson much needed time off.
Anyway, it should be interesting to see who, if anyone, gets in this year.
If I had a vote, and could vote for 4, they would be:
1. Munson
2. Whitaker
3. Evans
4. Garvey (but I'd like to see Simmons get in too).

[Peter_Spaeth]

There was a pretty good chance, as I recall, that the Yankees were going to respect Munson's wishes to be traded to Cleveland so he could be back home. According to one piece I read, he had told Reggie he didn't expect to be back in New York. Perhaps that would have revitalized his career.

[packs]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

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.

[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.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There was a pretty good chance, as I recall, that the Yankees were going to respect Munson's wishes to be traded to Cleveland so he could be back home. According to one piece I read, he had told Reggie he didn't expect to be back in New York. Perhaps that would have revitalized his career.

When was the last time that going to Cleveland revitalized anyone's career?

Just sayin'

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

When was the last time that going to Cleveland revitalized anyone's career?

Just sayin'

Jake Taylor
Wild Thing Vaughn
Willie Mays Hayes

LOL...but point taken.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

When was the last time that going to Cleveland revitalized anyone's career?

Just sayin'

He was very unhappy being away from home. My speculation doesn't relate to the Indians so much as being home.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Jake Taylor
Wild Thing Vaughn
Willie Mays Hayes

LOL...but point taken.

Such a great scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mi3KNEpbA4

[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 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.

[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.